Do most people agree on ACGCC ?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by bricklayer, Jan 25, 2020.

  1. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,380
    Likes Received:
    2,412
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do most people agree on anthropogenic-catastrophic-global climate change?

    Do most people agree on what to do about it ?

    If they do, then why don't they just do it ? Why must they compel those who do not believe as they do to do it also ?
    If they are such a majority, why do they need to compel the minority to do as they do ?
    Why don't they just do themselves voluntarily ? Why is compulsion so important ? Why do nothing voluntarily ? Why don't they pay higher taxes voluntarily ? Abstain from fossil fuels voluntarily ? It seems to me that they are more concerned with minimizing the voluntary and maximizing the compulsory than they are maximizing human well being or even minimizing human impact of the climate.

    I do not believe that a majority of people believe in ACGCC. I do not believe that enough people believe in it to make any difference if they even so much as disappeared. ACGCC is a hoax perpetrated by a small minority of people. There's simply not enough of them to make a difference one way or another. That is why they are so hell bent on compelling us to conform to their desires. Pay them no mind; there's too few of them to make a difference, and they know it.

    If 97% of scientists agree, why are they stifled until they're able to compel the other 3%?
    If most people agree, why are they stifled until they're able to compel the rest of us?
    We few remaining deniers must be some of the most powerful people that ever lived, or there's a lot more of us than we realize.

    ACGCC is a hoax. It is an attempt to maximize the compulsory and minimize the voluntary.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2020
    modernpaladin likes this.
  2. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Most people in the U.S. and worldwide believe in human-caused global climate change. I don't know if you mean that catastrophic global change is a future threat that most people believe is possible or

    something that is happening now. If it is something that is a future threat then I think that the majority of adult citizens worldwide would agree with that.

    This is from Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clima...inion_cause_is_human_by_country_2008-2009.png

    The problem cannot be solved voluntarily because it requires government funding and legislation in order to make a rapid change in energy production and conservation.

    The scientific evidence is too strong for it to be a hoax and there is no evidence of a hoax. The people who think that it is a hoax don't understand the science.


    [​IMG]


    Proportion responding yes when asked, "Temperature rise is part of global warming or climate change. Do you think rising temperatures are [...] a result of human activities?"
     
  3. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,380
    Likes Received:
    2,412
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, why don't they just do what they think needs done? Why do they wait to do anything until the rest of the people, who do not agree with them, are compelled by force of law to do what they won't do without them? Are there enough hold outs to make the difference? Aren't there enough believers to make a difference?
     
  4. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,023
    Likes Received:
    7,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Its possible a majority of the West believe it, but like you said, if so, why do they need to force the rest of us to act?

    Same reason the folks who promote raising taxes don't donate extra to the govt.
     
    Collateral Damage and bricklayer like this.
  5. Moonglow

    Moonglow Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    13,948
    Likes Received:
    4,441
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since when have you ever been able to predict quantum physics or quantum mechanics in nature?
     
  6. Moonglow

    Moonglow Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    13,948
    Likes Received:
    4,441
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How do you know they don't?
     
  7. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,023
    Likes Received:
    7,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I've yet to speak with anyone who claimed to donate extra to a govt, nor have I ever heard of anyone doing so.

    There probably are a handful of em, but most certainly the vast majority don't.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2020
  8. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,380
    Likes Received:
    2,412
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only thing that absolutely every eco-doomsayer agrees on is that the solution must be compulsory.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  9. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    19,702
    Likes Received:
    15,504
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For the same reason we require people to obey the speed limits even those people BELIEVE they can be safe drivers at higher speeds. Not rocket science here.
     
  10. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,380
    Likes Received:
    2,412
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok. Let's go with your analogy. So, until you can compel us to slow down to a speed that's not going to bring about eco-doom, you're all going to go as fast as we go because it's more important to you that things are fair than it is that things continue at all. Is that about it? You're not going to slow down until we slow down even if we're all going to die at this speed because that's fair?
     
  11. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    19,702
    Likes Received:
    15,504
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lots of people who believe in climate change have started slowing down their environmental impact on a personal level, but also realize that the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. You don't give up on your own effort just because those efforts aren't perfect. Understand? If the majority of people keep it to within 5 miles an hour of the speed limit, there is going to be less damage overall. Like when you have a NASCAR wreck at 155 mph and it involves 20 cars instead of just two or three at warm up speed.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2020
  12. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,380
    Likes Received:
    2,412
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Lot's of people" ? Who? Al Gore? Greta? Anyone on Martha's Vineyard? Who? Any name any of us would know?
     
  13. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,380
    Likes Received:
    2,412
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, that's not happening. The rest of the world is going as fast as possible.
     
  14. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    19,702
    Likes Received:
    15,504
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, they all aren't. Again, you make perfect the enemy of the good. You can't stop a train in ten feet. But even in the US, solar energy jobs are double coal jobs and climbing.
     
  15. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    4,006
    Likes Received:
    3,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So it's not about making a transition to 'sustainable' energy, all other energies must be demonized and squashed like a bug underfoot. People cannot be allowed to make choices about their energy consumption, for which they pay, but must be taxed to change a natural climate cycle (have you check the sunspot charts recently?) and force them to bow to a questionable prediction?

    That about cover it?
     
    bricklayer likes this.
  16. Thought Criminal

    Thought Criminal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    16,214
    Likes Received:
    11,161
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "The problem cannot be solved voluntarily because it requires government funding and legislation in order to make a rapid change in energy production and conservation."

    Why?

    The private sector is (still) much larger than government. If all supporters of Global Warming practiced thei beliefs, there would be huge growth in anti-carbon industries.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2020
    bricklayer and Collateral Damage like this.
  17. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    The world needs drastic change over the next 20 years to prevent the global mean temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees C above late 19th century levels. That goal will be nearly impossible to achieve

    and even something more realistic like 2.0 degrees C. will still require government action.

    Here is one paragraph of an article from climate.central.org https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/limiting-global-warming-require-deep-emissions-cuts

    Human activities have already warmed the planet about 1°C (1.8°F) since the pre-industrial era, defined by the IPCC as the latter half of the 19th century. At the current rate of warming, Earth would reach the 1.5°C threshold between 2030 and 2052. Limiting warming to 1.5°C is not easy and requires drastic changes to our energy, transportation, food, and building systems. Net CO2 emissions need to drop 45 percent from their 2010 levels by 2030, and reach net-zero by 2050 (meaning that any remaining CO2 emissions would need to be offset by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere).

    The world needs to rapidly switch over to wind, solar, and nuclear power and away from coal and oil. The European Union reduced carbon emissions by 23% from 1990 to 2016. The U.S. emits about the same amount of carbon today is it did in 1990. The European Union has a goal of reducing carbon emissions by 40% in 2030 from 1990 levels. The rest of the world hasn't dome much.

    Europe is imposing fines on car manufactures that don't comply with government regulations to reduce carbon emissions (up to 39 billion US dollars). The U.S. isn't doing anything.

    The transportation sector in the U.S. is beginning to overtake the electric power generation sector in carbon emissions.

    Graphs are from, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
  18. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    More from the climate.central.org article mentioned from my previous post that discusses what additional impacts will be with a GMT of 2.0 degrees as opposed to a GMT of 1.5 degrees.:

    Even limiting warming to 1.5°C comes with higher risks from extreme heat, drought, and heavy precipitation. This harms agriculture, food and water supplies, human health, and the oceans. Optimum agricultural belts will shift, water supplies will be at additional risk, and disease-carrying insects will move into new areas. Additionally, an extra half-degree Celsius (about 1°F) from 1.5°C to 2°C would magnify impacts:

    • Doubling the number of people affected by water scarcity
    • Doubling the losses of corn yields in the tropics
    • Increasing by 10 times the frequency of ice-free summers in the Arctic Ocean
    • Losing 30 percent more coral reefs (meaning a total of 99 percent of coral reefs will disappear)
    • Losing an additional 50 percent of global fisheries
    • Adding 10 million people to those affected by sea level rise
     
  19. Thought Criminal

    Thought Criminal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    16,214
    Likes Received:
    11,161
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you ever wonder how much of our electricity would be generated, from nuclear today, if not for those same Global Warming theory supporters?
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2020
  20. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,380
    Likes Received:
    2,412
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So go ahead and drastically change. Just do it voluntarily. Why is compulsion so important to you?
    If a majority of people agree, why do you need to compel them by force of law?
    Why is it so important to compel us tiny few climate denying outliers? Can't you do it without us?
    OR
    Are there fewer of you and more of us than you are willing to admit?
     
  21. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,707
    Likes Received:
    866
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Most people also believed the world was flat (or at least an upside down dish). Then most people believed the earth was the center of the universe.

    That belief did not make them right.
     
  22. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    4,006
    Likes Received:
    3,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well said.
    IMO, the idea is to 'share the expense', regardless if you support the idea. It reduces their cost, but gives them gloat power to think they 'forced' you into doing something you didn't want to do. A power trip of sorts.
     
    bricklayer likes this.
  23. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,380
    Likes Received:
    2,412
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If 97% of people agree on something, why must they compel the remaining 3% to do as they do before they'll do anything?
     
    Thought Criminal likes this.
  24. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,990
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What a silly name. Is that a WUWT thing, or did you make it up yourself? Obviously, most people don't agree with such a silly name. Why not just use "global warming", like everyone else?

    Most people of a non-cult nature do agree, yes.

    Nope, you don't get to freeload just because you stamp your widdle foot. You'll find the rest of us have little patience with freeloaders.

    I bet it makes you feel and warm and fuzzy to think you're on of the elite few who possesses such secret knowledge, eh?That's how conspiracy theories suck people in, by telling them how special they are.
     
  25. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,380
    Likes Received:
    2,412
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So why do you wait? If 97% of people agree, why don't you just do what you say needs to be done voluntarily?
    Why must you compel the remaining 3% to do it also before you do anything?
    Are you really prepared to let the world burn if you can't compel the few remaining holdouts?
    OR
    Are there far fewer of you, and far more of us, than you have been willing to admit?

    I think that the eco-doomsayers are a very small minority and they know it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2020
    Thought Criminal likes this.

Share This Page