Climate Change Solution?

@wildgrass said
You don't seem interested in learning or pragmatic solutions.

You don't have a solution to learn from. Do you remember the last time you suggested nuclear on this forum? It sparked an intense debate from your own left wing friends here.

@metal-brain said
You don't have a solution to learn from.

I don't understand this argument. You can't do anything because you don't know for sure what the outcome will be?

I'd like to think I at least got others to admit that there were significant environmental benefits to switching to nuclear power. At least that beats the negative Nancy "can't do that because we don't know everything" approach. It's hard doing new things, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do them.

@wildgrass said
I don't understand this argument. You can't do anything because you don't know for sure what the outcome will be?

I'd like to think I at least got others to admit that there were significant environmental benefits to switching to nuclear power. At least that beats the negative Nancy "can't do that because we don't know everything" approach. It's hard doing new things, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do them.

Create a thread endorsing nuclear power. You will see how much opposition there is again.

My argument is that alarmists are divided on a solution. You are all primed to accept a carbon tax because none of you alarmists can agree on much else.

Alarmists are obsessed with speaking about the perceived problem, not the solution. The elites want it that way so they can feed you their carbon tax solution because they ultimately want to expropriate wealth from the hardest working people in society.

It is all about money.

@metal-brain said
Alarmists are obsessed with speaking about the perceived problem, not the solution. The elites want it that way so they can feed you their carbon tax solution because they ultimately want to expropriate wealth from the hardest working people in society.

It is all about money.

Hello? Are you an alarmist? We are speaking about solutions now. I don't get it. Stop deflecting. A bunch of liberal states just rejected carbon taxes and drilling regulations. Your argument that carbon tax solutions are the only ones being proposed is a red herring.
[note: Solutions to problems come with degrees of probability and are not mutually exclusive so they are never going to be guaranteed to work. Anyone who thinks about problems knows that solutions are not guaranteed. Don't let that known truth keep you from thinking.]

Solution 1: Land use changes will have a negative effect on atmospheric carbon.

Solution 2: Increase reliance on non-carbon-emitting energy sources.

Solution 3: Turn emissions into productive commodities (e.g. enhanced oil recovery. This one is still in the innovation phase but gets lots of private VC dollars).

Etc. None of these will increase our tax burden.

@wildgrass said
Hello? Are you an alarmist? We are speaking about solutions now. I don't get it. Stop deflecting. A bunch of liberal states just rejected carbon taxes and drilling regulations. Your argument that carbon tax solutions are the only ones being proposed is a red herring.
[note: Solutions to problems come with degrees of probability and are not mutually exclusive so they are ne ...[text shortened]... tion phase but gets lots of private VC dollars).

Etc. None of these will increase our tax burden.

Then why are these ideas of yours never discussed in the corporate news media? Solutions are always vague. I'm telling you that is by design and no accident. The absence of debates is also no accident. When is the last time the PBS Newshour had a debate between climate scientists?

If it isn't propaganda why are no debates allowed?

@metal-brain said
Then why are these ideas of yours never discussed in the corporate news media? Solutions are always vague. I'm telling you that is by design and no accident. The absence of debates is also no accident. When is the last time the PBS Newshour had a debate between climate scientists?

If it isn't propaganda why are no debates allowed?

I just referred you to a recent opinion piece written in the NY Times, whose topic was non-carbon tax solutions.

@wildgrass said
I just referred you to a recent opinion piece written in the NY Times, whose topic was non-carbon tax solutions.

Not many people read the NY times website. How many people know about Operation Ajax?

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/16/world/secrets-history-cia-iran-special-report-plot-convulsed-iran-53-79.html?mtrref=search.yahoo.com&gwh=6EF3F6384B85DC5179580737D8325643&gwt=pay

When will I hear about it on the PBS Newshour or NBC Nightly News? That is what really counts. Have they ever even acknowledged that CO2 lags behind temperatures in the ice core samples and that Al Gore was as wrong as a person could be? Not that I have ever seen.

Why all the propaganda by omission? Is there a war on truth? Why are they deliberately keeping most people ignorant?

@metal-brain said
Not many people read the NY times website. How many people know about Operation Ajax?

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/16/world/secrets-history-cia-iran-special-report-plot-convulsed-iran-53-79.html?mtrref=search.yahoo.com&gwh=6EF3F6384B85DC5179580737D8325643&gwt=pay

When will I hear about it on the PBS Newshour or NBC Nightly News? That is what really counts. Have t ...[text shortened]... aganda by omission? Is there a war on truth? Why are they deliberately keeping most people ignorant?

I still don't understand what you're talking about with "all this propaganda". The article you posted was 18 years old. Why do you keep listening to Al Gore when you know he's just a lobbyist for the energy industry? What should "they" acknowledge regarding ice core sample CO2 from millions of years ago? Just the lag? What conclusion can you draw from that related to the industrial revolution?

@wildgrass said
I still don't understand what you're talking about with "all this propaganda". The article you posted was 18 years old. Why do you keep listening to Al Gore when you know he's just a lobbyist for the energy industry? What should "they" acknowledge regarding ice core sample CO2 from millions of years ago? Just the lag? What conclusion can you draw from that related to the industrial revolution?

Al Gore mislead a whole generation of people into believing CO2 caused global warming in the past based on ice core samples. Most people still believe that myth.
Why are there no debates on the PBS Newshour and all of the major network news channels (ABC, CBS, NBC) about this issue? There is always one person talking about it and that is it. Never more than one person.
There are plenty of climate scientists who think people are over reacting and would love to be on TV to explain it. Why are they not allowed to be on the news?
It is much like Dr. Balbina Hwang appearing on the PBS Newshour to talk about North Korea. There is never anyone there to counter her opinions and point out the DPRK only wanted and end to the joint military drills and a peace treaty and they would have ended all testing a LONG TIME AGO. You are not supposed to be reminded of stuff like that.

That is propaganda by omission. If the elites don't want a carbon tax why are they using propaganda in their news media? Are they afraid of what a real climate scientist will tell millions of people through their TVs?

@metal-brain said
That is propaganda by omission. If the elites don't want a carbon tax why are they using propaganda in their news media? Are they afraid of what a real climate scientist will tell millions of people through their TVs?

What?

A scientist generally does experiments and lets the politicians make policy. You can read the scientific articles and see that the vast majority would support climate-change mitigation strategies. What's the counter-point to that? You want another scientist yelling in his ear that climate change is happening but there's nothing we can to stop it? We should not even try?

@wildgrass said
What?

A scientist generally does experiments and lets the politicians make policy. You can read the scientific articles and see that the vast majority would support climate-change mitigation strategies. What's the counter-point to that? You want another scientist yelling in his ear that climate change is happening but there's nothing we can to stop it? We should not even try?

I didn't say anything about politicians. Why are climate scientists never allowed to debate on the corporate news media?

Reading scientific articles does not show a consensus. Did you read all of them? Even if you did you would have a biased interpretation of them like others have. Many climate scientists objected to these interpretations of them.

@metal-brain said
I didn't say anything about politicians. Why are climate scientists never allowed to debate on the corporate news media?

Reading scientific articles does not show a consensus. Did you read all of them? Even if you did you would have a biased interpretation of them like others have. Many climate scientists objected to these interpretations of them.

But many more agree than disagree. If we reduce CO2 temps will go down and that will also mitigate the methane problem too. If there is some tipping point coming up it will be disastrous for humans if not all life forms that are temperature dependent. Coral reef's for instance are already dying and the true temp rise hasn't really started yet.

@sonhouse said
But many more agree than disagree. If we reduce CO2 temps will go down and that will also mitigate the methane problem too. If there is some tipping point coming up it will be disastrous for humans if not all life forms that are temperature dependent. Coral reef's for instance are already dying and the true temp rise hasn't really started yet.

Agree about what? Be very specific.

"If we reduce CO2 temps will go down"

You don't know that. You don't even know what is causing the rising temps. You just keep repeating a popular theory based on a belief of cause and effect that is backwards.

Burning fossil fuels does not increase methane, the recovery of it does to some extent though. That "tipping point theory" is very weak and a largely a load of chicken little crap.

Coral reefs are dying from man made causes, but not from global warming. You are clinging onto a falsehood.

It has been done in labs a thousand times over. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and there is no amount of nay saying by you or anyone else that will change that. Earth is just a big lab. What happens in the lab happens on the planet. I am not forgetting about other GH gasses like methane, which is some 20 times more effective a GH gas.
If you think there is data refuting the lab results, post it. I will read it.

Corals are dying because of increase ocean temperatures AND increase in acidity of the oceans.
If they come up with a strategy that saves them, that will be corals doing the work, not mankind causing the temperature increase in the first place.

It is just a good thing you are not Trumps right hand man, but you already know he already has one just like you and Trump himself.

@metal-brain said
I didn't say anything about politicians.

.... and yet you talk about taxes all the time. Who do you think decides the tax laws?