How ATS doesn't get the difference between climate change and pollution (hint: they're the same)

I was going to post this as a reply in another thread, but I think it stands as its own rant so…

Recently there have been quite a few threads that reveal just how much some people can’t see the forest for the trees on climate change and pollution, mainly because of their stubborn political adherence.

Pollution and climate change are virtually one and the same problem. That’s because the causes - dirty energy & fossil fuels, industrial & vehicle emissions, deforestation, etc – are both one and the same.

But it’s obvious the shills who manipulate and confuse the hell out of certain people on this subject are doing one awesome job. We saw this a few weeks ago with these two threads:

Co-founder of Greenpeace: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

Pesticide Lobbyist Refuses To Drink Glyphosate After Claiming It’s Safe To Drink

On the first thread many ATS members were blithely singing this guy’s praises. It was pointed out by a few people here that he was in fact a huge industry shill, but many just dismissed that as an “ad hominem” attack because he was going against the grain on the climate change religion.

Meanwhile on the other thread, virtually everybody agreed this particular individual was indeed an industry shill, trying to trivialize something as obvious as Monsanto’s pollution. What many didn’t realize though was that the man at the center of both threads was the exact same person – Patrick Moore.

Then a short while later this thread pops up in Fragile Earth:

California getting second hand smog from Asia

And once again the automatic ranting begins about “climate change propagandists”, and how they’re deflecting from “real” issues like smog.

Meanwhile the OP’s own link pointed out that (just like climate change regulation) smog is a universal problem that requires global cooperation, and the problem in California was recently exacerbated

as drought and warmer temperatures have triggered a spike in the number of winter days thick with soot and dirt.

Furthermore what exactly are the man made sources of a “real” problem like smog:

Smog-forming pollutants come from many sources such as automobile exhaust, power plants, factories and many consumer products

What Causes Smog?

Oh that’s right – the exact same sources that those climate change propagandists are trying to regulate.

CO2 is more than just a greenhouse gas, it is the universal tie that binds all these pollution issues together under one tangible keystone target.

But so many people here have trouble understanding this very simple fact because a bunch of shills fill their heads with rhetoric about how it’s just natural plant food and the air we breathe and Liberal propaganda blah blah blah carbon tax eeeeep.

This is the target of shill propaganda not just because they are trying to deflect from the climate change issue, but because it helps them (the shills) deflect from the pollution issue altogether. That’s because there’s no such thing as a “pollution tax” and never will be - the pollution problem is too abstract for any other one stop solution like CO2 regulation.

I don’t know a single climate change activist who doesn’t understand the complex but obvious interconnection between these key issues, but I sure know a hell of a lot climate change skeptics who are utterly clueless about it - yet continue to rant and rant about how it’s deflecting from the real issues.

a reply to: mc_squared

How does pouring a pollutant such as arsenic into a river equal climate change?

a reply to: mc_squared

All i know is, if we don't solve our political/ religious issues soon , we won't have to worry about climate change.

a reply to: butcherguy

Ok cool so you are all for stopping pollution, as long as it doesn't overlap with any climate change issues. So smog, coal ash, oil spills, tar sands, deforestation, etc are all out from your definition of pollution. Feel free to keep cherry-picking examples that miss the bigger point entirely.

a reply to: mc_squared

Not cherry picking. Just showing you that your title is not accurate.
Climate change could be a result of pollution, but they are two different things.

a reply to: butcherguy

As I explained in the OP, "pollution" is a very abstract term - solutions to climate change (namely CO2 regulation) overlap the vast majority of general pollution issues we face.

If climate change is a subset of pollution as you put it, that still means we solve climate change by stopping pollution.

a reply to: mc_squared

Climate change and pollution are two different things.

They are not the same thing.

The cartoon at the end of your OP explains your idea quite well. Your title is still inaccurate.

Doesn't make much of a difference. The human race is going away no matter what. The Earth will be fine.

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: butcherguy

Ok cool so you are all for stopping pollution, as long as it doesn't overlap with any climate change issues. So smog, coal ash, oil spills, tar sands, deforestation, etc are all out from your definition of pollution. Feel free to keep cherry-picking examples that miss the bigger point entirely.

And please cite where I said any of that.
Blame me for cherry picking, then put words in my mouth.
What's up with that?

a reply to: mc_squared

But it’s obvious the shills who manipulate and confuse the hell out of certain people on this subject are doing one awesome job. We saw this a few weeks ago with these two threads:

Co-founder of Greenpeace: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

Pesticide Lobbyist Refuses To Drink Glyphosate After Claiming It’s Safe To Drink

It was kind of funny seeing some of the same people who gave him so much credit in one thread denounce him and call him a shill in the next before they realized it was the same person.

Global warming, Or Pollution?

I made a thread about this last year but it didn't get very much attention.

a reply to: AnuTyr

Sorry I missed it. I feel your pain though - I once tried to start a discussion here about ways to fix climate change without carbon taxes. It got zero attention.

I realized a long time ago much of ATS doesn't seem to actually want to focus on solutions or think critically about stuff - they just want to rant & complain about everything. (This is my first rant thread so I guess if you can't beat em, join em )

a reply to: Grimpachi

It was one of the all time facepalm moments of ATS ever...



Glad you caught that and pointed it out on the Glyphosate thread, because I probably would've said some very impolite things if I had noticed it.

a reply to: butcherguy

You seem really intent on missing the entire gist of this thread – which is exactly what I was ranting about in the first place. The more you want to keep deflecting this into some silly argument about semantics, the more you're actually proving my point.

I am anti-pollution as long as corporations pay for it and not little people like me. I am not willing to pay to clean up the mess made by irresponsible companies or take on any new taxes. Let the people who make the mess clean it up or they can go out of business.

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: butcherguy

You seem really intent on missing the entire gist of this thread – which is exactly what I was ranting about in the first place. The more you want to keep deflecting this into some silly argument about semantics, the more you're actually proving my point.

He understood your point.

Disagreeing with your point isn't the same at missing it.

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: butcherguy

You seem really intent on missing the entire gist of this thread – which is exactly what I was ranting about in the first place. The more you want to keep deflecting this into some silly argument about semantics, the more you're actually proving my point.

Did you skip my post about the cartoon? I see your point and acknowledged it.
What you are skipping is that your title... an important part of a thread, has a factual error.

a reply to: Metallicus

One of the ways to do that is fee and dividend. It's a fee on carbon emissions that goes directly to households, so it doesn't matter if carbon polluters keep raising fees for their products because the dividend households get will keep rising too... they offset each other while encouraging alternative methods of production because the only way to increase profits after such a system is implemented is by not emitting CO2.

a reply to: Metallicus

I haven't even disagreed with the point. Just pointed out an error in the title. The member is arguing with me as if I had disagreed with the point of the thread...
But if you read my posts, I haven't.

originally posted by: Metallicus
I am anti-pollution as long as corporations pay for it and not little people like me. I am not willing to pay to clean up the mess made by irresponsible companies or take on any new taxes. Let the people who make the mess clean it up or they can go out of business.

Then instead of automatically joining the chorus of naysayers on every climate change thread how about just try and listen to what's actually being said and proposed - instead of how the right wing spin it.

Do some research on how a revenue-neutral carbon tax/fee and dividend solution works and how this indeed makes corporations pay for their pollution while sparing the little guy. *Note - if you do your research on this through FOX News or Rush Limbaugh, you will not get the facts because they work for the corporations and not the little guy.