U N Climate Chief comes correct

[TheBlueVue 177]

13 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

 ecological sSure Blue,

Ecosystems have delicate balances.  Altering the relative amount of CO2 has consequences.  For example, you need oxygen.  However, pure oxygen would not be good.

I do not know if taxation is the correct solution.  The theory is, if you make carbon based fuels cost what their true relative cost to humanity is (by taxation), there will be an immediate shift to alternative energy sources.  Not sure about the "carbon exchange".

And the quote was that the movement was never about ecological stewardship nor saving the planet. So what is it about? She told us but you, among others, prefer putting additional words in her mouth that she never said. I take her at her word. It doesn't take much to see that aside from changing the business model aka capitalism the movement includes vast redistribution of wealth to 3rd world nations, who incidentally, are on record complaining that the planned transfer amounts are not enough. Does that in any way cause even least suspicion in your mind? It does mine because it seems they're being bribed for their complicity and may be making a political play to have the ante upped.

I have never argued that climate change isn't happening. It's been changing for billions of years that's a documented scientific fact but when every living thing is putting Co2 into the atmosphere and it is essential to life as we know it I have a hard time seeing how we're going to arbitrarily call it a pollutant now and hang unrealistic expectations for revenue AND change on US industry when the China has been exempted from doing anything. That exemption from the Paris Climate Accord wreaks of globalist politics and is inconsistent with the alarmists apocalyptic warnings - is it not?.

Do you really think that US industry should carry all the weight of the regulatory and tax reform to fix a problem that we alone will never fix?

[icanthearyou 4,464]

9 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

And the quote was that the movement was never about ecological stewardship nor saving the planet. So what is it about? She told us but you, among others, prefer putting additional words in her mouth that she never said. I take her at her word. It doesn't take much to see that aside from changing the business model aka capitalism the movement includes vast redistribution of wealth to 3rd world nations, who incidentally, are on record complaining that the planned transfer amounts are not enough. Does that in any way cause even least suspicion in your mind? It does mine because it seems they're being bribed for their complicity and may be making a political play to have the ante upped.

I have never argued that climate change isn't happening. It's been changing for billions of years that's a documented scientific fact but when every living thing is putting Co2 into the atmosphere and it is essential to life as we know it I have a hard time seeing how we're going to arbitrarily call it a pollutant now and hang unrealistic expectations for revenue AND change on US industry when the China has been exempted from doing anything. That exemption from the Paris Climate Accord wreaks of globalist politics and is inconsistent with the alarmists apocalyptic warnings - is it not?.

Do you really think that US industry should carry all the weight of the regulatory and tax reform to fix a problem that we alone will never fix?

Sorry Blue.  I was only addressing your direct question.  I have not attempted to "put words" into anyone's mouth.

No.  I think that is an absurdity.  However, it does speak to the hypocrisy of our participation in the global economy.  We will not exploit our own people or, rape our own environment but, we don't have much of a problem with developing countries doing those things.  I think our greatest tool would be to limit access to our consumer markets.

[TheBlueVue 177]

33 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I think our greatest tool would be to limit access to our consumer markets.

What does this mean?

[icanthearyou 4,464]

32 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

What does this mean?

Require other countries to hit certain targets for wages/conditions and, certain targets for environmental protections before being granted unlimited access to our consumer markets.  We should be leading the global economy, not allowing it to lead us.

[TheBlueVue 177]

31 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Require other countries to hit certain targets for wages/conditions and, certain targets for environmental protections before being granted unlimited access to our consumer markets.  We should be leading the global economy, not allowing it to lead us.

I see. That may work. I like Trumps choice to lead the EPA, Scott Pruitt. At least he's not a fan of the agency and has the left in a dither. Well, that's the case with  just about everything Trump does

http://www.weeklystandard.com/trumps-epa-pick-spooks-liberals-and-the-environmental-lobby/article/2005733

[icanthearyou 4,464]

33 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

I see. That may work. I like Trumps choice to lead the EPA, Scott Pruitt. At least he's not a fan of the agency and has the left in a dither. Well, that's the case with  just about everything Trump does

http://www.weeklystandard.com/trumps-epa-pick-spooks-liberals-and-the-environmental-lobby/article/2005733

I don't have a feeling either way except, it is perhaps good that he is a denier.  He will have a chance to hear the evidence firsthand.  It may be a blessing.  I still believe the politics of the extremes is obscuring the real problem and solutions.  He may be a perfect fit.  I certainly hope so and, that he will reduce the bureaucracy without compromising the environment.  

[homersapien 11,513]

10 hours ago, AURaptor said:

Absolutely. It puts things in perspective. 

It IS a political scam. 

OK this is your chance to exercise your logical skills.

What about the geologic history of the earth is relevant to the physics of anthropogenic global warming?

(Before answering, you may want to review the basic tenets of the theory.)

 

[homersapien 11,513]

20 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

I have serious reservations about increasing an already stifling regulatory environment and increasing taxes so we can give 3rd world nations $billions of dollars when the ONLY way China could be inveigled into participating in the Paris Climate Accord was by exempting them from having to comply with any of its mandates.

At this point, climate policies are a political scam because they aren't based on mutually accepted scientific facts but rather fashionable globalist politics.

You have reservations because you don't understand the science.  This leads you to simply reject it because of the implications it represents.

Your last sentence is just flat out totally wrong.  There is a huge body of generally accepted scientific research that supports the theory.  Huuuge.

And you might keep in mind the science exists independently of the recommended actions.  You integrate them because the recommended actions scare you.  As an inherent conservative you are adverse to change and cannot see the opportunity in it. 

[AURaptor 1,128]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

OK this is your chance to exercise your logical skills.

What about the geologic history of the earth is relevant to the physics of anthropogenic global warming?

(Before answering, you may want to review the basic tenets of the theory.)

 

Why do we keep having this same g-damn discussion over and over ? Oh yeah, because you can't accept anyone who doesn't buy into your cult views.

Earth warms and cools. Has done so over millions and millions of year. Won't stop doing it until the planet is struck by a bigger object than it was 65 + million years ago, or the sun burns it to a large chunk of charcoal. 

 

[TheBlueVue 177]

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

You have reservations because you don't understand the science.  This leads you to simply reject it because of the implications it represents.

Your last sentence is just flat out totally wrong.  There is a huge body of generally accepted scientific research that supports the theory.  Huuuge.

And you might keep in mind the science exists independently of the recommended actions.  You integrate them because the recommended actions scare you.  As an inherent conservative you are adverse to change and cannot see the opportunity in it. 

Nope because there has to be at least a minimal commitment to balance. I realize the religious aspect this "green monster" represents for you but the operative word above is "theory" I don't see what we gain by penalizing businesses to the point they cant operate profitably because of onerous regulatory and tax initiatives when the US action alone will never remedy the problem and I will never be convinced its worth it in support of a theory no matter how devoutly you and others worship at its altar.

[homersapien 11,513]

On 12/8/2016 at 5:48 PM, AURaptor said:

Why do we keep having this same g-damn discussion over and over ? Oh yeah, because you can't accept anyone who doesn't buy into your cult views.

Earth warms and cools. Has done so over millions and millions of year. Won't stop doing it until the planet is struck by a bigger object than it was 65 + million years ago, or the sun burns it to a large chunk of charcoal. 

 

Again, explain how that is relevant to the 'Anthropocene', which began approximately 10,000 years ago?

The question is not one of the earth surviving until our Sun goes red giant, the question is about the survival of humans.  What happened on earth billions of years ago - or even what will earth be billions years from now - has nothing to do with our species and it's future.  

Now, if you are just adopting a fatalistic attitude and you don't really care about the future environment - since you will be dead anyway - that's at least a logical, understandable position.  In fact, it's one I might expect of you.

But the geologic history is totally irrelevant to AGW.  It's - dare I say it - a non sequitur.

 

[homersapien 11,513]

11 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

Nope because there has to be at least a minimal commitment to balance. I realize the religious aspect this "green monster" represents for you but the operative word above is "theory" I don't see what we gain by penalizing businesses to the point they cant operate profitably because of onerous regulatory and tax initiatives when the US action alone will never remedy the problem and I will never be convinced its worth it in support of a theory no matter how devoutly you and others worship at its altar.

Oh, geez.  Are we going to have to parse the scientific meaning of "theory" again?    We need a place to post sticky's to avoid this eternal repetition.  Again you are rejecting the science because you don't understand it or you have an overwhelming psychological and/or doctrinal belief that prevents you from doing so.

The goal for AGW activism is more about helping businesses make the transition we have to make. Destroying business is the last thing that the proponents of action against AGW want.  Destroying businesses - or more generally - destroying the economy would guarantee that no effective transition to a carbon-free energy system will take place.   A viable economy is the most effective way - actually, the only way - such a transition can occur.

Imposing (currently hidden) environmental costs as taxes on carbon fuels is a common sense, free market way to force reduction in their use and encourage the development of alternatives.  It needs to be done in a way to minimize the short term harm to carbon-based businesses, but it still needs to be done.  Those business will eventually have to transition to a new business model that doesn't include carbon production.  

Obviously, that's going to create a lot of resistance, but the science tells us we are running out of time. In fact, most think an overall increase of 2 degrees is a done deal.  An increase of 3 degrees could be catastrophic to humans and many other species.  

Of course, that's all predicated on the assumption that AGW is actually a problem, which you apparently are not ready to accept.  

I can't help you to gain that understanding. You'll need to do that on your own. 

[SaltyTiger 7,908]

AGW - Perhaps this will help in understanding it

http://www.conservapedia.com/Anthropogenic_global_warming_theory

[autigeremt 6,776]

23 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I don't have a feeling either way except, it is perhaps good that he is a denier.  He will have a chance to hear the evidence firsthand.  It may be a blessing.  I still believe the politics of the extremes is obscuring the real problem and solutions.  He may be a perfect fit.  I certainly hope so and, that he will reduce the bureaucracy without compromising the environment.  

As someone who works in this field and advocates for clean water, air and soil I hope you are right...regardless of what the media and activists say about him. I'm not holding my breath but I hope I'm wrong at the same time (about him). There needs to be some housecleaning and mission changes at the EPA.

[homersapien 11,513]

54 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

AGW - Perhaps this will help in understanding it

http://www.conservapedia.com/Anthropogenic_global_warming_theory

You can't be serious.

[icanthearyou 4,464]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You can't be serious.

Them main steem incycolapedias dont tale the truth.  Anyways they is two dry and sciency for my tastes.

[AUDub 11,204]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You can't be serious.

Bwahaha. Never thought anyone would be dense enough to unironically link Andy Schlafly's wiki here.

[SaltyTiger 7,908]

42 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You can't be serious.

Just trying to help you out Homer. Thought you wanted Blue to understand this AGW stuff

[homersapien 11,513]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Just trying to help you out Homer. Thought you wanted Blue to understand this AGW stuff

That won't help.  

[SaltyTiger 7,908]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

That won't help.  

I am sorry if I screwed up. Why won't it help?

[icanthearyou 4,464]

43 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I am sorry if I screwed up. Why won't it help?

You lost your atta boy and, your gold star.  

[SaltyTiger 7,908]

How about the extra fishing? Just took a long bicycle down the coast. 58 degrees and beautiful. Gulf was laying like a baby asleep. Like John Glenn said about space " Can not see it and realize there is not God " I feel confident he will handle AGW - Man could not change climate if we tried. 

 

[homersapien 11,513]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

How about the extra fishing? Just took a long bicycle down the coast. 58 degrees and beautiful. Gulf was laying like a baby asleep. Like John Glenn said about space " Can not see it and realize there is not God " I feel confident he will handle AGW - Man could not change climate if we tried. 

 

Now there's a rational plan.

[AURaptor 1,128]

^ Super secret hidden message that homer won't be able to decipher !  

 

[homersapien 11,513]

One thing about science is that even if you don't want to understand it, it's still true.