Biofuel is the way to go. We need to remove our price floor on sugar and make sugar cane ethanol.

it's not like i'm surprised that right wing smear merchants will happily misrepresent remarks about the severe conclusions of a UN study about the irreversible damage to the planet, if we don't address climate change with drastic measures in the next 11 years, as genuinely held belief that the world would literally end in 12 years. i just find it fascinating how openly you embrace such obvious spins in order to justify your childishly wrong and scummy 'it's all just hysteria' narrative.

https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/

the claim about "banning several energy sources" is equally dishonest. not a single one of your quotes says anything about a 'ban' of fossil fuel. declaring an ambitious target to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions is not the same as suggesting that fossil fuel would just be 'banned' if those goals weren't met. that's pure hackery.

i guess if someone told you that they wanted to eliminate traffic deaths, you'd claim "they want to ban cars".

Did i say every comment referencing years is hysteria, including all claims made by the ipcc? No. Did i even bring up the ipcc at all? No.
Did i say "its all just hysteria"? No i did not.
blatant misrepresentation and douchebaggery.



Willfully dishonest to the extreme.
They are talking about the government enforcing policies.
Countless democrats and leftists are quoted as being opposed to various forms of energy.

They want government to enact a series of policies to fully transition away from fossil fuels. How do you think that happens? everyone on earth just agrees and its all rainbows and sunshine?
They explicitly want the government to stop giving out licenses for nuclear energy and decommission all power plants. Thats a ban.
They explicitly want to ban fracking.
They explicitly want to ban offshore drilling and drilling on public lands.
They want to ban oil exports.

what a dishonest loser and hypocritical hack

then your mom's boyfriend should go into your room and make you go outside.
seriously though, you know you don't have a valid point if you have to resort to those kinds of hypotheticals in order to support your 'argument'. oh, and there are of course other forms of renewable energy as well: geothermal, hydropower, biomass, tidal and wave energy...



the real question is:

do you support to keep SUBSIDISING & DEREGULATING those already incredibly lucrative fossil fuel industries? because that's what's currently happening.

sure those goals of zero emissions by 2030 are rather ambitious (especially considering how beholden establishment politicians on both sides are to their donors of that industry), but that's no reason to just claim 'can't be done, so we might as well not even give it our best shot'. that makes you part of the reason, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy then.

Either the UN was wrong in their predictions back then, or they dramatized their findings heavily.
Either way, it is a blemish on their climate-change-warnings record.

Which supports my point that we should take their warnings seriousy, but NOT get into a panic.
(And just for the record: that's what Fff figurehead Greta Thunberg literally said: "I want you to panic".)

Where does it say when the sea level rises will occur in that article?
It also says could, and if you follow climate science there is a lot of factors that came into play since 1989. for example we fixed the hole in the ozone layer, no one in 1989 even knew this was possible.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Nov 7 2019 01:40am

You should probably listen to scientists, not politicians.

Also, I'd bet that the 2000 date is assuming all trends remain the same and nothing is done, when we have made some meaningful change in the right direction, just not nearly what was recommended.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Nov 7 2019 01:46am

The IPCC reports themselves dont "listen" to the pure science and incorporate various political interests.

A year or so ago, there was an interview with Jochem Marotzke, the most renowned German climate scientist, who's the head of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, has about 300 publications about climate science in peer reviewed journals and who himself was the chief editor of one section of the 2014 IPCC report.

In this interview, he mentioned his own recent research which had shown that the carbon sensitivity of the world climate is probably falling into the lower range of the previous estimated interval, which was relatively broad. He summarized this finding as "it basically means we have 10 more years to decarbonize than we previously thought". Then, he expressed his great surprise when he learnt that these new findings were not included in the summary/key messages of the IPCC report, and that the press releases would instead go in the opposite direction, increase their warnings and sharpen the language compared to the previous report.
In a later part of the interview, he said that "the 1.5° goal is a political decision. For the climate in Europe and most other places, the difference between a 1.5° world and a 2° world are miniscule. I suspect that the panel went for the stronger 1.5° goal at the pressure from the numerous West Pacific island states for which this difference is important."

Unfortunately, the article is in German language and behind a paywall, I'll link it anyway:
https://www.spiegel.de/plus/klimawandel-galgenfrist-verlaengert-a-00000000-0002-0001-0000-000159786817


Note that I'm not saying that these examples of political influence on the recommendations and summaries in the IPCC report(s) completely delegitimize them. But they give reason to be cautious.


edit: for those wondering: 'Der Spiegel', the newspaper which conducted this interview and published it on its website, is a part of Germany's liberal mainstream media.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 7 2019 02:11am

of course you would go there. it's an increasingly popular talking point amongst the more deceptive 'sceptics' and appeasers, refering to certain newer studies, or scientists supporting slightly different models and predictions (exclusively those that have less severe predictions of course, not a single time have i seen research quoted by you people that comes to even bleaker conclusions than the consensus declaration by the IPCC - and there is plenty of that), in order to suggest that it's somehow unscientific, alarmist, or politicised (unlike your denier / appeaser side, right? i mean it's not like the fossil fuel industry spent billions to deliberately misinform the public, and it's not like they heavily invested into the politicians that are pushing the completely partisan 'unjustified hysteria' narrative, while at the same time approving the borderline insane subsidies for fossil fuel they still receive - billions of taxpayer money each year to some of the most lucrative businesses in the world).

but even if i granted you all that - the rhetoric around climate change is too 'hysteric' (for what, for you to take the issue seriously, to think clearly? you have no problem with immigration hysteria, so why is it such a big deal concerning something that even you allegedly acknowledge as a real threat?), and the time we have is longer (right, let's just act like we weren't already facing immense drawbacks of climate change, and all we can do is trying to limit the extent of how much worse it will inevitably get) - what about what's actually being done is 'hysteric' and unreasonable, and which measures would you support, which politicians have environmental policies that you consider adequate? what about politicians still approving of fossil fuel subsidies? what about leaving international global warming initiatives? what about mass repealing of environmental protection laws and regulations for fossil fuel? while you engage in appeasement rhetoric, politicians are actively working AGAINST what you pretend to actually support, if it weren't for those 'hysteric' activists...

This post was edited by fender on Nov 7 2019 02:47am