The religion of climate change.

Fun stuff. Carbon taxes... Carbon markets. It's like selling oxygen to folks because they're too stupid to understand they are being bilked by the snake oil guy.... I would point out that the UN has a little racket designed based on your approach.... It transfers trillions of dollars of taxation to developing nations just like it was designed to do and hence why the UN is so panicking right now after the collapse of the Paris accords. All those promises not being met. All those despots who won't get rich based on your ridiculous scheme.

Think about this. All your "green energy" comes at the cost of rare mineral exploitation in far off lands you don't care about. And as long as its just those people suffering, you're fine with that, huh? Tell that to the 4-9 year olds dying in the DRC trying to mine the cobalt you demand. Tell that to the slave laborers in China that their government uses to extract rare earth... All so you get to feel just a little more smug about your experience on the interwebs.

 

The internet causes harm, oppression, and terror among those that slave away to provide it for those of us that use it? I'm not following you here. Are you saying the cost of the internet is worse than the benefit?

 

Would I be correct in guessing that you're also opposed to gasoline taxes? Or regulation of sulfur dioxide which causes acid rain, CFCs which cause ozone depletion, the disposal of chemicals which cause contamination of ground water, etc. all which artificially increase the cost of industry and ultimately the price we pay for goods and services?

 

I, like many, have supported finding better after treatment for exhaust. You should google the latest Bosch process that actually produces far cleaner air than what the diesel engine that ingested it spits out, for example. Clean air. Very much a fan of it. Further, I am unclear what long term environmental harm you're actually referring to. Longer, more successful growing seasons farther north? Water desalinization services for climates devoid of water? Growing crops from desalinated sea water instead of aquifers that run out?

These are all things we can do today. But we won't, because the goal here isn't improving the world, it's using AGW to control the world through fear, like the portends of future apocalyptic catastrophic hell, like you, demand it. We can do so many things, but as long as folks, like you, exhaust all the oxygen in the room bemoaning climate change, real social improvement can't happen. Because everyone else sees the BS you sell as BS which then distracts folks from doing the things that are most needed in our world to make it a better place for not just folks like you, but for everyone,

 

I have always wondered why climate change deniers think "freedom" means its okay to knowingly piss in the drinking water as long as nobody tastes it.

Climatology isn't a religion - its a synergistic science. Those who question the fact that our activities are "throwing fuel on the fire" of a heating up earth, don't understand high school level laws of thermodynamics.

 

Sometimes I wonder who I'm being confronted by. It's like a chorus of or team of folks with different levels of sophistication. Which one of you is this? Gas taxes pay for roads. Right? Or at least their upkeep. Doesn't make sense to not have a funding mechanism for those, does it? Similarly, as I've pointed out, spewing dangerous chemicals into the air doesn't seem any more preferable than dumping hazardous wasted into the water systems. None of which, is remotely germane to the conversation about CO2 outputs. Because these are not the same things, nor the same kinds of demonstrable danger. The argument isn't about artificial cost the argument is clean water and air.

The thing I find difficult is that for folks, like you, who seem to always be on the side of everyone else to do something for you, when do you feel like you'll want to be an actual part of the solution?

 

Perhaps then, to aid in your understanding, you should address what it is to be a climate change denier. Those, like the AGW faithful, who demand that the current climate never change, to me, are actually those who deny the variability of climate. Similarly, AGW is a faith. It is also high parasitic, not synergistic. And climatology and AGW are entirely different beasts, would you agree? And while those who study the climate are surely doing wonderful academic things, we should never lose sight that their academic pursuits rarely if ever translate into actual social products. I view it like intellectual masturbation. Never produces anything real.

 

Obtuse doesn't look good on you. Again, it's like talking to a Cerberus with multiple heads and not knowing which one is addressing you. Clearly, I did not say that. Color me surprised that you are unable to follow the discussion.

 

That's why I'm asking for you to elaborate. What do you mean when say the internet causes harm, oppression, and terror to people? Does my use of the internet do this directly? Or is there a series of indirect links with other contributing causes that leads a single person into a life of slavery?

 

Oh look an intellectual pinata. There isn't a single person I know that advocates that the climate is only changing because of AGW. But feel free to break that one open.

I defer to your obvious expertise in intellectual masturbation.

 

We have it on YOUR authority that man is in charge of climate.

 

Pretense also isn't a good look for you. I suppose you should be sophisticated enough to differentiate the things that make the internet possible and the harms those create vs the usage of the internet, but hey, you can prove it otherwise. I would also bet that if you wanted, you might be capable of understanding then, that the continued consumption of your service drives continued conflict and misery for others. Or is this just too much to ask?

Let me ask you an entirely different question. If, as you say, you'd regulate or ration the internet, how does that make you different than say,... China?

 

Jonsa... iamanonman... iamanonman... Jonsa.. There, now you know one single person that advocates that all climate change is created by AGW.

 

Of course it ends with the taunt or insult or the see here, I give a crap sort of comment and you don't.

 

Yep. And the idea was that the ones doing the most damage to the roads are the ones who pay the most for their upkeep. In other words, you pay in proportion to the damage you cause.

The biggest difference in the danger and how it relates to perception is the timing of the onset of consequences. Sulfur dioxide, CFCs, etc. have short lag times to the onset of effects. And those effects are more obvious to the layperson. That doesn't mean CO2 doesn't have negative consequences. It's just that the lag time to the onset of effects is much longer and more gradual so it is not as noticeable as to the layperson. The consequences aren't obvious until it's too late.

Just to be clear. I don't want anyone else to anything for me. I think everyone should bear the burden of the harm they cause in proportion to the magnitude of their harm. If my carbon footprint is 2x that of yours then I should be responsible for 2x the cost of mitigation/adaptation. I'm telling you I'm ready and willing to participate in the solution. So let's come up with a solution together. Let's figure out a set of rules that everyone must adhere to. The only two requirements as far as I'm concerned is that these rules treat everyone fairly and that they actually work to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

I happen to love the benefits to Earth by this trace gas, Carbon Dioxide. I do not want punishment meted to those that help green the planet.

 

"Global greening" is a myth. The increases in CO2 aren't going to help plant life overall.

 

There's certainly bad things that happen as a result of the internet existing. But don't you think the good outweighs the bad?

I guess I don't see as being much different than driving a car. Bad sh** happens when people drive cars. But, doing so allows society to be more productive than it otherwise would be. In the same manner surely the internet does more good than harm. I don't know...just seems to me like the world is better off with the internet than without. I don't begrudge you if you have a different opinion though. To each their own!

Ok, I think I see the problem. I've never said I want to regulate or ration the internet. In fact, Distraff and I are explicitly saying that we shouldn't do that. Our justification for this is that doing so would cause more harm (economic and free rights related) than the problem it would hypothetically fix (global warming).

Let me repeat so that there is no confusion here. Neither I nor Distraff are saying that the internet should be regulated or rationed. In fact, we are saying exactly the opposite.

In that context, I don't know how to answer your question because it doesn't apply to me. Specifically, the question doesn't apply because I don't want to regulate or ration the internet.

 

Except that basic functional literacy shows that neither of them are claiming that. Whoops.

Cliffnotes: "Human activity is the primary cause of the current warming trend" =/= "All climate change is created by AGW"

 

Ok, well let me be equally as clear. If you were 2X my footprint, you could never remediate it. Nor could you simply "pay a tax" that could remediate it. This doesn't work like that. What you can be responsible for, though, is creating an entirely oppressive framework that creates real tyranny in our world. And that isn't the solution I want to find, even if, as you say, you're willing to collaborate on it.

So, how about this then. turn your heat off. stop using electricity. It isn't driving your car that's the problem. To put a super fine point on it, there isn't a way I can think of that would require "everyone" to do anything. Even global government wouldn't be a solution. Face it, you could never anticipate the biological differentiation in human populations that would lead to different methane outputs from eating corn dogs or rice and beans any more than you could regulate how much folks breath. So how, on earth would you ever regulate human production of CO2? Ever? It's like saying, let's tell fish in the ocean not to breath. It would be just as effective.

 

You seem to have missed a few conversations. iamanonman has said that 100% of all current climate change is directly attributable to human activity. So, you're wrong. Donsa suggests that absent human activity, there wouldn't be warming. Any warming. Which seems to be the great "qualifier" then for folks like you, who, wink wink... don't actually believe any of this in the first place, but are willing to mouth it when appropriate. I know a lot of church goers like that...

So say what you mean then. If man is a coconspirator, admit to it. Admit that nature itself is the primary driver of how the climate changes, and quantify what, if any effect our efforts either enhance or detract from what nature has in mind. I've asked this question endlessly on forums like this from the faithful, and have yet to EVER get an actual response, well, except from iamanonman who tells me that ALL of our current warming is man made. Now, you kids go sort that conversation out amongst yourselves...

 

It's seems to work pretty well with gasoline tax. If I drive 2x as much then I pay 2x the tax. I cause 2x the damage and I pay 2x the cost. You and I are both still free choose both how much damage we cause and how much we pay as a result. I guess I'm not seeing what the problem is. I don't see how oppression and tyranny result from this arrangement. I don't feel oppressed or get the sense that a tyranical dictator has risen up due to gasoline taxes or any of the taxes that require me to pony up for the harm I cause. In fact, wouldn't it be oppressive and tyrannical if society made someone else pay for the harm I cause?

So are you saying instead of allowing people the freedom to choose their own behaviors (as long as they pay for the consequences) we should force certain behaviors upon them?

If I'm not understanding your point here then could clarify what you mean when you say people should turn off the heat, stop using electricity, etc.? Who is going to enforce that? How are you going to make the populace compliant?

How do we regulate CFC emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions, pesticides, dangerous chemicals, etc?

I agree with your last point though. Telling people to curtail harmful behaviors isn't effective without incentives. That's what makes it a tragedy of the commons problem.

 

Is that wit or simple mendacity?

 

No one believes the earth would be 0 Kelvin were it not for mankind. No one. Of course we get warmth from the sun. The questions is: what is the primary driver of the current warming trend? And it is one that has been thoroughly answered. Average temps have been rising even as the sun has dimmed, nighttime temps are rising faster than daytime temps, and winter temps are rising faster than summer temps, etc. All of this gives us a pretty clear sign that solar activity isn't the cause of the current trend. Does naturally occurring CO2 play a role? Yes, but even that is made more problematic by mankind: we have destroyed a lot of carbon sinks, leaving more of this naturally occurring CO2 in the air than would naturally be there.

But you can keep trying to pretend physical reality doesn't exist. I know a lot of church goers like that...

 

I lot of people love the benefits of spewing CO2 in the atmosphere willy-nilly. It's the same with the CFCs, sulfur dixoide, pesticides, smoking, and the list goes on and on. There's a lot of individualized short term gain from these behaviors. I happen to love some of the results/effects of these behaviors too. But, my regard for the long term general well being of the planet and humanity transcends these short term individualized benefits. I don't know...maybe that's just something we'll have to agree to disagree on I suppose.