Trump and AGW

I wrote that "passage" but the ideas come from Mr. Ridley. But thanks for the kind words.

But who decides for each individual what quality of life means to them. It should be the individual himself. Ridley's point is that the human condition continues to improve regardless of how much damage certain entities can cause. And it's much easier to choose a particular lifestyle when, for example, inexpensive electrical energy is available 24/7/365 or medical care is available at the local emergency room or a wide variety of inexpensive foods are available at the local market.

 

Which scientific agencies believe there have never been warmer periods than the present?

Which scientific agencies believe there have never been periods with higher concentrations of greenhouse gases than the present? (Not just CO2, but methane, etc., as well.) The volcanism and outgassing of the Hadean period makes it highly likely that the budding atmosphere was comparatively high in CO2, Methane, Hydrogen Sulfide, etc..

Which scientific agencies believe there have always been photosynthetic carbon processors? First life is not postulated until the end of the Hadean (half a billion years in) and first photosynthesis is not identified until deep into the Archean period almost a billion years later.

Which scientific agencies believe the earth has ever had a climatologically constant state, especially considering the scope of geological time? Plate tectonic theory alone precludes any possibility of a constant climate.

Everything folks are learning about the extremophiles indicates that life can easily continue in an environment hostile not only to humans, but to all vertebrates, just as it lasted for billions of years before there were vertebrates. Which scientific agencies doubt this? Does ANY scientific agency think people are particularly durable as a species? I think a lot of the hoopla is a result of the widespread calculation of our species' extreme fragility.

I get that there are many agencies, scientific and otherwise, that butter their bread with as much anthropocentrism as any religion, and I am sure most scientific agencies know it.

I also understand that most of the money to be made by scientists and politicians will be made by supporting alarmism, and I am sure most scientific agencies know it, and are taking advantage of it. I also understand that there is absolutely no money to be made by suggesting solutions that can be implemented without research grants and new products.

So, I guess what the agencies disagree with me on is how stupid our species is.

What do you think, do they think I underestimate or overestimate human intelligence?

 

Every scientific agency disagrees with your final statement. But then we do have your opinion. Lol

 

all of which require a source of reliable 24 and 7 energy, not energy that just works occasionally. Our entire modern civilization is founded on the consumption of
vast quantities of energy, without we are back in the early 1800's . As you and Marius have pointed out there are many who come here and talk the talk of energy conservation but few who practice it.

What is confounding me however is how they can justify exporting their carbon footprint at the cost of increasing energy costs and reliability for themselves and fellow citizens. I can promise that the fossil fuel plants are a lot cleaner in the developed countries like the US, UK, Australia, Germany etc than the ones in India and China, so by exporting their fossil fuels so China and India can have cheap energy they are increasing not decreasing their carbon foot prints when they purchase and use the wind generators, solar panels, steel etc back.

 

The developing countries will never implement energy policies that reduce their economic growth. As they develop however they will act to clean up fossil fuel power plants. In countries like China which is basically a dictatorship this process will be much slower than in the western democracies/republics.

Mr. Ridley is very critical of global warming alarmist policies because they act to reduce economic growth which adversely affects the poor retrogressively.

 

Don't bother with Vegas, he doesn't know what a logical fallacy is. He just keeps repeating the same mantra as if it means something.

 

Something we have in common. Lol

 

In your mind only.

 

You are the most repetitive poster on this forum. It is as predictable as clockwork. Lol

 

Projection.

 

Are we just saying random words now? Lol