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.
I live close to work, use public transit/bike when I can, and try and buy local as much, especially produce. What do you do?
I'm not the one claiming climate change is a pressing problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
A 1 cent carbon tax wouldn't do much of anything. Stop being disingenuous and dishonest about solutions. There are many different ones, yet you are stuck on the tired old "but, but, but, the carbon tax can only do harm".
I don't think a carbon tax is a good idea for the reasons listed, how is that being disingenuous and dishonest?
Oh.... I get it. I understand. This is the typical liberal mindset at work. Because I don't immediately disregard my views and embrace yours, I am being disingenuous and dishonest. Got it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
That's everywhere and not unique to anything. There are scientists on both sides in it just for the money and fame. You don't seem to be talking about the scientist on YOUR side who work(ed) for the energy producers, manufacturers, distributor. Hell, you even link their work like Dr Vincent Gray. Since you are making this polarizing, how about you start talking about YOUR side, or do two wrong make a right?
Utter horsecrap. I've said many a time in these debates that I freely admit there is corruption on both sides of the issue. My usual response is to say that if science is corrupt and for sale, it's naive and stupid to think that it doesn't happen on both sides. I don't however, think the oil companies and the conservative business interests are pumping anywhere NEAR the BILLIONS of dollars the climate industry is throwing at this issue in order to keep the alarmism flowing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
You claimed it was irrelevant.
I am seriously starting wonder if you are a troll at this point or maybe you think it's fun to act like one.
I've explained this several times already to the point of exhaustion and you still keep repeating the same falsehood.
Quote:
The reason I was talking in "absolutes", as you call it, is that it is the AGW side who define this issue as a huge crisis in which we have to act fast before it's too late. So I said that if we follow that logic FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARGUMENT, logic dictates that an extreme problem will require extreme solutions.
Then somewhere along the way, you brought up political will. I said it was irrelevant to the discussion we were having, which was me defending myself from your claims that I was being alarmist. You misinterpreted that to mean political will is irrelevant to fighting climate change itself and I've never said that.
I really don't see how political will even factors into the discussion at this point since we both seem to have a fundamental difference in parsing the message that the AGW camp is communicating. I think it's an alarmist, urgent message and you apparently do not.
Whether or not there is political will does not ch
ange the fact that an extreme problem will require extreme solutions and I don't happen to think pointing that out is being alarmist.
Political will DOES matter once we can agree what the problem is and agree on what the solution should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
LOLz you think all waste is equal and you don't care? Again, convenient. You posted a link that claimed we have spent around ~$170 billion on green energy and initiatives since ~1970.... that's not that much money in the big picture. We have single weapon systems that cost more than the amount of money that are sitting on the shelf.
Ah. Now we are back to the red herring argument again. One example of wasteful spending does not justify another. Or do two wrongs make a right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
How does it make me a hypocrite? How is it realistic to stop using carbon? Again you have unrealistic expectations, I think purposely. Lastly, you are lumping me into a group of people and attributing characteristics and beliefs that I don't share. If you would stop doing that maybe this discussion can go somewhere....
The world needs energy and we have an abundance of it due to improved technology. ALl of sudden people can't make money off of progress?
Because YOU believe that climate change is a problem and you are profiting off of something that contributes to it.
You just said...
Quote:
You don't seem to be talking about the scientist on YOUR side who work(ed) for the energy producers,
Who do you think PAYS for those scientists to diminish AGW? The same energy companies that YOU invest in.
Stop playing both sides of the fence and pretending it's not hypocrisy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Yawn.... more of the same argument from you. Arguing over things that reflect a drop in the ocean. I'm pretty sure the climate marchers do more in than daily lifestyle than most of YOUR side. Like I said, you make up these strawman so you can knock them down. Being green doesn't mean you go back to living a cave or you can't ever improperly dispose of your trash during a very large event (do you even know if there were enough trash cans available?). It's simply unrealistic and makes no sense.
I really love how you falsely accuse me of using a strawman by pointing out the hypocrisy of the green movement and then you engage in one yourself!
Quote:
Being green doesn't mean you go back to living a cave
I never said, nor implied that. THAT is a textbook example of a strawman.
I'm not saying being green means living in cave.
I'm saying, that I am sick of the hypocrisy and the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality from the President and people like Al Gore all the way down to the climate marchers in NYC.
Eh, who cares about a warm ocean. Unless it destroys coastlines and changes weather and climate dynamics, it doesn't matter.
A warm ocean or an ocean with elevated levels of carbonic acid changes weather and climate dynamics and an acidic ocean does a number on shell fish and other valuable fish species. So IT DOES MATTER.
I'm not the one claiming climate change is a pressing problem.
So one should only do those things due to climate change? Or do the things that help climate change, also create a better quality of life. And vice versa.
Quote:
I don't think a carbon tax is a good idea for the reasons listed, how is that beingdisingenuous and dishonest?
That's fine if you want to think there's no possible way to implement taxes or.essentially any measure without harming the economy (not sure why you only seem to be focusing on a carbon tax).
Quote:
Oh.... I get it. I understand. This is the typical liberal mindset at work. Because I don't immediately disregard my views and embrace yours, I am being disingenuous and dishonest. Got it.
No I get, you said this wasn't partisan, and you drop the "liberal" bomb. You let that slip. I've told you once to not lump me in some group. I'm pragmatic.
Quote:
Utter horsecrap. I've said many a time in these debates that I freely admit there is corruption on both sides of the issue. My usual response is to say that if science is corrupt and for sale, it's naive and stupid to think that it doesn't happen on both sides. I don't however, think the oil companies and the conservative business interests are pumping anywhere NEAR the BILLIONS of dollars the climate industry is throwing at this issue in order to keep the alarmism flowing.
Everything is corrupt and for sale, it's the human condition. So if both sides are corrupt then why are you on THAT side? Political reasons?
Furthermore, pollution isn't free. How much billions of dollars a year does pollution cost?
Quote:
Iam seriously starting wonder if you are a troll at this point or maybe you think it's fun to act like one.
I've explained this several times already to the point of exhaustion and you still keep repeating the same falsehood.
Obviously your argument makes no sense to me. We can leave it there.
Quote:
Ah. Now we are back to the red herring argument again. One example of wasteful spending does not justify another. Or do two wrongs make a right?
Well actually, it's does two wasteful actions make a right? Well shouldn't it matter if you are focusing on something considerably less wasteful than something else? There maybe a motive involved.
Quote:
Because YOU believe that climate change is a problem and you are profiting off of something that contributes to it.
You just said...
Who do you think PAYS for those scientists to diminish AGW? The same energy companies that YOU invest in.
Stop playing both sides of the fence and pretending it's not hypocrisy.
I do think it's a problem, I am a realist, and I am pragmatic. I'm not allowing you to lump me into YOUR preconceived, subjective notion of how someone should act. I have no conflicts of interest in my mind, I just seem to be able to see a bigger, less polarizing world out there.
Quote:
I really love how you falsely accuse me of using a strawman by pointing out the hypocrisy of the green movement and then you engage in one yourself!
I never said, nor implied that. THAT is a textbook example of a strawman.
I'm not saying being green means living in cave.
I'm saying, that I am sick of the hypocrisy and the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality from the President and people like Al Gore all the way down to the climate marchers in NYC.
Like I said it's merely your subjective opinion. You obviously have high expectations.
I do believe his point was that the models are not only wrong, but also being deliberately inflated to push an agenda.
I guess you must think that all the tools science uses to measure sea levels, CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, ocean acidity, melting ice, ocean and atmospheric temperature are all intentionally mis-calibrated solely to advance this mysterious agenda you speak of....Tell me what would that agenda be, and who is at the root of it?
The state ended its third driest year on record and entered a fourth consecutive year of drought, as the U.S. Geological Survey’s water calendar year came to a close Wednesday. Amid a rare autumn heat wave bringing triple-digit temperatures to the state, officials are warning Californians to prepare for the near certainty that the coming months will do little to relieve the parched state.
The state ended its third driest year on record and entered a fourth consecutive year of drought, as the U.S. Geological Survey’s water calendar year came to a close Wednesday. Amid a rare autumn heat wave bringing triple-digit temperatures to the state, officials are warning Californians to prepare for the near certainty that the coming months will do little to relieve the parched state.
The growing drought in California and the US SW is very consistent with the expansion and northward shift of the deserts of Northern Mexico. Much of California will come to resemble The Baja and the Mexican state of Sonora. There won't be enough water or electricity since CA relies on hydroelectric power from the SW and Pacific NW. The Pacific NW whether it likes it or not will soon resemble CA in climate and suffer a 30-40 drop in water supplies.
Using satellite temperatures (not ground based thermometers), this past September was 0.2C above the 1981-2010 average
Measuring the entire lower troposphere, this September was 0.29C above the satellite record
I know that looks catastrophic.....
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.
....Tell me what would that agenda be, and who is at the root of it?
