Termite production of CO2 is also partially anthropomorphic as the widespread clearing of forest, and conversion of natural forest ecosystems into tree plantations, has provided more food and better habitat for termites.

Yes.

Well, this thread just took a turn for the surreal.

The fossil fuel industry spends some money on climate denial, but that's hardly the only way they influence policy and politicians. A coal lobbyist is the head of the EPA ffs. A oil and mining lobbyist is the Secretary of the Interior.

I think we're in the Picasso blue stage but we can get into Dali and Dadaism.

Luckbox's question was also incredibly simplistic. To give a well-studied example, chopping down mangrove forests in South East Asia led to short-term economic gain for some poor people. However, it is projected to cost the region billions, which will obviously have a negative impact on lots of poor people. Meta-analysis here.

I get the impression that Luckbox is either trolling or is incapable of recognising that complex issues are not black and white.

Not trolling. It was your claim that that Mises article was disgusting and I was looking to see if you agreed that Brazil should be sued and should cut development. Only Alex has given a straight answer response to that and said yes.

Brazil's macro-economic policies over the last 60 years haven't really given a **** about the country's poor. Why stop now?

And yes that was sarcasm. There is no conflict between aiding the poor and not polluting.

I just found it a bit amusing that it was suddenly Brazil who couldn't go on with certain economic policies because they hurt the poor. It's been one of the countries with the biggest inequality gaps for decades.

Yet millions of Brazilians still have been brought out of poverty in the last 60 years through development. And calling carbon dioxide a pollutant seems like a stretch. The argument isn't that they should be allowed to spray dioxin everywhere.
Actual pollutants--like what the smog in bejing is composed of---legitimately are a big deal and cause serious health problems but they shouldn't be conflated with co2, which we exhale.

Like I stated earlier, debating that issue with you is useless as you don't believe the science, and have used this thread to claim that it is the result of religion and conspiracy. I just find it somewhat amusing that the chief argument for Brazil, one of the world's long-standing champions of income inequality, should be a sudden found care for the country's poor.

Your wording of the question was also insulting. My country has given enormous amounts to the Amazon fund, a fund that started by Brazil itself and which has received these funds on promises to reduce deforestation.

Then Brazil broke the agreement and now its government paints my country as an imperialist outsider using "force". This after it has reneged on a deal started by itself, basically conning my country out of 1.2 billion dollars.

Inequality was at least going in the right direction from 2003 to 2011.

We can talk about the science. We haven't yet. Your issue is that you completely ignore the obvious control agenda behind all of this and ignore the way money works
This question? It seems perfectly fine.
France is and has been historically an imperialist force. The US and Great Britain are worse but that shouldn't be a consolation.
But the Amazon isn't even the biggest forest in the world. There are bigger ones in Russia. But when I was in Peru I was helping to clear some of it so that people can then plant sustenance crops likes yucca and maracujá trees. Because that's how it works. They aren't clearing the jungle to build factories. Maybe in Manaus. The Amazon is gigantic though. And it is lush and green. I've traveled on it by boat 14ish hours from Leticia, Colombia to Iquitos, Peru. Nobody has to worry about the Amazon. It will be just fine. It is a hard life for people there (either that or it's paradise but I like the mountains better) and it will remain relatively uninhabited forever. And it is massive. The whole Amazon is burning thing is a propaganda campaign so like much media fearmongering about environmental issues. They aren't paving it over with concrete.
And I'm not too sure if this is the right translation and I'm going to transliterate from Portuguese, but if Brazil wants to steal 1.2 billion from France then ça ne me fait rien.


When Lula--who would be president now if he wasn't falsely jailed--was president.

Ok talk to me about the science. Hit me with it. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's building up in the atmosphere, and if we allow it to continue it will cause massive and catastrophic changes? This is the argument right? That we started at like 350 ppm when they started measuring in the 1800s or through ice core samples and now we are topping 400 and if it continues much further we'll reach a tipping point?
My claim isn't that there is a massive conspiracy of scientists but rather that money influences them, that the media pushes alarmism, and that the ruling class is getting the result they want by keeping the money flowing to those who provide results. If that means that in some cases there is an actual conspiracy then I'm fine with that too.
And the bolded is silly. I haven't ignored that point. If they "buggered off" somebody else would "bugger in". Remember that there are billions per year at stake.

I'm curious about the bolded. Can you expand on that? I'm curious how much of the experimental method is involved in climate research given that it isn't an area that I would think would be too prone to experimentation. So are these similar mechanisms just the result of building and testing models and what are they?

I think there's some alarmism around ending life on Earth, but 634 million are at risk.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...toryId=9162438

CO2 tracks very closely with sea level and temperature, and while CO2 isn't really high on the scale of hundreds of millions of years, it is very high on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years and already hundreds of millions of people are probably ****ed, but maybe we can keep it in the low hundreds of millions instead of maxing it out. No biggie, just hundreds of millions of people.

So like this is very much a conspiracy theory.

And man, it's wild that you don't even know the nut-low, ground-level basics of what climate science is or how it is done but also you're pretty sure scientists around the world are all just faking it for that grant money. "I don't know the basics of this field but I'm sure it's all bullshit" is a take that is so far beyond hubris that we maybe need a new word to describe it. Chutzpah, maybe?

I would like the experts here who all seem super knowledgeable to educate me. We can talk about science. What are the common mechanisms?
Let's say that even though the control-agenda seems obvious, I'm still open to the science.

But you’ve made it clear that you actually don’t. I mean you don’t even know if climatologists even do experiments, it’s not hard to look this stuff up, my dude. The world is at your fingertips and you don’t even know what climate scientists do (but somehow you know it’s all bullshit!).

Like, we both know this raised by wolves act is designed to keep you from embarrassing yourself, but imagine if your games weren’t so dumb that Team Books took you seriously. There’s still time for that to happen!

What the common mechanisms are and how those are derived seems like a really simple question.
You guys are the ones who are passionate about climate change science. I'm just good at recognizing agendas.

What's the point of looking up research and presenting evidence to you if it's likely to be dismissed as money and/or media driven?

When have I ever been unreasonable in listening to an argument?
Micro has said sea level rise is one of the major threats of climate change and that co2 is closely linked to it. Ok. That's great and that is a position that can be examined. I'm looking. I've seen some graphs, now to read some papers. That's how these discussions are supposed to work.
Now I'm asking a real simple question in response to an assertion that was made--that there were common mechanisms about the nature of climate change that have been discovered by disparate researchers, and all I want to know is what those are. We can skip how they were derived even.

I feel like it is far more valuable to address your conspiracy theories than the science, because there are tonnes of places that address the science.

So let me ask this question: How can you tell the difference between scenario A and B

Scenario A: The ruling class wants actions that benefit them, the media pushes alarmism, and generally well meaning scientists desire for money influences them. Let's call this the "Conspiracy Scenario".

Scenario B: Scientists genuinely and correctly believe global warming is problematic, the media runs reports on this true fact, and politicians sometimes make minor policies to address this true fact. Let's call this the "Reality Scenario".

Consider the evidence you post in this thread. How do you assess whether it is Scenario A or B? For instance, you posted media coverage of greta thunberg. How do you know which scenario you are posting?

The problem seems to be that you are taking "the media sometimes talks about it" as evidence of A. But is that not also evidence of B?

Ever seen a Tesla battery?

Worse for the environment than fossil fuels.

Real solutions.

How Much is the Government Spending on Climate Change? We don't know and neither do they.
Uke_master, I think your post is fine but I had thought you misrepresented the position of scenario B--because I don't consider billions of dollars spent to be "minor policies" so I went digging and came across this 538 article which challenges some assumptions.
The idea that all of the money that is claimed to have been spent has not actually been spent on climate is new to me. There is still an answer to your question but without knowing what government is actually doing it makes it more difficult so I want to look around more on the money question. 6% of 154 billion is 9.2 billion, not million...not nothing after all but not what is claimed.
As far as my own position goes..whether they don't spend all the money and just say they do I think actually strengthens it--because the media alarmism is still there and we'd be discovering it's built on a house of cards--but I want to look more.
Actual GAO report

$154B in the last 26 years? So per year that's about as much as the military spends in 2.5 days. (really)