How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science

[jeremyrh]

Robert, Countries and companies are spending money making changes with green energy just like they did with car pollution pushed by the USA. (Well, except the cheating Germans with diesel).  I got involved personally in my own business subsequently after the 1973 oil crisis with energy conservation systems.  Even then, buyers wanted to see sufficient return on investment before they bought the systems.  So energy management has been under way for almost 50 years.  And we've been working on auto changes for as long or longer as well.  These things cannot be done overnight.  But that cost with autos is peanuts compared to what is required to get us off fossil fuels in the short time people like yourself are saying is required.  The time isn't there.  The money isn't there.  The know how isn't there.     It would destroy economies, starve people, freeze people, and put better lives for people around the world beyond our ability to meet.  We'd go backwards in modernity hurting everything.  You're missing how much cheap energy has driven modern successful lives and made living better for everyone.  You can;t pull the plug even if we could pay for it which we can;t.  It's nice to get everyone excited as we've seen with recent marches.  But when the parents of those kids realize how much they will have to pay in taxes and higher living costs for all these things (look at German electric costs), the political forces will shut it down.  The kids will be told to go home and study their homework for school so they can get a job when they grow up.

That's a load of words. I wonder if the climate is listening? I wonder if they changed the laws of physics?

[Alan Klein]

That's a load of words. I wonder if the climate is listening? I wonder if they changed the laws of physics?

They haven't changed the law of economics either.  The money isn't there.

[jeremyrh]

They haven't changed the law of economics either.  The money isn't there.

Sure it is.  It's just a question of priorities.

[Alan Klein]

Sure it is.  It's just a question of priorities.

I'm glad you agree with me.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I'm glad you agree with me.

 

[jeremyrh]

I'm glad you agree with me.

You do realise that makes no sense, right?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You do realise that makes no sense, right?

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. Just that his priorities differ from yours, but it is indeed and undeniably "a question of priorities."

[Robert Roaldi]

The money isn't there.

That's quite funny.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That's quite funny.

Let me rephrase it: it might be there, but you would have no idea what to do with it. Other than penalize naughty oil companies, consumers, etc. Soon a world government would reinstate the China one-child policy world wide, I presume

[Alan Klein]

Let me rephrase it: it might be there, but you would have no idea what to do with it. Other than penalize naughty oil companies, consumers, etc. Soon a world government would reinstate the China one-child policy world wide, I presume

Actually, without seeming mean, that's the only policy that would work.  The problem is population not fossil fuels.  As long as population continues to grow, we will effect the earth in many ways, many that cannot be overcome.

[Robert Roaldi]

Let me rephrase it: it might be there, but you would have no idea what to do with it. Other than penalize naughty oil companies, consumers, etc. Soon a world government would reinstate the China one-child policy world wide, I presume

Reverse-Godwin again!

Why all this childish extremism? That's not how the actual world works, or how it has ever worked. Why have we invented this phoney online construct of bizarre and outlandish political positions with no relation to our daily reality. There was never a capitalist laissez-faire utopia that was destroyed by 60s rock bands, you know? It only ever existed in first-year economics texts, not in the real world.

Society and culture came first. Commerce is something we invented to govern trade between peoples and it has been a huge success but it has flaws. It doesn't always work well. Trying to fix those flaws is not an invitation for Stalinists to take over. Take a pill. Switch to decaf.

Why are there still calls to roll back automobile emission standards? (i.e., Trump and California) Who would benefit from dirtier air and water? Are companies REALLY hurting because they have environmental laws to govern their behaviour? We're surrounded by outlandishly rich commercial entities and you expect me to swallow the bs that environmental laws have hurt them? Who is hurting exactly? I'm not seeing it. It's not even remotely plausible to suggest such a thing. In fact, it's laughably stupid. Just look around! Is it a badge of modern conservatism to think so? Who imposed that criterium on us? Maybe you should think about that confidence game for a moment. Think for yourself, isn't that what you're always telling everyone.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Why have we invented this phoney online construct of bizarre and outlandish political positions with no relation to our daily reality....

Indeed, why have you? Invented that phony construct of climate scaremongering that has reached maniacal proportions. Driving kids into deranged meltdowns.

As for how the actual world works, it is exactly how it works right now, in Venezuela, Cuba, etc. And how it worked until recently in Russia and China. China only recently abolished the one-child policy. With the loonie left calling for no children, to save the planet, how soon before the rest of the loonie left world adopts the same Chinese policy?

By the way, you et al still have not answered my question: what are you going to do with the punitive taxation? Remember the yellow jackets in France? What happened when the climato-maniacs imposed the punitive fuel tax? 

[Alan Klein]

Reverse-Godwin again!

Why all this childish extremism? That's not how the actual world works, or how it has ever worked. Why have we invented this phoney online construct of bizarre and outlandish political positions with no relation to our daily reality. There was never a capitalist laissez-faire utopia that was destroyed by 60s rock bands, you know? It only ever existed in first-year economics texts, not in the real world.

Society and culture came first. Commerce is something we invented to govern trade between peoples and it has been a huge success but it has flaws. It doesn't always work well. Trying to fix those flaws is not an invitation for Stalinists to take over. Take a pill. Switch to decaf.

Why are there still calls to roll back automobile emission standards? (i.e., Trump and California) Who would benefit from dirtier air and water? Are companies REALLY hurting because they have environmental laws to govern their behaviour? We're surrounded by outlandishly rich commercial entities and you expect me to swallow the bs that environmental laws have hurt them? Who is hurting exactly? I'm not seeing it. It's not even remotely plausible to suggest such a thing. In fact, it's laughably stupid. Just look around! Is it a badge of modern conservatism to think so? Who imposed that criterium on us? Maybe you should think about that confidence game for a moment. Think for yourself, isn't that what you're always telling everyone.

60's rock bands did not want to destroy capitalist laissez-faire economies.  They sang to benefit from it and get rich.  Some did by the truckload.


 Socialism and free market capitalism are not black and white. It's a sliding scale. 


They're not rolling back automobile emission standards.  What they're doing is making federal regulations followed by the other 49 states the same for California.  By California having a different higher standard which especially has become political lately and not scientific, it creates problems for the world's auto industry as to what standards they have to follow. California or the federal standard.  California becomes like the tail that wags the dog forcing the rest of the country and world to have standards they don't want.  Congress agreed to this cut-out for California in its original regulatory law because that state had smog and pollution problems many years ago when their were little or no standards.  The situation has changed.  Cars pollute about 100 times less than the use too.  Regulations over the years have cleaned up the air there.  Now, America would be better off with one standard that applies to the whole country.  But standards will continue and are in fact increasing.  By the way.  Companies don;t hurt.  They have no feelings, no nervous system.  Employees and stockholders can hurt though.  Regular people who can lose jobs with these companies or lose dividends from these companies to help them in retirement to pay the food bills.

[LesPalenik]

Coal Stockpiles Grow at Europe’s Ports. First reported six months ago, now the stockpiles are even larger.

“With natural gas prices at current levels, gas generation will take market share from coal generation this summer, which means it will be difficult and take time to draw down stockpiles to normal levels”

No wonder, half of the US mines were closed in the last decade.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/coal-stockpiles-grow-at-europe-s-ports-after-warm-winter-1.1251219

[LesPalenik]

The situation has changed.  Cars pollute about 100 times less than the use too. 

That's what I've been saying, little bit of diesel exhaust won't hurt. OTOH, cows and pigs fart still the same way as 100 years ago. Considering their increased body mass and what they are being fed these days, it could be even worse today than 100 years ago.

[Alan Klein]

Coal Stockpiles Grow at Europe’s Ports. First reported six months ago, now the stockpiles are even larger.

No wonder, half of the US mines were closed in the last decade.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/coal-stockpiles-grow-at-europe-s-ports-after-warm-winter-1.1251219

Competition has changed the market for decades.  When I was a kid in the 1950's, the apartment building I lived in converted from coal to oil.  That was 70 years ago.  Twenty years ago, I helped project manage the conversion of the last of NYC public schools (160 out of 1200 buildings) still running on coal to oil and natural gas.  Where I live, you can't burn wood in a fireplace.  It has to be natural gas.  Of course the range and hot water heater run on gas too.  Coal in America is down from 50% to 30% for electric production.  Of course, China is building 850 coal fire plants around the world.  We really should take China behind the barn and give them a talking too. 

[Alan Klein]

That's what I've been saying, little bit of diesel exhaust won't hurt. OTOH, cows and pigs fart still the same way as 100 years ago. Considering their increased body mass and what they are being fed these days, it could be even worse today than 100 years ago.

Now you're making me feel bad.  I had a steak today in a restaurant.  Well, it was a little steak anyway, maybe 6 ounces.  I'm trying to eat better.

[jeremyrh]

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. Just that his priorities differ from yours, but it is indeed and undeniably "a question of priorities."

Alan:  The money isn't there
Me: Sure it is
Alan: Glad you agree with me

As I said - no sense.  Still, that's the game now - here and in wider politics.

[LesPalenik]

Now you're making me feel bad.  I had a steak today in a restaurant.  Well, it was a little steak anyway, maybe 6 ounces.  I'm trying to eat better.

Little steak is OK occasionally, maybe it came from a little cow. I presume, you walked to the restaurant.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Alan:  The money isn't there
Me: Sure it is
Alan: Glad you agree with me

Either you read by carelessly skipping posts or lines, or you are engaged in blatant falsification. Go back and read the exchange again. Hint: it isn’t about availability of money, but about priorities (the part you either deliberately or carelessly missed above).