this is the truth. he worse than juan and bundy were and is quite an obv troll. I didnt even want poconoder banned but this guy...

ya but its (((soros))) who is funding the charge to take their money

Dammit - mr. psuedo-sciencey-sounding stuff found this thread. The appearance of legitimate debate has been achieved. Any non-expert can believe whichever side they want. Game over kids.

Domer - are you still big on cloud-forcing, or is some other magic bullet sexier these days?

RED PILL

Cite or ban.

I feel like the policies created as a reaction to climate change are the things we should actually be discussing, there is a lot of room there. No significant portion of people ITT will be convinced by the other so why even try. There is literally nothing that can be posted (whether it exists or not) that will change OPs mind.

OTOH there are things like wind mill parks, nuclear energy, plastic bags, upcoming industrial countries, overpopulation of the earth etc which are (imo) much more interesting to discuss.

Maybe OP can clarify which kind of evidence would be needed to persuade him.

I choose ban, as I would rather not spend my Saturday afternoon giving you basic lessons on economics and how to run a profitable business.

Whether he knows it, or it's just in his subconscious, the answer is "Worst-case scenario, sounds like I'll be dead before it's at its worst."

Mods, you heard the man/woman. Just admit you are making stuff up.

Shalom!

Nobody is pro-pollution. So come up with a plan that doesn’t cost anybody anything and everybody will accept it.

If nobody is pro-pollution it doesn't have to be free because it means we're all anti-pollution. The point is it should probably be at least somewhat economic which is hard because of the science-policy barrier we have to overcome.

Still wundrin what evidence would persuade OP/others.

The first step in conflict resolution is to identify the real problem. Oftentimes that takes a bit of digging. Some are 100% convinced the climatologists are wrong but they’re probably a small minority. Most would at least give them a non-zero chance of being right. So most people aren’t wholly opposed to the science even though they might think it’s way more likely to be wrong than right. Then when evaluating a proposal they, like everyone else, employ a cost/benefit heuristic: if they conclude the cost is zero and there’s a potential reward, they take the freeroll.

Quick search (not vouching for; just using as an example):

FIGURE 5: US GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT AFTER 10 YEARS OF A CARBON TAX

Assuming that can be substantiated, best case scenario is they saved the planet; worse is they cleaned up the planet. So what possible reason could someone give for opposing a carbon tax?

As per your request, 3 day temp ban.

The EPA has been gutted and regulations removed in all kinds of ways. There are plenty of people who are pro pollution. Some of them are in charge now.

Most policies dont have a cost of zero though. Also the "well at worst we've cleaned up the planet" is so intellectually dishonest (not saying you're applying it here but I believe I saw a picture of it up thread and it is used reasonably often). Money spent on X is money not spent on Y.

I don’t know that with any degree of certainty and I doubt 95% of population does either, at least in terms of financial costs at the individual level. Sometimes when people don’t know they imagine the worst. Maybe that’s an issue. Another issue is urgency or lack of:

• 97% of cosmologists agree that asteroid x will impact earth in 2250 and the consequences will be dire unless we act now!
• 97% of cosmologists agree that asteroid x will impact earth in 2020 and the consequences will be dire unless we act now!

I’m thinking people might hedge their bet when faced with the second claim.

OP, I would post a pic of a giant iceberg and say when it melts it will raise the sea level by xxxx micrometers, but that would be incorrect. Instead I will show you a sinking island, and say once they add more mega tons of weight with skyscrapers it will sink some more.

I can't quite tell from your post if you realize that melting icebergs do not raise sea level at all. If all the icebergs in the world melted, sea level would not change. To raise sea level, land ice has to melt and run off eventually into the sea. Icebergs are already in the sea. And so is most arctic polar ice.

While I understand the principle you're using- already in the sea - it's not quite right and we all obviously want to accurate - even if it is slightly pedantic.

Melting icebergs boost sea-level rise

/pedantry

Fresh water icebergs are what calves off of glaciers and are different than sea ice. Icebergs apparently are fresh water by definition. They raise the sea level when they drop into the ocean, which of course happens much faster as glaciers move into the sea and break up more rapidly with warming.

It's nittery to say "melting icebergs don't raise the sea level".

You are missing 2 things with your theory
- 1) there are electrolytes in the salt water that are not in the frozen icebergs.
- 2) the false assumption that the sea floor is a solid and non-movable bedrock and can handle a few zillion tons of water without sinking some.

The cosmetologists should stick with hair and not world ending in 12 years or hockey-puck graph sea level rise.

I would love to know, if anyone else knows, what the geological phenomenon is that causes the Maldives to have over a thousand islands yet none with any elevation higher than ten feet.

(this is not related to the thread, just curiosity)

Agree 100%. A carbon tax and divided scheme would accelerate all of this some number of years, save some number of lives, and eventually become more or less irrelevant in economic terms (adding to things like the price of air travel, which will likely remain oil-dependent during our lifetimes).

I stand corrected on the minute fresh vs salt water difference. Your #2 makes no sense. A floating iceburg that melts adds no volume or weight to the sea.