[Godstud]

@Pants-of-dog That's not what you have said, however, but keep on the false narrative. You and @Steve_American are quite popular with your viewers, I'm sure.

@Steve_American Blaming everything on "Covid spending" isn't logical. I thought USA could just make more money, according to you?

You're the troll and liar, @Steve_American. GFY

Views 1,376,340.
Likes 1,377,340.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog That's not what you have said, however, but keep on the false narrative.

From the first page of this thread:

If realistic scenarios for climate change are wanted, note that the Earth is expected to warm 4 degrees (Celsius) by the end of the century.

This comes with a minimum of 600 mm of sea level rise (about two feet for people using antiquated measuring systems). It will probably be significantly higher, since Antarctic glaciers will cross a tipping point before that and melt far more rapidly. A meter or so seems to be the most likely rise.

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=183748#p15280136

So, yes, a meter rise in sea level is what I said.

Is that fear mongering?

[Steve_American]

@Pants-of-dog That's not what you have said, however, but keep on the false narrative. You and @Steve_American are quite popular with your viewers, I'm sure.

@Steve_American Blaming everything on "Covid spending" isn't logical. I thought USA could just make more money, according to you?

You're the troll and liar, @Steve_American. GFY

Views 1,376,340.
Likes 1,377,340.

Since my last reply, there have been 75 views. There were 2 new replies. So, maybe about 50 people in total have read the 3 posts. That is not a lot, certainly less than a million.

If blaming all the inflation on covid isn't logical, then why did you write something that most reasonable people understood as exactly that?

You wrote: " I thought USA could just make more money, according to you?"
I'm sorry, but your point here escapes me. You were saying above somewhere that my program would cause some sort of hurt to the American people.

You have not given us much info on your proposed solutions. You did say that we could provide more public transportation, which would need to be free or almost free to get people out of their cars. Do you realize that this would cost money to build the busses or train cars, to pay the drivers, etc. It would require steel which may require coal to make the steel, etc. How would they be powered? Do you want to electrify them with batteries or with overhead wires, or what? Do you know that this would cost money and resources?
. . You suggested build more solar cells and wind turbines. Do you realize these would require money and resources to be built?
. . Just what sort of tax breaks are you suggesting? How would you pay for them so that they don't bankrupt the nation? Or are you accepting my MMT point that deficit spending is a possible way, depending on the exact situation? I doubt that your answer is yes, 'I accept MMT's deficit spending ideas.'

Lurkers, do any of you agree that I'm behaving like a troll? I honestly, don't so how I'm doing that.
.7140 views

[Godstud]

You have not given us much info on your proposed solutions. You did say that we could provide more public transportation, which would need to be free or almost free to get people out of their cars.

You contradict yourself almost immediately.

Do you realize that this would cost money to build the busses or train cars, to pay the drivers, etc.

These things take planning and months to years to build. It's also realistic, as they already do this to a degree. Building infrastructure is never a bad idea. Better city planning helps to conserve resources and energy, which is the goal, is it not?

Do you realize that this would cost money to build the busses or train cars, to pay the drivers, etc. It would require steel which may require coal to make the steel, etc. How would they be powered? Do you want to electrify them with batteries or with overhead wires, or what? Do you know that this would cost money and resources?
. . You suggested build more solar cells and wind turbines. Do you realize these would require money and resources to be built?

Everything costs resources and energy. What's your point? The "solutions" you proposed would take far more. Where would that money come from? Not every nation is rich.

I propose we look for realistic and practical ideas to address AGW. Why is that seen as a bad idea?

MMTs? The Hyderabad Multi-Modal Transport System, commonly abbreviated as MMTS?

[Steve_American]

You contradict yourself almost immediately.

These things take planning and months to years to build. It's also realistic, as they already do this to a degree. Building infrastructure is never a bad idea. Better city planning helps to conserve resources and energy, which is the goal, is it not?

Everything costs resources and energy. What's your point? The "solutions" you proposed would take far more. Where would that money come from? Not every nation is rich.

I propose we look for realistic and practical ideas to address AGW. Why is that seen as a bad idea?

MMTs? The Hyderabad Multi-Modal Transport System, commonly abbreviated as MMTS?

For now [more later] I'll respond to the part in yellow.

The reason that I think our reasonable and practical ideas are bad is --- that they are about 30% of what we need to do. We may as well do nothing. Of course, you and I disagree on how much needs to be done in a hurry, because you think we have several decades and we actually only have, at most, several years.

You claim to have looked deep at the climate problem. But, I see clear evidence that you don't know the basics, like the various geoengineering ideas.

.

[Godstud]

The reason that I think our reasonable and practical ideas are bad is --- that they are about 30% of what we need to do.

30% advancement towards goals is still a lot better than 0%. When you consider how many countries can't make any headway, that's significant.

Of course, you and I disagree on how much needs to be done in a hurry, because you think we have several decades and we actually only have, at most, several years.

Right. We disagree.

These are very interesting:
18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Were Made Around the Time of the First Earth Day in 1970, Expect More This Year
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spect ... this-year/

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today.

None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.

What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-yea ... edictions/

Now, I am not saying that these NEW predictions being made are not accurate. I am not denying that AGW is a reality, either. I am simply going on our previous history of making these kinds of predictions.

We constantly make poor predictions in regards to Earth's climate. I don't think the predictions are any more accurate, now, than they have been in the past, however. I DO think we have decades and not "12 years" as the latest predication says.

But, I see clear evidence that you don't know the basics, like the various geoengineering ideas.

I could say the same about you. Shall we dispense with this sort of talk?

I don't deal with impractical ideas. That is what I found the proposals that you suggested, to be. That's all. It doesn't matter who initially made the proposals if they haven't fully thought them thru.

[late]

That's a very false takeaway from what I have said.

Uh huh..

[Pants-of-dog]

@Godstud

Is a one meter rise in sea level fear monegring?

If not, then you should address it since you have spent pages complaining about how everyone else is fear mongering and you want to deal with reality.

If it is, then why?

[Steve_American]

30% advancement towards goals is still a lot better than 0%. When you consider how many countries can't make any headway, that's significant.

Right. We disagree.

These are very interesting:
18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Were Made Around the Time of the First Earth Day in 1970, Expect More This Year
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spect ... this-year/

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today.

1] None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.
What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-yea ... edictions/

Now, I am not saying that these NEW predictions being made are not accurate. I am not denying that AGW is a reality, either. I am simply going on our previous history of making these kinds of predictions.

We constantly make poor predictions in regards to Earth's climate. I don't think the predictions are any more accurate, now, than they have been in the past, however. I DO think we have decades and not "12 years" as the latest predication says.

I could say the same about you. Shall we dispense with this sort of talk?

I don't deal with impractical ideas. That is what I found the proposals that you suggested, to be. That's all. 2] It doesn't matter who initially made the proposals if they haven't fully thought them thru.

1] If none of the predictions have been accurate, then either you are asserting that all the predictions have not been accurate, or the source cheery picked the predictions to only tell you about the ones that have not been accurate.

OK, I'm not going to defend the predictions that were made 50 years ago. We have had 50 years of improvement in computers and computer models. So, 25 years ago we had had 25 years of improvements. So, I think we ought to look at only the models from the last 25 years.

I saw a report the looked at many, IIRC, 14 models, from many years ago. The predictions that that they made were wrong because they had to assume how much CO2 and other GHG would be added to the air. The study used the 14 original models and replaced the original wrong data with the correct data [that we now have because it is in the past now]. It found that almost all, IIRC, of the models' new predictions were within the predicted range of accuracy, that is on the error bar, not off the error bar.
. . The authors asserted that this means that the models actually did a pretty good job of predicting how the world would heat if the original authors had been able to accurately predict the correct levels of GHG in the air.
. . They said that this means we can be confidant that they will fairly accurately predict how the world will heat IF WE CAN NOW ACCURATELY PREDICT WHAT THE GHG LEVELS WILL BE IN THE FUTURE.

This seems to refute your reports that all the old predictions were wrong, and so we can be confident that the models being used now will also make bad predictions about the future.

2] You obviously didn't do any digging to see what the details of the 3 solutions I gave you actually are. You just assumed that the scientists didn't do any calculations to see if they would work and if they are possible, etc. I did see in the original sources claims that the original scientists did do such calculations.
For example, the SO2 sprayed from passenger planes only uses planes that will be flying people or cargo anyway. No new planes will be built and no flights will be made without passengers or cargo. So, the costs will be very low. The objections were that someone would have different weather as a result of the spraying and they can sue for damages, and that we can't be sure we will not make things worse, and just recently, that if the program must stop for any reason, then the result will in just a week be that all the cooling will end, so the temp will spike. It is like carrying a parasol for shade to keep you cool so you don't die which you would without the parasol, and suddenly the wind blows it away, and now you will die because you don't have that shade any more. But, we are going to die if we do nothing, so why not give it a try?

The converted ships making clouds over the Arctic Ocean doesn't need that many ships. Less than 20, I think. Compared to carbon capture & storage, this requires a trivial amount of energy. And it is not forever, it is just to keep the CO2 and CH4 in the Arctic region out of the air and in the permafrost or on the sea floor as a form of ice, while we reduce our burning of carbon fuels. [I just now saw a report that there is 1.4 trillion metric tons of CH4 on the sea floor. This is over 1000 times more than is in the air now. We must not tip the tipping point that releases this into the air.] We do not have decades.
.7394 views, now 7563

[late]

I don't deal with impractical ideas. That is what I found the proposals that you suggested, to be. That's all. It doesn't matter who initially made the proposals if they haven't fully thought them thru.

You deal in excuses.

And they are dumbass, in the extreme. What most of those predictions do is that they predict things will get worse. Guess what, they are worse.

Science makes progress, picking out old work is grabbing at stuff we've left behind. It's dumb, and dishonest.

You're a used BS salesman.

[Godstud]

@late So what are your solutions to AGW? You talk like a loudmouthed bully and appear to be not nearly as smart as one. You talk like a smarmy sanctimonious Boomer, who is more to blame for where we are than any other generation. What's your contribution here aside from throwing in insults every could posts?

The predictions that were made that spoke of a second Ice Age? Are those are the predictions I ignored? That was "climate science", too.

Cmon, what are these miraculous solutions that I am not accepting to be as reasonable and rational?

[Pants-of-dog]

It is impossible to discuss solutions with anyone who dismisses any presentation of the problem as “fear mongering”.

For example, keeping sea level rise to 600mm by 2100 would be a reasonable solution to the problems caused by having a sea level rise of 1000mm.

Keeping sea level rise at 600mm by the end of the century requires a maximum temperature rise of two degrees.

To keep temperatures rise below two degrees now requires a massive, radical, and global shift from fossil fuels.

So that is one solution.

While it may seem almost impossible, it is still easier than any other solution to the problem.

[Steve_American]

@late So what are your solutions to AGW? You talk like a loudmouthed bully and appear to be not nearly as smart as one. You talk like a smarmy sanctimonious Boomer, who is more to blame for where we are than any other generation. What's your contribution here aside from throwing in insults every could posts?

The predictions that were made that spoke of a second Ice Age? Are those are the predictions I ignored? That was "climate science", too.

Cmon, what are these miraculous solutions that I am not accepting to be as reasonable and rational?

If you let me behave like you do, then you'd allow me to just assume that every scientist who predicted a new Ice Age in the near future 50 to 20 years ago, was paid by the fossil fuel corps to do that. Now, I haven't looked to see if this is so, but then you didn't look to see if my proposed geoengineering solutions were reasonable. You just blew them off.
___________________________._______________________________________

A new video where Prof. Bill McKibben says that we don't have decades. And that the IPCC has said that we don't have decades. We have years. If one claims we have decades then you are a denier.

Sorry that the long YouTube addresses show up as "can't be shown". Remove the [==].
https://www.you[==]tube.com/watch?v=Gx_LkhgDrrQ&list=TLPQMjgwNzIwMjPgz4y5wdwKUQ&index=45

My comment to this video was =>

With all due respect guys, Congress is bought by big corps. The only hope is for 33 million progressives getting out in the streets this summer, demanding the Dems act now. We need a progressive President to win in 2024 and at least 30% progressives to be elected in both house of Congress. Then get 50% in 2026. To do this we need to win in the Primary elections. And then in the General. We need WWII style price controls, profit limits, and rationing across the advanced industrial nations of the world. There is no way that politicians who have been bought by corps are going to do any of that. Yes, we also need more solar, wind and batteries. We also need some geoengineering to slow the heating by shading the planet from the sun.

.7660 views now

[Rich]

To keep temperatures rise below two degrees now requires a massive, radical, and global shift from fossil fuels.

So that is one solution.

Well yes and as a starter for that and to actually get the ICC to do something useful, the ICC could send out arrest warrants for "Crimes against humanity" for all the German politicians that were complicit in the closing down of the German nuclear industry. Nuclear is not the only solution but it needs to be a massive part of the solution. We need

A lot more of it.
A lot cheaper.
With massively reduced planning / build times.

[late]

@late So what are your solutions to AGW?

The first real step is an incrementing Carbon Tax.

[Godstud]

@late Carbon taxes punish everyone except the wealthy. It's just another revenue stream for governments.

I'd be for carbon tax if the tax money was actually spent on renewable resources and green technology, but it's not.

[late]

@late Carbon taxes punish everyone except the wealthy. It's just another revenue stream for governments.

I'd be for carbon tax if the tax money was actually spent on renewable resources and green technology, but it's not.

Excuses, I would expect nothing else..

Since your real objection is it's impact on you, let me assure you, that a lot, or most, would have to be rebated to be politically palatable.

[Godstud]

Excuses, I would expect nothing else..

WTF is wrong with you?

Carbon Taxes are ineffective. That's not an excuse. It's a fact.

Since your real objection is it's impact on you, let me assure you, that a lot, or most, would have to be rebated to be politically palatable.

I state facts, but you don't like them and seem to be all up in your emotions. Why is that? Step back and try using a little logic, for a change.

I'd be all for Carbon Taxes if they didn't punish everyone but the rich, and the money went to combatting AGW. It's not used to combat AGW, so it ends up being just another government revenue stream. That's the reality. Don't attack me because the reality is unpalatable.

I'd be 100% behind carbon taxes if the money was used to subsidize Green technologies, solar panel installation, etc.

[Pants-of-dog]

Most of the pollution comes from about 75-100 companies.

These companies should be nationalized. The assets should then be used to finance the (rapid and comprehensive) transition from fossil fuels to more sustainable technologies.

This would allow us to control the transition, finance it, and limit the negative impact to a few people who are primarily responsible for the problems.

[Fasces]

Best President for Eco-Apocalypse?

Not-GOP.

Conservative groups have crafted a plan for demolishing the federal government’s efforts to counter climate change — and it wouldn’t stop with President Joe Biden’s policies.

The 920-page blueprint, whose hundreds of authors include former Trump administration officials, would go far beyond past GOP efforts to slash environmental agencies’ budgets or oust “deep state” employees.

Called Project 2025, it would block the expansion of the electrical grid for wind and solar energy; slash funding for the Environmental Protection Agency’s environmental justice office; shutter the Energy Department’s renewable energy offices; prevent states from adopting California’s car pollution standards; and delegate more regulation of polluting industries to Republican state officials.

If enacted, it could decimate the federal government’s climate work, stymie the transition to clean energy and shift agencies toward nurturing the fossil fuel industry rather than regulating it. It’s designed to be implemented on the first day of a Republican presidency.

“Project 2025 is not a white paper. We are not tinkering at the edges. We are writing a battle plan, and we are marshaling our forces,” said Paul Dans, director of Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation, which compiled the plan as a road map for the first 180 days of the next GOP administration. “Never before has the whole conservative movement banded together to systematically prepare to take power day one and deconstruct the administrative state.”

The initiative has previously drawn attention for its efforts to prepare a systematic conservative takeover of the federal bureaucracy, in contrast to the perceptions of chaos that marked much of former President Donald Trump’s term. Those include plans to assemble a database of as many as 20,000 people who could serve in the next administration — “a right-wing LinkedIn,” as The New York Times described it in April — and proposals to impose sweeping Oval Office control over spending decisions, civil service employees and independent federal agencies.

But its implications for U.S. climate policy — at a time of record heat waves sweeping the globe — have drawn far less attention.

The comprehensive plan covers virtually all operations of the federal government, not just energy and climate programs.

It’s much more ambitious than the pledges that all the Republican presidential primary candidates have made so far to roll back Biden’s signature climate law. It also wouldn’t simply nullify Biden’s climate executive orders, something that a Republican president could easily do just after taking office.

Instead, the ideas laid out in Project 2025 show that conservative organizations want to achieve a more fundamental shift — moving federal agencies away from public health protections and environmental regulations in order to help the industries they have been tasked with overseeing, said Andrew Rosenberg, who was a senior official at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration during the Clinton administration.

“What this does is it basically undermines not only society but the economic capacity of the country at the same time as it’s doing gross violence to the environment,” said Rosenberg, who’s now a senior fellow at the University of New Hampshire’s Carsey School of Public Policy.

The proposals are laser-like in their precision. They also indicate that Republican operatives learned a lesson from the chaotic nature of the earliest days of the Trump administration, when former Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was fired from overseeing the transition, said Neil Chatterjee, who chaired the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under Trump.

“Even if we lose the election and don’t get the opportunity to govern, I still think this defined strategy is important because we know what we’re for and what we can showcase to the American people even if we’re out of power,” said Chatterjeee, who was not involved in the plan. “We can say this is what we would do, this is how we would handle these really complex issues.”

A plan to deconstruct the government is just the beginning of what Republicans will expect from their presidential candidate, said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who crafted a sweeping “Contract With America” on the way to the GOP takeover of Congress in the 1994 elections. Releasing it before the primary race heats up can give people “time to absorb the new idea, think it through and then embrace it.”

“What you’re about to see is a dramatic shift in the landscape of solutions away from the Left and toward a kind of creative, governing conservatism,” Gingrich (R-Ga.) said.

More than 400 people participated in crafting Project 2025’s details. Former Trump administration officials played a key role in writing the chapters on dismantling EPA and DOE.

The plan to gut the Department of Energy was written by Bernard McNamee, a former DOE official whom Trump appointed to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. McNamee, who did not have regulatory experience, was one of the most overtly political FERC appointees in decades. He was a director at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank that fights climate regulations, and was a senior adviser to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

McNamee outlines cutting key divisions at DOE, including the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations and the Loan Programs Office. He has called climate change a “progressive policy.”

He also calls for cutting funding to DOE’s Grid Deployment Office, in part to stop “focusing on grid expansion for the benefit of renewable resources or supporting low/carbon generation.” Instead, he calls for strengthening grid reliability, which he describes as expanding the use of fossil fuels and slowing or stopping the addition of cleaner energy. Part of his plan includes a massive expansion of natural gas infrastructure.

“Prevent socializing costs for customers who do not benefit from the projects or justifying such cost shifts as advancing vague ‘societal benefits’ such as climate change,” McNamee wrote in the report.

McNamee did not respond to requests for comment.

Preventing the expansion of the electric grid would slow down renewable energy projects, threatening U.S. climate goals while cooling the sector’s economic growth, said Mike O’Boyle, a senior director at the nonpartisan policy firm Energy Innovation and head of its electricity program.

“If we totally step away from the role of the federal government, our economy is going to miss out in a big way because the rest of the world is moving on climate, so they’re poised to reap the benefits both for their energy consumers but also in terms of manufacturing,” he said.

Mandy Gunasekara, who was EPA’s chief of staff under Trump, wrote a chapter within the plan to move the agency away from its focus on climate policy and reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

It outlines eliminating or downsizing agency functions including the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, and the Office of Public Engagement and Environmental Education. It also would also relocate regional EPA offices and would “downsize by terminating the newest hires in low-value programs.”

The overarching theme in remaking federal agencies is to shift power away from the federal government and toward states, in an effort to diminish regulations.

“The challenge of creating a conservative EPA will be to balance justified skepticism toward an agency that has long been amenable to being coopted by the Left for political ends against the need to implement the agency’s true function: protecting public health and the environment in cooperation with states,” Gunasekara wrote.

She declined to comment for this story.

But that increase in state power wouldn’t apply to California, which has a history of setting more aggressive environmental standards than those of the federal government under a Clean Air Act waiver. The Project 2025 plan would “ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gasses.”

Another key goal is to restructure how EPA uses science, particularly research that supports regulations by showing risks to public health from industrial pollution. The plan would require scientific studies to be “transparent and reproducible,” making it impossible to use key public health studies that rely on private data that cannot be disclosed to the public.

As part of that effort, one idea is to offer incentives for the public “to identify scientific flaws and research misconduct,” which might encourage opponents of regulations to target research.