Climate Change Hoax or Nah?

[Mercer]

[Hua Guofang]

Australia's top scientists urge government to do more on global warming

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-s-top-scientists-urge-government-to-do-more-on-global-warming-20200111-p53qlc.html

 

The Australian Academy of Science, made up of the country's pre-eminent scientists, has declared the link between human induced climate change and extreme weather to be clear and said Australia needed to put in place long-term plans for a more dangerous future. Professor Shine said there was "abundant evidence available" to understand what was happening with the environment and Australia needed to look to that science for disaster responses and future policies.

 

 

 

[Kults]

6 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

Australia's top scientists urge government to do more on global warming

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-s-top-scientists-urge-government-to-do-more-on-global-warming-20200111-p53qlc.html

 

The Australian Academy of Science, made up of the country's pre-eminent scientists, has declared the link between human induced climate change and extreme weather to be clear and said Australia needed to put in place long-term plans for a more dangerous future. Professor Shine said there was "abundant evidence available" to understand what was happening with the environment and Australia needed to look to that science for disaster responses and future policies.

 

 

 

Calling you out on this one. Pure propaganda. What ‘abundant’ evidence??

 

“Professor Shine said there was "abundant evidence available" to understand what was happening with the environment and Australia needed to look to that science for disaster responses and future policies.”

[Kults]

Quote

“We are getting more sustainable, not less, in the way we use the planet,” Ridley continues, explaining that we are continually using fewer materials and resources to produce the goods and services we consume.

Historically, there is no correlation between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and Earth’s temperature, but research consistently shows a direct connection between a country’s wealth and people flourishing.

https://spectator.org/misguided-youth-protesters-have-it-wrong-the-world-is-actually-getting-better-and-better/

[Hua Guofang]

17 hours ago, Kults said:

Calling you out on this one. Pure propaganda. What ‘abundant’ evidence??

 

“Professor Shine said there was "abundant evidence available" to understand what was happening with the environment and Australia needed to look to that science for disaster responses and future policies.”

I have no idea what their evidence is, here's their website if you want to check https://www.science.org.au/

 

The relevance for me is that Australia's peak science body is publicly pressuring the govt on climate change at a time when the country is experiencing biggest natural disaster that scientists argue is exacerbated by climate change and the govt has been caught shelving a CC resilience plan for the last 18 months.

 

I don't really get into the science of it because like most things it just becomes a duel. You can find people arguing for an against and it becomes articles at 50 paces (like I just laid out above) posted by people who can google. For me, they said 10-15 years ago that CC would make our summers and bushfires much worse, they  even got the time frame right. Even if the glaciers come back and the sea stops rising, it doesn't matter because my family now lives in a house with air purifiers and taped up windows and we wear P2 masks when we leave the house. What they said would come true, came true for us. So I'd rather go with the peak body for scientists on this one. When I try and look out my window, I'm happy to trust their credentials.

 

Gotta say too, the irony is not lost on me that when I post an article that people have put their names and credentials to I'm told that it's propaganda by the guy who posts stuff like this:

 

[Fist 666]

15 hours ago, Kults said:

 

 

https://spectator.org/misguided-youth-protesters-have-it-wrong-the-world-is-actually-getting-better-and-better/

Absolutely unrelated conversation. Quality of life has fuck-all to do with planet health. "Look guys, look at your TVs and single use plastic bags and automobiles, how dare you complain that you can't breathe the air in your city."  

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Quote

I think everything you said is true except the assumption that it's all human beings that are to blame for CO2 levels 

Correct. there is plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere from the planet itself. Volcanoes produce about 200M tons annually, whereas industry and automobiles create 24B tons. (about .008%) I'm sure we can dig deeper and find out how much is released by peat bogs and the like and we might be able to add up a few more million tons, still drops in the bucket compared to humanity's impact.

 

Quote

Geologist Viv Forbes

let me stop you right there. 

 

Viv Forbes is a definitive shill. If I quoted Greta Thuneburg I'd expect the same response from you. 

 

One example, there are dozens more. Feel free to do research on her professional history.

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/

 

Quote

And while I do think cutting down our forests is a terrible thing to do and incredibly short sighted, I also dont think it has as much of an impact on 'climate change' as we have been led to believe

It is one part among many. Later in your post you cite that "deforestation results in 1/3 of human CO2 emissions." 

 

I only touched on trees, wasn't going to touch on coal, petroleum etc, as the longer my text gets--the less you read. Understand that trees are a part of the conversation, not the entirety.

 

Quote

“Our estimate is about a fifth of what was found in previous work showing that deforestation has contributed 484 billion tons of carbon – a third of all manmade emissions – since 1900,” said Brent Sohngen, a professor of environmental and resource economics at Ohio State.

1/3 of man-made emissions is far from insignificant, again,  think coal, petroleum, etc... 

 

Quote

 

https://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/global-forest-loss-reversed-despite-large-scale-deforestation-tropics.html

Treehugger is a great source. However, this is misleading and I'm a bit disappointed they don't touch on this.

 

If I cut down an entire forest, removing every single piece of the ecosystem, but replace it with a palm oil farm there is a net loss of zero tree cover as viewed from satellite. 

 

Also, the study lumps all biomass together. The idea that a cornfield holds as much potential carbon as a dense forest is easily demonstrated as illogical. 

 

Quote

Twenty years of satellite data reveals the total amount of vegetation globally has increased by almost the equivalent of 4 billion tons of carbon since 2003.

 

4 billion tons... two quotes above an we're talking about 484 billion tons over 120 years. Let's not get excited or build arguments around .000000000008%  (actual number) of that over 20 years quite yet...

 

Also, the math on what they're calling an increase is questionable. 

 

From the abstract of the basis of the tree hugger article

 

Quote

We estimate a global average ABC of 362 PgC over the period 1998–2002, of which 65% is in forests and 17% in savannahs. Over the period 1993–2012, an estimated −0.07 PgC yr⁻¹ ABC was lost globally, mostly resulting from the loss of tropical forests (−0.26 PgC yr⁻¹) and net gains in mixed forests over boreal and temperate regions (+0.13 PgC yr⁻¹) and tropical savannahs and shrublands (+0.05 PgC yr⁻¹). 

That doesn't add up to a positive. Don't have time to read the whole thing, I'm fine moving on from it.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Science as an industry isn't without fault, the push for publishing articles in volume has undeniably created problems, but throwing out a heavy majority because of it is wholly foolish. 

 

(I'm okay abandoning the 97% stat, it was convenient to use, but no argument hinges on it. Interdisciplinary consensus remains.)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

The primary reason I've stayed away from crossfire is this. If i write a complex argument and link sources, you disregard the work because you won't read it. If I write simple arguments, I leave out nuance and the arguments can't stand as they've been too simplified. As far as I can surmise, you don't actually read the counterargument sources you're posting, and definitely don't read mine or Hua's past a paragraph or maybe an abstract. You aren't actually doing research, you're simply finding ANY contrary source  and making the stance that one source for your side counters any other source. It doesn't work that way.

 

 

 

 

[Kults]

No I think the response is good and measured. It keeps the conversation moving rather than trying to bury the other guy with walls of text in the hopes that he won’t read it all and punch holes through the bits that are worth calling out because you’ve just made the pile of crap too heavy to be worth wading through. 

 

On one hand though you claim not to back up certain certain arguments or points because ‘we won’t read them’ yet dismiss entire sources because ‘ she’s like greta’ or they don’t cover a certain stat. Seems kind of selective given your previous take on sources. 

 

Im glad you’re abandoning the 97% quote though cause it’s at best incomplete and at worst just straight up dishonest. 

 

From what I can tell it’s a little like the pot calling the kettle black here, you assume we dont/won’t read your sources but you definitely don’t bother reading ours or just sift through them. Still waiting in your response from the info I posted a few pages back you’d said you’d respond to in due time but you never did. 

 

Most of this last response of yours has hinged in whataboutisms and walking back your original points. At least we’re starting to find sone middle ground here. You do come off like an alarmist when you make these self virtuous statements like we need to save the planet.

 

Quality of like is absolutely a relevant point as that is what will he affected if the world takes in these aggressive environmental policies I’m sure you’d like installed. Based on what exactly? ‘Bad’ for the environment? There is no climate emergency and thus no real immediate need to deprive people of a better quality of life through fossil fuels. 

 

You admitted yourself it’s far from the biggest source of CO2 and isn’t having some kind of cataclysmic effect on the environment. In the interest of keeping the convo moving I’ll stop here and let you respond 

[Kults]

3 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

I have no idea what their evidence is, here's their website if you want to check https://www.science.org.au/

 

The relevance for me is that Australia's peak science body is publicly pressuring the govt on climate change at a time when the country is experiencing biggest natural disaster that scientists argue is exacerbated by climate change and the govt has been caught shelving a CC resilience plan for the last 18 months.

 

I don't really get into the science of it because like most things it just becomes a duel. You can find people arguing for an against and it becomes articles at 50 paces (like I just laid out above) posted by people who can google. For me, they said 10-15 years ago that CC would make our summers and bushfires much worse, they  even got the time frame right. Even if the glaciers come back and the sea stops rising, it doesn't matter because my family now lives in a house with air purifiers and taped up windows and we wear P2 masks when we leave the house. What they said would come true, came true for us. So I'd rather go with the peak body for scientists on this one. When I try and look out my window, I'm happy to trust their credentials.

 

Gotta say too, the irony is not lost on me that when I post an article that people have put their names and credentials to I'm told that it's propaganda by the guy who posts stuff like this:

 

Don’t try to be facetious. It’s a meme meant for a laugh. As I’ve shown and continue to do so I engage with you on the arguments too. So.. your answer is “ the answers are on the site” then say it’s contradicted all over? 

 

Can you link or quote the relevant bits so I don’t have to go on a fishing expedition? 

[Hua Guofang]

I’m not being facetious at all. Memes are used for propaganda, as you know and Your memes align Pretty closely with some of your positions. You were posting news stories about arson as well as memes so it’s reasonable to link the two. 
 

i havent read their Website. I’m saying that we could post for and against evidence at each other until the cows come home and it won’t change anything. But I’m living through what they predicted 10+ years ago so I’m inclined to fall on the pro side as a survival strategy. I don’t try to understand all the science of it, it’s not my area. 
 

I post stuff in here not So much to counter to you but as interesting to the discussion. The bushfire stuff, however is posted as pro anthropomorphic Climate change as the predictions are playing out as proposed and it’s pretty hard to ignore from where I stand. 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Hua Guofang

[Kults]

That fair, I wont argue any if that

[Fist 666]

  

25 minutes ago, Kults said:

No I think the response is good and measured. It keeps the conversation moving rather than trying to bury the other guy with walls of text in the hopes that he won’t read it all and punch holes through the bits that are worth calling out because you’ve just made the pile of crap too heavy to be worth wading through. 

 

Fair, but reinforces the point that you're not reading what's being posted.

 

Quote

On one hand though you claim not to back up certain certain arguments or points because ‘we won’t read them’ yet dismiss entire sources because ‘ she’s like greta’ or they don’t cover a certain stat. Seems kind of selective given your previous take on sources. 

Wrong. You've admitted in several threads that you do not read what is posted, this isn't an assumption on my part.

 

Find me a Viv Forbes article published in an academic journal and I will acknowledge the points made. Find me more links to letters published on generic blogs, freemarket think tank blogs, or outright pro-oil think tanks and I will not. Sources are everything. A valid citation is absolutely necessary and anyone with questionable bias and a forty year career working with oil to undermine unbiased science is not working as a scientist, but as a shill. The Greta point worked in your favor, if you want to beat it into the ground we can. Don't link to shills.

 

Quote

Im glad you’re abandoning the 97% quote though cause it’s at best incomplete and at worst just straight up dishonest. 

Agreed, its unfortunate because it undermines consensus. You now think its fair to throw away the concept of consensus as a whole because Cook et al put out some manipulated stats.

 

Quote

From what I can tell it’s a little like the pot calling the kettle black here, you assume we dont/won’t read your sources but you definitely don’t bother reading ours or just sift through them. Still waiting in your response from the info I posted a few pages back you’d said you’d respond to in due time but you never did. 

 

What? I not only read your links, but read the articles for which they were based on. Again, I'm not assuming anything:  you have outright stated that you don't read links or articles posted, so no.

 

Are you waiting on the response to the 97% or to the MIT guy's video? I looked back and am not sure which you're referring to.

 

Quote

Most of this last response of yours has hinged in whataboutisms and walking back your original points. At least we’re starting to find sone middle ground here. 

What did I walk back? show me one whataboutism.

 

Quote

You do come off like an alarmist when you make these self virtuous statements like we need to save the planet.

There is a middle ground between ostrich and alarmist. I think we are fucked, period. I think we can make strides to slow the damage already inflicted. At some point it will be too late. That isn't alarmist, it is pragmatic and scientific. Your stance is solely pro-market and pro-liberty (pro convenience) with zero long term plan other than hoping the scientists you deny now find ways to save you later. I will always pick sides with science.

 

Quote

Quality of like is absolutely a relevant point as that is what will he affected if the world takes in these aggressive environmental policies I’m sure you’d like installed. Based on what exactly? ‘Bad’ for the environment? There is no climate emergency and thus no real immediate need to deprive people of a better quality of life through fossil fuels. 

It is at best tertiary to the point of this thread, "hoax or nah." Yes, living standards will be affect by regulation. Also, living standards will be affected by rising sea levels and bush fires. I'm not arguing economics or market-anything, or even what the regulations ought to be.

 

Quote

you admitted yourself it’s far from the biggest source of CO2 and isn’t having some kind of cataclysmic effect on the environment.

It doesn't need to be the biggest source for it to remain relevant to the conversation. Deforestation means more CO2 in the atmosphere. More deforestation, and more CO2 from other sources will further the likelihood of a cataclysmic effect. Less-than-cataclysmic will still be devastating to the planet and (of course) quality of living. 

 

There is nothing simple in this conversation. I am committing to one piece of it for now (sea level, fossil fuels, agriculture, etc are all future points potentially worth venturing down), if I don't see good-faith arguments I'll go back to lurking because it will have demonstrably not worth the effort (for the nth time).

 

 

 

[Kults]

Eh I was going to engage but given your last paragraph Im thinking why bother. We've already covered much of what youre talking about anyway. 

 

I don't think either of us will convince the other regardless of how many sources we pull up. Ill take my small victory in getting you to drop the 97% argument and Ill take my lumps on the rest. I def don't think we're fucked but what do either of us really know anyway. AFAIK youre not a Geologist and neither am I. Like Id posted, I think there is enough reasonable doubt raised re the validity of these wild claims of doom and gloom that IMHO we should pump the breaks on policy.

 

E: You can thank Raven for the thread name, I would have just called it climate hoax.

[misteraven]

On 1/9/2020 at 9:54 AM, misteraven said:

Here's the thing I see, un-PC as it is... The only way to affect change is war or taxes, neither of which is likely to be a practical fix and its arguable how practical and impactful either is. The biggest polluters at this point are China and India. Both nuclear powers and both countries that don't have a very good record at treating humans very well. Simplified, they give zero fucks, so will need to be bribed into compliance or stomped into it. Sort of thinking neither is a reasonable solution. To differing degrees, this is the same issue with the next 5 polluters, especially so when measured per capita. Brazil's government clearly are unable to manage even fundamental social policy or affectively handle their affairs by the most basic of metrics. Really think they give a fuck about global warming when huge swaths of the population live in shanties on the edge of a rain forest? Think they can even begin to wrap their heads around what's happening globally when half the kids under 13 in those neighborhoods don't even have shoes, despite living across a valley from resorts and properties catering some of the wealthiest humans in the country, if not world?

 

So bring this home, the USA has done more in the last decade to reduce carbon emissions than any other nation on earth, by a long shot. Look it all up. Sure we have bullshit, feel good legislation like California reducing their carbon foot print by outsourcing their dirty deeds to neighboring states, but likewise we're also a country with dudes like Elon Musk disrupting multiple markets from EV's to space transport at a pace that the government can only dream about. No doubt that'll continue as we see Tesla getting into powering homes, Sony jumping in with EV's and Apple doing who the fuck knows what as they move to disrupting new market segments and industries. 

 

So again, yes... You can always do a little more. That's universal about life in general... But in in terms of meaningful efforts that have evidence based, impactful result... I have yet to see a single proposal anywhere that actually makes any sense. And all of this sits way the fuck out on a limb of being questionable at its core. Indeed humans have an impact on the earth... Name a single species that does not. I'm all for people leaving dense populations to go rural and live lifestyles that are more in balance with nature, but that isn't likely to happen, ironically and despite those same areas being the most vocal about it. This change, like so many other ills that plague modern society (at least as far as I've observed in the USA), needs to happen at the individual level. People need to start being accountable for themselves and responsible for themselves. Same way I hated paying higher subway fares to pave roads I'd never drive on the other end of the state, being green requires investments at the local level so when you're being taxed, you can view the application of that towards progress. I'm simply not okay living a low impact lifestyle in the mountains of Montana to be taxed so that NYC can be a little more environmentally friendly, let alone fucking Beijing. 

 

So again, tax people to death as a solution knowing how responsible and efficient government is at spending everyones money or wage wars on sovereign nations under the premise that its for the greater good.

 

 

going to again call attention to this.

[Hua Guofang]

As mentioned further up the page, this could go in a number of threads, but being CC related I gues it falls here.

 

The rumblings continue within the Murdoch empire over they way they approach climate change in their outlets:

 

 

Rupert Murdoch's son James criticises News Corp, Fox for climate change and bushfire coverage

The younger son and daughter-in-law of News Corp executive chairman and Fox Corporation co-chairman Rupert Murdoch have taken aim at both organisations' coverage of climate change, widely viewed as a contributing factor to the Australian bushfires, in a statement to US-based news outlet The Daily Beast.

 

"They are particularly disappointed with the ongoing denial of the role of climate change among the news outlets in Australia, given obvious evidence to the contrary."

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-15/james-murdoch-criticises-news-corp-fox-climate-change-coverage/11868544

[Kults]

^ God forbid anchors and pundits have their own opinions on events. Must toe that corporate line!!

[Dirty_habiT]

OMG get off the gas.  Rupert Murdoch's son can go fuck himself.

 

Fox News didn't start those fires.  Lol.  Nerds.

[Dirty_habiT]

 

[Kults]

[Dirty_habiT]

That dude has the smile of "we 100% believe in what we're doing makes us hero's, good bye and we're glad to have graced you with our presence."

 

Too bad Greta is basically a celebrity from now on because the internet is not going to drop her like a hot potato.  Hopefully she just turns into the subject of memes only and people stop believing what a kid that got popular by throwing a misguided fit said about our climate.... you know seeing as how we only have a few hundred years worth of recorded weather data.

 

I wonder which scientific instruments were used to measure the weather "thousands of years ago" in real-time like someone undoubtedly thinks they have an accurate handle on from reading rocks.

[Kults]

Her life is ruined but Dad looks like he's having a great time

[Kults]

[Fist 666]

On 1/9/2020 at 11:54 AM, misteraven said:

Here's the thing I see, un-PC as it is... The only way to affect change is war or taxes, neither of which is likely to be a practical fix and its arguable how practical and impactful either is. The biggest polluters at this point are China and India. Both nuclear powers and both countries that don't have a very good record at treating humans very well. Simplified, they give zero fucks, so will need to be bribed into compliance or stomped into it. Sort of thinking neither is a reasonable solution. To differing degrees, this is the same issue with the next 5 polluters, especially so when measured per capita. Brazil's government clearly are unable to manage even fundamental social policy or affectively handle their affairs by the most basic of metrics. Really think they give a fuck about global warming when huge swaths of the population live in shanties on the edge of a rain forest? Think they can even begin to wrap their heads around what's happening globally when half the kids under 13 in those neighborhoods don't even have shoes, despite living across a valley from resorts and properties catering some of the wealthiest humans in the country, if not world?

 

So bring this home, the USA has done more in the last decade to reduce carbon emissions than any other nation on earth, by a long shot. Look it all up. Sure we have bullshit, feel good legislation like California reducing their carbon foot print by outsourcing their dirty deeds to neighboring states, but likewise we're also a country with dudes like Elon Musk disrupting multiple markets from EV's to space transport at a pace that the government can only dream about. No doubt that'll continue as we see Tesla getting into powering homes, Sony jumping in with EV's and Apple doing who the fuck knows what as they move to disrupting new market segments and industries. 

 

So again, yes... You can always do a little more. That's universal about life in general... But in in terms of meaningful efforts that have evidence based, impactful result... I have yet to see a single proposal anywhere that actually makes any sense. And all of this sits way the fuck out on a limb of being questionable at its core. Indeed humans have an impact on the earth... Name a single species that does not. I'm all for people leaving dense populations to go rural and live lifestyles that are more in balance with nature, but that isn't likely to happen, ironically and despite those same areas being the most vocal about it. This change, like so many other ills that plague modern society (at least as far as I've observed in the USA), needs to happen at the individual level. People need to start being accountable for themselves and responsible for themselves. Same way I hated paying higher subway fares to pave roads I'd never drive on the other end of the state, being green requires investments at the local level so when you're being taxed, you can view the application of that towards progress. I'm simply not okay living a low impact lifestyle in the mountains of Montana to be taxed so that NYC can be a little more environmentally friendly, let alone fucking Beijing. 

 

So again, tax people to death as a solution knowing how responsible and efficient government is at spending everyones money or wage wars on sovereign nations under the premise that its for the greater good.

 

 

I wanted to give this a proper reply last weekend, but it's been another shit show week for me, better late than never. It's gonna be out of order to your post

 

Let's start here:

Quote

 Indeed humans have an impact on the earth... Name a single species that does not. 

Shiny Red Herring. Every species besides us exists in an essential balance (without human interaction). Invasive species are the only ones out of balance, and they are (most often) there because of human activity. 

 

Quote

But in in terms of meaningful efforts that have evidence based, impactful result... I have yet to see a single proposal anywhere that actually makes any sense.

Here is a simple start that is not about war or taxing.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/76

 

Here is an interesting editorial about how that study is being embraced and how it can be done more efficiently.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/reforestation-necessarily-planting-trees-200116113657413.html

 

A lot of this is why I beat the drum about trees/carbon/deforestation. 

 

Again, trees are one front on this battle. I harp on it because it is one of the simplest to relate to and understand. 

 

Quote

This change, like so many other ills that plague modern society (at least as far as I've observed in the USA), needs to happen at the individual level. People need to start being accountable for themselves and responsible for themselves. Same way I hated paying higher subway fares to pave roads I'd never drive on the other end of the state, being green requires investments at the local level so when you're being taxed, you can view the application of that towards progress. I'm simply not okay living a low impact lifestyle in the mountains of Montana to be taxed so that NYC can be a little more environmentally friendly, let alone fucking Beijing. 

Changes at the individual level feel good, but make much less of an impact than a system wide change. Urban planning and new technologies are making cities vastly more efficient and less destructive than suburban sprawl. Teamwork works. Rural living is less so, but as vehicular tech improves it will also. You're not paying taxes for NYC in BFE, you're paying taxes for the industrial wastelands (greatest polluters) around the US that are less dense and less efficient. I'll get to Beijing in a minute.

 

A lot of your qualm seems to stem from "roads I don't drive on" piece. This is modern society, man. Your shirts get shipped on roads you don't drive on. The materials you rewired your shop with came on roads you don't drive on. the shirt printing device that was trucked to you, etc. Local has obvious appeal, but isolationism at most scales fails pretty quickly without going full Amish. 

 

a counter argument on the efficency of cities--worth reading to understand a core of these stats/outlooks. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-sustainable-city/

 

Quote

So bring this home, the USA has done more in the last decade to reduce carbon emissions than any other nation on earth, by a long shot. Look it all up. Sure we have bullshit, feel good legislation like California reducing their carbon foot print by outsourcing their dirty deeds to neighboring states, but likewise we're also a country with dudes like Elon Musk disrupting multiple markets from EV's to space transport at a pace that the government can only dream about. No doubt that'll continue as we see Tesla getting into powering homes, Sony jumping in with EV's and Apple doing who the fuck knows what as they move to disrupting new market segments and industries. 

All true, and that's why Trump rolling back on the progress we have made as a nation is an embarrassment and backwards slide. Just because China and India are absolutely destructive (more to that later) doesn't mean we ought to be just like them in the name of economic prowess. 

 

I said this to Kults before-- denying the current science while holding out for future science to save us is nonsense. If you're going to praise Musk for his economic success, you have to acknowledge the science that has gotten him there. Science is one big system with a lot of specialties. The science that makes his vehicles better and better is the same science telling you that anthropogenic climate change is real.  Their successful disruption of the status quo (a hegemony enforced for decades by big oil/big auto) only exists because of the work of scientists (STEM fields as a whole). 

 

Quote

Here's the thing I see, un-PC as it is... The only way to affect change is war or taxes, neither of which is likely to be a practical fix and its arguable how practical and impactful either is. The biggest polluters at this point are China and India. Both nuclear powers and both countries that don't have a very good record at treating humans very well. Simplified, they give zero fucks, so will need to be bribed into compliance or stomped into it. Sort of thinking neither is a reasonable solution. To differing degrees, this is the same issue with the next 5 polluters, especially so when measured per capita. Brazil's government clearly are unable to manage even fundamental social policy or affectively handle their affairs by the most basic of metrics. Really think they give a fuck about global warming when huge swaths of the population live in shanties on the edge of a rain forest? Think they can even begin to wrap their heads around what's happening globally when half the kids under 13 in those neighborhoods don't even have shoes, despite living across a valley from resorts and properties catering some of the wealthiest humans in the country, if not world?

Taxes and war will exist no matter what. Denying science won't affect that in the slightest. 

 

Government mandates can and will make a difference at some scale, will it be enough? Who fucking knows. If we do nothing we may all  breathe air like Mumbai or Beijing in time. 

 

Yup, China and India and Crew are absolutely a negative force to reckon with. Given the metrics of their destructive trajectory  I don't see much hope in standing for anything, giving into total nihilism and saying fuck it. For some reason I don't. The science that tells me we're fucked will continue to make headway into how to deal with those nations (as you've noted with Musk and crew). I can't imagine having kids with the outlook as potentially grim as it is.

 

Science isn't perfect at long term predictions (absolute knowledge of any future is impossible). Statistics are  a bit outside of my wheelhouse, but: Degrees of deviation  happen, the difference of 1 and 10, 10 and 100 are little, so when predictions are made and sensationalized as impending doom (by your enemy the msm) and fail to materialize--give it time. If your kids don't experience the predictions, your grand kids likely will if nothing changes.

 

An easy, related example. Trump had a predicted 10-25% chance of winning the 2016 election. Here we are.

 

Quote

So again, tax people to death as a solution knowing how responsible and efficient government is at spending everyones money or wage wars on sovereign nations under the premise that its for the greater good.

There are greater odds that we will solve climate change than that we will have a tax-free world peace...... 

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I tried bringing up scientific literacy a while back, acknowledging experts is a necessity for any field of conversation, if you guys want to question the science--get literate in the subject. If you want to talk about economic impacts, taxation as theft, why globalism is problematic, etc that's great. But throwing out science because acknowledging it is economically inconvenient isn't sound--make a bed with flat earthers and anti-vaxxers and party hard accordingly. 

 

 

 

 

Now, I'm gonna go buck some logs and try to get ahead on next year's firewood while I've got some free time. 😁

[Kults]

 

[Fist 666]

Though I obviously disagree with this bit, Carlin was the man. I would love to hear his rants on victimhood, identity, and intersectional feminism. 

[Kults]

Spicy

 

 

[Kults]

[Kults]

https://www.cfact.org/2020/01/18/doomsday-climate-predictions-wrong-then-wrong-now/

[Fist 666]

Are you trying to be taken seriously with that source, or are you just intentionally wasting time?

 

Do you think any self respecting scientist or scientifically literate person gives a fuck what Ted Danson believes or understands?

 

Every bit of your presence in these conversations reinforces that you're a troll. 

[Fist 666]

How old are you? Jesus. Grow the fuck up or stay at the kids table. 

[Kults]