Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Hehe, but no polluting mining industries or some such? Lucky!

Here's yet another essay — but it's from Frenchmen! That should count for something? 

Summary

From the Seine‘s cold quays to the Ganges‘ burning shores,
The human troupe skips and swoons with delight, sees not
In a hole in the ceiling the Angel‘s trumpet
Gaping ominously like a black blunderbuss.

Charles Baudelaire: La Danse Macabre (The Dance of Death), in Les Fleurs du Mal (The Flowers of Evil)

Probably the trend started a while ago and I'm only noticing now.

They're mathematicians, ersi!

Ah! Yes: "crusaders" -for LESs (that's Limited English Speakers…) the word means only one thing.

They are French, if I'm reading right, so the word means the same to them as to me.

This explains the poem?

Course Oakdale couldn't ever understand he's quoting a satire.

[Because of the above bias errors] the hypothesis of dangerous global warming caused by human activity has not been substantiated by evidential science.
Thus a contrary claim of human activity being a causal factor for dangerous global warming must necessarily be an incorrect statement.
It follows, that the case for the costs involved to mitigate CO₂ emissions is without
foundation and the resources required should be made available to sectors of the economy in need of urgent attention.
(source)

@ersi: You've said "For me only the ecological quality matters." Does that include the current human inhabitants of this planet? Or only those you think should matter…?

Again I ask: Is a world-wide governmental authority required to reasonably deal with your environmental concerns?

(Will you run and hide, like some others have done… It's a hard question, I know!)

Only people understand the term "ecological quality" with intellect. Animals understand it in their skin and intestines.

Ecological quality means anti-corporate, anti-industrial, and anti-urban, inasmuch as industries and cities are anti-ecological.

Does that include the current human inhabitants of this planet?

Find a small hole in the AGW theory and us[e] that as a excuse to continue dumping this much CO2 into the atmosphere, and we invite Drought and its friend Famine.

That's not to mention very costly coastal flooding in the world's financial centers such as NYC (that will be great for the economy, won't it?) How any billions will it cost to pump the water out of there, keeping in mind NYC is more than twenty times the size of New Orleans?

You claim models are wrong. Meanwhile other models are pretty damn close and ocean temperature seem to have this tendency to understate the heat there. What models are wrong? Oh, the IPCC ? That tells us nothing. Which ones from them, or do you even know?
(emphasis added)

I can't help [but] notice that you brought zero science to this discussion.

That silliness is symptomatic of the old nature vs humans mentality. The Right doesn't get it. If we wreck havoc on the planet, we do [it] to ourselves.

What evidence is there, that sea levels are rising "alarmingly" — specially as a result of Man's contribution to the atmosphere/ocean's CO₂ levels? 

Which other models are "pretty damn close"? And why -if its so- does the ocean temperature have a "tendency" to understate its heat?

What evidence is there, that sea levels are rising "alarmingly" — specially as a result of Man's contribution to the atmosphere/ocean's CO₂ levels? 

And why -if its so- does the ocean temperature have a "tendency" to understate its heat?

But I do caution against such reliance on fossils fuels and other old, inefficient fuel sources and also seem to be playing a hand adversely impacting the climate and creating pollution (which taxpayers wind up footing the bill to clean up, such is the case with Superfund sites.)  Some regulation now to avoid more Draconian measures and higher costs in future is advisable, however.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-11, 04:41:38

What evidence is there, that sea levels are rising "alarmingly" — specially as a result of Man's contribution to the atmosphere/ocean's CO₂ levels? 

You might not want to say that too loud when you're in the vicinity of a resident of e.g. the most vulnerable European countries like the Netherlands and Belgium — or someone from around New Orleans.[1]

[1] NB We've got the money and know-how to implement whatever successor the Delta Works may need, as does America. It's countries like Myanmar that are at risk in a similar way but without the means to counteract the problem.

Yeah, but where's the evidence that this is due to human causes, that it's alarming, and that it's global? And if the models didn't predict this, then there's no evidence that it's happening in the first place!

but the release of all kinds of gases trapped in polar and tundra ice that would thus be facilitated.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-10-12, 10:06:22

Yeah, but where's the evidence that this is due to human causes, that it's alarming, and that it's global? And if the models didn't predict this, then there's no evidence that it's happening in the first place!

Human CO₂ emissions are probably a fairly small fish, but it's the one we most directly control and it's the push that starts the ball rolling. The real worry obviously isn't the fairly small (but not non-existent) amount of damage caused by our CO₂ emissions, but the release of all kinds of gases trapped in polar and tundra ice that would thus be facilitated.

ban fossil fuels and plastic

I agree with you that "to start the ball rolling" we have to start somewhere, but I'm not sure we are dealing with a "ball" here. If I were to suggest the policies, then instead of controlling the emissions, I would directly go after the cause of emissions and ban fossil fuels and plastic, forcing industries rapidly to come up with alternatives.

As far as solutions go, the cap and trade system for NO₂ worked very well.

I also think that improved technology will increasingly offer bits and pieces of the solution in a very capitalist manner. Solar panels have become so cost-efficient that they quite subsidizing them. The Uber of the future won't need drivers. I hope to be able to avoid buying a car until that moment comes. For the moment, the Cambio "now and then" shared car system suits me very well for the occasional shopping that's easier to do using an automobile. Partially it's a degree of environmental consciousness, but let's be honest: I've got as much car as I want and need for no more than a few hundred a year. Last month's car bill? € 10,90.