args

"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

I will use this round to respond to your sources and claims. --- 1. 1 --- "Peak" warming You suggested that I should focus on "peak" (instead of "delayed") warming. In Round 3, Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit was your source. But it discusses peak EMISSIONS not peak WARMING, And it supports my position not yours! If emissions had peaked in 2015, ECIU says world emissions must be ZERO FOREVER starting in 2070 to achieve "2C max rise forever. " What ECIU calls "net-zero, " I call "returning to the stone age. " Since emissions still haven't peaked, It says we will need negative emissions for half the Century. ECIU's best idea to achieve net-zero: plant trees. This is laughable, But I will accept planting trees as a high priority. The other good idea (storing CO2 underground) "offers limited potential, " aka won't work. --- 2. 1 --- Earth's History You said, "In a different time in the Earth's history we may be talking about intentionally releasing more greenhouse gasses to prevent an ice age. " In effect this says natural climate change matters more than man-made climate change. It also suggests Science can provide a "global thermostat" regardless of Nature's prerogatives. --- 2. 2 --- Solution: Dimming the sun? You provided a Guardian article about solar dimming. But for $10B per year, The Guardian expects a "complement to--not a substitute for--aggressive emissions reductions action" that "destabilizes things" so that scientists can't predict its benefit (or harm). --- 2. 3 --- Solution: Solar alone? I provided a source that says solar CANNOT scale to replace oil. Your response: yes it can (but no source). --- 3. 1 --- Some "poison" CO2 is not a poison, Neither is Methane. Unless you also think that sugar, Salt, And water are poisons. After all, Too much of any of these will kill a person. --- 3. 2 --- "Lay down and die" Your description of the CATASTROPHE did not include mass deaths. You mentioned human costs, But nothing concrete. I think a source for how many people will die globally under the status quo would greatly improve this debate. Do you have one? --- 3. 3 --- Moon Landing Your comparison supports my position not yours! We agree that this should have been a low priority. Between Kennedy's challenge and the moon landing, The USA spent $47B on NASA (1). That's $325B in constant 2015 dollars. The USA has already spent about $177B (2015 dollars) on fixing the climate (2). I'm willing to fund another $150B MAX on it. --- 3. 4 --- Precise numbers How can climate science forecast increases in hurricanes (or whatever) with CONFIDENCE, But not forecast decreases in hurricanes AT ALL? Are they not equivalent calculations? I did not ask for "a 100% solution. " I asked for evidence of results from $2T. Even small results would help your side show the size of the problem. Why is there no answer? (1) theguardian. Com/news/datablog/2010/feb/01/nasa-budgets-us-spending-space-travel (2) climatedollars. Org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/