Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

The proper solution is to make life in the countryside economically self-sufficient once again, so that it would be worth while to live there. People should be able to locally produce everything they need, grow their own food on the spot, build houses by themselves without needing to drive far away on a piece of foreign equipment to buy more pieces of foreign equipment. Local production and processing of everything as far as possible is the way of restoring ecological consciousness, so that wherever you look, you see things in terms of ecology, you know by what natural processes the thing arised, how it can be practically used, and what happens to it when disposed a given way.

Only people with this kind of ecological awareness will carry the humanity further after the catastrophe.

Good cause, but hardly anything about it is being done right. This only foments skepticism. Nowadays you can be a climate skeptic, i.e. skeptical about climate, and think you are onto something clever.

To ersi (and Belfrager): If we "revert" to the mode of existence you'd like, how many human beings could the Earth support?
Two billion? Surely, not much more… What to do with the rest? And their increase?

But I don't see why you were miffed: It supported your position…

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)
(source — or countless others)

The ridiculous propensity of Man to choose low-land areas near oceans to populate is well-documented. And we've managed (…look at south-eastern Florida, or -Frensie- your own country!) to find ways to accommodate our propensities is a testament to our gullibility or our persistence!
Should we consider decimating (literal meaning… !    ) our economies, to accommodate these "outliers"?
Are you that important, as a place? 

Oh, and BTW: Did you think my simple question posed to ersi was a straw-man? Consider what happens, if people in Nevada have to survive — by subsistence-farming?

How is it, ersi, that you -and hardly anyone else does- know how people should live?

I think the various political factions trying to drive the debate about climate science should be ignored — they have nothing important to say…

Your view of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropgenic Global Warming, aka "Climate Change") is well-represented: Man is mucking up the environment by using fossil fuels, and He should be stopped! (I'm sure you'll try and back away from that…    ) My view is a little different:

In science the real debate is not emissions are causing climate change. That's long settled. Humanity is. The real questions are by how much and what are the consequences.

I spoke of newer, less polluting and more efficient technologies replacing the old and thus the lower emissions economy could very well have a higher real GDP than the current one.

Your post isn't worth my time answering.

In some ways, in fact, science communication is expanding rapidly. The number of science blogs has grown tremendously, for example. But the number of such outlets that can be relied upon to provide accurate, or un-spun, information is tougher to track. As Nadia El-Wady, the president of the World Federation of Science Journalists, put it last year, there are “only a few pockets of excellence in an ocean of mediocrity.”
Diving into this arena requires time, some level of culture change and even courage, particularly given how the Web can be an amplifier for unfounded attacks and disinformation as much as knowledge. But hunkering down, as some institutions – including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – tried to do after recent controversies, is probably not a sustainable approach in the long haul. As the IPCC prepares its Fifth Assessment Report, it does so with what, to my eye, appears to be an utterly inadequate budget for communicating its findings and responding in an agile way to nonstop public scrutiny facilitated by the Internet. I would love to think that the countries that created the climate panel could also contribute to boosting the panel’s capacity for transparency, responsiveness and outreach….
…The alternative is to hunker down, as if waiting for a storm to pass. But the explosive changes afoot in how people share information and shape ideas are no stray storm.
Interpreting them that way would be like mixing up weather and climate.
(source)

Would y'all like my comments…? Or would you prefer I lay back and "lurk"? 

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-16, 08:55:41

Would y'all like my comments…? Or would you prefer I lay back and "lurk"? 

No one answers him? he's begging...

Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Mazda and Mitsubishi have joined the growing list of manufacturers whose diesel cars are known to emit significantly more pollution on the road than in regulatory tests […]

“The issue is a systemic one” across the industry, said Nick Molden, whose company Emissions Analytics tested the cars. The Guardian revealed last week that diesel cars from Renault, Nissan, Hyundai, Citroen, Fiat, Volvo and Jeep all pumped out significantly more NOx in more realistic driving conditions.

I wish, ersi, you knew what reification meant.

Not sure if this should go here, but it's starting to look like just about all car makers all over the world were messing with their exhaust systems...

For example, car users have been questioning gas consumption figures for decades. They are free to keep questioning. They'll keep getting the same non-answers.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-10-20, 11:35:11

For example, car users have been questioning gas consumption figures for decades. They are free to keep questioning. They'll keep getting the same non-answers.

I see plenty of people with driving styles who should take a good hard look at the way they brake and accelerate before thinking about questioning anything.

For example phone and laptop battery stats tend to match reality much better, even though they depend a lot on what you are doing with it.

For example, car users have been questioning gas consumption figures for decades.