|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The Right Side of the News
Message 4250: marc2000 writes: ... . I have a renewed interest in the climate change debate these days, though it should probably be taken to the official thread (started years ago by you) But unless I'm told to go there, I'm just as satisfied to keep going on that here. Well I'll be happy to take the Climate Change debate there, but here's a little tid=bit for you from facebook
That's a scientific notice published in a newspaper in 1912. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : changed photo linkby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The Right Side of the News
Message 4243: marc2000 writes: Which of course is all wrong. Scientists were aware of climate change over 100 years ago,
marc9000 writes: What was causing that?? Too many model T's? Coal burning industries. Steam locomotives and ships burning coal. When world population was about 1/7 of what it is today. I wonder why the EPA didn't get busy on this when it was formed in 1970. I guess the reaction would have been the same in 1970 as in 1910, or 1920, or 1980, or 1990. Nothing but laughter, at the thought that putting the government in charge of energy production and use could cool the planet and calm storms. The world of Greta Thunbergs is a brand new thing. BTW - See Message 563 above with newspaper article from 1912. Your argument from incredulity is a lot of hot air signifying nothing. The reaction in 1970 was not laughter, rather it was mostly self-centered indifference of people who didn't recognize the implications. A rather common trait in humans. The oil and coal industries spent millions on distracting people -- especially gullible people -- away from the "inconvenient truth"
quote: Now I understand that you'll likely laugh at my reference to Al Gore. You've been taught to do that by the oil/coal industry propaganda machine and and fake science hacks they employ, because it endangers their comfy profit program.
... The world of Greta Thunbergs is a brand new thing. The point is that there were many people before Greta, you just haven't been paying attention, and when you did, you conformed to the propaganda program of big oil/gas corporations and their million $$ campaigns of disinformation and mockery.
When that technology includes using fossil fuels, yes. Fossil fuels are directly or indirectly behind most ALL technology. Electricity powers most modern technologies. There are many ways to generate electricity without fossil fuels. AND it is becoming more and more economical to use wind and solar -- even when they compete against subsidized oil and coal(and nuclear). Look at new electrical generation plants and what is being built.
quote: Other countries can benefit from this without having to go through the messy generation of electricity with fossil fuels.
That's what the data shows, certainly when we look at the rate of change in climate we see nothing in past climate changes of that order of magnitude of changes/year (decade, century). From my link in Message 4228; Cherry-picked data does not make a trend. There was also a Year Without a Summer - Wikipedia in 1817. The issue of Climate Change is that it is a distinct long-term trend.
quote: That goes back 400,000 years and shows regular cycles of high and low CO2 levels, and then recent levels exceeding all the historic highs. It was called Global Warming initially because that was the first observed effect (again see image above in Message 563), since then we have discovered that increasing global temperatures has significant on the location and pattern of climates world-wide, and the name was modified to Climate Change. Again it was the trends in climate patterns that became more and more apparent, and we can and have modeled the change in CO2 over the past.
There seems to be a LOT of selective quoting and omissions in the promotion of climate change fear. Just this evening, David Muir of ABC news did a quick mention of how the earths oceans were warmer than they've ever been, but he didn't mention that a significant part of ocean warming comes from the ocean floor, not just the air above it. Again that doesn't address the change in ocean temps, the trend, just the sources of heat. Are you saying that the earths core is heating up and that is causing an increase in ocean temps? If so then please document this.
When it comes to Darwinism, the scientific community has pretty much always had non-atheists very thoroughly outnumbered. They might not be so lucky when it comes to climatology, and the associated meteorology and astronomy that go along with it. ... and ... you'll still be wrong. The scientific community is as convince of the validity of climate change as they are of evolution. Because both are fully supported by the preponderance of evidence and the absence, to date, of any contradictory evidence.
... The few links alone that I've already put up in Message 4228 go a long way in covering key omissions by today's climate alarmists. Curiously I've already addressed your list in Message 4239. Your "key commissions" are fake news, they don't fare well under scientific evaluation and all attempts to replicate the denial papers results failed. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The Right Side of the News
Message 4244: marc2000 writes: Yup, you took the bait! I c/p'd detail of only one of those links, where the guy starts out saying he's not a scientist, and you ran with that, without checking the fact that the last link there described a book by Dr. Tim Ball, a 40 year climatologist. When will you conspiracy theory people ever learn to check your sources.
quote: Dr. Tim Ball, NOT a 40 year climatologist, who published no peer reviewed articles on the subject and who worked for big oil/coal interests. And he lies. Shocking.
Why do you think Yahoo search is not liberal? Curious. Just type "climate change hoax" into google, then type it into yahoo. Big difference in what comes up. Which doesn't mean it is not liberal. All search engines will get different results. Again you should look for science papers/documents for the facts. Anyone can publish garbage on the internet and some gullible idiot will take it as gospel because they don't have the training to spot garbage...
What those 24 papers show however, can offset a LOT of omissions from your 14,000, and most importantly, those and many other writings from non-scientists, (you know, those who can spot fraud a mile away) can address something that most of your 14,000 omit, ... They didn't. Their pseudoscience failed.
... like what proof do we have that turning all energy production and use over to the U.S. government is going to actually accomplish anything, other than starting a war. Curiously nobody I know is advocating that. Current electrical energy plants are being built by corporations, and they use renewable sources because it is more economical and return more profit as time passes -- the major cost is startup rather than ongoing like fossil fuel plants. We just had an old electrical plant here that used fossl fuels demolished because it was no longer profitable. LOLz, thanks again for the chuckle chuckles. Yes, the whole world is in a conspiracy against you, and ordinary citizens can spot fraud a mile away, but they are duped every day by advertising lying claims (why do you think it still exists). Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Don't see anything here. Neither the link ... The image is on a facebook page. you may need to be logged in to facebook to see it. Let me know.
... Neither ... or the first part https://scontent-bos3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/...52738969550848_o.jpg will load for me. picture loads for me. There is a bit more after the .jpg for the picture (see in peek mode) https://scontent-bos3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/...52738969550848_o.jpg I get an error message when I cut off the stuff after the .jpg and the picture loads fine for me when I double click that link. It comes up with a FB icon in the tab corner, so it would imply a facebook page. Thanks Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Note you're not supposed to argue by bare links, and a bare video would qualify imho.
That said, your video is worthless. Alex Epstein - Wikipedia(American_writer)
quote: Not a scientist just a word pusher working for the oil industry. Inhofe is a moron that thinks winters counter global change, and that bringing a snowball into congress is an argument. Try again with real science. You're biggest problem seems to be an inability to differentiate between real science and non-science, picking what you want to be true rather than what reality says is true. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I'm reminded of a graph from Percy's Message 4164; That graph covers 10,000 years, and is only a few inches wide, so it's not really possible to accurately pinpoint just what time period those lines on that chart started rocketing up, but it looks to me like early to late 1800's, right on up to today. Just about the time fossil fuels came into being. Now lets look at which years the world achieved an additional billion in population; The projection is sometime between 2024 and 2030, 8 billion. World population milestones - Wikipedia Is it reasonable to say that there's a correlation between the rise in CO2, and the increase in world population? Undoubtedly closely related to the increase in fossil fuel use as the population increased - I'll give you that. And also an increase in per capita fossil fuel use. Both factors increase CO2 immensely and we know that the overall increase in CO2 correlates with human fossil fuel use.
When I asked you if too many Model T's were the reason for the increased CO2 a hundred years ago, you said it was because of "Coal burning industries. Steam locomotives and ships burning coal." Again, that's fine I'll give you that. But what we have to realize is that those coal burning industries weren't luxuries - they became accepted and necessary to provide food and warmth, and primitive lifestyles, by today's standards, to a NEW UPWARD TREND in population growth. So we have a feed-back system that increases CO2 production exponentially.
So therefore, I only see one way to reduce CO2 back to early 1800's levels, and that would be to eliminate 6 billion people from the earth. Since I don't see anyone from the scientific community or the far political left proposing that, I'd like to know what other SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN alteration to today's societies would satisfy today's climate change alarmists. Except that we have means to produce electricity without adding CO2 to the atmosphere, which is why the Green New Deal emphasizes alternate/renewable electrical generation.
As we see from the above figures, world population was about half what it is today when the U.S. EPA was formed in 1970. Since they're experts, they should have known what was going on in 1912, and that they had something to do. They didn't do it, did they? They aren't accountable, are they? As I said before I know someone who was on the National Science Board when Nixon was president, ie when the EPA was formed. The scientists knew what was going on, the politicians balked at doing anything about it. They still do ... because oil/coal industry lobbyists.
My points have never been adamant disagreement with scientific findings, I'm just adamant that there's nothing humans can do about what mere human existence causes. ... Then get out of the way and let those who think we can do something get to work.
The same way you've been taught to blow through people like Tim Ball, for a similar, but a much more dangerous reason. Free market profit margins aren't nearly as threatening as massive government takeovers of human freedoms, with no accountability. Not surprisingly I disagree totally: unchecked capitalism is a slide back to the worst kind of feudalism, as capitalism has no moral or ethical checking system. No accountability? How are international corporations held accountable? How is Walmart held accountable for paying starvation wages with workers on public assistance for housing health and food while they rake in billions?
Maybe I missed it, but I think you missed one. Let's look at it, I'll c/p a few paragraphs from it. The Great Global Warming Hoax | 'Knowledge is Power' – better-management.org reveals invaluable information
quote: [bolded mine] Curiously I'm well aware of the Milankovich cycles as they are one of the validations for the ages measured by the ice cores. In Message 564 I posted a graph:
quote: As you can see, the Milankovich cycles indeed show that we should be entering a new ice age, as your link says, but that it is massively overwhelmed by human CO2 production.
... Can you knock this out in a couple of sentences? I'm sure you can go to google and find thousands of frantic scientists who've condensed it very nicely for you. As you can see I have already dealt with this, as advertised.
I'd also like some references to a scientific paper or two that PROVE that political action will reverse climate change. ROFLOL. Nice joke. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Does it look to you like both of these guys are saying they'll "do anything they want"? Well I see it mostly as them saying what they want to do. Neither would get far on their own ... in a pre-Trump world, but with the Senate well on their way to giving the President unlimited unchecked powers, that has changed. That's what the GOP is doing to the constitution.
I don't need to be a scientist to see wildly mixed messages in what I see about solutions to climate change. So that's one disagreement I have about the video being "worthless". From what you have (sort of) quoted I don't see anything of value, mostly regurgitated anti-renewable energy talking points paid for by big oil. Look at the oil companies admitting that they knew about their business being detrimental to the climate but continuing anyway, because profits. You claim there is a lot of money on the renewable energy side, but you're looking in the wrong direction. Yes there are many possible ways to reduce CO2 and Methane emissions. Yes transportation requires a way to get to point B without dependence on recharging batteries for long distance travel and trucking, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't invest in renewable energy at all, or even as much as possible. And a lot of people are doing things on their own. I have solar panels, and I have not paid an electrical bill since august 2015. That means they have already paid for themselves.
Here's another; starting at about the 2:35 mark, he starts describing several instances where past scientific predictions have been completely wrong. Was that part incorrect, or was that part just a little less than worthless? Is if fair to dismiss FACTS, just because he's accused of being trained by special interests? Creationist types love when science is wrong, because they think it makes all science wrong and untrustworthy. However scientists also love when science is wrong, because it is an opportunity to correct their models to make better predictions. The models now accurately model the past data and make stronger predictions about the future as a result of these changes. So yeah, dwelling on past failures and not looking at current success makes the video worthless. It's typical for cherry-picking information and presenting a misleading or false representation of the current science.
I don't automatically dismiss "facts" by the scientific community concerning some of their terrifying findings, I just dismiss that they or anyone has the ability to do the equivalent of making 6 billion human beings stop eating, breathing, or keeping warm in winter. And that is politics, not science, isn't it? So we should welcome the people that are making the public more aware of the situation and the danger of doing nothing. Conversely, the danger of making the world a better, cleaner place to live, if say the climate change science happens to be totally wrong (which is highly unlikely), and making industry more accountable and eco-friendly, is what?
The U.S. constitution doesn't give "real science" any more power than anyone else when it comes to making political decisions. True, it allows absolutely stupid, self centered people an equal vote with informed people. So the issue is to make more people informed. Curiously, I seem to remember that the founding fathers were big on having an educated public that could make cogent decisions. BTW
quote: Note that several of the failed predictions were due to inadequate modeling of the ocean's role. Enjoy by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
"Per capita", so this use by "individuals" of fossil fuels is getting increasingly unnecessary, and must be regulated? Increasingly dangerous to life on earth in general and human survival in particular. For that reason it needs to be curtailed.
A feed back system? Cars are more efficient with fuel than ever before, thanks to expensive government mandates, we have more wind turbines than ever before. Are only things like people's hobbies, and overindulgence causing this feed back system? Not much more efficient. I had a car in the 70’s that got 40 mpg. What we see now are bigger vehicles that use more energy, their efficiency compared to earlier vehicles of same weight doesn’t mean much when every one is buying bigger heavier vehicles. There are also increased use of energy for more and more appliances etc, and when we consider human population around the world, not just in the US this amounts to higher use of fossil fuels.
And because the politicians know they'd be voted out of office. There's a reason that specific proposals to "do something" about climate change are still a secret. Which is why democrats are running on climate change action ... as you pointed out. Can’t have it both ways.
"Get out of the way", and let government gobble up freedoms and money to do something that can't be measured? You're funny Government doing what most of the population wants to do, democratically.
Nothing is perfect, but free markets are BY FAR the best way to hold companies, big and small, accountable. Except that it has never worked.
Overwhelmed by facts, or scientific community projections? Both. If you look at the chart the data for 1950 is above the Millankovich cycle level, so it is a fact that it has already been overwhelmed. The future projections don’t get any better.
Yes it is, there's no way to scientifically document how political action will have any effect on climate change. Wrong. Levels are being measured constantly, and anything with a positive effect will show up. Btw
quote: Looks like the case keeps getting stronger, and you keep getting wronger. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
OK, I get your point. We all should focus on action and optimism and throw the ancient made up warnings away, right? But what about the modern scientific ones? Little Greta said it first: Why is nobody doing anything? Seems to me that human nature is self-destructive. Many people are taking action on their own, as I have with solar panels and reduced car use. We also take action at the state level, my state will be fossil fuel free by 2030. Could be better but it a start, and it recognizes the seriousness of the situation. It can only get better as more data rolls in. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Considering all the obvious increases in only the last three years, of talking points about climate change from big science, big government, big Democrat, big anti-America from all around the world, it's clear that big oil's spending, and whatever it stands to gain, is dwarfed by its opposition. Would you like to put some numbers next to those assertions? How much money does "Big Science" have? I know several scientists that would like to know ..., "Big Government" is currently in GOP hands, so that's a dead fish ..., "Big Democrat" - the only ones I see talking about CC are using the scientific facts as far as I can see. And now it's a world wide conspiracy? Or is it a world wide acceptance of the actual reality of climate change? Curious how all our allies (including those Trumpski has yet to insult, and including those he has) are on board for climate change (ie -- Paris Accord)
The federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon, it's 24.4 cents on diesel fuel. For all 50 states all across the country - that's millions of dollars per second, every second of every year. Any ideas on how the dream of 100% renewable energy is going to cover this? ... By providing a fuel that is cheaper than current gas/diesel production costs. Several promising alternatives, including hydrogen as well as better batteries. Cut the big oil subsidy and switch it to alternate transportation.
... The U.S. government is hemorrhaging enough debt per second as it is, it can't do without these excise taxes. ... money that is supposed to go to transportation road maintenance and upkeep ... It gives away more in subsidies to big oil and letting the companies get away with no taxes year after year.
You claim there is a lot of money on the renewable energy side, but you're looking in the wrong direction. quote: Bloomberg - Are you a robot? The more I look in that "wrong direction", the more greed I see. What do you think the main motive for HP, Walmart, Goldman Sachs etc is, climate change, with profits as secondary, or the other way around? Curiously I see companies making sound economic investments, ones they would not make if they did not think the investment was into bogus companies that won't make a return on the investment. The way things are currently working out, it is cheaper to build new generation stations with renewables than with fossil fuels -- it's a business decision, not a political one. This is also augmented by long term considerations of renewables becoming cheaper over time while fossil fuels are getting more expensive to extract over time. Remember when gas was 25 cents/gallon? I do.
These things can and are happening, without government involvement. You made your choice without government involvement. Solar panels wouldn't work for me, my house is almost completely shaded by large trees. Sometimes they die, and fall down or I have to cut them. Then I use them for firewood. One alternative is to buy into a local solar farm, and if not available work to set one up. https://www.wacotrib.com/...07de-5adf-9ff7-246ca3ebcbaf.html Local solar farms can be more efficient than roof-top solar, and the people should be able to buy panels, the town provide the location and the electricity powers town and panel owners homes/businesses.
The danger is ECONOMIC CRASHES. More likely to come from Trumpski deregulating the economy again.
It only has one safeguard concerning stupid, self centered people, and it involves presidential elections. It's called the Electoral College. The general election theoretically takes care of the rest ... in practice not so much, unfortunately.
Is that somewhere in the Constitution? Or just in some of quotes and supporting thoughts of theirs found in places like the Federalist Papers? ... Thomas Jefferson IIRC
quote: Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
marc9000 writes: Nothing is perfect, but free markets are BY FAR the best way to hold companies, big and small, accountable. Except that it has never worked. It hasn't? The U.S. is a complete, 100% failure? The rest of the world would be better off if the U.S. didn't exist? What other system of government works better? And where is it currently, or in past history, practiced? The US regulates the companies, so it is not strictly free market. A regulated market is not a "free" market. Actual free market is where the polluting companies write the pollution standards for what is allowed ... a GOP wet dream. Every time deregulation happens it is followed by disaster. But we ALSO see Boing doing their federal safety inspections, and causing over 300 deaths because that oversight was inadequate -- put that down to free market failure, in the US.
Looks like the case keeps getting stronger, and you keep getting wronger. It gets politically stronger, when enough cherry picking is done. Each political view can do it. It gets politically stronger as public demand increases, through education and through personal experience (floods, fires, droughts) with drastically changed conditions.
It gets politically stronger, when enough cherry picking is done. Each political view can do it. -- video of Tom Ball -- Again, a flawed source not worth watching (unless you want to pick out what you think are his most salient arguments ... ):
quote: EG -- not worth listening to. Enjoy ps -- a reasonably thoughtful and informed person" would IMHO be those who would check the credentials and credibility of their sources before embarrassing themselves by posting them. Just a thought, it only takes a 5 minute search to check. AND you know I will. Edited by RAZD, : psby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
We also take action at the state level, my state will be fossil fuel free by 2030.
Source? Rhode Island's gasoline and diesel excise tax is 35 cents per gallon. Sources is Gov Raymond’s State of the State speech. It may not be enough.
quote: All models are wrong, but some are useful. How useful they are depends on how accurately they model the known past, and how accurately they predict the future. Currently the 27 models run from a low of 1.83°C to a high of 5.64°C with an average of 3.86 °C. see article for graphics, my iPad can't isolate picture locations (or I don’t know how to do this), and my laptop is in the shop getting a hack & virus scrub. So are clouds accurately modeled? One of the reasons Venus is so hot is the cloud cover. Should we be worries about other factors that contribute to cloud cover (smoke?) Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : fixed linkby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Do you have any numbers to put beside your claims of "big oils" political interests? Unlike the above organizations that are 100% political, big oil actually produces a useful product that is willingly purchased in free markets, so you'd have to differentiate between their political money versus the money that's exchanged in their business activity. Operating budget ≠ spending on climate change. Your list seems to be embellished by wish. However Big Oil has the lobbyist and purchasing of (mostly GOP + DINO) politicians, using their expenditures to more effectively push their agendas. Big Oil gets more in government grants and tax relief than all of those budgets combined realclearpolitics.com
quote: Big Oil’s Misbegotten Tax Gusher - Center for American Progress
quote: Those are billions, not millions.
And many of them, like Greta Thunberg and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, are not scientists. They often cherry pick only some scientific data, then take off with all their emotion and political bias in what they say. When I reference others who aren't fully credentialed scientists who do the same thing, you discard them completely because you say they're not scientists. Agreed but the scientists and the science back their positions.
That's not the answer to the question. If new machinery and methods are developed to replace fossil fuels, how would it be taxed, in a way that would be acceptable to the general public? If the switch is made to all electric cars for example, where would money come from to maintain and build roads for them, money that now is taxed from oil product usage? That is going to happen anyway. That is for politicians to decide. Those that have set fossil fuel free goals are working on it.
He probably would agree that illegal, uneducated people pouring over our southern border is not a vital requisite for our survival. And be upset at the numbers of poor uneducated Americans that pretend that immigrants are responsible for their own uneducated status, the failure of states to educate their people. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Some regulation, that has oversight by the public, can still be considered a free market. The "free market" designation stops when too much socialism, or communism, takes over. In who's opinion.
A pollution standard, involving a distant by-product of a free market business that satisfies a supply and demand activity, has little effect on how the voluntary activity will take place. Government regulations, and those who are in charge of enforcing them, are sometimes less perfect than those they are attempting to police. Access to this page has been denied. And they are FAR less accountable for what they screw up than are private companies. In one instance compared to hundreds of spills by companies, including but not limited to coal ash discharges from flooding of retention ponds last year. Ponds that would not be necessary if the companies had adequate waste treatment.
Did you do that when you told me that your state was going to be fossil fuel free by 2030, and your source was - a state governor? Are you embarrassed? Not when it is the governor who makes and sets the policy. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... We're constantly told that 97% of scientists worldwide agree that humans cause climate change, but we never hear how that percentage was tabulated. ... To me that is irrelevant. Even if only 25% of actual climate scientists said it was due to human activity that would be enough for me to think we should revise our culture to reduce and eventually eliminate it if the temps are rising. Ask yourself who benefits if we do nothing. The temps are rising. Especially the sea temps, and this means flooding and fiercer storms.
... here have been several surveys on the subject - below is a video that breaks it all down. I know you won't watch it, so I'll just describe how only one of them went; About 10 years ago, ... You're right I won't watch it. Taking stuff 10 years old is obviously not current science. Others have taken this point to show current specific data still shows an overwhelming majority of actual climate scientists say it is due to human activity. The temps are rising. Especially the sea temps, and this means flooding and fiercer storms. If there is anything we can do to reduce whatever is causing the sea temps to rise we should do it to reduce the effects of coastal flooding, because it will cost billions of $$ if we don't do anything. If there is anything we can do to reduce whatever is causing the sea temps to rise we should do it to reduce the effects of fiercer storms, because it will cost billions of $$ if we don't do anything. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024