Hundreds of Scientists Say Climate Change Is Not Science, CO2 Is Benign

[♪alt13]

But how many refuges from affected countries will flock to Canada or Russia? Also, what will more populous countries like the Europeans and Americans do to combat the effects of global warming? Surely they will build massive flood barriers in NYC and elsewhere. It is a major worldwide crisis, and it will force major infrastructural solutions.

Canadian politics wold get nasty fast. I don't seem them letting in a couple hundred million brownies.

New Orleans is far from a hub of innovation. They have had a sea wall for decades. Cataclysm isn't really what drives innovation. It's almost always wealth. Think of our great scientists and the nation's that innovated. They weren't forced to they were in a privileged position to be able to. Does anyone think that an African nation is likely to cure malaria just because many of their citizens die from it? Will Americans become more innovative by spending resources on walls in an attempt to preserve what they have? I just don't see how it would be that way.

 

[Siro]

Who are you arguing with? Who has said that the biosphere will collapse?

I don't need basic hand-holding with Earth Science. I understand that the systems are complex and that there will be areas that see "benefit" (always a curious word with serious human valence).

The truth is that we do not know what will happen. Even modest estimates look bad for MILLIONS of people, i.e. people without a comfortable perch. It feels a bit disgusting to listen to armchair Earth Scientists talk -- in some flip cosmopolitan fashion -- about beachfront property on Hudson Bay and human progress/innovation when they'll self-admit to huge holes in their understanding. I didn't think you were one to believe in the magical power of positive thinking.

I know. But what can be done? I think two things will help: one, developed countries should be more open to welcoming the millions of climate change refuges. This isn't looking good with the rise of anti-immigrants sentiments in the developed world, but who knows about public sentiments in 20 or 50 years? Second, developing countries should continue onward toward industrial development, as that would allow people to more effectively deal with climate disruption.

It isn't about comfortable perches. The world is as it is. I try to think about the future and the values we should adopt to maximize human well-being, and I see climate change as an opportunity for increased cooperation and capabilities. There is no avoiding major disruption at this point, and I was simply thinking of ways to take advantage of the coming changes.

 

[Siro]

Canadian politics wold get nasty fast. I don't seem them letting in a couple hundred million brownies.

New Orleans is far from a hub of innovation. They have had a sea wall for decades. Cataclysm isn't really what drives innovation. It's almost always wealth. Think of our great scientists and the nation's that innovated. They weren't forced to they were in a privileged position to be able to. Does anyone think that an African nation is likely to cure malaria just because many of their citizens die from it? Will Americans become more innovative by spending resources on walls in an attempt to preserve what they have? I just don't see how it would be that way.

I think politics will get nasty in a lot of places. I bet millions of Bangladeshis will flock to India, and who knows what that will do to the already tense Muslim-Hindu relations. I have no doubt that the coming decades will present a plethora of political and social challenges.

But I do think crises drive innovation. Think of the Manhattan project, or the moon landing, or the incredible social changes that happened to Europe and Japan following WWII. That's why I keep saying that developed nations will probably find a way to deal with the disruption, but I do acknowledge that many will suffer. But once the economic cost of not throwing resources at the problem outweighs the resources needed to control the problem, it is likely that we will see resources thrown at controlling the problem.

 

[♪alt13]

I think politics will get nasty in a lot of places. I bet millions of Bangladeshis will flock to India, and who knows what that will do to the already tense Muslim-Hindu relations. I have no doubt that the coming decades will present a plethora of political and social challenges.

But I do think crises drive innovation. Think of the Manhattan project, or the moon landing, or the incredible social changes that happened to Europe and Japan following WWII. That's why I keep saying that developed nations will probably find a way to deal with the disruption, but I do acknowledge that many will suffer. But once the economic cost of not throwing resources at the problem outweighs the resources needed to control the problem, it is likely that we will see resources thrown at controlling the problem.

Those Innovations weren't driven by a period of American crisis, they were driven by a period of American Conquest. The social changes in Germany and Japan were imposed on them. It wasn't a revolutionary up swelling caused by an internal crisis, it was two Nations we built in the image we had for them. The Manhattan Project and Apollo missions happened here instead of Europe because of our lack of a real crisis. Wealth and power, opportunity and growth drove American innovation.

The people that stand to benefit the most from climate change will have the least incentive to act. They will actually have the incentive not to act. Someone else will be paying cost.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Who are these scientists? The one mentioned was on EXXON's payroll and has been debunked by by the majority of REAL scientists.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

typical
the left attacks the scientist.

the right attacks the method! aka models and simulation is not settled science!

 

[DutchJazzer]

lol I literally posted a link to an article by the washington times a while back and Dutch quoted it and called it fake news.
Hilarious

yeha because fake news is all around, but a broken clock is twice right a day. first i found it on a right wing website, then forgot to post link. so i googled it again, and found a few sources, and went for the left wing link. the one most trusted by lefties like urself!

but there are litterally dozens of links from different outlets.


distrust and verify when it comes to Washington times

 

[DutchJazzer]

Climate change denial is a cottage industry unto itself. Linden is quite the quackpot.

there is no such thing as cimate change denial.

the right is not denying there is climate change so please stop spreading fake information

 

[DutchJazzer]

It will be dramatic. Whole nations will disappear, there is a mass extinction underway, great cities will be lost, the fortune's of nations will shift, biomes will be lost.

Seriously the extinction of the human race or the end of civilization is not where I set the bar for drama. There are plenty of things that fall short of that mark that are not only dramatic but tragic.

good, the herd needs to be thinned .
survival of the fittest is Darwinian science right. so are u an evolution denier

 

[Siro]

Those Innovations weren't driven by a period of American crisis, they were driven by a period of American Conquest. The social changes in Germany and Japan were imposed on them. It wasn't a revolutionary up swelling caused by an internal crisis, it was two Nations we built in the image we had for them. The Manhattan Project and Apollo missions happened here instead of Europe because of our lack of a real crisis. Wealth and power, opportunity and growth drove American innovation.

The people that stand to benefit the most from climate change will have the least incentive to act. They will actually have the incentive not to act. Someone else will be paying cost.

I've been thinking about this, and while it has a lot of value, I don't think it offers a full explanation. For example, Germany's social changes go both ways, not just what was imposed on them after WWII. Their crisis following WWI led to the rise of the Nazis, which is a major social change in response to a crisis. Additionally, WWII did not only change German and Japanese societies, but also the rest of Europe. War was the norm between European countries, but now it has become practically unthinkable. I think ideology, circumstances (crises, stability, etc), and capital all contribute to innovation. For example, Saudi Arabia does not innovate much, despite having significant capital.

Why wouldn't those who benefit from climate change not act to take advantage of said benefit? I think they would. The Netherlands lie mostly below sea-levels, so they constructed a massive series of levies to stay afloat. Why wouldn't other developed countries do the same in response to the same threat?

 

[♪alt13]

I've been thinking about this, and while it has a lot of value, I don't think it offers a full explanation. For example, Germany's social changes go both ways, not just what was imposed on them after WWII. Their crisis following WWI led to the rise of the Nazis, which is a major social change in response to a crisis. Additionally, WWII did not only change German and Japanese societies, but also the rest of Europe. War was the norm between European countries, but now it has become practically unthinkable. I think ideology, circumstances (crises, stability, etc), and capital all contribute to innovation. For example, Saudi Arabia does not innovate much, despite having significant capital.

Why wouldn't those who benefit from climate change not act to take advantage of said benefit? I think they would. The Netherlands lie mostly below sea-levels, so they constructed a massive series of levies to stay afloat. Why wouldn't other developed countries do the same in response to the same threat?

I wouldn't say it's a full explanation either but I do think it's key.

Let's start with Saudi Arabia. It is not a wealthy Society. It is an oppressive and impoverished one. Yes it is true that there's an oligarchical regime that has a lot of capital but they are severely limited in how much they can innovate by how little that wealth permeates their society. Especially considering the vast amount of capital they must spend maintaining the regime.

The Dutch are a different story. These are the people that invented the transnational Corporation, they are Iirc the oldest Republic in europe. While other Europeans were still living under oppressive regimes the Dutch were busy making themselves wealthy through global commerce. As for their dykes these weren't maintenance expenditures. Every acre of the sea that they conquered yielded extremely valuable soils. Soils that were so productive that that tiny nation is still to this day an agricultural exporter. Had they been uncovering bedrock they would have reached their limit long ago.

It is true that following World War 1 and the Great Depression Europe went through drastic social changes. Those changes led to the near-total destruction of Europe. America deserves most if not all of the credit for the sustained peace in Europe after the second World War. America didn't only disarm and occupy Germany, it put in motion a plan to disarm and occupy the entire western half of the continent. America put on trial and then publicly executed Germany's leaders not for the Holocaust but for starting a war of aggression. America demanded the end of the British Empire, it created Nato and the UN and took supreme control over European security. As payment America took preeminent control over the global supply of money elevating the dollar to the most important piece of paper on the planet.

If developed Nations are fortunate like the Dutch were, their Capital expenditures because of climate change will be synergistic with Investments that can increase their wealth. If not expenditure of those resources will actually make the societies less wealthy and increasingly less able to innovate.

 

[Rubashov]

I know. But what can be done? I think two things will help: one, developed countries should be more open to welcoming the millions of climate change refuges. This isn't looking good with the rise of anti-immigrants sentiments in the developed world, but who knows about public sentiments in 20 or 50 years? Second, developing countries should continue onward toward industrial development, as that would allow people to more effectively deal with climate disruption.

It isn't about comfortable perches. The world is as it is. I try to think about the future and the values we should adopt to maximize human well-being, and I see climate change as an opportunity for increased cooperation and capabilities. There is no avoiding major disruption at this point, and I was simply thinking of ways to take advantage of the coming changes.

Interestingly some people who think about things in this country believe the current madness exhibited by Australian government about refugees and boat arrivals has something in part to do with the potential for climate change to displace millions of people in our region. The thinking goes that by making ourselves an unwelcoming destination refugees will choose Europe or North America as asylum destinations. It also has a lot to do with entrenched cultural racism.

And yeah climate change isn't happening, its the end of summer and we're at the beginning of a two week heat wave. ode to ****ing joy!

 

[DutchJazzer]

I've been thinking about this, and while it has a lot of value, I don't think it offers a full explanation. For example, Germany's social changes go both ways, not just what was imposed on them after WWII. Their crisis following WWI led to the rise of the Nazis, which is a major social change in response to a crisis. Additionally, WWII did not only change German and Japanese societies, but also the rest of Europe. War was the norm between European countries, but now it has become practically unthinkable. I think ideology, circumstances (crises, stability, etc), and capital all contribute to innovation. For example, Saudi Arabia does not innovate much, despite having significant capital.

Why wouldn't those who benefit from climate change not act to take advantage of said benefit? I think they would. The Netherlands lie mostly below sea-levels, so they constructed a massive series of levies to stay afloat. Why wouldn't other developed countries do the same in response to the same threat?

because culture has everything to do with it.

for example israel is greening the desert, which gives us more forest to decrease co2. if you think co2 causes catastrophic climate change that's a good thing right.

some cultures just aren't trying to progress, or have different priorities.

saudi arabia likes to spend money on buying Ferrari, Porsche Bugatti as cop cars. Israel just gets regular cop cars.


trust me having lived and worked in Netherlands and various 3rd world countries, you notice this mentality in the production branch.
its like certain cultures have an aversion to production. and without production there is no progresion.
some of the countries i lived in.

there is another aprouch to this problem. they call it the "recourse curse"

The resource curse, also known as the paradox of plenty, refers to the paradox that countries with an abundance of natural resources, specifically non-renewable resources like minerals and fuels, tend to have less economic growth, less democracy, and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources. This is hypothesized to happen for many different reasons, and there are many academic debates about when and why it occurs. Most experts believe the resource curse is not universal or inevitable, but affects certain types of countries or regions under certain conditions.

netherlands has no real natural recourse, Israel also has no real natural resources.
but for example saudi arabi and Venezuela and other 3rd world countries i have been in do have an abundance of those recourses..
of course the us of a does have some natural resources. but as far as i know not expensive minerals, so usa breaks this trend in a way(i know you got coal and oil).

is this post relevant i dont know. but you compared netherland and saudi arabia, so gave my honest input