Teens promise to fix "climate change" with great idea

gman666 said:

I honestly can't take this girl seriously... Berating a bunch of ancient bureaucrats to change the world is not going to make much of a difference. The difference comes from everyday people making the decision to go greener in every aspect of life. Companies will always adjust to the needs and wants of consumers. And her whole point on profits and economic growth is totally flawed. Companies will only pursue green technologies like "co2 sucking" machines if they are PROFITABLE. Meanwhile, if you bring up nuclear energy as a zero emission alternative, these same environmental activist will turn their heads in disgust. Modernized nuclear energy could become an essential source of cleaner energy. Her writers definitely need to rethink their point on economic growth because they are not realizing the incentives of greener alternatives.

Click to expand...

Good realistic point. Education is the key to this, but not simply by pushing false narratives on children in schools. That's counter productive and will lead to mistrust further down the road. If you'd remove the political slant it would go over better. I also don't think regulating and removing more rights by creating new laws is the answer. That just gives the people in charge more power and that leads to more potential for abuse of said power.

Take the way how the kids were removed from school or how everyone thinks Trump controls everything bad that happens in their lives. Well, people voted to give them this power. If you keep voting for Liberal policies you're just handing them more power and then when someone that's in power does something you dislike to you and you can't legally fight back it'll be your own damn fault.

A good example is the relaxing on the laws surrounding coal that the current administration made. Getting rid of laws is usually a good thing that in the end will work itself out. The Liberals cried foul, but you know what? Coal production and usage didn't skyrocket. People realize it's a dirty way to produce energy and don't want to support it. They did this all by themselves and without laws forcing them to do it only the way the Government wants them to.

Keep voting for Liberal policies, keep creating more regulations, keep voting away your freedoms, keep making more laws and keep trying to play God by controlling every aspect of peoples lives and you'll find out first hand how giving the Government such power has been and will be used in the past and the present and in your case future. I'm give you a hint, it doesn't usually end up going to well.

History just repeats itself. The players change, but the game remains the same. Take socialism for example. We know that is an archaic form of Government that's been tried and tested and proven to fail over and over again. It sounds pretty well in theory, but the theory doesn't take into account the "human" factor. You know, greed, envy, lust, lying, cheating, stealing. You throw those into the Utopian mix and we all know the end results. If not I suggest you do some research into our worlds history.

The thing about "going green" is that the politicians know that they can profit financially from this entire mass hysteria they're creating. For them that's the point. Use the manufactured crisis to gain money and power. We don't need them. We don't need to hand them power and we sure and hell don't need to pay them as they have no intention on even changing their own habits to help the environment.

Not polluting the environment should be common sense. Unless your a drunk or drug addict you probably don't throw trash around your own residence or pollute your own body. The Earth is like a giant a living organism and dumping toxins into the environment is going to have a negative effect. I just don't think that there's any justification for forcing the will of politicians on others based on limited data to make more laws and taxes. Take some personal responsibility for your own actions before you start trying to tell other people to do the same, but if you're going to try to tell other people what to do realize that you're probably not going to get what you want in every instance. Just, using the Government to force your will onto others when you can't get your own way can and will backfire on you.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

notimp said:

Because here is whats happening. Earth is getting warmer, oil is running out, China is overtacking everyone in society building.

Click to expand...

Earth, at least in the short term, is warming up, but we're technically exiting an ice age, so what do you expect? So, since we've start to keep records, the Earth seems to be getting a little warmer, but no one can really tell us why. Cosmic radiation? Man made Global warming? Exiting the ice age? Volcanic activity? I'd say we need a few million more years to even start to get accurate information and by the looks of it and how we've outlived countless dire predictions we'll probably end up getting that information, but just like these clowns that's just speculation.

Everyone said we'd be out of oil long a long time ago and that societies would collapse and the world would have either ended or we'd be living in a barren waste land. I'm still waiting for that to actually happen, but they keep changing the date. I'm also waiting for the Biblical Apocalypse. Hey, at least the y2k bug, that was supposed to upend society didn't exist on some imaginary floating time scale.

China is an example of what happens when you're a communist country. If everyone adopted communism do you think we'd have a UN? They are an unchecked super power and communism gave them that position. Socialism usually leads to communism, so I don't think adopting either one, in the end, is going to help the environmental situation.

billapong said:

Everyone said we'd be out of oil long a long time ago and that societies would collapse and the world would have either ended or we'd be living in a barren waste land. I'm still waiting for that to actually happen, but they keep changing the date.

Click to expand...

Exactly (The same with 'limits to growth'.). The reason for oil is, that the main oil producers dont advertise peak oil. If they would - prices would fall out from that market prematurely.

Also - if you look at what the sheiks (probably politically incorrect ) are investing in, they are diversifying as heck. Trying to get into different industries, trying to get into structural european businesses, and probably the US, trying to make an artificially created city a financial hub, ...

Also you can do estimations, based on how large the biggest still active oilfields are, and how many new ones get discovered. And how costly it is to get into tar sands. And look at the US made fracking (pumping water (mixed with other stuff) into oilwells you own to get the rest out) - economically viable. (Dont mind the few people, that got flaming water out of their tabs during the process... )

And you can ask simple questions, like - why would the US want to get out of the middle east right about now, or at least in the near future, if there is so much oil left?

There is still ample reason to believe, that people got interested in solar or wind not only from a 'diversification' standpoint, but - that it would make sense, to change the system - right about now.

Or in 70 years, if you are a nationalist in the US (probably invested in the oil trade,.. ) - and dont care so much about the rest of the world.

Now - US is the 'bodyguard' for international oil trade. Piece the rest together yourself.

Postponing is not a solution. Resources are finite. Getting other societies such as China and India on the same level as the west - if that means two cars and eating meat, potentially every day - already isn't possible.

Now if China does overtake the US and Europe in terms of GDP - they get the cows. Roughly.

McD's will then sell chickpeas, or something..

Also - climate.

Also psychology of humans undervaluing systemic, long term risks. (Thats actually good. Otherwise - well, lets say 'we'll cope, when we get there' is a healthy attitude. (With the slight issue that that includes wars, if the US doesnt care for f.e. food security in the rest of the world.))

billapong said:

China is an example of what happens when you're a communist country. If everyone adopted communism

Click to expand...

China is an example of what happens if you adopt capitalism, partly, and become the factory of the world.
How much sense does 'america is what happens if you adopt capitalism' make to you. (Too simplistic? )

They - btw dont have the Greta problem. They do not need to convince populations.

morvoran said:

Ok, I think I just got enough evidence right here to prove my theory correct. It was nice talking to you. You have a nice day.

I don't think you read all that I said enough to comprehend my meaning.

How about the "Law of Gravity"? What goes up, must come down. This has been proven without the shadow of doubt to be true which is what makes it law. Einstein's theory of gravity is still just a theory which hasn't been proven to be true. Sure, it may have probable evidence that can make people believe it to be true, but it has never been definitely proven to be a law meaning it may possibly be proven untrue.

You shouldn't consider theories to be absolutely and factually correct just because a few scientists with an agenda need them to be right and only show evidence that provides evidence that they might be true.


On topic, the hypothesis of these kids thinking that withholding the bringing of kids into this world will change the minds of others, is complete nonsense.

Click to expand...

You got the definitions of Law and Theory wrong again.

Law is the cause and effect, but it doesn't explain why it happens. Law of Gravity is expressed as a mathematical formula.


Theory explains why it happens. Theory is the reasoning behind the Law. Theory is the explanations of that Law.
So Law is an Observation, Theory is the Explanation of that Observation. Theory is more like Scientific Law then a Hypothesis.

Theory of Evolution, Atomic Theory, Quantum Theory are not just opinions someone made up.

Here's the definition of a layman's theory:

1. a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. b. Such knowledge or such a system distinguished from experiment or practice. 2. Abstract reasoning: speculation. 3. An assumption or guess based on limited knowledge or information: hypothesis.

Here's the definition of a scientific theory:

A scientific theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

There's a qualitive difference between the two. Evolution is considered to be a scientific theory. When scientists call evolution a theory, they are referring to the latter definition.

Click to expand...

http://www.city-data.com/forum/reli...ce-between-theory-science-theory-laymans.html


That's a big one. A Scientist can't create a theory, he can only create a hypothesis.
A Theory can only exist after its gone though rigorous testing processes, it can only be created with the scientific method.
A Theory does not become a law. And will never become a law.
A Law has to exist before scientific method.
And Theory explains that Law.

And I hope you know what the Scientific Method is.



You are using common parlance definitions again. You're are getting the science research wrong because you don't understand the definitions.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

When I first heard about these protests, I was genuinely horrified. imagine if these resources were sent to one of the many truly awful problems plaguing the world right now, like I dunno, human rights violations in China. Access to clean water in Africa, maybe?

Maybe there's going to be an environmental crisis in the future, and maybe there's going to be horrible issues that result from this, but at the end of the day it's theories based off of models based off of assumptions.

Things are happening NOW. Right now, real issues that need to be solved, not some far off crisis in the future.

If you don't "believe" in climate change at this point, where you can fucking look outside and see it in action, I don't know what to tell you dude. I'm in my 20s and even at my age I can tell that the seasons don't change the way they did when I was a kid, the summers are hotter and the winters are colder. Are you really that attached to coal and fossil fuels and factory farming? Because you'd have to be a complete dumbass to think it's not real and not be literally getting paid to say that shit.

I just want to be sent to mars at this point

DrOctapu said:

If you don't "believe" in climate change at this point, where you can fucking look outside and see it in action, I don't know what to tell you dude. I'm in my 20s and even at my age I can tell that the seasons don't change the way they did when I was a kid, the summers are hotter and the winters are colder. Are you really that attached to coal and fossil fuels and factory farming? Because you'd have to be a complete dumbass to think it's not real and not be literally getting paid to say that shit.

Click to expand...

I think climate change might be happening, but to the degree where we would all die in the next twenty years, not likely. Besides, coal and fossil fuels are already being phased out. Nuclear is actually cheaper and more effective anyway, and the technology is only getting better.

Beyond that, shutting down big oil and fossil fuels would make a neglible impact costing trillions of dollars in jobs. It would be far, far, far more effective to just plant trees. The net cost would be just over three hundred billion, which is chump change compared to the other 'solutions'

(Source: https://www.newser.com/story/277401/cheapest-climate-change-fix-could-start-with-some-seeds.html)

The current IPCC report underlines again, that nuclear - even in theory couldnt be phased in fast enough, so people would have to go increasingly for wind and solar, now.

Even though scalability and speed of scaling of nuclear plants have historically been high in many nations, such rates are currently not achieved anymore. In the 1960s and 1970s, France implemented a programme to rapidly get 80% of its power from nuclear in about 25 years (IAEA, 2018), but the current time lag between the decision date and the commissioning of plants is observed to be 10-19 years (Lovins et al., 2018). The current deployment pace of nuclear energy is constrained by social acceptability in many countries due to concerns over risks of accidents and radioactive waste management (Bruckner et al., 2014).

Click to expand...

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-4/

Its also in the most current special report.

TerribleTy27 said:

Beyond that, shutting down big oil and fossil fuels would make a neglible impact costing trillions of dollars in jobs. It would be far, far, far more effective to just plant trees. The net cost would be just over three hundred billion, which is chump change compared to the other 'solutions'

Click to expand...

Current Industry emissions are responsible for 2/3s of the worlds CO2 output. And again - if you are looking for a one step solution, its not there. You need technical innovation, while middleclasses except to lower their economic progress expectation, while you need laws for people to pay more, to invest that into technical innovation - while transitioning from all fossile fuels to alternatives - under a current UN program by 2050 - which countries have to voluntary pledge.

I, think, believe, feel, doesnt matter much here - thats required to get back on target on the paris agreement. Which the US left.

Also planting trees means, less space for f.e. brasil or africa to grow food or eco fuels. So less income. So you have to give them more money through compensation payments. So in general you only use that part of it to stretch the timeframe a little - again, its not part of any solution.

notimp said:

Current Industry emissions are responsible for 2/3s of the worlds CO2 output. And again - if you are looking for a one step solution, its not there. You need technical innovation, while middleclasses except to lower their economic progress expectation, while you need laws for people to pay more, to invest that into technical innovation - while transitioning from all fossile fuels to alternatives - under a current UN program by 2050 - which countries have to voluntary pledge.

I, think, believe, feel, doesnt matter much here - thats required to get back on target on the paris agreement. Which the US left.

Also planting trees means, less space for f.e. brasil or africa to grow food or eco fuels. So less income. So you have to give them more money through compensation payments. So in general you only use that part of it to stretch the timeframe a little - again, its not part of any solution.

Click to expand...

You didn't really explain why the solution proposed in newser wouldn't work, though. I've been to farms where they used oak trees in conjunction with their normal crops for some kind of nutritional value. Granted that's personal experience, but I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to apply to other areas.

Your proposal would never work. Just take a look at the tragedy of the commons. Granted, I didn't understand a lot of your argument, but once you said '2050' and 'voluntary' I knew that it wasn't happening. For one thing, China is responsible for the worst of the pollution. So. Yeah. People are just too selfish.

And beyond that, America stepped out of the agreement after, what, two years?

EDIT: also, can you please stop using emojis? They make me feel... Childish? Demeaned? It makes me uncomfortable.

For the next reply, sure.

Rainforests in larger, poorer areas where you'd want to scale up planting trees, currently get cut down to make room for plantations, that likely get higher yields than lets say - planting trees and farming below them. You could sell part of those trees as building material, but never for energy production (firewood f.e.), because the CO2 would evaporate into the atmosphere again.

So gains arent anywhere near lets say top crop production (dont know what that is currently - lets say palm oil plants) In addition, if you are paying out the difference in subsidies, as a western country, f.e. (because you have defined a price for emitting CO2, that could go into those projects), you are 'removing' usable land from the third world - that eventually may impact food production. And you take away at least part of their sovereignty telling them what to do with their land (through money incentives).

So its part of a solution to 'buy more time' (f.e. for technological solution development), but its not a be all end all solution. And CO2 emissions would still rise - which is the first thing you don't want.

The point of contention is, that if china and india move their entire populations to 'western middle class standards' - which economically, they probably could do in lets say - 200 years, that doesnt work, because of growth limits, potentially oil limits, impacts to climate (if they could continue on current trajectories).

Currently china is top polluter with pretty old tech (coal, oil, ..), but newer tech in the mix already, but they only emit half the amount of CO2 per person. So if they scale up middle classes...

So if you can establish 'everybody - live less intensive' now, also in the west (which will loose economic significance over the next hundred years) it scales best.

If stuff scales less optimally, and climate risk rises- you'll have more ressource competition in the future, which means - conflicts, wars, which means - trade will be less secure/viable, which means certain economies will be impacted - you basically have cascading effects.

And some time in the future, you have to transition to renewable energy sources anyhow.

But you are correct - by doing it now, even if you get together and do it voluntarily (everyone pledges how much - then you raise that in unison until your reach targets), some will benefit more than others. Not so much on the country level maybe - but f.e. individual investors.

And this gets as complex as you like..

2050 carbon free societies is a UN goal. Europe is expected to be able to provide a plan on how to get there about next year. But Europe only is 10% of world CO2 emissions. To get another maybe 20% of the world on track we'd have to use trade negotiations - and we are loosing economic power over then next two decades (china, demographic curve), so its hard. And on more than 50% of the world - we have no direct influence. (US, India, China, ..). But at least all of those except one are still at the table.

China profits from transitioning in the long term, so they already know - and are economically positioned to develop their societies gradually alongside that path. And they currently are manufacturing the best (most energy efficient) form of green tech (solar). But you also need better electric grids, and other form of renewable energy to keep the grids power levels stable.

You so have to create economies.

Issue, the worlds largest private investors still dont care. So currently you dont have the majority of investors on track. Some stuff is changing, like - currently in capitalism, you seem to be making money with innovations again, ..

Two emojis.

notimp said:

For the next reply, sure.

Rainforests in larger, poorer areas where you'd want to scale up planting trees, currently get cut down to make room for plantations, that likely get higher yields than lets say - planting trees and farming below them. You could sell part of those trees as building material, but never for energy production (firewood f.e.), because the CO2 would evaporate into the atmosphere again.

So gains arent anywhere near lets say top crop production (dont know what that is currently - lets say palm oil plants) In addition, if you are paying out the difference in subsidies, as a western country, f.e. (because you have defined a price for emitting CO2, that could go into those projects), you are 'removing' usable land from the third world - that eventually may impact food production. And you take away at least part of their sovereignty telling them what to do with their land (through money incentives).

So its part of a solution to 'buy more time' (f.e. for technological solution development), but its not a be all end all solution. And CO2 emissions would still rise - which is the first thing you don't want.

The point of contention is, that if china and india move their entire populations to 'western middle class standards' - which economically, they probably could do in lets say - 200 years, that doesnt work, because of growth limits, potentially oil limits, impacts to climate (if they could continue on current trajectories).

Currently china is top polluter with pretty old tech (coal, oil, ..), but newer tech in the mix already, but they only emit half the amount of CO2 per person. So if they scale up middle classes...

So if you can establish 'everybody - live less intensive' now, also in the west (which will loose economic significance over the next hundred years) it scales best.

If stuff scales less optimally, and climate risk rises- you'll have more ressource competition in the future, which means - conflicts, wars, which means - trade will be less secure/viable, which means certain economies will be impacted - you basically have cascading effects.

And some time in the future, you have to transition to renewable energy sources anyhow.

But you are correct - by doing it now, even if you get together and do it voluntarily (everyone pledges how much - then you raise that in unison until your reach targets), some will benefit more than others. Not so much on the country level maybe - but f.e. individual investors.

And this gets as complex as you like..

2050 carbon free societies is a UN goal. Europe is expected to be able to provide a plan on how to get there about next year. But Europe only is 10% of world CO2 emissions. To get another maybe 20% of the world on track we'd have to use trade negotiations - and we are loosing economic power over then next two decades (china, demographic curve), so its hard. And on more than 50% of the world - we have no direct influence. (US, India, China, ..). But at least all of those except one are still at the table.

China profits from transitioning in the long term, so they already know - and are economically positioned to develop their societies gradually alongside that path. And they currently are manufacturing the best (most energy efficient) form of green tech (solar). But you also need better electric grids, and other form of renewable energy to keep the grids power levels stable.

You so have to create economies.

Issue, the worlds largest private investors still dont care. So currently you dont have the majority of investors on track. Some stuff is changing, like - currently in capitalism, you seem to be making money with innovations again, ..

Two emojis.

Click to expand...

First of all, you lied to me about the emojis.

Second of all, from what I can tell, you're basically saying the key is economic development and getting people to stop living intensively. While I don't disagree with economic development, I still contend that people are too inherently selfish to hold to any kind of long term plan.

Either way, all I was doing was pointing out that trying to regulate big energy companies will be far more expensive than planting trees. I never said that it was the 'end all be all' solution.

I agree. On the first part. (After the emoji controversy.) And because people usually arent rational actors, the activism front currently demands politicians, to put that in laws. So they do it. But you only can do that if you have the public opinion on your side.

And yes, planting trees is comparatively easy.

All in all it could be 'more of', or 'less of' any part - the point was made though, that you cant do it with technological innovation alone. (Not fast enough to retain 2°C change over preindustrial levels, current trajectories end up at 3-4°C at the turn of the century.) So something has to give.

Changing peoples behavior is also part of a 'transitional solution' (same as planting more trees would be) - i.e. when most of the world runs on renewable energy you can scale up again. (Continue middle class growth expectations.)

But sadly, this is maybe the generation of our grandchildren. Maybe children. (If you are living in the west.)

In short, if you are now pushing innovation in the western world, overall economic growth will go down (new cost factor CO2). Blame your parents. Or dont - because it doesnt help (insert smilie here).

Also - there are ample 'the world is ending' scenarios out there (including 'tipping points' on CO2 (non reversable trends)), but lets just put those aside, for the sake of understanding the argument.

Slightly different response for people in the US wanting to pay themselves out of guilt with carbon credits - and having others planting trees for them.

1. You are not paying the actual equivalent in USD that would be needed. Currently we are at - entry level - stages to get people accustom to the idea. Carbon prices will be raised non linearly to achieve goals in the future. Thats already communicated, so enterprises can act accordingly.
2. Its not solution oriented. So if you don't change your living standard - that will endorse not doing that to billions of people getting into middle class in the mid term future (in china and india) - now really effing things up.
3. You wont keep it up. Regardless of what you say - we already know, statistically

So if you are doing this to get rid of white man guilt - dont. You are basically messing things up more.

Also private companies issue (so you are now paying for colonialism projects of other people?), third world charities issue (only a fraction of the payment ends up there), unintended consequences issues, ... All the greenwashing, currently - basically doesnt work.

The thing that would scale and work would be to develop economies now, that are more minimal in resource needs. But, since implementing those would detract from economic growth, and basically mean regression of economic growth for some time - people dont want to.

Thats why you go the political activism - politicians, change laws route.

From memory - please look up, how greenwashing actually fits into all this, but the point is, that for CO2 prices to have a meaningful effect (push), everyone in the lower middle classes has to - feel it (i.e. spending around 300 USD more per month on fuel), without that - its pure unaltered marketing/an acclimatization phase.

Also - you see the issue here. Rich people will pay it and dont care. But the masses have to feel it for it to be effective. And if you pay back that money equally (to impact the poor less), you'll create price inflation at the basic goods level. Meaning in about two years time - that 'benefit' is gone, and poorer people still are affected more (they pay more for heating and transport in percentage of their income). Thats more than the public debate in germany will currently tell you btw. They still talk about equally distributed payback programs being the solution to this.

That is part of how this is being implemented on the international level as well btw. Prices for carbon, should and will be raised non linearly.

Oh, and school children protesting on the streets is catnip for the Babyboomer generation. I also don't agree with using that as a method of PR. In principal.

DrOctapu said:

If you don't "believe" in climate change at this point, where you can fucking look outside and see it in action, I don't know what to tell you dude. I'm in my 20s and even at my age I can tell that the seasons don't change the way they did when I was a kid, the summers are hotter and the winters are colder. Are you really that attached to coal and fossil fuels and factory farming? Because you'd have to be a complete dumbass to think it's not real and not be literally getting paid to say that shit.

Click to expand...

Weather patterns fluctuate and they do so in such a way that's not understood. The media this year tried to use the entire now called climate change non-crisis to scare us locals, but the summer is almost over and their predictions were inaccurate. So I'm not going to put much faith in someone who just lied to me. In your local area you may be experiencing warmer summers or colder winters, but that's not a global phenomenon. Even if in your local area what you say is accurate than it's only based on a very limited amount of data and if you have no way to accurately account for what's happening today if you take the entire millions of years of history we have no data for. So you have no basis to predict the future.

I'm not a denier of climate change, but the apocalyptic results of the man made "acid rain" or "global warming" and the various incarnations the Left has made up out of thin air in the past has time and time again been proven to be false and has never happened. So you must excuse me when I put little trust in the same people that have been lying to me my entire life. Currently all the new desperate angle politicians are doing is they've renamed all of this crap to simply "climate change", which, yeah, the climate changes. They think you can't "argue" that the climate is not changing, when the rest of us were never arguing that it wasn't. This basic form of renaming things to manipulate others is a cheap tactic and one that I see straight through.

I mean, it was raining earlier and now it's not, but some guy someplace that did something didn't create the storm or could control it's path. So trusting in some guy somewhere to "fix" something that's likely not even broken by allowing them to become rich and powerful while they have no intention on addressing the problem isn't a path I'm going to take. I'm not voting Liberal.

notimp said:

In short, if you are now pushing innovation in the western world, overall economic growth will go down (new cost factor CO2). Blame your parents. Or dont - because it doesnt help (insert smilie here).

Click to expand...

This sentence really rubs me wrong, though. Why would innovation kill economic growth? I can't think of any innovation that didn't eventually start making serious cash. On the major scale, look at the birth of electricity? It's revolutionized the world and has for the most part been contributing majorly to the world economy. On the small(ish) scale, look at what happened when cars became a thing. It didn't kill economic progress, it boosted it. It created hundreds of thousands of jobs in a heartbeat.
Heck, even look at the iPhone! When demand shot through the roof, so too did the amount investors were willing to spend on training new employees to create more phones. Economic growth, boosted.
Granted, I wouldn't consider the iPhone an 'innovation', but still.

billapong said:

Weather patterns fluctuate and they do so in such a way that's not understood.

Click to expand...

Yeah no. nice try. Temperatures globally have been rising.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
We have data on it, there is a trend.

billapong said:

The media this year tried to use the entire now called climate change non-crisis to scare us locals, but the summer is almost over and their predictions were inaccurate. So I'm not going to put much faith in someone who just lied to me. In your local area you may be experiencing warmer summers or colder winters, but that's not a global phenomenon. Even if in your local area what you say is accurate than it's only based on a very limited amount of data and if you have no way to accurately account for what's happening today if you take the entire millions of years of history we have no data for. So you have no basis to predict the future.

Click to expand...

What media and what predictions were inaccurate? Was it from a well known source, and if so which ones? And do keep in mind it's a prediction, but the thing needed to note is how close the prediction is to the real thing. If it's close but not accurate 100% and off by a few numbers, that's pretty accurate. If it's off by lets say... Saying there is going to be a 25 degree difference. Then it's not as accurate.

billapong said:

I'm not a denier of climate change, but the apocalyptic results of the man made "acid rain" or "global warming" and the various incarnations the Left has made up out of thin air in the past has time and time again been proven to be false and has never happened..

Click to expand...

So you're refuting... science. So because the problem isn't at it's full effect right now you refuse to believe? As ice sheets are melting, temperatures extremes are getting more absurd. and your going to tell me that there is no signs at all? Like how we are getting more and more natural disasters such as wildfire heatwaves? Because that's part of the climate change bill as well.

billapong said:

I mean, it was raining earlier and now it's not, but some guy someplace that did something didn't create the storm or could control it's path. So trusting in some guy somewhere to "fix" something that's likely not even broken by allowing them to become rich and powerful while they have no intention on addressing the problem isn't a path I'm going to take. I'm not voting Liberal.

Click to expand...

Who the hell says you have to vote Liberal? Unless you're one of those idiots who believe you have to agree 100% with what your "party" aligns with. This is a bipartisan issue and should be treated as such.
Moving on yes there is something fucking broken. You know what that is? Giant fossil fuel industries still getting subsidized from the government. Meanwhile there is a growing industry that could provide jobs in green energy, not being subsidized, and thus hindering the chance of that industry growing. If you believe in a free market, don't you think the odds is just a bit skewed to the fossil fuel industries?

TerribleTy27 said:

This sentence really rubs me wrong, though. Why would innovation kill economic growth?

Click to expand...

First - If you do it too fast. The children movement in germany asks for moving out of coal by 2030 instead of 2038, and to move subsidies from fossile fuels to renewables entirely. Germany is an industrial economy.

Those subsidies (less or no taxes on fuel, no taxes on kerosene, subsidies for people driving longer distances to work) are there to allow for 'mobility' in a broader population. They want to cut them, and put them into green energy innovation. Simple answer - you cant.

Second - because we arent putting up state sponsored moonshot initiatives (we 'cant' - economy ratings would fall if we do it entirely through loans), and the private sector (big private investors, like blackrock) isnt sponsoring, quite yet.

(They still have better growth perspectives in third world economies, and the stock market (think casinos).)

Third - because you are adding a new cost factor, so industry has to pay for something they didnt int the past. Then you kind of 'give them the money back' so they can innovate, because you tell them - if they dont - they'll have to pay more in the future, so they better do. But by doing that you are adding a new cost factor. And what ever you put into r&d isnt marketable quite yet.

Fourth - because energy efficiency wise - carbon based energy production is actually - still cheap and efficiant. Alternatives are getting there, but still cant quite compete on the same level yet. And the industrial sector and transportation sectors currently are heavily dependent on those (carbon based energy).

Fifth - because you have to tell people - consume less 'at least physical' goods. (Consume more virtual goods, and get into loving micro transactions, also kind of problematic as a compensation. Gamers know that.)
-

In all predictions (I've linked one already (canadian central bank)) this factors out as - less economic growth if you push it through, short term, but better projected outcomes longterm (you have to act now, or impacts from climate change will produce more and bigger economic shocks in the future). Sadly - for my generation (in the west) this means - the next prolonged recession.

To put it simply. Because short term economic growth would be better with business as usual.

Recessions btw, also drive down consumption, and can be used to generate time (to solve the overall problem through technical innovation 'more better').. (To an extent. Because f.e. people still have to drive to work, and you still want industry innovating. )

monkeyman4412 said:

Yeah no. nice try. Temperatures globally have been rising.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
We have data on it, there is a trend.

Click to expand...

Yet, the effects are isolated in various regions and we're only talking about taking data from our very limited history of when we've been collecting said data. Plus, we're exiting an ice age, so one would expect the temperatures to increase. In my local area, temperatures were mild compared to the last 8 years. The dire predictions for this year didn't come true, but they sure as hell fooled millions into spending all sorts of money that turned up to be a complete waste. Well, someone got rich and the main stream media helped. I guess if you benefited from feeding the public bullshit and the hysteria it caused then you've come out ahead, but as for the actual environment - it got better (not worse).

What media and what predictions were inaccurate? Was it from a well known source, and if so which ones? And do keep in mind it's a prediction, but the thing needed to note is how close the prediction is to the real thing. If it's close but not accurate 100% and off by a few numbers, that's pretty accurate. If it's off by lets say... Saying there is going to be a 25 degree difference. Then it's not as accurate.

Click to expand...

The world was supposedly to have ended various times. Civilization was supposed to collapse. Heck, the dire predictions that were supposed to effect my area this summer never came to pass, let alone the world ending or becoming a barren wasteland that can't support life, entire continents being under water, nations falling, etc ... It's like these biblical end times you hear about each year (you know, some pastor stating he knows the exact day the world is going to end), when in reality the world hasn't ended and keeps going on. When I was still in grade school I bought into this garbage, but after many years and 100% of the environmental predictions turn out to be false one starts to question things. Sure, we have arctic ice loss during the summer, but what about the growth during the winter (also, take into account we're exiting an ice age).

These "worse storms ever" or "worse heatwaves ever" are sensationalist headlines to push a power and money grabbing agenda. None of these recent events come close to trump others that have happened years ago. It wasn't the worse or hottest summer ever or we didn't have the worse weather ever or the hurricane they couldn't even predict accurately it wasn't the worse hurricane ever.

Take for example the European heat waves. So it was the hottest day on record, during a very limited time frame (during certain week), in a few select locations in the past 20 years. Well, shit, if you can simply base your bullshit statements based on hand picked criteria then I think I'm the fucking president of the united states and have my own set of reasons why it's valid (in reality, it's all bullshit fantasy though). It's like getting a like minded group of people to edit a Wikipedia entry for your own agenda then go around referring to the entry like it's fact. The media stacked the deck. They cherry picked the criteria and then made up stories based on the criteria, It was rigged. It was fixed. It was a hoax. Compared to the overall way things are going and the limited records we have on hand and the criteria used in the past they basically were dishonest.

After years and years of lies one gets tired of them. It's more like "news flash, it's summer and it's hot, well, like, duh" or "the worse hurricane according to our made up criteria that doesn't come close to Andrew or many others in the past". Meh, more bullshit lies. Not gonna fool me. I'm have shit tons of experience with hurricanes and the last 10 years have been NOTHING compared to the past, yet every time there is one you see all sorts of made up dramatic bullshit that somehow tries to push whatever people are calling global warming his year. "Worse ever (please read the disclaimer of why it's the worse ever)" Meh. Not buying it. Not me. Isn't going to work!

So you're refuting... science. So because the problem isn't at it's full effect right now you refuse to believe? As ice sheets are melting, temperatures extremes are getting more absurd. and your going to tell me that there is no signs at all? Like how we are getting more and more natural disasters such as wildfire heatwaves? Because that's part of the climate change bill as well.

Click to expand...

I'm not refuting what little scientific data we have, but I am refuting the way people are using the said data. Data is like a gun. It doesn't know right from wrong and it doesn't act on it's own. It's a tool, that's being interpreted and used to cause mass hysteria to control people and make a select few people rich. Considering sciences, what about cosmic rays, our orbit around the sun, natural phenomena, volcanic activity, natural weather patters and coming out of the ice age. It's stupid and naive to think that man and co2 are the sole cause of climate change and that we can control it, but people like to play god so it's expected for the ones in power to use this sort of manufactured crises to control others. You just won't find me following fools who don't know where they are going around in circles all of my life. I've played the Liberal game and it's all horseshit. Not anymore. I've learned better.

Who the hell says you have to vote Liberal? Unless you're one of those idiots who believe you have to agree 100% with what your "party" aligns with. This is a bipartisan issue and should be treated as such.
Moving on yes there is something fucking broken. You know what that is? Giant fossil fuel industries still getting subsidized from the government. Meanwhile there is a growing industry that could provide jobs in green energy, not being subsidized, and thus hindering the chance of that industry growing. If you believe in a free market, don't you think the odds is just a bit skewed to the fossil fuel industries?

Click to expand...

The free market has shown that coal is no longer a priority. Even with the relaxed regulations the industry has barely grown and this is because people realize that fossil fuels shouldn't be our main resource for energy, but people who are also based in reality realize that you can't just throw fossil fuels out the window over night. The lack of regulations and the limited growth shows that making new laws, creating more restrictions and taxing people more isn't any sort of solution, which is why I won't vote for Liberals, because that's the only answer they have and their answer doesn't work.

The coal situation is a perfect example why the Government needs to stay the hell out of private peoples lives. We did just fine without them. The thing is, the more laws you make, the more restrictions you put in place and the more you tax people that just gives the Government more control over you. Sure, you may agree with their made up agenda right now, but they've made it up so you will willingly give them power and hand over your money to them.

Give a little bit of time and they will forget about you and move onto their next target and when that happens you'll be shit out of luck to fight the people in power who are more than likely going to go about doing things you disagree with. I mean, everyone hates Trump and the power he has, well, that's what they voted for. I'm not talking about voting for Trump, but spending decades making the laws and regulations that give Trump his power. People asked for it. They got what they deserved, which is why we need to start working on getting rid of laws instead of making more.

notimp said:

First - If you do it too fast. The children movement in germany asks for moving out of coal by 2030 instead of 2038, and to move subsidies from fossile fuels to renewables entirely. Germany is an industrial economy.

Those subsidies (less or no taxes on fuel, no taxes on kerosene, subsidies for people driving longer distances to work) are there to allow for 'mobility' in a broader population. They want to cut them, and put them into green energy innovation. Simple answer - you cant.

Second - because we arent putting up state sponsored moonshot initiatives (we 'cant' - economy ratings would fall if we do it entirely through loans), and the private sector (big private investors, like blackrock) isnt sponsoring, quite yet.

(They still have better growth perspectives in third world economies, and the stock market (think casinos).)

Third - because you are adding a new cost factor, so industry has to pay for something they didnt int the past. Then you kind of 'give them the money back' so they can innovate, because you tell them - if they dont - they'll have to pay more in the future, so they better do. But by doing that you are adding a new cost factor. And what ever you put into r&d isnt marketable quite yet.

Fourth - because energy efficiency wise - carbon based energy production is actually - still cheap and efficiant. Alternatives are getting there, but still cant quite compete on the same level yet. And the industrial sector and transportation sectors currently are heavily dependent on those (carbon based energy).

Fifth - because you have to tell people - consume less 'at least physical' goods. (Consume more virtual goods, and get into loving micro transactions, also kind of problematic as a compensation. Gamers know that.)
-

In all predictions (I've linked one already (canadian central bank)) this factors out as - less economic growth if you push it through, short term, but better projected outcomes longterm (you have to act now, or impacts from climate change will produce more and bigger economic shocks in the future). Sadly - for my generation (in the west) this means - the next prolonged recession.

To put it simply. Because short term economic growth would be better with business as usual.

Recessions btw, also drive down consumption, and can be used to generate time (to solve the overall problem through technical innovation 'more better').. (To an extent. Because f.e. people still have to drive to work, and you still want industry innovating. )

Click to expand...

Shameeee. Stop with emojisssssss

Anyway, all of this assuming you even add the cost factor, and move around subsidies and etcetera etcetera. What does any of this have to do with innovation in and of itself? Why can't we just encourage innovation by lowering the barrier of entry and improving education? Granted I was somewhat skimming your post, so apologies in advance if I missed anything.

billapong said:

Yet, the effects are isolated in various regions and we're only talking about taking data from our very limited history of when we've been collecting said data. Plus, we're exiting an ice age, so one would expect the temperatures to increase. In my local area, temperatures were mild compared to the last 8 years. The dire predictions for this year didn't come true, but they sure as hell fooled millions into spending all sorts of money that turned up to be a complete waste. Well, someone got rich and the main stream media helped. I guess if you benefited from feeding the public bullshit and the hysteria it caused then you've come out ahead, but as for the actual environment - it got better (not worse).

Click to expand...

Source. For fuck sake. Give me a source. Because you can say anything, and it means nothing without a source. If it's a small outlet trying to get attention and saying of this, then it absolutely means nothing.

billapong said:

The world was supposedly to have ended various times. Civilization was supposed to collapse. Heck, the dire predictions that were supposed to effect my area this summer never came to pass, let alone the world ending or becoming a barren wasteland that can't support life, entire continents being under water, nations falling, etc ... It's like these biblical end times you hear about each year (you know, some pastor stating he knows the exact day the world is going to end), when in reality the world hasn't ended and keeps going on. When I was still in grade school I bought into this garbage, but after many years and 100% of the environmental predictions turn out to be false one starts to question things. Sure, we have arctic ice loss during the summer, but what about the growth during the winter (also, take into account we're exiting an ice age).

Click to expand...

who's you're source. I asked this before and I'll ask again. Who is painting that story, and don't just say "the left" I want a media source. I want a clip of what it is, tell me who is saying that, or which site said it. I won't continue this conversation until you tell me where you're getting this information from.

billapong said:

These "worse storms ever" or "worse heatwaves ever" are sensationalist headlines to push a power and money grabbing agenda. None of these recent events come close to trump others that have happened years ago. It wasn't the worse or hottest summer ever or we didn't have the worse weather ever or the hurricane they couldn't even predict accurately it wasn't the worse hurricane ever.

Click to expand...

You're right on it being sensationalist headlines. HOWEVER it does not change the fact that on average it's on a upward trend and these things are happening more often.

billapong said:

I'm not refuting what little scientific data we have, but I am refuting the way people are using the said data. Data is like a gun. It doesn't know right from wrong and it doesn't act on it's own. It's a tool, that's being interpreted and used to cause mass hysteria to control people and make a select few people rich. Considering sciences, what about cosmic rays, our orbit around the sun, natural phenomena, volcanic activity, natural weather patters and coming out of the ice age. It's stupid and naive to think that man and co2 are the sole cause of climate change and that we can control it, but people like to play god so it's expected for the ones in power to use this sort of manufactured crises to control others. You just won't find me following fools who don't know where they are going around in circles all of my life. I've played the Liberal game and it's all horseshit. Not anymore. I've learned better.

Click to expand...

You're right that climate fluctuates. HOWEVER it has never ever spiked so high like this. It's abnormal averages. And it's not stupid nor naive to think that man and co2 are the cause of ABNORMAL climate change. This current cycle does not compare at all to previous cycles. And again you constantly bashing on the fucking left. YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ALL VIEWS ON THE LEFT. Why does everything think that you have to party aliened on every single view point? Why do you think it has to be all or nothing mentality? This idea that there can't be any compromise what so ever to any extent at all makes it so nothing in a Democratic society is done. You're a moron for thinking it's just the left. If you think every single leftist or liberal is out to get you're guns, out to bring comminusim and the socialist revolution. You're absolute goddamn idiot, or extremely misinformed individual if you think that. IT'S BOTH FUCKING SIDES ARE PROBLEMATIC. Companies don't benefit from being "left" or "right" they are opportunists, they will happily cherry pick different sides for different issues if it helps with profit. They aren't tied to one or the other because they are smart enough to pick a side when it works for them. Meanwhile here we are as people of the united states bleeding at the mere idea of accepting a single idea on the other side. It's like saying that don't tell me you're republican idea, I'm left and I'm going to get republicanitce if I accept it. And if you don't accept that view then fine. But quit seeing the opposite side as a enemy, because both sides do this. We have dehumanized "left" and "right" or "liberal" and "conservative" into these amalgamation of hate, as something as pure evil that to never give into and the crusades are going to happen if it happens. And yes I'm using a bit of over exaggeration, but you get my point.

billapong said:

The free market has shown that coal is no longer a priority. Even with the relaxed regulations the industry has barely grown and this is because people realize that fossil fuels shouldn't be our main resource for energy, but people who are also based in reality realize that you can't just throw fossil fuels out the window over night. The lack of regulations and the limited growth shows that making new laws, creating more restrictions and taxing people more isn't any sort of solution, which is why I won't vote for Liberals, because that's the only answer they have and their answer doesn't work.

Click to expand...

Meanwhile you ignored what I said. Why is it that the government subsidizing a industry that is completely massive. Subsidization is used to influence a industry, to make it easier for that industry to occur. Which is why I bring this up, because green house energy is not subsidized, and is relatively small compared to a industry like coal. And here's my answer. LOBBING. Our elections and votes and all that isn't won with people voting. It's won with who has deeper pockets. Who can advertise for who better, who is going to get more PR. Elections aren't held for people of intelligence, it's held for people who are good at lying through there teeth and good at winning elections with no skill to be in office.
And it just so happens that large scale massive operations that use coal and fossil fuels without a doubt would lobby their ass of to make sure they don't become no longer subsidized. Which also means they can have a choke hold on smaller industry. Which is not unheard of. Companies will use under hand tactics if there is a competitor that don't want. We don't need to remove laws. We don't need to add laws. We need to edit them, review them. Perhaps even do all the above.