06-08-2017, 11:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Durian Fiend
The temperature extrapolations aren't presented clearly.
When Lomborg says the temperature would go down by .002 degrees by the end of the century with Obama's clean power plant initiative, it could be interpreted as a temperature decrease from present day records. In fact, he means just .002 degrees less than whatever the current projections are for how much warmer it will be then, due to climate change.
I'm skeptical of his analysis, as he has a history of misrepresenting IPCC data, and think his conclusion is faulty.
It's not an either support green energy innovation or support government policy change proposition, it will require both to make a real difference.
I'm skeptical of everyone's analysis. But, if he's wrong or biased, why is it that I haven't seen a clear description of what the change would be and what the costs would be? All I hear is that we have to do this to save the planet from future excessive warming. How much of a reduction in fossil fuels is necessary? How much is it going to cost? How will it affect the quality of life for the rich AND the poor? The only answer I hear is "we have to do this for future generations..."
Either the decision-makers don't know, or they don't want to admit what they do know.
And the same people - here in Hawaii and elsewhere - who claim that we are going to have planetary collapse because of our use of fossil fuels, are the ones that fight tooth and nail to stop energy production that can actually reduce carbon emissions.