Realistically speaking what reductions in global CO2 do you believe we can and/or will see & what difference do you think it will make?


#1

There are many who believe that if we don’t take drastic measures to address “climate change” (which lets admit is a tautology) that the world will face serious consequences. Assuming those on that side are correct what reductions in global CO2 do you really believe will see, especially with more countries looking to industrialize their economies and with continued population growth? Also what differences in the climate do you believe we will see if only modest reductions are the result?

PS - One of the questions to address what aspect of human activity is/are the biggest emitters of CO2?


#2

Not to argue with your point and I am sorry if it seems like I am making assumptions about your position, I am just amused by the evolution in the climate change debate.

First it was not happening. Then it was happening but not man made. Now it is happening but we can’t do anything about it.

Progress I guess.


#3

To be honest I have always been center left on this issue. I try to fervently recycle everything, own a Prius, and am energy conscious, etc. Personally I look at this from a science perspective since that is my training (albeit not climate science), and am skeptical on aspects of what some say claim regarding this issue. I was actually never in the “not happening camp”, or “not man made” at all.


#4

It changes almost as fast as the alarmist names for what’s happening.

First it was global cooling. Then it was anthropogenic global warming (because it didnt look like it was cooling). Then it was anthropogenic climate change (because it didn’t look like it was warming). Now it’s… "well it would be good for the environment (because it doesn’t look different than thousands of years of history).

I expect it will eventually go back to global cooling with some kind of progressive “warm is really cool” logic.


#5

The thing is by calling it “climate change” it now is the case that every negative or destructive weather pattern or phenomenon is the result of excess CO2. Is that a scientific fact or just a means of fear mongering to push an agenda?


#6

If the earth was so sensitive to CO2, it would have self destructed already.
It’s a ridiculous notion backed by no research. All research in p p p p p peer reviewed journals that the non technical liberals always cite begins with an assumption that it’s all the CO2 and then they go on from there and interpret any data through a lens that assumes the CO2 is the culprit. They think Bill Nye the science guy was a freakin genius.


#11

At the pace that the idiots who know our climate better than climate scientists are coming around, we’ll begin working harder on a solution sometime around 2030–after they are dead.


#12

You mean like Al Gore saying in 2009 that in 5 years could be gone in 5 years.

How’d that “global warming” prediction work out?

Video of Gore saying that in 2009 in Denmark

Even Forbes was making fun of the predictions in 2013

These hallucinations are strikingly similar to when we erroneously believe alarmists warned us about less snowfall, more hurricanes, shrinking Antarctic sea ice, the Gulf Stream shutting down, etc. When the earth’s climate reacts exactly in the opposite manner as predicted by global warming alarmists, they pretend they never made such scary predictions in the first place.

2013 Forbs was saying the climate was doing the OPPOSITE of what global warming alarmists were saying was going to happen.


#13

Apparently, it needs to be repeated.

At the pace that the idiots who know our climate better than climate scientists are coming around, we’ll begin working harder on a solution sometime around 2030–after they are dead.


#15

According to those hillbillies at NASA the ice has been thinning and disappearing at a pretty good clip. But I guess if it wasn’t gone in 5 years then it’s all just a bunch of ■■■■■■■■■ eh?


#18

Not sure that anyone is refuting that. Most of the nonsense relates to CO2…


#21

Yes, if Al Gore’s prediction doesn’t come true in the exact year that it could happen, then the deniers . . . win?

Most of them are too emotional to craft a logical thought on the topic anymore, but they’re deniers, so what do you expect.


#23

Dunning-Kruger, meet every global warming thread full of deniers on the Internet.

Deniers, meet Dunning-Kruger.

The deniers will continue denying after the meeting, but at least Dunning and Kruger will have more data.


#24

That’s not how I phrased the OP. What I am wondering about is actual predictive models regarding solutions proposed, while taking into consideration any and all variables, in particularly population growth?


#25

Do you know if there are any climatologists that have formulated and developed predictive models on how I raised the question in the OP?

“that if we don’t take drastic measures to address climate change that the world will face serious consequences. Assuming those on that side are correct what reductions in global CO2 do you really believe will see, especially with more countries looking to industrialize their economies and with continued population growth? Also what differences in the climate do you believe we will see if only modest reductions are the result?”

PS - One of the questions to address what aspect of human activity is/are the biggest emitters of CO2?

The fact is that even Democrats are talking about doing things like infrastructure spending. Last time I checked infrastructure work is one of the things that got us in this mess in the first place, correct? Also there are a number of aspects of modern life that cannot be solved by solar panels; aircraft, ships, construction vehicles, etc.


#26

No, there are many who ‘believe’ that CO2 and human activities are not driving climate change which will have very negative effects for the while being of our offspring, both financially (which is given inordinate weight) and more importantly, physically. These type think that ‘belief’ is what matters versus actual science.


#27

Seems to me the OP is basing the question on the ASSUMPTION it’s true. For the sake of argument, what difference can we actually make?

Likewise, what human activity is the largest contributor. (In my opinion, the answer to that last question is deforestation.)


#28

If liberals just stopped using fossil fuels there would be no problem.

Also, immigrants increase our carbon foot print. We should have a zero population growth policy to combat climate change…


#29

I’m no scientist, and I doubt any of you are either. Leave it to the professionals, ok?


#30

Animal husbandry.