Nothing is going to change, get used to it.

[Communists For McCain]

I have to say that the way both sides present the debate on Climate Change seems to be quite fallacious.  I mean, from my view there are two sides here that engage in a level of naivete that is reserved for people who think Professional Wrestling is real:

Side One: THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE!  AND IT IS DEFINITELY NOT MAN MADE! (foams at mouth)
Variation: Yes there is Climate Change, but it is definitely not at all manmade.  It's soooo natural man!

And then there is the other side of the debate, mostly agreed on by "feelgooders" and socially conscious PC liberals:

Side 2: Climate change is real, it is caused by humans, BUT WE CAN PREVENT IT FROM GOING ANY FURTHER!

(facepalm)

I mean really, no wonder why a bunch of people find this debate to be so mindblowingly stupid.  What did people think happened to industrial gasses?  That said gasses were converted into Angel Farts?  Seriously!?  Industrialized areas are known to have higher rates of cancer and lung problems....yet people are shocked that industrialization could possibly lead to Climate Change?  The Earth is changing, yes it's our fault, AND NOW WE ARE NOW HOISTED BY OUR OWN PETARD!  THE PETARD OF INDUSTRIALIZATION!

So yes, the alarmists are indeed right.. . .  . .until they have the audacity, the nerve to say that we can be saved.  That we can actually stop this process.

We are beyond salvation right now.  We would need f***ing Star Trek technology to reverse the trend.  Sure, you could argue BUT BUT GREEN ENERGY!  BUHBUHBUT GREEN TAXES!  Yes, and wearing a WIN button will stop runaway inflation.  Such policies are at best "feel good" and don't do what needs to be done: reversal.  We don't need to stop the trend, WE NEED TO F***ING REVERSE IT.  And with the level of tech we are at I would love somebody to enlighten me as to HOW with technology where it's at how we ever hope to stop the Climate Change process.

If there is ever a case to be made for Futility, this is it.

But you know, maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe there is some data I'm overlooking that suggests that climate scales and graphs are wrong and that there was significantly more climate instability in 980 AD than now.  Or maybe there is some tech out there that, if given the funding, would somehow reverse the current trends and there will be a snowy winter in 2032 IF WE ACT NOW.
If so, then please, enlighten me.  Because so far I don't know why people waste the same amount of time on this issue as they would on more meaningful issues, like the amount of latent homosexuality in Top Gun.

[politicus]

I have to say that the way both sides present the debate on Climate Change seems to be quite fallacious.  I mean, from my view there are two sides here that engage in a level of naivete that is reserved for people who think Professional Wrestling is real:

Side One: THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE!  AND IT IS DEFINITELY NOT MAN MADE! (foams at mouth)
Variation: Yes there is Climate Change, but it is definitely not at all manmade.  It's soooo natural man!

And then there is the other side of the debate, mostly agreed on by "feelgooders" and socially conscious PC liberals:

Side 2: Climate change is real, it is caused by humans, BUT WE CAN PREVENT IT FROM GOING ANY FURTHER!
(facepalm)

I mean really, no wonder why a bunch of people find this debate to be so mindblowingly stupid.  What did people think happened to industrial gasses?  That said gasses were converted into Angel Farts?  Seriously!?  Industrialized areas are known to have higher rates of cancer and lung problems....yet people are shocked that industrialization could possibly lead to Climate Change?  The Earth is changing, yes it's our fault, AND NOW WE ARE NOW HOISTED BY OUR OWN PETARD!  THE PETARD OF INDUSTRIALIZATION!

So yes, the alarmists are indeed right.. . .  . .until they have the audacity, the nerve to say that we can be saved.  That we can actually stop this process.

Well, it matters a lot just how bad cimate change becomes, so it still makes sense to try to prevent it from escalating any further.

We are beyond salvation right now.  We would need f***ing Star Trek technology to reverse the trend.  Sure, you could argue BUT BUT GREEN ENERGY!  BUHBUHBUT GREEN TAXES!  Yes, and wearing a WIN button will stop runaway inflation.  Such policies are at best "feel good" and don't do what needs to be done: reversal.  We don't need to stop the trend, WE NEED TO F***ING REVERSE IT.  And with the level of tech we are at I would love somebody to enlighten me as to HOW with technology where it's at how we ever hope to stop the Climate Change process.

If there is ever a case to be made for Futility, this is it.

But you know, maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe there is some data I'm overlooking that suggests that climate scales and graphs are wrong and that there was significantly more climate instability in 980 AD than now.  Or maybe there is some tech out there that, if given the funding, would somehow reverse the current trends and there will be a snowy winter in 2032 IF WE ACT NOW.
If so, then please, enlighten me.  Because so far I don't know why people waste the same amount of time on this issue as they would on more meaningful issues, like the amount of latent homosexuality in Top Gun.

[Californian Tony]

In other words, we are all screwed.

Honestly, you are almost certainly right. It's hard to find data that would prove you wrong. However, I think I live better thinking there is a hope spot, which humanity needs to desperately search for. So I'll keep thinking that way.

Note : the reflection above actually applies to the view I have on many other issues, notably the European economy.

[Speaker Dereich]

Really the main issue that I find with climate change is that it isn't an "imminent" crisis. Every year I hear one severe weather pattern or another blamed on climate change, as if there was a huge change over the course of the past year or even decade. From what I can tell, the best estimate of its effects is still 1.8-4.0°C over the next 100 years. Even if temperatures did rise by 4 degrees, it wouldn't be world ending; the problems it would cause (lower crop yields in Africa, less water availability, extinctions of plant/animal species) are problems we're already dealing with today. I have little doubt that by the time climate change could cause real, painful damage we'll have either found ways to greatly mitigate the problems or mitigate the rising temperatures themselves.

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

I feel enlightened. Jussayin.

[hawkeye59]

This is why we need to do a complete world phase out of fossil fuels, and be 100% renewable by 2040. It can be done. It's affordable, there's more than enough energy to do it, and plus, we have a cleaner world. We can even do it without nuclear OR biomass. Wind, water, solar, and geothermal would be enough. Also, wind water solar and geothermal energy is spread out throughout the world, so there isn't the problem of it all being in one place. The problem is that the Republicans seem to be in denial about science because of the whole fact that it will hurt their precious oil and coal industries.

[Rhodie]

This is why we need to do a complete world phase out of fossil fuels, and be 100% renewable by 2040. It can be done. It's affordable, there's more than enough energy to do it, and plus, we have a cleaner world. We can even do it without nuclear OR biomass. Wind, water, solar, and geothermal would be enough. Also, wind water solar and geothermal energy is spread out throughout the world, so there isn't the problem of it all being in one place. The problem is that the Republicans seem to be in denial about science because of the whole fact that it will hurt their precious oil and coal industries.

And destroy millions of livelihoods, and wreck the economy.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

This is why we need to do a complete world phase out of fossil fuels, and be 100% renewable by 2040. It can be done. It's affordable, there's more than enough energy to do it, and plus, we have a cleaner world. We can even do it without nuclear OR biomass. Wind, water, solar, and geothermal would be enough. Also, wind water solar and geothermal energy is spread out throughout the world, so there isn't the problem of it all being in one place. The problem is that the Republicans seem to be in denial about science because of the whole fact that it will hurt their precious oil and coal industries.

And destroy millions of livelihoods, and wreck the economy.

You mean like Thatcherism?

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

This is why we need to do a complete world phase out of fossil fuels, and be 100% renewable by 2040. It can be done. It's affordable, there's more than enough energy to do it, and plus, we have a cleaner world. We can even do it without nuclear OR biomass. Wind, water, solar, and geothermal would be enough. Also, wind water solar and geothermal energy is spread out throughout the world, so there isn't the problem of it all being in one place. The problem is that the Republicans seem to be in denial about science because of the whole fact that it will hurt their precious oil and coal industries.

And destroy millions of livelihoods, and wreck the economy.

     Millions? Probably billions. Supplying even a fraction of the world's energy needs through renewable resources would be ludicrously expensive.

[Progressive Realist]

This is why we need to do a complete world phase out of fossil fuels, and be 100% renewable by 2040. It can be done. It's affordable, there's more than enough energy to do it, and plus, we have a cleaner world. We can even do it without nuclear OR biomass. Wind, water, solar, and geothermal would be enough. Also, wind water solar and geothermal energy is spread out throughout the world, so there isn't the problem of it all being in one place. The problem is that the Republicans seem to be in denial about science because of the whole fact that it will hurt their precious oil and coal industries.

And destroy millions of livelihoods, and wreck the economy.

Since when did right-wingers care about the economy or about people's livelihoods?

[asexual trans victimologist]

This is why we need to do a complete world phase out of fossil fuels, and be 100% renewable by 2040. It can be done. It's affordable, there's more than enough energy to do it, and plus, we have a cleaner world. We can even do it without nuclear OR biomass. Wind, water, solar, and geothermal would be enough. Also, wind water solar and geothermal energy is spread out throughout the world, so there isn't the problem of it all being in one place. The problem is that the Republicans seem to be in denial about science because of the whole fact that it will hurt their precious oil and coal industries.

And destroy millions of livelihoods, and wreck the economy.

The economy is of a considerably more ephemeral nature than the planet that sustains it. I doubt there's any option that wouldn't destroy millions of livelihoods and wreck the economy. It's just a question of what else gets wrecked.

[Communists For McCain]

This is why we need to do a complete world phase out of fossil fuels, and be 100% renewable by 2040. It can be done. It's affordable, there's more than enough energy to do it, and plus, we have a cleaner world. We can even do it without nuclear OR biomass. Wind, water, solar, and geothermal would be enough. Also, wind water solar and geothermal energy is spread out throughout the world, so there isn't the problem of it all being in one place. The problem is that the Republicans seem to be in denial about science because of the whole fact that it will hurt their precious oil and coal industries.

^^^^^
Proving my point.

[Rhodie]

This is why we need to do a complete world phase out of fossil fuels, and be 100% renewable by 2040. It can be done. It's affordable, there's more than enough energy to do it, and plus, we have a cleaner world. We can even do it without nuclear OR biomass. Wind, water, solar, and geothermal would be enough. Also, wind water solar and geothermal energy is spread out throughout the world, so there isn't the problem of it all being in one place. The problem is that the Republicans seem to be in denial about science because of the whole fact that it will hurt their precious oil and coal industries.

And destroy millions of livelihoods, and wreck the economy.

Since when did right-wingers care about the economy or about people's livelihoods?

I think you'll find the right has done more to help ordinary people than the left. I will substantiate when asked.

[Redalgo]

Actually, in fairness to Rhodie, most of the people I know in local charitable organizations who are willing to discuss politics are conservative Republicans. People generally care about the economy and the livelihoods of others, and to what extent isn't a partisan divide, I reckon. They sometimes simply have different ways of going about expressing these sentiments.

[True Federalist]

This is why we need to do a complete world phase out of fossil fuels, and be 100% renewable by 2040. It can be done. It's affordable, there's more than enough energy to do it, and plus, we have a cleaner world. We can even do it without nuclear OR biomass. Wind, water, solar, and geothermal would be enough. Also, wind water solar and geothermal energy is spread out throughout the world, so there isn't the problem of it all being in one place.

Care to provide a cite for your utopian fantasy? 

[Yelnoc]

An interesting side note, if it weren't for man-made global warming, the Earth would actually be on course for another glacial period.  I've read a number of places that cold periods during the collapse of the western roman empire and the Little Ice Age in the middle of the last century were "_ events" (forgot the name) and should have precipitated and even harsher cooling, akin to the Younger Dryas event 10,000 years ago.  If man-made climate change can be slowed to a certain point, perhaps the Earth's climate can be held in equilibrium (assuming, of course, that we are on the cusp of another dramatic cooling event)?

[Hatman]

Things could be reversed, but the political will is not there. And such drastic changes in people's lifestyles would be needed. Big $$$ will do all it can to prevent any serious change, so yeah... we are all screwed. When the deluge happens, I will at least I will feel better going to conservative and telling them "I told you so".  sigh...

Of course, I am comforted by the fact that Canada will come out as one of the least scathed countries. Wont stop things from going to s**t though.

[opebo]

I think you'll find the right has done more to help ordinary people than the left. I will substantiate when asked.

No need to ask, we know the hooey. 

[The Mikado]

Eh.  We might get a big volcanic eruption that causes enough global dimming that the heating trend stops/reverses.  Krakatoa, I hope you're warming up! 

[realisticidealist]

I think the fatalism in this thread belies how much small (or not so small), unexpected things upset the myth of perpetual trends.

[hawkeye59]

This is why we need to do a complete world phase out of fossil fuels, and be 100% renewable by 2040. It can be done. It's affordable, there's more than enough energy to do it, and plus, we have a cleaner world. We can even do it without nuclear OR biomass. Wind, water, solar, and geothermal would be enough. Also, wind water solar and geothermal energy is spread out throughout the world, so there isn't the problem of it all being in one place.

Care to provide a cite for your utopian fantasy? 

Yes, in fact.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/100-renewable-energy-by-2050-is-possible-heres-how-we-can-do-it.html

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

This is why we need to do a complete world phase out of fossil fuels, and be 100% renewable by 2040. It can be done. It's affordable, there's more than enough energy to do it, and plus, we have a cleaner world. We can even do it without nuclear OR biomass. Wind, water, solar, and geothermal would be enough. Also, wind water solar and geothermal energy is spread out throughout the world, so there isn't the problem of it all being in one place.

Care to provide a cite for your utopian fantasy? 

Yes, in fact.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/100-renewable-energy-by-2050-is-possible-heres-how-we-can-do-it.html

     Too bad they don't actually talk about the costs of installation in their estimate. I estimated that installing enough solar panels to supply the world's power usage in solar energy would cost about $200 trillion. Well, better hope the other sources are cheaper.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The only viable solution to this crisis is one that's market-driven... and that's not a very realistic solution. Still, any other solution just will not happen.

The government knows it can't realistically mandate the type of change that is necessary, because such a quick, mandated change would screw everyone over. So this type of solution just won't happen.

Sustainable energy and environmentally friendly products have to become popular and cheap. Interestingly, each of those characteristics will help with the other (if it becomes more popular, it will become more cheap; if it becomes cheaper, it will become more popular). The thing is, companies have to make this change voluntarily, which will only happen if making the change will pay off. It's not like companies are deliberately ignoring global warming. The market for environmentally-friendly products will improve when fossil fuels become more scarce.

[Rhodie]

This is why we need to do a complete world phase out of fossil fuels, and be 100% renewable by 2040. It can be done. It's affordable, there's more than enough energy to do it, and plus, we have a cleaner world. We can even do it without nuclear OR biomass. Wind, water, solar, and geothermal would be enough. Also, wind water solar and geothermal energy is spread out throughout the world, so there isn't the problem of it all being in one place.

Care to provide a cite for your utopian fantasy? 

Yes, in fact.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/100-renewable-energy-by-2050-is-possible-heres-how-we-can-do-it.html

A website known as treehugger is a non-biased, reliable website?

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

This is why we need to do a complete world phase out of fossil fuels, and be 100% renewable by 2040. It can be done. It's affordable, there's more than enough energy to do it, and plus, we have a cleaner world. We can even do it without nuclear OR biomass. Wind, water, solar, and geothermal would be enough. Also, wind water solar and geothermal energy is spread out throughout the world, so there isn't the problem of it all being in one place.

Care to provide a cite for your utopian fantasy? 

Yes, in fact.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/100-renewable-energy-by-2050-is-possible-heres-how-we-can-do-it.html

A website known as treehugger is a non-biased, reliable website?

Scientific American isn't a website?