The Entrepreneur Forum | Financial Freedom | Starting a Business | Motivation | Money | Success

Welcome to the only entrepreneur forum dedicated to building life-changing wealth.

Build a Fastlane business. Earn real financial freedom. Join free.

Join over 80,000 entrepreneurs who have rejected the paradigm of mediocrity and said "NO!" to underpaid jobs, ascetic frugality, and suffocating savings rituals— learn how to build a Fastlane business that pays both freedom and lifestyle affluence.

Free registration at the forum removes this block.

Should we combat climate change?

Status
Not open for further replies.

csalvato

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
297%
May 5, 2014
2,058
6,106
39
Rocky Mountain West
Reminds me of how it is illegal to dispute the holocaust in many European countries really.

And OMG, I just saw this. The holocaust did happen, and even intimating that it didn't shines a light on your overall level of ignorance. Talking to you is an utter waste of time.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

csalvato

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
297%
May 5, 2014
2,058
6,106
39
Rocky Mountain West
I agree with just about all of your post, but this hit a funny bone for me:

All that said, I don't have any of my own peer reviewed data and can't provide any additional support to either side of the argument, so I don't have anything else to add. But again, until the time when I have my own data, I will simply align my view with the peer-reviewed science. As that changes, my view will change as well. And I'd love for all the scientists to be wrong on this...

For background, I briefly worked as a scientist (not in this field, but in optics) and had my work published in a journal (under my PI, of course).

Following that, I worked for 5 years selling biomedical research equipment (for general physiology and neuroscience, in particular). I consulted with hundreds of labs all around the world, working with scientists to craft their experiments, collect their data, and analyze it.

When it comes to studies, in general, I tend to focus on the Method and Results section of the paper. Anything that is a conclusion (in the abstract or conclusions section) is to be taken into consideration, but understanding that it's the researcher's opinion on what the data/results show.

It's really up to the reader to determine whether or not they agree with that conclusion based on the methods and results section.

The reason I say this is because scientific consensus on things that are not hard-lined facts can be wrong. A good example comes from the nutrition space...

There's lots of hard-lined facts in nutrition: ATP is turned into ADP and energy is released that powers muscle contractions. Glycolysis from glucose causes more ATP to be made. That glucose comes from carbs. Hurrah.

But there's a lot of research that just looks at overall trends in small sets of data, then draws wild conclusions. That's why one year eggs cause heart attacks, and another year they don't. Why red wine is dangerous...oh nevermind, it's fine.

It's just something to keep in mind when assessing scientific consensus. It's usually correct, but it can be wrong.

When it comes to the data and consensus on climate change being a thing (whether or not it's caused by humans), that's all based on solid hard facts and logical conclusions. IMO that consensus is resting pretty heavily on basic, hard-lined science.

When it comes to cholesterol clogging arteries...nahhhhh...
 

Chairman

New Contributor
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
77%
Feb 18, 2019
13
10
Australia
Maybe you don't realize it, but NAS is a conservative political organization masquerading as a think-tank. It's funded 100% by politically conservative groups.

Which is somehow meant to have less veracity than the government and (((leftist))) parties funding climate change propaganda? I think not. If you can prove the statement wrong than do so, if all you can do is attack the source then it's safe to assume you dont have an argument.

This is the perfect example of what Kak mentioned above -- politics permeating science.

No, manipulating data, publishing fraudulent data, preventing other scientists from reviewing that data and conspiring to hide that data is politics permeating science. You know, like how the scientists in charge of this fraud have been proven to have done over and over again.

Sorry, but I stopped reading after that...

Cool story, tells me all I need to know about you that you couldnt take the time to read but still found the time to reply.
 

Okraz1

Contributor
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
206%
Aug 31, 2015
31
64
26
The idea that the planet, and indeed the whole ecosystem, has survived multiple die off events, at least one of which was from a couple mile wide asteroid slamming into us at tens of thousands of miles per hour, which basically set the entire planet on fire... but we'll be undone by cow farts and gas guzzlers... is absurd to me.

This is obviously a play by the powers that should not be to siphon off even more wealth, backed up by scientists who are locked into protecting their own self interest (no grant money if you're a "climate denier").

EVEN IF the claims are correct, the proposed solutions a) won't avert disaster and b) will only result in people dying right now. We know that they won't avert disaster because government has no interest in solving the problem. We know this for an absolute fact. If the problem were solved, then thousands of bureaucrats, who otherwise have no useful skills to offer, would be out of a cushy job with a guaranteed pension. Solving problems has never, and will never be, in the interest of government.

The proposed solutions are inevitably a wealth transfer, in the form of more taxation of wealthy western nations. This will result in higher energy prices, higher food prices, and higher prices overall. This taxes an otherwise already strained middle and lower class, many of whom have to choose between heating and cooling, food, shelter, and transportation. Given that people, often elderly, die in heat waves or blizzards, even with cheap energy, we know that deaths due to weather extremes will only go up in the short term. But hey, they're old so f&*( 'em right?

Based.

The sheeple engaging in their militant climate activism are only shooting themselves in the foot. All their action supported on the stilts of authoritarian opinions.

Just because you read a study, it doesn't mean you understand the subject. You're simply placing your trust in someone. Science is very similar to religion in this regard.

Theres no way of knowing the result of any proposed counter measures either, beyond the immediate additional strain on the world population whose governments implement them.

Sure, maybe you extend the expectancy of the human race for another millennium or maybe you drive humanity into greater despair - who knows.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Chairman

New Contributor
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
77%
Feb 18, 2019
13
10
Australia
Since these words will fall on your deaf ears, they aren't really for you, but for other people reading, trying to learn how to learn, and learn how to differentiate fact from opinion.

Except you havent posted any facts, you just said you did and then repeated that you did over and over as if to convince anyone stupid enough that you did in hopes no one would be awake enough to see through your empty rhetoric.


@Chairman is doing nothing but proving my point.

You didnt have a point, you are just spouting propaganda that might impress normies but doesnt impress me or anyone else with a brain reading this.

Notice how the conversation shifted from fundamental facts of physics back to opinions that only confirm an existing belief. None of these sources focus on facts: they focus on opinions and politics (e.g. how people have been allegedly ostracized).

Nice word salad. You still seem to be stuck on screeching IT'S FACT, IT'S FACT, FUNDAMENTAL FACTS, HURR DURR SCIENCE" thinking you will fool people into believing you are posting facts when you aren't. I see the irony of you blindly believing that your "experts" are the ones with all the facts while dismissing the experts who disagree with them is lost on you. There was plenty of facts contained in the blog post in my first reply.

Of course you dont have an answer to the myriad points made within, choosing instead to inflate your own ego by pretending to care about the learning skills of other readers with your pompous nonsense. I think they'll be OK without your help since you are clearly unable to differentiate between facts and opinion yourself.

Notice, also, how @Chairman is imposing an agenda on me to which I never associated.

No, what I noticed is you very clearly imposing your own agenda and then trying to grease your way out of standing behind it with clever wordplay, as well as crying victim now you were called out on it. DID YOU SEE HOW HE IMPOSED HIS AGENDA ON ME?! ROFL maybe call a waaahmbulance.

You dont even have the courage of your own convictions, good luck convincing anyone else mate.

I don't pretend to know or believe that climate change is meaningfully impacted by human contribution. All I did was list a fact of science – human machines release CO2 into the atmosphere.

Ahh, disingenuous as well as a liar.

FACT – Increasing CO2 in a planet's atmosphere increases heat retention.
FACT – Increasing heat retention causes the polar ice caps to melt
FACT - Human machinery is releasing a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

So according to you, "human machinery" (as opposed to animal machinery or elf machinery LOL, you may as well have just said "humans" but of course you prefer to obfuscate because you are intellectually dishonest") releases CO2 into the atmosphere (true) that increases heat retention in the atmosphere (false) and hence causes the polar ice caps to melt (false).

If you dont know that climate change is meaningfully impacted by humans then you dont have a point, which I've already covered.

All I did was list a fact of science – human machines release CO2 into the atmosphere.

No, you clearly stated that human created CO2 increases heat retention in the atmosphere which in turn melts the polar ice caps. It's almost like you have totally forgotten that your previous post is there for all to see LOL. I mean if you're gonna lie, at least dont make it so ridiculously easy to refute man.

The other two are also easily verifiable facts with simple at-home physics experiments. Take a bottle of soda, fill it with soil and water and observe how the temperature and pressure within the bottle is impacted.

An extremely complex science that has had billions of dollars of funding from scientists all over the world who have spent decades learning about it to understand can essentially be boiled down to a 9th grade science experiment :rofl: Please my sides cant take much more of this.

Spoiler: the temperature and pressure increase because the gas is heating and expanding, but cannot escape due to the barrier created by the plastic.

CO2 acts like the plastic in our atmosphere. We know this because, if it didn't we'd all be dead. This is another fact.

Yes the atmosphere is the same as the plastic in a coke bottle bwahahahahaha wow.

But somehow my facts became non-facts because some scientists have been "ostracized" because of their beliefs.

No, your non-facts are non-facts because:

a) You aren't a climate scientist and have a less than pedestrian understanding of this subject and
b) The nonsense you are spouting is hotly contested by some of the greatest minds on the planet, so essentially your "facts" boil down "I know three fifths of F*ck all about what we are talking about, but my scientists are better than yours so nyuh". Truly.

Clearly the point I was making went over your head so I will attempt to simplify: Good science requires open dialogue and debate in order to come to reasonable conclusions as consensus does not equal truth. When one side is not invited to the dialogue and is prevented from entering the debate then you dont have science, you've got a one sided argument that is posited as truth.

This is called propaganda.

Nevermind that even on the JPL and NASA website (these evil organizations), it clearly recnogizes that scientists are still debating whether or not this is caused by humans:

Source: https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/files/archive/activities/ts1hiac1.pdf
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/files/archive/activities/ts1hiac1.pdf

ROFL yes I gather 49 ex NASA astronauts and scientists wrote them a letter telling them to STFU because NASA is so impartial on this issue. It's like you arent even trying at this point.

We can also just read in a book about the temperature and atmospheric composition of Venus to see an extreme example of what happens when CO2 crosses a threshold in a planetary atmosphere.

Source: Atmosphere of Venus - Wikipedia

Seems consistent with our soda bottle experiment, right?

Or you know, we can just read the countless peer reviewed studies that prove that CO2 has F*ck all to do with global warming rather than relying on your ridiculous conflations. THE ATMOSPHERE IS JUST LIKE A COKE BOTTLE, VENUS IS JUST LIKE EARTH, MUH POLAR ICE CAPS! LawL

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect


Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse Gas | PSI Intl


So for anyone reading along, take note. This is not how you formulate reality-based conclusions.

Oh I think they got that after watching me pull your ridiculous arguments apart like pocket lint.

You don't read articles with people's opinions on a situation.

Or be foolish enough to believe that climate alarmists only deal in facts while climate skeptics only have "opinions".

Get down to basic facts. Things that will be repeatable 100/100 times. Two plus two is always four.

FACTS FACTS FACTS, DID YOU SEE HOW I POSTED FACTS GUYS? I HAVE THE BEST FACTS. CLIMATE SCIENCE IS AS EASY AS SIMPLE ADDITION! FACTS. :rofl:

Find those truths and separate them from everything else. Then, formulate your opinion on everything else based on those facts.

Accept climatewang as gospel, believe all of the hogwash I just posted disguised as FACTS and then have the same opinion as me. I is smart and wise and will help you to learn about the religion of climatewang.

If you don't, you'll be like @Champion. Angry, inflammatory, and ultimately wrong. And, in all likelihood, poor in every way.

No offense intended @Champion.

Much joy and laughter at your expense, much projecting from you.

I am honestly embarrassed for you.
 

Roli

Platinum Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
160%
Jun 3, 2015
2,061
3,301
There was once a little boy on a small island in the middle of the ocean. He lived there with his family who belonged to one of the tribes on the island.

One day he came to his grandfather and said:

"Grandfather, I was at the market today and I overheard somebody saying that there is an environmental crisis, and if we don't watch out, all the trees will disappear, and I'm very worried!"

His grandfather, an old man with a large round and friendly face, his beard quivered and shook as the laughter rumbled through his body; he answered his grandson.

"Oh my little Pooky! Do not worry of such nonsense talk, the trees are gifts from the gods given to us so that we may build dwellings and boats. To honour them we build our Rongo Rongo statues out of the very trees they gave us.

The trees have been there since the beginning of time, and will be there when we are gone."


The little boy looked at his grandfather's kind face, and felt at ease. He realised his grandfather was right, how could they possibly chop down all the trees? More will grow in their place, he thought.

After many years the boy grew up, had a family of his own, and one day was sitting with his own grandson, who too came to him with some concern.

"Grandfather Pooki! My friends at school tell me that we are in danger!"

"Why child? What is the danger?"
Asked the old man.

"They say that the trees are running out, that we need to be careful how many we chop down!"

The old man laughed the same laugh he had heard all those years ago.

"This nonsense has been going on since I was a child like you. Do not worry, these environmentalists make crazy predictions which never come true. The trees will always be there my child."

This conversation happened every 80 years or so for hundreds of years. With each grandfather telling their grandson that the trees would always be there. Meanwhile the trees were declining, but nobody noticed as the rate was so slight.

Each successive generation saw fewer trees than the last, however this was the norm for them, so they never questioned it.

Then one day.

The trees ran out.

Everybody left and no trees ever grew on the island ever again. All that remained were a bunch of carved heads to remind everyone that whilst the environment is robust. It has not adapted to the kind of havoc the human race can wreak on it, even without the aid of modern technology.

This is the tale of Easter Island and it took place between the 13th and 16th centuries, this is a real story and a real warning.

The predictions will be wrong, right up until the point at which they become correct, and then it will be too late.

28112

375px-Moais,_Isla_de_Pascua._-_panoramio.jpg
 

Kak

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
493%
Jan 23, 2011
9,678
47,666
34
Texas
I started reading your response and got to your first source...

Maybe you don't realize it, but NAS is a conservative political organization masquerading as a think-tank. It's funded 100% by politically conservative groups.

This is the perfect example of what Kak mentioned above -- politics permeating science.

Sorry, but I stopped reading after that...

This is exactly my point, you are proving it by showing your bias as well. You are choosing to align with one set of, soft at best, experts over another.

So what gives them credibility? Liberal orginizations masquerading as think tanks?

That is my point. No one can be trusted to deliver truth to this argument anymore. If I was a scientist, you wouldn't trust me to conduct an experiment because you probably think I'm a hillbilly trumper. And @Chairman probably thinks I'm a liberal.

Why? Because the truth is not fully understood. There is not enough macro data to make a full factual claim and that is why people are beating each other up over this.

What I do know is that a profit motive has solved most of the world's problems that existed 100 or more years ago. That is pretty good data. I have faith that we will do it again here.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.
Last edited:

csalvato

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
297%
May 5, 2014
2,058
6,106
39
Rocky Mountain West
This is exactly my point, but you are proving it as well, but you are showing your bias as well. You are choosing to align with one set of, soft at best, experts over another.

So what gives them credibility? Liberal orginizations masquerading as think tanks?

That is my point. No one can be trusted to deliver truth to this argument anymore. If I was a scientist, you wouldn't trust me to conduct an experiment because you probably think I'm a hillbilly trumper. And @Chairman probably thinks I'm a liberal.

Why because the truth is not fully understood. There is not enough macro data to make a full factual claim and that is why people are beating each other up over this.

What I do know is that a profit motive has solved most of the world's problems that existed 100 or more years ago. That is pretty good data. I have faith that we will do it again here.

With respect, I believe you are misinterpreting @JScott's rationale here.

I don't want to pretend to know what @JScott is thinking, but everything @JScott has posted so far has been in persuit of facts - looking at the studies to assess where the facts lie.

When facts are refuted by articles (not data) from politically charged sources, it invalidates the argument. That's why @Champion's post is utterly useless here. It's refuting fact with opinions.

I read all three articles @Champion posted, and not a single fact was listed in any of them - just why we shouldn't believe in climate change based on 3 varying opinions.
 

lowtek

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
332%
Oct 3, 2015
2,164
7,186
42
Phoenix, AZ
With respect, I believe you are misinterpreting @JScott's rationale here.

I don't want to pretend to know what @JScott is thinking, but everything @JScott has posted so far has been in persuit of facts - looking at the studies to assess where the facts lie.

When facts are refuted by articles (not data) from politically charged sources, it invalidates the argument. That's why @Champion's post is utterly useless here. It's refuting fact with opinions.

I read all three articles @Champion posted, and not a single fact was listed in any of them - just why we shouldn't believe in climate change based on 3 varying opinions.

Please stop mis-characterizing the debate. Virtually nobody denies that the climate changes.

What is under debate is whether or not humans are the driving factor (which ultimately doesn't matter) ..

And, what to do about it (the real question)?
 

csalvato

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
297%
May 5, 2014
2,058
6,106
39
Rocky Mountain West
Please stop mis-characterizing the debate. Virtually nobody denies that the climate changes.

What is under debate is whether or not humans are the driving factor (which ultimately doesn't matter) ..

And, what to do about it (the real question)?

I apologize for the loose language here:

just why we shouldn't believe in climate change based on 3 varying opinions.

What I meant was climate change caused by human activity.

With that in mind, how am I mischaracterizing the debate?

It's pretty clear from all my posts that I don't know (and believe no one knows) whether or not humans are the driving factor.

Anyone who has a firm belief one way or the other is just that: an opinion-formed belief. Not a fact.

Regardless, the misclassification of opinion-as-fact is causing people to spew vitriol (both in this thread and externally), which is driving many level-headed "climate denying" scientists out of the profession they love...

That's the only argument I'm making here. It's a meta-argument because it transcends this topic.

That, and the argument that we should be combating climate change whether caused by us or not – because we know that's happening and presenting an potential existential threat. And not through policy, but through profit-driven action as @Kak has mentioned several times.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.
Last edited:

lowtek

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
332%
Oct 3, 2015
2,164
7,186
42
Phoenix, AZ
I apologize for the loose language here:



What I meant was climate change caused by human activity.

With that in mind, how am I mischaracterizing the debate?

It's pretty clear from all my posts that I don't know (and believe no one knows) whether or not humans are the driving factor.

Anyone who has a firm belief one way or the other is just that: an opinion-formed belief. Not a fact.

Regardless, the misclassification of opinion-as-fact is causing people to spew vitriol (both in this thread and externally), which is driving many level-headed "climate denying" scientists out of the profession they love...

That's the only argument I'm making here. It's a meta-argument because it transcends this topic.

That, and the argument that we should be combating climate change whether caused by us or not – because we know that's happening and presenting an potential existential threat. And not through policy, but through profit-driven action as @Kak has mentioned several times.

My apologies. I completely misunderstood you (I'm dense and distracted). We're in agreement.
 

Tourmaline

Gold Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
120%
Jun 4, 2019
898
1,082
Texas
Of course humans are a driving factor. But who is going to regulate China? lmao
 

guy93777

Bronze Contributor
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
Jun 5, 2019
164
213
screenhunter_160-nov-30-06-13.jpg


"Climate change" was originally called "global cooling". But the Earth stopped cooling down, so they called it "global warming".

But then it kind of stayed the same, so they rebranded it "Climate Change".

My opinion: "climate change" is an extremely young field of science, filled with biased theories that are based on huge extrapolations and logical jumps. The scientists that make most claims have a track record of continuously being wrong, and unnecessarily scaring people.

Until the science becomes more precise, and the predictions actually happen, then I'll choose to ignore "climate change" and the whole "end of the world" talk all together.

To answer your question directly, no, I don't think we should do anything about climate change. The Earth warming up is not necessarily bad. It'd be a lot worse if it was headed the opposite direction and we were all headed for an Ice Age.


thanks

your post make sense but most people are not logical. they just follow the trend and the medias.

the scammers don't really care about logical guys like you who warn us because the masses will believe the scam anyway.


28149



this scam is a social engineering work to get money

you have to understand that the elite can manipulate the climate on a large scale since the sixties

this is top secret stuff so the medias don't talk about it and we can predict that people won't believe what i say because the media don't talk about it

people are media slaves ( " the media are right, you are wrong. you are nobody " )





.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

1step

Gold Contributor
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
231%
Dec 4, 2012
1,038
2,396
Kentucky
#ignore ... Jesus Christ
 

Nick M.

Bronze Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
230%
Jul 13, 2018
175
403
This thread is slowly becoming a series of ad hominem arguments and frankly not being thoughtful.

No one will respect your opinion until you respect theirs, no matter how wrong or absurd it is.

Let's keep it civil.
 

MJ DeMarco

I followed the science; all I found was money.
Staff member
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
445%
Jul 23, 2007
38,080
169,500
Utah
Thread closed as it has turned into a shit-show I'd rather not entertain.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Post New Topic

Please SEARCH before posting.
Please select the BEST category.

Post new topic

Guest post submissions offered HERE.

New Topics

Fastlane Insiders

View the forum AD FREE.
Private, unindexed content
Detailed process/execution threads
Ideas needing execution, more!

Join Fastlane Insiders.

Top