The religion of climate change.

I suggested not such thing. I said "ADDING FUEL TO THE FIRE OF A WARMING EARTH".

You keep creating these pinata's of bullshit to then knock down in fit of snootiness. Intellectual masturbation indeed, not to mention intellectual fraud, which I guess most fantasies are in a way.

 

So, first thing. Road damage is actually something we can remediate. Right? We send road crews out, they fill holes, or replace lengths of roadways, bridges, etc. CO2 doesn't actually damage anything, so how can you pay to cover the cost of it? I would point out that CFCs, SO2 etc are not naturally occurring, or if they might be, and clearly not prevalent absent the wonders of modern chemistry and female hair fashion... I doubt that in nature you'd find Roundup, right? So those things are places where use of regulatory process can effect actual change. What legal remedy do you have if your 8 yo ate too many corndogs? Your 8 yo isn't a manufacturing process that you can clean up, are they?

So, what you fall back to are "behavior modifications" and then in the same breath, you extoll that these aren't onerous, or otherwise tyrannical. How about this for a law... Blue team, you don't get to have cars... Only red team folks. How much behavior modification do you expect that would produce? Democrats don't get to have cars. But Republicans do. Democrats can't fly on air planes. But Republicans can. We can play this game all day. And I bet that I can produce real behavior change far more rapidly that you can. I also bet that you'd find this entirely unacceptable, but what if I just don't care, and I create these artifices anyway, absent your consent? Would you find that fair? I might.

 

No, I am calling out a cheap rhetorical tactic on another poster. But feel free to give a crap enough to tell my you don't give a crap.

 

Not sure what difference it would make to you, as I doubt you know what either is....

 

There was nothing cheap about the remark where you insulted the poster.

 

Likely you are entirely familiar with this approach. Like UPS delivers, this is what you do.

 

There you did it again. Insulted a poster that you did not like what the poster told you.

 

CA has promoted the electric auto. They actually favor it. So much so if you use one, you have unique privileges. You get free tolls. You get exclusive use of lanes on a highway. And they pay no motor taxes. So what happened? Ca says it struggles to repair roads. Thank you electric automobile.

 

It's true. I do claim that it is very likely that nearly 100% of the warming since 1960 is directly associated with human behaviors.

The IPCC makes a similar, yet more conservative claim. I believe they say that there is a 95% chance that humans are responsible for at least 50% of the warming and that the best guess is actually near 100%.

I personally feel like the IPCC is being too conservative here. I make that assessment based on a couple of points. First, they continually underestimate the amount of global sea ice declines and oceanic heat uptake (which accounts for 93% of the total heat uptake by the way). Second, they adjusted the lower bound of the predicted warming from 2.0C to 1.5C from AR4 to AR5 solely because of the pause in warming in the troposphere (which accounts for < 5% of the total heat uptake by the way) despite significant misgivings from the scientists involved. I mean come on...1.5C? We've already warmed 1.0C since 1960 and that's with less than 50% of a doubling of CO2 and it's only the transient response. We still have to wait a few decades for the equilibrium response to play out. In fact, we have likely already committed ourselves to 1.5C warming even if we ceased all CO2 emission entirely and immediately. And this doesn't even factor in the possible tipping points which the IPCC is mostly silent on.

 

Taking it to the absurd and attempting to break it down into partisan tribal terms. How nonsensical and disingenuous.

Behavior modification takes place CONSTANTLY. The telephone didn't modify behavior? The mobile phone didn't change behavior? the internet didn't change behavior?

We will continue to consume oil for decades to come, Hell it'll take that long to replace the "fleet" of internal combustion engines, alone. That is the reality of the situation. So let's be smart about how we mitigate the alarming acceleration of human produced polluting gases in our atmosphere in the meantime.

 

please don't project. Its cheap and unbecoming.

 

there you go again, failing to recognize a cheap rhetorical tactic. Brandolini's law.

 

I have been trained in word usage for sales effect. I see what you do. I try to minimize my use of word magic but perhaps that is the wrong thing for me to do.

Carbon Dioxide is a good gas. So spew is not what I would say. It is the gas of life as much as is Oxygen. But CO2 kills forest fires.

Were i being a bastridge, i would point out you promote fires by promoting the removal of the fire fighting gas, carbon dioxide.

I am waiting for any of the fearful to name the figure of carbon dioxide they are pleased with and why it pleases them.

 

Honestly, I expect it these days. The unfortunate truth here is that we cannot actually quantify what effect CO2 is or has had on the current transition behavior of our climate. We have "correlations" but what we don't have are actual reproducible, replicable experimentation that demonstrate the assertions of so many of the faithful. And so, in the absence, we get rhetoric. We get insults. We get the "how dare you question my highly quaffed faith".. etc. And yet, the fundamental question still remains, what can we quantify?

The vastly more interesting conversation is the one about what should we do about a harm we are unable to quantify, and the extent to which our freedoms and liberties must be restricted in order for those who profess their faith in future harms might be satisfied. My assertion is that there is no actual intent to solve for CO2 emissions, only wrest political and economic control that then allows the faithful to embark on their shared Malthusian dream.

 

I notice you doing it. And you complain about my noticing.

 

Democrats would do a lot better to ask a simple qualifying question.

"Does what I propose add to your freedom or restrict your freedom?"

 

The better question here is to ask when, in the last 4 or so decades was CA able to fulfill all of their electric grid demand? On their own, and not having raided the reserve capacity of other states. Or for that matter, their water supply... CA always seem to forget just how fragile their little science experiment actually is.

 

Ok, let's which offending polluting gas would you like to start with? I'm looking for real leadership from Nancy and Chuck. Think they can just shut up for a year or two??

 

[/quote]

You equate not having an exact number with the ability to measure the effects of ever increasing CO2 levels. That is a classic "denialist/conspiracist" tactic. Because it isn't an exact science then its no science at all. That is demonstrably nonsensical.

No actual intent? Yes there is a helluva lot more than just intent going on, but I get you think its pointless so why bother even acknowledge facts.

 

Yeah, because looking for real leadership from you Dear Leader is way too much to ask.

 

When are republicans going to ask that simple qualifying question?

 

That of course is not what I said. Typical climate change denier attempt at distorting the discussion. What I said was impossible for man not to have contributed to climate change given our hugh impact on the planet from mining, burning fissil fuels, pollution, etc,etc. Now if you want to argue with what I actually said state your case.

 

Bet you cannot support that statement. But then facts are rarely your weapon of choice.

 

LOL, you are also unaware of the vast government funding. Typical for one that only listens to lib memes and does no footwork of their own.

 

Yep. It is the defining strategy that was used in the denial of CFCs and ozone depletion, sulfur dioxide and acid rain, smoking and cancer, pesticides and environmental harm, etc.

The argument is essentially because we don't have perfect knowledge of either the cause or the effect then the you can't establish a cause and effect link. The technique is more effective if the presenter first grooms the audience by suggesting that cause and effect can only be linked after perfect knowledge is obtained or the link has completed truthification. This is necessary because science rarely if ever obtains perfect knowledge of anything and works by falsification rather than truthification because the later requires infinite effort.

Obviously it is a completely absurd argument. Yet, it obviously works. That's why we still have threads like these.