Republican-Controlled Committee Legislates That Climate Change Does Not Exist

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by evman150

Haha. Nice.

The guy sounds to me like a kid who just read Atlas Shrugged and thinks he discovered a panacea.

Slightly OT, but have you seen this quote before?

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

[Kipperriffic]

Originally Posted by evman150

Don't tread on me!!!

Your last two sentences are so fundamentally flawed it's hilarious.

Ok, I'm coming from the idea that Govt. ideally should not be a wealth distributing body, but a body that protects property for us. This is the strict libertarian idea.
But I can be a little lenient. I only mentioned Military, Education, Healthcare because those came to my mind first. But there are other things that govt. can do that may not directly affect ME, but keep the general quality of life of a country high. So for example, things like homeless shelters, yes govt can distribute wealth for those. I mean I don't want people dying on street from hunger. And there are other things that you can come up with.

But you have to draw the line somewhere. There are today so many useless social programs and so many other programs govt. gives money to it is ridiculous. Global Warming for example.

I don't wanna take this thread off topic; Taxation is a topic for another thread.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Slightly OT, but have you seen this quote before?

Yep, haven't seen it for years though. So true.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Kipperriffic

...

But you have to draw the line somewhere. There are today so many useless social programs and so many other programs govt. gives money to it is ridiculous. Global Warming for example.

I don't wanna take this thread off topic; Taxation is a topic for another thread.

Do you realize that most of the money given to health and social programs actually saves/earns the government money in the long run?

I guess the alternative is that anyone who needs social assistance be shot at close range in the back of the head, because the cost of mass burial would be far less than providing services to people.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Kipperriffic

Ok, I'm coming from the idea that Govt. ideally should not be a wealth distributing body, but a body that protects property for us. This is the strict libertarian idea.
But I can be a little lenient. I only mentioned Military, Education, Healthcare because those came to my mind first. But there are other things that govt. can do that may not directly affect ME, but keep the general quality of life of a country high. So for example, things like homeless shelters, yes govt can distribute wealth for those. I mean I don't want people dying on street from hunger. And there are other things that you can come up with.

But you have to draw the line somewhere. There are today so many useless social programs and so many other programs govt. gives money to it is ridiculous. Global Warming for example.

I don't wanna take this thread off topic; Taxation is a topic for another thread.

Those "useless" social programs are other people's recreation, enrichment, empowerment and livelihood.

Reminds me of a quote from All Quiet on the Western Front:

"Comrade, I did not want to kill you. If you jumped in here again, I would not do it, if you would be sensible too. But you were only an idea to me before, an abstraction that lived in my mind and called forth its appropriate response. It was that abstraction I stabbed. But now, for the first time, I see you are a man like me. I thought of your hand-grenades, of your bayonet, of your rifle; now I see your wife and your face and our fellowship. Forgive me, comrade. We always see it too late. Why do they never tell us that you are poor devils like us, that your mothers are just as anxious as ours, and that we have the same fear of death, and the same dying and the same agony — forgive me, comrade; how could you be my enemy?"

[Kipperriffic]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Government is literally the only body that has the authority and capacity to make these types of decisions.

Firstly, politicians have never any indication that they even understand the short and long term impact of climate change. Nothing is certain scientifically and yet some of them are so ready to impose "carbon tax". Or, on the other hand, ready to declare "Global warming doesn't exist!"

Secondly, I would say that the individual industries are more capable of conducting research and then changing their behavior accordingly. What incentive do they have? Well thats where you and me come in. Are we willing to still buy their product if it was made at the expense of enviroment? if we are, then we should suffer the consequences. I'd rather have that than a govt. that has no clue on the topic but goes right ahead and starts imposing taxes, which most likely than not, is a political move and not because they care about the environment.

[Kipperriffic]

Originally Posted by evman150

Haha. Nice.

The guy sounds to me like a kid who just read Atlas Shrugged and thinks he discovered a panacea.

I've never read that book. Why would you say that? I've heard about Ayn Rand but don't know much about her...

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Kipperriffic

Firstly, politicians have never any indication that they even understand the short and long term impact of climate change. Nothing is certain scientifically and yet some of them are so ready to impose "carbon tax". Or, on the other hand, ready to declare "Global warming doesn't exist!"

Secondly, I would say that the individual industries are more capable of conducting research and then changing their behavior accordingly. What incentive do they have? Well thats where you and me come in. Are we willing to still buy their product if it was made at the expense of enviroment? if we are, then we should suffer the consequences. I'd rather have that than a govt. that has no clue on the topic but goes right ahead and starts imposing taxes, which most likely than not, is a political move and not because they care about the environment.

You have made a bad assumption here - that all (most) people are conscientious if not altruistic actors.

[Kipperriffic]

Originally Posted by evman150

Those "useless" social programs are other people's recreation, enrichment, empowerment and livelihood.

Sure. But if you and other people care about a program, fund it yourself. Why should I have to?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Kipperriffic

I've never read that book. Why would you say that? I've heard about Ayn Rand but don't know much about her...

Okay then. Something tells me you'd enjoy it.

[Kipperriffic]

Originally Posted by evman150

Okay then. Something tells me you'd enjoy it.

I just read through the Wiki page for that Book. haha. She goes a little too far I think; I'm not on the same page at all.

And more importantly, you haven't really said anything productive in this thread except assuming what kind of personality I have.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Kipperriffic

I just read through the Wiki page for that Book. haha. She goes a little too far I think; I'm not on the same page at all.

And more importantly, you haven't really said anything productive in this thread except assuming what kind of personality I have.

I have no idea what your personality is like. Your beliefs, on the other hand, are being presented loud and clear.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Kipperriffic

Firstly, politicians have never any indication that they even understand the short and long term impact of climate change. Nothing is certain scientifically and yet some of them are so ready to impose "carbon tax". Or, on the other hand, ready to declare "Global warming doesn't exist!"

Secondly, I would say that the individual industries are more capable of conducting research and then changing their behavior accordingly. What incentive do they have? Well thats where you and me come in. Are we willing to still buy their product if it was made at the expense of enviroment? if we are, then we should suffer the consequences. I'd rather have that than a govt. that has no clue on the topic but goes right ahead and starts imposing taxes, which most likely than not, is a political move and not because they care about the environment.

I wouldn't say "nothing is certain scientifically". It's pretty certain that climate changes, and that humans cause at least part of that change. There are still some uncertainties about how much it will change and what the consequences of those changes will be.

You can't leave it to individual industries to change their behaviour, since the most profitable approach is generally to externalize costs on others (e.g. not reduce pollutant or greenhouse gas emissions and let others suffer the consequences - the whole reason why we need environmental regulations). Most people will buy the cheapest product, rather than choosing the company that spends extra money to reduce their environmental impacts. But it's not just the people buying that product that are impacted, but everyone else regardless of whether they choose to support a particular company or not.

The question about what action to take is a totally separate question, and one that isn't a scientific question (but should still be informed by science). Is cap and trade the answer? Carbon tax? Subsidizing alternative energy? Carbon capture? Something else? That's where the debate should be focused.

[Kipperriffic]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

I wouldn't say "nothing is certain scientifically". It's pretty certain that climate changes, and that humans cause at least part of that change. There are still some uncertainties about how much it will change and what the consequences of those changes will be.

You can't leave it to individual industries to change their behaviour, since the most profitable approach is generally to externalize costs on others (e.g. not reduce pollutant or greenhouse gas emissions and let others suffer the consequences - the whole reason why we need environmental regulations). Most people will buy the cheapest product, rather than choosing the company that spends extra money to reduce their environmental impacts. But it's not just the people buying that product that are impacted, but everyone else regardless of whether they choose to support a particular company or not.

The question about what action to take is a totally separate question, and one that isn't a scientific question (but should still be informed by science). Is cap and trade the answer? Carbon tax? Subsidizing alternative energy? Carbon capture? Something else? That's where the debate should be focused.

Fine. As long as politician's reaction is not knee-jerk ill informed, whether in favor or against doing something about "climate change". I Agree that it needs to be thought through before any actions are taken.

[Kipperriffic]

Originally Posted by evman150

I have no idea what your personality is like. Your beliefs, on the other hand, are being presented loud and clear.

Specify

[Tinordi]

The Koch funded study is important for the following reason:

Most of the climate skepticism is fueled by a fundamental mistrust in the actual data that the Earth is warming above natural levels. What this study did was again conclude that this warming trend is not normal.

If we accept that (now that all scientists do even the skeptical ones) the conclusions become pretty self-evident. There's been no other attributable forcing mechanism in our climate to account for the warming besides human generated GHG emissions. No volcanos, solar flares, cosmic rays, faeries. The noise of any of these possible drivers just doesn't align in any statistically significant way to the warming trend. Except one driver: GHG emissions and the atmospheric concentration of GHGs.

Why is it just so hard to accept the obvious answer?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The Koch funded study is important for the following reason:

Most of the climate skepticism is fueled by a fundamental mistrust in the actual data that the Earth is warming above natural levels. What this study did was again conclude that this warming trend is not normal.

If we accept that (now that all scientists do even the skeptical ones) the conclusions become pretty self-evident. There's been no other attributable forcing mechanism in our climate to account for the warming besides human generated GHG emissions. No volcanos, solar flares, cosmic rays, faeries. The noise of any of these possible drivers just doesn't align in any statistically significant way to the warming trend. Except one driver: GHG emissions and the atmospheric concentration of GHGs.

Why is it just so hard to accept the obvious answer?

Admitting you were wrong and that your judgement was not as good as you previously believed.

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by Kipperriffic

Fine. As long as politician's reaction is not knee-jerk ill informed, whether in favor or against doing something about "climate change". I Agree that it needs to be thought through before any actions are taken.

Even if we choose "An Inconvenient Truth" as a starting point (which we shouldn't because scientists were raising alarm before this), that movie came out in 2006. We are two months away from 6 years of debate after climate change became a mainstream political issue. The "knee-jerk" window has come and gone.

Considering that policy on issues like these is formed in committees, I really doubt that the people crafting it are doing it without access to information, so I don't know why they would be misinformed.

Frankly, as soon as enough people come to terms with the fact that human caused carbon emissions are causing the climate to change, the only reasonable response will be government regulation. Self-regulation is what is happening right now and it's not working.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Frankly, as soon as enough people come to terms with the fact that human caused carbon emissions are causing the climate to change, the only reasonable response will be government regulation. Self-regulation is what is happening right now and it's not working.

The is a very debatable fact. Simply because there is simply no hard evidence for this. A lot of very circumstantial and computer generated theories.

Simply put 2 questions need to answered for this to be true.

1. When did humans begin to drive the climate change?
2. By how much? Or what should the climate be without human output?

There are other questions that "Warmists" (for a lack of a better word) struggle to answer...

For 15 years China has continued to spew more and more Carbon into the atmosphere to the point where they are the largest "polluter". Why is there not been any significant increase in Global temperature in the past 13 years?

[Tinordi]

As much as you like to believe that it's a debate fact, it isn't.

Temperature increases over the past 10 years aren't a result of any one country's actions but of the global atmospheric concentration of GHGs. And yes there has been a very noticeable warming trend over the past 50 years. 2010 was tied for the warmest year on record. You can't cherrypick your baseline year to 1998. That's just dishonest.

Eitherway, your failure to honestly review the data and findings make you at best completely ignorant, and at worst actively working to perpetuate the most important and potentially devastating environmental issue of our time because you get off on spouting your baseless ideology.