Thing is, the reason the solutions are hysteria and pipedreams is because when you ignore a problem for 30 years it tends to get worse, and what would have been mild action starting 30-50 years ago must now be fairly drastic to have the same mediating effect.



I'm not surprised in the least to find you defending the person universally agreed to be the dumbest person on the forum.

I'm also not surprised to find another issue you are willing to talk authoritatively about while not having done even the most basic research.

first you state that you think its crazy people suspect the world will change drastically. Then you go on and make your own statements about what will come, as if now you are the expert on climate science...

Just going to go with the science like I do with everything, science never steers me wrong.

golfers also really like their phallic trophies:







I gotta disagree here. Barring a technological breakthrough, we still dont have any idea on how to provide the base load in our power grids without relying on fossils or nuclear power. And even if the whole world became "ecologically woke", it wouldnt change the fact that the sustainable per head consumption would shrink with a growing population.

Humanity hasnt adressed climate change yet not out of ignorance or negligence, it has done so because the only ways we currently know to "save" the climate would imply a sharp decline in the standard of living and rigorous population control to a degree that can only be achieved via neocolonialization. No matter its stage, an honest debate about climate change will always bring up huge distributional conflicts and ethical dilemmas. This was true 30 years ago just as much as it is true now.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 15 2019 07:16pm

...and does that "science" tell you Kavanaugh is guilty too? You're not going with science, you're going with popular opinion. Learn the difference.

Big oil started the nuclear hatred band wagon.

I made a claim of a gradual change, not an instantaneous one.

This post was edited by ChrisKz on Sep 15 2019 07:22pm

If we had pumped more money into renewable technology 50 years ago solar panels would have outpaced coal decades ago, and the problem wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is now. You're thinking with the mindset that investments don't compound heavily over time, we could have made the investment a lifetime ago and be reaping the rewards now, but we didn't so the idea that we could have ever made the investment is hard to imagine.

Yeah, and you're wrong. We're going to see some pretty big changes. It's a virtual certainty that the northern ice caps won't be around for anywhere near another 50 years at this point, for example.

This would surely have improved the efficiency of solar panels, yes. But the ability to store a surplus of solar power across seasons would still hinge on a technological breakthrough. Perhaps earlier investment into these technologies would have led to this breakthrough, but there's no guarantee for that. Could have just as well ended with billions in investment into a technology which is nice to have, but still limited to a supporting role in the overall energy mix.