IPCC Report Reveals 'Bleak and Brutal Truth' About Climate Emergency

[longview]

And the leaks from the pipelines, the leakage from transport, the leaks from drilling….

And that’s just a drop in the bucket.

Diesel trucks, airplanes, ships, small engines all emit a ton of pollutants. Cars in the US have low emissions, but that’s because the government has forced them to. You know- over the objections of your compatriots who scream about CAFE standards for the last 30 years. The rest of the world doesn’t necessarily do the same.

We are talking about pollution. I have already shown that your example of gas stoves is a tiny fraction,
now you move the goal post and want to talk about CH4 leaks, but we have to consider that
CH4 in sunlight breaks down into CO2, and we have already established that the CO2 level is not causing
any deaths.

 

[Threegoofs]

We are talking about pollution. I have already shown that your example of gas stoves is a tiny fraction,
now you move the goal post and want to talk about CH4 leaks, but we have to consider that
CH4 in sunlight breaks down into CO2, and we have already established that the CO2 level is not causing
any deaths.

That’s (kinda, in a stupid sense) true if you… ignore all the other things I e mentioned.

But deniers gonna deny.

 

[longview]

That’s (kinda, in a stupid sense) true if you… ignore all the other things I e mentioned.

But deniers gonna deny.

You cannot bend CO2 at 415 ppm into being toxic to anyone, so you simply deny that was what was implied.

 

[bluesmoke]

To me, the only path forward towards a sustainable energy future within the framework of existing technology, is
hydrocarbon energy storage, yet people here argue that battery electric vehicles will save the planet.
For the purposes of this discussions the luddites, are those who refuse to consider all the options, even when they
know that their choice will only have a limited results over a long period of time.

It is the science community, capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, that is advancing hydrocarbon energy storage, to overcome its own multitude of problems, among many other energy options. The scientists are not neo-luddites.

You're making up your own "purposes of this discussion" to suit yourself. The term "luddites" was brought up by a poster as applying to the scientists in the OP. Not as applying to "...those who refuse to consider all the options..." which I assume mean more than just scientists, such as those profiting from the commercial viability of battery electric vehicles.

So, I prefer that the science community continue advancing all that they do and not just what you want them to do instead of what you criticize is being done.

 

[longview]

It is the science community, capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, that is advancing hydrocarbon energy storage, to overcome its own multitude of problems, among many other energy options. The scientists are not neo-luddites.

You're making up your own "purposes of this discussion" to suit yourself. The term "luddites" was brought up by a poster as applying to the scientists in the OP. Not as applying to "...those who refuse to consider all the options..." which I assume mean more than just scientists, such as those profiting from the commercial viability of battery electric vehicles.

So, I prefer that the science community continue advancing all that they do and not just what you want them to do instead of what you criticize is being done.

Except that it is not the scientist who are being short sighted, but the advocates of limited technology like battery electric cars.
Please consider how long it will take to reduce emissions, with people buying battery electric vehicles?
You also have to consider that many high emissions vehicles like Jets, Ships, and Heavy Trucks, will not be capable of being battery
electric until some much better battery technology is available.
I have no real issue with people who want to buy a battery electric car for themselves, and feel the limitations are something they can live with,
I do have an issue with the idea of only battery electric cars being available, because they are yet capable of filling all the roles
currently occupies by hydrocarbon fueled cars.
I think the plug in hybrids have a real place in the future, but only if they are not regulated out of existence.

 

[bluesmoke]

LOL first of all, wind and solar power isnt new tech. They are old, and very unreliable. Windmills have been around way longer than the ICE, so once again you blatantly display an appalling lack of knowledge in history.

Secondly, neo-luddites demand destruction and banning of technology, which is what climate activists are demanding they do to more efficient fossil fueled engines.

So yes, my description is apt. Climate nuts are indeed apocalyptic neo-luddites.

The advancement of renewables technology is relatively recent compared to that of fossil fuels technology. To clarify, it is more an advancing tech than a new tech and being advanced more rapidly than is fossil fuels which has a limited range of advancement beyond what is currently in use.

Your claim "...neo-luddites demand destruction and banning of technology..." does not apply to the scientists in question. A false claim. But certainly, does apply to luddites.

Your post has been refuted by evidence of fact.

BTW, the windmills, first used in the 9th century, that eventually were developed to generate electricity from the wind are centuries newer than the pumps, first used by Archimedes in the 3rd cent BCE, that were eventually developed to pump oil from the ground. Electrical generating "windmills" has been advanced considerably more than the older tech oil pumps in the last 50 yrs.

 

[PoS]

The advancement of renewables technology is relatively recent compared to that of fossil fuels technology. To clarify, it is more an advancing tech than a new tech and being advanced more rapidly than is fossil fuels which has a limited range of advancement beyond what is currently in use.

Your claim "...neo-luddites demand destruction and banning of technology..." does not apply to the scientists in question. A false claim. But certainly, does apply to luddites.

Your post has been refuted by evidence of fact.

BTW, the windmills, first used in the 9th century, that eventually were developed to generate electricity from the wind are centuries newer than the pumps, first used by Archimedes in the 3rd cent BCE, that were eventually developed to pump oil from the ground. Electrical generating "windmills" has been advanced considerably more than the older tech oil pumps in the last 50 yrs.

Bullshit, its not a new tech and you know it.

Here is the definition of a neo-luddite:

Neo-Luddism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The modern neo-Luddite movement has connections with the anti-globalization movement, anarcho-primitivism, radical environmentalism, and deep ecology.[3]

Neo-Luddism is based on the concern of the technological impact on individuals, their communities, and/or the environment"

So once again I have proven you wrong and made a mockery out of your moronic arguments. Thanks for playing.

 

[Threegoofs]

You cannot bend CO2 at 415 ppm into being toxic to anyone, so you simply deny that was what was implied.

Well, again, if you read the ‘impacts’ section of the IPCC, you’ll see the damage that is done by high CO2 levels, which indirectly translates into human suffering and death.

But, again, you intentionally miss my point, and frankly, even if I reminded you what it was again, you’d forget it by the time you were fed your next meal.

 

[longview]

Well, again, if you read the ‘impacts’ section of the IPCC, you’ll see the damage that is done by high CO2 levels, which indirectly translates into human suffering and death.

But, again, you intentionally miss my point, and frankly, even if I reminded you what it was again, you’d forget it by the time you were fed your next meal.

No, those predictions of damage are predicated on the climate having a high sensitivity to added CO2.
Something which is not a scientific certainty, and based on the instrument record is a near impossibility.

 

[bluesmoke]

Except that it is not the scientist who are being short sighted, but the advocates of limited technology like battery electric cars.
Please consider how long it will take to reduce emissions, with people buying battery electric vehicles?
You also have to consider that many high emissions vehicles like Jets, Ships, and Heavy Trucks, will not be capable of being battery
electric until some much better battery technology is available.
I have no real issue with people who want to buy a battery electric car for themselves, and feel the limitations are something they can live with,
I do have an issue with the idea of only battery electric cars being available, because they are yet capable of filling all the roles
currently occupies by hydrocarbon fueled cars.
I think the plug in hybrids have a real place in the future, but only if they are not regulated out of existence.

I've considered all you've mentioned which I believe you've mentioned before, if I recall correctly.

 

[longview]

I've considered all you've mentioned which I believe you've mentioned before, if I recall correctly.

If you have actually considered the things I am talking about, you would understand how small an impact
switching people to battery electric cars will have.
It is not zero impact, but there are much better choices to spend money on to reduce emissions.

 

[bluesmoke]

Bullshit, its not a new tech and you know it.

Here is the definition of a neo-luddite:

Neo-Luddism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The modern neo-Luddite movement has connections with the anti-globalization movement, anarcho-primitivism, radical environmentalism, and deep ecology.[3]

Neo-Luddism is based on the concern of the technological impact on individuals, their communities, and/or the environment"

So once again I have proven you wrong and made a mockery out of your moronic arguments. Thanks for playing.

The initial post of yours which launched our series of post likened scientists with neo-Luddites. Regardless of your definition of neo-Luddite, you've no evidence to support that claim, period. Your claim is unfounded and thus dismissed for lack of evidence.

As for definition, you're going off into the weeds. We are speaking of a sociological context of neo-Luddite, which definition is:

An individual who opposes the use of technology for ethical, moral or philosophical reasons.

Definitions of Technology:

1. (noun) The application of knowledge, techniques, and tools to adapt and control physical environments and material resources to satisfy wants and needs.
2. (noun) The accumulated technologies of a society or culture.

You have permission to return to the kiddies' table, though you should be sat in a chair facing the corner of the room, wearing a dunce cap. I'm being lenient and compassionate.

 

[PoS]

The initial post of yours which launched our series of post likened scientists with neo-Luddites. Regardless of your definition of neo-Luddite, you've no evidence to support that claim, period. Your claim is unfounded and thus dismissed for lack of evidence.

As for definition, you're going off into the weeds. We are speaking of a sociological context of neo-Luddite, which definition is:

An individual who opposes the use of technology for ethical, moral or philosophical reasons.

Definitions of Technology:

1. (noun) The application of knowledge, techniques, and tools to adapt and control physical environments and material resources to satisfy wants and needs.
2. (noun) The accumulated technologies of a society or culture.

You have permission to return to the kiddies' table, though you should be sat in a chair facing the corner of the room, wearing a dunce cap. I'm being lenient and compassionate.

I just showed you the link to the evidence. Are you blind?

And why does it take you a month to reply even though you sign in every day? Are you trying to be like your hero, Joe Biden?

 

[bluesmoke]

I just showed you the link to the evidence. Are you blind?

And why does it take you a month to reply even though you sign in every day? Are you trying to be like your hero, Joe Biden?

Are you blind to your own claim of likening scientist to neo-Luddites, however described, which extended description you gave does not support your claim?

WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM THAT IN REFERENCE TO THE SCIENTISTS REPORTED ON IN THE ARTICLE OF THE OP "...scientists? More like apocalyptic neo-luddites."

Your claim is in quotes above. Regardless of how detailed your description of what is a neo-Luddite, you can't prove that those scientists are such as you directly imply. Your implication is false. All replies are avoiding your responsibility to prove your claim. Nothing in your supposed "evidence" links those scientists to neo-Luddism. Hence, your claim is dismissed for lack of evidence and need not be debated further. Try to debate forthrightly and focus on your debate responsibility.

 

[PoS]

Are you blind to your own claim of likening scientist to neo-Luddites, however described, which extended description you gave does not support your claim?

WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM THAT IN REFERENCE TO THE SCIENTISTS REPORTED ON IN THE ARTICLE OF THE OP "...scientists? More like apocalyptic neo-luddites."

Your claim is in quotes above. Regardless of how detailed your description of what is a neo-Luddite, you can't prove that those scientists are such as you directly imply. Your implication is false. All replies are avoiding your responsibility to prove your claim. Nothing in your supposed "evidence" links those scientists to neo-Luddism. Hence, your claim is dismissed for lack of evidence and need not be debated further. Try to debate forthrightly and focus on your debate responsibility.

I didnt link all scientists to neo-luddites, just the moronic ones in the OP. And Ive already stated why in previous responses, so take another month or two to read through them, and maybe you'll finally figure it out.

 

[Deuce]

LOL scientists? More like apocalyptic neo-luddites.

Hahahahahah look at the shit these people will spew.

 

[Deuce]

It is not a big "if" but almost an absolute certainty.
Consider that no one is going to give up their modern lifestyle, they will cut back if forced to by economics.
The price of oil will likely not come down much because while peak oil may be a myth, peak cheap/easy oil is not.
We have passed the point where the available oil is cheap and easy to find and extract.
This is evidenced by things like fracking and tar sands extraction,
(we would not be doing these more expensive things if we did have to.).
If you read the actual scientific publications, almost no one is saying that the changes from AGW
will cause the Earth to become uninhabitable. If you think otherwise, then please cite and quote
the passages that led you to that conclusion?

You're the first person in this thread to use the term "uninhabitable."

 

[Deuce]

To me, the only path forward towards a sustainable energy future within the framework of existing technology, is
hydrocarbon energy storage, yet people here argue that battery electric vehicles will save the planet.
For the purposes of this discussions the luddites, are those who refuse to consider all the options, even when they
know that their choice will only have a limited results over a long period of time.

For the purposes of this discussion, you're a luddite. I am defining it as specifically you.

 

[PoS]

Hahahahahah look at the shit these people will spew.

Aww, nothing but fallacies from the climate cult crowd. Im not surprised.

 

[longview]

For the purposes of this discussion, you're a luddite. I am defining it as specifically you.

You do know that the luddites were opposed to the introduction of modern technology, right?

 

[longview]

You're the first person in this thread to use the term "uninhabitable."

Ok, but the OP says

"The prospects are ecocide, plus genocide, and require a strong social reaction,"

 

[Deuce]

Aww, nothing but fallacies from the climate cult crowd. Im not surprised.

"Scientists are apocalyptic neo-luddites" is not a fallacy?

 

[Deuce]

Ok, but the OP says

Once again you extrapolate what people say to an extreme and then attack that. I'm not doing this with you today. We've done it too many times. It's boring as hell. Bye.

 

[PoS]

"Scientists are apocalyptic neo-luddites" is not a fallacy?

It's clear you didnt even read the OP article. Thanks for proving your ignorance.

 

[bluesmoke]

If you have actually considered the things I am talking about, you would understand how small an impact
switching people to battery electric cars will have.
It is not zero impact, but there are much better choices to spend money on to reduce emissions.

Then why not do both?