Should we combat climate change?

[AgainstAllOdds]

"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.

 

[Ernman]

A very interesting discussion thread indeed. First my background and philosophy. I actually have some education that is relevant to this issue - masters degrees in oceanography and meteorology. I'm not a degreed "climatologist" but I have better than passing understanding of the science.

I believe we humans must find balance in our use of our ecosystem. I'm no far left environmentalist that protests against global warming. But I'm also not a hard over capitalist who believes we can just abuse our planet forever. I believe in balance. That makes my position a very difficult one. Because balance is always hard to achieve. Hard line positions are so much easier to defend.

First things first - the climate is always changing. It's been changing since this rock came into existence and will keep changing long after humans have had our time and are gone.

Have humans contributed to climate change? Yes, that is undeniable. Sorry, but the science is clear. Those who deny it do so out of ignorance or political motivation. But please note that I say we have contributed. There are many contributions to climate change such as volcanic eruptions that have caused mini-ice ages, meteor strikes, etc. In their time, the dinosaurs contributed as well - they turned a lot of plants into methane producing piles of...

Can/should humans work to reverse climate change? We can't change what is always in motion. But, we can use our intelligence to lesson the negative consequences of our existence on the planet. I argue that it is in the long term best interest of our species to reduce, reuse, recycle and find ways to pollute less.

But there is our biggest challenge. Humans tend to be selfish and short-term thinkers. We want what we want and we want it now. For many, long term thinking is measured in months to years. A few think in decades. How many honestly consider our impacts in centuries? For instance, nuclear power is a short term clean energy source with century long consequences.

So my very long response to this question is not so much about reversing climate change as it is about preserving our planet for our human existence for as long as possible.

 

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

[Michael Burgess]

Climate change can definitely feel esoteric or impossible to "solve" as an individual, but here's some ideas I personally feel pretty strongly about:

- Clean rivers and oceans are a good thing
- We should try to preserve as much biological diversity as possible
- Pollution (nuclear, sewage, garbage, excess light, etc) sucks
- Renewable energies are preferable to fossil fuels, because of pollution... and the fact we'll eventually run out of oil
- Topsoil is important for healthy plants, animals, and people
- Creating systems to support 8+ billion people with a high quality of life makes sense

Call me a hippie, but even if we don't worry about "climate change", the principles above seem pretty reasonable to me.

 

[AgainstAllOdds]

I've survived 5 "end of the world's" in my 27-year lifetime. Every few years there's another one.

Climate change might be a thing, but it's not something that I'll be investing much mental energy into. For me, that energy is better spent on making money and giving it to the right charitable causes that I know make the world a better place.

 

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

[Kak]

But I'm also not a hard over capitalist who believes we can just abuse our planet forever.

This is straw. “Hard over” capitalists don’t believe in abusing a planet. How is abusing the environment good for business long term?

Capitalists believe that people as a group, given freedom, seek a market equilibrium. With the concern out there, needed or not, care for the environment is obviously part of the equilibrium.

Whether or not we should combat anything... I do know one thing... Government is about the least effective tool for the job.

Capitalism is what solves the world’s problems. Using your language, THAT is “undeniable scientific fact.” How do I know this? You aren’t dying of plague. You will live to 80+. You can go to a grocery store with foods from all over the world... And you can afford them. You drive an automobile. You have water piped into your home. You don’t have to eat bugs. You can fly anywhere you want in the world. The list goes on and on and on.

The biggest thing that worries me about the environment is if the civilized world embraces socialism and erases a profit motive to solving the worlds problems. Then we are in big trouble.

 

[lowtek]

@lowtek you identify as a physicist and don’t believe there is ample evidence for human-caused global warming...?

My understanding of the fundamental physics (along with everyone else I know who identifies as a hard scientist) believes there is more than enough basic science pointing to human caused effects on rapid planet warming.

With that in mind, I’d be more interested in your perspective.

——

IMO I find this thread disturbing. There’s plenty of evidence showing that global warming is a major consideration for our species, and as entrepreneurs we wield great power in solving this problem for the world. .. and at a great profit.

To see so many people who strive for power and influence to scoff at a major threat to our existence is both saddening and alarming.

EDIT: to answer the OP we simply have no choice. Either we figure out a way to manipulate our planet’s climate within the next 50-300 years or life as we know it is over. We will need to live in habs or be forced to relocate to another planet. If we are able to learn how to manipulate a planetary environment, however, we will be able to do so on multiple planets, including terraforming Mars and/or Venus, making our species more resistant to an extinction event. The only thing that would make the species even more resistant is inter-galactic colonization after that.

Great question. The fact that CO2 is a green house gas is certainly not in doubt. The extent to which the models calling for doom and gloom are accurate, is a huge question mark.

The idea that we should make policy changes that are guaranteed to cause upheaval and more deaths right now, in the hopes it will have an impact 50 - 100 years in the future, based on models whose predictive power is questionable at best (i.e. only treating water vapor as a greenhouse gas while ignoring the fact that clouds are white), is where it falls apart.

The best solution to the problem of climate change, regardless of the source, is to develop fusion power. With fusion we would have enough (cheap) energy to just recapture the carbon from the atmosphere and turn it back into hydrocarbons. Then it's a total non issue. We could all drive V12 RWD sport sedans that get 10 mpg and it wouldn't matter in the slightest.

Beyond that, schemes to manipulate the climate will certainly backfire. We simply cannot predict the outcome of manipulating such a complex system. Such proposals are literally insane and should be dismissed out of hand.

 

[csalvato]

My take. There is no such thing as an expert on a politically or an emotionally charged subject matter. This doesn't have to be a political battle. Obviously, it is bad to pollute and we need to minimize the damage we do to the environment.

The reason this issue (and similar issues) are so sticky is because it's only quasi-political.

When it comes to the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, there are undeniable facts of physics that get conflated with policies on how to deal with these facts.

For example:

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.

POLICY - Let's tax people who create more CO2 than others
POLICY - Let's heavily regulate filters on any machinery that creates CO2
POLICY - Let's outlaw certain types of power plants.

On facts, the experts are hard-lined. The facts are the facts are the facts. They cannot change. There are people who understand those facts better than anyone else, and the underlying truths that make them a reality. These experts should carry a heavy weighting.

On policy (and on soft sciences like psychology), the experts are much "softer". There are no facts. There are opinions and trends that are ever-changing. These experts should maybe be considered, but only as a means to formulate your own opinion based on the hard-lined facts.

The underlying principle here is to avoid conflating fact with policy/opinion.

Most people who are arguing that climate change is not happening clearly don't understand the fundamental, unchanging, unwaivering facts.

So when @GIlman says don't trust experts, he's right. You don't want to follow any idiot who has somehow gained authority based solely on his opinion. That also makes the follower an idiot. We should be pursuing the knowledge of these facts before forming any opinions.

But when @JScott says we should trust experts, he's also right. We should be trusting experts to help us find the unwaivering facts so we can formulate our own opinion. We need to stand on the shoulders of these giants.

Just reading through this thread, you can see many people who are relying on other people's opinions (not facts) to form their own opinion.

To me, it's no surprise that the folks who seek out facts (i.e. @JScott and @GIlman) are doing better in their career and business than those who are seeking out opinions.

 

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

[lowtek]

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?

 

[AgainstAllOdds]

Another 'ism' to earn money and control people. Countries that are developed, in theory*, can afford to invest in more environmental friendly energy sources (yeah solar energy is as friendly as ... take a look how much it costs to produce cells, same with windmills...). Poorer countries cannot.

An interesting example of this - the large shipping companies pushing for "clean" ships. They know that the small companies can't afford to retrofit their ships, so they're pushing for regulation that will allow them to consolidate the market and create a monopoly.

Personally I think clean ships are a good thing, but the way that it's being approached is extremely capitalistically unfair.

 

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

[Johnny boy]

Sell climate change insurance and collect premiums until the cows come home. Lots of liberals live on the coast

 

[Dan_Cardone]

How I see it...

Global warming, real or not, is largely out of my control. I cant prevent companies all over the world from polluting and harming the environment. I cant force my next door neighbor to stop driving his Hummer.

What I can do is grow my company and my money so that both myself and my family will always have the resources to overcome any major obstacles that would prevent us from living a decent life. That is in my control.

The tides rise and make the coast uninhabitable? I better have the financial resources to move us elsehwere. The water becomes polluted? Good thing I spent time growing my money so I can afford to get clean water.

You get the point.

 

[Thoelt53]

Climate change is real. Anthropogenic climate change is bullshit.

Climate change activists, governments, environmental panels, supporting politicians, the IPCC, etc. all have one thing in common: they are all anti-capitalism. Listen to what they preach. Read the 2018 report from the IPCC. It’s not some hidden secret that they detest capitalism and want nationalized economies.

The next red flag is the cult-like allegiance to belief in anthropogenic climate change. The scientific method has been thrown out the window. It’s heresy to discuss other potential causes of climate change.

Climate Change and the Ten Warning Signs for Cults

Will, @Oil_Guns_Merica

medium.com

Climate “scientists” are too arrogant to even consider that they’re wrong, their models are wrong, and what they call “sound science” is wrong. Let’s not even use the word “wrong”. It’s not even possible to discuss that they might be off by a few marks, or to explore other causes of climate change. Arrogant scientists cannot fathom that there may be forces at play that we don’t yet understand.

In classic political fashion, never let a crisis go to waste. Anthropogenic climate change is the perfect excuse to further extract wealth through taxation (read: theft), lawsuits, and to further anti-capitalist agendas. It’s a little too convenient that the biggest political supporters of climate change are also self proclaimed socialists.

 

[luniac]

I heard the Carbon Tax is just another illuminati one world order conspiracy to screw people over.

 

[csalvato]

@lowtek you identify as a physicist and don’t believe there is ample evidence for human-caused global warming...?

My understanding of the fundamental physics (along with everyone else I know who identifies as a hard scientist) believes there is more than enough basic science pointing to human caused effects on rapid planet warming.

With that in mind, I’d be more interested in your perspective.

——

IMO I find this thread disturbing. There’s plenty of evidence showing that global warming is a major consideration for our species, and as entrepreneurs we wield great power in solving this problem for the world. .. and at a great profit.

To see so many people who strive for power and influence to scoff at a major threat to our existence is both saddening and alarming.

EDIT: to answer the OP we simply have no choice. Either we figure out a way to manipulate our planet’s climate within the next 50-300 years or life as we know it is over. We will need to live in habs or be forced to relocate to another planet. If we are able to learn how to manipulate a planetary environment, however, we will be able to do so on multiple planets, including terraforming Mars and/or Venus, making our species more resistant to an extinction event. The only thing that would make the species even more resistant is inter-galactic colonization after that.

 

[GIlman]

I'm definitely guilty of this...

For example, when I'm sick, I call a doctor.
When I have legal issues, I call a lawyer.
When my house is on fire, I call the firefighters.
When my air conditioning is broken, I call the HVAC company.
When my car breaks, I take it to an auto-mechanic.
When I need my taxes done, I ask my CPA.
When I fly somewhere, I expect a pilot to be flying the plane

All these experts that I trust... I'm such a sucker!

I am one of these so called doctor experts you refer to. I can tell you that we are wrong about things all the time. Experts just guess better based on experience. Doesn’t make us always right. the more theoretical the opinion is based on, the lower the margin of error, and the more likely the expert is to be wrong.

 

[Abrodos]

I completely agree ith @Ernman .

Humanity as a species is no different from any other organism or system (even a business, or the whole capitalist system, even a communist system as well). It takes energy from the environment and consumes it in order to multiply itself so it can take more energy. The more energy there is (or the organism is able to extract from the environment) the more it can multiply and advance, so it can get more and more efficient in this energy extraction (resource consumption).
If there's no energy left, the organism (or part of it) reduces its population until the equilibrium is reached again. That's pure entropy and thermodynamics.

So I believe the only viable way to survive as a species and as a civilization is through use of solar energy and other renewables. Basically because fossil fuels are finite, nuclear energy is finite as well at the moment, and the sun's energy is way more than we can consume now as a civilization.

But we have something that most other organisms don't have: knowledge of our actions, moral values, collective sense of identity, and the ability to predict the outcomes of our actions and thing logically.

That allows us to reach that renewables-only point in a more progressive way.
It's like a car going straight to a wall at 80mph: we know for sure the car is going to stop at the wall, that's pure physics. You can push the brake before hitting it, or not.

So, what happens if we don't push the brake?

I don't think we'll go extinct. Humanity has survived pretty wild stuff like bubonic plague, ice ages and population bottlenecks. Things change and adapt. The music industry survived piracy by adapting, and the game-changing event (P2P networks) was much more sudden and less forecast.
So I believe we will indeed leave a lot behind, and end up with a far more barren world. Many ecosystems will disappear, and many people in the less developed countries will die as well.
We're watching the first steps of this in Europe with the Mediterranean refugee crisis. Hundreds of people are coming from Africa to drown in the coasts of Italy every day, there's just a small rescue boat trying to help all the migrants, and no government is doing anything. People share the stuff on FB but no one actually moves their a$$.
So probably the same will happen as more and more people suffer similar fates. Governments will adopt this defensive , wall-erecting attitude to protect their privileged position in the world.
Probably everyone in the first world countries will be "safe" from natural disasters.
And probably we'll be able to survive as well if foreign food stops coming to the supermarkets. Our grandparents survived with little food during the Civil War in Spain. There's also insect farming which hasn't been explored.
Probably first-world population will decrease because, as time passes, more and more people will decide not to have children. It will be something gradual, as depopulation of rural areas is.
The fact that there are no sudden catastrophic events doesn't mean that nothing is happening, as you stated, there's a mass extinction already going on.

That's why climate change denying is like denying diabetes because "hey, today I ate a sweet and I'm still feeling well", or denying chemo because you don't feel anything during the first stages of a cancer.

 

[msufan]

I love to take trends like this and consider if there are ways to capitalize on them.

Everyone's abuzz about combating climate change? Invest in solar.

Everyone's eating vegan now? Create a vegan-themed facebook group and profit.

And so on, and so on. Step outside the debate and see these trends as opportunities.

 

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

[Devampre]

"In the cosmos of time, it isn't a fart in the wind" -Dan Peña

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0

 

[TonyStark]

Only in America is this still a topic for debate....

I don’t think combating climate change is the way to phrase it because the earth hasn’t done anything wrong so to speak, we’re combating companies that use and overuse fossil fuels, pollute our natural resources, etc; companies with no environmental conscious.

 

[Kak]

I am one of these so called doctor experts you refer to. I can tell you that we are wrong about things all the time. Experts just guess better based on experience. Doesn’t make us always right. the more theoretical the opinion is based on, the lower the margin of error, and the more likely the expert is to be wrong.

I don't know anyone who is always right. I don't expect anyone to always be right.

That said, I expect experts to be right more often than non-experts (by definition), so I will weight input from an expert source more heavily than I will weight input from a non-expert source.

For example, if I had a medical issue, would you say I should trust you over a non-doctor? And would you say that I should put more trust in you some of the time? Most of the time? 100% of the time?

You both make sense. But there is an obvious bias from both sides of this argument.

Obviously we have given experts some level of authority on this issue, the problem is that the experts are biased too. THERIN lies the fallacy. It is like believing one is an expert and another is to be dismissed. My question is why is the opposing viewpoint to be dismissed? Because you disagree with it personally? Because the other expert says something different than this expert? Or is it that no one's expertise has found the definitive truth on a matter? The reason for dismissing one over the other needs to be rooted in logic. I am dismissing them all on this argument.

My take. There is no such thing as an expert on a politically or an emotionally charged subject matter. This doesn't have to be a political battle. Obviously, it is bad to pollute and we need to minimize the damage we do to the environment.

On the other hand, on an elemental level, there is nothing on this planet that wasn't here 1000 years ago. Notwithstanding meteorite for you nitpickers. Things just get changed around.

I personally believe, given freedom to do so, 100 years from now, clean sustainable living will be the baseline world standard by choice, not by order. Why? Because we the people have an appetite for it and, at least for now, it is profitable to create the tools and tech that get us there.

 

[Kak]

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.

[lowtek]

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]

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.

[Matt Sun]

The solution to the weather "problem" is more taxes... hmmm i wonder who benefits...

Yesterday speaking to my parents they told me oil was suposed to be totally over by before the year 2000...

 

[AFMKelvin]

The climate has been changing since the beginning of time. Sometimes we go through cool and hot climates for hundreds of years. Humans always find a way to adapt.

First it was climate cooling, than climate warming, now climate change. Don't forget about that acid rain that going to kill all life.

There's hundreds of ancient cities in what is now our coastlines.

We should take better care of our eco system. But the powers that be are making climate change political. The "taxes" they want to impose on everyone for climate change is just another trick up their sleeves to enslave the population. One inch at a time.

Another reason why this is a hot topic is because those that "deny" climate change are automatically branded as people who dont care about our environment.

Only first world countries are been forced fed climate change propaganda. Even though they already have regulations and are the cleanest countries on Earth. But no one mentions China and India which are the worst culprits.

tl;dr - Climate change is propaganda to control you through business and financial bureaucracy.

 

[TonyStark]

@lowtek you identify as a physicist and don’t believe there is ample evidence for human-caused global warming...?

My understanding of the fundamental physics (along with everyone else I know who identifies as a hard scientist) believes there is more than enough basic science pointing to human caused effects on rapid planet warming.

With that in mind, I’d be more interested in your perspective.

——

IMO I find this thread disturbing. There’s plenty of evidence showing that global warming is a major consideration for our species, and as entrepreneurs we wield great power in solving this problem for the world. .. and at a great profit.

To see so many people who strive for power and influence to scoff at a major threat to our existence is both saddening and alarming.

EDIT: to answer the OP we simply have no choice. Either we figure out a way to manipulate our planet’s climate within the next 50-300 years or life as we know it is over. We will need to live in habs or be forced to relocate to another planet. If we are able to learn how to manipulate a planetary environment, however, we will be able to do so on multiple planets, including terraforming Mars and/or Venus, making our species more resistant to an extinction event. The only thing that would make the species even more resistant is inter-galactic colonization after that.

They just like to be edgy, and say climate change is a form of propaganda or a capitalistic reuse.

Pfft, they need to leave their mother’s basement once in a while. Lol

 

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

[AgainstAllOdds]

How will you know what charitable organizations (or even for profit organizations) are doing things that are worthwhile if you don’t understand what the worlds biggest problems are?

You guys in this thread can debate about climate change, however, there are some things that are not up for debate.

Paying for someone to have eye surgery and see again, that's worthwhile. Not debatable.
Paying for orphans to eat, that's worthwhile. Also not debatable.

Those are the causes I support.

You park your charitable money wherever you want. I'll continue giving it to causes that I'm 100% confident in.

 

[csalvato]

You guys in this thread can debate about climate change, however, there are some things that are not up for debate.

Paying for someone to have eye surgery and see again, that's worthwhile. Not debatable.
Paying for orphans to eat, that's worthwhile. Also not debatable.

Those are the causes I support.

You park your charitable money wherever you want. I'll continue giving it to causes that I'm 100% confident in.

That’s cool. If you like that clearly tangible effect, then do what rewards you.

I like to think big though. Paying for someone to have eye surgery is retail. Only affects one person. Paying to put food on the table of an orphanage is the same. It’s retail. It helps but is not the more efficient and awesome deployment of cash.

Creating a new type of affordable eye procedure is wholesale and drastically more impactful. Solving the underlying problems of hunger, poverty and the systems that create orphans is the other analog.

To circle back, buying an electric car is retail. Solving the problem of Safe nuclear fusion reactors Is wholesale.

I’d rather understand the big problems and go after root causes. I’d rather buy wholesale. It takes more work, but just like in business, it’s far more worthwhile.

 

[Chairman]

Climate change is essentially communism with a few layers of bullshit on top. It's about wealth redistribution away from western countries and has literally nothing to do with the environment.

Climatewang

The climate change agenda (here forth known as “climatewang”) is an interesting cultural phenomena. Essentially what it boils down to is communism, where wealthy Western countries are milked dry th…

tellingitlikeitis.net

 

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

[Chairman]

The reason this issue (and similar issues) are so sticky is because it's only quasi-political.

When it comes to the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, there are undeniable facts of physics that get conflated with policies on how to deal with these facts.

For example:

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.

POLICY - Let's tax people who create more CO2 than others
POLICY - Let's heavily regulate filters on any machinery that creates CO2
POLICY - Let's outlaw certain types of power plants.

On facts, the experts are hard-lined. The facts are the facts are the facts. They cannot change. There are people who understand those facts better than anyone else, and the underlying truths that make them a reality. These experts should carry a heavy weighting.

On policy (and on soft sciences like psychology), the experts are much "softer". There are no facts. There are opinions and trends that are ever-changing. These experts should maybe be considered, but only as a means to formulate your own opinion based on the hard-lined facts.

The underlying principle here is to avoid conflating fact with policy/opinion.

Most people who are arguing that climate change is not happening clearly don't understand the fundamental, unchanging, unwaivering facts.

So when @GIlman says don't trust experts, he's right. You don't want to follow any idiot who has somehow gained authority based solely on his opinion. That also makes the follower an idiot. We should be pursuing the knowledge of these facts before forming any opinions.

But when @JScott says we should trust experts, he's also right. We should be trusting experts to help us find the unwaivering facts so we can formulate our own opinion. We need to stand on the shoulders of these giants.

Just reading through this thread, you can see many people who are relying on other people's opinions (not facts) to form their own opinion.

To me, it's no surprise that the folks who seek out facts (i.e. @JScott and @GIlman) are doing better in their career and business than those who are seeking out opinions.

ROFL what a lot of poppycock. You can type the word 'fact' in caps a million times, it doesnt make it true. The experts are hardlined eh?

LOL no, they are actually split down the middle.

Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming | NAS

www.nas.org

Here we’ve got a letter from 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts basically chastising NASA for their activist stance on this nonsense because if (when) it is proven that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, it will make them look like shit and their reputations (and that of NASA) will be ruined.

49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change

Notice how these esteemed people at the top of their field clearly state: “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.”

Here's another list of 85 climate scientists who publicly disagree with consensus. It states “A system is in place that makes it incredibly difficult, almost impossible, for scientists to take a public stance against AGW — their funding and opportunities are shutoff, their credibility and character smeared, and their safety sometimes compromised.”

"The List" - Scientists who Publicly Disagree with the Current Consensus on Climate Change - Electroverse

"The List" -- Scientists who Publicly Disagree with the Current Consensus on Climate Change: Our climate is cyclic, never linear.

electroverse.net

I also liked this article, they used a fairly strict criteria to determine the top 10 climate change consensus scientists and the top 5 skeptic scientists

The 5 Most Influential Climate Scientists

According to Payscale, the average yearly salary for U.S. scientists is $61,290, with base salaries ranging from $51,250 to $65,000.

thebestschools.org

The thing that stood out the most to me is that pretty much all of the skeptic scientists had been bullied, pressured, threatened and ostracized for their beliefs – several of them actually going to the extent of resigning prestigious roles or even retiring to escape the retribution of their colleagues and harebrained climate activists. We don’t hear about climate consensus scientists losing their jobs, receiving death threats, having grants and funding withdrawn, quite the contrary those cunts are lauded as being moral and righteous and saving the planet. I wonder why that would be? If the science is settled and the consensus is correct in their assumptions, why would they feel the need to harass and bully anyone that disagrees with them?

Reminds me of how it is illegal to dispute the holocaust in many European countries really.

If your supposition was correct that climatewang is actually a thing was correct, the so-called experts wouldnt need to fudge their data.