Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.
Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more. I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it? What do any monopolies get from any kind of regulation? The ability to stifle competition while they can cope with new regulations. Also I suggest you look into how much money is ALREADY being made in the carbon swap market. What would happen to that market with wider carbon regulation I wonder? |
|
|
|
So, for the sake of argument, even assuming humans are causing it... what are the costs of reducing C02 output? People like to pretend "oh we might as well be safe rather than sorry! Why not? We have nothing to lose!"
Actually we have plenty to lose. Direct loss of life and reduction in quality of life for millions. Economic collapse is potentially another outcome. All for the "Well maybe we MIGHT slow down global warming." This is the main sticking point here. Implementing Co2 reduction as planned will have EXTREME COSTS.
In this context it is very appropriate to demand solid evidence, none of which has yet produced any reliable data suggesting humans are responsible. As you noted the sun cycles are also a factor, and in my opinion THE primary factor, not human contribution to C02 output.
Fossil fuel are not in unlimited supply here on Earth. Eventually, the cost to mine it will become more to more. Market forces are eventually going to force us to find more efficient and alternate forms of energy. We might as well start now rather than later. We already have hydroelectric plants for electricity and Hybrid cars are already becoming cheaper. If you prefer, not expending these "extreme costs" now will just translate to the costs having to be expended in the future. I really doubt that we are going to see an unbearable reduction in the quality of life for millions. From where I live, almost everyone is driving around in a huge SUV or monster truck. Is driving a compact car and/or hybrid car instead really that much of a tragic loss of the quality of life?  Edit: TLDR? to be a bit trite, "A stitch, in time, saves nine." There is a big difference between natural market forces and government mandated restriction. I have no problem with THE MARKET deciding oil is not worth it any more, but we aren't there yet. Also they have predicted peak oil how many times by now? No it is not unlimited, but there will be availability for the foreseeable future in spite of the naysayers. We use electricity for running hospitals, infrastructure for food and water, etc. If these global warming standards are implemented there WILL be energy shortages, brown outs, and black outs. Additionally developing nations will continue to be held down by these regulations the industrialized world MIGHT be able to cope with, while they will not. You are claiming that these regulations are equivalent to everyone driving around hybrid cars. Frankly that is a gross oversimplification bordering on being disingenuous. These regulations will have REAL COSTS. |
|
|
|
Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.
Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more. So, for the sake of argument, even assuming humans are causing it... what are the costs of reducing C02 output? People like to pretend "oh we might as well be safe rather than sorry! Why not? We have nothing to lose!" Actually we have plenty to lose. Direct loss of life and reduction in quality of life for millions. Economic collapse is potentially another outcome. All for the "Well maybe we MIGHT slow down global warming." This is the main sticking point here. Implementing Co2 reduction as planned will have EXTREME COSTS. In this context it is very appropriate to demand solid evidence, none of which has yet produced any reliable data suggesting humans are responsible. As you noted the sun cycles are also a factor, and in my opinion THE primary factor, not human contribution to C02 output. |
|
|
|
Education is usually a direct indicator of outcome.
This claim is false. Being born is usually a direct indicator of outcome. You're better off being born wealthy and be under-educated than being born porn and highly educated. So what you are saying is rich people are better off? MINDBLOWING. It is also true education factors into outcome all other things being equal. I just wish we could all be born porn. |
|
|
|
Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.
I mean, it's not even a government entity that's reporting climate change. It's a bunch of independent, non-governmental scientists that are reporting it. The government just follows up on their studies to see if they're legit or not. Honestly, an overwhelming majority of scientists (and data) points towards man-made climate change. And who funds the organizations that pay them? |
|
|
|
Its not required but its a strong correlation if you look at the countries you've mentioned.
Think about it though, education is one of the main drivers of class. Education is the one thing, that for the most part, allows someone to move up in class. How could you possibly sustain a distinct divide of financial classes without a distinct divide in financial education?
Can you name any countries with better education and as much financial inequality?
Actually, I find Socialists tend to be among the LEAST educated in matter of economics in general. If you are claiming some kind of positive correlation back up your claim with sources, don't just state it as an accepted fact. There is a divide in education, period. This will always be the case to one degree or another because equality of outcome is impossible. Sure I can. How about Israel or South Korea? Do you disagree with the statement that financial education is one of the most important factors for upward mobility? I assumed you would agree with that and am sorry for the incorrect assumption if you do not. Norway Denmark and Sweden have the highest financial literacy scores in the world. Is that a coincidence or does it have something to do with them being social democracies and having the highest union membership rate in the world? http://gflec.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Finlit_paper_16_F2_singles.pdfhttps://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Labor/Trade-union-membershipnational-level policies, such as those related to
education and consumer protection, shape financial literacy in these economies more than any other factor. If everyone is financially literate, there is no one to take advantage of through predatory financial practices which is big business. I disagree with your premise that financial education is some how defined as separate from education in general. Education is usually a direct indicator of outcome. What you call "financial education" sounds likely to be little more than yet another argument for re-branded Socialism. That is cute you used two culturally homogeneous nations with the populations of L.A. and New York respectively. The USA has about 350 million people in it. With scaling up the population comes problems with scaling up education on a national level. IMO localities should be in charge of their own educational standards to minimize this issue of scale. You might be served by reading these articles: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/why-denmark-isnt-the-utopian-fantasy-it-is-made-out-to-be-a6720701.htmlhttps://www.truthdig.com/articles/how-swedish-socialism-failed/These examples are not the utopias you claim them to be. |
|
|
|
You just blind. Normally URLs are sources. I made it nice, big, and red for your blind eyes. So you are saying a URL with a list of names on it is a source? |
|
|
|
Yeah, how dare people defend themselves right? What do they think this is America? The legitimate thing to do when some one accuses you is to lay down and die while the world executes your character.
Ahaha, funny you can't read an argument. An individual has the right to deny an allegation. They don't have a right to deny the entire justice process because they're wrongfully accused. I know this shit's complicated, but law and justice and all, but I figured you'd understand by now. But nah, you're too busy misinterpreting the arguments to make yourself feel better about everything  A suspect can deny gravity if they want, they are free to, that doesn't make gravity go away or change. Also denying charges is not equivalent to rejecting the entire judicial process. Also, weren't you people fond of saying over and over again "this is not a criminal investigation, it is a job interview?" So which is it? |
|
|
|
Nobody owes the income tax except those who admit they do. If taxing agent says you owe a tax, he is required by law to show you why - where you knowingly said you would give up some of you private property as taxes.
... blah blah blah, bullshit...
You obviously don't have an understanding of law, do you? Congress has the ability to create laws and taxation. If you refuse to pay your fair share, you should be held accountable. If you refuse to pay your taxes, then you shouldn't be allowed public services. Might as well declare your own sovereign nation at that point. Rofl. I'd love to see BADecker kicked off public services (such as the Internet). Actually he is right. Paying income taxes in the US is technically voluntary. Does that mean they won't come after you? Hell no, they will, however he is technically correct on this point. |
|
|
|
It is strange to see someone like you to advocate to wait for the facts to come out. I could have sworn that you used to be strongly against that.
Nah, I was strongly against individuals denying any wrongdoing while also criticizing the investigation into them. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" sort of logic there. But there's been so many false "facts" thrown around so far due to media reporting on this investigation (story changed twice now), I'm pretty sure no one has a clue what's actually going on. Avenatti repeatedly denied doing this... I know you have problems reading... but didn't know you had issues with logical operators too. I've gone ahead and bolded the part you missed. If you want, I can make this size 50 font and red too for your blind eyes. Yeah, how dare people defend themselves right? What do they think this is America? The legitimate thing to do when some one accuses you is to lay down and die while the world executes your character. |
|
|
|
Yep, those damn Republican scamsters! letting 150 total people vote by email because the area was crushed by a hurricane, selfish bastard. Clearly those 150 votes are all fraud and will make the difference. The thousands and thousands of ballots they just keep "finding" are perfectly legitimate though. |
|
|
|
It is strange to see someone like you to advocate to wait for the facts to come out. I could have sworn that you used to be strongly against that.
Nah, I was strongly against individuals denying any wrongdoing while also criticizing the investigation into them. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" sort of logic there. But there's been so many false "facts" thrown around so far due to media reporting on this investigation (story changed twice now), I'm pretty sure no one has a clue what's actually going on. Avenatti repeatedly denied doing this... |
|
|
|
Its not required but its a strong correlation if you look at the countries you've mentioned.
Think about it though, education is one of the main drivers of class. Education is the one thing, that for the most part, allows someone to move up in class. How could you possibly sustain a distinct divide of financial classes without a distinct divide in financial education?
Can you name any countries with better education and as much financial inequality?
Actually, I find Socialists tend to be among the LEAST educated in matter of economics in general. If you are claiming some kind of positive correlation back up your claim with sources, don't just state it as an accepted fact. There is a divide in education, period. This will always be the case to one degree or another because equality of outcome is impossible. Sure I can. How about Israel or South Korea? |
|
|
|
People are going to be skeptical about anything that requires understanding of multiple scientific principles at work in a dynamic system with many variables. Traditionally, the uneducated have just called this type of thing "god". There is no point in debating climate change with people who don't understand the greenhouse effect, carbon cycle, geological time, combustion, ocean currents, the effect of salinity on density, or the difference between weather and climate.
We have people who think the whole earth was once flooded, people who think it is 5000 years old, people who think it is FLAT. Imagine trying to get those people to understand this when they don't know the basics.
Could you possibly get any further up your own ass? I am here, I am willing to debate you. So far I have seen ZERO reliable evidence to support the anthropogenic climate change model. Change my mind. Use facts and sourced references. |
|
|
|
So you are saying it is my job to do your research for you to prove your point?
It's your job to read messages before you respond. The fact that you didn't recognize my source even though you quoted it shows you failed at doing your job. Perhaps you should go back to grade school to learn how to read again. So you are saying I am a paid disinformation agent, AND that you are incapable of, or too lazy to source your own arguments? Are you blind? The source is in your own quote. I question your ability to read. It's kinda sad that you spout out random shit constantly, but refuse to look at the shit you respond to. Are you too lazy to look at what you're responding to before responding? So you are saying a list of names is a source? |
|
|
|
Guilt via association. Everyone knows that is valid evidence... Now try the actual evidence.
Dude's only guilty of not coming clean first and becoming part of witness protection to testify against the GOP on counts of corruption, collusion, and fraud. He's probably still be alive today if he did so. That is not evidence, that is more baseless theorizing. |
|
|
|
He died in a Minnesota hotel room in 2017 in what authorities ruled a suicide at the age of 81, weeks after telling friends that he believed he had finally obtained the missing emails, according to a person familiar with the matter. His death came 10 days after describing his efforts to a reporter for the Journal. Yeah, the GOP for sure... Mr. Smith’s pursuit of Mrs. Clinton’s emails put him in contact with a varied group of hackers and operatives on the fringes of Republican politics and brought him to dark corners of the online world, the Journal has previously reported. Ahaha, right? Guilt via association. Everyone knows that is valid evidence... Now try the actual evidence. If you can too please do some more mental gymnastics explaining why he is associated with the GOP, trying to expose the crimes of Hillary Clinton, yet the GOP wants him dead? |
|
|
|
So you are saying your conspiracy theories are perfectly legitimate and fact, and every else's conspiracy theories are trolls and insane if they disagree with you.
Nah, just insane retards like you suggesting it was Clinton that killed the dude off. Rofl. So you are saying accusing an individual with a long history of mysterious and convenient deaths surrounding her is less likely to be responsible for what you claim is a murder, but your generalized blame on the GOP, with no motive or explanation makes more sense? I mean, the dude was a connection between GOP and Russia. The Kremlin couldn't let that connection linger, not with the world watching. Longtime Republican activist Peter W. Smith raised at least $100,000 from unidentified donors for a "scholarship fund…for Russian students" as part of an effort to obtain emails stolen by hackers from Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 presidential election, The Wall Street Journal reports.
We all know it was Russia that hacked the emails (thanks APT28/APT29). Actually the DNC never allowed the FBI to do forensic analysis on the servers, instead only allowing the private firm they hired to access it. So no, we don't know that. Also the forensics of the file regarding the copy speed confirm the idea that the file was copied locally and leaked, not remotely hacked. This entire Russian collusion narrative was designed from day 1 to distract from the murder of Seth Rich for leaking those files that documented the crimes of the DNC. I would love to see your source that this man had anything to do with so called Russian collusion during the election. |
|
|
|
So you are saying your conspiracy theories are perfectly legitimate and fact, and every else's conspiracy theories are trolls and insane if they disagree with you.
Nah, just insane retards like you suggesting it was Clinton that killed the dude off. Rofl. So you are saying accusing an individual with a long history of mysterious and convenient deaths surrounding her is less likely to be responsible for what you claim is a murder, but your generalized blame on the GOP, with no motive or explanation makes more sense? |
|
|
|
So you are saying it is my job to do your research for you to prove your point?
It's your job to read messages before you respond. The fact that you didn't recognize my source even though you quoted it shows you failed at doing your job. Perhaps you should go back to grade school to learn how to read again. So you are saying I am a paid disinformation agent, AND that you are incapable of, or too lazy to source your own arguments? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
