Global warming ‘isn’t the great threat we were told’

[Nev_Dull]

Not my point as I didn't write the article. Their/his point is that to follow the science without due diligence is not always the best practice in fact finding. Following the money as was done with covid (Fauci claims) showed that it is possible the charts and claims of scientist were politically/financially motivated to obtain grant moneys. US paid billions for Gain of Function research.
So if charts and graphs, are doctored as suggested to reflect governments/political agendas, (articles words) "Shortly after the latest Chicken Little climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded that the sky is falling is that they are paid handsomely to do so." there is reason to believe that following the science blindly would be a fools errand.

That's a little better. Posting an article, without providing some sort of context or explanation isn't very conducive to good discussion. It just leaves people scratching their heads in confusion.

That article itself offers little more than supposition, straw men, and red herrings. It's well known that popular topics get more research funding than obscure ones. It doesn't follow that the research is skewed or in any way less valid or accurate. The author is making logical leaps, trying to draw lines between things that aren't there. The only sort of evidence that appears in that article is all against the author, as he clearly demonstrates his bias against both climate change and the political left.

 

[sanction9]

A big problem with humans in general: we have very short-term vision. It's understandable, considering evolution and our short life spans, but it doesn't bode well for our long-term survivability as a species.

Let's say that man-made contributions to global warming are only half as bad as some have claimed, and if we decide to mostly ignore the problem, the direst predictions won't come true for another 150 years, instead of in the next ten or twenty years: that would mean it would still be catastrophic for the planet and humanity just a couple generations from now. We always want to keep putting off being better stewards of our planet until we have no choice in the matter.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

A big problem with humans in general: we have very short-term vision. It's understandable, considering evolution and our short life spans, but it doesn't bode well for our long-term survivability as a species.

Let's say that man-made contributions to global warming are only half as bad as some have claimed, and if we decide to mostly ignore the problem, the direst predictions won't come true for another 150 years, instead of in the next ten or twenty years: that would mean it would still be catastrophic for the planet and humanity just a couple generations from now. We always want to keep putting off being better stewards of our planet until we have no choice in the matter.

It comes down to certain people either not wanting to take responsibility for their actions or being unaware of what damage their actions cause.

People love to just flip on a switch and have the lights come on for 5c/KWh and not think about what damage is being caused to make that happen.

100+ years ago, it was children in coal mines. Then we got kinda squeamish with that, so we said no kids in coal mines where they could die and the price went up a little.

A couple decades pass and we notice that the men in the coal mines can't afford to eat and feed their families, so we said, hey, they should be paid enough to eat and feed their family. And the price went up a little.

A couple more decades pass and after many many men getting hurt and killed in the coal mines, we said "Okay coal companies, keep mining coal, but you've gotta put some safety measures in there so maybe fewer people die". And they did (to the bare minimum) and the price went up a little.

Few more decades go by and we noticed all of the toxic chemicals in the water near the coal operations and we said "Hey! Coal companies! You can't dump your sludge in the waterways! Go dispose of it properly!". And they did (again to the bare minimum) and the price went up a little.

The whole time this was going on, other people developed ways to make electricity from the wind, the sun, and the tides... but no one wanted to do it because digging up and burning coal was cheaper than those new fangled contraptions.

Not long after that, someone was hiking and said "Huh... there use to be a mountain here, where did it go?" and we said "Hey! Coal companies! You can't remove mountains anymore without at least checking with us first."... and the price went up a little more.

A buncha years pass and we notice that people who live down wind of a coal fire electric plant tend to get sick on average at a much higher rate than people who don't. And we said "Hey! Coal burning electricity generators! You can't pump those toxic chemicals like mercury and sulfur into the air anymore"... and the price went up a little more...

But all the while, the people who thought using the wind, and the sun, and the tides was a good idea kept working on their ideas and brought the price of them down.

And suddenly, the cost to dig up coal and burn it cost about the same as collecting energy from the wind, the sun, or the tides. So it didn't make sense to keep digging up coal, because it kept getting more expensive while the cost to harness the wind, sun, or tides was dropping.

But there were people who fight this change because they don't care what the outside costs are. They are perfectly happy with sending children into coal mines to die, poisoning the rivers and streams, destroying entire mountains, and polluting the air with toxic chemicals as long as it only ever costs them 5c/KWh to turn on their lights because "other" people's children, "other" people's water, “other” people’s mountains, and "other" people's air.

And that's where we are on the climate change / global warming debate. Since the problem is global, the damage can't be limited to just the "others". So in an attempt to keep their convenience and not cost them a penny more than it currently does. They spend their time trying to disprove that the damage is even happening using propaganda, deception, diversion, logical fallacies, attacking the messenger, and outright lies.

 

[Bionic Rooster]

Did you paste the right link? You linked to a blog post suggesting that people move their savings into places that promote sustainability, which doesn’t mention Climate Crisis Inc. once.

They worked for me but here try this one

 

[FTL]

It comes down to certain people...

Man your post made for compelling reading with those escalating scenarios. Superbly put!

 

[mysiteguy]

1. Calling someone a troll, scientifically ignorant, or comparing them to flat earthers is not "cancel culture." It's mild flame war level at most. No one is stopping anyone from expressing themselves here. Hopefully, no one takes any heated conversation here as meaning anything outside of the context of this thread.

2. If one disputes scientific consensus, the burden of proof is on them to back it up with actual peer reviewed data published in a legit scientific journal or by a respected scientific institute.

3. Repeating the same debunked stuff is a demonstration there is a struggle to find peer reviewed science.

4. Whoever created the sock puppets, it doesn't help the creditability of the entire man-made climate change denier group. Come clean.

5. Political commentators, "points of view" and people on speaking circuits trying to promote their books and have admitted they aren't scientists... isn't science.

6. Smart people sometimes believe not-so-smart things, and most everyone is guilty of this in life. However, continued doubling down when being debunked is willful self-imposed ignorance.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Not my point as I didn't write the article. Their/his point is that to follow the science without due diligence is not always the best practice in fact finding. Following the money as was done with covid (Fauci claims) showed that it is possible the charts and claims of scientist were politically/financially motivated to obtain grant moneys. US paid billions for Gain of Function research.
So if charts and graphs, are doctored as suggested to reflect governments/political agendas, (articles words) "Shortly after the latest Chicken Little climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded that the sky is falling is that they are paid handsomely to do so." there is reason to believe that following the science blindly would be a fools errand.

Now that I'm back from my little vacation, I have time to dig into your link to the Heritage foundation... I won't link it again because I'm loathed to deliver that organization any additional traffic.... if you go... set AdBlocker to full.

Their/his point is that to follow the science without due diligence is not always the best practice in fact finding.

That's like... all of science. Oversimplified but, someone starts with a problem, proposes a hypothesis, collects data to test their hypothesis, and reports their findings. Those findings are then peer-reviewed or accuracy and methodology problems, and sometimes others attempt to duplicate those findings. Asking for peer review is literally saying, "Hey everyone! Check my work to see if it is right!". The goal of peer review is to look for holes and assure scientific quality.

Following the money as was done with covid (Fauci claims) showed that it is possible the charts and claims of scientist were politically/financially motivated to obtain grant moneys.

False. And any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But since you didn't provide any, I will. The Wuhan lab received $600,000. It wasn't for gain-of-function research, but gain-of-function happed in the lab unintentionally. That gain-of-function was in the family of CoronaViruses, but not SARS-CoVI-2 specifically. That research was to address concerning observations during the first SARS and MERS virus, and it was because of this research it gave us a huge head start for research for the vaccine. It is specifically Fauci's job to worry about these things before they happen.

So if charts and graphs, are doctored as suggested to reflect governments/political agendas, (articles words) "Shortly after the latest Chicken Little climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded that the sky is falling is that they are paid handsomely to do so." there is reason to believe that following the science blindly would be a fools errand.

The article claims. As above, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The author, Stephan Moore is a conservative shill and is extremely regressive. It is hilarious that he complains about scientists being paid to comment on a climate change study when being paid to comment on things is basically his entire resume, and even then he has made a career of being wrong. See also Coals Colossal Comeback (it's now below renewables as a power source),

The claims in the article of his that you link are so absurd on their face, one wonders about the reasoning and thinking capacity of those who believe him. For those who believe and agree with him, either there is an agenda to follow or there are some limits in gray cell capacity. The article is short, but there are so many wrong things I can't cover them all. I'll list the big ones here:

I noted that “In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.” This doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming.

But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather. Why doesn’t anyone in the media ever mention this?

1. the amount of funding of climate science gets per year is pocket change to the oil and gas industry in R&D and anti-climate actions, including paying for sham articles like the ones Stephen Moore writes.
2. $26.1 Billion in the ARRA in 2009 wasn't all going to scientists.... this is a false assertion on Moore's part. It was also spread over many years.
   1. Some of that went to upgrade the electric grid to smart metering.
   2. It provided grants for the weatherization of homes including a new type of ultra-efficient window.
   3. It provides grants for battery research and the building of battery manufacturing.
   4. It invested in automotive and tractor-trailer efficiency improvements.
3. We hire climate scientists to study the climate... the climate is still there on Sunny days. And in case it needs to be said again... the climate is NOT the weather.

Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.

For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.

But don't worry, he'd be against feeding everyone on the planet, clean water, and reliable electricity too.

The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.

No, we're not. Biden made a 60% increase to the 2023 budget for climate change, and it is still only $44 billion. And Apollo was $280 billion when adjusted for inflation in 2020 dollars. Show your math Stephen.

Now here’s the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry’s own admission there has been almost no progress worldwide in actually combatting climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse not better and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.

Kinda hard to make any progress when we don't do any of the things the climate scientists say we need to do to make that progress. Equally hard to make that progress when people like Stephen Moore are against making progress and rally people to his side with illogical arguments.

Has there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had such miniscule returns on investment? After three decades of “research” the only “solution” is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which is like saying that we should stop growing food.

Just because you don't like the medicine doesn't mean that taking it won't work. While I agree with him that we can't completely stop using fossil fuels, we can greatly reduce our use of them. Big companies are already taking steps to move away from fossil fuels where possible. UPS, Amazon, FedEx, and others are all spending tons of money to buy electric delivery vehicles. Those vehicles can be charged with renewable energy. Manufacturers are spending loads on installing rooftop solar and buying battery storage. Some of it is climate-related, but with $5 a gallon of gasoline and $6.10 a gallon of diesel, those company's Chief Financial Officers are looking at the money spent on fuel costs each year and doing the math. Hint: Their math is better than Stephen Moore's.

The greatest minds of the world entrusted with hundreds of billions of dollars can only come up with a solution that would entail the largest government power grab in world history, shutting down industrial production (just look at the catastrophe in Germany when they went all in for green energy)

Germany didn't. They still rely heavily on Natural Gas from Russia.... now there's a play you wouldn't want to repeat. But in the summertime, Germany, at a latitude north of Maine can produce enough solar electricity to drive power rates to zero. The EU doesn't enjoy as interconnected a grid as the US does, but if Germany can produce that much electricity, Florida, California, and Texas certainly could do better and then export that energy to other states. But even New Jersey, far north of Florida, started producing a lot of solar power with 3.7 GW of installed capacity. That's more than the largest coal plant in the country and roughly three times the size of the average one.

throwing perhaps billions of human beings into poverty? If that’s the remedy, I will take my chances on a warming planet.

No, Stephen, people aren't going to go poor just because the Smiths down the street installed solar panels on their roof and got a tax break for it. Exxon will survive.

President Trump should tell these “scientists” that “you’re fired.” And we taxpayers should demand our money back.

Ah! There's the Red Hat Red Meat....

 

[FTL]

Oldsmoboi Damn, so brilliantly dismantled. Seriously, what a great read.

 

[Chris]

Name calling, or political discussion (or posting propaganda) will not be allowed on TAZ.

 

[FTL]

Name calling, or political discussion (or posting propaganda) will not be allowed on TAZ.

That's fair enough. I see that you've got a new set of rules posted now.

EDIT: It would help with legibility and user friendliness to have the font somewhat bigger though. I have to zoom in with the browser to read it properly, as it is. 12 or 14 point should do.

 

[mysiteguy]

That's fair enough. I see that you've got a new set of rules posted now.

EDIT: It would help with legibility and user friendliness to have the font somewhat bigger though. I have to zoom in with the browser to read it properly, as it is. 12 or 14 point should do.

Where? The Vertical Scope terms do not look changed. Or is this something else you're referring to?

 

[FTL]

Where? The Vertical Scope terms do not look changed. Or is this something else you're referring to?

No, those same rules. I clicked the terms and rules link some time ago when there weren't any, just a blank page. Clicked on it today and there they were.

I'm not disputing anything in them, just suggesting a bigger font for clarity, which really helps those of us with less than perfect eyesight, in particular. This will benefit users and TAZ alike, but I get the feeling it won't happen though.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

No, those same rules. I clicked the terms and rules link some time ago when there weren't any, just a blank page. Clicked on it today and there they were.

I'm not disputing anything in them, just suggesting a bigger font for clarity, which really helps those of us with less than perfect eyesight, in particular. This will benefit users and TAZ alike, but I get the feeling it won't happen though.

That actually is something I've been meaning to bring up with IPS. Accessibility is a big deal for corporate customers because they can get sued if their site isn't accessible to the visually impaired. I do some WordPress development for a local government and recently had to install a plug-in so that visually impaired users could easily increase the font size, change the contrast, and a whole host of other settings I wasn't aware were needed. The plug-in solves most of those issues and it operates as a nice little floating button. It isn't an urgent need for me, but I would install it if available. Probably should start a whole thread on this one.

 

[mysiteguy]

Ctrl +/- work nicely on all desktop browsers for controlling font size. Chrome and Firefox also have high contrast modes. I believe making as site as reasonably accessible as possible within the means of a company and their size, such as alt-tags, layouts that adjust with screen size to work well with Ctrl +/-.

However, to me it seems an addon for doing the things a browser already does is like building a handicap curb ramp on top of a handicap curb ramp. Especially considering that every site would do it differently.

 

[Nev_Dull]

I'm not disputing anything in them, just suggesting a bigger font for clarity, which really helps those of us with less than perfect eyesight, in particular.

That seems to be a thing for any sort of rules, terms & conditions, etc. So is writing them all in unnecessary leagalize. It's almost like organizations don't really want customers to read that information to see what's going on.

 

[Nev_Dull]

Ctr +/- is fine for us oldies who need a bit of help and alt text should be a given on any site. Neither come close to making a site accessible, which, in my opinion, should be as much a part of every site and software as mobile friendly.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Ctrl +/- work nicely on all desktop browsers for controlling font size. Chrome and Firefox also have high contrast modes. I believe making as site as reasonably accessible as possible within the means of a company and their size, such as alt-tags, layouts that adjust with screen size to work well with Ctrl +/-.

However, to me it seems an addon for doing the things a browser already does is like building a handicap curb ramp on top of a handicap curb ramp. Especially considering that every site would do it differently.

Yea, there are industry standards. The Wordpress plug-in is very lightweight and enables that functionality. It wouldn't be an issue to implement.

 

[mysiteguy]

Ctr +/- is fine for us oldies who need a bit of help and alt text should be a given on any site. Neither come close to making a site accessible, which, in my opinion, should be as much a part of every site and software as mobile friendly.

Well, I didn't say they were the entire solution. But they are the solution for font size. Putting a font size control on every site, each with their own implementation, is counterproductive when there's a universal method users only have to learn once.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Would some Mod mind splitting from my post #233 and related posts forward into a new thread?

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Well, I didn't say they were the entire solution. But they are the solution for font size. Putting a font size control on every site, each with their own implementation, is counterproductive when there's a universal method users only have to learn once.

But if it is done using industry standards, it's not its own implementation. There are standard icons for it.