It was of the appropriate level of sloppiness given the post I was responding to.
Serious quesiton for people who deny human involvement in climate change/global warming
- Thread starter HighlandHomie
- Start date
It was of the appropriate level of sloppiness given the post I was responding to.
DutchJazzer
Banned
all those cilmate change leaders. fly private jets.
going to give a 15 minute speech and fly there and back on a private ****ing jet!
why should i care then??
going to give a 15 minute speech and fly there and back on a private ****ing jet!
why should i care then??
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
If we just get rid of cows we'll be alright.
DutchJazzer
Banned
i bet he can find an empty chair on a commercial jet
Or install a catalytic converter in each one.
DutchJazzer
Banned
Obama and pope surounded by armed guards and armored cars scream gun control. i dont trust that kinda tyranical behaviour
climate change supporters fly private jets for 15 minute meatings. again how can u trust that.
pretty logical to me bro.
climate change supporters fly private jets for 15 minute meatings. again how can u trust that.
pretty logical to me bro.
mellow
Well-Known Member
I consider myself a conservationist, not to be confused with a political conservative. I don't doubt the environment is changing, or deny the glaciers are melting. But I think the data linking changes and melting ice to human activity, let alone specific human activity, is a fantastic jump that has not been proven. There might be some demonstrated correlation, correlation is easy to find among many relationships , but I don't believe it has been shown to be causative, nor do I believe causation can be proven in this case. Alternatively, I believe there is abundant scientific evidence demonstrating that the earths climate has changed in the past, and by the historical record it is very safe to say we can expect earths climate to change again in the future.
Further, I am skeptical because this has become a political discussion rather than a scientific discussion, and I am wary of politicians who are motivated by potential new "revenue streams" in the form of carbon taxes. but whose actions don't match their rhetoric. I have heard that climate change will kill more people than died in wars in the 20th century, and climate change is a national security threat bigger than terrorism. But if the situation is so dire, why is Obama today creating over a million pounds of co2 emissions (just for his flight to Alaska) to tell us about man made climate change? His flight to Alaska will consume more fuel than I will consume commuting in the next 5 years. And that doesn't include all of his driving, his staff and security flights etc. When Obama flew to utah to have his picture taken in front of some solar panels at HAFB, I saw that someone calculated those panels will need to operate for 17 years or something like that in order to compensate for the co2 emissions created by obamas flight here to politicize them. if he really believed this was a threat he would stay home. He would implement policy among the federal bureaucracies to reduce emissions right now from their flights and their fleets of vehicles. If it was really a national security threat, that could be averted, he would even implement measures on the military.
Finally, the proposed "solution" to all the fear mongering is a carbon tax that will generate a lot of tax revenue. But I don't believe it will reduce co2 emissions. It will make harder for a poor family in India to burn wood to cook with, it will make it more expensive for middle America to drive to work, it will make it so that some poor people will sit in the dark because they can't afford the lights, but the big corporate and government users will still be spewing their pollution. Just like the system works now with the EPA. The EPA has been in place since 1971, in 2014 they had a budget of over 8 billion dollars. While I am not one to discredit all its work, I think it should be recognized that the EPA is not in the business of preventing environmental contamination, rather they are in the business of permiting pollution or other damage, to the person or corporation that can afford to pay the application fees, pay for studies, pay for reviews, pay for court costs. Etc. If you love the 1%, you are a big fan of the EPA and carbon taxes.
Don't misunderstand, I think the world would be a better place if we all inflated our tires to the proper psi, and turned the lights off when we leave a room. Just as Salt Lake would be a better place if they stopped importing skiing tourists to pollute the air and destroy the mountains and watersheds. But the mad rush towards carbon taxes will only hurt the masses and benefit the powerful few while having a minimal impact on co2 emissions.
Further, I am skeptical because this has become a political discussion rather than a scientific discussion, and I am wary of politicians who are motivated by potential new "revenue streams" in the form of carbon taxes. but whose actions don't match their rhetoric. I have heard that climate change will kill more people than died in wars in the 20th century, and climate change is a national security threat bigger than terrorism. But if the situation is so dire, why is Obama today creating over a million pounds of co2 emissions (just for his flight to Alaska) to tell us about man made climate change? His flight to Alaska will consume more fuel than I will consume commuting in the next 5 years. And that doesn't include all of his driving, his staff and security flights etc. When Obama flew to utah to have his picture taken in front of some solar panels at HAFB, I saw that someone calculated those panels will need to operate for 17 years or something like that in order to compensate for the co2 emissions created by obamas flight here to politicize them. if he really believed this was a threat he would stay home. He would implement policy among the federal bureaucracies to reduce emissions right now from their flights and their fleets of vehicles. If it was really a national security threat, that could be averted, he would even implement measures on the military.
Finally, the proposed "solution" to all the fear mongering is a carbon tax that will generate a lot of tax revenue. But I don't believe it will reduce co2 emissions. It will make harder for a poor family in India to burn wood to cook with, it will make it more expensive for middle America to drive to work, it will make it so that some poor people will sit in the dark because they can't afford the lights, but the big corporate and government users will still be spewing their pollution. Just like the system works now with the EPA. The EPA has been in place since 1971, in 2014 they had a budget of over 8 billion dollars. While I am not one to discredit all its work, I think it should be recognized that the EPA is not in the business of preventing environmental contamination, rather they are in the business of permiting pollution or other damage, to the person or corporation that can afford to pay the application fees, pay for studies, pay for reviews, pay for court costs. Etc. If you love the 1%, you are a big fan of the EPA and carbon taxes.
Don't misunderstand, I think the world would be a better place if we all inflated our tires to the proper psi, and turned the lights off when we leave a room. Just as Salt Lake would be a better place if they stopped importing skiing tourists to pollute the air and destroy the mountains and watersheds. But the mad rush towards carbon taxes will only hurt the masses and benefit the powerful few while having a minimal impact on co2 emissions.
DutchJazzer
Banned
atleast the prime ministers form here use bycicles to go to work everyday. they have more credibilty then OBUMMER!
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Hungry doe
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
So your evidence that those raising the alarm about global warming are largely commnunists is precisely what? :roll eyes:
There is no message, and no messenger, and no amount of evidence that would be able to convince the right wing nut cases who are convinced that global warming is some liberal hoax aimed at the ruination of capitalism and the consolidation of power in the hands of the federal (or even one world) government.
Fun fact: The Indian in the Crying Indian ads isn't even a real Indian. At least I seem to recall this to be the case.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Absolutely, why the hubris of all that pesky evidence.
So I wonder, what is more hubris full, people with actual and overwhelming scientific evidence on their side advocating for a position, or people with ideology on their side arguing against the overwhelming scientific evidence?
Having, or not having as the case may be, evidence on your side does not exclude you from hubris. In fact I would argue the opposite. Often having that supports, or seems to support your side, often leads to hubris.
Way to costly. Just stuff their asses with carbon.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
I don't think he was suggesting that humans are the only cause--I certainly didn't read him this way.
Human contribution is, moreover, the one contributory factor we can do something about.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Absolutely not, you are correct.
But that's not the context the poster was referencing.
I think the level of direct human effect on climate control is very much debatable. We clearly contribute but to what extent?
On that point the GW crowd has a huge amount of hubris. Just as the anti GW crowd has in their denial.
DutchJazzer
Banned
well the messengers are hypocrites!
Okay, point scored. They are hypocrites, which clearly negates their message... End of discussion apparently.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Humans are not the sole cause of climate change but we are the cause of global warming. There is a common misconception that we know that we are causing warming because of temperature readings at weather stations and we reverse engineer from there. That's not how it works at all. It's actually done in reverse.
We know how much energy we are transferring into the atmosphere and we know how much warming that should cause. This much is indisputable as it is a matter of well understood chemistry to calculate. Now that we have calculated the warming caused by man we look at the temperature data. If the warming is higher than our calculation than natural processes and or feedback loops are causing the warming beyond our calculation. If the warming is less than our calculation than natural mitigation(ocean absorption of Co2) and or natural processes that cause cooling are causing the difference.
The good news for humans is that thus far at least the readings have been less than our calculated effect meaning that the earth has mitigated some of our emissions and maybe that the earth would be cooling without them. The bad news for humans is that the earth is warming albeit less than our emissions would cause acting alone.
This all means that although human activities are not the sole cause of climate change we are the cause of the warming trend.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
If the standard for addressing an important public policy issue were that advocates for a particular position were complete free of any hypocrisy, then we'd do absolutely nothing.
Hypocrisy is as common a human trait as intestinal gas, and it cuts across the spectrum.
Someone who would intentionally allow a potentially very bad outcome to occur just because some people who advocate addressing the outcome are hypocrites is not very bright and is a highly irrational person.