Originally Posted by SonicFlyer (Post 2929763)

Originally Posted by SonicFlyer (Post 2929763)

Originally Posted by Longhornmaniac8 (Post 2929800)

WG3 was written specifically to look at the impacts and mitigation strategies. Public policy is a massive part of that, so of course it has guidance to that end. It's also not remotely the same thing as WG1, which is the Physical Science Basis. Go look at the thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed citations in WG1 and see how many of them have political guidance. The answer will be close to, if not, zero.

There is a functional difference between science and policy. The IPCC doesn't hide from that at all. It's why they compile three different reports. One that describes the current scientific understanding of climate change, and contains over 5,000 peer-reviewed citations of scientific papers, one that discusses impacts and vulnerabilities, and one that discusses mitigation. It's an exceptionally comprehensive document that synthesizes existing knowledge on the topic across a wide range of disciplines, ranging from the physical sciences to social sciences and public policy. Necessarily, there will be discussions of appropriate methods for dealing with the impacts of climate change. That isn't led by physical scientists, it's led by social scientists/policymakers.

What you're saying is a strawman, because climate scientists, that is, climatologists, atmospheric scientists, physicists, etc. are not the ones preparing WG3. They may be tangentially involved, but it's as a function of their research in their academic discipline.

I'm fine with nuclear as a stopgap, but fundamentally it suffers from the same issues that fossil fuels do. The emphasis needs to transition away from non-renewables.

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 2929872)

Unfortunately renewables are a scam, they simply don't exist.

Originally Posted by CBreezy (Post 2929890)

Weird. I have solar panels on my roof. Are you saying that I'm imagining them?

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 2929872)

Unfortunately renewables are a scam, they simply don't exist.

Originally Posted by Longhornmaniac8 (Post 2929920)

What a strange, defeatist mentality.

Care to elaborate?

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 2929952)

Well, they don't exist yet, the technology hasn't been invented. The only promising idea is coming from Caltech, with their space based solar array. If we build the space elevator we can make this possible. https://www.spacesolar.caltech.edu/

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 2929960)

Great idea, and would be a game changer for anything space related, just one little problem...

The required tensile strength of the tether (which is non-negotiable based on orbital mechanics) far exceeds the strength of any available construction material.

They'd have to come up with some really exotic molecular structures, which can then be produced on a vast scale with appropriate economics. And can survive in space (hot, cold, radiation, UV, etc) with strength and durability intact. May not be possible this century.

Could well happen eventually, but there are too many hurdles to consider this a valid course of action to pursue near-term. And the tether anchor needs to be in a remote area, in case it ever gets cut (large meteor impact)... that would be a whole lot of mass coming down with a lot of potential energy.

Originally Posted by Longhornmaniac8 (Post 2929806)

Really? A single Time article?

Here's a peer-reviewed report that shows the actual distribution of science in the 1970s.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs...2008BAMS2370.1