US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

I don’t need to understand the details of "the science," any more than I need to understand specifically how my iPad or my cellphone works, before I send an email or make a phone call. But when the proposed solutions seem to call for massive changes, all right now, I’m skeptical of the solutions.

Fair enough, However quite a few on this thread don't believe the basis of the problem and instead of trying to understand the basics, they run to websites that provide lots of misinformation (like wattsupwiththat).
The problem was created by a massive change in the first place (transition to fossil fuels), so it is understandable it will take a massive shift to fix. I would like to think that change gives a great opportunity for economic activity, but if we sit on the sidelines while others get first mover technology and resource advantage then it will be very painful.

[Bycrick]

Fair enough, indeed. There certainly is a lot of lousy information available. But if one believes the zealots, this all started 150 years ago. And the proposed solutions are all big government, give lots of money to the poor nations, get rid of fossil fuel, abolish plastic, etc. In other words, change everything overnight because this is our last chance. The sky is falling. When one talks about convincing the voters, then there’s a big stop. I submit that if you can’t convince the voters, you’re going to have to do it with guns. And I’d prefer to avoid that.

The more that the "change the world" zealots insist that they’ve got the only solution, the more the people who like how things are will resist. And each group will find a bunch of pointy-headed scientists and "experts" who support their point of view. And each side will talk about the quacks and mid-information being peddled by the other side.

For every action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction.

[Montanan]

Positive and well-reasoned actions would be good. Inaction will be harmful.

[Bycrick]

When I see some positive and we’ll-reasoned actions, I’ll be all in favor.

For example, just a couple days ago, there was a story about California talking about putting solar panels over their aqueducts. It generates electricity and cuts down on evaporation. A great idea. Better than cutting down 6000+ acres of trees to do it in Virginia. Or installing them in desert areas where just a few years ago the environmentalists were whining that motorcycles and dune buggies would destroy the environment.

But the zealots prefer to talk about getting rid of fossil fuels, abandoning capitalism, transferring trillions of dollars to the "poor," abolishing plastics, etc. Thus I wonder which is more important to them, the environment or their economic goals?

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

When I see some positive and we’ll-reasoned actions, I’ll be all in favor.

For example, just a couple days ago, there was a story about California talking about putting solar panels over their aqueducts. It generates electricity and cuts down on evaporation. A great idea. Better than cutting down 6000+ acres of trees to do it in Virginia. Or installing them in desert areas where just a few years ago the environmentalists were whining that motorcycles and dune buggies would destroy the environment.

But the zealots prefer to talk about getting rid of fossil fuels, abandoning capitalism, transferring trillions of dollars to the "poor," abolishing plastics, etc. Thus I wonder which is more important to them, the environment or their economic goals?

Most climate advocates desire to utilize capitalism as a means for advancement.

It is apparent that you do not wish to read scientific literatures to become further informed about complex subject matter so as to have a sound basis for forming "beliefs".

Do you have any specific technological or policy proposals?

Or are you just inclined to be satisfied to rant and call climate mitigation advocates zealots?

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Fair enough, indeed. There certainly is a lot of lousy information available. But if one believes the zealots, this all started 150 years ago. And the proposed solutions are all big government, give lots of money to the poor nations, get rid of fossil fuel, abolish plastic, etc. In other words, change everything overnight because this is our last chance. The sky is falling.

I think the "solutions" you speak of, are part of the misinformation (in my opinion). I think both sides of this issue are guilty of misrepresentations, but from my viewpoint, the "anti-climate change" crowd grossly misrepresents both the existence of problem and the potential solutions. "Big government" has historically given a large push to the fossil fuel industry, everything from providing land for drilling, tax breaks, building infrastructure and military adventures to secure access to resources. How many trillions do you think the government spent to get the current fossil fuel industry going? It will take government to encourage new technology and encourage investments, but the government has been doing that along. It is how you got that cell phone and ipad in your hand, you don't think that just was magically was created from thin air do you? The government invested heavily in the basic science to create that. No different to solve climate change.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

I don’t need to understand the details of "the science," any more than I need to understand specifically how my iPad or my cellphone works, before I send an email or make a phone call. But when the proposed solutions seem to call for massive changes, all right now, I’m skeptical of the solutions.

There we have it - at least Bycrick is honest! A denial of something he doesn't understand - because??? He just doesn't like it, that's why. So, it isn't about the science at all. A world where people decide what is true based on their uninformed opinions and desires, not what is actually true. Sounds like the Middle Ages to me.
But again, I applaud you for the honesty - no more of the cherry picking, Nirvana fallacy, distortions, etc.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

I don’t need to understand the details of "the science," any more than I need to understand specifically how my iPad or my cellphone works, before I send an email or make a phone call. But when the proposed solutions seem to call for massive changes, all right now, I’m skeptical of the solutions.

"I'm skeptical about proposed solutions to a problem I refuse to understand". Is that about right?

Originally Posted by Bycrick

"People like me." How about people like you? It must be nice to believe that you’ve got all the answers.

When did I say that I had all the answers? I don't have the comforting numbness of your willful ignorance.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Re: The IPCC report released yesterday is the second of three reviews from the world's foremost body of climate researchers.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60525591

Originally Posted by Bycrick

I don’t need to understand the details of "the science," any more than I need to understand specifically how my iPad or my cellphone works, before I send an email or make a phone call. But when the proposed solutions seem to call for massive changes, all right now, I’m skeptical of the solutions.

when the proposed solutions seem to call for massive changes, all right now
I'm more skeptical of the existence of a problem

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

The more that the "change the world" zealots insist that they’ve got the only solution, the more the people who like how things are will resist.

Clinging to big fat falsehoods isn't advancing your point.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

The more that the "change the world" zealots insist that they’ve got the only solution, the more the people who like how things are will resist.

Here are 100 solutions, very few are over-night solutions.
https://drawdown.org/

[RaymondR]

Fir the last twenty years I have been sailing a section of coast which has a plethora of beautiful potential anchorages which have insufficient water to allow anchoring. For all of these years the AGW/CC zealots have been promising large rises in sea levels which would make them very practicable anchorages and every year it's "Nope, not this year." When are these beggars going to keep their promises.

And in addition they promised it was never going to rain again on the east coast of Australia and I've been excreted from the river I shelter from cyclones from during the summer by floods twice in the last five weeks. Don't these people know a promise is a promise.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

For all of these years the AGW/CC zealots have been promising large rises in sea levels which would make them very practicable anchorages and every year it's "Nope, not this year." When are these beggars going to keep their promises.

Please show us those promises.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by newhaul

when the proposed solutions seem to call for massive changes, all right now
I'm more skeptical of the existence of a problem

This is great - please keep at it. The absurdity of some of these posts tells us exactly what we need to know.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Please show us those promises.

Which failed one?
1988 Maldives underwater in 30 years or 2018. Well didn't happen

1989 Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. As global warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations.

1981 James Hansen, NASA scientist, predicted a global warming of “almost unprecedented magnitude” in the next century that might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level.

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/u...ea-levels.html

That a good start?