|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 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 1435 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Personally I have switched to LED lighting, walk or use a bike for most of my transportation and drive less than 2000 miles a year total. I keep my house warmer in summer and reduce the use of AC even during the winter. Lately we have been pushing 90F down here and it's still January. I've added insulation and more efficient appliances. I switched my electricity supplier to one that uses only renewable sources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
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. 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.
Look at the oil companies admitting that they knew about their business being detrimental to the climate but continuing anyway, because profits. 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? The U.S. government is hemorrhaging enough debt per second as it is, it can't do without these excise taxes.
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?
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. 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. https://www.jbbardot.com/epa-bans-most-wood-burning-stoves/ Who can tell what the future holds with government bans? Looks like my lifestyle could be in danger, yours is not.
Creationist types love when science is wrong, because they think it makes all science wrong and untrustworthy. They don't believe it makes science wrong, but it makes political predictions, disguised as science, untrustworthy.
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. Current predictions aren't automatically successful. Many people see current predictions that are based on political asperations as being no different than past ones. The cherry picking of information that all the "bigs" that oppose big oil is obvious.
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 danger is ECONOMIC CRASHES.
marc9000 writes: 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. It only has one safeguard concerning stupid, self centered people, and it involves presidential elections. It's called the Electoral College.
Curiously, I seem to remember that the founding fathers were big on having an educated public that could make cogent decisions. Is that somewhere in the Constitution? Or just in some of quotes and supporting thoughts of theirs found in places like the Federalist Papers? I suspect it could be, but it wouldn't go along well with most climate change alarmists parallel beliefs about uneducated, non-English people pouring over our southern border, would it?
Note that several of the failed predictions were due to inadequate modeling of the ocean's role. Any chances of inadequate modeling of the upcoming Milankovich cycle, or other future natural climate events that humans have nothing to do with?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Increasingly dangerous to life on earth in general and human survival in particular. For that reason it needs to be curtailed. "BIG CURTAIL" - looks like the best way to refer to all the various opposition to "big oil".
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?
marc9000 writes: 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. Will show up when, 100 years from now? Will show up in spite of some very possible inadequate modeling of other climate variables, like the Milankovich cycle?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Humans are short sighted and selfish, not necessarily self destructive. Fossil fuels are cheap and easy to use, so we use them. It takes a lot of spending and infrastructure to switch, so we don't. We don't see any change in the climate or threat to our way of life in the very short term, so we don't worry about it. Largely because many people see larger, more pressing worries. Such as, how to pay for things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
There are 3rd world nations making the transition to industrialized nations, and their fossil fuel consumption has shot through the roof. As more and more Indians and Chinese get cars when they didn't have them before, guess what happens? Also, there are feedback systems that continue to release CO2 from ocean stores. I agree! The almost 8 fold increase in world population in only 200 years, third world countries finally making it out of the 16th century, I can see how these things have increased CO2. Aside from the fact that there is disagreement on how much of a problem it is, doesn't it make sense that there isn't ANY uneven blame, that is, no human or group of humans is/are more responsible for this than any other group? Why is it then, that Greta HOW DARE YOU Thunberg is the darling of the climate change movement? Why don't a significant number of climate change alarmists condemn her for singling out only certain humans for the perceived problem? It's things like this, it's the enthusiasm that many show for this climate change PROBLEM, it's all the finger pointing that goes on, the claims that bigger government can quickly fix it all - there are just too many things that raise suspicions about the honesty of it all.
marc9000 writes: Nothing is perfect, but free markets are BY FAR the best way to hold companies, big and small, accountable. Ummm, no. There is a reason we have labor laws, the FDA, the EPA, anti-trust laws, and banking regulations. It's because free markets can't police themselves, nor have they in the past. We already tried it your way, and it didn't work. They co-exist with free markets. Yet they keep increasing, and free markets keep decreasing, even though free markets sustain ALL of it. How long before the scales are tipped, and free markets crash? A few more climate change regulations?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
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. Fuel taxes in the United States - Wikipedia How will that be made up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
marc9000 writes:
Are you unaware of the concept of government? They can tax anything. They can tax the sun and the wind. Rhode Island's gasoline and diesel excise tax is 35 cents per gallon. Fuel taxes in the United States - Wikipedia How will that be made up?"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 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 1435 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
marc9000 writes: Largely because many people see larger, more pressing worries. Such as, how to pay for things. In many ways, that is true. Humans will harm their future in return for immediate rewards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
marc9000 writes: It's things like this, it's the enthusiasm that many show for this climate change PROBLEM, it's all the finger pointing that goes on, the claims that bigger government can quickly fix it all - there are just too many things that raise suspicions about the honesty of it all. The good ol' what-about-isms. Distract, distract, distract . . . do anything but look at the science.
They co-exist with free markets. Yet they keep increasing, and free markets keep decreasing, even though free markets sustain ALL of it. How long before the scales are tipped, and free markets crash? Regulated markets are what fuels the US economy, not free markets. Every single business in the US is regulated. No US company is allowed to dump billions of gallons of toxic waste into the local river, as one example. Guess what? The economy keeps on truckin'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Taq writes: No US company is allowed to dump billions of gallons of toxic waste into the local river, as one example. Kinda!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: 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? Here are organizations that claim to have an association with science; ClimateWorks Foundation Conservation International World Wildlife Fund Resources Legacy Fund Partnership Project Pew Charitable Trusts Ocean Conservancy National Wildlife Federation Root Capital American Rivers* Oceana Blue Green Alliance Population Action International Alaska Wilderness League Environment America Izaak Walton League National Religious Partnership for the Environment Environmental Defense Fund The Nature Conservancy Sierra Club The Conservation Fund Natural Resources Defense Council National Parks Conservation Association League of Conservation Voters World Resources Institute National Audubon Society Trust for Public Land National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Earthjustice The Wilderness Society Green for All Resource Media Greenpeace Clean Water Action Union of Concerned Scientists Friends of the Earth US Climate Action Network River Network Defenders of Wildlife Center for Biological Diversity Center for International Environmental Law Society of Environmental Journalists The Environmental and Energy Study Institute Rails to Trails Conservancy Population Connection Southwest Research and Info Center Do you also need numbers as to how much money they have? Well, that would take some time, but here are a few picks from that list; The Sierra club's 2013 budget was $97, 891,373. Sierra Club - Wikipedia
quote: The Sierra Club: An Activist Facts Organizational Profile Greenpeace's 2011 budget was $236.9 million. Greenpeace - Wikipedia The Environmental Defense Fund's 2015 revenue was $146 million. Environmental Defense Fund - Wikipedia 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.
"Big Government" is currently in GOP hands, so that's a dead fish The house is in Democrat hands, and the huge increase in climate change terror in the past 3 years alone has been very effectively done by the above groups, and the mainstream news media.
"Big Democrat" - the only ones I see talking about CC are using the scientific facts as far as I can see. 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.
marc9000 writes: 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. 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?
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. I agree completely, and it can all be done without government intervention.
Remember when gas was 25 cents/gallon? I do. I do too, late 60's. A time when the minimum wage was $1.60, a time when $10,000 per year was a nice income for a family of four. When a nice home could be had for $20,000. Adjusted for inflation, (and wasteful new government mandates) gas prices haven't changed all that much.
quote: He probably would agree that illegal, uneducated people pouring over our southern border is not a vital requisite for our survival.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024