Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


(1)
Message 671 of 941 (873034)
03-08-2020 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 662 by marc9000
03-08-2020 9:33 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
But they [people] haven't done it [complain about polluting] by claiming that the pollution is completely invisible and undetectable by any human senses, that they only know it because a faction's precision instruments tell them that.
Yes, indeed they have. Take for example pollution of freshwater sources by toxic chemicals. It's often invisible, odorless, and tasteless. Undetectable except by laboratory testing, and the eventual telltale signs of illness and death in the population. The labs' precision instruments don't subscribe to any "faction". Neither does the science giving evidence to the fact of AGW belong to any faction.
...they need to show evidence of pollution that is specifically provable as measured by the five human senses. If they can't, then there are political problems.
They're only political problems for people who are able to ignore 2 extra human senses. Logic and reason.
That [CO2 pollution] is the claim of a faction, and, so far, a minority of the population.
Those are the facts. No different than the fact that Earth is spinning. If a majority of people insist the Earth is stationery, as their 5 senses tell them, that doesn't change the fact. In any case, the majority of Americans now accept the fact that global warming is caused by the activities of mankind and must be addressed by our government.
Another partial sentence...
...yup, there it is, toilet seats...
Mine is wooden. But I suppose some petroleum distillates were used for the finish, and it's likely that fossil fuels were used in its manufacturing process. But this is a silly straw man argument. No one is proposing to immediately outlaw fossil fuels. Every item on your list can be produced without them anyway, even the toilet seat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 662 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2020 9:33 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by marc9000, posted 03-15-2020 6:54 PM glowby has replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


Message 689 of 941 (873471)
03-15-2020 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by marc9000
03-15-2020 6:54 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
But to make political decisions, we need more than laboratory testing, we need to combine that with the eventual telltale signs ..."
NO WE DON'T! Lab testing doesn't just determine the level of toxins, it can also help us calculate the eventual death and suffering that will result. There's no need to wait for people to start dropping dead! You're suggesting we kill people for your "liberty"? What freedoms do you have to sacrifice, for people to be forbidden to poison one another?
...to convince a free people that something needs to be done about it."
No one needs to be convinced that murder is bad. You wouldn't hesitate to condemn terrorists for poisoning a municipal water supply. But if a corporation does it, maybe it's OK because ... liberties?
Yes, polls say most Americans see global warming as a threat. No, there's no reason to think governments can "fix" it. The time for fixing it is long past, largely because of twisted ideologies like yours. We can only mitigate the cost, in dollars and human suffering, by reducing the severity of the problem.
And if polls said most Americans were OK with poison water supplies, it would still be the responsibility of governments to stop it.
The average American is oblivious to the toxicity level of various poisons, and all the reasons we got ourselves into this mess with the climate. We rely on science and responsible government to deal with such things. If your "faction" wants to debate approaches to these problems, fine. But a do-nothing approach only protects the "liberties" of the do-nothing faction, at the expense of everyone else's.
You can stop marching your straw man around. I agree it would be silly to stop using all fossil fuel products. But as a primary source of energy, we got burned. It ended up screwing up the whole planet. We have to face that now and do something about it.
The scientist "faction" saw it coming and warned us. But anti-fact factions fabricated fictions to obfuscate what's factual, for the immediate benefits of industry but to the long-term detriment of the people of Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by marc9000, posted 03-15-2020 6:54 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 698 by marc9000, posted 03-18-2020 7:20 PM glowby has replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


Message 708 of 941 (873739)
03-19-2020 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 698 by marc9000
03-18-2020 7:20 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
marc9000 writes:
Do you propose that we amend the Constitution to declare that the can by-pass the political process and dictate rules and regulations however it sees fit?
No. Do you propose that the scientific community should be ignored or distrusted when governments consider legislation?
marc9000 writes:
The calculations for the eventual death and suffering can be taken into consideration before anyone dies ...
Thanks! What a sweetheart!
marc9000 writes:
...alongside the calculations of possibilities of corruption, of what companies will be destroyed by new political action, what companies (and politicians) will stand to benefit greatly from new political action, etc.
If we knew how to calculate possibilities of corruption, political science would be a true science and we'd live in a completely different world now. Sorry. There's no such science.
Facts are facts, whether they're from science labs or accounting departments. It's the job of our legislators to legislate intelligently, taking all available info into consideration and resisting corruption. If legislation (or lack of it) causes harm to the population, something need to change (or be done).
If laws, rules, and regulations benefit the well-being and happiness of the overall population, who cares which political or industrial players might win or lose?
marc9000 writes:
As only one example, government mandated airbags sometimes kill children and small adults. It's considered, by the government, to be a worthwhile trade-off.
Good call by the government. A good trade off. Thousands of lives have been saved.
marc9000 writes:
They can make estimates, (unprovable of course) of how many lives airbags save,...
The stats are very solidly provable. Obviously and painfully true. They prevent much more harm than they cause. Like vaccines.
marc9000 writes:
... and they can point fingers at parents every time a child is killed. If we don't like it, if we don't agree with them, that's just tough for us.
Yes. People pointed fingers. The parents hadn't even fastened their kids' safety belts, or put the seat facing the right way.
Yes. It's tough for uninformed ignorant people to understand.
marc9000 writes:
There is a huge difference between free market accountability versus government accountability.
And cheers to that! Human suffering only counts as an intangible asset - negative goodwill - on balance sheets in a free market. It has to count for a lot more in government.
marc9000 writes:
glowby writes:
What freedoms do you have to sacrifice, for people to be forbidden to poison one another?
The system we have works just fine. If you don't agree, what would your solution be?
Dude! You're the one complaining about the system! They want to do what's right in the long term for the people, the economy and the planet; and you're whining about liberties and "factions".
marc9000 writes:
glowby writes:
No one needs to be convinced that murder is bad. You wouldn't hesitate to condemn terrorists for poisoning a municipal water supply. But if a corporation does it, maybe it's OK because ... liberties?
No. But a possibly corrupt faction can't make knee-jerk decisions concerning political action.
True. Since the beginning of time. Your point? The scientific community is probably the least prone to corruption of all. They have to prove their ideas to each other and the world. In writing. With supporting data and reasoned conclusions. If they turn out to be just a little wrong, they're called out for it. Their work is revised or rejected. If they fake data or lie about methods, they risk losing their careers. Immediately. Can you think of another "faction" like that?
marc9000 writes:
What should have been done to fix it? (global warming) I've been asking that question over and over in this thread, and I'm not getting any answers.
It's because "fixing" it is impossible. The best we can hope is to slow the process we set in motion, and mitigate the cost in dollars and human suffering. Some day Earth's climates might approximate what they would have been, had we not fouled things up so bad. But by then we'll have extincted many more species, and coastal populations will have been forced inland. The dead will be buried.
You're asking the wrong question. It's, "What should be done to stop making things worse and minimize the damage?"
marc9000 writes:
I've pointed out the necessary products that are only available through fossil fuel use, that would cause enormous problems if they were banned by government.
And we've pointed out that these products are not endangered. Many can easily be made without fossil fuels today. If fossil fuels are indeed necessary, they'll be available. No one is proposing an outright ban.
marc9000 writes:
Climate alarmists always imply that there has been lavish, unnecessary use of fossil fuels that have caused the problems.
No. They don't. They say it's mainly the use of fossil fuels for electricity, heating, transportation, and industry.
marc9000 writes:
Which ones should have been banned long ago? Auto racing? Pleasure boating? Major sporting events? The antique auto industry? Michael Bloomberg's 72 gallon per hour helicopter? ...
Again: No one is proposing an outright ban.
marc9000 writes:
Too many farting cows? WHAT?
You do understand that cows aren't fossil fuels, right?
marc9000 writes:
What have poisons got to do with the climate?
You said CO2 pollution is just a "claim by a faction" because it's invisible and undetectable. I said a lot of poisons are too. Undetectable in the water supply. So when a lab reports poisons, is it just a "claim by a faction"?
It's an alarm going off. Not that different than our smoke, monoxide, and radon detectors. And not that different than all the facts that prove we accidentally screwed up the whole Earth by spewing massive amounts of garbage exhaust into the atmosphere.
marc9000 writes:
Here's a vid that makes the case for why free markets, not government, is best suited to "do something about" challenges to society.
Quaint. You might as well tell us how free markets are best at ending wars, drug abuse, or prostitution.
Obviously, free markets helped create global warming, as did governments. Neither one functions well without the other, for good or bad. Together they can accomplish a lot. Lax government regulations played a large in creating this crisis. Setting free markets free is the stupidest possible thing we could do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 698 by marc9000, posted 03-18-2020 7:20 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


(3)
Message 786 of 941 (884845)
03-10-2021 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 784 by Porkncheese
03-10-2021 11:49 AM


A denier denies
In the '90s climate scientists made a whole bunch of predictions which actually did "eventuate" and many more that are yet to come true. Al Gore's and mainstream media's exaggeration and sensationalization of the predictions don't change the validity of the science, or the success of the predictions scientists have actually made.
Porkncheese writes:
But they changed its name to climate change...
Near the very start, it was also called "inadvertent weather modification". The problem didn't go away just because it was given different labels.
They used to call nuclear weapons "A-bombs" and "H-bombs". Do you believe that makes them any less dangerous? Non-existent? Was Hiroshima a false-flag operation?
In climate science, "global warming" refers to the fact that the overall average temps on Earth are increasing. This in turn leads to changes in various climates on the planet: "climate change".
Porkncheese writes:
Its predictions failed and now its become unfalsifiable.
Its predictions have succeeded and continue to do so. Cherry-picking exaggerations of politicians and tabloids doesn't change that.
Porkncheese writes:
The fringe climate scientists have actually been predicting a cooling in temperatures due to a decrease in solar activity.
Who cares what the fringe says? Professional climate scientists are well aware that temps should be decreasing because of a downward trend in Earth's total solar irradiation. But they aren't. That's further proof that something unnatural is driving climate. We know what's doing it. We are.
"Denier" is a perfectly appropriate term for people who deny reality and actively campaign against accepting it. Demonization is appropriate too. The denier talking points you've regurgitated here have infested our government and are delaying our response to the problem. That's leading to more human suffering and economic damage.
Climate deniers deserve no more respect than flat-earthers or holocaust deniers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 784 by Porkncheese, posted 03-10-2021 11:49 AM Porkncheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 787 by Porkncheese, posted 03-10-2021 2:28 PM glowby has replied
 Message 794 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2021 10:01 PM glowby has replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


(2)
Message 788 of 941 (884856)
03-10-2021 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 787 by Porkncheese
03-10-2021 2:28 PM


A denier denies denying
There's nothing wrong with criticizing dissenting opinions which are based entirely on lies, denial of the real science, and lame-o right-wing talking points like the ones you fed us. The idea that global warming is a "hoax" is nothing more than yet another stupid conspiracy theory.
Ridiculing those who misrepresent and spin the science doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the science. Anthropogenic global warming theory is indeed disprovable and has yet to be disproved. You deniers just have to develop a testable theory explains how things got so warm so fast. But all you do is complain that no one takes your absurd conspiracy theories seriously, and tell anecdotes about Al Gore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 787 by Porkncheese, posted 03-10-2021 2:28 PM Porkncheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 789 by Porkncheese, posted 03-10-2021 7:55 PM glowby has replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


Message 790 of 941 (884859)
03-10-2021 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 789 by Porkncheese
03-10-2021 7:55 PM


Re: A denier denies denying
Contrary to what your denier resources tell you, identifying and ridiculing your stupid denier talking points doesn't magically validate your stupid denier talking points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 789 by Porkncheese, posted 03-10-2021 7:55 PM Porkncheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 791 by Porkncheese, posted 03-10-2021 8:35 PM glowby has replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


Message 792 of 941 (884862)
03-10-2021 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 791 by Porkncheese
03-10-2021 8:35 PM


Re: A denier denies denying
OK. Defend your position. Explain why Al Gore's exaggerated predictions of future climate change back in the '90s invalidates the work of generations of climate scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 791 by Porkncheese, posted 03-10-2021 8:35 PM Porkncheese has not replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


(1)
Message 795 of 941 (884866)
03-10-2021 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 794 by marc9000
03-10-2021 10:01 PM


Essential vs. non-essential fuel use
marc9000 writes:
Do you have any specifics as to what our response should be?
Our responses should be to cut greenhouse gas emissions wherever possible and practical, even if it means inconvenience and higher prices. An overview is here... https://www.nap.edu/...2784/Informing_Report_Brief_final.pdf
Our response should NOT be denying science and reality.
marc9000 writes:
Shouldn't there have been a lot of discussion in the media, prompting discussion in the general public over the past 10 to 20 years concerning essential versus non-essential fossil fuel use?
Essential vs. non-essential use isn't really the issue. It's about reducing use where we can, developing technologies to make it non-essential where possible, and encouraging the use of those technologies. Electric air travel isn't possible yet. But there have been public discussions in many cities, for example, over whether their fleets should move from gas to electric. The public has also been kept in the loop on regional wind and solar projects. I see discussions in the media I follow. Don't know about your media.
Let the rich folks have their gas guzzling limos, yachts, and private jets. As long as the other 99% of us have cleaner energy alternatives, their selfishness won't matter much.
marc9000 writes:
... lower middle class people. The ones who are targeted with useless big government programs, like auto emission testing.
Rich folks' cars must be tested too. It's free for all here in Illinois, so no one is "targeted". Emission testing is more about preventing toxic pollution than making sure you're getting good fuel efficiency. But I agree that the program's time and usefulness may have passed. I haven't had a car fail since the '90s, thanks in part to stricter regulations on the auto industry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 794 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2021 10:01 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 814 by marc9000, posted 03-14-2021 9:16 PM glowby has replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


(3)
Message 813 of 941 (884919)
03-13-2021 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 806 by Porkncheese
03-11-2021 4:29 PM


A denier doesn't understand "global"
You need to back up your "mainstream scientists" prediction claims. You've lied about their positions before.
Regarding a cold Australian summer, I can't find any evidence of a recent one. Some individual towns had record cold days, but that doesn't mean the entire continent set a record. It snows every year in parts of Mexico and it's not that rare in Egypt.
So here you are, trying to argue against the phenomenon of global warming, without having a clue what the term means. It isn't evidenced by a single cold or hot day in some "unusual places", nor by a freaky hot or cold season in some part of the world. Do you know what "global" means?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 806 by Porkncheese, posted 03-11-2021 4:29 PM Porkncheese has not replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


(1)
Message 818 of 941 (884928)
03-15-2021 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 814 by marc9000
03-14-2021 9:16 PM


Re: Essential vs. non-essential fuel use
You see it as "growing the government". I see it as demanding that our government help us deal with the problem, providing strategies and leadership. As we learned with COVID, a national response to a crisis is much better than a willy-nilly approach.
marc9000 writes:
The very rich, the upper middle class, the bottom class of idleness, none of them has a thing to worry about. Everyone else, look out!
No one is getting out of this unscathed except the very rich, and they're sure to find it a huge nuisance and expense. The smart ones support mitigation efforts. It's better for their ultimate bottom line and that of their heirs.
marc9000 writes:
glowby writes:
Essential vs. non-essential use isn't really the issue.
Of course not, it's all political.
Make up your mind. Essentiality or politicality. Because next you say...
marc9000 writes:
The upper class, and very rich, are obviously the ones using the most fossil fuels strictly for recreational, non essential purposes. They have more political clout...
Not all rich folks are into politics. Not all politicians are rich.
Don't worry if your rich neighbor's sit-down mower is gas-powered instead of electric and his yard is astroturf anyway. It has virtually no effect on the outcome. When his old Toro breaks down, his only options will be better ones. Electric ones.
I'm sure the solar and wind marketers downplay the downsides. But they don't hide them. That leaves them open to monster lawsuits they can't afford. Their industries are very competitive.
marc9000 writes:
glowby writes:
Let the rich folks have their gas guzzling limos, yachts, and private jets. As long as the other 99% of us have cleaner energy alternatives, their selfishness won't matter much.
I know that's your honest opinion - I've seen similar sentiments on these forums before. It's really appalling to freedom loving people, it's easy to see how past tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, many others, rose to power with that type of thinking anywhere near the mainstream in the societies they took over.
I don't get it. I'm just talking about tolerating rich people, not fascist tyrants. Yes, the very very rich screw up economies around the world. But from a logistics POV of the climate crisis, they're not likely to help or hurt much. They'll find ways to profit from it. But so what. They profit from everything.
marc9000 writes:
Stricter regulations resulting in price increases, making it harder and harder for people who want or need a new car to be able to buy one.
The regs don't necessarily cause price increases.
I'm OK with paying more to help deal with the problem. For generations we had no idea that the trash we were throwing into the air would come back to haunt us. Oops! Now we have to deal with the garbage. It's not a cheap easy task. Our ancestors had free atmospheric garbage disposal, they thought. We don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 814 by marc9000, posted 03-14-2021 9:16 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 823 by marc9000, posted 03-17-2021 9:12 PM glowby has replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


Message 824 of 941 (884980)
03-17-2021 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 823 by marc9000
03-17-2021 9:12 PM


Re: Essential vs. non-essential fuel use
When tolerating them means letting them set rules for the unwashed masses, then exempting themselves from those same rules , that's when they have their foot in the door to become fascist tyrants.
Unwashed masses? Speak for yourself! Just got out of the shower and I smell great.
What rules? "You can buy it if you can afford it" isn't a rule. It's a fact of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 823 by marc9000, posted 03-17-2021 9:12 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024