Re: Climate Change becomes more evident every year.
The US regulates the companies, so it is not strictly free market. A regulated market is not a "free" market.
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.
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.
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.
And they are FAR less accountable for what they screw up than are private companies.
It gets politically stronger as public demand increases, through education and through personal experience (floods, fires, droughts) with drastically changed conditions.
But mostly through scare tactics and emotion. We've seen similar chicken-little claims so many times before.
Again, a flawed source not worth watching (unless you want to pick out what you think are his most salient arguments
That's what I want to do, as I compare them to claims made by his opponents, like Greta Thunberg.
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.
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?
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 1.83C to a high of 5.64C 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?)
If only they would research it without a political bent. We're constantly told that 97% of scientists worldwide agree that humans cause climate change, but we never hear how that percentage was tabulated. There 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, a pair of researchers at the University of Illinois sent out an on-line survey to 10,000 earth scientists, with two questions; 1) Do you agree that earths overall temps have increased since the pre 1800's, and 2) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor? They got 3146 responses, and of those, 90% said yes to first question, and 82% said yes to the second. Yet among those who were meteorologists, only 64% said yes to the second question. And among only 77 of those respondents who claimed to be climate experts, 75 said yes to the second question, so 75 out of 77, YES!! that's the 97% that we hear trumpeted today. Only 77 people, out of those who bothered to respond, are claimed to represent science the world over! This is how misleading, and phony climate alarmists are in trying to state their political case. There are more details of scientific surveys in this video.
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
quote:The oil industry has prospered over the past decade, thanks to high oil and gasoline prices. The five largest companies -- BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell -- earned more than $1 trillion during this time. In the first nine months of 2013, these five companies realized a combined $71 billion in profits. Certainly, these companies can prosper without $2.4 billion in annual special tax breaks.
quote:At a time when gas prices exceed $4 a gallon, these profits are coming out of ordinary people’s pockets, and not just at the pump. American families are also padding the oil companies’ enormous profits with their tax dollars. In effect, U.S. taxpayers wrote a collective $7 billion bonus check to the oil industry when they filed their taxes last month.
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.
Re: Climate Change becomes more evident every year.
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.
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.
If only they would research it without a political bent. We're constantly told that 97% of scientists worldwide agree that humans cause climate change, but we never hear how that percentage was tabulated. There 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, a pair of researchers at the University of Illinois sent out an on-line survey to 10,000 earth scientists, with two questions; 1) Do you agree that earths overall temps have increased since the pre 1800's, and 2) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor? They got 3146 responses, and of those, 90% said yes to first question, and 82% said yes to the second. Yet among those who were meteorologists, only 64% said yes to the second question. And among only 77 of those respondents who claimed to be climate experts, 75 said yes to the second question, so 75 out of 77, YES!! that's the 97% that we hear trumpeted today. Only 77 people, out of those who bothered to respond, are claimed to represent science the world over! This is how misleading, and phony climate alarmists are in trying to state their political case. There are more details of scientific surveys in this video.
They argue this one with evolution as well, it's popular to use the, "majority of scientists believe" card, as an INDIRECT ARGUMENT.
Indirect arguments don't count as direct arguments and the, "most scientists believe" card, is just argumentum ad populum. (an appeal to popularity).
Most evolutionists use two ploys;
1. The "most scientists believe" card. 2. The "science denier" ad-hom personal attack (so that people will stereotype anyone who doesn't accept the popular conclusion of mainstreamists.)
The main reason why the "most scientists" statistic is a poor argument, is because basically it's pretty much a tautology that if someone is a scientist, that joins science with a philosophy of methodological naturalism, and accepts science, and has the philosophy that all science is put through the method is accepted, is then going to accept what science says.
Think about that for a moment. Is a person that believes in science, goes into science, believes all theories put forward are of the same value, then going to accept what science officially puts forward?
The probability of that is like asking this; "Are you against rape?" Person; "Yes". "Then would you be against me raping you?"
Hmmmmmm, I wonder if evolutionists would think it an impressive statistic if we were to show them that all people against rape would say, "yes".
OF COURSE most secular scientists accept what secular science says. This is not only expected, it's so banal and tautological it tells us absolutely NOTHING about the veracity of the claims within secular science.
THE MODIFIED ARGUMENT:
The evolutionist usually then modifies the argument to; "but all evolutionist scientists would say evolution is factual".
Does this count as telling us more? What are the chances a person that studies evolution, goes into that field, believes it to be true and believes in science?
It tells us nothing really. We might as well just respond thus; "but all creationist qualified scientists reject evolution".
These things tell us little, they are just part and parcel of the evolutionists dependence on indirect argumentation. The reason evolutionists depend upon indirect argumentation is because direct argumentation never favours their theories.
"But mike all science is equal being put through the method".
NOPE. That's a non-sequitur, just as it would be a non-sequitur to conclude that because a Ferrari car and a Skoda car both passed a vehicle inspection test for road legality, that therefore the car brakes are of equal performance. In fact the ferrari would bury the skoda.
It's the same with exotic air, forces, germs. They all BURY evolution, because we can deduce and repeatably induce the same results for air, forces and germs. But what you can't do even once is show us that the science fiction of primordial blobs can naturally form. In fact every experiment so far is not even 1% of 1% of 1% close to showing any abiogenesis, and all experiments have confirmed biogenesis.
CONCLUSION: 5 trillion times in a row I can show germs exist, exotic air, and downforce, but evolution and abiogenesis cannot be shown even once.
I know you won't watch it, so I'll just describe how only one of them went; About 10 years ago, a pair of researchers at the University of Illinois sent out an on-line survey to 10,000 earth scientists, with two questions; 1) Do you agree that earths overall temps have increased since the pre 1800's, and 2) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor? They got 3146 responses, and of those, 90% said yes to first question, and 82% said yes to the second. Yet among those who were meteorologists, only 64% said yes to the second question. And among only 77 of those respondents who claimed to be climate experts, 75 said yes to the second question, so 75 out of 77, YES!! that's the 97% that we hear trumpeted today. Only 77 people, out of those who bothered to respond, are claimed to represent science the world over! This is how misleading, and phony climate alarmists are in trying to state their political case. There are more details of scientific surveys in this video.
Here are the results from a survey of 1,800+ actual climate researchers, those who publish climate papers in peer reviewed scientific journals:
quote:Results are presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was unique in its size, broadness and level of detail. Consistent with other research, we found that, as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming. Just a moment...
You can click on the link above to see how they got those numbers.
Added in edit:
In case you were wondering about the methods for finding that 97% of climate papers support AGW, it can be found in this paper:
quote:We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991—2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
They argue this one with evolution as well, it's popular to use the, "majority of scientists believe" card, as an INDIRECT ARGUMENT.
Do you go to a car mechanic for your health problems?
For most of us, expert opinions matter.
The main reason why the "most scientists" statistic is a poor argument, is because basically it's pretty much a tautology that if someone is a scientist, that joins science with a philosophy of methodological naturalism, and accepts science, and has the philosophy that all science is put through the method is accepted, is then going to accept what science says.
OF COURSE most secular scientists accept what secular science says. This is not only expected, it's so banal and tautological it tells us absolutely NOTHING about the veracity of the claims within secular science.
I've pondered this a few times looking for something sensible in it. I'm not finding it.
The scientific method is the best tool we've built to sort out fact from fiction. It's built our modern world. Without it we'd still be in the dark ages.
Do you have a better method of establishing whether, say, a new drug works or if it's snake oil?
What have you got Mike? Are you going to just think very hard about it and declare it efficacious? Maybe look it up in your 2,000 year old book?
You do understand that when a scientist does something, he not only has to say what his conclusions are he has to publish his methodology so that others can verify it? It's a methodology that catches and corrects errors.
Scientists don't just accept what other scientists say, they check and test. It's believers that listen uncritically to the guy in the pulpit and obliged to believe everything the institution tells them for pain of everlasting damnation. Untested and untestable. A mere assertion.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
It's also easier to maintain comfort (even if the process dooms the future) than it is to toughen up and do the hard work. I am 60 years old and not in the best of help. I just want to be comfortable in my declining years. I'm not at all ready to sacrifice too much. I enjoy hot water. I enjoy the freedom of mobility. I enjoy a comfortable bed and a warm house. To me, these are inalienable rights. And yes, I will be honest. I fear sharing what we have with the whole world because we will have less than we had before. You call it greed--I call it an entitlement. There. I've confessed that sin.
The only way I know to drive out evil from the country is by the constructive method of filling it with good.Calvin Coolidge
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.-RC Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith
- You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. Anne Lamott
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.~Andre Gide
I fear sharing what we have with the whole world because we will have less than we had before.
Why.
It is not a zero sum game Phat. Others having what you take for granted does not mean you have to give anything up. That stupidity IS what the CCoI and current crop of so called Conservatives market but it is simply silly.
... 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.
The biggest fact that demonstrates what utter deplorable fools climate change deniers really are is the fact that the very BEST scenario is if the changes are human induced. It is only human induced changes that humans can really address and all other actions possible are to simply mitigate the harmful effects of climate change.
The fools should be praying that it is human caused climate change and praying that humans get off their collective asses and address reducing the human contributions.
Operating budget spending on climate change. Your list seems to be embellished by wish.
They do have a few other interests, but climate change is BY FAR the biggest. It's where the money is.
However Big Oil has the lobbyist and purchasing of (mostly GOP + DINO) politicians, using their expenditures to more effectively push their agendas.
I can only think of one agenda they could have, to sell in free markets and be left alone by government. What other agenda could they have? Other than to be protected from those special interests that seek to destroy them?
That is going to happen anyway. That is for politicians to decide. Those that have set fossil fuel free goals are working on it.
I suspect they already have plenty of ideas. But they're a secret, they'd be a little too much of a shock for the general public to see, before climate change activists get enough political power.
™ Version 4.2
(1)