This is so backwards, my mind is about to split.
YOU are putting a political and belief spin on it.
The science doesn’t lie. It is based in facts. And scientists universally agree that there is a profound effect humans have made on our climate. The data is there. If you choose not to read it or understand it, that’s your problem and not some conspiracy to control you. And those that disagree are pretty much all in the pocket of private interest.
The only reason we are having this discussion is because parties opposed to any change to the status quo have a risk of losing a vested interest. And you’re buying it. It’s completely clouding the discussion of “what can and should we do?” to “who’s right in a war of facts vs. misleadings?”
If there wasn’t so much money to throw at this, we’d be way past this. Scientists as a whole don’t have the capacity, much less the interest, to control you. Yet you’ll eat up whatever propaganda and PR bullshit coming from the wrong side puts out.
If you want to drive a huge SUV that costs a king’s ransom to fill up, then so be it. Gasoline isn’t going to disappear overnight. But it WILL get more expensive and continue to be concern geopolitically. I can’t imagine why the US WOULDN’T want to get away from oil as the Middle East has been an issue for some time.
Seriously man…reading your other comments…I don’t see any argument except flimsy support to suck on Big Oil’s teat for long as possible.
Jermo, man, you sound very angry about all of this. Sorry, I didn’t mean to get so personal or be so stupid. :cry:
I have said before, I consider the science and draw my own conclusions. Can you live with that? Wouldn’t want your head to split now.
You seem to be missing my point too. I am not shill for Big Oil or corporations or whatever else you want to accuse me of and your vitriolic comments here illustrate just how anyone who even pretends to disagree with “universal” science is ridiculed and dismissed. I am very much in disagreement with others here on how we as a country, or as a species, should go about dealing with this problem, not that it is or is not a problem.
I am not sure why it is backwards to have an opinion contrary to we should redefine the economy, government and human society to deal with climate change. As if this is not the backwards, or radical, perspective.
We do need more data.
Knowns:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
There is more of it now than if humans were not present.
UN-Knowns:
If I pee in your pool, there is pee in your pool. You can probably still drink the pool water just fine but make no doubt about it, you are drinking my diluted pee. The only question is how much of a concentration of my pee in your pool is deadly and how long will you let me pee in your pool before you get irate?
For the human induced climate change skeptics I have a question. What would you require for proof? For true believers in God, no amount of proof is adequate to change their beliefs. It is important for me to know if you can be convinced of an argument in order for me to try. If you were to say “If the ocean levels went up 100 feet in a decade that would prove nothing, if average world wide temperatures increased by 5C in a decade that means nothing” then I would conclude I am wasting my time to convince you of human caused climate change.
Garg. Yes, you can find a PHd to say anything that agrees with any outlandish statement. I could find a PHd who is convinced that we can from aliens who blah blah blah. I’m not sure what your point is. Back to your premise/strawman #3. No reasonable person nor scientist can possibly claim that humans are or are not responsible for all/no change. Can you really find somebody who says that the climate was locked in one state until humans came along? This guy says that humans are 100% responsible for what exactly? Maybe 100% responsible for changes humans caused.
Yes. The only solution is a drastic change to the fundamental paradigms human civilization is organized upon.
THIS ladies and gentleman is the quote that will leads to the death of millions - which if I understand correctly, we’re all in agreement that we’d like to avoid (even Frimmel)?
I disagree. It should be the death of BILLIONS and good riddance
-clarification-
**1. YES PROVEN SCIENCE DOESN’T LIE!!![/[/size]b]
2. CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL! AND HAPPENING!
We all agree on that.
What we don’t agree on is the extent we can control, and how much it matters.
This is like the bad dice arguement… do we argue the dice of the basis of the last battle? Turn? power? or entire game?
Bad dice over a series of games mean f-all… bad dice for round 1 of your capital defence can be percieved as GAME.
The question that is VERY unresolved, is how much is man responsible for? And how much does it matter? and how much of it is reversible/irreversible, and how many people are going to die in the process wheter political or scientific solutions are used (or both -the nazi way!- lol). These are matters of opinions.
And opinions use science to mislead.
As we continue in this thread, can we choose to all agree on my 2 points?**
OK OK. I agree on those 2 points, but I disagree that its a bad thing. The world will be MUCH better off without fat disgusting humans stinking up the place. Baaaaah!
Axis and Allies .org’s Manifesto of CLIMATE TRUTHS.
Despite our leanings, below is a list of truths I believe we all going to agree to, with some discussion. Which should contribute to our future conversations in life regarding climate change! Because it’s nice to be educated and have some kind of basis!
Everything below we all agree to be TRUE (don’t we?) Please feel free to copy paste, add and subtract, as -reasonably fair- as possible.
1. Science doesn’t usually lie
-Sub A. But it can be used to mislead people when presented skewed/damaged/misrepresented
2. Climate Change is real and happening
-Sub A. FACT it has been happening since the beginning of time
-Sub B. The extent of -modern- human influence is in question
3. We do-not control climate change - but certainly effect it, somwhere between 1% to 99%.
-Sub A. If we controlled it, we wouldn’t be having this discussion
***Theoretical solutions available - to my understanding… -please revise as necessary :)
Frimmel’s Day - Total social upheaval through invasive government and extensive control of everything, including cow farts.
The Vance Prorogotive - Kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
The Gargantuquest - Embrace the virus we are, and exhaust all possible resources and brain power on the conquest of space.
The Jermoplan - Go back to horse, cart, and granola
The SHoffman - Wait it out, the sun’s gunna rise tomoril.**
Man is causing this problem. This is not an unresolved question. As you say, Garg, at this point the biggest questions the science has yet to answer is how bad and how fast. What is causing climate change is not in question except by those who don’t want to take action. Yes, what is unresolved is how bad the catastrophe we’re heading for will be and when we’ll get there. The longer we refuse to change our ways the faster we’ll hit the worst scenarios. This is the facts of the matter as succinctly and clearly as I can state them. This is not a matter of opinion. This is what the data concludes.
I’m done with this thread. Enjoy your fiddle concert.
What can I add? I touch of Economics perhaps? It’s a right wing-science but (quasi)science all the same, so perhaps both sides can take something from it.
As rare as it may be I actually agree with Garg on the point about us moving on and humanity surviving. In fact, in another billion years the earth will still be here, spinning around the sun without a care for that blip in history when humans were around. And most likely we wont have made a hint of an effect on the earth of 1 billion years from now. Right Garg?
But this is another straw man. I dont really give a ���� about the earth of a billion years from now. I care about earth tomorrow, and especially about earth 20 years from now: when I want to go skiing, or take a vacation at the great barrier reef. If I cant go skiing anywhere, even Smithers (ever been to Smithers BC Garg? not exactly the palce for a nice ski holiday…) or if the great barrier reef has been bleached by acidified oceans in 20 years I’m going to be ticked!
So what’s the answer? Remake our civilization cold turkey? (Frimm) NO!
The answer is to treat is as we treat any other harm done by one to another (or in economics an “externality”) and disincentivize it.
If you really really want to take that Escalade-limo to the prom that’s fine! You have the RIGHT to do that. What you don’t have the right to do is drive on people’s lawns and crash into their cars on your way there. And actually, you kind of have the right to do that too, you just have to pay for it.
The same principle needs to apply to FOSSIL CO2 (not cows, not firewood.) Where if you want to use it you need to compensate those who are negatively affected by it. This raises the cost of doing it and will actually HELP us move to a place where we dont use fossil fuels any more (if we ever get there which is unlikely: plastic is AWESOME).
So a penalty for fossil fuels allows us to continue with our civilization as we have it, puts us on the correct path to technological development (where the technologies that harm people are more expensive and those that dont are less so) AND compensates those who are negatively effected by climate change.
Whaddya think G? Carbon tax it is!
You see Joel, I’m a CONSERVATIVE and I don’t believe in living high on the hog, piling up debt, and distorting the biosphere for our own selfish benefit while leaving our children to pay back all that debt for ���� they didnt use and live in a less diverse and habitable planet for oil they didnt burn. It’s just not fiscally/environmentally/intergenerationally responsible. ;-)
And you can add me to the list of solutions.
***Theoretical solutions available - to my understanding… -please revise as necessary :)
Frimmel’s Day - Total social upheaval through invasive government and extensive control of everything, including cow farts.
The Vance Prorogotive - Kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
The Gargantuquest - Embrace the virus we are, and exhaust all possible resources and brain power on the conquest of space.
The Jermoplan - Go back to horse, cart, and granola
The SHoffman - Wait it out, the sun’s gunna rise tomoril.
Haha… this gave me a real laugh. Thanks Garg. :lol:**
Haha… this gave me a real laugh. Thanks Garg. :lol:
You are welcome…
I’ve added another simple meter to the equation :)
***Theoretical solutions available - to my understanding… -please revise as necessary :)
Frimmel’s Day - Â Total social upheaval through invasive government and extensive control of everything, including cow farts. = Millions die
The Vance Prorogotive - Kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. = Billions die
The Gargantuquest - Embrace the virus we are, and exhaust all possible resources and brain power on the conquest of space. = Millions and Billions of aliens die
The Jermoplan - Go back to horse, cart, and granola = Fat people go extinct
The ScHoffman - Wait it out, the sun’s gunna rise tomoril. = people without sunscreen die
Well it seems we’ve found the solution to the problem team? :)
And lets not forget
b]Canucks take 12 when there’s only 10 economic recovery plan** - Hands in my pockets, hands in my pockets, hands in my pockets… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iVCfYQPUUI = the economy dies
Judging from how everyone felt about the morality of exterminating aliens in my other thread… I think we have some choices!
The Economy Dies!?
Holy shit! I didnt see that coming! Good thing I got out of BC!
Must be tough being unemployed there in what with the economy having been killed by the carbon tax and all.
Now Garg, without googling, see if you can tell me when the Carbon tax was introduced in Canada and how quickly the economy died thereafterwards?
Your best guess!
GO!
The most efficient solution to the global warming crisis and food supply crisis is the extermination of a significant proportion of humanity in a nuclear war. Somewhere in Asia would be good.
@Vance:
The most efficient solution to the global warming crisis and food supply crisis is the extermination of a significant proportion of humanity in a nuclear war. Somewhere in Asia would be good.
Ahahahahahahahahahaahahaa!!! :lol: :lol: Vance… sticking to his guns. Funny thing is that he is probably right.
Look I won’t kid you about the A bomb. I’ve seen what it can do in Japan, Bikini, Eniwetok. It’s deadly. It’s… like a woman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quD1-MnReMI
2:42
But the thing is, a nuclear war would COOL the world’s climate, and reduce our planet’s human burden.
The Economy Dies!?
Holy ����! I didnt see that coming! Good thing I got out of BC!
Must be tough being unemployed there in what with the economy having been killed by the carbon tax and all.
Now Garg, without googling, see if you can tell me when the Carbon tax was introduced in Canada and how quickly the economy died thereafterwards?
Your best guess!
GO!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK-esBqKyLM&feature=related
The carbon tax which was introduce in (without googling) I recall as 2008/2009 was NO WHERE NEAR what you would have liked to have seen Canuck. :) Lets face it. It’s about 1% of what you and Frimmel would like to impose! :P
And it also has an incremental effect if I’m not mistaken. 5 cents a litre extra this year, 10 cents next year, 30 cents a litre in 2015 kind of thing. Atleast that’s what they were talking about. I remember speaking with the minister of finance personally at the time, who’s campaign i worked on, and who I express my explicit- dissappointment with. He tried to convince me (at the time I drove 150km a day for work) that it was a “revenue neutral” tax. Pfftp. Lies. I never supported the BC libs again.
Tax and spend! Tax and spend! Knee in you package Knee in your package, knee in your package! :P
Vance!
I found a real world regime that is entirely in support of your plan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=t30IzpySXrs
Business is booming.
Whaddya think G? Carbon tax it is! Â
You see Joel, I’m a CONSERVATIVE and I don’t believe in living high on the hog, piling up debt, and distorting the biosphere for our own selfish benefit while leaving our children to pay back all that debt for ���� they didnt use and live in a less diverse and habitable planet for oil they didnt burn. It’s just not fiscally/environmentally/intergenerationally responsible.  ;-)
And you can add me to the list of solutions.
Looks like you and super H have been hard at work canuck! :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX5ODglF2Ys&feature=related
That’s a definite economic incentive for me to clean up the enviroment! :D
leaving our children to pay back all that debt
Who said anything about paying it back? :-)
North Korea would be better than nothing I guess, but I was hoping more for a full on China-Japan holocaust over those stupid islands they are so worked up about, or maybe an Iran-Israel battle of armageddon kind of scenario with Jesus returning and all that sh!t. Come on somebody’ gotta go first! Press the button and let’s get the show on the road!!
