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.

Tourmaline

Gold Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
120%
Jun 4, 2019
898
1,082
Texas
How many people would choose an electric car over a gasoline car if money was no object?

The solution is simple. Make everyone richer. The rest will come naturally.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Azure

Perpetual Motion
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
189%
Mar 12, 2016
439
829
32
First, thank you for providing me some research fodder that has reinforced other research I've done...

I'm not sure where you cut and paste this data from, but while you have lots of references to researchers here, you have no footnotes specifying which papers those references specifically came from.

Nonetheless, I decided to do some spot checking using the names of some of those researchers you provided. Here are a few things I found:

* You mention "MacLeod 2013" and I actually was able to dig up that paper. While the numbers you mention above coincide with his research/findings, you -- for some reason -- ignored this line from his Conclusion (obviously related to our discussion here):

"The immediate threat to this scenario is climate change. The global temperature increase due to atmospheric pollution is likely to result in the extinction of numerous species, especially small populations that are already at risk."


* You use "Barnosky et al 2011" as a data point for the number of extinctions. You don't include a link to the specific paper, so I can't reference that, but I did find this abstract from another paper that Barnosky authored in 2011 indicating he believes the earth's 6th mass extinction event has started:


One relevant quote from the abstract:

"Our results confirm that current extinction rates are higher than would be expected from the fossil record, highlighting the need for effective conservation measures."

* You mention "De Vos et al 2014" and I believe I was able to find that paper. Assuming I'm interpreting the abstract correctly, it appears that these researchers believe that "current extinction rates are 1,000 times higher than natural background rates of extinction and future rates are likely to be 10,000 times higher." (this is directly from the abstract):


* You mention "Dornelas et al 2014" but I was unable to find a specific paper. That said, I did some research on the lead author (Maria Dornelas) and she is a big climate activist (who clearly believes in climate change). Here is her Twitter feed:


* You reference Dov Sax (paper from 2008). Here was an article he was quoted in two months ago:


The relevant quote by Sax:

"Our work shows that species native to relatively small islands are in a lot of danger from climate change, and relatively soon..."

* Sax's co-author for the paper you referenced (Steven Gaines) runs a lab focused on studying climate change risks to ocean ecosystems:


Long story short, there are plenty more scientists who believe that the 6th mass extinction event is currently underway than those who don't believe this (Holocene extinction - Wikipedia), but even if we were to simply look at those you've referenced who (might) not believe this is the case, they still seem to be significantly in the camp that climate change is real and that it is a significant risk to biodiversity on this planet.

Again, thank you for the references...

My apologies, I did a quick copy/paste job from a previous discussion I had on another forum regarding Ceballos work and the limitations of using it as a reference point for a 6th Mass Extinction. I can sift through it and provide specific annotations and figure #, but as most, if not all are open source, it would be quite beneficial for you to review the literature of your own accord.


You'll note that your linked article also suggests that the profile of extinct vertebrate almost entirely populated islands as I stated above.


"The immediate threat to this scenario is climate change. The global temperature increase due to atmospheric pollution is likely to result in the extinction of numerous species, especially small populations that are already at risk."


Regarding the quote above, I assure you it wasn't wilfully ignored. As I had said, my reply above was a quick snippet of a much larger back and forth I had previously had elsewhere, there is a great deal of information involved, as well as other supporting papers that I didn't bother to include in the interest of keeping it rather brief. I didn't suspect this to be a drawn out conversation to be honest.


To address the passage above, if I recall the scenario on which the temperature projections are based upon largely rests within the RCP 8.5 pathway - which relies on a number of incredibly unlikely conditions to be met in order to be realized. Judith Curry has an excellent critique of precisely why RCP 8.5 cannot be recognized as a likely scenario, given the tremendous historic precedents that are working against it.


It should be noted that the above passage is predicated on the projections of GCM models that are notoriously unreliable as @lowtek illustrated below, particularly when adapted to sub-continental scale resolutions - as would be required for any modeling of future species population.


Even within the WG2(Working group 2) of the IPCC, they note a "there is low agreement concerning the fraction of species at increased risk, the regional and taxonomic distribution of such extinctions, and the timeframe over which extinctions could occur.” - page 67 of the AR5 wGII.


Even if we do accept these elevated rates of anthropogenic extinctions relative to historical record - which requires using questionable metrics that are listed above, fully ignore the biodiversity gains that are well documented, and accept the highly uncertain, fundamentally flawed GCM projections as accurate representations of climatic impact on future speciation - then we are still left with a situation that does not even remotely approach the level of biodiversity decay noted in previous mass extinction events.


That is to say, even when ignoring any countering evidence , accepting all questionable data that tangentially supports it, there is still not anywhere near parallel rates of extinction that any of the 5 previous mass extinction events have seen. If that isn't hysteria, nothing is.


That isn't to say our impact on the ecosystem has been anything but awful - it clearly has been. Species will die, and we are killing them faster than they would have naturally, and will likely do so at even higher rates than current.


That doesn't mean it's a mass extinction event, and the evidence doesn't support it unless you manipulate it to perverted extremes. And you can rest assured that a minor temperature variance of less than a degree over 150 years - in a geologic time period that has seen far greater variances on similar time scales with no associated M/E event - will not be the cause of a doomsday scenario anywhere other than Hollywood.
 

TonyStark

I'm not dead yet
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
191%
Jul 20, 2015
2,278
4,359
31
Austin, Texas
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.
 
Last edited:

TonyStark

I'm not dead yet
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
191%
Jul 20, 2015
2,278
4,359
31
Austin, Texas
@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.

Justice Beaver

Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
135%
Apr 2, 2019
17
23
Los Angeles, CA
Like someone here said, the climate is always changing. That is a fact. Another fact though is that humans are dramatically increasing the rate at which we're destroying our planet. While we may not be able to "undo" anything that has already happened, what we can do is at least slow down the negative effects that are continuing. We can at least prolong our timeline for our existence here on Earth. While reforestation, cloud seeding with salt water to increase light reflectivity, and geoengineering are definitely methods that should be seriously considered, our main issue right now is the fossil fuel industry.

Only 100 companies are responsible for 71% of all global emissions currently. ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron are major culprits in this. The oil and gas industries receive $26 billion in annual subsidies and spend $125 million on lobbying every year. With the aid of a political reform that turns toward not only renewable energies but also highly considers thorium-based nuclear molten salt reactors in place of this current system, then there will be progress. Someone who argues for the current regressive system and status quo may tell you how much it costs to implement these kinds of ideas, but what they won't tell you are the massive costs already currently associated with the negative consequences of our global emissions.

The issue with the take from @AgainstAllOdds is that their response is flat out disingenuous and selfish in nature. One may think that the Earth warming up dramatically is "not that bad" in comparison to an eventual Ice Age, but what they failed to tell you is that if fossil fuels continue at the current rate for the next 28 years, then global average temperatures would be projected to rise by 4 degrees Celcius by the end of the century. This is catastrophic, as this would lead to massive drought and famine, as well as those who are poor being disproportionately affected the most as they won't be able to cope from rising sea levels along the coast. You will undoubtedly see the Middle East and North Africa becoming nearly uninhabitable in a time with rampant overpopulation, which will lead to a horrible climate refugee crisis. You can see the evidence of my case from these studies: Carbon Majors Report, Middle East/North Africa Climate-Exodus
 
Last edited:

Roli

Platinum Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
160%
Jun 3, 2015
2,061
3,301
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?

Luckily those plucky billionaires and oil tycoons are there to save us from this terrible climate change scam.

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

AgainstAllOdds

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
647%
Dec 26, 2014
2,274
14,724
32
Chicago, IL
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.
 

Azure

Perpetual Motion
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
189%
Mar 12, 2016
439
829
32
You ignored several of the references I included to the papers/researchers you highlighted.

For example, you ignored this quote from "De Vos et al 2014" (this was a paper you brought up):

"...current extinction rates are 1,000 times higher than natural background rates of extinction and future rates are likely to be 10,000 times higher."

The Society for Conservation Biology

Based on this quote (again, from a researcher/paper you endorsed), mass extinction doesn't sound like "hyteria" to me.

Care to address this?

I addressed the limitations of the equation used in this study several times as being inconsistent with the rate of Pleistocene-current changes in speciation.

Perhaps I wasn't speaking clearly, as you're deeply misunderstanding and subsequently misrepresenting things that I have stated.

If you'll reread, you'll note that the above linked study was referenced only to highlight limitations of the extremely deficient Ceballos study you had first brought up. Ceballos continually disregards biodiversity gains in his recent work.

That isn't to say I'm endorsing the papers assessment of extinctions relative to background rate, as they rely on a similarly disjointed methodology as I pointed out above several times.

Again though, let's ignore that for a moment.

Let's take the 1000x rate as solidified fact, and throw any measure of reason out the window as I suggested in my last post.

It still puts the "Holocene Extinction" as a mere blip in the radar when graphed next to real, historic mass extinction records.
 

Azure

Perpetual Motion
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
189%
Mar 12, 2016
439
829
32
[note: highlights are mine]

Just to clarify what I think you are saying here: You referenced that paper because part of it supports a thesis you have, but you ignore other information in that same paper that contradicts your thesis.

Did I get that correct?

Not at all. To clarify, the ESMY metric used by both Ceballos and that study is quite shaky when applied to species with a shorter span of existence. There is a study I initially referenced that attempts to adjust for this imbalance.

The reason I used this study as a reference is to highlight how poorly framed the Ceballos study is and how his 2 works are alone in avoiding any discussion of contemporary biodiversity gains. He is alone in doing this among his colleagues - the influence of Paul Ehrlich is quite evident there.

what rate of extinction is it not a "blip?"

Relative to extinction events that have wiped out upwards of 90% of all life on earth?

We could start with a sustained, observed extinction of a number of species that is even close to the numbers sustained during previous mass extinction events before calling it such. Observed extinctions thus far are not even remotely close to a tiny % of that.

Clearly I'm not advocating for that, as reaching those #s would indicate a tipping point, beyond which there is no return.

Misrepresentation of observed trends to fit a narrative is still disingenuous even if there is an element of positivity that may come of it via added environmental protections and legislation.

Granted, I'm absolutely no expert here, but 1000x standard seems more than a blip.

Note that the 1000x is in reference to Pleistocene/Holocene background rates, which are two of the more stable(extinction wise) eras and not a comparison to the rates sustained during mass extinction events of the past, which are tremendously higher.

Can you provide some reference data on what the multiplier was during the previous five extinction events so I can get a better gauge on where this one might stack up?

See the problem with that is that your 1000 x multiplier has several asterisks attached to it that are only applicable to modern reference points, past reconstructions are unfortunately only able to rely on fossil record and observed evidence so all the fancy, inaccurate computer models and poorly adapted equations aren't nearly as prevalent.

I'll try to find something with a reference point to the Holocene background rate but it may be difficult to find such information.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Azure

Perpetual Motion
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
189%
Mar 12, 2016
439
829
32
There is a wikipedia chart on the mass extinction page that highlights the disparity between the ddifferent ME events and our current.
 

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
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.
 
Last edited:

OlivierMo

Bronze Contributor
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
186%
Feb 12, 2018
123
229
Idaho
Let's get this straight: the confusion between Co2 and pollution is stupid. Co2 is not a pollutant. It may make things warmer but it is a source of life for many organisms. And if it is a pollutant, then human beings themselves are polluting by breathing. I run a lot and emit a lot of Co2 every day.

This whole debate has been launched by Western bourgeois trying to prevent poor countries to get out of their misery. It's so easy for developed nations to now put the break on fossil fuels when those countries are in dire need of cheap energy to lift themselves up. It's the equivalent of Di Capri or Al Gore flying private jets and living in mega mansions lecturing average people because they're using A/C in their 2000 sq ft house or because they need cheap gas to drive 50 miles to work every day.

What we need to focus on is actually carbon capture and how we can leverage it in a productive way vs limiting humans and creating scarcity. The only thing that scarcity will do is lead to mass deaths while keeping an elite comfortable. And honestly the elite can go f--- themselves.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Brian Fleig

Contributor
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
121%
Feb 19, 2018
39
47
63
New York
My AAS is in health care but I have spent hundreds of hours researching this topic at the link below and many other sources. The link is a great place to start.
Bottom line: Climate change Yes, man made No.
The first and biggest sign that it's all bullshit is the hard push for a tax to "fix it". There are plenty of reasons to reduce man made pollution but climate change is not one of them and a tax is dam sure not going to help.
 

OlivierMo

Bronze Contributor
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
186%
Feb 12, 2018
123
229
Idaho
My AAS is in health care but I have spent hundreds of hours researching this topic at the link below and many other sources. The link is a great place to start.
Bottom line: Climate change Yes, man made No.
The first and biggest sign that it's all bullshit is the hard push for a tax to "fix it". There are plenty of reasons to reduce man made pollution but climate change is not one of them and a tax is dam sure not going to help.
A tax won't fix it for sure. All it'll do is make most average people miserable. Like in France with the yellow jackets. While the elite will be able to afford all the fossil fuel they need. It's a new form of slavery and aristocracy.
 

WJK

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
256%
Oct 9, 2017
3,115
7,961
Alaska
I just saw @alexkuzmov 's thread also on climate change and it got me thinking about a question I've never seen discussed (and worthy of it's own thread):

If we successfully combat climate change, what will happen?

There's been debate (and research) about whether climate change exists, if it's manmade, what will happen if we don't fix it, etc. But I've never seen any discussion about what happens if we do combat climate change.

Instead, most people (if they believe climate change exists and is bad) will then start jumping into finding solutions. Why? Because everyone only looks at the cons of not combating climate change. A well thought-out decision needs to look at the pros and cons of both sides.

The effects of fixing climate change may seem obvious; things will go back to how they were. Except they can't.

Because there's already been lots of change. We are on the route to the fastest mass extinction of all time. Normally, the period for a mass extinction is 1 million years. As of now, we're on track to reach mass extinction status in 300 years. So it's clear the world is changing. Or more to the point, it already has changed. And species can't really become "unextinct".

The world is already out of old equilibrium and many changes are irreversible.
  • So what will happen if we successfully fix climate change?
  • Is that the kind of world we want to live in?
  • Or should we simply adapt?
To be clear: this thread is not about stopping pollution or any other destructive behavior. It's about trying to reverse the effects humans have already done (like carbon dioxide scrubbing).
Our climate is always changing. I live in an area that used to be all glaciers. That was thousands of years ago. Now, it's flat and ice-free during the summers. Cleopatra's palace is underwater in Egypt. She lived there 2,000 years ago. Parts of the Saraha desert used to be grassland. I'm a senior citizen. Experts said that we'd all be dead or starving by now time and time again. I'm not even slightly concerned. It a way for people to get rich off of other people's fears. Talk to me about issues which are relevant!
 

SJuan9

Patrón
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
190%
Nov 22, 2017
48
91
USA
I spent many productive years within this field, and currently work in a VERY closely related field. It is a wealth transfer scheme through taxation. Notice how the loudest proponents of "change" except themselves from their own proposals.
Much of the underlying scientific principles and data sustaining the climate change agenda are unsound and contradictory when you dig deep and dissect it.
 

Dom117

Contributor
Read Fastlane!
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
79%
Sep 17, 2012
58
46
33
Brussels, Belgium
We will run out of fossil fuels anyway so why not change to sustainable energy now and maybe in the process accidentally save our planet?
Seems like a no-brainer.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

BellaPippin

B is for Beast
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
275%
Jul 16, 2015
1,430
3,928
34
Chicago, IL
Surprisingly Big Oils are all investing in clean energy, they know they're gonna run out of product.




I'm not sure the debate is whether climate change is "man-made" but it is for sure "man-accelerated". The deforestations have caused us to lose much needed trees that absorbed all the excess CO2 released into the air. The amount of cars also releases way too much CO2, so do factories, demand for cattle/food for a world that keeps increasing in population, etc etc. We are losing the poles and the glaciers at a FASTER rate and the water levels are rising. They're trying to find ways to keep Venice over water as we speak. The corals over at the Pacific are dying because the water temperature is rising, and with it entire ecosystems. It's imperative we control the excess CO2 and also fully develop all other alternative energy sources. Yes the climate might still change but it doesn't have to change so quickly that doesn't give us time to prepare or continually flood coastal cities causing so much damage. Extinctions will happen, but some of them have been 100% human fault. All that trash in the ocean isn't any agenda, its an insurmountable amount of trash and it's all ours. I don't know you but I do feel bad about that.

And you know what if you don't feel bad, I'll go as far as comparing you to a slowlane thinker. It's paycheck to paycheck mentality, but with your planet. No worry whatsoever of what you are leaving to the future generations, of what you do to the other living creatures on this planet. A change is also the responsibility of each individual to try to do a bit on their own, a little bit of what they can, each. I've heard plenty of people laugh it off and say "haha I'll be dead by then" "I don't have kids" and I think it's despicable.

This makes me think about people arguing vaccines are bad because "Big Pharma".... so what carbon tax? Real shit's still happening in front of your eyes, the global events and the greedy corporations both exist in parallel.
 
Last edited:

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
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.
 
Last edited:

GIlman

Still Gilman
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
604%
Oct 16, 2014
801
4,842
Beware of experts!! They are a mental shortcut most people take. Experts are wrong constantly, we just ignore when they are.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

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
Beware of experts!! They are a mental shortcut most people take. Experts are wrong constantly, we just ignore when they are.

Do you have a reputable source for this?:rofl:

Agreed. Experts are a logical fallacy. Who made them an expert? An expert on experts?
 
Last edited:

GIlman

Still Gilman
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
604%
Oct 16, 2014
801
4,842
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.
 
Last edited:

Chairman

New Contributor
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
77%
Feb 18, 2019
13
10
Australia
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.

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

Deleted72597

Guest
I'm glad there are some sensible people in the midst of the sensory deprived primates.
"Shut up brain, this is not about Three Wise Monkeys and has nothing to do with the thread"
Sorry about that.

Climate-friendly solution research >= Repairing current damage (Personal opinion)
Yet, i believe it depends on the magnitude of preemptive innovation/cleanup strategy

Look to Bill and Melinda Gates, not John Doe
A couple with success, knowledge, connections, intelligence, freedom and the will to do good.

If the performed action betters the conscious life experience of living creatures, it's worth doing.
Does carbon dioxide scrub directly or indirectly better the lives of conscious animals (humans included)? Factor in current estimated "life value" and future estimated "life value" through scaling and ripple effects.

It is hard for anyone of us to know with certainty what our actions will do to the planet, galaxy and universe long term, but we can understand ethics, we can understand hurt and joy. It's easier for us to see the consequences by basing it on ethics in our own lives. Will putting a large rock in the middle of the road increase the chance of someone crashing their car? Yes, most likely. Would you want to crash your car because someone else placed a rock in the middle of the road? No? Then don't place a rock in the middle of the road. Yes, there might be other factors depending on whether or not you should put a rock in the road. Now try philosophizing like that, just exchange rock in the road with choking on oil, drowning due to constriction or dying because you lose your food source.

And what other way should one discuss this topic? If there is no conscious feeling living things around to experience our magical planet in the past, present or future, what's the point in caring about what happens to it? Everything is chemicals, the only difference is we know that some chemical compositions poison/damage other chemical compositions. We know some of those compositions can experience happiness and some of those compositions we are not sure can experience... anything.
 

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 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.
 
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
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.

Chairman

New Contributor
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
77%
Feb 18, 2019
13
10
Australia
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.


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.”


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 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.
 

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
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.


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.”


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 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.

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.

@Chairman is doing nothing but proving my point.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Scientists debate whether the average temperature of the Earth is increasing, and if human activity is the principal cause.

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

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.

It is composed primarily of carbon dioxide and is much denser and hotter than that of Earth. The temperature at the surface is 740 K (467 °C, 872 °F), and the pressure is 93 bar (9.3 MPa), roughly the pressure found 900 m (3,000 ft) underwater on Earth.

Source: Atmosphere of Venus - Wikipedia

Seems consistent with our soda bottle experiment, right?

So for anyone reading along, take note. This is not how you formulate reality-based conclusions. You don't read articles with people's opinions on a situation.

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

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

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.
 
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.

Latest Posts

New Topics

Fastlane Insiders

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

Join Fastlane Insiders.

Top