It seems we have taken a turn into the totally absurd.
"I have a list of things, which I cannot produce because I have never posted them, and I judge that my apocryphal list is bigger and/or more accurate than the list I have convinced you to create for me, ergo my argument wins."
Carbon capture is possibly the most insane policy in the history of the world. Almost every other industrialised country burns carbon (coal) to produce electricity. The UK alone will attempt to use electricity to make coal.
And how much carbon will it capture? Perhaps 1/100th of the amount produced by China.
So even if you ascribe to the bad weather events being caused by Climate change (which I don't) it will make zero difference to those.
So what could that £20 billion do instead? Perhaps build flood defenses and upstream dams for those areas suffering flooding. Perhaps some sea defenses for those suffering from Coastal erosion (which is 99% natural and 1% sea level rise).
Or perhaps some reliable nuclear energy to keep the lights on?
So many better uses for that money.
"It seems we have taken a turn into the totally absurd". We should have a section in the forums for thread triage. 
We could have an intake section, a conference section, a discharge section, along with transporting links. We could employ thousands of posters. 
Lol
Shucks, you deleted your carbon capture debacle before I could debunk it.
Realized that the goal of carbon capture is not to create coal using electricity, did you?
Madness and stupidity
At this point they are messing with natural planetary balances and don't know what they are doing. Like when they release those balloons of chemicals to "block" some sunlight. Let's hope come Jan 21st that this stuff gets halted, blocked, dismantled, and banned indefinitely, along with all electric car mandates.
Supposedly about a week ago the European Commission (EU) decided through their advisors that solar geoengineering to cool the planet down is a really bad idea. Citing reasons such as "insufficient scientific evidence" and concerns that implementing these procedures could do more harm than good.
Which of course is something armchair observers like us with basically NO science background have been saying for years.
Some people treat science as a way to get closer to the truth rather than praising it when it confirms biases and demonizing it when it challenges our current beliefs. Just food for thought. Be consistent, and not a hypocrite.
Some people treat science as a way to get closer to the truth rather than praising it when it confirms biases and demonizing it when it challenges our current beliefs. Just food for thought. Be consistent, and not a hypocrite.
AND...others should write shorter posts, don't you think?
Clearly, few folks are actually reading the massive verbal data dumps seen above? Don't you think?
I wonder how many of these posts are being slightly altered, then recycled by the ubiquitous BOTS on this crazy / daisy site?
Meanwhile...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/worlds-largest-iceberg-breaks-free-172020103.html
A 1 trillion ton iceberg.
Largely respected..... Not by China and India (or Trump). Actions here speak louder than words. CO2 emissions:
The US and Europe have relocated a lot of manufacturing to the Third World over the last 40 years to turn out cheaper goods. A lot of that CO2 increase is due to our (Western civilization) consumerism, and the two most populous nations on Earth raising their people's standard of living. Remember that China leads the world in replacing fossil fuels with renewable electricity.
re: "China leads the world in replacing fossil fuels with renewable electricity."
China has the most coal-fired power stations in the world, with over 1,161 operational plants as of July 2024. China's coal power capacity is more than five times that of the United States, which ranks third. China also accounts for over 50% of the world's total coal electricity generation.
I do wonder sometimes whether the whole climate scare is actually a cunning scheme made up by China to weaken the west. The biggest CO2 emitter in the world gets lionised for "leading the world in renewable electricity" whilst the UK closes the last coal power plant yet still has to do more by capturing the CO2 that China produces most of.
When you say "because global cooling would be worse" I hate to be the one that has to state the blindingly obvious to you. Global cooling IS worse. If, for some still unknown mysterious reason you believe global warming is worse than global cooling, lets see you come up with 21 different reasons why.
No one is advocating "global cooling", just noting that unprecedented, unnaturally quick global warming will cause many problems. It seems that the best idea would be to keep the average global temperature about what it has been over the last many thousands of years in which human civilization has developed and thrived.
A few first thoughts on why cooler is better than warmer: malaria-carrying mosquitoes thrive in warm regions, droughts and desertification are driven by heat, poisonous snakes are more common and more active in warm climates, hurricanes (and typhoons and cyclones) form over warmer oceans, increased warmth will raise sea levels, forest fires are more frequent in hot weather, domoic acid (a neurotoxin that can be deadly to humans) forms in warmer oceans and is absorbed by shellfish and crabs, ski resorts have shorter seasons in warmer areas, tropical diseases (dengue fever, sleeping sickness, ebola, yellow fever, leprosy, and many more) are much more common and spread more readily in warm climates. I'm sure you could think of many more.
Senior, those are all great guesses, some of which I believe are actually true like coastal erosion and disruption of agricultural yields. Of course we covered every one you mentioned, such as decreased yields in one area resulting in increased yields in other areas.
My comment wasn't that global warming can't cause harm, it can. It was if global warming is WORSE than global warming. So some of your reasons, like "impacts on human health" go in the global cooling column. Most of your reasons actually go in the global cooling column as they negatively impact people MORE in cooler climates versus warmer ones.
The challenge isn't to come up with 20 reasons global warming is bad. It's to come up with 20 reasons why it's WORSE than global cooling. Because it was player who made the comment "because global cooling would be worse".
SLL is not guessiing.
He listed facts.
IPG pretends he is 'guessing'.
Is IPG sincere about anything at all?
Perhaps regarding her dislike of wind turbines ...
Count on it - deniers are being sincere when they say they don't like those.
They dislike. Foolishly dislike.
When you say "because global cooling would be worse" I hate to be the one that has to state the blindingly obvious to you. Global cooling IS worse. If, for some still unknown mysterious reason you believe global warming is worse than global cooling, lets see you come up with 21 different reasons why.
No one is advocating "global cooling", just noting that unprecedented, unnaturally quick global warming will cause many problems. It seems that the best idea would be to keep the average global temperature about what it has been over the last many thousands of years in which human civilization has developed and thrived.
A few first thoughts on why cooler is better than warmer: malaria-carrying mosquitoes thrive in warm regions, droughts and desertification are driven by heat, poisonous snakes are more common and more active in warm climates, hurricanes (and typhoons and cyclones) form over warmer oceans, increased warmth will raise sea levels, forest fires are more frequent in hot weather, domoic acid (a neurotoxin that can be deadly to humans) forms in warmer oceans and is absorbed by shellfish and crabs, ski resorts have shorter seasons in warmer areas, tropical diseases (dengue fever, sleeping sickness, ebola, yellow fever, leprosy, and many more) are much more common and spread more readily in warm climates. I'm sure you could think of many more.
Actually there ARE some advocating for cooling the planet. Which is why I posted the recent decision by the EU to make a formal statement against the idea.
I agree there are some legitimate reasons a warmer climate could be worse. Mosquitoes, venomous snakes, some diseases, etc. The challenge it seems, according to player, is finding MORE warm climate is bad reasons than cold climate is bad reasons. We could keep track of the reasons. Lets say it's 20 in favor of cold is worse versus 10 in favor of warm is worse. That still leaves 10 more to go for the warm is worse side. Or, we could lump them all together per side and count the mortality. Which side is responsible for more deaths, regardless of the other harm/benefits.
Senior, those are all great guesses, some of which I believe are actually true like coastal erosion and disruption of agricultural yields. Of course we covered every one you mentioned, such as decreased yields in one area resulting in increased yields in other areas.
My comment wasn't that global warming can't cause harm, it can. It was if global warming is WORSE than global warming. So some of your reasons, like "impacts on human health" go in the global cooling column. Most of your reasons actually go in the global cooling column as they negatively impact people MORE in cooler climates versus warmer ones.
The challenge isn't to come up with 20 reasons global warming is bad. It's to come up with 20 reasons why it's WORSE than global cooling. Because it was player who made the comment "because global cooling would be worse".
SLL is not guessiing.
He listed facts.
IPG pretends he is 'guessing'.
Is IPG sincere about anything at all?
Perhaps regarding her dislike of wind turbines ...
Count on it - deniers are being sincere when they say they don't like those.
They dislike. Foolishly dislike.
No. Speculation about the future is not a "fact". It's a guess. Statements about the past, where there is evidence of what has already happened, are going to be much more factual than guesses about the future.
Actually there ARE some advocating for cooling the planet. Which is why I posted the recent decision by the EU to make a formal statement against the idea.
Name one poster in the long history of this forum that has advocated bringing the average global temperature to below early 19th century (when fossil fuel fueled warming began) levels.
The EU rejected supporting implementation of a particular (far-fetched and uncertain) plan to control Earth's temperature. They have NOT stated that cooling the planet to pre-industrial levels is a bad idea.
The whole purpose of the anti-warming movement is to eliminate human activity that is distorting the Earth's normal climatic conditions and bring things back to natural functioning.
As I have explained before (so @IfPatriotGames has no excuse for not taking into account) it is entirely irrelevant whether global warming is better or worse than "global cooling", when there is scarcely any chance of the latter happening in this millennium.
This thinking is like arguing that smoking is a good idea because lung cancer is not as bad as some rare, terrible disease.
Actually there ARE some advocating for cooling the planet. Which is why I posted the recent decision by the EU to make a formal statement against the idea.
Name one poster in the long history of this forum that has advocated bringing the average global temperature to below early 19th century (when fossil fuel fueled warming began) levels.
The EU rejected supporting implementation of a particular (far-fetched and uncertain) plan to control Earth's temperature. They have NOT stated that cooling the planet to pre-industrial levels is a bad idea.
The whole purpose of the anti-warming movement is to eliminate human activity that is distorting the Earth's normal climatic conditions and bring things back to natural functioning.
They said solar geo engineering is a bad idea. Obviously there are quite a few people advocating for that if they have to take the step of condemning the idea. As far as who here has advocated that, hard to tell. Most people here have little to no credibility or public persuasion so that doesn't really matter.
If you want to bring things back to natural functioning, I agree. The natural state of the planet is one of warmth, not cold. Returning the earth back to it's more normal temperature is better than doing nothing at all. It's a reasonable insurance policy on the future.
As I have explained before (so @IfPatriotGames has no excuse for not taking into account) it is entirely irrelevant whether global warming is better or worse than "global cooling", when there is scarcely any chance of the latter happening in this millennium.
This thinking is like arguing that smoking is a good idea because lung cancer is not as bad as some rare, terrible disease.
But why take the chance? Reasonable people agree that overall cold is worse than hot. Cool worse than warm. If we were to live in Utopia, where the climate and weather never change that would be awesome. But also unlikely. Climate ALWAYS changes. Staying the same is not an option
So, our options are colder or warmer. Of those two it's pretty obvious warmer is better than colder. So why not protect future generations? Worst case scenario it gets warmer and conditions improve (overall) for plant, animal, and humans. Because all of those things like heat. Worst case scenario if it gets colder is mass starvation and possible extinction. I choose warmer. By far.
Oh fantasy scenario. Well during the Hadean era, when the earth was molten,life was impossible. During snowball earth life survived, so on an absolute scale,in earth history heating was worse than cooling.
Like I said, global warming is happening,cooling isn't.