|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 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: 1509 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
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. Access to this page has been denied. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
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. You don't see any chance at all that the future could be harmed by a financial disaster?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4
|
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 1.83C 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: 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 sizeable percentage of the U.S. population. You should listen to Rush Limbaugh sometime.
marc9000 writes: 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. Companies are constantly under the radar for any polluting they do, they're subject to fines, threats of being shut down by government, and backlash from the general public who supports them by buying their products, especially since their pollution is shouted from the rooftops by the news media. The EPA has no such concerns, they have little interest in what the general public thinks of them. They can't be fined since they have no money, other than what they lap up from the public trough. They have a lot less incentive to avoid polluting and upsetting free markets than do private companies.
marc9000 writes: 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. State governors in the U.S. are not dictators. It would take several political steps to get that done, and they all have to go through the political process, including other politicians who understand that chances are slim that the technology to do that won't be much better in 2030 than it is today, and it's practically non-existent today. Other RI politicians just might also understand more of how the real world actually works. I wonder if RI's governor has any idea what today's fossil fuel burning construction equipment actually costs. Do you? Around here, and probably where you live, most construction equipment working in new subdivisions, or on road and bridge repair and new construction, is usually pretty old and beat up. There's a reason for that. About 15 years ago, I saw an unusual sight, it was a 963 Caterpillar track loader working on a job I was on, and it was unusually clean. I was wondering if it had just been cleaned up, but upon a closer look, it was easy to see it had never been dirty. Paint around the tracks and inside the bucket, places where paint is always worn off. A nice clear plastic cover over the seat. (a 963 is about as big as a full sized pickup, a little taller, with the bucket capacity of 4 or 5 tons of dirt or gravel, they are a common sight even on smaller construction jobs.) The foreman was walking by, and I asked; "is this that unit's first job?" "First job!", he proudly said. And I said "what's the price tag, 250?" As he continued to walk, he said "350". Yes, we were talking in thousands of dollars. Recently, a company in my area bought a new asphalt paver. You've seen them, paving parking lots, working behind the concrete barriers along interstate construction jobs. Again, about as big as a pickup truck, considerably wider, with two high seats in back, and a hopper in front where trucks dump hot asphalt. What would you guess, $60,000? Multiply that by 10 and you've got it, 600,000 George Washingtons. When companies make these purchases, they have to figure on being able to use them for 30 or 40 years in the future, it's the only way they can afford them. How many RI companies have been investing in this type of equipment lately? Do you think they'll be happy when RI's governor tells them, in 2030, that they can't use it anymore? First class slaves in the 1850's were going for an average of $200 in federal currency, and that was a LOT of money back then. Common sense tells us that that was a significant factor in what got the shooting started back then. Would it be any different today?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
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. Naturalism (evolution / atheism) versus Biblical Christianity seems to be almost the exact same divide as there is between climate alarmists versus those who don't believe humans can control the weather. The scientific community claims that supernatural activity can't be scientifically studied, which is true. True science actually STOPS when it gets close to the possibility of an area where the supernatural could be involved. But those in today's scientific community don't stop, they keep right on going beyond that point, assuming that the re-arrangement processes of science can explain all of reality, which it can't. They can make some impressive claims in some of the areas they explore once they get beyond that point, but it's always limited on just how far they can go with their pure atheism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: 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. "Revise our culture", that means that humans have been TOO FREE in their choices to use fossil fuels for the past several hundred years, that fossil fuel use needs to be policed. All we need is perfect people to do that policing. Who are the perfect people?
Ask yourself who benefits if we do nothing. People who believe in the U.S. founding principle of liberty.
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. Yes, it's not current POLITICS. As I've already pointed out, the earth's population has increased 8 fold in just over 200 years. Why don't we ask the scientists if the temp is rising because of unpoliced fossil fuel use, or if it's rising by 8 billion people regularly exhaling? But nope, that question might not give the sought after political answer.
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 $$ if we don't do anything. Coastal flooding is a prediction, no different than past scientific predictions that never happened. But you're not aware of that, because you won't watch what happened 10 years ago.
If there is anything we can do to reduce whatever is causing the sea temps to rise we should do it to reduce the effects of fiercer storms, because it will cost billions of $$ if we don't do anything. That's right, DO SOMETHING. Something to satisfy emotions, just like we call for more gun control when some nut case loses it, just like more costly, useless safety equipment gets mandated for school buses after one freak accident. It doesn't do a thing to lessen the problem, but it makes a (largely idle) significant voting bloc feel better. But there's only one thing for sure that new government fossil fuel mandates will do, and that's increase the power and money of government bureaucrats.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Scientists are paid to study climate no matter if it is warming or cooling. Who pays them? I can understand corporations / individuals paying for something that effects their daily lives, like short term weather predictions etc. but who has financial interests in long term climate activities? Political interests of course. But who else?
Companies are special interests. They are interested in profit. They can have several other interests. Like the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" that life in the U.S. has largely been about for 244 years. The standard of living we now have, the challenge of competition with other companies to do things slightly better and more efficiently.
If they are polluting and policies meant to stop polluting are getting in the way of profit, then they attack the people pushing those policies. There's a difference between "attacking" and questioning. When "pollution" is claimed to be happening even though normal human senses can't detect it, only complex instruments of a faction can detect it, then those claims deserve to be questioned. (in a free society)
Why do you make this into a politically charged question? Because it's a politically charged subject. It's only pushed by ONE political party in the U.S. If that party didn't politically charge it, the way it's discussed would be totally different. There's just too much obvious phoniness in the claims, predictions, and solutions that are proposed for it. Too much information is omitted, such as how the climate was actually warmer 1000 years ago. It's omitted, because it doesn't produce the desired political result that ONE political party seeks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Do you think the greenhouse effect is beyond the limits of science? What about the absorbance spectra of carbon dioxide? No. It's measurements are well within the limits of actual science.
To me, it looks like carbon dioxide has an absorbance peak within the Earth's emission spectra. Do you agree? Do you have any problem with this science? Not at all. I have a problem with the ABRUPT extension into politics, which says that an increase in the size and scope of government can fix it. That people are, and have been TOO FREE. That total socialism / communism can perfectly reverse it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
That principle never incorporated the right to hurt other people through pollution. It depends on how "pollution" is determined. It shouldn't be imaginary pollution, the kind that can be pushed by a faction for political gain.
The CO2 in our breath comes from the carbohydrates we ingest. Those carbohydrates were produced in plants by capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. It's a closed loop. No matter how many people were exhaling, it couldn't increase CO2 levels in our atmosphere. I've heard the same thing about deadwood. I've heard that if allowed to decay on its own over long periods of time, it gives off exactly the same amount of heat as it does when burned quickly by humans for warmth. Yet when looking at countless websites advocating the government banning of wood burning stoves, I never see any of them trying to distinguish between cutting and burning live, green wood versus burning dead wood. It almost seems like there's more interest in BANNING, than there is in any concern for the actual science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
We are putting way more than enough CO2 into the air to account for the increase. It's a matter of just doing the math. And then we can do the history. We can look at past governments that increased their own power and money because they thought their people were too free. And then see how much better that society became.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4
|
Rush Limbaugh for instance. In my opinion anyone listening to his garbage opinions is a gullible minion. And yes that includes a lot of Americans. He's not a scientist, he's a hate filled conspiracy monger. He knows nothing about climate change. The way he discusses women is revolting. I knew your opinion of him wasn't much, that's not the reason I referenced him. He's more widely listened to than any other radio talk show host, and in listening to him you'd get to hear what his callers have to say. You'd be amazed at how much knowledge he, and his listeners have of history and human nature.
marc9000 writes: "Revise our culture", that means that humans have been TOO FREE in their choices to use fossil fuels for the past several hundred years, that fossil fuel use needs to be policed. All we need is perfect people to do that policing. Who are the perfect people? No it means using education and letting an educated population decide. Uh oh, then you used a poor choice of words. REVISING OUR CULTURE doesn't go along with "letting people decide". It's about a government doing the revising. This is what I was referring to above, concerning suspicions in how climate change is discussed among the climate change alarmists.
Coastal flooding is a fact. The ocean level is already higher on average than at any time in human history. That elite humans in government can adjust the levels of the oceans is not a fact. If only someone from the future could have visited Adolph Hitler or Josef Stalin. "Poor you, you were born 80 years too early. If you were a tyrant today like you used to be, did you know that a large percentage of the population could be convinced that you could control the climate? Think of what a gold mine that could have been for you!!!! And Hitler would have said, "oh come on, people are gullible, but they couldn't possibly be that gullible!" He couldn't have comprehended what today's communications, combined with a bent press and a bent scientific community could produce.
Sorry you lose, reality wins. Let's just hope it's in time to save the human race from themselves. I have lost in a few ways. We now have a full blown communist closer than ever before to one party's nomination for president. But there's other ways I could lose too, we could have a virus 10 times worse than the Coronavirus be brought here from Mexico from illegal immigrants, long before any of us burst into flames from global warming. There are a lot of things I could lose from that are far more pressing, and far more possible for humans to counteract than climate change. But I'm winning too in some ways. Democrats don't have much political power on their horizon.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024