So to battle the very unlikely event of dangerous global warming destroying the earth, you want every poor country to not become developed, live in squalor, not lift their people out of abject poverty, not have modern medicine or hospitals, not have an effective electric generation system, and live in the stone age. Because by "taking action" this is what you are committing India and many other poor countries to. Basically "taking climate change action" is condemning their populations to death in order to appease western countries. Why 'climate justice' has India and the West at each other's throats http://theweek.com/articles/584216/why-climate-justice-india-west-each-others-throats You wouldn't know it from the happy spin emanating from the Oval Office, but a Third World revolt in Bonn, Germany, this week almost derailed the Paris climate change negotiations in November. Although peace has been restored for now, it only happened by papering over this fundamental conundrum: The world can either avert climate catastrophe or seek "climate justice," not both. The revolt was triggered when 130 developing nations including India and China noticed that the draft action plan that is supposed to serve as the blueprint for the Paris negotiations had omitted their most important conditions about the "fairness and financing" of the final deal — in other words, who is going to take responsibility for the warming and who should pay to reduce it? The South African delegation condemned the omission as "apartheid" that would penalize poor countries for the sins of the rich It has a point. The Paris negotiations are supposed to be the mother of all climate negotiations. It was convened to impose binding emission reductions on all countries — not just the West, as was the case with the 1995 Kyoto protocol — to hold global temperature increases to no more than 2 degrees centigrade over pre-industrial levels. To this end, each country has been asked to submit its own good faith reduction plan that includes both how much it will cut emissions and its plan for getting there. Once finalized after a review in Paris, the plans will be legally binding — although how precisely they will be enforced is anyone's guess. Setting that aside, negotiations will boil down to an essential question: How much should each country cut and therefore whose idea of "climate justice," as Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi has termed it, should prevail? All issues that require collective action, especially on a global scale, are difficult to resolve because they suffer from the free-rider problem, i.e. some parties seek to benefit from the "common good" without springing for it. But as Oren Cass, a Manhattan Institute analyst, notes, fighting climate change is a particularly vexing problem because the individual cost to each country, especially Third World ones, will be immediate and huge — and the benefits distant and uncertain. The notion that emission cuts can pay for themselves through increased energy efficiency is at best fanciful and, at worst, a lie. There are no low-carbon energy technologies available today that can sustain the economic growth rates these countries need to lift their people out of abject poverty, let alone offer Western living standards at anything resembling an affordable cost. Over 300 million Indians still live below the poverty line, earning less than $1 per day. India's per capita energy consumption is 15 times less than the United States'. India has to keep boosting its energy use — and therefore carbon emissions — for at least another two decades to eliminate dire poverty, which is why its reduction plan only commits to slashing "emission intensity" — its emission rate as a percentage of its GPD — not emissions themselves. Even this much, India claims, will require up to a $2.5 trillion investment over the next 15 years in renewable energy sources and adaptation technologies. Even if that figure is exaggerated, clearly this would be a challenge for a country that has yet to offer basic sanitation, transportation, and clean-water infrastructure to all its citizens. (More at above url)
That can't possibly be true. Zero is intellectually dishonest. I will accept say 1%. We have evidence of a greenhouse planet just a few million miles from us, and we have only seen 9! So a probabilitist (Bayesian) would say 1/9, or close to 10%!! In fact, it is higher than that, since only planets with atmospheres can go runaway greenhouse climate. "Venus Atmosphere The atmosphere of Venus is over 90 times heavier than that of Earth producing crushing surface pressure, it consists mainly of carbon dioxide with small amounts of nitrogen and water vapor. Lightning occurs in the upper atmosphere along with clouds of sulfur dioxide which produce sulfuric acid rain. Venus Temperature Extremely hot! The temperature at the uppermost clouds of Venus average about 13C (55F) however the surface temperature is a baking 465C (870F), the hottest surface of any planet in the solar system." http://www.solarsystemquick.com/venus.htm
Yes, explain to us again how much closer Venus is to the sun than the Earth. While you are at it.... go and see if reducing the man-made CO2 on Venus will save that planet. Or maybe you just want to stop comparing apples and oranges.
Again, not at all. We must rush to try to produce renewable clean energy, concentrating enormous efforts to do so. In this very thread a few pages back, I posted a link to how China is trying to move away from its crushing polluting economy by installing massive solar grids, and other renewable energy solutions. I am certain that Indian scientists are advising their government similar solutions, as there are almost as many Indians as Chinese! What do the Indians or other poor nations need to do between now and then - until renewable are as cheap as say fossil fuels? I don't know, and I realize it is an extremely difficult question for a nation to answer.
Then why is the temperature on the uppermost clouds of Venus average about 13C (55F)? Compared to the surface temperature which is hotter than an oven because it is all the GREENHOUSE gases that trap the energy that Venus receives from the Sun! Futurecurrents has been trying to say the same thing, but you guys don't listen. Think man!
So in summary, you support the position that Western nations should impose their will on third world countries and not allow them to develop. This is what effectively "climate action" means to over 130 countries on the face of the earth.
So did man cause the problem on Venus? From the very beginning, the atmosphere of Venus is very different than that of Earth. This is why we have life on Earth rather than Venus. Any planetary graduate student can explain this in detail -- the bottom line is that the situation on Venus has no parallels to the Earth. While you are at it... can you explain why the very thin atmosphere on Mars demonstrates no "global warming". Think man!
No, I support reason. I support fighting myth and superstition. I support research. I support not being hypocritical the way the US is telling everyone else to stop polluting, when we are the biggest polluters on Earth, bar none. I understand your point. The only answer I can give you is, I hope the US leads to make renewable energy cheap, and then sells it cheap to the rest of the world. Or who knows, maybe the Chinese or the Indians will invent a solar panel that is super cheap and is as efficient as a leaf on a tree in converting photons into stored energy. But a solution we almost certainly have to find.
No man did not create runaway climate change on Venus. My point is that it can happen, with or without mans' help. My further point is that greenhouses gases are clearly the smoking gun, regardless of initial conditions, and if humans as a side effect of their everyday living burn carbon fuels, we will contribute to whatever catastrophe Venus endured naturally. Global Warming is the limit point of too much greenhouses gases in your atmosphere. The rest is details.