No. We can't control it.

But we've proved beyond doubt we can sure F her up!!

I'm curious if there's anyone who can quantify how much of an impact we can actually have on curbing global warming? Would 5 trillion dollars bring about a 1% reduction? 2% Would we bankrupt our grandchildren's future to make no significant difference? Pols are leading us where?

I'm not against saving the planet, or saving our own skins. I'm just considering that we might be on a huge boondoggle, that only the special interest groups will benefit. Am I wrong to challenge them until they can actually prove that they can do anything meaningful about this? I'm not going to blindly follow them.

so, basically what you are saying is that since you can't come up with a way to do it, let's just forget about it. Of course we can't control mother nature, but we can lessen the amount of pollution and crap we put into the atmosphere at the very least.

I'm not dissing it, I'm just questioning the validity of pouring an extravagant amount of money into the unknown. There needs to be a plan. The political science wonks are going to waste an enormous amount on it, having no expertise of fixing anything...all they're good at doing is talking about it. I hear them telling us that catastrophe awaits us, but nothing about how to repair it.
Also, how much of my money are they going to take from me to fix it, and how will they use those funds? Thats a valid question...I should be within my rights to receive an answer, not just to trust them with getting it done. They're wasting a good bit of it already...I don't send checks to Joel Osteen so he can add to his car collection...these people in Washington only want to continue the cash flow, and we probably won't get much bang for our buck. I've seen enough of their handiwork to know not to trust them...

We did this:
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/rebuilding-ozone-layer-how-world-came-together-ultimate-repair-job

In my lifetime the world population has more than doubled. Manufactured goods are in much more demand than 50 years ago. That certainly makes cleaning it up much more difficult.

Much of what needs to be done is by eliminating, not adding. It will boil down to how much we are willing to sacrifice to improve the environment. Are Californians going to want to continue to deal with rolling blackouts until the storage issue of power is resolved? They are relying on wind and solar without sufficient ways to store what they generate. Are we going to travel less, or turn our thermostats down 5-10 degrees in winter to save energy? It isn't 70 and sunny everywhere...

Are we ready to go green as fast as the pols want us to? I think we are still short on technology to dive too deep.

I'm afraid that Greg Lake of King Crimson said it best

Doc, I actually agree with you. Man (and woman) -kind is largely a collection of fools.
And to answer your previous question...............NO. We're NOT ready to go green as fast as needed.
Few are willing to sacrifice for their grandchildren these days.
Too selfish, greedy, and stupid.

We're likely doomed. Finito!
On the skid to destruction.

I think Barry McGuire said it best........... we're on the eve of destruction.

I'm willing to sacrifice, but I'm not convinced that we can effect much change, even if we magically ended all carbon emissions tomorrow.

Too much forcing technologies that aren't really economically viable yet. We'll bankrupt our economy in the name of "saving the planet" only to discover we have much less control than we thought.

Are we contributing? Speeding up the climate change? Sure. Can we stop or reverse it? Laughable IMO. There's always been climate cycles throughout the billions of years. None of which were caused or impacted by people.

Can you imagine being stuck in bumper to bumper traffic for hours trying to evacuate and most of the cars are electric, losing power and not having enough range to successfully make it to safety...

Posted by DoctorKz on 10/5/2022 6:39:00 PM (view original):
I would simply like to ask a question, not trying to stir the pot, just asking...

What climate change legislation would prevent thunderstorms from rolling off the west African coast then becoming tropical storms and hurricanes, and at what cost? Do you really think we can control Mother Earth?

When the temperature and sea levels rise, hurricanes become stronger and more frequent. There's a ton of research on this. You're just anti-fact.

Is your idea seriously that we are contributing to climate change and it's going to cause serious problems but also we can't do anything about that? What a sad worldview. Yes, there are going to be short term tradeoffs. I don't think you seriously realize the extent of how ****** we're all going to be if this continues. You talk about the cost of doing something. What about the cost of inaction? Trillions in property damage. Millions will have to evacuate their homes, causing a refugee crisis the likes of which we have never seen. Worldwide droughts impacting food production. The costs of inaction are greater than the costs of action.

Fortunately, Dems currently control congress, so they ate a big chunk of the emissions we need to decrease with the IRA. We need more legislation of that sort.

No, I'm not in favor of inaction.

I'm old enough to remember what smog looked like. The Great Lakes were a sewer. Since 1970 we have made a considerable amount of progress. That was done with the technology of the time.

You are certainly in the camp that believes that this situation is far more imminent than I do. That doesn't make me a denier.

His camp has far more climatologists and environmental scientists than your camp. Unfortunately for all of us!

I feel that pols and special interest groups are using this more as a tool rather than their actual concern for the planet. I will never trust John Kerry on anything, he's a snake. He and Kroenke need to be composted.

Am I to not put any faith in something like this?

https://www.newsweek.com/yes-climate-changing-no-its-not-emergency-opinion-1615632

Posted by DoctorKz on 10/6/2022 4:32:00 PM (view original):
Am I to not put any faith in something like this?

https://www.newsweek.com/yes-climate-changing-no-its-not-emergency-opinion-1615632

Really interesting case study. You know how you're claiming that climate change promotion is funded by "special interests" so you can't believe them?

The guy who wrote this opinion piece is the President of the Heartland Institute, which is a conservative think tank founded in 1984.

In the 1980s, the think tank worked with Phillip Morris to produce propaganda about how smoking poses zero health risks. Around the election of Obama, they shifted to focus more on climate change denial. They no longer disclose their current funding (wonder why), but in the mid 2000's, key donors to the Institute were ExxonMobil, the Koch Foundation, and a couple of major insurance and pharma companies (they also publish a lot against government healthcare). In 2006, the Walton family donated $300,000 to the organization, and then they published a piece about how WalMart doesn't mistreat its workers. Crazy coincidence!

In 2012, a document leak occurred that revealed payments of thousands of dollars the Institute was making to climate change denying scientists, who would then write papers about how it's a hoax. Radical!

But yeah, it's John Kerry who has all the interest groups behind him. Sure.