First accept reality, then address Climate Change.

The political left (in the US at least) has taken ownership of the climate change issue. This should be a good thing. But they aren't pushing for real solutions to the problem. Climate change has become a call to outrage and a political weapon to be used to win elections.

A real solution to climate change needs to accept the reality that

1. Energy prices need to go up, and that this will mean sacrifice for the middle and lower classes.

2. Corporations will be a big part of the solution. Investments in the new technology we need to transition to cleaner energy mean more money for the corporations with the resources to develop them.

3. Technology like nuclear power and "industrial farming" are important ways to reduce global warming gasses. The fact that they contradict emotional political positions held by the left don't change that.

youve failed to add that denial of several important arenas of science (including climate change)are primarily under contract to the political right. Your assertion about "reality" seems narrowly focused.

"Left" v "right" science gets tiresome.
Davi Koch is a huuuge donator of funds to basic science sand science edutainmnt. Yet he an his brother are and were some of the biggest Fundamentalist science deniers around. " tell Micheal that It was only business, nothin personal" Abe Vigoda

You are correct Farmerman. And that is my point. The right-wing denies climate change. The left-wing exaggerates climate change. Neither extreme is productive.

Solving climate change will involve stepping away from the political extremes. This means accepting the climate reality, and the economic reality to create sound policy. Neither of the political sides seems to want to do this.

The right-wing is denying climate change. This is clearly a problem, but it is an honest problem. People who say that climate change isn't happening are at least being consistent in their beliefs. This is an issue for another thread.

The solutions to climate change are well-known.

1) We need to raise the cost of using fossil fuels. This will inevitably raise the price of energy including gasoline, electricity and heating.

2) We need to invest in technology that will provide energy that doesn't release global warming gasses. This means giving money to big corporations, because big corporations is the way that modern economies create new important technology.

Instead of pushing for policies that will actually make a difference, the political left is attacking modern agriculture and economics... they are attacking the very things we need to reduce climate change.

As it turns out living in mud huts and eating bugs isn't quite so popular. Perhaps that's why President Xiden has an endless stream of migrants pouring over the Mexican border? Just a thought.

Xiden has also started CO2 reductions by the biggest source of them - homo sapiens sapiens. That's right, the rush to abortions is one prong of the fork and the other is the mass sterilisation campaign. "If we do a good job on vaccines, we can get that number down by 10,15 percent." - Bill Gates. Human CO2 emissions are reduced by cloth face coverings (better to wear 2 or 6 because it's always six, the number of man and the Beast) and hospital ventilator machines BOTH of which forcibly restrict breathing.

Just another note - without the greenhouse gas infested atmosphere spaceship earth here would IMMEDIATELY freeze killing all life (unless that's the enemy's plan maybe?) and without ANY atmosphere we're talking about a lifeless chunk of silicon and rock (also pleasing to the devil who resides on the moon, also a lifeless chunk of hollow rock).

Life means the unknown and macro- or micro- managing the exact concentration of gas coming from the rear end of cattle is a task better suited to the insane than to the mature. Accepting that there is a CREATOR who has a plan and is taking care of it immediately "debunks" climate alarmism - and while we're at it: Communist regime change agendas for the USA. But because it IS GOD'S PLAN this planet will be destroyed by fire by direct Divine Intervention in the near future. A solar deluge or mass ejection would quickly boil the oceans and ignite the gaseous atmosphere for YEARS killing most of humanity before the Final Judgment.

Did you make this stuff up all by yourself?

I think our failures to communicate is my misunderstanings of how you define statements, like the above. Being consistent in a belief is nothing more than mass ignorance not anything being summa -noble.

Costs of fossil fuels by grade and acquisition has been going on without the specter of climate change. Coal has been searching for more ways to be competitive even were it "clean"

"Mt top Removal" was merely a means in the 50;s to reduce the$/T production costs when oil and gas xtraction finally bcame a "Science" and not a wildcat gamble.
residual costs have added a body burden to any use of coal.
Futures say that coal , lik serpentine rocks will have a use not as a fuel or ore but as a"Sponge" in which to to inject and store CO2, and since coal , to be even mildly profitable, needs to have multiple cycle burning which is far more expensive besides being dirtier wrt greenhouse gases.

far as lft wing "Exaggerating global warming", plese explain from whre you draw this conclusion. Youve seemed to use quoates from USGS, AAPG, EPA, even foundations for science (like that of th Kochs)..

You seem to display a mind set that says " because I feel some of these Global Warming projections sound outrageously dire, THEY GOTTA BE FALSE". Thats the way science often works, It takes several Wegeners or MAnn;s to come up with hypotheses that are later proven (or rejected) to kick the progress. Just by wearing a mantle of accepting proven an undebunk (Yet) science, you arent helping maintain a scientific outlook at all. Just because its easier (and apparently safer) to deny nascent research as unproven and therefore false, lleaves you not as a student but as a possible luddite.

youre training and experience is in physics, which, in my experience, has been the center of most of the hypothetical and wild west (you know what I man). You dont seem to share the spirit, You talk mor like an engineer than a physicist.
I recall your total dismissal of masking at about the same that lots of research was being forwarded in ways to protect against acquiring th covid virus.

You still come across that way by your quasi politically driven "science". just sayin.

PS, weve mae som rally neat advancs in thermonuclar nrgy in the last few months. All the National Lab magazines have been quietly announcing that th future of "new" nrgy resourcs are not at an end of an infinite tunnel, but have a window of development masured in a decade or two (TOPS).

Im sure the Xtian Fundamentalists will be seeking out the exact paragraphs in the Bible where fusion was mentiond in a single line nd th Kohs will be quietly trying to subvert their cash cow while still looking like Copernicans

Yes, I change my mind when I am presented with new information. You keep bringing up the masking example, as if this is something about which I should be ashamed.

Quite the contrary. In the beginning, the effectiveness of masks were unproven. I said they were unproven. Then there was new research that said yes, masks are effective at reducing the spread of covid. When I saw this new information, I changed my beliefs.

Changing your mind when presented with new information is part of scientific literacy. I am proud that I do this.

exactly, you didnt do any searches for the bases of that which both supported and denied maskings effectiveness, you adopted a passive stance and joined those who actually denied what soon became evidenced . Yet you used this position to present an opinion that "It doesnt follow science" and thats BS. Apparently youve never applied for NSF grants in research in just such areas, science is willing to take an activ role

to me, you spent a lot of time denying such a tiny practice that had no real downside in ones own personal search for protection. It could hardly be compared with dosing with Ivermctin or ingesting cleaning fluids.

In the apocalyptic "Is the world being destroyed" thread, there are predictions of the sea level rising 400 feet. The worst case models have it rising under 20 feet (and this is the worst case). This is a big difference. In the apocalyptic thread, there are predictions that "Washington DC will be abandoned".

These dire predictions are way out of line with the scientific models. The goal is to create hysteria, and there is a political gain for hysteria.

The goal should be to set responsible, science base policies to respond to and to lessen the effects of climate change.

You are being silly Farmerman. But OK. I was wrong, and I changed my mind when I did see the evidence (we could argue about when the evidence actually existed... but I don't know if that matters and this is getting childish).

On the other hand, you spent two pages arguing that the human population number is growing exponentially. This is something that you should know is not true, in fact anyone who has taken middle school math should know this.

And yet you kept arguing because you had already chosen your ideological side.

I don't know if you are ready to change your mind on this one. It seems silly that you took so long, but if you can admit you are wrong (on such a basic mathematical question) then I will give you the credit.

Farmerman, it seems that for you; who is right is more important than what is right. That is why it seems difficult for you to ever change your mind based on objective evidence.

no, you misunderstand the big sigma of what sea lvel rise since the Dryass ended and sel level had already risen 250 ft. Your focus is only your lifetime not sea level rise in total i both to anthro and natural climate change.
we shouldnt break up the sequences of change and sayy, there aint no more.

You fail to unerstand what EXPONENTIAL even means it appears.Ifn Iwere you , Id just drop it, youre wrong. population growth has, since th common ra grown in a variably incrasing wxponntial form such as y=10^x

The specific claim in the other thread was that "Washington DC will need to be abandoned" due to sea level rise caused by climate change.

This seems like a ridiculous exaggeration to me. Do you think this is a valid scientific prediction?

This is really a stupid argument. This is literally middle school math that you are getting wrong.

1. Exponential growth means a constant growth rate.
2. The human population growth is not anywhere close to a constant growth rate.

I don't know which of these two facts you are getting wrong. I will start another thread for this.

The meaningful difference between climate remediation policies in democratic vs authoritarian countries is that authoritarian regimes aren't voted out in the next election cycle. I'm not "trumpeting" any economic system, I'm simply saying that opposition parties can be voted into office if the policies of the incumbents are seen as burdensome or expensive. Recall how easily Trump pulled the USA out of the Paris Climate Accord — and how easily Biden rejoined. If effective measures require sacrifice, democratically-elected politicians, fearing loss, will think twice about enacting effective laws.

Are there really "predictions" or is this one possible scenario mentioned in one article?

Was there a timeline given for the 400 foot prediction? Was it simply based on the most extreme projections with all the ice caps and glaciers melting?

Again, were there really multiple "predictions" or was this simply a hypothetical case presented in one article? A 400' rise in sea level would definitely cause Washington D.C. to be abandoned as the highest elevation in the city is 409 feet – whether it happens in 50 years or 500 years. It's possible that the author was just using this as an example and not making a prediction.

what youre gtting wrong is that your pop growth is in a vry short time sense. Overall growth must recognize what the entire growth curve looks like for say 10K years.

An YES its a constant rate (OF THE RATE OF INCREASE OF THE EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION)

E1= at , say 10
E2 = 10^2 =100
E3= 10^3=1000
E4= 10^4=10000
and so forth. the planet crtainly have shown such a curve with tim sequences on a cartsian x time base

What is the growth rate of human population then? If it is constant, than give me a number.

The growth rate for global population in 2020 was 1.05%. Are you saying that it has always been 1.05%?

This is a (rather silly) tangent. So I started a new thread https://able2know.org/topic/561739-1

The real issue here is the ability to admit you are wrong when you are presented with facts. Everyone is wrong sometimes, not all of us have the ability to change our minds.

The topic of this thread is how ideology prevents people from accepting reality. When the ideology is more important than facts, then the facts that don't fit the ideology get exaggerated or ignored.

Climate change and covid are topics that should be science-based. This means that you go by the science rather than which is right. Farmerman is ranting about Fundamentalist Christians and Fox News as if the ideological side matters. If Science supports a point made on Fox News, the fact that it is supported by Fox news doesn't make it any less correct.

What is right should more important than who is right.