Serious quesiton for people who deny human involvement in climate change/global warming

[Siro]

If we just get rid of cows we'll be alright.

Or install a catalytic converter in each one.

 

[DutchJazzer]

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.

 

[mellow]

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.

 

[DutchJazzer]

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.

atleast the prime ministers form here use bycicles to go to work everyday. they have more credibilty then OBUMMER!

 

[fishonjazz]

If we just get rid of cows we'll be alright.

Hungry doe

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Mainly, if you think something is vitally important, don't put in in the hands of dumbasses to spread the message. Warmers are general grade A dumbasses that seem to tend to Communism. More "Crying Indian" less wanna be dictators flying private jets and you will do a better job convincing people. . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7OHG7tHrNM

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]

I find the climate change movement so full of hubris that they are not worth taking seriously. Thinking humanity could possibly control or even have a meaningful influence on astronomical phenomena is retarded. The main reason to push for global warming reduction is for the side benefits of reducing toxic air pollutants that we actually can have an effect on.

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?

 

[Stoked]

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.

 

[Scat]

Or install a catalytic converter in each one.

Way to costly. Just stuff their asses with carbon.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

This is a sloppy comment. Human activities may contribute to the rate of climate change, and the rate of climate change might be higher now than is "normal" but Humans are not the sole cause of climate change.

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]

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.

Absolutely not, you are correct.

But that's not the context the poster was referencing.

 

[Stoked]

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.