Do you believe in man-made climate change?

[Belaya Smert]

What gets me is the fact that we have very obvious non-controversial problems to address (eg micro plastics and pollution) that people would happy and even grateful to address, yet the major push by powers that be is to curb an essential element that humans literally produce by breathing.

Yeah, a cap on carbon emissions is great if we can’t get the worst offenders to help mitigate some of it. We just put ourselves at a global disadvantage and they will operate as usual. I will keep my USDA prime they can have their G-6.

 

[Phlog]

Yeah. It's not a matter of believing in it or not, it's just a matter of looking at the relevant data. The conclusion is obvious if you do that.

 

[Phlog]

What gets me is the fact that we have very obvious non-controversial problems to address (eg micro plastics and pollution) that people would happy and even grateful to address, yet the major push by powers that be is to curb an essential element that humans literally produce by breathing.

I guess I'd say that's a false equivalency in that it's not one or the other. We can reduce carbon release and plastic pollution.

The carbon is about reducing atmospheric temperatures which is different to improving other aspects of our environment.

 

[Barteh]

I guess I'd say that's a false equivalency in that it's not one or the other. We can reduce carbon release and plastic pollution.

The carbon is about reducing atmospheric temperatures which is different to improving other aspects of our environment.

If you wanna reduce carbon release you need to go after China and India etc. and not cuck your own population who doesn't even pollute nearly as much.

 

[PhitePhan]

I guess I'd say that's a false equivalency in that it's not one or the other. We can reduce carbon release and plastic pollution.

The carbon is about reducing atmospheric temperatures which is different to improving other aspects of our environment.

Sure, but the attention (and funding) climate change gets compared to other more tangible problems is insane.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

People in power are funding the climate research, and it just so happens that scientific outcomes are influenced by funding sources…

“Funding bias, also known as sponsorship bias, funding outcome bias, funding publication bias, and funding effect, refers to the tendency of a scientific study to support the interests of the study's financial sponsor. This phenomenon is recognized sufficiently that researchers undertake studies to examine bias in past published studies.”

- Exxon funded their own climate studies in the 70s - 80s and developed climate modeling that predicted the rise in global temps from CO2
- Shell funded a 1988 internal report titled "The Greenhouse Effect" where Shell's scientists acknowledged the impact of man made climate change
- BP and Total also engaged in climate research in the 70s - 80s and finally admitted it in the 90s and early 2000s with their annual environmental and sustainability reports
- The Koch brothers funded climate change studies that confirmed the scientific consensus.

https://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7

What was the bias with all of these companies and individuals?

 

[The XL]

Even if climate change is man made, there is nothing to be done without significant alterations to lifestyle or population control. World governments seem to be attempting to do something about the latter by making having kids extremely expensive, but that only impacts the middle class, not the poor or the rich

 

[PhitePhan]

- Exxon funded their own climate studies in the 70s - 80s and developed climate modeling that predicted the rise in global temps from CO2
- Shell funded a 1988 internal report titled "The Greenhouse Effect" where Shell's scientists acknowledged the impact of man made climate change
- BP and Total also engaged in climate research in the 70s - 80s and finally admitted it in the 90s and early 2000s with their annual environmental and sustainability reports
- The Koch brothers funded climate change studies that confirmed the scientific consensus.

https://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7

What was the bias with all of these companies and individuals?

Can you link any of the actual studies?

For the record, this was Exxon’s response to these claims:

In an emailed statement, ExxonMobil spokesperson Todd M. Spitler wrote that the Harvard-led study and other reports claiming the company’s early awareness of climate change “are inaccurate and deliberately misleading.”

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Can you link any of the actual studies?

For the record, this was Exxon’s response to these claims:

In an emailed statement, ExxonMobil spokesperson Todd M. Spitler wrote that the Harvard-led study and other reports claiming the company’s early awareness of climate change “are inaccurate and deliberately misleading.”

Here is the report from Exxon's James Black (1977)

https://insideclimatenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/James-Black-1977-Presentation.pdf

"In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels."

Edit:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063#:~:text=Our analysis shows that, in,accurately predicted when human-caused

 

[Roop Holstry]

I find it hard to believe that we aren’t having some effect on the climate with how we treat the planet. I do think the main factor in climate change is a natural progression of the earth exiting the ice age from 10000+ years ago.

The climate of the earth has slowly been changing since its birth with the exception of cataclysms changing it rapidly.

Regardless of what is changing the climate we really need to focus on reducing pollution and cleaning up our waterways. Countries in Asia particularly. Only problem is people will do anything to increase profit even if it means making the world a shitty place for their children and grandchildren and robbing us of the natural beauty of this planet.

 

[dirtypablo]

What gets me is the fact that we have very obvious non-controversial problems to address (eg micro plastics and pollution) that people would happy and even grateful to address, yet the major push by powers that be is to curb an essential element that humans literally produce by breathing.

This topic is only controversial because low IQ dimwits have been convinced it's not real by the fossil fuels industry.

Hey this is a real problem, but let's ignore it because the stupid people don't believe it. Makes sense.

 

[dirtypablo]

The biggest issue I have with climate change is the people pushing it such as Mark Cuban fly in private jets have ocean front property and are living lavishly. Climate activists have a lot of rich people telling the working and middle class they need to make sacrifices to stop climate change.

The people 'pushing it' are climate scientists. I'm guessing you don't listen to any climate scientists. Many people do, including some rich and powerful people. Because you do listen to those people, you hear it from them.


And, I've pointed this out 101 times in these threads, none of you guys even understand the real solutions, as most of them would involve making middle and lower class people's lives better. It's just that you've all been convinced to go against your own interests, again because you listen to rich and powerful people rather than scientists.

 

[Barteh]

This topic is only controversial because low IQ dimwits have been convinced it's not real by the fossil fuels industry.

Hey this is a real problem, but let's ignore it because the stupid people don't believe it. Makes sense.

There's no problem though. If we average temperatures go up 2-3 degrees who cares. We'll adapt, the planet will adapt and the animals will also adapt.

We definitely shouldn't cripple our economies over it, while letting the mass polluters reign free.

 

[dirtypablo]

There's no problem though. If we average temperatures go up 2-3 degrees who cares. We'll adapt, the planet will adapt and the animals will also adapt.

We definitely shouldn't cripple our economies over it, while letting the mass polluters reign free.

Just because you don't understand the problem, doesn't mean one doesn't exist. The damage to the economy caused by 2 to 3 degrees of warning would be an order of magnitude worse than the damage* to the economy caused by attempting to address the problem.

*Solving the problem doesn't actually need to damage the economy. Not addressing the problem 100% will absolutely wreck the economy, and that's not even getting to the cost in human lives and ecosystem destruction.

 

[PhitePhan]

you guys even understand the real solutions, as most of them would involve making middle and lower class people's lives better.

Go on…

 

[dirtypablo]

Go on…

Getting rid of car centric infrastructure and city design, and make cities walkable and massively overhaul public transportation, for example.

Some will say that doesn't apply to them, but most of the worlds population live in urban centers of some sort. Having a car is a totally unnecessary expense when you live in a well designed city with good public transportation, but for most Americans you need a car because our cities are designed that way on purpose - to force you to buy a car. For most people, especially lower and middle class folks, their lives could be massively improved with this one small change, because it would drive other changes. If you're out walking or riding a bicycle in your neighborhood instead of taking a car because there's high quality paths on which to do so, you'll meet more of your local community, experiences the positive health effects of being outside more often and so on.

 

[dirtypablo]

Here's another way addressing this could help middle/lower class folks. To address this problem requires an absolutely massive amount of work - fixing and improving infrastructure, building the world's best high speed industrial and commuter rail network (what happened to America being world leaders on this stuff?), ramping up production of solar cells and so on. Much of this could and should be funded through taxes, so how about we create a civil service program that functions in a very similar way to the military for younger folks. Start moving money away from the military industrial complex, and instead spend it on this type of stuff while employing young people in these roles. Kid doesn't want to go to college, instead of getting his brains blown out for Lockheed Martin, he helps build America's high speed rail system.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Getting rid of car centric infrastructure and city design, and make cities walkable and massively overhaul public transportation, for example.

Some will say that doesn't apply to them, but most of the worlds population live in urban centers of some sort. Having a car is a totally unnecessary expense when you live in a well designed city with good public transportation, but for most Americans you need a car because our cities are designed that way on purpose - to force you to buy a car. For most people, especially lower and middle class folks, their lives could be massively improved with this one small change, because it would drive other changes. If you're out walking or riding a bicycle in your neighborhood instead of taking a car because there's high quality paths on which to do so, you'll meet more of your local community, experiences the positive health effects of being outside more often and so on.

Unfortunately there is zero chance this gets implemented around the world in time, especially with the "but Communism", "Social Engineering", "15 min cities are about control" people around. Climate mitigation and CO2 sequestration are probably going to be the largest sectors in the world's economies for the next few generations.

 

[dirtypablo]

Unfortunately there is zero chance this gets implemented around the world in time, especially with the "but Communism", "Social Engineering", "15 min cities are about control" people around. Climate mitigation and CO2 sequestration are probably going to be the largest sectors in the world's economies for the next few generations.

I agree, but CO2 sequestration, especially forced air, is not remotely feasible in terms of making a significant impact. It requires a massive amount of energy.

 

[bobthebuilder]

99.9% BS, with the other 0.1% being inconsequential.