(August 22, 2019 at 11:28 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Since BryanS is now throwing at me a different argument from what I was contesting, let me remind everyone here what exactly I'm taking issue with:

Exactly what are you contesting? Whether the world will end in ten years? I call that alarmism, not science.

---

Biden has his plan, totaling 1.7 trillion in government outlays over 10 years with the balance of $5 trillion coming from investment. That seems more like a right sized plan than the ridiculous sky is falling crap that comes from socialists like Bernie and AOC.

You'll see that Biden has no problem relying on nuclear power, rather than some extreme $16 trillion dollar fantasy that Bernie proposes.
https://joebiden.com/Climate/

(August 22, 2019 at 11:35 pm)BryanS Wrote:

---

Biden has his plan, totaling 1.7 trillion in government outlays over 10 years with the balance of $5 trillion coming from investment. That seems more like a right sized plan than the ridiculous sky is falling crap that comes from socialists like Bernie and AOC.

You'll see that Biden has no problem relying on nuclear power, rather than some extreme $16 trillion dollar fantasy that Bernie proposes.
https://joebiden.com/Climate/

Ahh yes, just what we need in the white house.  Another geriatric white man who bows to the corporations.

You'll find that nobody is saying the world is going to end in ten years.  NOBODY.   This is 100% made up.  What you'll find is that we have ten years to REVERSE THE DAMAGE BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.  That doesn't mean the world will end in ten years, it means that time is of the fucking essence.  But maybe you're too fucking stupid to understand that.

Bryan, contrast your opinion, despite admitting you're not a climate scientist, with what climate scientists say. It's an urgent problem and you shouldn't be saying we're not heading towards a catastrophe.

It will take more than one specific solution to address the issues arising from climate change.

(August 22, 2019 at 11:55 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Bryan, contrast your opinion, despite admitting you're not a climate scientist, with what climate scientists say. It's an urgent problem and you shouldn't be saying we're not heading towards a catastrophe.

It will take more than one specific solution to address the issues arising from climate change.

Look at page 9 of the most recent summary of the IPCC report (page 11 shows the full range of temperature change projections based on scenarios on pg 9)
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/...AL_SPM.pdf

The 1.5 degree target the IPCC has proposed for a goal to limit warming to is the scenario with the most aggressive reductions to zero carbon emissions. There is a reason Biden's plan calls for reducing emissions to zero by 2050 and not in ten years. There is no reason to cut to zero in ten years as Bernie advocates. 

Yes, it will take more than one specific thing. But for ideological reasons, Sanders is advocating zero emissions faster than the IPCC recommends at far greater cost while tying our hands on options that could provide real results. His plan is impractical and unworkable. 

There are costs to climate change, but there are also costs to radically overhauling the economy. It would be fair to say more should have been done before now. But I don't think a problem that is solvable over a multi-decade time frame is a catastrophe. I think the electrical distribution could be made emissions free in close to ten year's time simply through modest subsidies for nuclear and renewable energies. Biden's approach there is practical, doable, and affordable. Transportation will take a bit more time--fuel standards could be implemented for new vehicles to phase in hybrid-like fuel economy over a few years, and electrical over a somewhat longer time. There is no need to discard every vehicle on the road and replace it with an electrical one as Bernie's plan calls for.

---

(August 22, 2019 at 11:51 pm)Divinity Wrote:

(August 22, 2019 at 11:35 pm)BryanS Wrote:

---

Biden has his plan, totaling 1.7 trillion in government outlays over 10 years with the balance of $5 trillion coming from investment. That seems more like a right sized plan than the ridiculous sky is falling crap that comes from socialists like Bernie and AOC.

You'll see that Biden has no problem relying on nuclear power, rather than some extreme $16 trillion dollar fantasy that Bernie proposes.
https://joebiden.com/Climate/

Ahh yes, just what we need in the white house.  Another geriatric white man who bows to the corporations.

You'll find that nobody is saying the world is going to end in ten years.  NOBODY.   This is 100% made up.  What you'll find is that we have ten years to REVERSE THE DAMAGE BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.  That doesn't mean the world will end in ten years, it means that time is of the fucking essence.  But maybe you're too fucking stupid to understand that.

"Before it's too late"...what exactly do you mean by that? The IPCC says we have to start making significant changes in order to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. It's already too late to stop warming to that level, and yet the world does not end.  What if we take 20 years instead of 10? So we have a little more warming, perhaps a few more associated costs with climate change. You're own imploring that something has to be done "before it's too late" betrays your position that there will be impending doom if we fail to do as you say. 

Maybe you're just to fucking stuck on your point of view to see what you are doing. Thank you, and have a nice night. (and if you prefer not to exchange insults, I can debate without them, but you are the one who started out being a jerky ass-hat).

(August 23, 2019 at 12:31 am)BryanS Wrote: "Before it's too late"...what exactly do you mean by that? The IPCC says we have to start making significant changes in order to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. It's already too late to stop warming to that level, and yet the world does not end.  What if we take 20 years instead of 10? So we have a little more warming, perhaps a few more associated costs with climate change. You're own imploring that something has to be done "before it's too late" betrays your position that there will be impending doom if we fail to do as you say. 

Maybe you're just to fucking stuck on your point of view to see what you are doing. Thank you, and have a nice night. (and if you prefer not to exchange insults, I can debate without them, but you are the one who started out being a jerky ass-hat).

So you're basically just a climate change denier?  Good to know you're not worth debating.

(August 23, 2019 at 1:12 am)Divinity Wrote:

(August 23, 2019 at 12:31 am)BryanS Wrote: "Before it's too late"...what exactly do you mean by that? The IPCC says we have to start making significant changes in order to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. It's already too late to stop warming to that level, and yet the world does not end.  What if we take 20 years instead of 10? So we have a little more warming, perhaps a few more associated costs with climate change. You're own imploring that something has to be done "before it's too late" betrays your position that there will be impending doom if we fail to do as you say. 

Maybe you're just to fucking stuck on your point of view to see what you are doing. Thank you, and have a nice night. (and if you prefer not to exchange insults, I can debate without them, but you are the one who started out being a jerky ass-hat).

So you're basically just a climate change denier?  Good to know you're not worth debating.

Nope. You just resort to name calling whenever you find someone you disagree with--I don't deny climate change. So this much we agree on, it is unlikely we could debate anything productively.

(August 23, 2019 at 1:12 am)Divinity Wrote:

(August 23, 2019 at 12:31 am)BryanS Wrote: "Before it's too late"...what exactly do you mean by that? The IPCC says we have to start making significant changes in order to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. It's already too late to stop warming to that level, and yet the world does not end.  What if we take 20 years instead of 10? So we have a little more warming, perhaps a few more associated costs with climate change. You're own imploring that something has to be done "before it's too late" betrays your position that there will be impending doom if we fail to do as you say. 

Maybe you're just to fucking stuck on your point of view to see what you are doing. Thank you, and have a nice night. (and if you prefer not to exchange insults, I can debate without them, but you are the one who started out being a jerky ass-hat).

So you're basically just a climate change denier?  Good to know you're not worth debating.

It's the latest variant of climate change denialism, lol. Agree that it's real but still argue it's not urgent, and pretend that IPCC supports what they're saying.

------

Net zero emissions should be done before 2050 not by 2050. 2050 is the upper limit after which it's going to be even more difficult to fix the issue. The earlier this is seriously addressed, the less difficult it gets. We can't afford to wait 10 or 20 more years before we start thinking about how to really reduce emissions ...

Bernie's plan is the right direction. It may not be perfect but either way we have to get radical about this starting now, not 10 years later ...

Bernie's " plan" is a bad science fiction movie.


You might as well pray for a solution.

It totally ignores the realities of power consumption and power generation.

Let's make it real simple for you to understand.


Hoover dam - generates roughly 4 billion kilowatt hours a year.

US power consumption is roughly 4 TRILLION kilowatt hours a year.

See the problem?

Just wait till everybody has an electric car!


Sure George Jetson - that's going to happen.


Edit to add

4 trillion kilowatt solar = 17,500 sq miles of panels at $150,000,000 per square mile.

You writing the check?

(August 23, 2019 at 2:41 am)onlinebiker Wrote: Bernie's " plan" is a bad science fiction movie.


You might as well pray for a solution.

It totally ignores the realities of power consumption and power generation.

Let's make it real simple for you to understand.


Hoover dam - generates roughly 4 billion kilowatt hours a year.

US power consumption is roughly 4 TRILLION kilowatt hours a year.

See the problem?

Just wait till everybody has an electric car!


Sure George Jetson - that's going to happen.


Edit to add

4 trillion kilowatt solar = 17,500 sq miles of panels at $150,000,000 per square mile.

You writing the check?

It's a good push for serious action at least. No matter what option you go for, there's costs involved. But we can't afford to keep waiting. It this inaction that's behind why there is already environmental damage that is irreversible. We can't keep doing this forever.

(August 23, 2019 at 3:15 am)Grandizer Wrote: It's a good push for serious action at least. No matter what option you go for, there's costs involved. But we can't afford to keep waiting. It this inaction that's behind why there is already environmental damage that is irreversible. We can't keep doing this forever.


You just are not listening.

You are trying to build a house with the materials contained in a box of matches. On a two dollar budget.

The politicians selling you these plans are counting on two things - you won't do the math - and like every religious story ever told - you WANT to believe.



Edit to add

Look at the cost of solar - and remember - it only works HALF OF THE TIME.

Consider there is 140 million taxpaying people in the US. - a nice convenient number - as it takes 150 million for every square mile of solar panels.

So we round it - and say every taxpayer pays 1 dollar per square mile. It is going to take $17,500 per taxpayer.  

For a system that works half the time.

Ok... We will double it - and pretend that the sun shines 24 hours a day - and the power grid comes for free. So you're looking at $35,000 per taxpayer- for a system that MIGHT last 10 years.



2017 median US income was $35,000 a year.

...

And we're going yo get Medicare for everybody - right?