When they all start addressing the mass produced waste form mindless consumerism then I might listen. Look at the landfills, look at all the plastics manufactured, used and discarded that never go away. Google the plastic waste island in the Pacific that is roughly the size of Texas. When they come up with viable ways to reduce and recycle all the garbage then we might get somewhere. So as of yet there is no money to be made from recycling, reducing use and conserving resources. That is the bottom line……making money.
Wait–where’s your photo of you and your emotional support gun? Beyond that, let’s talk common sense. Remember when we used to have four seasons in SC? Now it’s virtually an endless summer with about 3 weeks of cold temps. And to get all analytical on you, why don’t you spend an afternoon compiling average temperatures for the major cities in SC over say, the last 20-years. That should keep you occupied for a while, off the streets, and hopefully, you’ll learn a little something along the way instead of endlessly repeating your right-wingnut talking points.
The idea of carbon credits and all that nonsense is just capitalism figuring out a scam to simultaneously not solve the issue of global warming (because it isn’t profitable) and make a buck off gullible people (which is profitable). Prioleau perfectly described why capitalism is the problem here, so, kudos?
But yes, it bears repeating. Capitalism will not fix global warming because it is not profitable to do so. Global warming is just one example of a market failure, admittedly a big one, in a long, long list of market failures.
The state will not fix global warming because it serves capital. When capital tells it to jump, rest assured it will jump within 1 nanometer how high capital has told it to jump.
The best capitalism will do is, well, scam the ever living hell out of people any way it can. Most of what the state will do is half measures that won’t disturb the profit-seeking ventures of capital. Those two positions see eye to eye far more often than most would like to admit. I think it is pretty obvious to tell that Republicans stand for the “do nothing” side while Democrats stand for the “do effectively nothing” side. You should probably still vote, but do so knowing the house always wins.
The other reality is that there is a huge amount of restructuring of society required to avoid the worst of global warming, and it requires a great deal of cooperation, effort, and ingenuity focused at doing it. Everyone’s lives would drastically change by necessity, and people would just have to accept that. But you’re expecting politicians – even the so-called honest ones – who spend most of their time in Congress drumming up money for their next election to take time out of their day to work? Hard? On an important issue?
Not to sound pessimistic but as a leftist, there’s really only one way this gets better.
I just wish there could be some sort of grand, large-scale “Counsel of Nicea” type of event for comprehensive academic debate on this, with both sides being required put up fully credentialled scientists in the specific relevant fields (and not every Tom , Dick , and Harry who want to jump on one bandwagon or another to get $$$ from their chosen sponsor) to fully respond to each other’s requests for data, both filtered and unfiltered, and each others questions and criticisms, with full time for proper rebuttal. Print the whole thing into a giant compendium for the future generations to analyze. Decide whether or not there is in fact substantial human causation, that it can in fact be stopped or reversed under real, quantitative remedial measures that are worth the time, money, and sacrifice. I’ve been a skeptic of this mostly for the reason that I can’t find anything that explains to me how the present terms are materially different from the hundreds of thousands of years (even millions) of both regional and global warming and cooling that occurred without the slightest trace of human industrial activity. I need to see something that shows me why what may or may not be currently going on is not mostly the result of vulcanism or solar cycles. I’m skeptical, but not at a point of firm belief or conviction by a long shot. I can be convinced one way or the other if I just knew that both sides had a full opportunity to be heard and responded to.
….and that’s exactly what I’m talking about….rather than engage in the debate, and WIN it, we are told “there is no debate, stupid, now shut up and go away.” That’s the kind of stuff people say who can’t really defend their positions when they are put on the spot. There has been debate, for decades- but it has been peicemeal; soundbyte and cinema from the respective camps. I say “welcome to thunderdome” and let have it out – academically – for all to see.
Do you really think a climate denier will just change their mind when being presented with evidence? Do you think they’ll admit they were mistaken or something?
You realize we are in a political climate where people double and triple down on bad takes whenever they are challenged because they’ve assumed said takes as their identity, and thus challenging them on their bad take is attacking their identity?
You don’t get it. You can’t debate with “Nuh uh!” You leave them to their sandbox and their toys and go back to working on stuff that matters. Scientists furthering the knowledge of mankind is useful. Scientists trying to convince laymen that refuse to listen is a fool’s venture.
Battle of Wits, Against the Unarmed May 15, 2023 at 2:11 pm
The peer review process already exists. Climate data and the theory of climate change in general is in a constant state of being challenged at the scientific level by anyone competent that is participating in it. There is no threshold for any scientific theory to become immutable law, if anything the theories that are accepted are only accepted under the existing knowledge base, and will forever be open to change the moment new information suggests that it should be.
This isn’t football. There is no Super Bowl every year for every scientific theory to prove itself for laymen in some kind of arena. There really shouldn’t be. NASA should not have to waste time debating flat Earthers. There is zero equivalence between the two in regards to scientific understanding. To put them on the same table together is to grant ignorance an unwarranted level of legitimacy.
If Fox News could create a climate study lab and show verifiable results from experiments showing how CO2 can’t be driving global warming, they probably would have already. That goes for right wing think tanks, any billionaires wanting to dip into their pockets, some rogue band of scientists that aren’t “woke” or whatever else. Lord knows the oil companies would have done this by now too, they’ve known since at least the 70s about global warming. From their own studies.
13 comments
Might I suggest you ask your provider for a script for Zofran which would help stop your endless vomiting of pointless and doltish drivel.
You’re welcome.
Question the claims of the Climate Cult™? Hell, we still have folks clinging to their masks! Even PT Barnum would be impressed.
The Venn diagram of global warming deniers and anti-vaccine dolts is just a circle, isn’t it?
Science bad! Science bad!
When they all start addressing the mass produced waste form mindless consumerism then I might listen. Look at the landfills, look at all the plastics manufactured, used and discarded that never go away. Google the plastic waste island in the Pacific that is roughly the size of Texas. When they come up with viable ways to reduce and recycle all the garbage then we might get somewhere. So as of yet there is no money to be made from recycling, reducing use and conserving resources. That is the bottom line……making money.
Wait–where’s your photo of you and your emotional support gun? Beyond that, let’s talk common sense. Remember when we used to have four seasons in SC? Now it’s virtually an endless summer with about 3 weeks of cold temps. And to get all analytical on you, why don’t you spend an afternoon compiling average temperatures for the major cities in SC over say, the last 20-years. That should keep you occupied for a while, off the streets, and hopefully, you’ll learn a little something along the way instead of endlessly repeating your right-wingnut talking points.
The idea of carbon credits and all that nonsense is just capitalism figuring out a scam to simultaneously not solve the issue of global warming (because it isn’t profitable) and make a buck off gullible people (which is profitable). Prioleau perfectly described why capitalism is the problem here, so, kudos?
But yes, it bears repeating. Capitalism will not fix global warming because it is not profitable to do so. Global warming is just one example of a market failure, admittedly a big one, in a long, long list of market failures.
The state will not fix global warming because it serves capital. When capital tells it to jump, rest assured it will jump within 1 nanometer how high capital has told it to jump.
The best capitalism will do is, well, scam the ever living hell out of people any way it can. Most of what the state will do is half measures that won’t disturb the profit-seeking ventures of capital. Those two positions see eye to eye far more often than most would like to admit. I think it is pretty obvious to tell that Republicans stand for the “do nothing” side while Democrats stand for the “do effectively nothing” side. You should probably still vote, but do so knowing the house always wins.
The other reality is that there is a huge amount of restructuring of society required to avoid the worst of global warming, and it requires a great deal of cooperation, effort, and ingenuity focused at doing it. Everyone’s lives would drastically change by necessity, and people would just have to accept that. But you’re expecting politicians – even the so-called honest ones – who spend most of their time in Congress drumming up money for their next election to take time out of their day to work? Hard? On an important issue?
Not to sound pessimistic but as a leftist, there’s really only one way this gets better.
Revolution.
I just wish there could be some sort of grand, large-scale “Counsel of Nicea” type of event for comprehensive academic debate on this, with both sides being required put up fully credentialled scientists in the specific relevant fields (and not every Tom , Dick , and Harry who want to jump on one bandwagon or another to get $$$ from their chosen sponsor) to fully respond to each other’s requests for data, both filtered and unfiltered, and each others questions and criticisms, with full time for proper rebuttal. Print the whole thing into a giant compendium for the future generations to analyze. Decide whether or not there is in fact substantial human causation, that it can in fact be stopped or reversed under real, quantitative remedial measures that are worth the time, money, and sacrifice. I’ve been a skeptic of this mostly for the reason that I can’t find anything that explains to me how the present terms are materially different from the hundreds of thousands of years (even millions) of both regional and global warming and cooling that occurred without the slightest trace of human industrial activity. I need to see something that shows me why what may or may not be currently going on is not mostly the result of vulcanism or solar cycles. I’m skeptical, but not at a point of firm belief or conviction by a long shot. I can be convinced one way or the other if I just knew that both sides had a full opportunity to be heard and responded to.
There is no debate.
Man made climate change is already causing mass destruction.
That just from internal studies done by oil companies over the years.
The credible, global scientific community has already agreed on man-made climate change decades ago.
You are confused because you get your information from politicians, not scientists.
your tinfoil hat is cattywampus just like your warped pea brain. there is cliimate change its called spring summer fall winter. fixed it for ya
….and that’s exactly what I’m talking about….rather than engage in the debate, and WIN it, we are told “there is no debate, stupid, now shut up and go away.” That’s the kind of stuff people say who can’t really defend their positions when they are put on the spot. There has been debate, for decades- but it has been peicemeal; soundbyte and cinema from the respective camps. I say “welcome to thunderdome” and let have it out – academically – for all to see.
“rather than engage in the debate, and WIN it”
Win what?
Do you really think a climate denier will just change their mind when being presented with evidence? Do you think they’ll admit they were mistaken or something?
You realize we are in a political climate where people double and triple down on bad takes whenever they are challenged because they’ve assumed said takes as their identity, and thus challenging them on their bad take is attacking their identity?
You don’t get it. You can’t debate with “Nuh uh!” You leave them to their sandbox and their toys and go back to working on stuff that matters. Scientists furthering the knowledge of mankind is useful. Scientists trying to convince laymen that refuse to listen is a fool’s venture.
The peer review process already exists. Climate data and the theory of climate change in general is in a constant state of being challenged at the scientific level by anyone competent that is participating in it. There is no threshold for any scientific theory to become immutable law, if anything the theories that are accepted are only accepted under the existing knowledge base, and will forever be open to change the moment new information suggests that it should be.
This isn’t football. There is no Super Bowl every year for every scientific theory to prove itself for laymen in some kind of arena. There really shouldn’t be. NASA should not have to waste time debating flat Earthers. There is zero equivalence between the two in regards to scientific understanding. To put them on the same table together is to grant ignorance an unwarranted level of legitimacy.
If Fox News could create a climate study lab and show verifiable results from experiments showing how CO2 can’t be driving global warming, they probably would have already. That goes for right wing think tanks, any billionaires wanting to dip into their pockets, some rogue band of scientists that aren’t “woke” or whatever else. Lord knows the oil companies would have done this by now too, they’ve known since at least the 70s about global warming. From their own studies.
the sky is falling the sky is falling , blah blah blah its all a grift. , nobodys buyin this swill. trump will change it all back