Dear climate change nonbelievers

[Aberration]

Hey now, let's not use "half-measures" here. Bman might suggest we eliminate the entire human race!

Wouldn't be the first time the solution was suggested.

 

[Deuce]

Wouldn't be the first time the solution was suggested.

No, of course not. He's suggested it before.

 

[BmanMcfly]

It is not necessary to reduce fossil fuel consumption to zero. You still don't seem to grasp this. You seem completely incapable of understanding that there are acceptable options in between "do nothing" and "go to stone age."

If you have termites in your house, do you burn down the house? Or would you just fumigate, since that "half-measure" does the job just fine and you get to keep your house? In this analogy, you are the one suggesting "burn down the house." None of us have suggested that and none of us think it's necessary. Just you. Alarmist.

Oh, ok. So you are admitting that you and your friends are exaggerating the problem for political purposes.

You know, there's a word out there for the use of fear as a means of accomplishing political objectives...

To your point, if the problem is really as bad as everything that's been sold, well, we're talking about some major upheavals. Now, if the way to divert these major upheavals; no food from droughts in agricultural regions, coastal cities drowned in 20 ft of water, hurricanes many times stronger and more frequent, a larger region of tornadoes.... Some have even tried to argue for more earthquakes, and one (allegedly as a joke) wrote a paper as to how co2 would be the reason for aliens coming to take control of the planet....

Well, since we're assuming the worst case scenario... We're past the point ( apparently) where fumigation is an option, we are led to believe that the termites have taken over and damaged the integrity of the structure. In which case the only reasonable course of action is to demolish and rebuild.

That's why I'm saying that you must not really buy what you are selling.

You claim to care about your progeny, why don't you speak out against open air gmo's?? That's been shown in rodent studies to lead to a 98% rate of sterility in hamsters by the third generation of a GMO diet. We are now into the second generation of partial exposure to a GMO diet...

I'd rather focus on more pertinent issues causing REAL DAMAGE THAT IS MEASURABLE... Much more than these hypothetical situations that never come to pass.

 

[Deuce]

Oh, ok. So you are admitting that you and your friends are exaggerating the problem for political purposes.

You know, there's a word out there for the use of fear as a means of accomplishing political objectives...

No. Because you are the one exaggerating the problem. More specifically, you're exaggerating what my side says the problem is.

Nobody ever said "no food from droughts" they said "less food from droughts." Nobody said hurricanes "many times stronger," they said "stronger." When people say "serious problem," you hear "extinction." When people say "reduce carbon emissions," you hear "regulate everything including breathing." When Bill Gates makes a 40 minute presentation about reducing carbon emissions, you conclude he means to end the human race because population was included in his formula.

You have a grossly inflated impression of what the argument is.

 

[Aberration]

Well you make it sound like not such a big deal then.

 

[Somerville]

Well you make it sound like not such a big deal then.

“Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”
― Thomas Jefferson

Status: This quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson

Just thought you would like to know

 

[Muhammed]

Alternatives to carbon taxing / capping schemes.

The better alternative is to do neither, obviously.

How could carbon taxing or capping possibly do anything except take money from the productive members of society and give money to the leeches on society?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Wouldn't be the first time the solution was suggested.

No, that's not what i was saying anyway...

I was saying that if the situation is truly this dire, well, we should be pushing triage mentality, and not these profit making schemes that will do little to address the problem.

I accept that these drastic measures will lead to civil unrest, and probably some casualties. If its in the name of saving civilization, well, it's unfortunate, but if the situation is that dire we must accept that the survival of the group is more important than the survival of any individual.

 

[Deuce]

Well you make it sound like not such a big deal then.

Oddly enough, there are a range of options in between "extinction-level threat" and "not an issue at all."

The better alternative is to do neither, obviously.

How could carbon taxing or capping possibly do anything except take money from the productive members of society and give money to the leeches on society?

Ahh yes, the old "cap and trade is socialism" nonsense. Funny, when the Republicans were promoting it, it was a "market-based solution."

Cap and trade sets up a scenario where companies can gain a financial advantage by reducing their carbon emissions efficiently. Businesses have a tendency to respond to things like that.

 

[Catawba]

Alternative solution to what?

Taking a dump in our own backyard. See the OP.

 

[BmanMcfly]

No. Because you are the one exaggerating the problem. More specifically, you're exaggerating what my side says the problem is.

Oh, I get it, so, it's not all that bad then... It's just we have to sacrifice some of our standard of living to the climate gods or we'll wind up with some bad weather and bad crops.

Nobody ever said "no food from droughts" they said "less food from droughts."

All you have to do is prove the correlation between co2 and rainfall.

Nobody said hurricanes "many times stronger," they said "stronger."

Which is still baseless, since it was shown that the numbers and intensities of hurricanes are cyclical, unless you're able to demonstrate that there's been a statistical increase in hurricane numbers and intensities in the past say 50 years?

When people say "serious problem," you hear "extinction."

Oh you mean coastal cities being erased by rising oceans?? Then the cumulative other problems created by co2 and the social strife that will occur. (keep in mind; most people whine when the wifi is down at the Starbucks, and you think they will take the prospect of little food with no problems??)

Then you got those papers saying that it's too late, that we'll already have problems for the next few hundred years.

It's too bad you are so short sighted, that you don't even want to accept the "worst cases" of everything presented is a statement in itself. We've dealt with bad weather forever, and co2 levels have little if anything to do with it.

When people say "reduce carbon emissions," you hear "regulate everything including breathing."

When you make a law taxing co2 production, well, exhalation produces co2.

And of course you'll forget : http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=are-babies-bad-for-the-environment-09-08-06

Yes, the people you are supporting are THAT crazy ...

When Bill Gates makes a 40 minute presentation about reducing carbon emissions, you conclude he means to end the human race because population was included in his formula.

No, that's not it at all... He makes a 40 min presentation about co2. Using his equation, he highlights people in the equation at the same time he says "one of these numbers (psychologically speaking, the highlighted number; aka 'people' ) is going to have to go down to near zero. " and spends the next 10 minutes discussing methods that would lower human population. As part of his discussion.

Further, bill gates was also a proponent of death panels, saying if we pull the plug on granny that those funds could hire 10 teachers.

The gates family also has long ties to planned parenthood and all their abortion clinics.

The bill and Melinda gates organization ALSO helped pay for the polio vaccines which were found to contain live polio... And had the gall to suggest that the surge in polio they created was justification for further polio vaccinations.

So, ya, when you really investigate gates, you quickly realize that behind his nerdy exterior is a very blood thirsty individual.

You have a grossly inflated impression of what the argument is.

I'm afraid that you are simply naive as to what is REALLY being pushed by those leading your cause....

 

[Catawba]

Global warming deniers are "merchants of doubt"

"I learned that fear drives many global warming deniers. It's the same fear that impelled Cold War warriors to see Communism as a much bigger threat than it really was, and to trample civil liberties in their efforts to root out nasty Reds who supposedly were undermining the United States from within.

Amazingly, Oreskes said that rabid anti-science "merchants of doubt" still believe in the Watermelon Theory of modern environmentalists: green without, red within.

Corporate greed of fossil fuel companies is one driver of global warming lies. An irrational fear of government intrusion into people's lives is another driver. If human-caused global warming is a serious problem -- and science tells us that it IS -- then something needs to be done about it.

Oreskes said that even though pollution trading mechanisms based on the free market worked with acid rain, and carbon trading would work equally well with global warming, fear of big government leads global warming deniers to spread lies, apparently figuring that their supposedly virtuous libertarian ends justify sleazy untruthful means.

The good news is that the American public is seeing through the lies: 75 percent of Americans favor regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant; 60 percent support a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

A new national survey confirms strong public support for funding renewable energy research, regulating carbon pollution, and signing a global treaty to slash emissions. The study, conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, found a remarkable 75% of Americans support “regulating carbon dioxide (the primary greenhouse gas) as a pollutant."

Global warming deniers are "merchants of doubt" - HinesSight

 

[tecoyah]

My alternate proposal:

A case of tequilla, bucket of ice, and a hope I am dead before it gets really bad.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Global warming deniers are "merchants of doubt"

"I learned that fear drives many global warming deniers. It's the same fear that impelled Cold War warriors to see Communism as a much bigger threat than it really was, and to trample civil liberties in their efforts to root out nasty Reds who supposedly were undermining the United States from within.

Amazingly, Oreskes said that rabid anti-science "merchants of doubt" still believe in the Watermelon Theory of modern environmentalists: green without, red within.

Corporate greed of fossil fuel companies is one driver of global warming lies. An irrational fear of government intrusion into people's lives is another driver. If human-caused global warming is a serious problem -- and science tells us that it IS -- then something needs to be done about it.

Oreskes said that even though pollution trading mechanisms based on the free market worked with acid rain, and carbon trading would work equally well with global warming, fear of big government leads global warming deniers to spread lies, apparently figuring that their supposedly virtuous libertarian ends justify sleazy untruthful means.

The good news is that the American public is seeing through the lies: 75 percent of Americans favor regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant; 60 percent support a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

A new national survey confirms strong public support for funding renewable energy research, regulating carbon pollution, and signing a global treaty to slash emissions. The study, conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, found a remarkable 75% of Americans support “regulating carbon dioxide (the primary greenhouse gas) as a pollutant."

Global warming deniers are "merchants of doubt" - HinesSight

Fear is what drives warmers, they are afraid of their own shadow.

 

[Deuce]

Fear is what drives warmers, they are afraid of their own shadow.

We see a problem that can be overcome. You see a massive global conspiracy to take away your gasoline for no apparent reason.

If people want something to be afraid of, they should think more about resource consumption than climate change, which I personally see to be a far bigger issue in the long term. The math doesn't look good on having 7-billion-and-growing people on this planet. We chew through a lot of iron, copper, even fresh water, at a pretty absurd rate. The agriculture required to feed that many people depends on massive artificial input of both energy and fertilizers as well as fresh water. Fertilizers can be synthesized, but at even higher cost of energy.

Whether or not climate change is a major problem, we still need to take steps to reduce fossil-fuel-based energy consumption because we need to conserve that energy for things like growing food. Basically, we should build a crapload of nuclear plants and switch as much transportation over to electric as we can.

 

[Somerville]

We see a problem that can be overcome. You see a massive global conspiracy to take away your gasoline for no apparent reason.

If people want something to be afraid of, they should think more about resource consumption than climate change, which I personally see to be a far bigger issue in the long term. The math doesn't look good on having 7-billion-and-growing people on this planet. We chew through a lot of iron, copper, even fresh water, at a pretty absurd rate. The agriculture required to feed that many people depends on massive artificial input of both energy and fertilizers as well as fresh water. Fertilizers can be synthesized, but at even higher cost of energy.

Whether or not climate change is a major problem, we still need to take steps to reduce fossil-fuel-based energy consumption because we need to conserve that energy for things like growing food. Basically, we should build a crapload of nuclear plants and switch as much transportation over to electric as we can.

There's always Soylent Green

 

[Diogenes]

If people want something to be afraid of, they should think more about resource consumption than climate change, which I personally see to be a far bigger issue in the long term. The math doesn't look good on having 7-billion-and-growing people on this planet. We chew through a lot of iron, copper, even fresh water, at a pretty absurd rate. The agriculture required to feed that many people depends on massive artificial input of both energy and fertilizers as well as fresh water. Fertilizers can be synthesized, but at even higher cost of energy.

Yup! That's what Thomas Malthus said a couple of centuries back, when the global population was approaching one billion. And it was echoed again forty years ago. But maybe you'll be right this time... :roll:

 

[PrometheusBound]

There were many that responded, but none that could offer a feasible alternative solution.

The last global warming opened up the northern middle latitudes and created a great spurt in human progress. This one would open up lands and fresh water now useless because of the cold. Huge projects would be called for: pipe the water out of Antarctica, develop the resources of the virgin land there, tug icebergs, build reservoirs, etc.

 

[Muhammed]

Taking a dump in our own backyard. See the OP.

LOL

Do you have any evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 is not beneficial to the environment?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Global warming deniers are "merchants of doubt"

"I learned that fear drives many global warming deniers. It's the same fear that impelled Cold War warriors to see Communism as a much bigger threat than it really was, and to trample civil liberties in their efforts to root out nasty Reds who supposedly were undermining the United States from within.

Amazingly, Oreskes said that rabid anti-science "merchants of doubt" still believe in the Watermelon Theory of modern environmentalists: green without, red within.

Corporate greed of fossil fuel companies is one driver of global warming lies. An irrational fear of government intrusion into people's lives is another driver. If human-caused global warming is a serious problem -- and science tells us that it IS -- then something needs to be done about it.

Oreskes said that even though pollution trading mechanisms based on the free market worked with acid rain, and carbon trading would work equally well with global warming, fear of big government leads global warming deniers to spread lies, apparently figuring that their supposedly virtuous libertarian ends justify sleazy untruthful means.

The good news is that the American public is seeing through the lies: 75 percent of Americans favor regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant; 60 percent support a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

A new national survey confirms strong public support for funding renewable energy research, regulating carbon pollution, and signing a global treaty to slash emissions. The study, conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, found a remarkable 75% of Americans support “regulating carbon dioxide (the primary greenhouse gas) as a pollutant."

Global warming deniers are "merchants of doubt" - HinesSight

How is it that blogs count as evidence when it's you pushing them??

 

[Catawba]

Fear is what drives warmers, they are afraid of their own shadow.

Yeah, we got your perspective already, its all a conspiracy by the world's scientists dating back half a century.

You just can't trust scientific experts, right? :lamo

 

[Catawba]

The last global warming opened up the northern middle latitudes and created a great spurt in human progress. This one would open up lands and fresh water now useless because of the cold. Huge projects would be called for: pipe the water out of Antarctica, develop the resources of the virgin land there, tug icebergs, build reservoirs, etc.

Was this from the far-right's substitute for science manual?

Since I don't believe in a 50 year conspiracy by all the world's climate experts, and I understand the science behind global warming, I will continue to take advisement from the experts:

Video -- What If Earth Warms 6 Degrees? -- National Geographic

 

[Catawba]

LOL

Do you have any evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 is not beneficial to the environment?

Negative impacts will far outweigh any positive effects. We are already seeing the negative effects from around the world.

Global Climate Change

 

[Catawba]

How is it that blogs count as evidence when it's you pushing them??

I never claimed it was evidence. I used the quote because it references a valid poll which is valuable for gauging public support for CO2 pollution control.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Imagine for a second that there was some piece of evidence brought forth which proved that the planet was warming and pollution was its root cause. Imagine that this piece of evidence also proved that the repercussions of ignoring the problem would be just as bad as Al Gore says.

What policies would you propose to fix it?

Assuming you are referring to Co2 as the cause of the inevitable destruction of beach front property, I would propose that we build up the US military, wipe out everyone else on the planet and make national parks out of the other six continents.