Al Gore +1 Are We Dead Yet?

[nitroexpress]

Mother nature will do what she does best, ignore Humans and ebb and flow. If the Dems want to feel good about the changing climate, how about getting China, India, Russia and others to do some reducing. Empty promises have been made by other countries, but it seems only the US is saddled with climate change guilt and paranoia.

Ten years ago, @AlGore predicted the North polar ice cap would be gone. Inconveniently, it’s still there
Ten years ago, @AlGore predicted the North polar ice cap would be gone. Inconveniently, it’s still there | Watts Up With That?

Arctic Ice Cap Grows Same Year Al Gore Predicted It Would Disappear
Arctic Ice Cap Grows Same Year Al Gore Predicted It Would Disappear, Networks Ignore

 

[chuckiechan]

Mother nature will do what she does best, ignore Humans and ebb and flow. If the Dems want to feel good about the changing climate, how about getting China, India, Russia and others to do some reducing. Empty promises have been made by other countries, but it seems only the US is saddled with climate change guilt and paranoia.

Ten years ago, @AlGore predicted the North polar ice cap would be gone. Inconveniently, it’s still there
Ten years ago, @AlGore predicted the North polar ice cap would be gone. Inconveniently, it’s still there | Watts Up With That?

Arctic Ice Cap Grows Same Year Al Gore Predicted It Would Disappear
Arctic Ice Cap Grows Same Year Al Gore Predicted It Would Disappear, Networks Ignore

Meanwhile, his “Rising seas” cousin Obama, just bought oceanfront property in Martha’s Vinyard. Obviously, he didn’t even believe his own BS.

 

[Cardinal]

Mother nature will do what she does best, ignore Humans and ebb and flow. If the Dems want to feel good about the changing climate, how about getting China, India, Russia and others to do some reducing. Empty promises have been made by other countries, but it seems only the US is saddled with climate change guilt and paranoia.

Because we are, first and foremost, responsible for ourselves. We are also still the world’s largest economy, and should use that position while we still can to help influence how the rest of the world uses fossil fuels.

 

[Grandpappy]

Because we are, first and foremost, responsible for ourselves. We are also still the world’s largest economy, and should use that position while we still can to help influence how the rest of the world uses fossil fuels.

To achieve a 5% reduction in world CO2 emissions at the expense of the destruction of our economy?

 

[Cardinal]

To achieve a 5% reduction in world CO2 emissions at the expense of the destruction of our economy?

Any damage to our economy as a result of moving to renewable energy pales in comparison to the cost of climate change.

 

[Visbek]

Mother nature will do what she does best, ignore Humans and ebb and flow.

Yaay, another climate change / AGW denier who doesn't understand science. Can't have enough of 'em

If the Dems want to feel good about the changing climate, how about getting China, India, Russia and others to do some reducing.

China and India have already made aggressive pledges to curb emissions -- it is basically only the US that pulled out of the Paris accords, and whose current government is basically trying to increase emissions. They are even trying to force substandard emissions standards on auto makers, who are actively resisting the the weaker regulations.

Plus, since you missed it: China is moving aggressively to push out and market sustainable energy generation. They already have a huge advantage in manufacturing solar.

By the way, this is not about "feeling good." It's about avoiding the worst consequences of wasteful and harmful actions.

Ten years ago, @AlGore predicted the North polar ice cap would be gone. Inconveniently, it’s still there

:roll:

WUWT = instant fail.

Most of Gore's predictions were fairly accurate, and based in what climate scientists knew and expected at the time.

The actual claim made by climate scientists is that Arctic SUMMER ice is disappearing, and eventually there will likely be no Arctic SUMMER ice at all. IIRC the earliest date for that happening is 2050, though it will probably be later than that. That is actually happening, despite your cherry-picked claims.

On the chart below, you can clearly see how each decade is forming less and less ice. And no, it's not that every single year has less ice than the year before it, it's that there is a multi-decadal trend of less ice.




2019 is tracking close to the record low in 2012, and the rate of loss is accelerating.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Because we are, first and foremost, responsible for ourselves. We are also still the world’s largest economy, and should use that position while we still can to help influence how the rest of the world uses fossil fuels.

Hmm... our 330M folks should be granted the authority to "influence" how the rest of those 7B folks "use fossil fuels" because we (for now) have the biggest economy. When China becomes the world's biggest economy then I assume it will then be their turn to do so.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Any damage to our economy as a result of moving to renewable energy pales in comparison to the cost of climate change.

Nice supporting links - good job of doing what you demand of others.

 

[Cardinal]

Hmm... our 330M folks should be granted the authority to "influence" how the rest of those 7B folks "use fossil fuels" because we (for now) have the biggest economy. When China becomes the world's biggest economy then I assume it will then be their turn to do so.

I have no idea what the point of your post is.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I have no idea what the point of your post is.

Of course, not - that lets you be right all of the time.

 

[Visbek]

Meanwhile, his “Rising seas” cousin Obama, just bought oceanfront property in Martha’s Vinyard. Obviously, he didn’t even believe his own BS.

Egads... Such nonsense.

Different parts of the coasts see different amounts of sea level rise. This is mostly because some parts of the coast are still rebounding from the massive weight of inland glaciers from the last Ice Age.

Even under the most dire predictions, there is no reason to believe that their property will be completely uninhabitable next week, or next year, or in the next decade, or during their lifetime.

 

[Cardinal]

Of course, not - that lets you be right all of the time.

Your incoherence and word-salad posts as a debate strategy doesn’t disguise the fact that you never know what you’re talking about.

 

[Grandpappy]

Any damage to our economy as a result of moving to renewable energy pales in comparison to the cost of climate change.

Do you seriously think China or India will do anything unless their actual hair is on fire?

 

[Cardinal]

Do you seriously think China or India will do anything unless their actual hair is on fire?

See post 3.

 

[mrjurrs]

To achieve a 5% reduction in world CO2 emissions at the expense of the destruction of our economy?

Assumes facts not in evidence...you are not taking into account any economic benefit from the effort to change.

 

[DamnYankee]

Mother nature will do what she does best, ignore Humans and ebb and flow...

Leftist elites, and a good portion of the leftist peasants, aren't serious about reducing carbon emissions. If they were they would stop flying around the country yapping about man made global warming. And the leftist peasants would turn off the TV, computer, and video games to save electricity.

 

[Visbek]

Hmm... our 330M folks should be granted the authority to "influence" how the rest of those 7B folks "use fossil fuels" because we (for now) have the biggest economy. When China becomes the world's biggest economy then I assume it will then be their turn to do so.

That's... not how it works.

Climate change is a global threat. The vast majority of nations in the world recognize this, and it isn't a partisan issue. The US is an outlier in this respect.

Most developing nations are on board with fighting climate change, and for their own benefit. What they dislike is the idea that affluent nations polluted for centuries, are acting like they don't have to do anything to mitigate the effects, and are putting an undue burden on poorer nations to avoid compounding the problem. We should also note that it is the poor that will suffer the most from climate change. Poorer people tend to live in more vulnerable areas, and seldom have the resources to safely and securely relocate. We're already seeing poor refugees from the impacts of climate change migrating to the US. (Central American Farmers Head to the U.S., Fleeing Climate Change - The New York Times)

As noted above: China is moving aggressively to push out and market sustainable energy generation. They already have a huge advantage in manufacturing solar. The way China might influence the globe on this issue is by taking a first-mover advantage, and monopolizing the market in sustainable energy equipment -- not unlike how they dominate so many other manufacturing fields. You good with that?

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's... not how it works.

Climate change is a global threat. The vast majority of nations in the world recognize this, and it isn't a partisan issue. The US is an outlier in this respect.

Most developing nations are on board with fighting climate change, and for their own benefit. What they dislike is the idea that affluent nations polluted for centuries, are acting like they don't have to do anything to mitigate the effects, and are putting an undue burden on poorer nations to avoid compounding the problem. We should also note that it is the poor that will suffer the most from climate change. Poorer people tend to live in more vulnerable areas, and seldom have the resources to safely and securely relocate. We're already seeing poor refugees from the impacts of climate change migrating to the US. (Central American Farmers Head to the U.S., Fleeing Climate Change - The New York Times)

As noted above: China is moving aggressively to push out and market sustainable energy generation. They already have a huge advantage in manufacturing solar. The way China might influence the globe on this issue is by taking a first-mover advantage, and monopolizing the market in sustainable energy equipment -- not unlike how they dominate so many other manufacturing fields. You good with that?

Hmm... China has a 100% central government controlled economy so, in response, should the US do so as well? You good with that? I hear that AOC, Warren and Bernie have all of the answers - all we need to do is let them have total control.

 

[iguanaman]

Hmm... our 330M folks should be granted the authority to "influence" how the rest of those 7B folks "use fossil fuels" because we (for now) have the biggest economy. When China becomes the world's biggest economy then I assume it will then be their turn to do so.

Actually it is partly because we have among the highest CO2 emissions per person of any country at 15.53 metric tons per person per year. China is less than half that. If we can't reduce emissions why should anybody?

 

[Visbek]

Leftist elites, and a good portion of the leftist peasants, aren't serious about reducing carbon emissions. If they were they would stop flying around the country yapping about man made global warming. And the leftist peasants would turn off the TV, computer, and video games to save electricity.

:roll:

As a matter of fact, lots of climate activists do a lot to reduce their footprint. They live in smaller apartments (less stuff, easier to heat/cool); they eat less meat; they take and advocate for public transportation; they advocate and pass legislation to require more energy-efficient buildings; they advocate for more sustainable energy supplies; they use carbon offsets; and yes, some avoid flying because of its carbon footprint.

Why I only take one holiday flight a year

Greta Thunberg will sail across the Atlantic on a zero-emissions yacht for the UN climate summit

We should also note that no, being aware of AGW does not mean one needs to wear a hair shirt and live in a cave. The reality is that individual action by people in affluent societies helps, but is nowhere near enough to make a serious dent in emissions.

And of course, those who snottily declare that "environmentalists are hypocrites" almost always overlook their own hypocrisy and flaws. So it goes.

 

[Logical1]

Your incoherence and word-salad posts as a debate strategy doesn’t disguise the fact that you never know what you’re talking about.

Always with the personal attacks on anyone that doesnt agree with you.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Actually it is partly because we have among the highest CO2 emissions per person of any country at 15.53 metric tons per person per year. China is less than half that. If we can't reduce emissions why should anybody?

I have no problem with making reasonable efforts to reduce our own omissions (thus leading by example), but plenty of problems with trying to "save the world" by meddling in the affairs of other nations and sending me the bill for it (or, as congress is more prone to do, putting it on my tab).

 

[AlbqOwl]

Because we are, first and foremost, responsible for ourselves. We are also still the world’s largest economy, and should use that position while we still can to help influence how the rest of the world uses fossil fuels.

1. Which country has the largest carbon emission reduction? America!

2. Who has dumped the most carbon into the air? China.

3. 91% of the world’s population are exposed to air pollution above the World Health Organization’s suggested level. None are in the USA.

4. The U.S. now leads the world in energy production...

BUT...

5. Who's got the world's cleanest and safest air and water? America!

China, Germany, Italy all are increasing coal production. All G7 countries are heavily dependent on coal, but America is the least dependent of all. When the world think they can reduce the carbon footprint by extorting huge amounts of money trading around carbon allowances, who do they think they are kidding?

When the politicians and scientists promoting AGW and draconian measures to combat it, all while lining their own politics and increasing their own power. . .

AND. . .

When those same politicians and scientists are not living a lifestyle that indicates they feel any personal responsibility or threat re AGW for that matter, reasonable people who are still able to think rationally are suposed to take them seriously?

Give me a break.

The climate is changing. It always has and always will. We may or may not be having any significant effect on that. But regardless, it is obvious that countries like America who are already operating super green and carbon conscious aren't making any difference. Better to expend research, time, energy, and resources on how best to help people adapt and adjust to an ever changing climate.

 

[Logical1]

Actually it is partly because we have among the highest CO2 emissions per person of any country at 15.53 metric tons per person per year. China is less than half that. If we can't reduce emissions why should anybody?

So do you want to live like Chinese peasants in huts????

 

[Visbek]

Hmm... China has a 100% central government controlled economy so, in response, should the US do so as well? You good with that? I hear that AOC, Warren and Bernie have all of the answers - all we need to do is let them have total control.

You might want to reconsider your claims.

China does not have a command economy anymore, they ditched that decades ago because it wasn't working. It's now a quasi-capitalist nation, where the government has lots of influence and control, but is still mostly market-based.

Your claim is also patently absurd and does not follow.
• China is run by a totalitarian government.
• China is pushing for sustainable energy.
• Environmentalists pushes for sustainable energy
• Therefore, environmentalists want to adopt a totalitarian government.

That is like saying:
• Oak leaves are green.
• Oak leaves turn red.
• Ripe apples turn red.
• Therefore, ripe apples are oak leaves.

That dog don't hunt.

By the way, being an environmentalist does not mean that you have no choice but to advocate for all of the proposals in the Green New Deal. Who knew?