Earlier quoted context omitted.
So mind reading is your argument?
I'm saying that the arguments are ideologically motivated and are not put forth for their own merits.
You are questioning their motives not actually engaging in the argument.
The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)
201–210 of 276 posts
Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
So mind reading is your argument?
I'm saying that the arguments are ideologically motivated and are not put forth for their own merits.
Of course the arguments are ideologically motivated. Look at the left wing of the climate change movement, which has incorporated all sorts of social justice and primitivism elements into climate change. (Rejecting nuclear power, rejecting market solutions like carbon taxes, emphasizing “indigenous technology,” etc.) Look how the Green New Deal is being pitched as a reincarnation of the labor movement, a jobs program, and a reshaping of capitalist systems, as opposed to being directed solely to addressing climate change. Climate change is a huge ideological point for everyone.
Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Tenable for life" is not the same as "tenable for human life"
Of all life, humans are probably the most adaptable.
Why do people keep saying this? We're around only for a couple million years if you count australopithecus. And during that time there were possibly several periods with less than 100k individuals. Going from 7B to 100k would be pretty close to extinction. 0.00143%
The question is can we keep industrial scale food production going? Can we get people enough clean water?
Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)
#204Right now very close to my house there is a gas and oil storage facility and a pipeline connected to it. The city, under pressure from activist groups, has declared a climate emergency. And yet, nobody has connected the dots on the fact that if we get off fossil fuels in a timely manner, that facility is going to close . Nobody is planning for it or expecting it. The company is not facing higher insurance rates and i…
If we do that we can get CO2 to 5000 ppm (currently at 410 ppm, cognitive impacts are observed from 1000 ppm (happens regularly in closed rooms full of people)). With that level we can melt down all of Antarctica. Yay.
5000 ppm would be significantly worse than that! According to a 2013 paper by James Hansen, burning all fossil fuels would result in 12 degrees C of warming, which would be hot enough that anyone living in the tropics or close to them would die immediately of heatstroke. So the number of people who would have to move would be in the billions. Also of course agriculture would collapse pretty much everywhere so you’d be looking at a planet that could support a few hundred million people.
Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The official position of organizations like Heritage Foundation is not to deny that climate change is happening. This is a flat-out false representation. The Heritage Foundation has sown the seeds of denialism many times. https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-the-scientif... https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/congress-should-... (section titled "climate change realities") https://www.desmogblog.c…
...and if it does happen, they say [1], worst case estimate is 7 F increase in the global average temperature. Dubai is about 35 F above the global average, and they do fine by using their abundant fossil fuels to power air conditioners. A globalized market in cheap fossil fuels will let other countries do that so 7 F is nothing to worry about. [1] https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/how-fossil-f...
Yeah, no biggie, let's just run the air conditioning 24/7/365 for 10 billion people. And it's not like we should expect any other severe worldwide impacts from the rising temperatures, so we can all be relieved about that.
Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They resent people who use climate change as a proxy for another agenda In my experience, it's more a question that whenever action is proposed, they simply claim as an axiom that it those proposing action actually have another agenda. "You want to introduce tax on carbon emissions? You clearly want big government to control our lives and destroy American industry". This kind of paranoid thinking is problematic in…
There is probably more middle ground. Many people read problematic, and just hear counter-revolutionary. If we agree on reducing carbon emissions, and using policy tools to do it, there are a lot of solutions that don't require trusting that a carbon tax will be used for anything but general revenue. Without limits on what the money is used for, it's the same as a progressive VAT/consumption tax, which isn't a necess…
Most carbon tax proposals I've seen have not given the money to the government. They have been revenue neutral, with the money collected distributed back to the general population, with each person getting an equal share.
Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the fossil fuel deposits and companies in the world are worth probably at least 10 trillion dollars. Not to mention the value of all the businesses that depend on the products they sell. You think they’re going to just write that off? They’re going to fight with every bit of strength they have to make sure that the fuels are available to extract, and every government in the world is going to help them. I just wan…
They are going to, of course. But they're also looking forward to make sure they don't have to go bankrupt.
I hope you’re right of course but from what I’ve seen over the last 20 years, most companies only look one quarter in the future, if that.
Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and if it does happen, they say [1], worst case estimate is 7 F increase in the global average temperature. Dubai is about 35 F above the global average, and they do fine by using their abundant fossil fuels to power air conditioners. A globalized market in cheap fossil fuels will let other countries do that so 7 F is nothing to worry about. [1] https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/how-fossil-f...
Yeah, no biggie, let's just run the air conditioning 24/7/365 for 10 billion people. And it's not like we should expect any other severe worldwide impacts from the rising temperatures, so we can all be relieved about that.
Currently more energy is used for heating than for refrigeration.
Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are they wrong?
The Uninhabitable Earth By David Wallace-Wells is my source for this. He’s got scientific references for what I wrote.
Oh. That explains it. Apparently his writing has been publicly criticized by such well-known climate change deniers as Michael Mann for being doom-mongering that misrepresents the science.
Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re using ban like this was something about the government silencing someone, definitely a free speech issue. But that case was about campaign finance and the ability to control how much money, spending, etc., could be used in an election. You’re being disingenuous to say the least. Edit: btw I am not a lawyer, and so this is of course my lay persons opinion.
> You’re using ban like this was something about the government silencing someone, definitely a free speech issue. It was. > But that case was about campaign finance and the ability to control how much money, spending, etc., could be used in an election. It wasn't. The law in question in CU banned corporations (including non-profit corporations) and unions from paying for any broadcast, cable, or satellite communicat…
> paying for any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentions a candidate within 60 days of a general election of 30 days of a primary.
> The case did not involve nor did the ruling change the law on campaign finance.
You’re right. And I was inaccurate. What we’re discussing is the rise and unregulated use of PACs and Super PACs to influence elections.
This is an issue for fair elections and democracy.