Are all Climate crisis deniers conspiracy theorists?

[Jeeves]

Sometimes equal opportunity with unequal outcomes works best.

What's that opinion got to do with denying climate change? And where has it ever been tried?

Everyone being poor isn't a great outcome even though it's equal.

Everyone, or nearly everyone, being dead isn't, either.
We no longer have the luxury of contemplating any great or good or fair outcomes: we're looking at bad, worse or catastrophic.

 

[Quantum Quack]

We no longer have the luxury of contemplating any great or good or fair outcomes: we're looking at bad, worse or catastrophic.

Unfortunately the immense gravity of the situation we face is chronically being underestimated by the vast majority. Just another form of denial I guess.

 

[billvon]

Sometimes equal opportunity with unequal outcomes works best. Everyone being poor isn't a great outcome even though it's equal.

Everyone being poor as poor is defined in, say, Los Angeles, would be a huge improvement for 95% of the planet. That would be a good outcome. An even better outcome would be to raise that level of poor - even if that meant that the definition of "poor" changed.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Everyone being poor as poor is defined in, say, Los Angeles, would be a huge improvement for 95% of the planet. That would be a good outcome. An even better outcome would be to raise that level of poor - even if that meant that the definition of "poor" changed.

Lol
I don't consider my self as poor, I am merely a stoic, ascetic minimalist.... ( attitude is everything)

 

[Quantum Quack]

Btw a general question.
Could Green house gases be responsible in some way for the extremely poor air quality in Delhi being currently reported?
Like some sort of exagerated inversion layer effect.

 

[Jeeves]

Btw a general question.
Could Green house gases be responsible in some way for the extremely poor air quality in Delhi being currently reported?
Like some sort of exagerated inversion layer effect.

Maybe. Doesn't matter. All industrial pollution contributes to climate change, whether it's reciprocal or not. Exporting it to poor countries hides the effects from the immediate beneficiaries - for a little while.

 

[Jeeves]

Everyone being poor as poor is defined in, say, Los Angeles, would be a huge improvement for 95% of the planet.

You know it's burning, right? Withholding federal funds won't teach them to rake the forest better.

 

[Schmelzer]

Perhaps just give every one a single solar panel and battery and say "That's it". You get no more... and see how long it takes for consumerism to become minimal. ( how quickly people start getting 10 hours sleep a night lol)
The point that comes to mind is that consumerism is directly tied to energy availability. Especially electricity. If we continue to build nuclear facilities then consumerism will remain excessive... ( that sort of idea)
A little bit of deprivation can go a long way to solving the problem...by teaching self restraint and discipline.

All this has been already tried many times, by Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others.

But so what? Let's try it yet another time, maybe this time people will learn to like deprivation.

 

[Quantum Quack]

All this has been already tried many times, by Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others.

But so what? Let's try it yet another time, maybe this time people will learn to like deprivation.

And Buddhism succeeds?
Imagines Schmelzer and Seattle getting around in orange robes with all their hair shaved off... lol

 

[Seattle]

And Buddhism succeeds?
Imagines Schmelzer and Seattle getting around in orange robes with all their hair shaved off... lol

Imagine QQ,Ice, Rainbow and Jeaves sitting around in their Worker's Paradise.

 

[Schmelzer]

And Buddhism succeeds?

Not really. This is because they behave in a civilized way, instead of forcing all people to follow their prescriptions like what you prefer.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Not really. This is because they behave in a civilized way, instead of forcing all people to follow their prescriptions like what you prefer.

Eh?

 

[Seattle]

Eh?

You went all Jimmy Carter on us with your ascetic lifestyle prescription.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You went all Jimmy Carter on us with your ascetic lifestyle prescription.

hmm...
Is Jimmy Cater another one of your talk show hosts?

instead of forcing all people to follow their prescriptions like what you prefer.

oh no.. It wont be me forcing anything.... the climate will do all the talking not me...
if the climate change trends continue you will simply have no choice. None!
Why you think I am forcing people is really a strange thing to even suggest...

 

[Jeeves]

Imagine QQ,Ice, Rainbow and Jeaves sitting around in their Worker's Paradise.

Can't you guys step outside your party line for two minutes, see the real world and think about what's actually happening?
I may not have any good words, but at least they don't all come from a bumper sticker.

 

[iceaura]

Sometimes equal opportunity with unequal outcomes works best.

Of course. Almost all times, actually - the best level of inequality is not zero.
Just keep the inequality from building to damage levels, and keep the opportunity equal Govern well, in other words. Don't let things deteriorate as they have in the US.

We no longer have the luxury of waiting.

Tell it to the people who have shorted the money and delayed the response.
We don't have enough money to waste any of it on expensive nukes, any more than we have enough time to bring them on line.

Absolutely not. No way, no how. Solar thermal isn't even economical for electrical production, much less the much more difficult/expensive solar thermal dissociation process.

It's cheaper than nuclear power - even before the risk premiums, and even before any comparable investment in development.
And quicker to set up.

There's no reason why we can't do nuclear and renewables.

Expense. Inefficiency. Risk. Centralization. Lead time.
But sure, we could do both - with good government. Until then, we should use the limited response resources available as efficiently as possible - which means nothing for nukes, essentially. We are already seriously over-invested in them.

Understandably, there's also quite a lot of fear, but that tends to be a result of past nuclear accidents that were caused by poor management and/or planning.

And the coverups, lying, etc.
The next ones will also be caused by poor management and/or planning - beginning with the building of nukes when and where and how they should not be built. It's an unforgiving technology.

Imagine QQ,Ice, Rainbow and Jeaves sitting around in their Worker's Paradise

I'm going with stupid, rather than dishonest, with this guy.
But he has powerful representation in the US government - the obstacles to AGW response are not, primarily, economic. They are political.

 

[Seattle]

Of course. Almost all times, actually - the best level of inequality is not zero.
Just keep the inequality from building to damage levels, and keep the opportunity equal Govern well, in other words. Don't let things deteriorate as they have in the US.

Tell it to the people who have shorted the money and delayed the response.
We don't have enough money to waste any of it on expensive nukes, any more than we have enough time to bring them on line.

It's cheaper than nuclear power - even before the risk premiums, and even before any comparable investment in development.
And quicker to set up.

Expense. Inefficiency. Risk. Centralization. Lead time.
But sure, we could do both - with good government. Until then, we should use the limited response resources available as efficiently as possible - which means nothing for nukes, essentially. We are already seriously over-invested in them.

And the coverups, lying, etc.
The next ones will also be caused by poor management and/or planning - beginning with the building of nukes when and where and how they should not be built. It's an unforgiving technology.

I'm going with stupid, rather than dishonest, with this guy.
But he has powerful representation in the US government - the obstacles to AGW response are not, primarily, economic. They are political.

The obstacles to AGW are political, you are correct finally.

 

[Jeeves]

the obstacles to AGW response are not, primarily, economic. They are political.

Okay, but what drives the politics?

 

[billvon]

Tell it to the people who have shorted the money and delayed the response.
We don't have enough money to waste any of it on expensive nukes, any more than we have enough time to bring them on line.

You sound like every right winger I've ever heard who claims that renewables are too expensive, and are a form of rich people's welfare.

The cheapest thing in the short term - and the most expensive in the long term - is to continue to do nothing, citing expense and difficulty.

 

[billvon]

You know it's burning, right?

?? So is the Amazon, London and Nashville. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Withholding federal funds won't teach them to rake the forest better.

Are you answering a different post, perhaps?