Climate change, yep

[fortyofforty]

The pattern is always the same.  A government declares a crisis, demands taxpayers pony up to combat the crisis, then bears the "heavy burden" of having to pick and choose where to allocate those financial resources.  There is absolutely no possibility of government malfeasance, or misallocation of funds, or misappropriation of money.  Nope.  Not a power grab.  Not at all.  We certainly can't let market forces work.  We need to raise gas taxes.  And ban incandescent light bulbs.  And mandate higher fuel economy for cars.  And fund "green" projects and companies that could not survive on their own.  It's for the children, after all.  Don't you care about the planet?

Macron has insisted the fuel tax rises are a necessary pain to reduce France's dependence on fossil fuels and fund renewable energy investments — a cornerstone of his reforms of the nation. He will defend fresh plans to make the "energy transition" easier on Tuesday.

[crockett]

43 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Scientists receive grant money, and if they speak out against scientific orthodoxy they are cut off, shut down and ostracized.  They also do not live without using fossil fuels.  Science is not an election.  Science means making testable predictions and having your hypotheses tested repeatedly.  I know one person who won a Nobel prize for his great work speaking out against Western Civilization.  I also know he doesn't live by his own precepts.

Al Gore and Environmental Groups Accuse Trump of 'Burying' Climate Report With Black Friday Release

That may apply to some or even many US based scientists, but that is only a fraction on a global level. As mentioned, I have lived in other countries and worked close to actual climate research. Not everything is manipulated by big gov or big commerce, but driven and funded by independent sources, or a mix from all sides.

It is a measured fact that our average temperatures as well as sea levels are rising. Only in the US is a larger system of denial about the causes and effects.

The real problem is, that stricter EPA regulation as well as higher taxes on fossil fuels, in order to limit emissions, only makes it worse on a global scale. Those 2 common tools to reduce the need for fuels (higher EPA emissions force automobile manufacturers to design engines which provide better fuel mileage, and higher taxes on gas like in Europe force people to use public transportation or car pooling) lower the demand for fuels. Which in turns lowers the oil barrel price world wide, which then allows 2nd and 3rd world countries to buy more, and here it will be used and burned in a much less efficient way with much higher emissions due to the lack of technology for high MPG ratings or proper emissions filtration systems.

A real solution on a global level would be voluntary population control. This small planet with the limited resources is not designed for 8 billion plus humans. Everything would be much more in balance if we would stay between 1 to 2 billion people. That of course won't happen either.

In the end we will burn and use all the fossil fuel on earth, and we will deal with the dim consequences. I'm also sure that we will face several wars around the remaining sources when things are drying up.

Either way, ignoring all those facts is not only dangerous, it is ignorant towards the next generations as well.

Edited November 24, 2018 by crockett

[crockett]

48 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Scientists receive grant money, and if they speak out against scientific orthodoxy they are cut off, shut down and ostracized. 

PS: According to OECD, more than 60% of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industries, and only 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government.

Page 158:

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/sti_scoreboard-2015-en.pdf?expires=1543082207&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=C2F58FAE1222AAE48E5F551F93E17BB2

[fortyofforty]

4 hours ago, crockett said:

That may apply to some or even many US based scientists, but that is only a fraction on a global level. As mentioned, I have lived in other countries and worked close to actual climate research. Not everything is manipulated by big gov or big commerce, but driven and funded by independent sources, or a mix from all sides.

It is a measured fact that our average temperatures as well as sea levels are rising. Only in the US is a larger system of denial about the causes and effects.

The real problem is, that stricter EPA regulation as well as higher taxes on fossil fuels, in order to limit emissions, only makes it worse on a global scale. Those 2 common tools to reduce the need for fuels (higher EPA emissions force automobile manufacturers to design engines which provide better fuel mileage, and higher taxes on gas like in Europe force people to use public transportation or car pooling) lower the demand for fuels. Which in turns lowers the oil barrel price world wide, which then allows 2nd and 3rd world countries to buy more, and here it will be used and burned in a much less efficient way with much higher emissions due to the lack of technology for high MPG ratings or proper emissions filtration systems.

A real solution on a global level would be voluntary population control. This small planet with the limited resources is not designed for 8 billion plus humans. Everything would be much more in balance if we would stay between 1 to 2 billion people. That of course won't happen either.

In the end we will burn and use all the fossil fuel on earth, and we will deal with the dim consequences. I'm also sure that we will face several wars around the remaining sources when things are drying up.

Either way, ignoring all those facts is not only dangerous, it is ignorant towards the next generations as well.

Oh, it absolutely is valid worldwide.  Do some research on the U.N. Climate Commission.  Or the University of East Anglia.  It's not just a U.S. phenomenon.  When somebody says the science is settled, it only means she doesn't understand how science works.

So, to pretend you or me or anyone else can or should take drastic steps to "reverse" climate change is foolish and delusional.  Feel good measures might let you pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how caring you are, but those who can discriminate between fact and fiction just laugh.

[fortyofforty]

4 hours ago, crockett said:

PS: According to OECD, more than 60% of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industries, and only 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government.

Page 158:

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/sti_scoreboard-2015-en.pdf?expires=1543082207&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=C2F58FAE1222AAE48E5F551F93E17BB2

P.S.  Everybody can feel political pressure, especially corporations.  If they must spend billions to keep governments off their backs, it's the cost of doing business.  The governments extort enough money to shovel grants to colleges and universities, and those colleges and universities shovel plenty of their own money to researchers studying Western Civilization's destructive effects on the climate.  Not too many researchers in China are concerned with curbing China's pumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, except as a way to sell the West some new, expensive technology.

[crockett]

41 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Oh, it absolutely is valid worldwide.  Do some research on the U.N. Climate Commission.  Or the University of East Anglia.  It's not just a U.S. phenomenon.  When somebody says the science is settled, it only means she doesn't understand how science works.

So, to pretend you or me or anyone else can or should take drastic steps to "reverse" climate change is foolish and delusional.  Feel good measures might let you pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how caring you are, but those who can discriminate between fact and fiction just laugh.

How to deal with it, is an entirely different story. I mentioned not too long ago on this forum that the same company I worked for, also serviced off shore wind turbines, below a video, that started in the early 90s already. Germany raised the proportion of its power produced by renewable energy to 35 percent in 2017. When oil and gas supplies dry up, they will be on the safe and independent side. Meanwhile they do much more for a better climate than all those naysayers with no background in climate research nor renewable energy.

From this year.. World’s tallest wind turbine built in Germany

https://electrek.co/2017/11/02/worlds-tallest-wind-turbine-built-in-germany/

 

 

[crockett]

56 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

P.S.  Everybody can feel political pressure, especially corporations.  If they must spend billions to keep governments off their backs, it's the cost of doing business.  The governments extort enough money to shovel grants to colleges and universities, and those colleges and universities shovel plenty of their own money to researchers studying Western Civilization's destructive effects on the climate.  Not too many researchers in China are concerned with curbing China's pumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, except as a way to sell the West some new, expensive technology.

 

I'm not talking about feelings and I just provided you with a link to a scientific book debunking your claim. The vast majority of climate research is done by industries and not governments or universities. Did you even bother to go on that page?

Here, they have a free 'Making Sense of Climate Science Denial' course: https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-of-climate-science-denial-1

PS: no, they are not government run, they are run by a global team of volunteers.

 

A little trailer..

 

 

Edited November 24, 2018 by crockett

[Moeman]

55 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

P.S.  Everybody can feel political pressure, especially corporations.  If they must spend billions to keep governments off their backs, it's the cost of doing business.  The governments extort enough money to shovel grants to colleges and universities, and those colleges and universities shovel plenty of their own money to researchers studying Western Civilization's destructive effects on the climate.  Not too many researchers in China are concerned with curbing China's pumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, except as a way to sell the West some new, expensive technology.

Uh ok cause corporate scientists never concluded smoking is safe, the ocean is so big to pollution can harm it etc

[fortyofforty]

1 hour ago, crockett said:

How to deal with it, is an entirely different story. I mentioned not too long ago on this forum that the same company I worked for, also serviced off shore wind turbines, below a video, that started in the early 90s already. Germany raised the proportion of its power produced by renewable energy to 35 percent in 2017. When oil and gas supplies dry up, they will be on the safe and independent side. Meanwhile they do much more for a better climate than all those naysayers with no background in climate research nor renewable energy.

From this year.. World’s tallest wind turbine built in Germany

https://electrek.co/2017/11/02/worlds-tallest-wind-turbine-built-in-germany/

 

 

And by how much is the earth's temperature affected by all of Germany's efforts to fight climate change?  An annual figure will suffice, unless it's easier for you to provide a static figure in, say fifty or one-hundred years.  That's really the key, isn't it?  How serious are the Climate Change Chicken Littles when they don't even permit the United States to construct new nuclear power plants?  Not very.  It's an anti-Western Civilization, anti-Capitalist, pro-Socialist agenda, with the CCCLs shrieking and using manmade climate change as the cudgel to hit anyone who refuses to impose government solutions to fix a problem.

1.  Is the earth's climate changing?  Yep.  Nobody really denies that fact, except the manmade global warming crowd that pretends without the impact of man, the climate would be static.

2.  If it is changing, how much if any impact does mankind have on the change?  Here we get to the meat of the issue.  The CCCLs pretend man is the leading cause of climate change.  Their science starts to fall apart, though.  The earth was a lot warmer in the past.  The earth was a lot colder in the past.  Somehow the planet's climate changed and changed and changed some more.  Also, we are told the climate of Mars is also changing.  Why?

3.  If man is impacting the changing climate, what can be done about it that will have a meaningful impact on reversing or at least arresting the change?

4.  Finally, if the United States adopted a purely agrarian, Communist-Utopian social structure, doing away with all use of fossil fuels and returning to crafts and agriculture, how much would the rate of climate change be impacted?  Is it too late, and are all expensive measures proposed for Western countries just feel-good virtue-signaling by people like you?

[fortyofforty]

1 hour ago, Moeman said:

Uh ok cause corporate scientists never concluded smoking is safe, the ocean is so big to pollution can harm it etc

Uh, OK, 'cause nobody clamoring for wind and solar power has an agenda.

[Moeman]

4 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Uh, OK, 'cause nobody clamoring for wind and solar power has an agenda.

That is true... except not killing the planet, duh!

[fortyofforty]

1 hour ago, crockett said:

 

I'm not talking about feelings and I just provided you with a link to a scientific book debunking your claim. The vast majority of climate research is done by industries and not governments or universities. Did you even bother to go on that page?

Here, they have a free 'Making Sense of Climate Science Denial' course: https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-of-climate-science-denial-1

PS: no, they are not government run, they are run by a global team of volunteers.

 

A little trailer..

 

 

Here's some reading for you, in case you still think there's only one "right" side to the issue.

Climate Change, Fossil Fuels, and Human Well Being

Climate of Corruption

The Great Global Warming Swindle

 

 

[fortyofforty]

15 minutes ago, Moeman said:

That is true... except not killing the planet, duh!

Except still using fossil fuels and electricity and all the other technologies that are supposedly killing the planet.  Duh.

[fortyofforty]

Here's an idea:  convince millennials that, in order to save the planet, they need to give up their cell phones.  Done.  Gone.  They use electricity that is produced by planet killing means.  They are made using plastics and other planet killing materials.  In China, by the way, with no environmental restrictions.  Do that.  Put it to a vote.  Save the planet and outlaw cell phones, or keep going.  I think I know how that vote would turn out.

[Moeman]

27 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Except still using fossil fuels and electricity and all the other technologies that are supposedly killing the planet.  Duh.

Like a dog chasing it's own tail logic.

[tous]

Simply recognizing and then pointing to the elephant in room is easy, man of moe.

You have had the opportunity to ponder the response so far, what do you propose as a solution to the, as you put it, death of the planet due to human activity?

Suggest  the means to get the elephant out of the room.

[fortyofforty]

1 hour ago, Moeman said:

Like a dog chasing it's own tail logic.

Thanks for sharing.  You always bring a lot to every topic.

[fortyofforty]

49 minutes ago, tous said:

Simply recognizing and then pointing to the elephant in room is easy, man of moe.

You have had the opportunity to ponder the response so far, what do you propose as a solution to the, as you put it, death of the planet due to human activity?

Suggest  the means to get the elephant out of the room.

But But But, raise taxes.  Do something.  Buy a Prius.  Recycle your cans, for Christ's sake!  Just DO SOMETHING!!!!   His logic is like a dog eating his own ****.

[crockett]

What's next? The methane excuse and farting cows? Same root cause: too many human beings, and too many of them don't give a ****.

What we should do? How about taking personal responsibility? That doesn't mean that we have to give up on meat and cell phones, but we could start by teaching our kids how to save energy, why a 4 banger diesel gets away with up to 80 mpg compared to our V8 trucks, usually stuck around 14 mpg. Or why it makes sense to replace regular light bulbs with LED bulbs using only a fraction of power, or how to arrange errand rides properly all on one day in a week instead of doing one run every day, or how a take a Navy shower instead of using the entire content of the water heater. Many more options.

A good start would be, to be a role model by doing those things on our own, instead of finger pointing at those who continue to waste energy.

[tous]

I don't intend to disparage the feller, not at all.

But, problem ideintifiers are legion, problem solvers are few.

I will consider his argument with respect.

[fortyofforty]

Just now, crockett said:

What's next? The methane excuse and farting cows? Same root cause: too many human beings, and too many of them don't give a ****.

What we should do? How about taking personal responsibility? That doesn't mean that we have to give up on meat and cell phones, but we could start by teaching our kids how to save energy, why a 4 banger diesel gets away with up to 80 mpg compared to our V8 trucks, usually stuck around 14 mpg. Or why it makes sense to replace regular light bulbs with LED bulbs using only a fraction of power, or how to arrange errand rides properly all on one day in a week instead of doing one run every day, or how a take a Navy shower instead of using the entire content of the water heater. Many more options.

A good start would be, to be a role model by doing those things on our own, instead of finger pointing at those who continue to waste energy.

Those lame suggestions would do precisely "not a ******* thing" to stop the climate from changing.  The scientists who study it know it, but they keep pushing the public to do something so people feel better about themselves.  You could always start by shutting down your electricity-wasting computer right now.  It's dark.  Time to go to sleep.

[fortyofforty]

1 minute ago, tous said:

I don't intend to disparage the feller, not at all.

But, problem ideintifiers are legion, problem solvers are few.

I will consider his argument with respect.

I will give it the respect it deserves.

[fortyofforty]

Here's a sentiment from a supposedly scientific site, with my highlight.  Unfortunately, like most Fascist prattle, it is next to worthless.  Just more virtue-signalling.  Decisive action, indeed.  DO SOMETHING!!!!

The real debate is now focused on what we should do and also how to persuade others that decisive action is required.

One thing is abundantly clear, doing nothing is not a palatable option.

[crockett]

26 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

The scientists who study it know it, but they keep pushing the public to do something so people feel better about themselves.

And some none-scientists keep pushing the idea to ignore a proven, global issue so they feel better about themselves, because that's the easy way out. Finger pointing is a favorite alternative.

Not everything has a socialist agenda. Believe it or not...

Edited November 25, 2018 by crockett

[fortyofforty]

11 hours ago, crockett said:

And some none-scientists keep pushing the idea to ignore a proven, global issue so they feel better about themselves, because that's the easy way out. Finger pointing is a favorite alternative.

Not everything has a socialist agenda. Believe it or not...

But many things do.  Like this "DO SOMETHING" agenda.  Relive it or not.