WARNING This might give you global warming goons an embolism
- Thread starter SoesWasBetter
- Start date
I didn't say you said that. And that's more to illustrate my confusion than suggest that's the actual argument, because figuring out what the end game in discrediting climate research seems so elusive to me. Which brings me back around to:
What's your end-game?
End game.
What's the end game of the left?
Chances are, my end game is on the other side of that .
What's the end game of the left?
Chances are, my end game is on the other side of that .
No rising seas and worsening weather, or at the very least just leaving the world in better shape than they found it. So, let's say (just for the sake of argument) that you're right and global warming is a fraud, what then? "Well, we proved them all wrong. And now they've left us with a nice place to live. Ass holes."
That's my whole point, even if it's all a fraud, pollution controls are reasonable on their own (localized) merits.
That leaves me with nothing in my (not insubstantial) repertoire of political motivations and ideologies to inform on the motive behind discrediting climate science. The one proximate, logical, cause / effect motivation would be that pollution controls are an unreasonable burden. It's a fair point on it's own (though demonstrably false to my mind). I am just suspect of the litany of information against it that is unlinked to any productive policy positions.
So I don't doubt that someone genuinely is motivated by not drowning in midtown or cigar city, and so they support policy changes like pairs and Kyoto. Nor do I doubt the motivation of someone who is skeptical of it, but nevertheless content to support pollution controls on the basis that they'll benefit by living in the nicer environment. I do doubt the motivation of someone who aims to discredit those ideas without also linking it to cohesive policy goals.
I'm literally left with no understanding of it beyond the unreasonable burden motive or the malice motive. And given that the economic burden motive had been all but absent from any recent discourse, it really does come across as "I don't have nice things, so I want to ruin yours" malice motive.
So, educate me. What's your motive.
I'm for more controls not less.
But I am resistant to the likes of Al Gore and pink haired ladies with placards telling us how to go about it.
I think they should outlaw cigarettes , which is provably more dangerous to more people than a few extra hurricanes.
But I am resistant to the likes of Al Gore and pink haired ladies with placards telling us how to go about it.
I think they should outlaw cigarettes , which is provably more dangerous to more people than a few extra hurricanes.
I've often wondered why the argument for it focuses so much on global warming, and not the immediately tangible benefits. People seem devoid of the thought that you'll make a more convincing argument if you argue it in terms they respond to. People get so lost on their own deontological beliefs, they can't see they're doing more harm than good.
No points for guessing my stance on booze.
That, sir, goes too far! I cannot abide! (I have massive--for me--holdings in MO)
No points for guessing my stance on booze.
Would you care to share the article where you recently read that, perhaps something on Breitbart which I've conclusively demonstrated on this very thread blatently lies? Here in the real world "Melting Arctic ice cap falls to well below average
• This summer’s minimum is the eighth lowest on record" (amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/20/melting-arctic-ice-cap-falls-to-well-below-average) or any other science source you cared to look up if you could be bothered. Or even better look at satellite maps over multiple years and see for yourself. The entire point of all my posts on this thread is that places like Breitbart are flat out lying to people like you and you inexplicably don't care that they're pulling the wool over your eyes or that you're repeating those lies. It's just baffling that otherwise intelligent and rational people are not only willfully ignorant on this but really just willfully wrong and militant about it. Why?
And that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the sheer ignorance inherent in asserting that all of climate science should be based on a single year's Arctic ice extent.
The next scare is the loss of 75% of insects in Europe.
They are essential for pollinating the plants and feeding the food chain for birds, humans etc.
Well it just might be because the farmers are spraying insecticide everywhere.
They are already poisoning the oceans with their other agricultural products. The deniers will be out in force saying it's all fake news. The oceans are being polluted with so much plastic it is in the fish food chain and being consumed by humans.
I would rather support the people trying to rein in the "money making at any cost" people and the capitalist idiots. You can't ear weapons. Just steal the neighbour's food I expect.
They are essential for pollinating the plants and feeding the food chain for birds, humans etc.
Well it just might be because the farmers are spraying insecticide everywhere.
They are already poisoning the oceans with their other agricultural products. The deniers will be out in force saying it's all fake news. The oceans are being polluted with so much plastic it is in the fish food chain and being consumed by humans.
I would rather support the people trying to rein in the "money making at any cost" people and the capitalist idiots. You can't ear weapons. Just steal the neighbour's food I expect.
Former CAGW believer turned skeptic here.
Changed mind because - past CO2 levels are over 4400 ppm - 10 X higher than now - no runaway Global Warming. Global temps were far warmer, but dipped into a 100,000 year Ice Age without any dip in CO2 levels.
CO2 warming is logarithmic by the official theory - meaning a doubling of CO2 needs to happen for each X gain in temp. Currently calculated at around 1.5C per doubling. We would never increase temp by more than 3C through CO2 alone. Official theory claims it will release methane and that will cause the tipping point.
In the long-range record, a rise in temp precedes a rise in CO2, putting the effect (higher temps) before the cause (CO2). I think the logical flaw is obvious.
There are other issues, but these are the primary ones as they directly address the cause-effect relationship, whereas ice caps and so forth do not - those changes could be caused by any number of things.
END GAME for me - I have a lot of compassion for people who believe in Global warming - many friends are believers. They suffer for this belief and fear for the world their children will inherit. I would love to show them that their fear is misplaced. Climate Change will not destroy the planet. (Yes, we're doing other things).
Second - the Climate Change solutions can and may create far worse problems. For example, nuclear power is a great answer for a climate change problem, but imo - Fukushima is a far worse global threat. And there will be others. The two solutions are diametrically opposed. Nuclear accidents have very far-reaching consequences.
I would like to see us move beyond need for oil or nuclear, personally. Both are environmentally destructive. But climate change is not the threat it appears.
Final note: I find it sad the hatred people have for others simply because they believe differently. Most people are acting in sincere belief. Just because i don't share that belief is not reason to be hateful.
We should be able to disagree and still respect each other as humans without slinging insults. We'd have more productive dialog that way.
Good luck to both sides.
Changed mind because - past CO2 levels are over 4400 ppm - 10 X higher than now - no runaway Global Warming. Global temps were far warmer, but dipped into a 100,000 year Ice Age without any dip in CO2 levels.
CO2 warming is logarithmic by the official theory - meaning a doubling of CO2 needs to happen for each X gain in temp. Currently calculated at around 1.5C per doubling. We would never increase temp by more than 3C through CO2 alone. Official theory claims it will release methane and that will cause the tipping point.
In the long-range record, a rise in temp precedes a rise in CO2, putting the effect (higher temps) before the cause (CO2). I think the logical flaw is obvious.
There are other issues, but these are the primary ones as they directly address the cause-effect relationship, whereas ice caps and so forth do not - those changes could be caused by any number of things.
END GAME for me - I have a lot of compassion for people who believe in Global warming - many friends are believers. They suffer for this belief and fear for the world their children will inherit. I would love to show them that their fear is misplaced. Climate Change will not destroy the planet. (Yes, we're doing other things).
Second - the Climate Change solutions can and may create far worse problems. For example, nuclear power is a great answer for a climate change problem, but imo - Fukushima is a far worse global threat. And there will be others. The two solutions are diametrically opposed. Nuclear accidents have very far-reaching consequences.
I would like to see us move beyond need for oil or nuclear, personally. Both are environmentally destructive. But climate change is not the threat it appears.
Final note: I find it sad the hatred people have for others simply because they believe differently. Most people are acting in sincere belief. Just because i don't share that belief is not reason to be hateful.
We should be able to disagree and still respect each other as humans without slinging insults. We'd have more productive dialog that way.
Good luck to both sides.