Rules for thee, not for me.
3 Likes
I think a lot of peoples issue with climate change reports is the findings pivot every decade or soâŚ
My timeline is a bit off and not 100 percent accurate, but the gist is true:
In the 60s, scientists said we were headed towards another ice age.
In the 70s, scientists said we were headed towards a heat wave.
In the 80s, scientists said we were headed towards another ice age.
In the 90s, scientists said we were headed towards a heat wave.
Rinse, repeat.
Now polar bears are apparently bursting into flames.
In 5 years, the findings will change again.
You can find out more by following the money than anything else. Studies are funded. That money doesnât just appear, itâs given to them by someone. That someone has an agenda. Scientists like putting food on the table for their families. Hell, look at the food pyramid and how its changed based on who funded (corporations that produce food and want to make a profit) the studies on what is deemed a healthy diet.
Edit to add: Anyone of sound mind can see the climate is changing. Deforestation is bad. All sorts of things are bad. Is the warming and cooling a natural shift? Yes, thatâs proven. Are the things that we are doing exacerbating it? Yes, thatâs largely proven.
What do we do about it and how do we go about it is the question. Can we find the balance? Some studies have shown that most modern cars exhaust is cleaner than the air that went into the intake. Commercial farming hurts. 50 years ago, your meat on the table traveled about 150 miles to get there. Now itâs 1800 miles. Fisheries using mesh nets creating voids in the ocean (thanks China!). Are electric cars the answer? Maybe. But battery production (and disposal!!) is not without extreme caveats.
The question is: how much is one willing to give up?
The answer, usually, is: not much.
5 Likes
This myth was debunked years ago.
Annotation please.
Whether the climate is changing or not, in the end itâs irrelevant. The word âsustainabilityâ is malarkey. Organic farming is mostly a marketing gimmick: the techniques and mentality that led to the Dust Bowl years would be certified organic today. So, itâs not all that relevant unless you mean the cost of the item at the supermarket.
And this is where the Gretas of the world are making a difference: any company can wear the Green and Fair Trade label and their value in the market is instantly increased, even if there is no real world basis for the claim.
1 Like
Iâm always intrigued by this âClimate scientists are bribed" theory. To influence people with money you need money. Who has the money? Oil companies. So shouldnât all the climate scientists be âinfluenced" to say global warming doesnât exist?
To this, the deniers usually say âSorosâ. This is a guy I donât even know. But I doubt he has the âinfluence" oil companies do.
Thereâs a similar line of reasoning that says that climate experts, the preponderance of whom believe in anthropogenic climate change, are all blissfully lying because they know they wonât be proved wrong in their lifetimes. This is a bizarre theory.
A lot of these people are tenured academics. They can believe whatever they want and not lose their positions. You would therefore think that half of them would be one side of the debate, and the other half take the opposing view. Scientists love to argue.
But no. Something like nine out of the ten of the guys who would know are saying the same thing. To which the deniers say âSoros!â again. Again, I donât know this guy.
Scientists said? Which scientists? How many? One in each decade? Two? Five out of 100,000? Did entire groups of scientists come to these conclusion each decade and announce their data? Did entire conventions of climate experts convene at the UN every ten years? Or was there a single headline in each decade, from a guy at a state university, with preliminary findings, which deniers cherry pick to âproveâ their point?
Thatâs EXACTLY my point.
In 5 years, what other âmythsâ will be debunked?
2 Likes
You can say the same thing about people that latch on to the fact that cow farts are causing polar bear combustion.
You seem to think that there is one side that is based on altruism whereas I am a complete cynic.
My fallback is to always follow the money. The money is the motivator.
1 Like
And oil companies are awash in money. Therefore climate scientists should be saying ACC is bunk, because of the influence of oil money. But most are not.
I agree with you. But the entire debate has never hinged on cow farts.
My reasoning is simple: if 9 doctors tell me I have cancer, and 1 says I donât, I listen to the 9. They may be wrong. Few things are sure in this world. But I still listen to the 9.
The fact that there werenât standardized weather stations until the 1980âs, especially in Europe.
The weather data ships gather at sea has been more useful than satellite data for some specific contexts, but making wide assertions to compare it with hundreds of millions of years of climate history is a bit rich.
The deal with the climate change people is mostly political, not really based on science principals(principles?), since prophecy is not scientific. They assume if these numbers do these graphs on a computer screen, that we indeed are headed for catastrophe.
Human society with fossil fuels is exactly the same point an alcoholic is at age 50. They know booze is killing them. Theyâre trying to get clear of it. They stop. And they backslide. One more drink. Repeat. But that sweet, sweet booze that feels so good is still killing them.
But if the addict cuts off the alcohol suddenly, they can die from the reaction. At this point, cirrhosis has set in and the individual needs medical assistance to quit.
Sarcasm and nuance is apparently lost on some peopleâŚ
1 Like
To steer this thread back to itâs title, before the moderator pulls the plugâŚ
Even not having listened or read what GT has put out, my guess is that she has been very effective. My guess is she is not talking to this audience at all. My guess is that she knows that preaching to old men is ineffective. My guess is that her target audience is young people.
Funny thing about American young people, in particular. They have a nasty tendency to like things their parents dislike. Remember the 60s? Short hair vs long hair. Frank Sinatra, out, Rock nâ roll, in. Pro-war/anti-war.
Then in the â80s things flipped. Old people, long hair. Young people short hair. Rock fading. Rap up. And so on, down the line.
Can it be that the more old people GT pisses off, the more they dismiss her, the more she resonates with young people, the only growing voting block?
Nah, a mental teenager could never be that cleverâŚ
4 Likes
the best thing iâve learned reading this since my last is what retired ships agent says:
POLAR BEARS ARE BURSTING INTO FLAMES !! OMG,
3 Likes
Having read the last dozen or more posts here Iâm even more amazed now.
1 Like
Reminds me of a song Johnny Cash sang at the White House for Richard Nixon around 1972. âWhat is Truth.â
If you use a CO2 extinguisher on a burning polar bear do you get a carbon credit? 
4 Likes
re; co2 extinguishers ⌠gawd, the humor is flowing today. !! i canât top any of this.