Climate Change Hoax or Nah?

[Kults]

Explained by Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, MIT PhD

 

 

 

 

 

Thoughts?

[Kults]

The article he references 

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html

 

 

Quote

In 1996, Michael Mann (who shot to fame during the Climategate scandal as the creator of "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline") co-authored a paper titled "Greenhouse Warming and changes in the seasonal cycle of temperature: Model versus observations." The paper pointed out that the predictions made by climate models were not consistent with observed data and the variability in temperature likely resulted from natural phenomena.

 

[Guest]

We just need to go back to horses. 

[Kults]

Can you punch holes in the theory though?

 

Who knows who put these blacklists together and why?

[Kults]

So you think round up ready is a good thing?

 

The stuff you're quoting is interesting and def should be taken into consideration. Im more interested in what your thoughts are on the case he puts forward for climate change though

[Kults]

Right. What do you think of the case he's putting forward for climate change though? 

[misteraven]

I agree that this is a topic that not only needs sources, but needs context to sources. Its easy to put up official looking / sounding websites to substantiate specific claims. Same way it appears to be fairly simple to find "experts" as well as find ways to sway people that are indeed experts.

 

I personally don't have a position a definitive position on this for that reason. First the name, "climate change". Used to be global cooling, them became global warning, no the topic is known as climate change. Besides deserving a pit of scrutiny for all the various label changes, isn't climate change sort of like saying "wet water"? Most of reality, especially nature, is a dynamic system. Change is inherent. That's why we have to find novel ways of establishing baselines, like the decay of carbon atoms for measurement (never mind that the atom itself is undergoing change, however slow). Secondly, anything that government suddenly wants to embrace, gets an automatic red flag of skepticism thrown. Double so when its the worlds financial and political elite. Trips so when there's trillions on the line, regardless what side of the debate you sit on.

 

Couple that with an endless supply of studies, talking points and debate by an assortment of people, many of which have been shown to be bias by affiliation or track record and an endless layering of agenda on both sides and it's honestly a tough topic to unravel. Are humans responsible for negatively impacting the earth negatively... 100% absolutely. Are humans going to destroy the earth beyond its ability to support life... No idea, but sort of doubt it. Even an all out nuclear war that wiped out mankind would certainly do massive damage and perhaps make life unsustainable for most species, but destroy it... Don't think so, but I'm open to data and admit, I know very little on this topic. What I can say for certain is this... We're far from polluting the environment as we did during our industrial revolution. We're far from polluting the environment with the advent of car culture and big Detroit steel as we did in the 1960 - 1980s. The USA is undoubtedly greener than since the days before industry. Can we improve... Absolutely. Should we improve... I believe so and am living my own life accordingly. I think the USA is likely to outpace what the government could even hope for thanks to guys like Elon Musk and others like him rethinking how society functions on an every day level. But lets be real... The real polluters in this day and age are the countries undergoing their own industrial revolution, like China and India. Imposing new taxes on Americans doesn't do shit to that end and frankly its insulting to consider $100b of our tax money was going to other countries, whether it was a bribe or legit investment into helping improve their infrastructure. I don't disagree that the world needs to work together, but to force individuals by reallocating their money towards programs like that is far from the answer and even proponents of programs like this would have a hard time arguing that leaving it in the hands of government with large coffers of cash to get done, doesn't have the greatest track record for efficiency or effectiveness.

 

Just my two cents.

[Kults]

So lets just assume whatever comes from that article is complete hogwash and temperatures really are rising. What do you make of the rest of it? The economics part?

 

Do you think taxing people over carbon emissions is a wise solution?

[misteraven]

Actually, there's plenty out there that clarify his claims of inventing email.  He doesn't not claim to have invented messaging, just email specifically as we know it. The structure from inbox, to trash and folders for organization, etc. I agree its a bold claim to make and hard to say you invented anything web related since its all evolved from something that came before. I'm also keeping an open mind on this claim as it's easy to twist his claim to make him look bad in that regard, and the couple interviews I found on the subject seemed to be substantiated. I'd post them but was on my phone and too lazy to followup now that I'm desktop, but feel free to search it a bit.

 

And again, the guy is a natural target as well, so I expect that there's going to be a pile of criticism when he's pushing back on the main narrative being pushed out there. In an d of itself, that doesn't mean he's honest or legit or anything else, just saying that it deserves not just additional scrutiny, but additional due diligence to understand who's doing the discrediting and what their own track record and affiliations are.

[T4M*]

 

[Kults]

^ Change the world, follow a twitter account, do your part ❤️

 

 

[delv]

My issue with all of this is, even if climate change ISN'T real, shouldn't we be proactively (and happily) doing things to ensure it doesn't become a "thing"?

 

Just feels like a no brainer to sort out shut out.

[spiro]

Taxing carbon and looking into how our environment has been effected is two very different things!

Carbon tax, as most taxation only helps to gather up money to invest or spend money on something else . . .

In theory it has nothing to do with climate change. In the reality, it is just another way of feeding the growth economy.

In it selves it will do nothing.

And looking at who is collecting the tax, there is no real reason to think it can help.

 

If climate change is real or not, how will we know?

In the future we will know for sure. And in the meantime, why is it always thinkers in offices that say it's a hoax?

While everyone that has investigated the results out in nature seems to point out that there are some serious changes going on.

Seawater rise is a measured fact, as its stated above, does it matter if it is "man made" or "natural"?

Its still gonna make serious trouble for humans.

[Mercer]

2 hours ago, spiro said:

Taxing carbon and looking into how our environment has been effected is two very different things!

Carbon tax, as most taxation only helps to gather up money to invest or spend money on something else . . .

In theory it has nothing to do with climate change. In the reality, it is just another way of feeding the growth economy.

In it selves it will do nothing.

And looking at who is collecting the tax, there is no real reason to think it can help.

 

If climate change is real or not, how will we know?

In the future we will know for sure. And in the meantime, why is it always thinkers in offices that say it's a hoax?

While everyone that has investigated the results out in nature seems to point out that there are some serious changes going on.

Seawater rise is a measured fact, as its stated above, does it matter if it is "man made" or "natural"?

Its still gonna make serious trouble for humans.

Nail on the head.

 

Unlike most social issues, it doesn't matter if you're tendencies lean left, or right. You have to step back and look at this situation for what it is. Impossible to do if you don't have a refined/developed world view of your own and blindly follow the left right dichotomy. This, like all other "political" issues brought to the forefront of discussion has a goal of vote cultivation, and really nothing more.

 

It would be political suicide to push for actual reforms in this arena. You'd inconvenience the fuck out of the general public if you pushed too hard as a politician and actually made progress, the people who voted you in would vote you right back out if you tanked the economy, and that's exactly what would happen. That's why very little of the actual progress we can account for when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions has come from the government, the vast majority of progress has been done on a voluntary basis by us, the people. I don't think politics is a viable method of course correction on this.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Mercer

[Dirty_habiT]

I'll tell you what is going to fuck us the hardest..... it's not going to be you driving a diesel truck instead of a Tesla.... it's the fact that we keep throwing trash/chemicals into the ocean and we keep cutting down the forests for wood.  The trees can process harmful chemicals and turn them back into oxygen, as you probably learned in grade school..... So we should be going after these firms that have enough money to "buy whatever they want" because what they want to buy is priceless items like serene beach fronts that still have intact coral reef, so they can build a ship channel or make a resort where fat people will slather up in suntan lotion and then blubber all around their floaty toys in the water.  Or, they want to buy large plots of rain forest because it has trees that can be used to make wood.  These are the mother fuckers that should be forced into recycling.

 

Given that Trump is an amazing business man, I imagine he (if what the doc accused of lying above said is true) made this decision based upon it being a smart business decision for America's money.

[Kults]

4 hours ago, delv said:

My issue with all of this is, even if climate change ISN'T real, shouldn't we be proactively (and happily) doing things to ensure it doesn't become a "thing"?

 

Just feels like a no brainer to sort out shut out.

That’s a fair stance. How do you suppose we go about doing that in a worldwide scale? Do you believe taxing ppl is the answer? I know @Mercerwill have a hot take on this 

[misteraven]

4 hours ago, delv said:

My issue with all of this is, even if climate change ISN'T real, shouldn't we be proactively (and happily) doing things to ensure it doesn't become a "thing"?

 

Just feels like a no brainer to sort out shut out.

Yeah, no doubt. Unsure if the whole straw ban thing is effective, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Though I can't help but wonder where the flaw in the system is that has ANY trash being dumped into oceans. Beyond that, would be great to see people make larger efforts than repost or double tap a meme and maybe throw their Starbucks cup into the proper bin for recycling. It's interesting that it would seem the cities are most vocal in regard to being green, yet seem to do the least in terms of impactful efforts. Suppose its easy to just swallow a new tax and think you're doing your part, but going to take a lot more meaningful change than that to have any effect.

[Kults]

40 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Yeah, no doubt. Unsure if the whole straw ban thing is effective, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Though I can't help but wonder where the flaw in the system is that has ANY trash being dumped into oceans. Beyond that, would be great to see people make larger efforts than repost or double tap a meme and maybe throw their Starbucks cup into the proper bin for recycling. It's interesting that it would seem the cities are most vocal in regard to being green, yet seem to do the least in terms of impactful efforts. Suppose its easy to just swallow a new tax and think you're doing your part, but going to take a lot more meaningful change than that to have any effect.

So In Canada, since we pissed off China by arresting that Huawei rep for the US, they’ve stopped taking our recycled trash. It now costs us more and takes up more energy to dispose of it locally than it would have if we had just thrown that shit in the trash to begin with. The irony. But hey it’s all good, we get to pretend we’re doing our part and making a difference. 

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-wish-cycling-canadas-recycling-industry-in-crisis-mode/

 

[misteraven]

2 minutes ago, Kults said:

So In Canada, since we pissed off China by arresting that Huawei rep for the US, they’ve stopped taking our recycled trash. It now costs us more and takes up more energy to dispose of it locally than it would have if we had just thrown that shit in the trash to begin with. The irony. But hey it’s all good, we get to pretend we’re doing our part and making a difference. 

Probably makes sense for each country to handle their own waste. If nothing else, I bet it speeds up the process of minimizing waste when it isn't 'out of site, out of mind'.

[Mercer]

6 hours ago, delv said:

My issue with all of this is, even if climate change ISN'T real, shouldn't we be proactively (and happily) doing things to ensure it doesn't become a "thing"?

 

Just feels like a no brainer to sort out shut out.

No more than putting effort into any other possibly imaginary potentially problem. My take, the problem IS 100% real, provable, even quantifiable down to the net harm caused per unit of gas/coal consumed. More taxes will have the effect of just feeding the U.S. federal government, which BTW is the number one consumer of net carbon emitting energy resources in the United States. How much political clout would a politician have if they interfered with this system of zero accountability? They needs votes, which relies on political clout in our archaic two party system.

 

Adjusting our own lifestyles based on making a conscious effort is 100% rewarding, very effective, and totally worth the effort. Imagine adjusting your home location closer to work, or vis versa, driving less, maybe even cycling more, reducing unnecessary consumption, etc. This method can't be applied to everyone depending on profession, or things like what if you're in a wheelchair as an example. For those of us willing to admit this is possible for ourselves as individuals, and then take action on this concept, this method also carries tremendous net health, and mental well being benefits for the individual especially if you're healthier/happier from biking more

 

On that note, choose to become more productive/independent  economically, might allow you to buy a fancy new self driving EV, solar panels for the crib, a "green" home, or high rise condo, maybe even a 4m euro solar boat, etc. Financial independence is rewarding, and opens up it's own possibilities much like if you got physically/mentally sharper biking every day. What's worth more than the virtue signaling points of either method is your method is the experience of stepping closer towards becoming a net zero carbon producer consumer.

 

Circling back to my original point is using the government as a proxy to attempt to force these changes on everyone is not the best, or only method availiable, or even a good look for that matter. We've all become conditioned to become back seat drivers "MuH GobeNmeNt wiLL FeiX DiS" when we'd be better off taking the wheel on this one.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Mercer

[morton]

Take this weak shit and park it over in the News section which is the appropriate forum for politics.

[Kults]

6 minutes ago, morton said:

Take this weak shit and park it over in the News section which is the appropriate forum for politics.

@Mercermade a great case about why it isn’t political at all.

[Mercer]

True, @Kultsbut he's probably right at the same time. This topic is too heavy for "casual" conversation as most sleepwalkers might be rudely awakened by just having a thought. I actually thought this was in the news section, AKA crossfire 2.0

Edited September 30, 2019 by Mercer

[Kults]

2 minutes ago, Mercer said:

True, @Kultsbut he's probably right at the same time. This topic is too heavy for "casual" conversation as most sleepwalkers might be rudely awakened by just having a thought.

Fair, Ill move it if you guys think its a better fit

 

Ya man, some knee jerk reactions for sure. Just trying to open an honest convo about it though. Im not a climate denier, I just question the methodology. Not big on the idea of taxing it.

[Dirty_habiT]

I think the easiest way to understand how trash ends up anywhere it's not supposed to is to simplify it right down to something that everyone that owns a vehicle knows about: tire disposal fee.

 

The tire shop won't just take your tires for free, they charge you to recycle them.  What happens when you like money so much that you don't care about paying the money to do the "right thing" and rather, you find that nice spot on the side of the road, on someone else's land, to dump all your used tires "for free".  The problem with this very short sided mentality is that it just kicks the can down the road for the next person.  If anyone wants to "do the right thing" in the future, they will have to pick up the mess the illegal dumper left, and then go pay to have it recycled themselves when they got 0 use out of the tires.

 

That was long winded to just show that one point, but I think that's why people are littering.  They're lazy greedy ass holes.  I don't even care if people don't recycle so much, but if you litter you're a literal piece of shit.... in my book.  We grew up in Texas with the "Don't Mess With Texas" motto which basically beats it into you to not litter from a very young age.

[Kults]

^ Im down with that. Don’t leave your trash on someone else’s property, pretty basic shit

[Mercer]

In Japan they would only accept garbage in special trash bags that had a tax associated with them sort of like buying a stamp. They would only pick up garbage in these bags and were kind of strict about it. All other waste had to be removed by a private company. Because of this, I've never saw a single public trashcans in all of Tokyo. People didn't make as much waste, and virtually nobody would litter intentionally.

 

Even stranger to me because I smoked cigarettes back then, the Japanese don't just flick their cigarette butts like us filthy Gijin do in our dirty home countries, so it was common for people to carry a portable ash tray around that sealed up when not in use. to carry their butts away after smoking. I had to get one and thought it was gross, like it would spill in my pocket if I wasn't careful. Again, no trashcans to empty it anywhere.

 

The net effect of this inconvenience was worth it IMO, till this date I won't litter here, and even pick trash up sometimes that isn't even mine after experiencing how they did over there. Where my ex in-laws lived there was an open stream flowing directly through miles of this dense urban area. It was a cool place to chill and the water in it was so clean there were fish in it, and so safe parents would take their kids to play in the water. That shit would never happen in NYC, there'd be needles, broken glass, and dog piss covering everything after a week. 

[abrasivesaint]

I solved climate change years ago but no one wants to listen to me.

 

The earths core is like a engine, it needs oil to run smoothly. We've extracted too much oil from the Earth and the core is seizing up. Drill a new hole an dump the oil back in. 
 

Problem solved. 

[abrasivesaint]

On 9/30/2019 at 8:53 AM, Kults said:

How do you suppose we go about doing that in a worldwide scale? 

 

[Kults]

Oof I made it about 5 seconds in