Climate Activist Greta

So outside of denying the Doomsday prediction which is ridiculous, what am I denying?

 

And they pertained to flat earth believers and sited the revenue generated from the phenom?

 

I'm willing to accept that the climate is changing I'm willing to accept it contributes to that.

The only things I dispute it's too what degree, that the United States or the Western world are responsible for it, did that the world is going to end in 6 months or 12 years or whatever.

 

Look, you don't have to believe everything huffpo headlines say. However, whatever you accept, it either agrees with the accepted science done by experts or is made up nonsense to suit whatever emotionally held belief you are trying to defend.

 

So there it is: the Right's real problem with 'climate change' is the cost of amelioration.

So perhaps I can ease your concerns:

[The following is an answer I gave to Bluesguy, who asked: "why are we listening to children?")

………

Because adults confuse "money" with sustainable development of resources; and the kids will have to deal with the consequences...

So I will begin disabusing those mired in said confusion:

1. 'Money' has no intrinsic value, in our post gold-standard era.
2. A nation's true wealth is described in the following identity:

Wealth (not money) = resources + labour + education.

Money does not appear in this identity, because money has no intrinsic value. Money functions to facilitate creation of wealth in the form of desirable goods and services, ie, by facilitating the necessary interactions of the agents on the RHS of the above identity (though such interactions could occur without money, but with much less convenience, of course.)

Sufficient and just access to that wealth can be ensured by guaranteed above poverty employment, the wage level being relative to the nation's created wealth (the wage level conveniently measured by 'money' but dependent only on the community's real wealth, not the 'quantity of money'* in the economy.

*bits of paper with numbers written on them, or far more commonly, computer code in computers...intrinsically worthless.

[I know... it took a long time for people to learn that the earth is not flat, because the truth was not part of their lived experience.....]

Last edited: 19 minutes ago
a better world, 24 minutes ago Report

 

I'm at the same place, I believe we have altered the climate, in fact we have actually altered the rotation of the planet by damning up large bodies of water, with China being the biggest altering presence.. But it's the urgency I have doubts about, and the price they want to charge us for being human and not yet technically advanced enough to suspend what needed to sustain our life style until we discover viable alternatives that can produce the energy we have become accustom to..

I say take some of that money or ALL that we spend to have the same bullshit repeated decade after decade and put it to research. We are pissing 100's of billions away proving and reproving the same ending..

Ya we know for Christ sakes. Researching the same shlt aint gonna fix a damn thing

 

If there was global warming wouldn't it have been predicted in Reveltions? Any Bible scholars here? Was it?

Oh wait it already happened there was a flood during the days of NOAA or is that Noah?

 

Whenever I hear the phrase "accepted science" it raises red flags.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge. I think you mean it to say accepted Reality. Meaning the science is over. That's one thing I disagree with.

 

I believe revelation calls for "Fire"

 

I think the one that doesn't just listen and believe, that asks questions and expects explanations is intelligent and sharp. But you can ridicule people for your inability to answer questions and explain. That's always a sign of intelligence.

Or he doesn't believe in your screwy religion. And you are not very good at apologetics.

 

There is fire in California, does that count as the Final Apocalypse?

But hey the good news is that global warming must be a hoax since Big G will not destroy the earth by flood again. Right?

 

Only if it spreads across the earth.. BUT there is an alternative ending in revelation for those that are afraid of "death by fire"

 

In post #436, I have dealt with the 'cost' issue.

As to whether AGW is real or not, I don't know; and I'm happy to let the scientists keep gathering the data for as long as is necessary to prove or refute the case, BUT we ought to close down an industry (filthy fossil) that is spewing millions of tons of poisonous gases (as opposed to CO2), carcinogenic particulates, and associated smog and acid rain into the atmosphere ASAP.

Addressed above.

 

The science is over on almost nothing. Without getting too deep into epistemology, everything is just different degrees confidence. Science had been and always will be wrong about many things, but wherever it applies, you can't do any better.

 

We are not advanced enough and no matter how much cleaner we get the rest of the world continues to do what they do.. I don't see the point in doing without when the outcome will be the same because the rest of the world doesn't give a shlt about climate change..

 

Around the third to fifth time I have to explain something super simple or waste time on something that that isn't even remotely the point, my patience and special education skills are exhausted. I'm not here to provide remedial education.

 

So you understand the problem with the phrase "accepted science" than. Good.

What do you mean where it applies? Do you mean applied sciences?

 

Climate change isn't super simple, for you to say it is choose a gross misunderstanding of the subject.

 

But surely it would be a good thing to eliminate the tons of poisonous gases, carcinogenic particulates, smog and acid rain spewed into the atmosphere daily by the filthy fossil industry, by going green. We do have the solar, wind and pumped hydro (battery) technology to close the fossil industry down ASAP.

 

You have to go with accepted because there will always be some nutcases.

I mean there are things that science can't do (at least yet anyway). For example, you can't write a hit song with science.

 

Obviously the overall complete subject of climate change wasn't the sticking point.

 

I don't think you are being realistic. Just what are you going to replace all that energy needed to sustain the quality of life we enjoy now? Who will suffer from lack of home heating, lighting and so on? People are hyperbolic to the point of ridiculous demands for unimagined technology that doesn't exist and those that are grossly inadequate to supply even small U.S. cities let along states..

In the mean time, fear mongers are capitalizing on these hyperbolic reactionary people and their vision of alternative things "to come", in their time!

 

Actually we can begin straightaway, using our present technologies ie solar, wind and pumped hydro (battery back up)*, with every nation on the planet employing what spare resources they have - labour, materials. as well as resources and equipment released as the fossil industry is progressively closed down....funded by central bank money creation ( as opposed to money creation in private banks) and sending the bill to the IMF(....who can contemplate the bills for eternity..get it?)

* for example, it has been calculated that an area of 150 by 150 miles is required for a US desert solar farm, to meet the entire US energy requirements.

 

Holy crap lol. After looking into that more I was far more right than I thought. In fact, it's extremely compelling evidence of the efforts by special interests to try to silence or muddy the science.

 

That your 'man is killing the planet, we must cede more power to our rulers and tax the hell out of everything, to "save the world" is nothing but a BS liberal, fascist powergrab"