ROB wrote:Tarkan wrote:Anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.
The staggering arrogance of thinking you can state that when study after study demonstrates a consensus among actual experts is staggering.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/But sure, tell me you know more about it than fucking NASA.
Ooh, NASA. Strange appeal to authority.
Back in the Cold War, the CIA used to produce a publication called "Soviet Military Power" and would send them to Congress and various media outlets. It was all very dark with analysis and predictions. The Soviets had a lot more men than us, their nuclear missiles, aircraft, tanks, and artillery were better than ours, and their new ones coming out were even better. The intent, of course, was to drum up more funding. For the military and the CIA. Because if they had written the truth - that the bulk of Soviet equipment was trash, their training was trash, their logistics were trash, well, the truth would not have generated a $400 billion a year defense budget (in 1988 dollars, back when that was real money).
Bad news and prediction of bad news is the government rain maker when it comes to funding. No crisis, nothing to see here does not generate money.
Coal, gas, and oil account for 81% of global energy consumption. Urea fertilizers are downstream from natural gas production.
Since 1900, countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have increased their food production by around 5x, largely by leveraging industrial inputs and mechanization into agriculture. In the same time, the population of Asia went from 900 million to 3.5 billion, Africa from 140 million to 820 million, and Latin America from 66 million to 525 million. Take away those industrial inputs - largely made possible by fossil fuels, and those populations will go right back to their pre-industrial historical norms. So, just to get things on the record, you want to condemn ~4 billion people or so to famine and death so you don't have periodic flooding?
Ok, on to NASA. Remember James Hansen? He, along with that esteemed NASA scientist Al Gore sort of got the whole global warming scare kicked off. Back in late 80s, he created 3 models (and presented the models to Congress in 1998), the accelerated model, the constant model, and what was in effect the global starvation model with drastic CO2 cuts. In the accelerated model, he predicted a 3.1 C temperature increase over a century. I'll cut straight to the spoiler: our global CO2 production matched the accelerated model. Guess what didn't match? The temperature increase. Observations from ground stations (with heat island effects) showed a 1.6 degree increase (at a 100 year scale, actual increase over the 25 year span is much less), and satellite sensing showed Hansen over-predicted temperature increase by 300%.
As an aside, also remember that the experts at NASA, with decades of experience of building rockets, have been beaten by Elon Musk, who has somehow managed to largely self-fund a rocket company that is (depending on how you measure) 10-30x cheaper than NASA at delivering payloads to orbit while also having a higher op tempo and higher reliability. But I digress. Maybe their climate science is tip-top, yah? Shame about those 4 billion people that need to die though. At least you can pat yourself on the back though for saving the world. But on to that subject. What have you done to reduce your personal CO2 consumption? Are you only eating food picked by hand from your personal garden? Refusing to buy foods trucked in to your metro area? Flown in from overseas? Did you, pre-covid, peddle your bicycle or walk to work? Have you adopted eco and global warming friendly CFL lightbulbs? Do you use a 400 watt power supply in your computer instead of an 850-watt power supply? I mean, it's all well and good trying to get governments to tyrannically impose carbon limits on other people in other places, but what personal sacrifices have you made to lead by example Rob?
How much of your convenience and luxury (and food is such a luxury) are YOU betting on James Hansen's models (which didn't even incorporate the Atlantic Conveyer Belt for a couple of decades, but weird, it didn't seem to affect his wrong predictions one iota!)?
I mean, they've been wrong for decades but maybe they are right. Finally. I mean, 97% of scientists can't possibly be wrong can they (especially when you prevent AGW-skeptic science from getting published and it takes retired fucking geologists to debunk your junk statistical models). Nothing like a little flooding in an climatologically suspect area like Austria to really bring things home and speak truth to power. Better turn off the lights, now. Just in case. Forever. Then, when that's done, you and your ideological compatriots can go back to witch burning to beat back the dying light.
I'd whore myself out just one more time if I knew who to screw to get out of this grind.