The term Climate Change "Denier" really is awful! (generation, solution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet another one who thinks there is only one thing that forces the climate to change.
You totally dodged the issue, as I knew you would.
The science is irrefutable.
In every recorded Inter-Glacial Period, the sea level rose 3 meters to 10 meters, even when CO2 levels were in the range 260 ppm to 280 ppm CO2.
The sea level in this Inter-Glacial is going to rise 3 meters to 10 meters, too, and no one on Earth can stop it.
A temperature increase of 1.4°F over 140 years is inconsequential, when the scientific historical record proves that temperatures have increase as much as 20°F in a matter of years or decades 24 times in the last 100,000 and 4°F to 6°F in a matter of years or decades 78 times in the last 100,000 years.
CO2 plays no role in climate, which is driven largely be water vapor and insolation, plus other factors.
However, when we consider all that has been done in the way of pollution most recently, driven purely by profit without concern or responsibility for the environmental damage, it is impossible to think the environment can be protected without balancing that "double edged sword." Again, simply put, to better protect the environment, the cost of damage done needs to be factored into the business model, or business interests will continue to rape the environment for profit.
Need anyone provide the history of how this has been the problem for too long now? Not only with respect to just one industry, like the oil industry for example, but countless others? Manufacturing, mining, lumber, auto, chemical.
What do you mean by balance is key? Isn't balance in the eye of the beholder?
Is the position of the Democratic Party on climate-change a balanced-approach? Before you answer, read this article...
I know your response will be, "We don't have to use coal, so the point is moot". But it illustrates my argument, I don't think the people pushing climate-change(or at least the ones funding the politicians), actually care about the climate. And if there wasn't a lot of money to be made in alternative-energy technology, climate-change would be ignored. And the vast-majority of the proposals currently being put forth are ultimately counterproductive, but yet plenty of corporations are making huge amounts of money off all this government-spending.
Your position seems to be "doing something is better than doing nothing". But as the above-article points-out, that isn't necessarily true.
You rail against the "profit-motive" which is causing large-scale environmental damage. But isn't the profit-motive driving both sides of this debate? I can promise you, nothing is going to happen on the climate-change front without a lot of people making a lot of money. Or more-specifically, nothing will be allowed which could jeopardize "the economy".
Ironically, I am actually far more radical than you are on the issue of climate-change, but I don't trust the government. Climate-change seems to be a racket, and there are a lot of hands in the pot.
...
Ironically, I am actually far more radical than you are on the issue of climate-change, ...
kudos to you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
... but I don't trust the government. Climate-change seems to be a racket, and there are a lot of hands in the pot.
Sadly, you seem to be influenced by the propaganda.
It seems like a racket because they want you to think it is a racket. No one likes to be cheated, so it's a button they find easy to push on us.
Trump's wall would likewise seem like a racket, because contractors are involved and people expect to get paid. The rise and fall of migrant flow could be interpreted as an excuse for businesses to cash in on the public larder.
An infrastructure bill can seem like a racket. Repairing roads, bridges and sanitary systems could not be cheap. So yes, there are always 'hands in the pot'.
The Erie Canal? A racket, of course! Even the shops that made shovels and wheelbarrows made money. Then there is that intra-coastal waterway system ...
The Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Space programs? ... a racket. The aerospace industry made billions on it, stockholders and employees all got paid, some very well.
The levee system along our great rivers may have seemed like a racket to some when we got started on it, but history has proven to be quite helpful. I don't think anyone knows how many millions of dollars in property nor how many lives have been saved. But there were hands in those pots to be sure, steam shovels in those days cost money and the workers gotta eat.
China right now is building three artificial rivers to bring excess rainwater from the south to the increasingly parched north. They don't really have a choice, the changing weather patterns are forcing their hands on it. Of course, they don't have to contend with a large voting block that pretends nothing is happening to the climate, so the government goes forward and yes, contractors and their employees and their stockholders will get paid.
Most of the confusion in this country is due to the petrochemical industry, led by the Koch brothers, paying for political opposition to legislation which might curtail their own money-making exploitation. There's a racket for you.
Sadly, you seem to be influenced by the propaganda.
It seems like a racket because they want you to think it is a racket. No one likes to be cheated, so it's a button they find easy to push on us.
Trump's wall would likewise seem like a racket, because contractors are involved and people expect to get paid. The rise and fall of migrant flow could be interpreted as an excuse for businesses to cash in on the public larder.
My position on everything is that, every country is pursuing its "National interests". And the national interests of every country is "economic growth". And that "the people" have virtually no say in their government, democracy or not. It is the corporations who set the agenda under every government.
Authoritarian-governments like Russia and China are just as much controlled by their corporations as are democracies. And China is trying to leap-frog the United States in alternative-energy technology because they can see the profits if the AOC's of the world get their way.
Something doesn't become a racket merely because someone out there is making a profit. It is a racket if the politics are being manipulated, and the common-people being taken advantage-of, so that some corporations can earn fatter profits.
Do you honestly believe that the lies are only coming from one side?
Would you lie for a million dollars? Hell yes you would. And there is a lot more than that at stake.
You seem to be arguing both your side and mine here, but I'd stick with just your side if I were you...
First of all, you would have to be living in a cave in Siberia not to know about the pros and cons related to promoting electric vehicles. The collateral issues are certainly a concern and have been from the beginning, but there is more than one way to measure the overall net result of switching to electric vehicles over time.
"But e-cars that use electricity produced from renewable sources will produce up to six times less carbon emissions over their lifetimes than a petrol car.
This means that in order for the switch to e-mobility to be most effective, countries will have to transition their energy generation in parallel.
There is general consensus that while electric cars may not be truly "zero emission" vehicles, they are still on the whole better for the environment and for the climate than conventional vehicles.
The key in the coming years will be figuring out how to make sure these new vehicles can become even more eco-friendly."
What do you mean by balance is key? Isn't balance in the eye of the beholder?
I am sure you know what I mean by "balance is key," though we all know one man's balance is another man's effort to tilt the scales according to his agenda...
The balance needed is that which considers all the pros and cons in such a way that intelligent effective policy is the result, even though consensus will not be easy.
There is work/life balance, to offer another example.
Some people know how to arrive and manage such a balance and others simply don't. Hate to say "you know it when you see it," but it would take too many long posts to attempt further example of what balance truly means, but balance is very important when it comes to issues that involve many competing factors that need to be considered. Like how to promote jobs, economic productivity, while at the same time not "screwing the pooch," our environment.
One additional important consideration to take into account when evaluating what we are doing to our environment is that much of the damage is irreversible...
I know your response will be, "We don't have to use coal, so the point is moot". But it illustrates my argument, I don't think the people pushing climate-change(or at least the ones funding the politicians), actually care about the climate. And if there wasn't a lot of money to be made in alternative-energy technology, climate-change would be ignored. And the vast-majority of the proposals currently being put forth are ultimately counterproductive, but yet plenty of corporations are making huge amounts of money off all this government-spending.
Your position seems to be "doing something is better than doing nothing". But as the above-article points-out, that isn't necessarily true.
My response is nothing like what you think you know...
To suggest that anyone "doesn't care about the climate" reads like another conservative argument meant to simply undermine the arguments by those who DO care -- very much -- about the environment. I don't think I know anyone who truly enjoys the environment; hikers, surfers, wild life lovers, scuba divers, everyone clamoring to live close to the beaches, the pristine lakes and rivers, all nature, on and on..., they all actually care about the climate, the environment, very much. Hello?
Needless to say, politicians know this and they will represent those interests just like any other. More and more, especially with the young, those interests are becoming more profound because of all the damage already done and a growing sense that we best not continue at the rate we're going, or else...
Of course there will always be the monied interests, special interests, the lobbies promoting their interests, and yes of course there is much "floated" that doesn't always make the best sense, but to ignore what important environmental regulations and protections HAVE been put in place that are very worth while, let alone what is still needed, well that's just plain ignorant. Even more ignorant is to ignore what the worst offending large corporations have done in the name of large profit at the expense of the environment over the course of many decades past. I'm guessing you don't know many of those stories, but most people who care about the environment know them all too well.
What you claim to be my position is also far off the mark, though obviously doing "something is better than nothing" when your house catches on fire for example. You seem wanting to assume that "doing something" in these respects is doing something stupid. Of course doing stupid is not my position.
There is so much that HAS been done and still needs to be done to better protect our environment now and into the future, and doing so is in no way stupid!
You rail against the "profit-motive" which is causing large-scale environmental damage. But isn't the profit-motive driving both sides of this debate? I can promise you, nothing is going to happen on the climate-change front without a lot of people making a lot of money. Or more-specifically, nothing will be allowed which could jeopardize "the economy".
Ironically, I am actually far more radical than you are on the issue of climate-change, but I don't trust the government. Climate-change seems to be a racket, and there are a lot of hands in the pot.
Nothing wrong with people making money!
Again you seem to be clinging to what makes the entire issue of protecting the environment complicated and difficult and as such you seem to be advocating we do nothing. Ridiculous this given all the history of serious environmental damage done in the past and what we still have going on today. Problem too is not just here in America (though China and America are today's worst offenders), there is all the rest of the world that somehow needs to get it's act together, per the Paris Agreement for example.
As for who makes money and the health of the economy, best we can do is support those who push us in the right direction regardless what money they may make in the process, support them against those who profit at everyone else's expense without compensation. Again a very simple real-life example were the competing interests that fought for or against cleaner burning fuels. That was a hard fought battle by people concerned about air quality vs the oil industry. Lots of concerns raised about the higher cost of fuel that translates to a drag on the economy, travel, etc..., yet! Today the production of those cleaner burning fuels is considered a "no brainer," because the requirements have proven effective and altogether a net benefit for everyone (especially in the dense large metropolitan areas) even with the additional cost to consumers.
How many countless more examples are there to consider that all point in the same direction? That's the direction we need to continue, with still a long way to go...
Ironically, I am actually far more radical than you are on the issue of climate-change, but I don't trust the government. Climate-change seems to be a racket, and there are a lot of hands in the pot.
Finally, I would like to note that your article at least points out the significance of CO2 emissions when even that is debated by many deniers, and if you are "actually more radical" than I am about climate-change, that's either because I don't really consider myself a "radical." Just recognizing what we should be doing better for our own sake is all, ours and our future generations.
Or...
If you are a "radical" in this respect, I'm certainly not seeing it. What I see is someone who finds every conservative excuse in the book to avoid supporting right from wrong. "Too much money, too many questions. Politics! Governments. Too many competing interests. Too many trade-offs, pros and cons." Oh my...
"BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, is doubling down on its view that investors in the US don't yet fully appreciate the just how disastrous an economic impact climate change could have at a time when environmental, social, and corporate governance investing is garnering mainstream attention.
"Climate-related risks already threaten portfolios today, and are set to grow, we find," strategists at the BlackRock Investment Institute wrote in a report this week, homing in on threats the massive US municipal bond market could face as the planet warms."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
