I read a few months ago that the holy irrefutable 1.5C no-turning-back mantra came about in the mid-90's while IPCC and UNFCCC were in the formative stage because it sounded more scientific than 1C or 2C because of the decimal point.
ALSO.... in the documentary "How Big Oil Conquered the World" it is stated that Mr. Al Gore's professor was a member of an elitist group who wanted to link the supply and price of oil to the fiat currencies of the earth....... A Carbon Tax accomplishes exactly that goal.... and appears on the surface to be against BigOil.... to the ordinary person....... That is rather dark but kind of brilliant marketing....... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...l-conquered-the-world.581777/#post-1072247318
From the oil companies' point of view, the problem with a carbon tax is that government gets the money, not them. They much prefer political suppression of supply through regulation, prohibitions, withholding of permits, etc., as it greatly increases prices -- which they get all of -- and their profits while enabling them to delay extraction of their higher-cost reserves until it is more profitable.
Alarmism is expensive. Biden’s Energy Policies Directly Cost U.S. Households More Than $2,548 Since 2021 ECONOMIC COSTS JULY 19, 2024
It's not even that, it is that they are actually working against them and using the money they extort to help them do it. I often look to California for examples of this, especially as a lot of "Progressives" point to it as an example of how the nation should be. The first thing they will do is demonize an industry, and paint them out to be the "bad guys" who are "exploiting" everybody. And start raising taxes on them. And when the income from those taxes causes them to either leave the state or demand for the product to decrease and less taxes are coming in, they will either double-down on the taxes, or shift their focus and start taxing another group. And it has repeated over and over again in the last century. Early on, it was the railroad, mining, and timber industries. But those eventually all left the state, so they moved on to others. One of them about 3 decades ago was the tobacco industry. I still remember when in the 1990s they slapped a 50 cent per pack tax on, that they said was to go to "education" and health programs for children. Well, the only education we saw were a lot of anti-smoking ads. And about fifteen years later they wanted to hike the tax yet again, because the amount of tax money they had been making was less because people actually stopped smoking. And when it was demanded to know what health programs they had created with the previous tax money for children, they finally had to admit they had created none, it all just went in the general fund. But they still got their increased tobacco tax. And for the past 30 years the oil industry has been such a target. California is one of the largest gas producers in the country, and the largest on the West Coast. Yet, at the same time it has the most expensive gasoline in the nation. And that is entirely because of taxes and demands they have placed on the industry. California actually uses a special blend of gasoline that can not be sold in any other state, and gasoline from other states can not be sold there. And that was entirely demanded by the state. And they said they were forcing on those high taxes because gas is bad, and we should all be driving electric cars. Well, they got their wish, and more people use electric cars there than anywhere else in the country. But now they have another problem, the amount of taxes they were making from gas sales, smog registrations, and all the other fees and taxes they threw onto regular cars has been drying up. So now they want to shift all of those high taxes onto the drivers of electric cars. And we also see it in one of the last large industries in the state, agriculture. California started as an agriculture state, that is why people came there in the first place. But now, they are trying to paint agriculture as the enemy, increasing taxes and restrictions to the point that many are just leaving the state. And one of the biggest weapons the last two decades is that the farmers are "stealing the water from the people". Carbon Tax is just a scam, it always has been. A way to exploit money from industry to pay for their pet projects and programs. Well, California finally got their wish, they have pretty much taxed the industry and middle class jobs completely out of the state. And it does not even stop there. I remember the last time that Moonbeam Brown was Governor of California. And his big pet project at the time was a "Bullet Train" from LA to Las Vegas. Now do not get me wrong, I am actually a huge supporter of both high speed rail and rail travel. And that project actually made a lot of sense at the time, as there was a huge amount of traffic between LA and Vegas every weekend in that era. The freeway and highways between the two was often packed with all the people going to Vegas on the weekend. However, the environmentalists got involved and eventually the project was killed. And in the almost 30 years he was out of office a lot changed. Most notably, the rise of the Indian Casinos, which actually killed a hell of a lot of the traffic that used to flock to Vegas, as well as Reno and other cities. So instead, when he brought back his Bullet Train project yet again, now it would go from LA to Baghdad by the Bay. And now billions of dollars later, it is still not open, not close to being open, and will literally go from nowhere to nowhere. Oh, and they still have absolutely no idea how they are going to actually get the trains into either LA or SF. Geology and geography are a real bitch, and they literally have no idea how they are going to actually get the train out of the Central Valley and into those cities. Yet ironically, they already own a line that could have been a perfect test project. The Capitol Corridor is a popular commuter train from Sacramento to Oakland. And for those that commute to San Francisco it is then just a short subway or ferry trip across the bay. A lot of advocates for HSR in the state urged the Governor to use that as the test program, on a system that was already used and they could judge if ridership improved or not and things like operating costs. But nope, they are building it from Bakersfield to Madera. Which has few who would ride it, and makes absolutely no sense. Common sense screams if they were to build a test, you start at Sacramento and work south. To Stockton, Modesto, and Merced. At least that would let it connect to the light rail going to San Francisco that is already in place, and there are actually commuters that do drive from Stockton and Modesto to Sacramento.
Science denial is driving bad policy. People living in denial of climate change are generally the same people who believe Trump's lies and think the Earth is 6,000 years old.
True: denial of the science that says CO2 is at most a minor factor in determining the earth's surface temperature. Who has denied that climate changes? That doesn't describe any of the climate realists here, AFAIK.
That is just more of the common nonsense of attacking and demonizing anybody that refuses to 100% agree with you. That is incredibly common among those that have no real understanding and go entirely off of emotion. Especially as I am not aware of anybody in here that is a Young Earth Creationist. And who somebody supports politically should have absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread or section. But it is quite telling on them, to be honest.
You're lobbying for your personal position - claiming that the majority of climate scientists are in some way lying to us - except those whose work you think supports your view. Your second statement is a word game, nothing about either science or public awareness. Again, your "climate realists" simply refers to your beliefs. It can not help this topic to use these word games, even if they seem to express your point of view.
?? I didn't give a personal opinion on climate. However, the proposed process I responded to is no better than calling names. This problem is too important for that.
You need to grasp that science progress is not achieved by majority vote. If you've really studied it you'd know that frequently it's the minority that make the breakthroughs and discovers that forwards true scientific progress.
Not by majority vote - amen. Einstein wasn't considered a major physicist when he came up with relativity theory - though he had gotten a Nobel for work in another area. His paper on relativity wasn't accepted until there were confirmations that were accepted as significant by scientists working with Einstein and scientists that were working on other contrary solutions. Single papers cited on this board don't have that kind of review (not journal review, but actual scientific review) and testing. These papers cited here may contain results that those on this board may consider breakthroughs. But if other scientists who study the specific area of science are not convinced, then we can't make claims that it is ignorant not to accept the cite to be what the poster claimed. That's not voting. But, it does have to do with acceptance by a significant body of scientists. And, the process continues. General Relativity is still being tested - for instance, gravitational waves.
No, I'm stating the facts and their logical implications, as those who respect science consistently do. The actual majority of climate scientists do not support your CO2 climate narrative. Even the IPCC has distanced itself from the apocalyptic screaming. Good science is good science, and bad science is bad science. I have explained why the CO2 climate narrative consists of the latter. No, my second statement merely identifies the fact that the propaganda terms, "climate denier" and "climate change denier" are nothing but bald lies. Because I am a realist, unlike hose who push the CO2 climate narrative. So I take it you will never again use the dishonest terms, "climate denier" or "climate change denier"?
You've given personal opinions not only on climate, but climate science and the posters who disagree with your personal opinions. The real problem is the corruption of science in the service of a political agenda.
A fact in science is a well documented observation. I haven't said anything about CO2. That's also true when discussing EVs and fossil fuel. Good science comes with following a good process. Citing single papers and suggesting they cover climatology is nonsense. Why do you bring up CO2 when I haven't said anything about it? I didn't choose the label. But, no short label is going to include "anthropomorphic" or other important terminology. A scientist did choose "global warming" - which was unfortunate. No. It's pretty much global at this point, and I can't change that. I'd consider new labels if you choose to propose some.
Because it is not about science, it is about attacking anybody that refuses to accept the new religion. Whenever I see "denier", I know the word they really want is "heretic". Because it is not science, it is belief they are actually pushing. And that is just a religion under another name. But trying to talk to far too many is like trying to debate somebody who believes in Chem Trails or Sovereign Citizen beliefs. And I really see no difference between any of those groups in the end, because they have all surrendered any kind of skepticism in exchange for believing absolutely. And those who refuse to accept their beliefs must be destroyed. And not even accept 50%, or 75%. One must accept 100% absolutely, or they are the enemy.
To be fair, some climate nutter did post a media article to me the other day that claimed CO2 was “bad” for the climate. That’s anthropomorphizing climate.
You mean like the fact that there is no climate "crisis" or "emergency"? The fact that adding CO2 to ordinary sea-level atmospheric air does not significantly alter its infrared absorption properties? The fact that it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period, and even warmer than that during the Holocene Optimum? Don't be disingenuous. The whole climate alarm narrative is about CO2. Which would not include retroactively altering temperature records to conform to the CO2 climate narrative. Which might be why no climate realist here has done that. Don't be disingenuous. You are aware that you are pushing the CO2 climate narrative. Yes you did. "Climate realist" and "CO2 alarmist" are short, accurate, and honest. Because it was honest? You can decline to use dishonest terminology. How about "climate realist" and "CO2 alarmist"?
I've pointed out that the majority of the large number of scientists who study aspects of climate change do believe humans are a notable factor in the increasing average temp of Earth. I don't accept your claim of corruption of science. I know there is the occasional bogus paper, but that doesn't mean science is corrupt. Plus, you depend on science as much as most. The whole retraction watch thing does not suggest that the hard sciences are corrupt.
