Elihu wrote: I wrote:Why won't you start a new thread?
you really think that's necessary?
Necessary? Maybe not in my opinion, but apparently Wintler would prefer you start another thread and that seems like a good idea to me and I would think it would to you as well since you seem to want to discuss proposed solutions specifically as opposed to discussing the evidence that agw is real at all or not. They are substantially different subjects. Since you didn't answer my question (not a good start) and I am of the opinion it is strange you don't see on the face of it the utility and value of creating a seperate thread to discuss proposed solutions I'll ask my question again: Why won't you start a new thread?
you make it sound as if the high priest is ill prepared to lead the converted.
Somehow I suspect you're not really "converted" and I might change some of what you think you are ceding to:
Humans emit co2. Along with a lot of other GHGs, though Co2 is the main culprit. check
Co2 traps heat. GHGs trap heat. Check
Trapped heat is causing sudden dramatic climate change. Rising global temperatures are causing climate change faster than the biosphere or possibly us are able to adapt to. Check
Sudden dramatic climate change will cause a mass death event. Most likely, Check.
Said event is eminent. Probably within the next 50 to 100 years without any change in emissions of anthropogenic GHGs there will be catastrophic effects on the biosphere. Check.
humans must expeditiously reduce their co2 emmissions.Humans are way late in reducing their GHG emissions and must immediately take drastic steps to radically reduce them if there is any hope of staving off the worst effects of global warming. And Check.
there you go. i'll grant you every scientific claim you care to make.
Ah, the sweet sound of the "converted".
You see, you'll have to forgive us but usually we are stuck just trying to get denialists to agree that AGW is real, let alone what to do about it. Priests have such an easier time of it. When was the last time a priest had to prove anything in the sacred texts with scientific rigor?
i mean surely the plans of the proponents must be eminently reasonable and intimately coincide with the requirements of the scientific argument they have so carefully elucidated?
Obviously not all of the plans of the proponents are eminently reasonable. The "proponents" (I guess you mean the agw faithful) have all sorts of agendas. There's money to be made on many of the "solutions" and there will be graft and corruption and distortions and lies and waste of taxpayers money, etc that goes along with any "solutions" devised and implemented by the current system we have, ie... capitalists owning the political levers. Even the best plans of action can be hijacked and corrupted.
There are no reasonable plans that reduce human produced GHGs fast enough that do not entail a radical restructuring of civilization, imo. Our economic systems and our political systems have to change, drastically. And our consumption habits in first world and developing countries have to change, drastically.
imo the trillions of dollars worth of recoverable hydrocarbons still in the earth will not be left there. We will dig it/pump it out and burn it. And so really it doesn't matter how many wind turbines we build or how many solar panels we make or whether we remove the subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and shift them to alternative energy technologies. None of that matters in terms of preventing the worst effects of human induced accelerated global warming without keeping those trillions of hydrocarbons where they are. Unless you want to start considering geoengineering. But that's a differernt question.
So if you are asking me how to make that happen (keep it in the ground), I don't have an answer. But just because I don't see a way to stop it doesn't mean I can't point it out and protest it. But that's me. Others are more optimistic I suppose. You might get a better answer from them.
right? is that asking too much? or is it insubordinate?
Insubordination? I assume you are adressing myself and wintler. As you can see neither of us are mods and even if we were I think you have been here long enough to realize that there is very little that is outside the bounds of allowable speech here and certainly asking for proposed solutions to AGW is well within those bounds. Since I assume you know this I get the impression that you are suggesting either I or wintler are bossy and overbearing and believe we are entitled to order others around as to what they can or cannot discuss. I take umbrage at that insinuation. Please refrain in the future.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
or that for the first time ever, the continent recorded five consecutive days with an average temperature exceeding 39 degrees; each of the first six days of 2013 were amongst the 20 hottest days on record.
