Why I no longer even care about climate change deniers.

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by tecoyah, Aug 5, 2018.

  1. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Regardless of opinions and politics, anger and position there is a very simple reality that cannot be denied. If deniers are correct then none of us have a thing to worry about and if believers are correct there is nothing we can do anyway. So I say just sit back and watch to see what happens.
    If all this heat, fires, rain and storms has you worried then ….well too freakin' bad, move someplace safer. If it all seems just weather and bad luck to you then go get a six pack and watch the game. Likely everyone here will never live to see who is right anyway.
     
    Gatewood, Spooky and Idahojunebug77 like this.
  2. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I read some lefty scientist saying basically the same thing.

    He said that even if we stopped everything right now that its too late anyways.

    If it was us then the damage is already done.

    He explained that it wasn't something that can just stop because its a process that can't be reversed. Once the process starts it will continue on regardless of what anyone does.

    So we can't stop it, we can't slow it down, we can't speed it up, the Earth has taken over at this point and it will follow its course.

    Doesn't matter if we continue to add to it or stop adding to it.
     
  3. wist43

    wist43 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    3,285
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The earth is extremely resilient, and all of the actual observations show a negative feedback to atmospheric CO2.

    The truth of this, however, doesn't fit the "scary scenario" template for the MSM and all of the corrupt "scientists" who rely on "global warming" and "climate change" fear to generate their funding - hence, we can expect many more years of fear mongering from these disreputable fear peddlers.

    The only place increased CO2 results in "catastrophic, run-away" global warming is in the computer models constructed by the fear peddlers. Garbage in, garbage out.

    Relax and enjoy the warm weather ;)
     
    usfan, Gatewood and Wildjoker5 like this.
  4. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    See wasn't that easy. China produces more CO2 annually than the US and the EU combined on top of all the other massive amounts of pollution such as dumping mercury into the oceans. Go to your grocery store and notice all the warnings put all over the place around fish about not consuming to much of it. So sit back and enjoy the ride because as you said deniers will never be convinced that its anything other than a power grab and the alarmists (I separate them from AGW believes as I am one of the latter) constantly bring out doom and gloom scenarios that never end up happening. The truth is in the middle.

    What I do know is that the AGW alarmists have sucked out all the oxygen leaving none for far more important issues like ocean pollution. The AGW alarmists are also usually the ones most vocally opposed to nuclear power which is the ONLY source of power that is green and can provide a reliable baseline. They also supported idiotic agreements like the Copenhagen and Treaty which let the Chinese (once again by far the number one polluter) completely off the hook. For those reasons AGW alarmists can suck my **** and lick my ass crack.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2018
    Gatewood likes this.
  5. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Feel Better Now?
     
  6. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Let's say you have an acre of ground and weeds are all over it. It catches on fire and burns. You are alarmed and some neighbors, but fire is extinguished and you see your entire lot is black.

    To relate this to CA, my state ... but for the news I never would know of those huge fires.

    CA is so enormous that if you took all of our fires and put them into one spot, we would have burned a lot of acres in our extreme north east. I would speak of the South but there we have deserts.

    Actually our north east is also one. But at least I put a geographic spot to it.

    California/Area

    163,696 mi²

    Montana, a huge state is smaller than Ca.

    145,552 sq miles.

    We are about 3 times larger than Georgia and that is not a small state.

    A square mile contains 640 acres.

    This season of the active fires, we have had 1001.98 sq miles burned. As you can tell by our state size, not a lot of the state containing 163,696 sq miles.
     
  7. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For man to stop global warming he has to obtain the kind of science control over climate he has in his own home.

    Man is not able to control climate.

    Are they saying when it is hot it is climate but when it is cold it is not climate?
     
  8. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Having been born and raised in San Diego, Lived and worked a decade in Yosemite and was there through major fires (Park actually closed) I am quite familiar with the pointless data you just provided but have no idea how it fits into the discussion.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  9. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Funny, but I rarely see someone post that climate change doesn't exist. It seems the contention comes from those who believe that it is a natural cycle, versus those who believe that it is man made.

    Regardless of who may be right, or if it is a combination of both, taxing it isn't going to stop it. ;)
     
    Pardon_Me, drluggit and Gatewood like this.
  10. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nothing will stop it.
     
  11. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The saddest thing about this whole debate is that we could have had cleaner air and water - but because it became a "liberal vs. conservative" issue we can't have
    cleaner air and water because that would be a "win" for liberals. Well, we all want that clean, cool Beijing air to chew on, don't we ...?

    WTF. Just plain sad.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2018
    The Bear and Bowerbird like this.
  12. wist43

    wist43 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    3,285
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not sure what you're talking about... our air and water are just fine.

    Go overseas... air will burn your throat, and drinking water out of the tap will make you sick.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  13. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct. That's why I laugh when they bring up taxing it, like that will have an effect.
     
  14. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or we could just reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we are pumping into the air. Less CO2...less influence.

    I'm not saying taxing is the right solution, but that method would likely help. It's also a more ethical means of dealing with the problem than what we have now. Those that pump the most pay the most. It's the same concept with road maintenance at least in my state. Those that drive the most pay the most via gasoline taxes. Somebody has to pay for the damage to the roads and it makes sense to push that burden onto those doing the most damage. It's the same with the environment. Those doing the most damage should pay the most. But regardless of how the problem is dealt with the current policy (which is essentially nothing) is a wealth redistribution scheme. We are taking wealth from future generations and giving it to the current generation. It's not exactly an ethical model we've developed.
     
  15. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ya know...I never really thought about it that way. But you make a good point. The current political landscape on the issue is rather stupid and sad when you think about it.
     
  16. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ayup...we be jus fine.
     
  17. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As with most taxes, they are passed through to the consumer, which means the consumer's utility bills go up. And what does that resolve? Nothing.

    You do realize, the only winner in taxation is the taxing authority. Always has been, always will be.
     
  18. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What would you do if your utility bill goes up? I know I would make decisions that would maximize my own personal financial position. For me that means investing in high efficiency appliances (HVAC, electric vehicle, etc.) or alternate energy sources (solar). I'd also be more aware of my energy usage and work to curtail excesses.

    Don't you think that's an overly cynical view of taxes? I mean, if you'er truly this cynical about the idea then I have to assume you balk at all taxes in general. No?

    And for what it's worth the winners with the gasoline tax in my state are drivers like myself. It provided me with the freedom to have a house out in the suburbs with a big yard without sacrificing my freedom of movement. I acknowledge that my driving is contributing to the deterioration of the road network so I accept the tax that is imposed on me. I also acknowledge that my driving (at when I use our ICE vehicle) is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. I would accept a tax that forces me to pay for the damage I'm causing to the environment.

    I'm not asking anyone to give up their freedom to burn fossil fuels. But I am asking that those who do utilize fossil fuel based services pay for their behavior in proportion to the damage they cause. If taxes are the most ethical way of doing it then so be it. Do you have a better alternative?
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2018
  19. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  20. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, got interrupted on my response.
    Sorry, got interrupted on my response.

    Paying for what one uses, as in a fuel tax that goes to repair infrastructure, is a whole different ball game then let's say, charging someone for the type of vehicle they are driving, like gas versus diesel. Charging you for the electric you use, versus they type of refrigerator you have. Do you see the difference?

    Overly cynical? No. The idea of being taxed based upon attempting to stop a natural cycle? Yes, I'll disagree with it all the way. Since you view things so staunchly, then perhaps you should voluntarily pay extra taxes and make donations to organizations that promote self flagellation for the environmental impact of humans.

    Exactly why should I have an alternative?
     
  21. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not talking about taxing people based on what type of appliance is used. I'm talking about a tax on how much of something is being used. In this particular case your carbon footprint. If you use a lot of carbon based resources then you pay in accordance with how much you use. It doesn't matter if you have an internal combustion engine vehicle or an electric vehicle. Both result in CO2 being release into the atmosphere. It's just that ICE vehicle is released directly by you and the EV vehicle is released by the power plant (assuming it is using a carbon based fuel). In the former the tax might be added to the cost of gasoline at the pump. In the later the tax is assessed on the utility company. They will, of course, pass that cost down to you. Either way you pony up for the damage caused to the environment in proportion to the magnitude of your damage. It's completely fair. Everyone is on the same playing field and pays the exact same tax. Most people will wise up and figure out how to reduce their carbon footprint so as to reduce their tax.

    It's not a natural cycle. The warming we have observed since 1960 is almost certainly caused by humans via the release of greenhouse gases. The more greenhouse gases that are added to the atmosphere the more warming the Earth will experience. All emissions of CO2 contribute to the radiative forcing these gases create. So any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will necessarily reduce the radiative forcing they cause.

    Just so I'm not putting words in your mouth...are you asking that I pay both for the damage I cause AND for the damage you cause as well?
     
  22. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, what you propose is penalizing people for using something YOU deem not climately correct, based on your viewpoint.

    Again, you are making statements based on your viewpoint. The earth has been through several climate changes, from extreme to extreme, long before mankind was contributing anything to the atmosphere. There is no valid logical basis to think that mankind has any significant impact on a natural cycle in this respect.

    Since you are the one believing that mankind is causing damage via carbon footprints, and I do not concur, then if you so wholly believe your statements, then you should be the one paying the additional taxes for it. Consider it a donation to a worthy cause you believe in. Whether you consider it 'my portion' or 'your portion' is up to you, but just because you believe something and that I don't does not mean that I should be penalized for your beliefs.

    Now, if you want to get into a discussion regarding ground/water pollution, we have a different game.
     
  23. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact that CO2 molecules begin vibrating when a photons of wave numbers 667, 1388, and 2349 collide with it is a fact. It's no more a viewpoint that CO2 induces a positive radiative forcing in the lower troposphere than it is that general relatively describes the precession of Mercury around the Sun, or that special relatively describes the time dilation of the GPS satellites as they speed around the Earth, or that Maxwell's equations describe the behavior of electricity, etc.

    What is a viewpoint is that a tax will reduce CO2 emissions. It's a viewpoint because I'm extrapolating from my own personal observation of human behaviors that people will produce less CO2 if there is a financial incentive to do so. But, at the end of the day I'm still trying to predict human behaviors which is a notoriously difficult and non-deterministic endeavor. You may have a different viewpoint in this regard. That's okay if you do.

    Yes, it has. But, just because humans aren't responsible for all of the climate change in Earth's past doesn't mean we can't be responsible for the climate change today. This argument is called affirming a disjunct. And besides, this argument that Earth has changed from one climate extreme to another a double edged sword (assuming there is an abundance of evidence to support it) because it proofs that it CAN happen and isn't just some fanciful speculation by scientists.

    Except that there is. What we know is that the net effect of all natural process should be working to cool the planet. And yet the planet has warmed significantly since 1960. We also know via 200 years of experiments and research that CO2 (along with it's various feedback processes) produces a certain amount of radiative forcing that just happens to be in the right amount (within a reasonable error) of what is needed to explain this warming. The evidence is abundant and spans multiple disciplines of science.

    Ah...so the onus regarding who pays the damage everyone causes is on those that acknowledge their responsibility for it? In other words, being a "conscientious objector" is a enough to absolve you from the tax. It's okay for you to a get a free pass but not me. And it's all done with the rationalization that science is a big hoax. The problem here is that if the government allows people to voluntarily opt out of a tax then what do you think people are going to do? Well, duh...they're going to opt out of the tax to best maximize their own financial position. This is referred to as the tragedy of the commons. And remember, such a tax is not penalizing you for my belief. It's penalizing you for how much damage you do to the environment.

    I should point out that I'm not saying a tax like this is the best solution. And it's certainly not the only solution. We could always continue down the the business-as-usual pathway and effectively steal our wealth from future generations, but that seems morally objectionable to me. Though I have heard some pretty good rationalizations for this kind of wealth redistribution scheme. It's similar to those of social security in which the next generation pays for the current one.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2018
  24. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I won't get into the minutia of 'finding what you are looking for', but in the reality of outcomes based upon it. What is the method that mankind's involvement in climate change can be measured? Can it be allocated based on the size of the person? The country most affecting it, and the speculation of future damage? And, in the true world of sarcasm, are there any credits for not adding flatulence to the situation?

    Acknowledging your responsibility is your choice, since you are acknowledging something that I do not concur on the validity of the premise. You are proposing a tax based on a theory, based on hypotheticals, and the supposed benefits of those hypotheticals, and to enforce those hypotheticals, people should be monetarily penalized.

    What about the low income group, the elderly on fixed incomes, the handicapped, Since they most likely cannot afford to pay this additional tax, shall they be subsidized with other people's money?
     
  25. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I read this and can't help but think you just described the debate in a nutshell for pretty much all current and proposed tax schemes.

    I don't know. That's a good question.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.

Share This Page