OK you convinced me, now what?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:03 PM.

  1. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    4,814
    Likes Received:
    1,981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The normal debate on AGW goes something like this.
    Believer gives his opinion and his evidence.
    Non believer says he doesn't buy either.
    Believer tries to convince non believer to believe
    Non believer stands firm
    Believer calls non believer names like stupid, uneducated flat earther etc

    Let's say I came on here one day and said OK I'm convinced man is warming the planet and the situation is dire. You win I'm now a true believer. Now what? I've asked quite a few true believers in here how they live different than me and they mostly say that they don't and they won't change until everyone does. So what's the deal here? Am I suppose to go forth and proselyitize until everyone believes and then we all agree to change our ways all at once? What's the end game here? As a true believer convert what's my next move?
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018 at 4:20 PM
    modernpaladin and roorooroo like this.
  2. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Just once I'd like to see you steel man an argument instead of this endless parade of straw men. But I think what you are getting at here is commonly referred to as a "tragedy of the commons".

    "The tragedy of the commons is a term used in social science to describe a situation in a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action."

    It is generally recognized that are only a few solutions to these situations. I am always willing to listen to more.
    Those solutions are:

    Non-governmental - These solutions only work where there are small close-knit social groups where rules can be agreed upon and followed.

    Privatization - This works with small "commons" but is not really an option for a global resource.

    Regulation - In the case of the global warming issue, this would mean an international treaty (as opposed to regulation within an individual country) as the individuals in this case are actually sovereign nations.

    Internalizing externalities - Ensuring that the users of a resource pay for all of the consequences of its use. This would be the idea of taxation based on emissions.

    None of these are great solutions. But denial of the issue is not a solution at all. Also, anyone who asks the question "Well what are you doing to minimize global warming if you believe it so much??", does not really understand the tragedy of the commons. But, I'm all ears. What is your solution?
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018 at 1:55 AM
  3. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    34,970
    Likes Received:
    16,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well you have to understand. Leftists don't want their own ideology to affect them.

    That's why when they say, vote in a bunch of gun banning democrats, and then face losing their firearms, they move to a new state and start the same stupidity over again, ruining a new place.

    Leftism doesn't just affect everyone else, they just get confused when they have to abide by their own rules.

    It's a problem with recognizing reality in my experience.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  4. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    4,814
    Likes Received:
    1,981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still waiting for your answer. You convinced me so what is it you want me to do now that I'm a true believer?
     
    Battle3 likes this.
  5. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    4,166
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suppose this is where the sausage gets' made so to speak. Traditionally, what the AGW accolytes have asked for is wealth transfer. Now stay with me, as this is a very lengthy, and convoluted "solution". First, it requires that folks pay for their CO2 consumption/production. Meaning, if you say drive your car, you are then also obligated to pay for the output you produce in the atmosphere. By paying into taxes, the hope is that government then builds its revenue base. Sounds pretty straight forward, except that in addition to that, the leadership also want to legislatively impose a carbon market that ensures that your transactional CO2 production also requires you to "purchase" the "privilege" of that production. So, you'll have to purchase offsets for your production. Of course, those transactions all have a cost, and of course, all of the "leaders" of the AGW movement are an integral part of the ownership of the markets. A fabulous thought bubble created by Goldman Sachs, et al.

    Now, you ask, what will all of this money that is being generated do? It will be used as offsets to primary development funding internationally. So, all of the underdeveloped world will receive "offset payments" as they develop/modernize. The development of course will be funded by the modernized world's taxes/contributions via the carbon markets. So, as the under developed world modernizes, those countries will ultimately develop to the extent that they can then become members of the carbon markets themselves. And vastly more money will be transferred again to the owners of the markets. See, there's a trend here.

    Now, nothing in said model ever actually effects the total output of CO2. No additional throttling of the carbon production is applied, and ostensibly, as the developing world develops, the CO2 production only increases. There are no other controls.

    Second, there is a concept of population control that AGW believers then also demand be put in place. I have heard estimates from some of the faithful, on these boards no less, as they guestimate that the planet can only really sustain a very small human population. Imagine that. Of course, because they are the "faithful", they also believe that they are the natural beneficiaries of said population control, and frankly, they simply assume that there will never be an impact to them.

    Third, of course we have to be vastly less global, as the transfer of non local products only exacerbates the production of polluting CO2 etc... So, wonder coffee excluded for sure, the rest of global trade hangs in the balance. I mean, can a man bun really exist without their super food? The nerve...

    Of course, when you actually start asking hard questions about what can be done, the faithful sputter. They have no solutions, they are only really interested in the wealth transfer method, and the ability to remove the "filth" or "deplorables" or whatever other derogatory terms of the day are being used for those who aren't part of the faithful congregation. We can't incentivize nuclear, we can't incentivize LNG. Those aren't options, because they aren't. They said so. Got it yet?? :dual:
     
  6. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    4,814
    Likes Received:
    1,981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Big picture you are correct on every level but my question to true believers in here is small picture. They debate and berate us non believers and call us names when we don't convert so my question to them is why do they try so hard to convert us? Once I join the club and become one of them what have they achieved? Am I supposed to do something now that I'm a true believer and if so what exactly is it I'm supposed to do? So far none of them have an answer.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  7. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    4,166
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do hope some will try. I look forward to responses if any. I yearn for the what happens after conversation.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  8. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    4,814
    Likes Received:
    1,981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Me too and in fact I think will stop participating in these pointless debates with the cult until they can tell me why they try so desperately to convert me and what I'm supposed to do once I am a convert.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  9. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Sorry, I need to recalibrate my responses for the normal level of discourse with you. I forgot nuance and depth aren't really your thing. Generally what we want is for you to "lead, follow, or get out of the way".

    (If I had a second wish, it would be for you to apply some critical thinking skills and stop using logical fallacies).

    BTW: Any chance you'll take a swipe at answering that whole "tragedy of the commons" question?
     
  10. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    2,604
    Likes Received:
    933
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I humbly admit that I don't know what the answer is. From my perch what I see is one group of people throwing out ideas for how to solve the problem and another group shooting them down without providing an alternate idea. So if carbon taxes, cap and trade, capture and sequester, etc. are all really bad ideas then let's figure out another that everyone can agree with. I don't really care if it comes from a liberal vs conservative or United States vs China. I just want to see people working together for the common good instead of kicking the can down the road. What I don't think is fair is to have one group of people burdened with the problem while another gets a free pass which is what many on here are advocating for.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018 at 12:24 PM
  11. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    4,814
    Likes Received:
    1,981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I asked an honest and simple question and you chose to evade it by answering with another question so I'll try again. Once I'm converted what is it exactly you expect of me? What am I supposed to do now that I'm a member in good standing of the cult?
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  12. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    4,814
    Likes Received:
    1,981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you don't know what the answer is why do you work so tirelessly to convince the skeptics that AGW is good science? Once we are convinced then what? Supposedly the majority of people already believe the hypothesis so put your heads together and do something to fix it. It seems as though you hide behind the fact that not everybody buys into AGW as an excuse not to do anything about it and make us villains in your play. Exactly what percentage of people have to believe until you have accomplished your conversion goals and start implementing the supposed fix for the supposed problem? Why all the proslytization instead of implementation? It's almost like you guys just want to live your lives with your C02 footprint and blame the rest of us for your inaction.
    There is an answer to my question in the OP and I know what it is as do many AGW pushers but they don't want to say it. Maybe in time one of you that know the answer will buck up and spit it out or one of those that are completely fooled and actually dont know the answer will blunder into it by accident. Time will tell. Until then I'm through debating this pointless topic because we are talking around the real agenda that lies beneath the surface.
     
  13. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    6,813
    Likes Received:
    2,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Now what? Stop trolling.
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    2,547
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You won't get everyone to agree; but if there were actually a problem with CO2 emissions (there isn't), a tax on them would be the fairest and most efficient way to address it. Cap and trade is an atrocity that converts a record of having emitted CO2 in the past into a financial asset.
     
  15. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    2,604
    Likes Received:
    933
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm just saying I don't know what the answer from policy standpoint.
     
  16. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    4,166
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps you're simply missing the question. Answer the original question. Once we've been converted, then what? What are we, the converted supposed to do?
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  17. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Generally what we want is for you to "lead, follow, or get out of the way". (Now answered twice)

    BTW: Any chance you'll take a swipe at answering that whole "tragedy of the commons" question? (Now asked twice)
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018 at 10:41 AM
  18. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    2,604
    Likes Received:
    933
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know. I will say that I don't think this issue should be handled by dividing the population into the "converted" and the "believers" and then having each group of people do something that the other isn't doing.

    I will say the main thing I want to see from our policy makers is that they use science in an advisory role when making their decisions. I'm not saying science should be the only input considered. I'm just saying that it should be part of the consideration. I get the sense that our policy makers reject science more than they accept it especially in the United States where climate change has become needlessly ideological.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018 at 10:43 AM
  19. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    2,604
    Likes Received:
    933
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because I want policy makers to base their decision off of facts instead of faith.
     
  20. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    4,166
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then I would say this. If folks want a seat at the table, do the right thing. Don't produce purposefully doctored reporting/data sets that are designed to position for positive future consideration in grant funding competition. If we want science in the genre to be advisory, show us, in the science what we should be doing. You've said policy is outside of your care, and yet, where else are we to look for advice? Do you suppose that an active scientific voice could be absent it's advice? I doubt it.

    So, again, when I become certain that the scientific observation is credible, then what? What should we do? We've been converted, then what? Do I stop driving gasoline cars? Do I stop using air conditioning? Do I demand that our celebrity class and elite end their endless abuse of the environment while entertaining us and themselves? What? Or do I simply ask "science" to do what it always does, and stagnate while others innovate? Do I just hope that innovation will ultimately deliver a solution that science can then be ok with?

    These are hard for those of us who are yet to be converted.
     
    Robert likes this.

Share This Page