Climate Change Solution?

@metal-brain said
@sonhouse

You have no evidence to confirm your assertion. You are just repeating a popular theory.

What is the downside of believing global warming
and
what is the downside of denying global warming?

Even if there was a debate among scientists
surely we must err on the side of caution?

@wolfgang59 said
What is the downside of believing global warming
and
what is the downside of denying global warming?

Even if there was a debate among scientists
surely we must err on the side of caution?

Who doesn't believe in global warming?

@metal-brain said
Who doesn't believe in global warming?

Beats me. I have heard there are a few. (and some of them lead regular lives.)

@metal-brain said
Who doesn't believe in global warming?

He means anthropogenic climate forcing.

@deepthought said
He means anthropogenic climate forcing.

So I need to read what he means and not what he writes?

I have a better idea, stop letting propaganda change the meaning of terms in your minds and write what you mean. I know the "a" word is long, but how hard is it for all of you to say "man made"?

I child could do it.

Speaking of children, accepting the alterations of terms confuses them. Is that what alarmists want? Do they want to raise confused children?

@metal-brain said
So I need to read what he means and not what he writes?

I have a better idea, stop letting propaganda change the meaning of terms in your minds and write what you mean. I know the "a" word is long, but how hard is it for all of you to say "man made"?

I child could do it.

Speaking of children, accepting the alterations of terms confuses them. Is that what alarmists want? Do they want to raise confused children?

It completely depends on what you're trying to say. Global warming exists. The causes in part are likely anthropogenic.

wolfgang's comment was made irrespective of the cause. Implementing the solutions for climate change mitigation are in our hands.

@metal-brain said
So I need to read what he means and not what he writes?

So when someone talks about "global warming" or "climate change"
you are never sure if they mean man-made or not? That is a blatant lie.

@wildgrass said
It completely depends on what you're trying to say. Global warming exists. The causes in part are likely anthropogenic.

wolfgang's comment was made irrespective of the cause. Implementing the solutions for climate change mitigation are in our hands.

Global warming exists, but the cause is debatable.

If Wolfgang's comment was made irrespective of the cause then a solution is not considered. After all, you cannot deduct a solution without knowing the cause.

I think you should speak for yourself. Wolfgang is likely to disagree with you.

@wolfgang59 said
So when someone talks about "global warming" or "climate change"
you are never sure if they mean man-made or not? That is a blatant lie.

So if I take a statement literally I have to be a liar? What if someone says there is no global warming? Then someone else says that is false and accuse him of denying science. Then he says "I meant man made" and you know it.
Do you accept that and admit to nit picking by taking the term literally or do you slam the guy for being wrong in the literal sense? Admit it. You would slam him hard for not being specific. You would take advantage of his carelessly inaccurate statement and show no mercy at all. Isn't that about right?

@metal-brain said
Global warming exists, but the cause is debatable.

If Wolfgang's comment was made irrespective of the cause then a solution is not considered. After all, you cannot deduct a solution without knowing the cause.

I think you should speak for yourself. Wolfgang is likely to disagree with you.

The solution does not depend on the cause. If the wind causes a fence post to fall over, you don't have the wind put it back up.

Cancer therapeutics is another example. Many of them work very effectively irrespective of the mechanism that caused the cancer in the first place.

It remains important to understand causes, of course, but not fully understanding a problem is no excuse for inaction. We innovate creative solutions to problems all the time. Human ingenuity has solved lots of things.

@wildgrass said
The solution does not depend on the cause. If the wind causes a fence post to fall over, you don't have the wind put it back up.

Cancer therapeutics is another example. Many of them work very effectively irrespective of the mechanism that caused the cancer in the first place.

It remains important to understand causes, of course, but not fully understanding a problem i ...[text shortened]... We innovate creative solutions to problems all the time. Human ingenuity has solved lots of things.

Not fully understanding a problem is no excuse for action. The solution does depend on the cause. Would you want a carbon tax for a methane problem? Your action could be completely ineffective and have the side effect of poor people committing suicide.
You also need to know how much warming is from natural causes. If 85% of warming is from natural causes is it worth putting people through economic hardship for 15% anthropogenic causes?

You are ignoring basic logic while ignoring solutions without a tax. Imagine the revolt in France on a world wide scale. That is what you are unwittingly supporting. You support a class warfare solution because that is what the elites want you to support.
How many of your democrat friends support an aircraft tax. The military is exempt from that of course, but why not tax private aircraft? A yacht tax would not hurt either. At least the class warfare would be in the right direction then.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/03/01/leonardo-dicaprios-carbon-footprint-is-much-higher-than-he-thinks/#4fe5b4432bd5

If you are a true progressive you will not support a tax that targets the poor. You should support a tax that targets the worst polluters, the rich.
You cannot have a carbon tax until you address the wealth inequality problem. You need a pragmatic solution instead of blindly focusing on a problem that may not be a problem at all.

Think about it and let me know what solution you suggest. Don't forget about France.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/12/14/renewables-are-the-cleanest-the-cheapest/

"...Solar and wind energy are beating dirty fossil fuels and nuclear power in the marketplace. They are winning not because they are clean and necessary to combat carbon pollution, but because they are less expensive for power producers, companies, and customers.

As 2018 closes, it’s now safe to say that clean renewable energy is at an inflection point. Cost is no longer the biggest challenge to greater adoption of wind and solar; it is now the rules of the power markets that often keep the cheapest options from winning.

It makes business sense

As evidence of how renewables are cheaper, take for example, Northern Indiana Public Service Co. Indiana is the nation’s third-largest consumer of coal, after Texas and Illinois, and NIPSCO got nearly all of its electricity from coal-fired plants as recently as 2010. It’s now planning to shut down two of its three coal plants by 2028 and replace them with renewables. “Cost-competitiveness that has been evolving in the market, pointing toward the need to accelerate retirement of our coal-fired electric generation and replace it with lower-cost renewable sources,”
..."


... No carbon tax nor subsidies required.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/why-pv-costs-have-fallen-so-far-and-will-fall-further#gs.ebGrRzM
"... Why PV Costs Have Fallen So Far—and Will Fall Further

Solar innovation is still very strong.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers have dissected the causes of solar price drops over the last four decades — a trend that analysts say will continue.

In a report last month, the MIT team identified public and private research and development (R&D) and improvements in cell efficiency as the major factors contributing to a 99 percent reduction in module costs since 1980.
...
the top factors contributing to PV cost reduction are not static over time.
...
Wood Mackenzie forecasts that spot prices for modules could fall from $0.30 per watt-DC to $0.18 per watt-DC in the next five years, a 40 percent drop.
...
cell manufacturing equipment is becoming increasingly efficient, reducing power consumption. “All of the material inputs to making a solar panel are still falling,”
...
“..solar is [already] cost-competitive with natural gas and coal in most geographies in the United States. We’ve already reached that threshold.”
..."

... No carbon tax nor subsidies required.

@humy said
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/why-pv-costs-have-fallen-so-far-and-will-fall-further#gs.ebGrRzM
"... Why PV Costs Have Fallen So Far—and Will Fall Further

Solar innovation is still very strong.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers have dissected the causes of solar price drops over the last four decades — a trend that analysts say will continue ...[text shortened]... ed States. We’ve already reached that threshold.”
..."

... No carbon tax nor subsidies required.

Then why is there so much support for a carbon tax? Al Gore started the movement and he has always supported a carbon tax. There are many others as well, including nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

It is obvious to me that this whole hyping of global warming theory is for the sole purpose of a carbon tax. When a democrat becomes POTUS that is what most people will talk about on the corporate news media. The repetition will brainwash you into thinking it is a good idea in the end and you will fall into line. People have an innate vulnerability to repetition. This is part of the science of propaganda. It can effectively dupe people into believing even the most absurd things. It is human nature and propagandists take advantage of it.
I still think taxing private jets is a good idea. Maybe then DiCaprio will realize he will not be able to be a spoiled rich snot and not pay his share while flying to environmental summits.

@metal-brain said
The solution does depend on the cause.

Your post is rambling and incoherent. You know global warming is a potential problem for mankind, so stop saying otherwise. People might have survived the Pliocene, but with markedly reduced economic output.

Not fully understanding a problem is no excuse for action.

This is a defeatist approach. Nothing will be done, ever. You don't fully understand the health benefits/risk of each food item you buy, so you still take the action of buying nothing?

You also need to know how much warming is from natural causes. If 85% of warming is from natural causes is it worth putting people through economic hardship for 15% anthropogenic causes?

False. You counteract natural causes all the time. Imagine if you just said "well can't do anything about the weather because it's naturally caused so I'll just sit here and freeze". You find a way to improve your surrounding environment to support human life. Also, what economic hardships?

I've proposed lots of pragmatic solutions, and humy has as well. Most are dismissed by you since you can't fathom solving a problem without knowing every nuanced variable. I didn't mention taxes anywhere, yet it seems to be your primary focus for some reason. Pragmatically, we know some of the many causes of climate change and we can devise innovative solutions to fix them. It doesn't matter whether a volcano or a coal power plant is releasing greenhouse gases, the solutions are indistinct. With less carbon in the atmosphere, warming will slow.