(06-03-2017 03:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am not sure what the fallacy is. Just tell me the goal, and we can be done here. All I hear from the environmentists is reduction this, reduction that. Sure that buys time, but how does it help to 'cope' with the inevitable rises in temperature that will occur later rather than sooner if we don't use that time for anything but more "reduction this, reduction that? If an asteroid were heading for Earth, should the focus be on slowing it down so it hits 20 years later? Of course, that buys time, but should we use that time just to find ways to make it hit us 40 years later? That is the way I see the environmental movement working.
I haven't seen the word 'resiliency" in this context until today. what does it mean? what is the contextual definition?
and why would you assume american conservatives would attack it? I for one would be happy to see the problem defined and an approach to solving it/handling it laid out. It will take more than Kill Coal or Kill Oil. Especially since 90%+ of the world is not cooperating. It is like having 100 smokers in a room, and 7 of them quit and declare they have made progress toward a smoke free room.
I think the attacks, as you term them, are skepticism against Global Warming as a boogeyman and the solutions put forward. I have yet to see any environmentalist call the changes natural or inevitable. I do attack this approach as a "Chicken Little" approach. BTW, when did the left switch from Global Warming to climate Change, and why?
All I want is a reasonable statement of the problem followed by a reasonable statement of the goal, followed by a reasonable statement of how the world can get there.
I know, not much, but i have never heard any of the three.

Good job of expressing some thoughts that I was trying to find the way to express.

This is how I would summarize the argument of the AGW crowd at this point.

It's going to be a catastrophe that will destroy life as we know it.
So what to do about it?
Kill oil and kill coal.
Will that solve the problem?
No.

The problem is that no one view can even come up with the basic solution to : if we add x gigatonnes of CO2 output next year, what will the quantitative effect be on added thermal retention of the Earth biosphere overall, let alone what the effects will be in some sum certain time in the future.

I'm sure there would be some net effect, but most environmentalists take the stance that we should stop *everything* without actually being able to answer in that previous query in anything like a scientific manner as it presently stands.