JAYDEEJOHN :
Yes I am, as a few percent of growth vs trillions spent on non performing things, taxes mostly, and whos to say those tax dollars will ever reach their goals, or end points, and will ever end? And the huge losses of jobs etc etc
Let me ask, are you willing to go to war for oil? If not, then to me its the same thing.
If you think we can change the climate in such a short period by only our means, what about volcanos? They do more in a short period than we do all year.
So, having a heavy volcanic period should have caused this several times worse and many times beofre.
If its too late, its too late in my mind, and theres nothing we can do anyways, and since it seems theyre constantly cranking up the numbers, making it happen earlier and earlier, and they said awhiles back itd be too late if we didnt act soon, well soon has come and gone, especially since its only gotten worse, as weve directed most of our manu towards China and India, where their power usage is many many times worse for pollutants than the US or the EU.
So with this escalation, even higher than projected in our own pollutions, plus its happening according to them faster than predicted, and previously claiming itd have to be done soon, by 2020, its like wed have to comp[letely shut down everything for 50 years, so yea, your few % is now most, not a few.
Time will tell, and as Im sure its about nature only, not man, and our fuel resources and not about our contributions of a natual scenario, itll play itself out, and then what?
If theyre wrong? Kill them all? Because just as surely as if theyre right, if theyre wrong, itll mean deaths for many people
Really? You'd be that short-sighted? Would you go to Las Vegas with the deeds to your house, your car keys and having sold all your possessions and go to the roulette table and say "put it all on 12"?
Taxes are not non-performing, they pay for defence, social services, emergency services, education and in many countries healthcare.
Many people who would be out of a job would be quickly back in employment in other areas. If you lost you job, say, drilling for oil, you would be able to use those skills to help retrieve geothermal power. Building cars? Well you still will, just not cars that have combustion engines.
I am not willing to go to war for oill, but i cannot see how this draws a comparison between CC believers and CC sceptics. A war for oil is, for the most part, confined to the middle east, and as such is localised, whereas this is a GLOBAL problem. Maybe you could explain how you feel the two relate, which would help me understand you point a bit better? (there may be a delay in response because i'm not in the US)
Volcanoes are a natural cycle, which is pretty constant, and before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere it would have been in a relative equilibrium, after a huge catastrophic reaction, like Krakatoa, it would have maybe taken a decade to readdress the balance, but it was rebalanced. (What would you count as a short period if you call a year something else?
😉 ) They can do more in a year than we can, but this would be rebalanced for the vast majority of the time, and as such only a few extinctions have been blamed on mass volcanic eruptions. And a heavy volcanic period could cause this (what we are seeing today). But i don't see that recently at all. We've had large eruptions in the last century but not, I feel (citation VERY much needed) enough to be any different from the Century before or the century before that.
They are'cranking up the numbers' mainly because politicians will stretch deadlines farther that they should go, and that computer modelling have improved dramatically. Hugely. Massively. I mean it like comparing an amoeba to an lion. But i digress.
The power usage PER CAPITA is very small in India and China, but it is an issue. However, they argue, quite rightly if CO2 were harmless to the climate, that developed nations have been allowed to pump huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere via industrialisation and deforestation, so why can we not do the same. The power usage, and as such CO2 emissions, are a hell of a lot smaller than the per capita for European countries and pales into insignificance compared to the CO2 emissions of each American. China and India will also be countries that feel the effect of the warming, as it will likely knock out the central farmland of China and definately effect the monsoons in India. (That's not to say that the developed nations won't be affected (see earlier post))
Their CO2 emissions must be curbed but developed nations should lead the way and be an example for others to follow. I don't follow you on how we'd have to shut down completely for 50 years (and if we shut down completely it would be ALL not most), as this is obsurd. Economic growth will be reduced, flattened, or negative, but we'd never have to shut down every industry, and shut them down for 50 years would be crazy and as such will never happen.
Time will tell indeed, but hopefully we will stop this. Are you saying that we should not conserve our fuel resources? Because that's surely a ridiculous thing, as everything should be conserved as by definition resources are finite and human greed is infinite. This should be allowed to play itself out, because we've caused it and by gosh we can change it back. It'll be hard. We'll lose some percent in growth. But who cares if it stops this madness. Growth has done little to help the poorer people of the world until now, so it wouldn't be any different in the future.
And... i don't get your last point... I'm certainly not endorsing genocide if that's what you're talking about. If whose wrong the sceptics or the believers or...? I don't feel that stopping this will lead to deaths on the scale we'd see if we don't.
. However the Yellowstone supervolcano would probably do more damage if it let loose: 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram