Hey climate deniers - are you smarter than a 5th grader?

reply to post by christine76


Even if you could pull 4 scientists that disagree with climate change, THAT'S NOT THE POINT.

The point is, SOMETHING is happening with our weather systems, etc that is causing changes that are VERY NOTICEABLE. You'd have to be BLIND to ignore them.

It's not about what you CALL it. It's about acknowledging that SOMETHING is going on.

Climate change, global warming or whatnot, I think that we can all agree that something is not right with our weather patterns.

I'm just going to keep reading up on things and see where they go because I know that I alone, cannot do much about these changes except ride them out.

We have to be careful about the folks behind climate denial, as well as those behind climate change.

The truth seemingly lies somewhere in the middle and not at either extremes.

Ok 5th Graders

Why as a business am I allowed to trade my pollution for credits to a company that pollutes less but never really lower my pollution output?

If Co2 is so bad then why is it OK to pollute as long as you have a permit?

reply to post by Chinesis


Are you saying that we should DISREGARD science when it doesn't fit within the viewpoints of the climate deniers?

I trust science a hell lot more than I trust religion or the media. It's too bad that the amount of Americans that are climate deniers is on the rise because they're listening too much to propaganda from the oil industry (and it seems to be working too easily).

By the time the world either warms up (or freezes, just to be fair to these deniers), it'll be too late anyway.

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


Because you paid for your permit. Simple as.

How many permits do you think they want to sell? As many as possible of course!

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


Carbon credits are probably one of the biggest scams to come out of the climate change paradigm.

I don't support them simply because it's a guilt-free way for a company to continue to pollute in massive quantities and still be able to label themselves as "green" or "eco-friendly".

I'd rather they consent to reducing their ACTUAL pollution, which is a harder sell in the face of $$$ for these fools.

Ok 5th graders

Why do you ride the bus to school 5 days a week to increase Co2 on your planet?

Why does your teacher drive their vehicle to school 5 days a week to teach you the evils of Co2 if it is pollution?

reply to post by Zamini


I am not pretending anything. I am using logic.

If CO2 levels are rising, that means the Earth is not absorbing the CO2 fast enough. If the Earth was absorbing the CO2 fast enough, then the levels wouldn't rise, they would equalize.

It's like getting drunk. The liver of a human can only process a certain amount of alcohol per hour from your blood. If you drink more alcohol than your liver can process, your blood alcohol levels rise. If your liver worked faster you wouldn't get drunk.

Right now, Earth is getting drunk off of CO2. Humans are creating so much excess CO2, and other things on Earth are creating so much CO2, that the absorption process of Earth can't keep up. So CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising. If we stopped creating excess CO2 Earth would catch up and clean itself back to normal, but we are not stopping, we are making more and more every year.

The levels wouldn't rise if the absorption was faster.

OK 5th graders

If their is more Co2 then why are athletes getting better and setting more records if there is less oxygen to breath on this planet?

OK 5th graders

Wouldn't you rather go outside and play then have to answer all these stupid questions about Global Warming
and why are adults trying to make you a child, feel guilty about Global Warming?

reply to post by 0ne10


I'm sorry but to say you use logic and then to equate alcohol to CO2 and the Earth to a human liver...doesn't make sense to me personally. It could do to you but not to me. I understand what point you are trying to make but really, no. I will ask of you again, how can you prove to know the Earth is not absorbing as much as it is supposed to when you don't even know a. how much the Earth absorbs and b. how much the Earth is supposed to absorb? There's something wrong with the parameters in your logic.

All my question were to 5th graders
and I was amused that I got responses from 5th graders
when no one under 13 is allowed to join this site!

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Gmoneycricket

 

Carbon credits are probably one of the biggest scams to come out of the climate change paradigm.

Perhaps, but they are the product of free-marketeers rather than the scientists.

The idea for any carbon 'credit' approach is cap and trade - a cap is put on emissions, but companies are free to trade for $$£££ their credits. Thus companies who can make big cuts in their emissions can benefit. It essentially creates financial incentive to find ways to reduce emissions. Those who decide not to find ways to reduce emissions will be required to pay these companies to enable their carbon spewing ways.

The main point as far as the actual issue of climate change goes is the cap. If set correctly, it forces a reduction in GHG emissions. Companies would also be looking for methods to reduce emissions, which would stimulate efforts in renewable energy and (potentially) more expensive forms of power, like Nuclear.

It might sound BS, but blame capitalism for it. People would sell sand to the arabs if they could, no? It worked for sulphate emissions, it might well work for CO2 emissions if introduced effectively. Ideally, any income would be directed to energy rersearch (and reducting impact to consumers)

The other approach is to simply tax carbon. Here it simply relies on viewing human behaviour as the archetypal 'Homo Economicus'. If using carbon-based energy becomes more expensive, people/companies look for cheaper forms of energy - if done effectively, it can also make renewables and the likes of nuclear better options. Ideally, any extra income would be directed to energy research (and reducing impact to consumers).

Both require making carbon pricier and other forms of energy more financially viable. While it is cheaper to dig crusty organic material which has been locked out of the carbon cycle for millions of years out the ground and burn it, that's what we will do (price of everything, value of nothing). Same reason that companies simply move business overseas (cheap labour) devastating some communities.

The problem is that any action really requires focused action across nations - but humans as a species are probably too dumb, selfish, and myopic to act with the required haste. We'll bother acting when the poop hits the fan. Oh well...

reply to post by melatonin


You could have just said we are recycling capitalism to save the planet and I would have understood.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
reply to post by melatonin

 

You could have just said we are recycling capitalism to save the planet and I would have understood.

lol, maybe.

But at the root of any action to reduce emissions and to ameliorate our effect on climate is to make other forms of energy financially viable. While smoking carbon is cheap, that's what we'll do. The point is that society is what it is - I certainly don't want to roll society back to the 14th century - we need energy. So we need to move from carbon to a non-carbon (or at least minimal carbon) economy.

Simples.

How to get there is not so simple. I suppose we could just fling a few coins in the wishing-well and wait for other forms of energy to become financially viable. Errrm, good luck with that, peeps.

Apologies if this was already posted, but, here's one scientist who thinks your "climate change is, well, it comes out of a horse's rear

www.digitaljournal.com...

If you really want to solve this supposed global warming,plant some trees and plants as well.They process the co2 and turn it into oxygen by photosynthesis.But of course that would be a good idea and we all know that people don't do good ideas.

reply to post by melatonin


I hear what you are saying
In my mind it would be better to convince us to use less resources save some for future users of the planet.
But the fear tactic they are using is just not right.
How can any human conserve resources when he lives in a constant fear.
We should be relaxed and comfortable with what we have and not afraid and stocking up for what is projected as we are destroying the planet and need to survive due to fear mongering.

Fractional Banking is not working so lets create fractional pollution credits/pollution debits system do you really want to live in a world where pollution is traded as money?
pollution as a currency
I don't

reply to post by Zamini


Seriously.. THINK!

CO2 levels are rising........................................................

The only way for levels to rise, and continue to rise, is if Earth is not absorbing it fast enough.

It's simple to understand...

b.t.w. it was an analogy not a comparison.

reply to post by lifeform11


lifeform - I think you and I are way more on the same page than you realize...

I'm not saying the taxes are a myth (I was referring to the myths in the OP) but I do think we are all being conditioned by both the political proponents and the naysayers of global warming to focus on the taxes for the exact reasons you state: because their solutions are centered around inaction.

And there is a very good reason for this: because "they" want to keep us all asleep.

But look at it this way - you think making people believe in global warming is basically just a scam because it's built around BS political solutions, right? Well have you ever considered that maybe global warming is real - but it's just being exploited with BS political solutions?

You already asked me why I'm so concerned with making people "believe". It's because the solutions I'm preaching are all about taking action ourselves - not simply falling in line with whatever governments or big corporations tell us to do. But here's the thing:

i am not saying global warming is not happening or that we do not need to look after the planet. which everybody would agree with and do their part, why does it matter so much that people believe in "man made" when almost everybody accepts we need to look after the planet and have as little impact as possible.

Because this is just simply not true. In an ideal world it would be, but we don't live in one. Most people will say they're willing to do this, but talk is cheap - and you know what else is cheap? Coal and Oil.

People simply follow the money. They also get easily wrapped up in lazy habits that can't seem to get broken until you introduce money into the equation. I'll give you a great example: plastic bags. My local grocery store used to give away plastic bags and EVERYBODY used them, me included. We've all known for years this was bad for the environment, but it was just such a regular habit of day to day life that even I took it for granted. Then my grocery store started charging 5 cents for them and started giving 5 cents for every bag of your own that you brought with you. Now EVERYBODY brings their own bags - and all it took was +/- 10 cents!!

So this is why policy makers understand how taxing works on the masses. But here's the other thing - most of these people who bring their own bags now are just as asleep as ever, they just like getting 5 cents back instead of having to pay it - but most of them could still care less about why they have reusable bags.

So this is what TPTB have in mind. They know this problem is real and they know they need to do something to curb it - but they are trying to accomplish that while keeping the masses just as unconscious as ever.

You and I seem to completely agree that real solutions are about real action. But how can you convince people to take that action when they're now being programmed by a massive public disinformation campaign to believe there isn't even a real problem?

That's why I'm preaching against all this denial - because not only is it based mainly on corporate lies - it is just encouraging everyone to stay asleep. I mean it's the most useless thing I've ever seen - it's obviously not going to do anything to solve the problem if it exists, but it's also not going to do anything to stop anyone from getting taxed either.


So one last thing:

also if the consumer is the one who makes the choice about what is in the shops then what is advertising or fashion?

I really hope you don't believe that. Advertising and fashion are the exact sort of instruments of conditioning I am talking about when it comes to TPTB. But that doesn't mean there's no other choice. Do you realize there are already people living in this world who have taken themselves right off the grid? The technology already exists to accomplish these things, but it involves following a practice of sustainability and conservation that big corporations and other powers that be DON'T want you to even think about, let alone achieve. Which is again why they are trying to sweep this part of the global warming agenda under the rug. So you have to find the means to make this happen yourself, not wait for them to hand it to you. But it's out there. The technology exists. I don't know where you live but where I am there are all sorts of little start up businesses and consultants offering these things.

As for putting petrol in your car - plug in electrics are finally here. But have you seen Who Killed the Electric Car? That movie is all about how environmental regulations tried to make these things a mandatory option almost 20 YEARS AGO, but the big oil companies and car manufacturers stepped in to stop it.

Does that sound at all similar to exactly what's happening today?

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Oh I like you...

Somebody who replies to my posts by actually taking the time to read them and then using logic and critical thinking to respond, instead of just mindlessly running to the first blog they can find to try and dig up some instant "haha gotcha!" contrarian point of view.

The urban heat island effect is definitely an interesting point when it comes to night versus day temperatures. Please let me know whenever you have the time to get into this more as I'd definitely like to start up a proper discussion, rather than the usual pissing contest. Maybe even create a new thread or something - Cheers!