16000 Scientists from 184 Countries Publish Dire Warning to Humanity

Originally posted by Kurk
I'm not arguing anything with you. It's a simple question. The doctor has to follow what they preach; why don't you?

Well, often, these types of discussions end up being, "We have to do this. But not me."

"We have to take refugees in."
"Okay, so I can sign you up for next Tuesday to let 5 move into your home?"
"No, not me."

"We have to stop global warming and reverse the damage we've done."
"Okay, so you're going to pay for $100 trillion reclamation machine project?"
"No, sorry, not me. That much liquid money does not exist. Perhaps this was a woefully naive idea."

Less "not me"s and more "I volunteer"s, please.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. The term you're looking for is anthropogenic climate change.
2. Your statement is non sequitur and, in fact, I would posit that not a single climate change denier would, in turn, deny measures to reduce pollution.

1) Gesundheit

2) So all the talk about changing nothing much because it will stagnate the economy and such from those people I imagined?

I want to see a list of the names of all these "Scientists" and their Credentials before I can take their OPINIONS seriously.

Originally posted by Robtard
1) Gesundheit

2) So all the talk about changing nothing much because it will stagnate the economy and such from those people I imagined?

carbon pollution vs. all other types of pollution

They definitely do not consider them the same. As I said, not a single person would be pro-pollution that denies climate change. In fact, some of the climate change deniers are the same people shitting themselves over environmental pollution such as chemtrails.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're using the word "mitigate" incorrectly. It would, as fact, not mitigate it.

You're looking for "slightly reduce the speed at which it occurs."

Did you read my quote? You did. So why do you continue along this line of trolling?

Directly tackling greenhouse gas emissions is a lost cause. That's not "inaction" as you like to strawman.

More strawman attempts? You sad pathetic person.

You're very upset.

Still waiting on that global green house gas reduction technology.

So your solution is to slow climate change, eh?

🙂

Perfect. Wonderful.

Tell me how and to what extent. 😉

Will you delay the current climate change forward progress by 1 year? What about 5? 100? And how do you plan to do that?

Now go back to pretending like I'm saying the sky is falling and that the end is nigh. Those petty strawman tactics are entertaining.

Hint: it's too late. Sky has already fallen. It's time to pick the pieces up.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]I want to see a list of the names of all these "Scientists" and their Credentials before I can take their OPINIONS seriously.

[/B]

Originally posted by dadudemon
carbon pollution vs. all other types of pollution

They definitely do not consider them the same. As I said, not a single person would be pro-pollution that denies climate change. In fact, some of the climate change deniers are the same people shitting themselves over environmental pollution such as chemtrails.

Yes. The world will be much better off when we get rid of ALL The Carbon Dioxide in the atmoshphere...

😱

@ Beni, just wait until the 'climate change is a Leftist lie' politicians and talking head start doing the pivot, will be fun to watch

Originally posted by Kurk
I'm not arguing anything with you. It's a simple question. The doctor has to follow what they preach; why don't you?

On the other hand yes, I am perfectly happy to take measures to mitigate my carbon footprint, vote for green policies and green supporting politicians, and if the option became viable, buy an electric car.

Anything more to add babyman? 🙁

TBF, Kurk, I ripped your ass open in the past before for the same thing, no one is arguing we need to abandon all fossil fuels today, that's a BS argument made by the denier side.

38 GtCO2 produced by humans, right?

$200 million commercial plant in 2017, which is expected to extract 1 million tonnes per day - the equivalent of taking 100 cars off the road every year. It plans to start selling CO2-based synthetic fuels by 2018.

1m MT = 1,102,311.31 tons.

So we need to scale this effort.

$200,000,000 = 1102311.31

That's probably a very optimistic number put out there for investors but let's just be optimistic.

So assuming, very optimistically, that it will be running year round at 365.25 days a year, that's:

1102311.31 * 365.25 ~ 402619206 removed a year.

39,000,000,000/402619206 ~ 96.85

So we need to build 97 of these to just target what we are releasing, now. That doesn't include scaling costs to meet increasing needs.

The cost of this would be ~$19,373,144,360.

But the damage is already done. We need to not only reclaim what we produce, we need to drastically reclaim what is already out there.

If we want to be fair and bring the rate back to something normal, then we'd need to reclaim extremely quickly.

Let's be fair: probably 200 of these plants would be needed. So we are looking at $40 trillion.

The $100 trillion figure comes from upkeep, maintenance, localization, etc. Total costs to build these plants and maintain them for years.

Likely, that number is much higher than $100 trillion. However, it is a fair cost and easy to digest.

This should be a 10 year project.

Listen to this Ted Talk:

https://player.fm/series/tedtalks-audio/can-we-stop-climate-change-by-removing-co2-from-the-air-tim-kruger

Is it worth spending $100 trillion to make this happen? Some people believe the economic costs will realize a huge RoI by the end of the 21st Century. That we should invest the $100 trillion.

"All of these ideas come with tradoffs..."

Originally posted by dadudemon
carbon pollution vs. all other types of pollution

They definitely do not consider them the same. As I said, not a single person would be pro-pollution that denies climate change. In fact, some of the climate change deniers are the same people shitting themselves over environmental pollution such as chemtrails.

We could reasonably tackle both problems at once, that said our first priority should be pollution. It's something that can be handled today, show results today and in our culture thats what is fron and center, now.

We are on the same page here, there is ZERO need for two sides just prioritize one today and manage the other for tomorrow.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Slowing the process of climate of change if not putting a stop to its run away rise in recent years would indeed save a lot of money, resources, livelihoods, if not lives yes, while bringing us towards a greener, less polluted environment that you have at least shown an interest in. In regards to what extent? As far as we can bloody manage, and with a global climate accord. 😐

So that's it?

You've provided me literally nothing but hot air (pun). You've taken such a strong position but have nothing to offer for it. Why take such a strong position on this topic when you have idea any specifics about it?

Give me something better than "it's gewd, mang."

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Nice, catchy, care to develop?

Sure! How many times have I said it? Too much greenhouse gases have been put into the environment by this point. Even if we stopped every last bit of greenhouse gas pollution, right now, at this very moment, the damage has been done and severe anthropogenic climate change will continue to march on. Perhaps some of it may be reduced by eliminating ALL of our greenhouse gas emissions since 1750 (how much, though? Still waiting on that from you). But it's too late: damage has been done.

Unless the entire world is willing to come together and spend tens of trillions, right now, to reverse the damage we've done to actually mitigate (it will still be warmer than it would have been and the Earth will continue to warm because we are exiting an ice age but we will have jumped ahead hundreds of thousands of years in that process, but, perhaps, we will revert back to the levels of warming pre-1750 if we remove all the greenhouse gas emissions that we've produced) anthropogenic global warming, it will still remain putting a bandaid on a massive laceration.

As I've said, we are not about to be slashed with a sharp sword: we've already been slashed and we now have a huge laceration. Reducing the amount of bleeding we are doing doesn't actually solve the problem. We need to not just stop the bleeding. We need to close the laceration and return it back to the point before the slash. We will still have a scar.

But since that does not seem possible, at the moment, we need to see what we can do to live with the slash, right now. That's where my laceration analogy fails: we can save as many lives as possible WHILE this anthropogenic global warming happens and refocus our efforts on renewable energies and reducing or eliminating pollution.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
No its strawman rubbish. The idea that in order to support climate change you need to abandon all fossil fuels at once and go live in a cave or whatever extreme equivalent is not an argument. It's the grasping attempts of somebody who doesn't have one.

On the other hand yes, I am perfectly happy to take measures to mitigate my carbon footprint, vote for green policies and green supporting politicians, and if the option became viable, buy an electric car.

Anything more to add babyman? 🙁

Originally posted by snowdragon
We could reasonably tackle both problems at once, that said our first priority should be pollution. It's something that can be handled today, show results today and in our culture thats what is fron and center, now.

We are on the same page here, there is ZERO need for two sides just prioritize one today and manage the other for tomorrow.

I think all of this time, effort, and money we are putting into reducing carbon emissions should be put into carbon reclamation efforts. And as new energy production sources are created, they should be renewable, clean sources. A passive, indirect stance on CO2 emissions and an active stance on reclamation.

But that's on top of dealing with global warming as it is happening, now. Right now. Not later. Now. It's already too late. We need to accept that and then start spending money on saving lives. Focusing all efforts on reducing carbon emissions in 40 years is simply asinine. Damage has been done, the fallout of that damage is already happening, so let's focus on that and reclaiming carbon.

Who the hell knows? Maybe we can find clean power sources that produce carbon and we just reclaim the carbon?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
On the other hand yes, I am perfectly happy to take measures to mitigate* my carbon footprint, vote for green policies and green supporting politicians, and if the option became viable, buy an electric car.

*You mean create a net-negative carbon footprint, right? Because the average human needs to have a net negative carbon footprint if we want to fix the problem. 😉

"Guys, I've reduced my carbon footprint from 57 tons a year to 40 tons a year!"

That's still 40 tons of shit, dude.

Here, use this carbon footprint calculator:

https://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/index.htm

Originally posted by Beniboybling
No its strawman rubbish. The idea that in order to support climate change you need to abandon all fossil fuels at once and go live in a cave or whatever extreme equivalent is not an argument. It's the grasping attempts of somebody who doesn't have one.

On the other hand yes, I am perfectly happy to take measures to mitigate my carbon footprint, vote for green policies and green supporting politicians, and if the option became viable, buy an electric car.

Why fight with people that generally agree with you in principle just not in exactly what you want?

Dudeman has said there are enviromental issues that should be handled and would make a difference. If we wait for green policies and green politicians thats waiting for another election which might not net what you want which would take time for policies to be enacted........what can we do today to make a change, not the dream of tomorrow.

Originally posted by snowdragon
If we wait for green policies and green politicians thats waiting for another election which might not net what you want which would take time for policies to be enacted

Right, as I and others (scientists) have pointed out, this is a discussion we needed to have over 20 years ago. How we are, now, with these policy discussions is

1. how we needed to be talking and considering the situation 30-25 years ago

and

2. For these policies to start making a difference around 25 years ago

and

3. for damage to start to be reversed 15-10 years ago.

Originally posted by dadudemon
*You mean create a net-negative carbon footprint, right? Because the average human needs to have a net negative carbon footprint if we want to fix the problem. 😉

"Guys, I've reduced my carbon footprint from 57 tons a year to 40 tons a year!"

That's still 40 tons of shit, dude.

Here, use this carbon footprint calculator:

https://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/index.htm

Since when was needing to do a lot a justification for not doing anything?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Since when was needing to do a lot a justification for not doing anything?

Where have I ever advocated to do nothing? Didn't I just post a lot about the things we should be doing n'stuff? Didn't I post about that on the first page?

Edit - I just saw the post of mine you quoted. That's the post you quoted? Where did I say to do nothing? Didn't I just indirectly say to not pat yourself on the back for still having 40 tons of shit? It needs to be negative -100 tons of shit. 😐