Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Climate Change Climate Change

09-29-2019 , 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
There certainly isn’t a trillion-dollar industry with an incentive to convince people we shouldn’t do anything about climate change.
Trolly,
How much money do the oil companies spend on denialism relative to the amount of climate alarmism that is put out in the media? If the oil companies had to pay for that sort of coverage, how much would it be worth?

Last edited by Luckbox Inc; 09-29-2019 at 01:07 PM.
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
Ok let's try to break it down.
1. Is there a massive agenda behind the climate change push? Yes or no?
2. Does money influence science? Yes or no?
No, let's actually break it down.

Q: Does a budget summary showing money to research mean scientists reach pre-specifed conclusions to get a paycheck?

A: No.

Q: Is there any good evidence of this sinister cabal that somehow tries to entangle the entire world in a giant scheme of hoax science?

A: No.


Your argument is trying to boil down to exactly the same tried and tested nonsense that we see in creationism, anti-vaxx movements, homeopathy, chem-trail conspiracies and flat earth societies. Everything that contradicts their beliefs is a conspiracy and the world it has brainwashed. Everything that verifies it is illuminated skepticism and piercing through the veil.
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 01:26 PM
Complete fail at addressing my arguments and continued misrepresentation of them.
I'll try again:
1. Is there a massive agenda behind the climate change push? Yes or no?

2. Does money influence science? Yes or no?
Also this:
Suppose I had a trillion dollars and was looking for scientific results. I can send that money out wherever. Would I keep sending it to those who don't produce the results I'm looking for or would the people not producing results not get the money?
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
[...]continued misrepresentation [...]
So you never made a post showing a budget summary and concluded that climate science reached foregone conclusions in order to get money?
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
So you never made a post showing a budget summary and concluded that climate science reached foregone conclusions in order to get money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox
It isn't the claim that they are in it for the money. It's more like the money is in it for them. Anybody in the field of climate research is free to go make money, or not, in whatever field they want. But the climate money with an agenda behind it will still be there for whomever replaces them.
Suppose I had a trillion dollars and was looking for scientific results. I can send that money out wherever. Would I keep sending it to those who don't produce the results I'm looking for or would the people not producing results not get the money?
.
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 01:35 PM
So you did make that post and that claim, yet pointing it out is "continued misrepresentation".
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
It's a simple question and a simple argument. If you lack the ability to handle it that isn't my fault. I responded to Csaba's post just fine, with evidence. What sort of evidence are you looking for and I'll see if some is out there?
No you didn't. All you have done is state that lots of money is pumped into climate change; therefore, scientists must be fabricating results so that they can maintain funding. You have provided no evidence to back up this claim. You have ignored the point that if they cared that little about the quality of their research they would bugger off and do something more lucrative.

Additionally, if they were making stuff up you would expect to see results all over the place with drastically different mechanisms explaining the results. This is the opposite of what you see. The results point in roughly the same direction with roughly similar mechanisms explaining the results. There are differences of opinion between different scientists but no more than you see in any other field.

The article that you linked to previously about Thunberg is absolutely disgusting. Climate change has and will continue to increase wealth inequality between rich and poor countries. When the **** really hits the fan poor people will inevitably be affected more than rich people. Following the author's logic, (using that term losely) he wants poor people alive in the future to "drop dead".
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Csaba
The article that you linked to previously about Thunberg is absolutely disgusting. Climate change has and will continue to increase wealth inequality between rich and poor countries. When the **** really hits the fan poor people will inevitably be affected more than rich people. Following the author's logic, (using that term losely) he wants poor people alive in the future to "drop dead".
I want to respond to this first before I address your other points. Should a country like Brazil that is still developing be forced to curb emissions, even if it means the poorest there will suffer immediately?
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
I want to respond to this first before I address your other points. Should a country like Brazil that is still developing be forced to curb emissions, even if it means the poorest there will suffer immediately?
Isn't your presented argument that these emissions have no impact and that anyone saying otherwise is either doing it for the money or just following their religion?

Given that, a debate on what Brazil should or should not do seems completely unnecessary.
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
So you did make that post and that claim, yet pointing it out is "continued misrepresentation".
If I start pumping a bunch of smog and pollution over a city--let's say Beijing--some people are going to be adversely affected and some people aren't. Why is this? Because smog affects people's health. Does it affect everyone equally? No it doesn't.
Now, if I started pumping a bunch of money into research institutions looking for scientific results, is that money going to affect those results? I'm arguing that it is and you're trying to figure out how that means I'm saying every scientist is corrupt and that is not the argument and you continually are acting like it is.
You want to compare me to various other types of denialism yet you are denying that money influences science and that is a form of denialism as well.
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
Isn't your presented argument that these emissions have no impact and that anyone saying otherwise is either doing it for the money or just following their religion?



Given that, a debate on what Brazil should or should not do seems completely unnecessary.
I've never addressed whether emissions have impact but the question to Csaba was whether Brazil should slow down its development now. It wasn't a question I was asking for myself to answer. He called that article disgusting but "Greta" is actually suing Brazil (or filed a complaint against them). So should they cut back even though they have a large percentage of their population currently in poverty?
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 02:06 PM
Luckbox,

Should there be less money devoted to the understanding and study of climate?
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
If I start pumping a bunch of smog and pollution over a city--let's say Beijing--some people are going to be adversely affected and some people aren't. Why is this? Because smog affects people's health. Does it affect everyone equally? No it doesn't.
Now, if I started pumping a bunch of money into research institutions looking for scientific results, is that money going to affect those results? I'm arguing that it is and you're trying to figure out how that means I'm saying every scientist is corrupt and that is not the argument and you continually are acting like it is.
You want to compare me to various other types of denialism yet you are denying that money influences science and that is a form of denialism as well.
All I've done is respond to a post you made where you showed a budget summary, and from this you extrapolated that climate scientists reached foregone conclusions.

I'm not very interested in your tangents beyond that. I want to see you stick by and explain your original claim. Show your evidence.

I have no idea why this seems to grate you. It was your post and your claim.
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
I've never addressed whether emissions have impact but the question to Csaba was whether Brazil should slow down its development now. It wasn't a question I was asking for myself to answer. He called that article disgusting but "Greta" is actually suing Brazil (or filed a complaint against them). So should they cut back even though they have a large percentage of their population currently in poverty?
But that's a completely uninteresting debate since you don't believe in the proposed dangers of those emissions to begin with.

It would be like debating the merits of seat belts with someone who thought they were immortal.
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 02:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by .Alex.
Luckbox,

Should there be less money devoted to the understanding and study of climate?
How much study is needed? If they have decieded that it is an existential threat and everyone agrees then do something now. They've been studying for 30+ years and idk what the grand total is but if it were a trillion dollars or more worldwide I wouldn't be surprised. I do believe that that money could have gone to better use. I also think the billions of dollars still spent yearly can go to better use.
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
I believe you're looking for SMP.



Also this.
Let's assume these results are legit, the planet is warming. An effect. What is the cause?

It *has* to be man made CO2 or else the entire zero carbon agenda falls apart. Can we just exterminate some termites which produce way more CO2 than fossil fuels apparently?
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
So should they cut back even though they have a large percentage of their population currently in poverty?
Of course. How is this even a question?

Let me ask you the opposite question. Should Brazil chop down the entire Amazon if it'll boost the economy for some of its poorest population?

Last edited by .Alex.; 09-29-2019 at 02:22 PM.
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
How much study is needed?
I don't know man, climate just like most scientific endeavors seems pretty complicated. We've made a lot of progress, but still haven't modeled everything perfectly or have the concrete optimal plan for a sustainable future. I guess just drop everything and give up?
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by .Alex.
Of course. How is this even a question?



Let me ask you the opposite question. Should Brazil chop down the entire Amazon if it'll boost the economy for its poorest population?
I feel like Colombia and Peru might have an issue with that. I've been to the Amazon in those places (and to Tabatinga, Brazil). I can assure you that if it were chopped down that it would grow back in short order.
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1&onlybillyshears
Let's assume these results are legit, the planet is warming. An effect. What is the cause?

It *has* to be man made CO2 or else the entire zero carbon agenda falls apart. Can we just exterminate some termites which produce way more CO2 than fossil fuels apparently?
You want to remove a termites, a species vital to keeping soil nutritious in many regions, from the ecosystem in order to fight CO2-levels in the atmosphere?
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by .Alex.
Of course. How is this even a question?
It's an incredible transparent attempt at emotional blackmail and making the person arguing for conservation of resources look like the bad guy. I thought about responding for five minutes then realised it wasn't worth the hassle. Anyone that thinks this is some sort of gotcha question isn't worth responding to.
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Csaba
It's an incredible transparent attempt at emotional blackmail and making the person arguing for conservation of resources look like the bad guy. I thought about responding for five minutes then realised it wasn't worth the hassle. Anyone that thinks this is some sort of gotcha question isn't worth responding to.
It seems obvious that saving the world is more important than a short-term economic boost, but that's just me.
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
You want to remove a termites, a species vital to keeping soil nutritious in many regions, from the ecosystem in order to fight CO2-levels in the atmosphere?
I don't think removing termites is a good idea but I like it better than removing humans.
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
Trolly,
How much money do the oil companies spend on denialism relative to the amount of climate alarmism that is put out in the media? If the oil companies had to pay for that sort of coverage, how much would it be worth?
Sometimes the media reports stuff just because it's interesting, important, and true.
Climate Change Quote
09-29-2019 , 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
I don't think removing termites is a good idea but I like it better than removing humans.
Er...

If you remove termites, you will be removing a lot of humans.
Climate Change Quote

      
m