Climate change; fact, scam, or both?

Bogan

It is a scam.

Factfinder

Okay. Now are you saying climate change is nonexistent or that thus far no one is responsible and we should do nothing if it is happening?@Bogan

Bogan

Hullo, Mr Factfinder.       My reading of history tells me that the earth's climate warms and cools, warms and cools, in roughly in 1000 year cycles.     !000 years ago was the Medieval Warm period.     !000 years before that, the Roman Warm Period.     1000 years before that, the Egyptian Warm Period, which followed the Assyrian Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period.     Our present warming cycle is called "The Modern Warm Period" and it just happens to be right on schedule.     Not only that, but every damned climate 'scientist planet earth knows it.      So no, I am not saying that the climate does not change, just that since the previous warming periods can not be "blamed" (actually, they were very beneficial to the human race) on cars and coal fired electricity power stations, then the present warming period can not be "blamed" on it either. 

My reading of history also warns me about how the elites (and psychopaths) of the world always want to stay at the top and treat the hoi polloi as their peasant resource.    We live in a time when the new power mad  aristocrats are the educated elitists who make up a large part of our public services.   Human Induced Climate Change is just a scam dreamed up by one world fantasists who dream of a borderless world ruled by international educated elitist like themselves.      Scaring the peasants into paying ever higher taxes, by claiming that if they do not, the world is going to end in the year 2000, (put back to 2016, put back to 2035), is the name of the game.          

just_sayin

I think it is both.  I believe climate change is real, but most leftist 'plans' are vile wealth redistribution schemes that will only harm poor people.  First,  let's address the lie that we can 'fix' climate change today.  From the Heritage foundation:

In fact, the U.S. could cut its carbon dioxide emissions 100 percent and it would not make a difference in abating global warming.

Using the same climate sensitivity (the warming effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions) as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes in its modeling, the world would be only 0.137 degree Celsius cooler by 2100. Even if we assumed every other industrialized country would be equally on board, this would merely avert warming by 0.278 degree Celsius by the turn of the century. 

We should demand that every climate change plan tell us up front what its costs, and impacts are, and NO PLAN SHOULD BE ENACTED THAT DOES NOT SPECIFY HOW MUCH IT WILL CHANGE THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE.  The reason these plans never talk about how much they will change the global temperature, is because they don't want people to know the truth.  They want people to assume they will be able to fix climate change quickly.  That is not possible at present and we need to stop lying to people.

Obama's clean power plan would have cost over million jobs and would have hurt the poor.  Some studies found it would cost the lowest quintile of workers 20-25% of their take home pay in increased power and transportation costs, and anything that uses power or transportation.  Even today, Biden has hidden the fact that his demand for EV cars will cost poor people on average $10,000 more in retail dealer costs - this does not factor in the increased costs needed to the energy grid, power stations, mining for battery parts, and government subsidies.  

Instead, I agree with Nobel Prize winner for Climate Change Economics,  William Nordhaus, who emphasizes a cost-benefit analysis of options, and focusing on technological development, and  mitigation efforts.  

Barnardot

@Bogan ;My reading of history tells me......

....half the story because your using only half of your brain again.

Because even one cycle ago there were far less humans and there were no factories producting high emissions.

But some people like red necks want to keep doing burn outs in there pick ups to pick up loose chicks because they want to protect there way of life rather than think about the rest of the people living on the planet.

Factfinder

Hello @Bogan: I agree that there are charlatans, some who hold dangerously high seats of power within government. But does that mean we should'nt stop polluting? I think if our polluting is unabated we can eventually cause irreversible damage despite already being on a natural warming trend. I believe we can transition into a cleaner energy source given time, without manipulating the public into destitution. Do you?

Barnardot

@Factfinder ;I believe we can transition into a cleaner energy source given time, without manipulating the public into destitution.

Thats quiet right there. We just cant do it over night but I think we are finding better ways to save the enviroment bit by bit. We need to give the benefit of the doubt and take stock of how we use the earth and to our surprise we will find that with the technology we have we can live a more efficient and better life because of it.

Berrying your head in the sand and only looking at half the facts like @Bogan is a thing that is so past tents now and the hole world is now accepting the transition.

Factfinder

Barnardot said:

@Bogan ;My reading of history tells me......

....half the story because your using only half of your brain again.

Because even one cycle ago there were far less humans and there were no factories producting high emissions.

But some people like red necks want to keep doing burn outs in there pick ups to pick up loose chicks because they want to protect there way of life rather than think about the rest of the people living on the planet.

Hi Barnadot: I think becuase of political divisions and early misconceptions a lot of people distrust any lable that involves terms like "climate change" and "global warming". But I'm sure most intelligent people realize if you breathe in too much exhaust fumes from our cars, or smoke stacks... we die. That is fact. So it stands to reason we become cleaner in our existence or we die. Maybe we should approach the issue that way as opposed to politicing it. You know? Like just as we see fog cools the planets surface, we can know smog has to be doing something. Me personally the terms don't bother me. It's the rediculous trains of thought tied to them, like taxing air, that raises red flags to me.

Bogan

 Factfinder quote      I agree that there are charlatans, some who hold dangerously high seats of power within government.

But does that mean we should'nt stop polluting?

 You seem to be digressing from the topic under discussion?     The topic , which I presume that you created, was, “Climate change, fact, scam, or both?”        My opinion is, that it is  scam.

 

Factfinder quote        I think if our polluting is unabated we can eventually cause irreversible damage despite already being on a natural warming trend. I believe we can transition into a cleaner energy source given time, without manipulating the public into destitution. Do you?

 Whether or not the human race is contributing in any way to the natural 1000 year cycles of warming and cooling, is anybody’s guess?       It can not be proven either way.    The first IPCC report even stated that in their first public statement, although I presume that they are backing away from that now, and hoping that everybody forgot what they once declared.   I accept that human induced CO2 emissions could contribute to global warming.    So, I have no objection in governments attempting to cut back on CO2 emissions.     But not the extent that they wreck our economies and complexly change the western lifestyle, over what is simply a feasible speculation, proposed by people with other social agendas that they prefer to keep from the public.         As to pollution, it may surprise you that this concept hardly existed in human consciousness only fifty years ago.     And once again, it was the advanced western societies who first thought about it, and did anything about it.

Dreamer

@Factfinder

There is a 97% scientific consensus on climate change.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Factfinder

Bogan said:

 Factfinder quote      I agree that there are charlatans, some who hold dangerously high seats of power within government.

But does that mean we should'nt stop polluting?

 You seem to be digressing from the topic under discussion?     The topic , which I presume that you created, was, “Climate change, fact, scam, or both?”        My opinion is, that it is  scam.

 

Factfinder quote        I think if our polluting is unabated we can eventually cause irreversible damage despite already being on a natural warming trend. I believe we can transition into a cleaner energy source given time, without manipulating the public into destitution. Do you?

 Whether or not the human race is contributing in any way to the natural 1000 year cycles of warming and cooling, is anybody’s guess?       It can not be proven either way.    The first IPCC report even stated that in their first public statement, although I presume that they are backing away from that now, and hoping that everybody forgot what they once declared.   I accept that human induced CO2 emissions could contribute to global warming.    So, I have no objection in governments attempting to cut back on CO2 emissions.     But not the extent that they wreck our economies and complexly change the western lifestyle, over what is simply a feasible speculation, proposed by people with other social agendas that they prefer to keep from the public.         As to pollution, it may surprise you that this concept hardly existed in human consciousness only fifty years ago.     And once again, it was the advanced western societies who first thought about it, and did anything about it.

Pollution is very much part of climate change theories and so it does fall under purview of this topic which you so correctly pointed out, I posted. 

 "I accept that human induced CO2 emissions could contribute to global warming.    So, I have no objection in governments attempting to cut back on CO2 emissions." 

I get you're very concerned about fraud and protecting our way of life. But here as in other places you admit it is a real phenomenon, and here you specifically admit we have contributed. So don't you believe, as I admit I do, that climate change is both real, and scam? More importantly, do you think we can come together openly and honestly with the goal of finding solutions to everyone's satifaction on some meaninful level? I fear if we can not then it doesn't matter, we will destroy our way of life.

Factfinder

Dreamer said:

@Factfinder

There is a 97% scientific consensus on climate change.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Thank you Dreamer. You supported my point brilliantly. We can not see air pollution with our own eyes AND think we're not having an impact. But this is only one side and it doesn't discount the fact that both sides of the isle have grossly misrepresented this topic. I mean come on, do you really expect there to be no opposition to an entity that proclaims that unless we're allowed to fleece the wealth from the wealthy, we're all doomed?

Barnardot

@Bogan ;Whether or not the human race is contributing in any way to the natural 1000 year cycles of warming and cooling, is anybody’s guess?       It can not be proven either way.  

Thats your opinion and it is in correct. Its a fact that has been proven time and time again through proper research and un deniable results. If you want to carry on thinking with only the half brain that you use then thats your business but most descent civilized people use there hole brains and consider all the evidence.

Bogan

Fact finder quote   Pollution is very much part of climate change theories and so it does fall under purview of this topic which you so correctly pointed out, I posted. 

 If you wish to include CO2 as “pollution”, then you seem to have included something very beneficial to plant life in that category.     CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and it has been gradually reducing to its lowest level over the last 600 million years.      During that time, geologists can find no causal link between CO2 levels and global temperature.   Which is why geologists like Emeritus Professor of Geology, Ian Plimer in Australia, think that the whole anthropomorphic global warming theory is a bunch of malarky.        There were times when CO2 went up significantly and global temperatures went down, and vice versa.  

 Can the tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by humans have any effect on the environment of the earth?  Agronomists say “yes.”    CO2 is plant food and agronomists are now talking about “the greening of the earth” as the slight rise in atmospheric CO2 has caused increased plant growth, all over the world.   Agronomists also opine, that had the human population not put back into the atmosphere billions of tons of CO2 locked up in carbonaceous rocks and fossil fuels, then all life on earth would have eventually ended as the plant life choked to death from a lack of CO2.

 

Fact finder quote     I get you're very concerned about fraud and protecting our way of life. But here as in other places you admit it is a real phenomenon, and here you specifically admit we have contributed.

 I did not “admit” to it being a problem, I said that it was feasible but unprovable.      Since what is at stake is the survival of the human race, then it is prudent to look at developing technologies that may go some way in replacing fossil fuels.     One obvious option for electricity generation is nuclear energy, but the same Luddites who oppose fossil fuels also object to nuclear energy.    Here in Australia, the former leader of the Greens Party (Bob Brown), who got his reputation from opposing a hydro electricity project in Tasmania, also objected to having a wind farm sited near his country retirement home.   You can’t win with these guys, they object to everything.   

     

Fact finder quote       So don't you believe, as I admit I do, that climate change is both real, and scam? More importantly, do you think we can come together openly and honestly with the goal of finding solutions to everyone's satifaction on some meaninful level? I fear if we can not then it doesn't matter, we will destroy our way of life.

 I don’t believe in anything unless it is feasible, and there is evidence to support it.       I admit that human induced climate change is feasible, there just isn’t any reliable evidence which supports it.       I have great respect for science, and the “evidence” presented by today’s woke and left leaning “scientists” I regard with suspicion and deep mistrust.     Especially, since I am aware of how science today is being corrupted by a new generation of neo-Marxist academics.      That mistrust was reinforced by the Climategate emails, and by the fact that here in Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology got caught red handed fudging the historical Australian temperature records to conform to alleged global warming.  They were caught by the people who live in remote areas who’s families had been recording daily temps for over a hundred years, and who still had their ancestor’s hand written records to prove that the BoM lied.   

Bogan

Dreamer quote    There is a 97% scientific consensus on climate change.

There is a 99.999% consensus in the left wing media that President Trump is the devil.

Factfinder

 Plant life depends on a proper balance between carbon monoxide AND the oxygen they produce @Bogan. All life depends on that balance. Once one greatly out numbers the other that balance becomes corrupt, thus polluting the atmosphere.

Bogan

@Barnardot ;    quote  Thats your opinion and it is in correct. Its a fact that has been proven time and time again through proper research and un deniable results. If you want to carry on thinking with only the half brain that you use then thats your business but most descent civilized people use there hole brains and consider all the evidence.

People who oppose the concept of Human Induced Global Warming are the sorts of people who know how to spell.  

Dreamer

@Factfinder

Hi, Factfinder welcome back to debateisland. waves

There are air pollution deaths and the economy side is clear, we can save money by transitioning to fossil fuels. 5.9 trillion fossil fuel subsidies need to end. 

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2

Air pollution harms:

"save $600 billion every year after that – without even considering climate change. And, of course, we would be preventing 50,000 premature deaths per year."

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/healthcare-costs-of-air-pollution/

"The costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of mitigation."

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm

Solar panels are often the cheapest form of energy.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34372005/solar-cheapest-energy-ever/

Bogan

@Factfinder ;     Plant life depends on a proper balance between carbon monoxide AND the oxygen they produce @Bogan. All life depends on that balance. Once one greatly out numbers the other that balance becomes corrupt, thus polluting the atmosphere.

Plant life is today growing a lot faster because of increased atmospheric CO2, and producing more oxygen because of it.   CO2 is plant food, not a "pollutant."     It only becomes a "pollutant" when it can be proven that the increased CO2 is doing the planet harm.      At the moment, the information I have researched seem to have agronomists agreeing that increased CO2 is more good than bad.     I know that this inconvenient fact is not what you want to hear,  You have been programmed to think that CO2 is bad, bad, bad, and it has never occurred to you to think of it as advantageous to the human race.     That is not how the rich neo-Marxist educated elites want you to think.     They just want you to trust them that they know, much better than everybody else, how everything should be done.     Unsurprisingly, the moral positions about CO2 emissions that they advocate they never seem to apply to themselves.    John Kerry only recently sold his private jet because the hypocrisy was just too obvious, and Leo di Caprio is still disporting himself on the super yachts of oil billionaires.     But at least they know that they have got you house trained, while they laugh at you from their 20 room air conditioned mansions.  

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Factfinder ;     Plant life depends on a proper balance between carbon monoxide AND the oxygen they produce @Bogan. All life depends on that balance. Once one greatly out numbers the other that balance becomes corrupt, thus polluting the atmosphere.

Plant life is today growing a lot faster because of increased atmospheric CO2, and producing more oxygen because of it.   CO2 is plant food, not a "pollutant."     It only becomes a "pollutant" when it can be proven that the increased CO2 is doing the planet harm.      At the moment, the information I have researched seem to have agronomists agreeing that increased CO2 is more good than bad.     I know that this inconvenient fact is not what you want to hear,  You have been programmed to think that CO2 is bad, bad, bad, and it has never occurred to you to think of it as advantageous to the human race.     That is not how the rich neo-Marxist educated elites want you to think.     They just want you to trust them that they know, much better than everybody else, how everything should be done.     Unsurprisingly, the moral positions about CO2 emissions that they advocate they never seem to apply to themselves.    John Kerry only recently sold his private jet because the hypocrisy was just too obvious, and Leo di Caprio is still disporting himself on the super yachts of oil billionaires.     But at least they know that they have got you house trained, while they laugh at you from their 20 room air conditioned mansions.  

You appear to have no concept of 'accumaltive effects' or the destructive results when eco systems are thrown out of balance. Nor do you seem to acknowledge the fact that I do not dispute the hypocrisy in political circles that surrounds this issue, which I never denied does exist. Furthermore, you have no understanding of the gases (plural) that exhaust from combustion engines emit. Or the relationship between nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, benzene, and formaldehyde. Oh, and carbon dioxide, the gas you ignorantly believe we can't have too much of. Do you even know what a catalytic converter does? Or why it's not a perfect solution?

Openminded

Argument Topic: Climate

@Bogan
Gish galloper. That´s all you are.

Bogan

@Factfinder ;      You appear to have no concept of 'accumaltive effects' or the destructive results when eco systems are thrown out of balance. Nor do you seem to acknowledge the fact that I do not dispute the hypocrisy in political circles that surrounds this issue, which I never denied does exist. Furthermore, you have no understanding of the gases (plural) that exhaust from combustion engines emit. Or the relationship between nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, benzene, and formaldehyde. Oh, and carbon dioxide, the gas you ignorantly believe we can't have too much of. Do you even know what a catalytic converter does? Or why it's not a perfect solution?

I am not a scientist, a chemist, or an engineer, I am an electrician.      As a person who moved from the disadvantaged class into the working class, I am street smart and I know when somebody is pisssing on my leg and telling me that it is raining.     Now, as I have stated previously, I have great respect for science.    So, when climate scientists started claiming that human increases in CO2 into the atmosphere was warming the planet, I presumed that they were correct.    But the only fly in the ointment, was that I was around in the mid 1970’s when the same climate scientists predicted with the greatest authority that the planet was heading for a new ice age.    These scientists demanded that all of the world’s  governments must combine right now to spread soot all over the north and south ice caps, to absorb more sunlight and warm the planet. 

 For years, I did not take part in any debate on whether climate change was real or not, because I had not done any research to find out which side was correct.     Then one fine day I began a week of study to try and discern which side was right.        I watched both pro and anti climate change video’s on youtube with an open mind.     My opinion was, that the sceptic sites were the ones telling the truth.     The alarmist sites were well funded and slick professional productions with melodramatic music highlighting dramatic points.    The sceptic sites were usually very low budget amateur productions made by individuals, but the messages they presented made a lot more sense that the professionally produced alarmist sites.    The best part of the sceptic sites was how they dissected the arguments of the alarmists and proved to me that they were not just wrong, full of false information, but absurd as well.    Robert Manne’s ridiculous “hockey stick graph” which featured on the cover of the first IPCC report, is obviously more worthy of hilarity than serious consideration.  

 As a former young loony lefty myself, I can understand how you got hoodwinked by the elites.    After all, they own the media and their rich celebrity mates and movie stars buddies are very influential in defining what today passes for popular culture.     My only hope is, that you have enough acumen to understand that this whole climate change nonsense is simply a scam dreamed up to satisfy a power and money grab by certain power mad elitist demographic groups.    These groups desire to divide and conquer white, western democratic countries, because democracy is a serious impediment to the sort of elitist authoritarian society that they dream about.     The reason for that is, because they think that they are intellectually and morally superior to everybody else, and because they aspire to be at the top of the pyramid telling us prole inferiors what to do.  

 

Bogan

@Openminded ;    Gish galloper. That´s all you are.

Another well thought out, well reasoned, and logical argument by Closeminded.      I think it is sad that you have joined the ranks of the hecklers, instead of the debaters,     But at least it confirmed my belief that today's young loony lefties are not real bright, and that they are frightened of reasoned debate.    You might be better off on an opinion site instead of a debate site?   That way you will not be so "offended" by the things that you just don't want to know.     I am sorry if the truth hurts your ears.  

Openminded

@Bogan

You don´t debate. You Gish Gallop. The hecklers are smart. They know not to waste time with a Gish Galloper.

Barnardot

@Bogan ;People who oppose the concept of Human Induced Global Warming are the sorts of people who know how to spell.  

So what. They seem to know also how to put there heads in the sand and ignore arguments that go against them also.

Barnardot

@Openminded @Bogan ;You don´t debate. You Gish Gallop. 

This is quiet right and also he comes up with a hole heap of arguments with out any evidence at all. I have presented proper evidence that shows that the sort of person that he is is a half brainer. Which means that he only uses only half of his brain to come out with the wacky offensive exstream stuff that he does come out with and ignores the other half of arguments. he even admits to being a half wit because where he comes from thats what Bogan means.

Barnardot

@Bogan @Factfinder @Openminded...... the mid 1970’s when the same climate scientists predicted with the greatest authority that the planet was heading for a new ice age. 

So that means that those scientists who were 50 years old then are 100 years old now.

And that is a genuine news paper clip is it? But its just that the editor let slip a dot in the middle of Ice Age did he? 

That clip was invented and made up by a far right extream site wasnt' it? Yes it was.

Very typical of your usual poor and incorrect evidence to put it mildly.

I am getting to like that expression of Gish Galloper. 

Bogan

Openminded

@Bogan
I'm not wasting time with a fact check on this.
Come on Gish Galloper.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Hi Just sayin.

I agree that a whole lot of people (most on the left for some reason) purposley chose to create hysteria for their own gain. That said, we can't look at a city buried in smog and think we're not having some negative impact that we will need to correct. Would you agree with that statement?

Barnardot

@Bogan @Factfinder @Openminded

So a cover of Time is some sort of evidence is it? Just like all your other comprehencive and fully detailed evidence like you all ways use?

So lets see.

in the mid 1970’s when the same climate scientists predicted with the greatest authority that the planet was heading for a new ice age.  
the sceptic sites were the ones telling the truth. 

I cant quiet turn the page of that cover. So can you give the name of one of those same scientists who now predicts climate change and what is his age? Oh yeah and also quote the bit about the soot....

And can you also quote the part where it says when the ice age is going to come?

Oh yeah and please let us know more of those septic web sites you visit. Like Sunshine Hours for example. I was so amazed at how accurate and honest and balanced there reporting is and that they only post genuine news paper articles and not ones that are doctered and made up by scammers who put dots between ice and age. 

We will all then benefit from being able to use your septic sites to get our 100% reliable evidence from. 

Wow I just cant wait for your answer.

Bogan

@Barnardot

Well, your last post directed at me was very interesting, Mr Barnadot.     Apparently, the information about how climate scientists had incorrectly predicted that the earth was about to enter a new ice age, with catastrophic consequences for the whole human race, was something that you were completely ignorant about?       Obviously, it shocked you to the core that the climate scientists that you presumably respect, had gotten climate change completely wrong only fifty years ago?    Instead of doing what an intelligent person would have done, do some checking before you accused me of both dreaming the whole thing up,and verifying it with false newspaper and Time magazine front covers, you did what any fool would do and rushed in where angels feared to tread?

 I would not normally bother replying to you, because I asses your mental age at 13 and you have no idea how to debate at all.     But this was just too good an opportunity to miss.    It is an opportunity where I might get you to understand how stu-pid your sneery heckling attitude really is.     Hopefully, it may spark some neuronal activity in your rudimentary brain, and get you on the path of being able to think straight?      

 During the 1970’s, climate scientists had very good reason to believe that the earth was about to plunge into a new ice age.   I could tell you why they thought that way, but I think your mind has trouble following simple concepts.      So, if your mind has any capacity for rational thinking at all, and you still doubt what I have wrote, simply look up “Global Cooling” on Wiki.      Hopefully, this may make you realise how foolish and ignorant you are.     If you can achieve that milestone, we may see a change in your attitude?    From one of an immature and foolish young person who can only heckle, to a maturing person who realises how foolish he has acted in the past, and who wishes to act more reasonable in the future?    

 But I doubt that you possess the maturity to make that happen.    Prove me right.   Make my day.       

Barnardot

@Bogan ;Apparently, the information about how climate scientists had incorrectly predicted that the earth .....

Apparently nothing.

The article is 100% false and doctored and made up and comes from a scam web site.

You know it and you dishonestly skirt around the fact that you have been court out trying to palm off fake information once again. The issue is you and your utter dishonesty and that you have hardly ever come up with an honest argument about any thing but instead divert when the the going gets hard against you. You dont normally reply to me because your a coward who cant face being exposed for your dishonesty which is what I will continue to to until you stop it or get the heck off this site.

Factfinder

@Bogan

It woud be wise if you would seperate the scams that have been perpetrated from the fact that air pollution exist. And it does have an impact.

Bogan

Factfinder quote   It woud be wise if you would seperate the scams that have been perpetrated from the fact that air pollution exist. And it does have an impact.

Okay, air pollution exists and it does have an impact.     Especially in non western world societies like China where industrial production takes precedence over the environment in every case.       But the western world has been investigating the effects of airborne pollution for decades, and it is western countries which have enacted strong legislation making it mandatory for industries to reduce the  pollution caused by their manufacturing efforts.          The problem comes, when left leaning government bureaucracies become so power mad that they see all industrial production, which will always create some pollution, as being an unacceptable evil which they feel morally obliged to eradicate.  This attitude is extant within the bureaucracies of western countries which have been prosperous for so long that bureaucrats think that prosperity is just a natural law of nature.    So, (they opine) tying up their productive class with endless environmental red tape will have no significant impact upon their economies.   

This is proving to be a bad idea, as manufacturers in western countries continue to flee overseas (or to other states) to countries where their bureaucratic class is smart enough to recognise that industry equals prosperity.   And prosperity is good for the bureaucracy.    Western societies that have people with your anti industry mindset are now in a doom loop.       They drove out their own productive class who took their brans, technology, jobs and taxes with them.    Democrat run cities and states in the USA are now becoming more and more bankrupt, but their bureaucrats will never admit that thy are wrong until the bailiffs arrive and their government guaranteed wages and pension cheques stop arriving with dependable regularity.  

An example would be Germany.    In a fit of environmental fundamentalism, the Greens and the Social Democrats started dismantling the dozens of nuclear power stations that had provided Germany with CO2 free electricity for decades.   Their own industrial class tried to warn the government that this would create the "de industialisation" of Germany.       But fundamentalists never listen, and it took Putin's war in Ukraine to cause so many power outages in Germany, with serious economic consequences, that even the feeble minded, always outraged Greens had to admit that they needed nuclear power.  

Factfinder

@Bogan

There is truth in your words and the things you bring up are very good reasons why distrust in government solutions are at a all time high. Which brings us to where we are today. We need to seperate politics from the solution process. A very tall order I know, because at the end of the day the government will have to sign off on any polution reduction actions that are taken by the country as a whole. But we can look past the politics if we try. I feel the first step might be the way we ourselves approach it. One way to do that is to recognise both sides of the issue have sought to misrepresent the issue for political/capital gain, they need to come to a table honestly with sincerity from this point on. For instance on the right, big oil needs to stop buying up pattens (for decades) whenever independent investment groups develope cleaner enrgy sources just so they can bury the competition. On the left, the hysteria and fleecing tactics need to stop. These might be good starting points.

Factfinder

Dreamer said:

@Factfinder

Hi, Factfinder welcome back to debateisland. waves

There are air pollution deaths and the economy side is clear, we can save money by transitioning to fossil fuels. 5.9 trillion fossil fuel subsidies need to end. 

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2

Air pollution harms:

"save $600 billion every year after that – without even considering climate change. And, of course, we would be preventing 50,000 premature deaths per year."

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/healthcare-costs-of-air-pollution/

"The costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of mitigation."

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm

Solar panels are often the cheapest form of energy.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34372005/solar-cheapest-energy-ever/

You make a good argument. The reason for those subsidies in the first place was to build and protect our economy which in a very short time became dependent on the energy oil was producing. We could use that money to form committies, action groups, oversight, pay the salaries for experts in energy fields but that could turn into more endless bureaucracies which can even be more costly and time consuming. Especially since the existing large companies have the experties and tools readily available. Perhaps more strict oversight aimed at ensuring subsidies are only being used to aggresively develope clean energy? Could that be one answer to consider? Along with other ideas of course.

jack

Factfinder said:

Climate change; fact, scam, or both?

Hello F:

When I was but a wee lad, we used to throw our trash on the ground, I guess because we thought the ground was soo big, that nobody would notice.  We noticed.  When I was in the Navy, we used to dump our trash into the ocean, I guess because we thought the ocean was soo big, that nobody would notice.  We noticed.  Now, we're throwing our trash into the air, I guess because we think the air is soo big, that nobody will notice..  Well, we noticed - at least some of us have. 

No, matter.. The good news is, we're running out of oil, and at just the right time too.  So, the dirty air problem will, in time, correct itself.

Plus, in short order, personal vehicles will only be allowed on private land..  The roadways will be converted to accommodate self driving, electric, public transportation.. In fact, Tesla and Waymo are doing it right NOW.  Owning a car will become obsolete.   We'll have electric airplanes, electric ships and maybe even electric rocket ships.

https://waymo.com/

Will that stop climate change?  I'm thinking, yeah.

excon

Factfinder

jack said:

Factfinder said:

Climate change; fact, scam, or both?

Hello F:

When I was but a wee lad, we used to throw our trash on the ground, I guess because we thought the ground was soo big, that nobody would notice.  We noticed.  When I was in the Navy, we used to dump our trash into the ocean, I guess because we thought the ocean was soo big, that nobody would notice.  We noticed.  Now, we're throwing our trash into the air, I guess because we think the air is soo big, that nobody will notice..  Well, we noticed - at least some of us have. 

No, matter.. The good news is, we're running out of oil, and at just the right time too.  So, the dirty air problem will, in time, correct itself.

Plus, in short order, personal vehicles will only be allowed on private land..  The roadways will be converted to accommodate self driving, electric, public transportation.. In fact, Tesla and Waymo are doing it right NOW.  Owning a car will become obsolete.   We'll have electric airplanes, electric ships and maybe even electric rocket ships.

https://waymo.com/

Will that stop climate change?  I'm thinking, yeah.

excon

Hi Jack

Yes similar to my boyhood and seeing the change as smog increased throughout the valley everytime (it seemed) going over the grapevine here in California. I'm pretty sure most people identify with what you said.

Looking at the embolden portion of your response above I take it you do not feel we need to act in haste the way the hystericals do?

I'm curious by what you mean when you say "in short order"? Retooling infrastructure and winning the political battles it will take aren't going to be done with a flip of a switch. Biden tried that because he was beholding to idiots and dang near sank our economy completely. Just like the point you made about our planet, some believe our economy is big enough to absorb anything, but it's not. 

jack

Factfinder said:

I'm curious by what you mean when you say "in short order"? Retooling infrastructure and winning the political battles it will take aren't going to be done with a flip of a switch.

Hello:

"In short order" means you can't change an economy based on oil to one based on renewable energy overnight.  But, the direction is set.

excom

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

jack said:

Factfinder said:

Climate change; fact, scam, or both?

Hello F:

When I was but a wee lad, we used to throw our trash on the ground, I guess because we thought the ground was soo big, that nobody would notice.  We noticed.  When I was in the Navy, we used to dump our trash into the ocean, I guess because we thought the ocean was soo big, that nobody would notice.  We noticed.  Now, we're throwing our trash into the air, I guess because we think the air is soo big, that nobody will notice..  Well, we noticed - at least some of us have. 

No, matter.. The good news is, we're running out of oil, and at just the right time too.  So, the dirty air problem will, in time, correct itself.

Plus, in short order, personal vehicles will only be allowed on private land..  The roadways will be converted to accommodate self driving, electric, public transportation.. In fact, Tesla and Waymo are doing it right NOW.  Owning a car will become obsolete.   We'll have electric airplanes, electric ships and maybe even electric rocket ships.

https://waymo.com/

Will that stop climate change?  I'm thinking, yeah.

excon

Hi Jack

Yes similar to my boyhood and seeing the change as smog increased throughout the valley everytime (it seemed) going over the grapevine here in California. I'm pretty sure most people identify with what you said.

Looking at the embolden portion of your response above I take it you do not feel we need to act in haste the way the hystericals do?

I'm curious by what you mean when you say "in short order"? Retooling infrastructure and winning the political battles it will take aren't going to be done with a flip of a switch. Biden tried that because he was beholding to idiots and dang near sank our economy completely. Just like the point you made about our planet, some believe our economy is big enough to absorb anything, but it's not. 

I can remember walking outside in Pasadena CA and looking at the mountain range from Colorado Bld.  The mountains would be there Monday morning, but would disappear for the rest of the week until the weekend.  The smog was horrible.  

There is nothing wrong with investing in cleaner energies unless government tries to dictate the pace of this.  Currently CA is trying to mandate EV cars by 2030.  The problem is that the technology is not yet able to scale to that level.  CA's energy grid can not handle the strain as is, let alone, an all EV car mandate.  Further, the cost of an EV car is at least $10,000 more than a gas powered car, making it difficult for poorer people to buy them.  The EV mandate is just a tax on the poor as everything that uses energy and transportation will pass on those increased costs to their customers.  

Factfinder

@just_sayin

True. That is the result of one in charge, who is beholding to even more hysterical idiots; thought he could mandate a switch and flip it. It just don't work that way.  As I told @Bogan, I'd rather have trump than biden, but can't we do way better then these two as a country?

Bogan

Factfinder quote   There is truth in your words and the things you bring up are very good reasons why distrust in government solutions are at a all time high. Which brings us to where we are today. We need to seperate politics from the solution process.

That is never going to happen.     Every human interaction involves politics.  


factfinder quotes        A very tall order I know, because at the end of the day the government will have to sign off on any polution reduction actions that are taken by the country as a whole. But we can look past the politics if we try.

Just like the immigration of dysfunctional minorities into western societies decades ago, an apathetic populace will not do anything until the negative consequences of doing nothing begin to manifest themselves, right before their eyes.      This Human Induced Climate Change fraud is being advocated by rich elites who are using their friends in the media to use the incredible power they have to spread a false claim of 'end of times.".     Unless, of course, the stu-pid peasantry start doing what their social superiors tell them to do.       The problem for the elites, is that their confident predictions involving climate change never eventuated.    The oceans of the world stubbornly refused to rise and drown coastal cities, and the ice caps stubbornly refused to disappear.     For much of the last decade, much of the northern hemisphere has been buried in snow during winter.   It is pretty hard to sell climate change to people who are freezing in their homes, who can not turn on their heaters, because the cost of electricity has become too high.     


Factfinder quote       I feel the first step might be the way we ourselves approach it. One way to do that is to recognise both sides of the issue have sought to misrepresent the issue for political/capital gain, they need to come to a table honestly with sincerity from this point on.

I disagree with that premise entirely.      Only one side really has a vested interest in promoting a cause that they they themselves know is not true.     The sceptic side seems to me to be only concerned with telling the truth, so that their already shaky economies do not collapse because of this fraud. 
 

Factfinder quote       For instance on the right, big oil needs to stop buying up pattens (for decades) whenever independent investment groups develope cleaner enrgy sources just so they can bury the competition.

I have heard that one before and I admit that it is probably true.

   
Factfinder quote  On the left, the hysteria and fleecing tactics need to stop. These might be good starting points.  

That will never happen.    Socialism, of both the right and the left, is predicated upon the idea that the peasantry is stu-pid, and only far seeing progressives know how things should be done.   While there is some merit to this ideology, the end result is always the same.     Without the ability for a people to change their governments through the ballot box, the elites will always become more numerous, and will always try to make themselves richer and more powerful.    

Factfinder

jack said:

Factfinder said:

I'm curious by what you mean when you say "in short order"? Retooling infrastructure and winning the political battles it will take aren't going to be done with a flip of a switch.

Hello:

"In short order" means you can't change an economy based on oil to one based on renewable energy overnight.  But, the direction is set.

excom

I can agree with that statement.

Barnardot

@Bogan ; @Factfinder ;Just like the immigration of dysfunctional minorities into western societies decades ago, an apathetic populace will not do anything

So is it just a coincidance that your analergy just happens to be about racialism.

For much of the last decade, much of the northern hemisphere has been buried in snow during winter.

Would you like to quote another of your dishonest made up doctored newspaper articles that backs up such a made up claim?

Factfinder

"Just like the immigration of dysfunctional minorities into western societies decades ago, an apathetic populace will not do anything until the negative consequences of doing nothing begin to manifest themselves, right before their eyes." @Bogan

I fail to see what perceived racism has to do with climate change. @Bogan ;

Barnardot

@Factfinder @Bogan I fail to see what perceived racism has to do with climate change.

Well give him a fare shake of the ketchup bottle on this one. He did bring up the fact about the northern hemisphere being covered in snow so theres the segway which is quiet clearly about being white. 

Of course the ketchup bottle got a little bit clogged up when he was about to mention that more than 61000 died in the excessive heat last summer. And wow he could have mentioned in that shake if the ketchup came out that millions of hectares of forests in spain alone burned down and guess what color they became. Yes black.

And we all know how reliable his sauces are dont we?

Bogan

Factfinder quote  I fail to see what perceived racism has to do with climate change. 

I was simply using a contemporary example to illustrate my point that the apathetic public never take any threat to their own well being seriously until the consequences of doing nothing stare them right in the face.       All over Europe, right wing parties are in the ascendency, and the reason for that is the elf evident negative consequences of immigration from third world sheetholes.    People like me have been warning the public for decades, but people are only listening now because they can not deny it any longer.  

Barnardot

@Bogan @Factfinder ;a contemporary example to illustrate my point that the apathetic public never take any threat to their own well being 

No need to worry about the pubic getting apathetic because we know what happened when the right wing clowns got in power in Germany and we will never let that happen again.

Bogan

No need to worry about the pubic getting apathetic because we know what happened when the left wing wing clowns got in power in Russia, China, Chile, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and Cambodia, and we will never let that happen again.