Except by spreading misinformation about climate change you are, in effect, pouring gasoline on the fire while everyone is trying to escape.
No. Emission standards have applied to legitimate pollutants since 1972. CO2 has never been a pollutant- ever- until the advent of EPA v. Massachusetts in 2007, quite possibly the worst, most absurd SC ruling ever. That allowed EPA to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, which it's not. Pollutants are undesired outcomes of combustion. CO2 and water are the desired and inevitable outcomes of combustion. The led to standard EPA phase in protocols where credits were issued to all manufacturers so they could phase in their implementations across product lines and buy and sell credits between manufacturers to encourage as early an implentation as possible. This kind of system has been SOP with EPA since forever. But this time, there was one manufacturer, Tesla, who had no CO2 emitting vehicles to use credits on so they simply sold them all to other manufacturers for their first profit ever. The biggest government con game of all time. And that's saying a lot. It was indeed theft. Grand theft.
Of course I do. I also read the IPCC reports. Probably a lot more than YOU do. I have quoted from them numerous times on PF. But the fact remains the IPCC reports are curated to form a specific narrative. There is nothing wrong with reading the IPCC reports. The danger is in reading ONLY the IPCC reports as they do not include information that doesn’t fit their narrative. Just like it’s dangerous to only read climate information from oil companies or right wing political type publications. Where do you think I get the studies I use to back my posts? You aren’t aware of any of them. I am. So why do you think that is? Its not because I have a team. It’s because I educate myself instead of relying on one source to supply my information. I also think a lot and apply pattern recognition to narratives. Once you determine the pattern it’s simple to follow the path to relevant evidence produced through application of the scientific method. Sometimes that path ends at NASA. Sometimes at a study included in an IPCC report. Sometimes to a study not included in an IPCC report. I don’t reject scientific evidence that conflicts with a narrative because I don’t subscribe to a narrative. I’m only interested in evidence. That’s why I not only accept AGW, I understand all facets of the phenomenon not just the atmospheric CO2 component. Remember how I’ve had to educate you and others on other major causes of AGW beyond just fossil fuel usage? It’s why I can offer multiple specific mitigations for excess atmospheric CO2 never mentioned by the IPCC. It’s why I can explain to you and others using multiple peer reviewed studies how warming is currently decreasing human mortality caused by exposure to suboptimal temperatures. You just aren’t going to see that information bandied about in popular curated forums of information. It doesn’t mean information in the IPCC is wrong, but it’s certainly incomplete. It doesn’t mean data from NASA is incorrect or should be thrown out. It just means reading NASA publications isn’t going to expose you to complete information on the subject. If you want to fully understand climate change you never will if you limit yourself to narrow channels of information. Just because I’ve exposed myself to information you are unaware of isn’t evidence for your repeated claims I can’t deal with the real world of science. I can in fact deal with ALL science, not just bits that support one narrative.
LOL - I especially like that one about helping me out! You're still stated that NASA is crap and that it is a scam that they are even studying issues related to atmospheric chemistry and weather. If you want to claim to be smarter than IPCC, fine. If you want to propose solutions to anthropic climate change, GREAT!
I’ve spent a lot of time educating you on climate science you were unaware of. Here is one recent example. First your question and following my post educating you on the subject. Aren’t you glad I’m informed on the subject so I could answer your question? Why not quote me on that using the PF quote function?! Go ahead. You have a documented history on PF of telling outright untruths about what I’ve posted. Here is one example. You are encouraged to support your accusation that I’ve referred to NASA as crap or a scam. Or you can go on record outright lying about my posting history…..again. Why would I do that? There are very intelligent folks who volunteer to create IPCC reports. Many have had their education funded by patrons of the IPCC but I don’t hold that against them. I’m certain since they were able to traverse the educational system and get to a point professionally where they are working on the IPCC reports they are quite intelligent. I never claim to be smarter than anyone. It’s a pointless appeal to authority argument. I would much rather be judged by whether or not my posts can be verified to be accurate by looking at peer reviewed evidence produced through application of the scientific method. I’ve posted voluminously on solutions to anthropogenic climate change.
The problem is that the issue isn't about climate. It is about money, power and control. Arguing science to it simply isn't effective. It isn't about science.
I don't want to speak for him but I would say a few things. NASA is government. Government is the main provider of climate nonsense because it plays to its desire for power and control. It isn't a matter of who is smarter. It is a need to understand the reason for the climate change push and it isn't about climate. How can you ask him to propose solutions to something he knows doesn't exist. You are the believer. You should make the proposals.
That information is opinion, not settled science. The science isn't settled. The lust for money, power and control is certainly settled.
Yes you agree with what I said. Good reasons are not a requirement for further scientific investigation. Curiosity is good enough.
By spreading misinformation about climate change you are causing people to see a reduction in their wealth and a loss of some of their freedom. You fight for what you believe and I will fight for what is obvious to me.
The group providing the curated information to the climate change apostles are all about power, money, and control. The folks like we see in this thread that are in the dark because they consume only curated information often believe it’s actually about improving the environment. The idea of saving the planet makes them feel good so they have no incentive to learn the truth. Reality doesn’t make them feel good so it is resisted and avoided at all cost. The first groups knows the science. But a lot of it doesn’t help their narrative so it is excluded from easily accessible and publicly popular sources of information. The second group is fooled into believing they are following science while blissfully unaware a vast swath of actual science is completely unknown to them. It’s a sad state of affairs as there are certainly environmental problems. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations and warming from CO2 is far down the list of things impacting people (and the environment) negatively today. It shouldn’t be a priority at this point. Anthropogenic deforestation and desertification are problems we should be addressing. Even in the US our topsoils are being destroyed. If not for easy access to synthetic fertilizers our farmland would be subject to desertification and low productivity like we see in third world nations. In most cases warming is advantageous to food production. Warming is decreasing human mortality related to exposure to suboptimal temperatures. Over the last 100 years deaths due to natural disasters have plummeted. In almost every case study we have of populations in trouble like Bangladesh, Pakistan or Madagascar the causes of those problems are not related to atmospheric CO2 in a meaningful way but to other anthropogenic causes that can be addressed locally to actually help people. Decreasing emissions will never solve flooding problems in Pakistan because emissions of CO2 didn’t cause the problem. Yet the media will tell you buying an EV will help the poor waterlogged Pakistani. There are only a few people concerned with science. Here is one group actually addressing local problems locally based on sound proven science. This is what we need—action based on science—not more propaganda about CO2. https://regenerativeresources.co/current-projects/
You got it backwards. 557 said HE had solution proposals. I encouraged those with proposals to state them. They might include good ideas! He also claims to be smarter than the scientists at NASA, NOAA, IPCC and hundreds of other world wide science organizations that take part in the many aspects of climatology. Plus, he regularly tells me how I'm too stupid to live, which is a clear sign that he can't handle a conversation that doesn't start with him being smarter than NASA, NOAA, IPCC, and the hundreds of other major scientific organizations around the world who are working on climatology. There is no more thorough conversation ender than that! The "NASA is government" trope doesn't work. The government can't tell NASA sponsored scientists what results to obtain. And, NASA can't tell Americans to do anything. It doesn't set policy. This is true for NOAA, too. Plus, the results of scientists are open to refutation throughout the world by other scientists.
The above is a pure conspiracy theory. It's the idea that there are nefarious forces causing false science to be uniformly accepted throughout the entire world. There is NO element of it that can be supported. True, but one then has to decide what to do about that, including how much can be gained for the world. Food is not a global problem. It is local. Let's say that Canada gets an agricultural boost from a warmer planet. That does not help those living in the most populous latitudes. The media isn't a sound source of science. Decreasing emissions can slow the rate at which our planet is warming. That allows for attempts to accommodate new local climate realities. What we do to help people today is exactly how we roll. Suggesting that there could be more help to localities in trouble is a laudable idea. But, I don't really see America stepping up its programs of local aid around the world. Plus, in many areas our aid tends to be in the form of military hardware and is not aimed at helping local agriculture. Great source! However, scientists world wide agree that Earth is warming and that the major reason is that humans are changing atmospheric chemistry in ways that allow solar heat in, but slow Earth's heat from escaping Earth. We're changing the balance. While we have to work on projects such as the one linked above, there is also opportunity in slowing the rate of change, giving more time to adjust.
Apparently all we need to do is replace the entire IPCC with you and all our problems will be solved. Do you know who else is famous for saying "I know more than _____________" on almost every topic you can name?
It's certainly true that every detail of the climate change that is happening isn't fully understood. However, the fundamental mechanisms causing Earth to warm are widely agreed throughout the world. Your second sentence is a conspiracy theory. You have no evidence of that.
And we recently saw evidence of that with the filing in the Dominion vs.Fox defamation case. Fox’s lust for money and power and control led them to push what they KNEW was a lie about the 2020 election. Trump lies CONSTANTLY in pursuit of money, control and power. Yes the question of what people will do in pursuit of money, control and power is answered every day and who does it is also plain to see. The only question unanswered are why are RWers continually accepting the lies fed to them?
LOL. So is it a conspiracy theory to say sources of information funded by oil companies are curated to form a narrative? SMH. Of course it’s supported. You are exhibit A as someone in the dark from consumption of narrow spectrums of information. I’ve demonstrated your lack of knowledge quite clearly repeatedly. As far as CO2 being the least of concerns my previous post to you included peer reviewed evidence to support that. It’s been posted to you twice now. No, the solutions are not complicated nor do they require debate. We just need to stop yammering about CO2 and DO things proven to solve problems like flooding, loss of topsoil, etc. There is nothing complicated about the solutions. Incorrect. Such places are already getting food from Canada. We’ve addressed this false premise of yours before. Let’s have a look at how little you knew about the subject then. It’s funny you still repeat the false narrative. First your post based on lack of knowledge and then my post educating you on reality. You are denying reality. Again, after I already explained Canada is currently feeding such places. True. That’s why you know so little of science. But it isn’t. It’s time to focus on other parts of the equation that contribute to net zero carbon emissions. Cutting emissions to reach net zero isn’t feasible. And focusing on the sequestration side of the equation not only impacts the greenhouse effect, more importantly it affects albedo and transpiration driven local, regional, and global cooling. But again, in reality, warming is not a problem we should be concerned with anyway in light of the other more pressing problems. Places like Bangladesh where flooding is harming millions of people aren’t helped by a slowed rate of warming. Or even a completely arrested warming. Because warming isn’t the primary cause of their problems. It’s certainly anthropogenic problems there, but not primarily caused by atmospheric CO2 or warming. Then fund an organization like the one in the link I provided. Yes, I like science based action that makes a measurable difference in people’s lives. In some regions heating is driven as much or more by deforestation than greenhouse effects. But yes the planet is warming! Absolutely. And humans are responsible for a great deal of that. Although not just by burning fossil fuels. That’s just part of it. But it’s important to remember that warming has numerous positive results including but not limited to decreased human mortality from suboptimal temperature exposure and increased agricultural production (that includes not only food, but all kinds of consumer products as well). Warming isn’t something to fear. Stasis or cooling would result in far more problems for mankind than warming. I’m not opposed to warming, in fact I’m very grateful for it. But I strive for (and succeed at) net zero emissions in my life and business. Mainly because I don’t like wastefulness and I don’t like pollutants and aerosols from fossil fuels. The CO2 doesn’t bother me because I understand it’s a blessing that can be leveraged into things we all benefit from. I have no illusions about reality. China, India, etc. are not going to become net zero emitters. And we shouldn’t even ask third world countries to do so when we are screwing their environment with our behaviors like incentivizing them to kill mangroves to raise our shrimp. It’s time to follow science and address the real problems the people of the world face by doing something besides virtue signaling.
There is clear evidence of that happening. There certainly can be conspiracies, but to be taken seriously the conspiracy has to be possible. Then, there has to be evidence. Well, you are smarter and better informed than the climatologists of the world. So, each source I mention is stated by you to be a pack of government motivated liars. Thus your argument is just plain silly, and I have no interest in it. I've not objected to your yammering about solutions that don't bother to address causes. We should do those. But, we aren't likely to do that, because there is strong political will to refuse that kind of effort - even inside the USA, let alone the most populated latitudes. I think you are forgetting that you are in the minority on your ideas on solutions, let alone climate change. Food is a major component of the Canadian economy. There are major limits on what they will give away. On the other side, there are billions living with current and/or near future food insecurity. You are forgetting issues of scale. Your argument here is that you are smarter than the vast majority of climate related sciences throughout the entire world. I do not accept that argument. However, I would certainly encourage you working on how to save the mangroves, the rice paddies, and the many of the other objectives that environmentalists tout. I would support you in that. Maybe I could even convince you to help support the pollution of our ocean fisheries and our Gulf or to help build more walls around NOLA, Manhattan Island and other places threatened by sea rise.
No need to replace the IPCC. I’m glad it exists. Pointing out it is a curator of information isn’t wishing it didn’t exist. I’m a curator of information as well. The majority of the information I provide is information you’ve been deprived of by others. By definition I’m curating. The difference is I’m curating to make sure you see more information, and other curators are motivated by the desire for you to see less. I’m well educated on biological sciences. You, nor Will or anyone else can find fault with the scientific basis of my posts. They are solidly based on peer reviewed research. That is why you are resorting to ad hominem fallacy sprinkled with some strawman fallacy. You will NEVER see me posting confidently about writing code or theoretical mathematics or inorganic chemistry or astronomy or stock investment etc. Why? Because I don’t know much about those subjects (nothing about coding)! I DO know biology and quite a bit about climate, especially the aspects dealing directly with biological concerns. I interact with biological organisms 365 days of the year out in the elements. Understanding climate and biological interactions with climate is crucial to success in my business. But as I often point out, my education, my practical experience, and my possession of or lack of intelligence don't matter a bit. All that matters is that what I post on matters of science is supported by evidence produced through application of the scientific method. You can’t make an argument based on science or logic. That’s fine, I’m used to it. But alluding to any politician in an attempt to discredit me with more fallacy is counterproductive. I am a political atheist who has disdain for the person in your vague reference. You come across as an intelligent individual. Why waste that on posting pure fallacy in the science forum? Why not post something in reply to my posts that has a foundation in science or at least intellectualism? As far as solving problems, yes I can educate you on that. You can learn from the IPCC and from the science I present as well. If you wish to have a complete understanding of the climate debate you will have to branch out and consume information from more than the IPCC.
You have provided clear evidence the IPCC heavily curates information. You have claimed you get your information on climate change from the IPCC. Yet you know very little about climate or climate change. If the IPCC was a comprehensive source you would not need me to educate you on so many aspects of the subject. The IPCC curates information for the same reason oil companies do. They want to convey a certain narrative. That’s not necessarily bad and it has nothing to do with conspiracy or conspiracy theories. I curate information so that you are exposed to more information than you would be otherwise. The IPCC and oil companies curate so you are exposed to less information. Curation can be bad or good. I appreciate you saying so, but I’ve clearly stated I am not. I’m much better informed than you are because I read and study the work of ALL the scientists around the world. Not just the work your sources want you to see. Quote me using the PF quote function. You can’t because I’ve NEVER said such a thing. There is a liar here and it isn’t me and it isn’t your sources. You certainly do have interest in it. You voluntarily responded to the argument in a public forum without any pressure from anyone. If you had no interest you would cease responding. All the solutions I discuss address root causes of problems. So? There is a strong political will to refuse efforts to refuse emission reduction efforts! Certainly not. I’ve many times pointed out there are very few of us that follow science on this subject. I know I’m in the minority. Most people are very ignorant of the facts. I’m working to change that. Im making you aware of the actual science but you have a tendency to reject science, just like the vast majority do. Who said anything about giving it away? Bangladesh purchases wheat from Canada. They purchase more each year. How can you not know this? Yes there are. And NOT because of atmospheric CO2. That’s the point. Nope. Great big boatloads of wheat already sail from Canada to Bangladesh. We have global commodity trade figured out. You don’t accept your strawman argument? LOL. I have numerous times specifically stated I am NOT smarter than climate scientists. That is YOU again lying about what I’ve said. Your continued lying about my statements is tedious. It all starts with education. I’m too busy saving topsoil, improving the forested areas, and preventing pollution of the Gulf of Mexico at home to go work on Mangroves. But I hope to educate others on their importance to locations and regions around the world. Perhaps now that the information is out there that purchasing farmed shrimp is harmful to the environment that will change at least a little bit. No, you won’t get my support for polluting oceans. But many of the decisions I make daily about animal waste management, crop systems, water use, and fertilizer use are specifically targeted to reducing pollution in the gulf. Since NOLA is experiencing subsidence (unrelated to climate change) at a rate 13 times the rate of sea level rise I would definitely recommend NOLA keep up their dikes and sea walls. I fully support anyone needing a sea wall to build one. Surely building walls at an average rate of 4mm annually is doable. But it would probably be more economical and more effective long term to immediately begin transitioning to different sources of water than groundwater for these cities. Many of them are sinking much faster from groundwater pumping (and natural geological) subsidence than the sea level is rising. But…again….the ignorance of the population is exploited and CO2 emissions gets the entirety of the blame (credit) for absolute sea level rise. Nobody even realizes there are two separate components and the non climate related component is usually greater than the climate related component. ….pattern recognition!
I have made the case based on both science and logic but, more importantly, the vast majority of the scientists who specialize in climate have made the case. You somehow think your "research" is on par with actual scientists doing actual science. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but it isn't. Not by a long shot.
All the research that I post to support my content on PF is peer reviewed and published in respected journals of science. If you reject the content of my posts you are a science denier. If you disagree with the peer reviewed research I post you are welcome to post other peer reviewed research that comes to different conclusions based on different results. All you have posted to me is fallacy. You have not posted any peer reviewed studies nor have you made an intellectual argument. I hate to break it to you, but your unsubstantiated opinions are of no value in the face of peer reviewed published studies I cite. Now, please cite a study that conflicts with anything I’ve posted dealing with the science of climate change. Put up or shut up. I suspect you are as ignorant of climate science as the other detractors here. Provide some evidence that is not the case.
I’ve been very clear I do not do climate research. Please refrain from posting falsehoods. The only research I do currently is limited to occasional trials of plant genetics/fertilizer programs and animal vaccines. Most is for my own edification and some is in conjunction with seed genetics companies. My knowledge of climate is from formal education, experience in climate/organism relationships, and A LOT of reading of peer reviewed published research from actual climate and other scientists. Additionally, I actually THINK critically about issues instead of blindly following narratives based on emotion. Again, I strongly encourage you to use actual science to formulate a critique of what I post. This is the science forum, not the “fallacious argument when presented with new information forum”. Act accordingly if you can.
