• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IPCC Report Reveals 'Bleak and Brutal Truth' About Climate Emergency

Then why not do both?
I am fine with battery electric cars competing on an equal footing with traditional cars, but not the government
preselecting a winner.
 
I didnt link all scientists to neo-luddites, just the moronic ones in the OP. And Ive already stated why in previous responses, so take another month or two to read through them, and maybe you'll finally figure it out.

You've no proof the scientists in the OP are neo-luddites. And I also was referring to just those scientists in the article, not all of them, in terms of you failing to prove they are neo-luddites.
 
You've no proof the scientists in the OP are neo-luddites. And I also was referring to just those scientists in the article, not all of them, in terms of you failing to prove they are neo-luddites.
The article quotes these morons as demanding the temp be lowered to pre-industrial levels, so yes, they are neo-luddites. Its what you want too.

Now I'm going to wait for another month until you can figure out another fallacy and make a reply here.
 
I am fine with battery electric cars competing on an equal footing with traditional cars, but not the government
preselecting a winner.
Profit motive doesn't accomplish environmental goals.
 
The article quotes these morons as demanding the temp be lowered to pre-industrial levels
They literally tell you the target is above pre-industrial levels in that article. They even mention the exact amount, more than one time. You need to learn to read.

Besides, even wanting pre-industrial global temperature does not make one a luddite because that's not what the word luddite means.
 
Profit motive doesn't accomplish environmental goals.
It sounds too absolute. There is no reason that achieving environmental goals cannot parallel making a profit!
 
It sounds too absolute. There is no reason that achieving environmental goals cannot parallel making a profit!
It can, if we force it to. Otherwise it will not. Absent regulatory requirements, none of these environmental efforts happen. Catalytic converters, capturing fly ash from coal plants, restricting runoff from chemical plants, all of that stuff costs money. If one company does it and the other does not, the "dirty" company is inherently more profitable. In fact, people running these companies would have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to pollute more, not less.

It's the same with climate change. Without the government assisting clean energy sources, they'd be less prevalent than they are right now. Even your personal favorite of carbon capture to create synthetic fuels would be further behind in development than it is now.

No reason? Profit is the reason.
 
It can, if we force it to. Otherwise it will not. Absent regulatory requirements, none of these environmental efforts happen. Catalytic converters, capturing fly ash from coal plants, restricting runoff from chemical plants, all of that stuff costs money. If one company does it and the other does not, the "dirty" company is inherently more profitable. In fact, people running these companies would have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to pollute more, not less.

It's the same with climate change. Without the government assisting clean energy sources, they'd be less prevalent than they are right now. Even your personal favorite of carbon capture to create synthetic fuels would be further behind in development than it is now.

No reason? Profit is the reason.
So you do not think Tesla, the solar panel companies, and Wind Turbine companies, are profit driven?
Also the oil companies cannot make a profit by making carbon neutral fuels?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
They literally tell you the target is above pre-industrial levels in that article. They even mention the exact amount, more than one time. You need to learn to read.

Besides, even wanting pre-industrial global temperature does not make one a luddite because that's not what the word luddite means.
You admire these neo-luddites. We get it. So when are you ditching your house and car and moving into a cave?
 
You admire these neo-luddites. We get it. So when are you ditching your house and car and moving into a cave?

The fact that you choose to troll people online instead of "disproving" AGW in peer-reviewed journals says everything: that you know every last one of you Anonymous Internet Deniers are lying for political reasons.

That's why it's so funny when you think you sound like you're *getting* someone.


Excellent!

The worst bit is that our children and grandchildren will pay for the dishonest arrogance of denierism.
 
So you do not think Tesla, the solar panel companies, and Wind Turbine companies, are profit driven?
All heavily subsidized and we're still well short of targets. You're proving my point for me.

Also the oil companies cannot make a profit by making carbon neutral fuels?
None of them have yet, have they?
 
You admire these neo-luddites. We get it. So when are you ditching your house and car and moving into a cave?
Caught out in your blatant lie, you make personal attacks. Typical PoS.

They said 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. That is not the same as pre-industrial levels. Can you acknowledge this or are you going to lie again?
 
The fact that you choose to troll people online instead of "disproving" AGW in peer-reviewed journals says everything: that you know every last one of you Anonymous Internet Deniers are lying for political reasons.

That's why it's so funny when you think you sound like you're *getting* someone.



The worst bit is that our children and grandchildren will pay for the dishonest arrogance of denierism.
AGW is very real, just not as sensitive as the simulation suggest.
It begins with they are simulating something that cannot happen, ECS, which is an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level.
TCR, while still higher than observed CO2 growth, is a much closer simulation.
Context for interpreting equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response from the CMIP6 Earth system models
In the IPCC AR3, it was argued that TCR, rather than ECS, was a more relevant metric of model response to increasing CO2.
Meanwhile, the range of transient climate response (TCR, the surface temperature warming around the time of CO2 doubling in a 1% per year CO2 increase simulation) for the CMIP6 models of 1.7°C (1.3°C to 3.0°C) is only slightly larger than for the CMIP3 and CMIP5 models.
CO2 growth for the last 20 years has averaged 2.74 ppm per year, or about 0.7% lower than the 1% per year of TCR.
If TCR is the more relevant response, and the doubling warming of added CO2 is actually 1.7°C,
then the potential warming from added CO2 unlikely to cause many issues.
A much large factor is also caused from Human activity, but we cannot do anything about it.
Particulate aerosols started growing when we replaced animal power with energy extracted from coal.
they grew until in the 1970's we thought this dimming would cause the next ice age to come quicker.
Global changes, radically reduced aerosol emissions, and by 1985, then amount of available sunlight reaching
the ground started to increase. We basically reversed something that had taken 2 centuries to build up, in less than a few decades.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface
Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance
corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22)
This change in energy imbalance is more than ten times greater than the change from added greenhouse gases over the same time.
In short we have already seen most of what will happen, there is some capacity remaining, but only minimal.
The sea levels will continue to rise, until they do not, and we Humans will have to adapt, but nothing we
do or do not do will likely change the trend in sea level.
 
All heavily subsidized and we're still well short of targets. You're proving my point for me.


None of them have yet, have they?
Do you think because something is subsidized, that changes a companies profit motive?

Exxon is building a unit in Baytown, TX, to first make low carbon fuel, and Norway has a plant being built, to make carbon neutral jet fuel.
 
To me, the only path forward towards a sustainable energy future within the framework of existing technology, is
hydrocarbon energy storage, yet people here argue that battery electric vehicles will save the planet.
For the purposes of this discussions the luddites, are those who refuse to consider all the options, even when they
know that their choice will only have a limited results over a long period of time.
Source for people arguing EV's will save the planet? And you can't just change what a word means to fit your post. That is not what a luddite is.
 
The Green Kool Aid is flowing to the left freely. Unfortunately it's full of sour milk.
Michael Shellenberger was at one time the friend of the left's climate extremist. Then the more study he did, the more writing and publishing his works he did, the more they grew to dislike Mike.
Here's a more recent article by MS. Again showing why the left doesn't like him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Source for people arguing EV's will save the planet? And you can't just change what a word means to fit your post. That is not what a luddite is.
No the luddites were a group opposed to the introduction of textile factories using power looms.
 
Do you think because something is subsidized, that changes a companies profit motive?
Do you think I'm arguing that companies don't have profit motive?
Exxon is building a unit in Baytown, TX, to first make low carbon fuel, and Norway has a plant being built, to make carbon neutral jet fuel.
Both subsidized, neither has turned a profit.
 
Do you think I'm arguing that companies don't have profit motive?

Both subsidized, neither has turned a profit.
In post #57 you said,
It can, if we force it to. Otherwise it will not. Absent regulatory requirements, none of these environmental efforts happen. Catalytic converters, capturing fly ash from coal plants, restricting runoff from chemical plants, all of that stuff costs money. If one company does it and the other does not, the "dirty" company is inherently more profitable.
implying that profits are incompatible with environmental goals.
(what do you think are the environmental goals anyway?)
Neither Exxon or Norsk have produced anything for sale...yet, but they are risking their capital
with the hope of making a profit.
 
In post #57 you said,

implying that profits are incompatible with environmental goals.
(what do you think are the environmental goals anyway?)
Neither Exxon or Norsk have produced anything for sale...yet, but they are risking their capital
with the hope of making a profit.
Again, profitable when subsidized heavily by various world governments. Remember, this conversation started based on the idea that the government should stay out of it. You can't point at government-subsidized businesses as evidence that private business does this on their own.

Carbon neutral energy production, cleaner air, cleaner water, these things haven't been happening without government intervention. Over a century in the industrial era, how many examples can you show me of any significant environmental progress being made purely from a for-profit business' efforts.

If these goals are reachable purely by the free market, why hasn't a single goal been met by the free market? You bring up Tesla, a luxury product that still gets government subsidy. Where's the entry level product that's competitive in price with gasoline engines?
 
Again, profitable when subsidized heavily by various world governments. Remember, this conversation started based on the idea that the government should stay out of it. You can't point at government-subsidized businesses as evidence that private business does this on their own.

Carbon neutral energy production, cleaner air, cleaner water, these things haven't been happening without government intervention. Over a century in the industrial era, how many examples can you show me of any significant environmental progress being made purely from a for-profit business' efforts.

If these goals are reachable purely by the free market, why hasn't a single goal been met by the free market? You bring up Tesla, a luxury product that still gets government subsidy. Where's the entry level product that's competitive in price with gasoline engines?
I cannot say if Exxon's Unit conversion is subsidized, it may well be as it includes an enormous carbon capture side.
 
I cannot say if Exxon's Unit conversion is subsidized, it may well be as it includes an enormous carbon capture side.
"A plant that doesn't exist yet and may possibly not be subsidized and hasn't earned a dime in profit" isn't a strong argument for the free market achieving these goals, my dude.

For the record, they do get billions in subsidies for this, so you still have zero examples.
 
"A plant that doesn't exist yet and may possibly not be subsidized and hasn't earned a dime in profit" isn't a strong argument for the free market achieving these goals, my dude.

For the record, they do get billions in subsidies for this, so you still have zero examples.
Subsidizes have nothing to do with profits, they are money sent by the Government to encourage
some type of behavior. The requirement of a profit first, means you are speaking of a tax deduction, not a subsidy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Subsidizes have nothing to do with profits,
lol yes they do.

they are money sent by the Government to encourage
some type of behavior.
Yes, by making that behavior more profitable.

The requirement of a profit first, means you are speaking of a tax deduction, not a subsidy.
No, you are speaking of a tax deduction. I am speaking of a subsidy. Both exist in green energy and electric cars. Furthermore, the distinction doesn't matter. This conversation started with the government hypothetically not being involved. A tax deduction still falls on my side of this argument.
 
lol yes they do.


Yes, by making that behavior more profitable.


No, you are speaking of a tax deduction. I am speaking of a subsidy. Both exist in green energy and electric cars. Furthermore, the distinction doesn't matter. This conversation started with the government hypothetically not being involved. A tax deduction still falls on my side of this argument.
only in your imagination, a tax deduction is a business expense that reduces the gross profit to the net taxable profits.
and apply to any business. Exxon deducting the cost of refitting a refinery unit, is deducted the same way that Walmart
would deduct the cost of updating a store. It is not cash sent from the government to the business to encourage some special activity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Back
Top Bottom