[citation needed]

Well I guess we can wrap up all the 'let the market decide' stuff then. Turns out it's not even a problem.

What do you think is the byproduct of man burning fossil fuels?

Rainbows?

A new ice age and worldwide starvation: In the 1960s and ’70s, top mainstream media outlets, such as Newsweek above, hyped the imminent global-cooling apocalypse. Even as late as the early 1980s, prominent voices still warned of potential doomsday scenarios owing to man-made cooling, ranging from mass starvation caused by cooling-induced crop failures to another “Ice Age” that would kill most of mankind.
Among the top global-cooling theorists were Obama’s current “science czar” John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, the author of Population Bomb, which predicted mass starvation worldwide. In the 1971 textbook Global Ecology, the duo warned that overpopulation and pollution would produce a new ice age, claiming that human activities are “said to be responsible for the present world cooling trend.” The pair fingered “jet exhausts” and “man-made changes in the reflectivity of the earth’s surface through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts” as potential triggers for his new ice age. They worried that the man-made cooling might produce an “outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap” and “generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”
Holdren predicted that a billion people would die in “carbon-dioxide induced famines” as part of a new “Ice Age” by the year 2020.
Ehrlich, a professor at Stanford University, similarly claimed in a 1971 speech at the British Institute for Biology, “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.” He added, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.

Close to rainbows. Human prosperity and the greatest 100 years of human advancement ever.

So setting fire to coal and gasoline releases what into the atmosphere?

You're going to great lengths to avoid answering the question and we both know why.

No I'm not. If you think CO2 is causing climate change why do you think the negatives of burning coal and gas out weight the positives? Go ahead and look at the negatives based off predictions and unproven science or jump in a car or an airplane or your mobile device or laptop etc and have a look.

Shifty has repeatedly stated CO2 is not a problem. According to him it is not something to worry about and not considered pollution. So engage him in the climate change thread because he is clearly not past the criteria put out in the first post in this thread.

Shifty: you said "30 years ago top scientist predicted billions would have died by now because of man made global warming.". Now you're trying to support it with articles about global cooling claims made 45 years ago. Even at that time, the consensus was that global warming was happening. Global cooling was a fringe theory:


(from wikipedia)

There are a lot of articles from actual researchers that you could read to get a better idea of the state of climate change science. But since you seem to have a problem with government-funded research maybe you'll be more receptive to the fact that, for decades, Exxon has been aware that global warming was real and was still promoting its denial.

Edit: sorry to keep the climate change derail going. Make a climate change thread in SMP and exile Shifty there, maybe?

If we vote to leave the EU he will only have been out by a couple of decades.

Who said I did? I just think we should account for the real costs of burning fossil fuels, because there are calculable costs associated with those types of fuels and I'm a little tired of them getting a free ride from the government to pollute our air and not be on the hook for the damages.

That's, uh, certainly a sentence that you wrote.

Got a source to back up all of these quotes?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice...termediate.htm

Source paper

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ry-came-to-be/

My point was that all the top experts were horribly wrong, which they were. Can you prove to me they weren't? To my knowledge they never apologized for being horribly wrong, who knows what damage they caused. Imagine a young teenager in 1986 reading a NASA scientist predict billions die from carbon-dioxide climate induced famines by 2020, probably not going to have the most motivation at school the next day.

Funny you mention Exxon. Alex Epstein was just subpoenaed along with ExxonMobile for being a climate change "denier": Free Speech!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepst.../#58d07b69a1e6

That's not an attempted restriction on anyone's speech. If anything the government is trying to get Exxon to speak, not prevent it.

Exxon is a public company and has obligations to provide honest information to its investors. Exxon stating one thing internally and a completely different thing to investors is something that could reasonably be investigated as fraud.

lol

I had no idea that your favorite philosopher/lobbyist was involved in the Exxon scandal but it's amazing. He was paid to misinform you and you still eat his **** up. Maybe this thread could be used as evidence at his trial to show the sort of damage he has done?

Sure it is, do you think if Exxon expressed the same views as the AG they would be getting subpoenaed? Expressing an opinion different from somebody on an on going debate (climate change) isn't fraud. The AG is using her power to try and win the debate by making the other side and the fossil fuel industry look bad and defer people speaking or researching the other side of the argument. If shareholders feel they were victims of fraud they could push for a leadership change or sue themselves.

Should also note that ExxonMobile has acknowledged the risks of climate change for over a decade and spent 7 Billion in research to reduce emissions. In their SEC form they list climate change and greenhouse gas restrictions as potential risks. SolarCity doesn't, if the predictions of catastrophic climate change doesn't happen should SolarCity be subpoenaed because they funded think tanks that exaggerated the effects of climate change and defrauded their investors?

How did he misinform me?

Exxon did have the same views as the AG on climate change. The alleged fraud was not in publicly having a different opinion, but on having the same opinion but lying about it to their investors.

If they really believed warming wouldn't be a problem and didn't have private internal communications about believing it and spending shareholder money to try to lessen the problems they would face because of it, while hiding their opinions which would be more damaging to the long term value of the company, then there would have been no fraud.

If there's any vendetta against them it's not because they believed climate change is a hoax, because they don't. They believe it's real. It's because they hid the truth (the truth they believed) so that they could more easily continue to **** up the planet.

Shifty was probably also a big fan of tobacco companies "researching the other side of the argument".

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...witness-report

.

Thats all opinion. Should solarcity be investigated for fraud because they could be profiting off the over exaggeration of man made climate change?

Not sure what tobacco companies have to do with anything. Or are your trying to say fossil fuels and tobacco companies are the same?

If there is evidence that their behaviour is fraudulant then they should be investigated. I'm unfamiliar with the company and its behaviour. However, I do not see what they have to gain by over exaggerating the effects of man made climate change. All they have to do is point to the scientific consensus. At first glance I do not see any incentive for them to lie.

I'm no expert but the tactics with regards to denial of the negative impact of their products look very similar from where I'm sitting. I would also compare them to the tactics used by the people that used to add lead to fuel and paint.

Only if they are using something in their marketing which isn't true AND their own internal communications show they don't believe.

They are allowed to be wrong, just not to intentionally lie in order to deceive their investors and customers.

The other thing is that almost none of SolarCity's customers are getting solar because of climate change. They are getting it because they are saving money.