The forums were down when I listened to it, but this is obviously a great addendum to what we were discussing over several topics: https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-you-need-to-know-about-climate-change

 

Puts a lot of things into perspective, I highly suggest listening to it if you have some time

Yes, one President was suckered into signing a law in order to keep us informed about global warming... then a later President abused the power, and allowed the EPA to declare Carbon Dioxide a poisonous gas that needed regulation. We exhale Carbon Dioxide, not Chlorine. Our current President decided to withdraw this insane abuse of power. He has my vote for reelection.

.

And I guess anything that comes from our bodies is completly and utterly safe? If it even is so "safe", why are we exhauling it then? For funzies?

 

Why yes CO₂ is both a harmfull molecule AND an essentional component to our ecosystem (same to chlorine btw, even better as an example cause our body MAKES HCl, a very dangerous acid!). This doesn't negate its inherent negative attributes. You wouldn't call water completely safe either now do you? Properly handled sure, but I do belief drowning is a big issue for humans...

 

Your current President has not only alienated the entire scienctific world but also put in enough quacks to seriously harm everyone involved. The EPA was founded to combat profit-based economical ventures that would wreck social havoc due to polution by X product being handled in an unsafe way. Regardless of what X might be, if it is found to be harmfull you should be morally obligated to keep such harm away from anyone (and anything!) in the most optimal but stll reasonable method (we can't be 100% "invisible" on our planet, but I damn sure want to get as cloe to that number as possible).

.

I have lived my entire life in Western United States. I have never heard anything about this Melanoma epidemic you speak of. My wife and I have fun when I tell her to drive safe. She always comes back with how she has never crashed. My response is always that she doesn't crash because I always tell her to drive safe. See how that works? I have literally spent years out in the sun. I don't have skin cancer. It's not because someone passed a law. It's because I do not have the genetic DNA to develop Melanoma.

.

Who said anything about a current melanome epidemic? I merely stated that a complete breakdown of our ozone layer would have meant that anything walking on our Earth would be subject to dangerous high levels of UV radiation, not the ones that make you brown, the ones that destroy your DNA. Our scientific minds not only detected this issue, they also found the underlying cause AND got together with politicians and other policy crafters to adress said issue and work towards policies and laws to not only prevent further deterioration but also to help rectify current damage.

 

To tie it into your "safe driving" line, you are only interested in self-inflicted damage or what? Nothing about possible other variantions that might cause accidents (both other drivers but also enviromental conditions like icing or fog) which have a string of laws in place to help combat any possible damage during driving. If all you need is a "drive safe" notification, then by all means, let me get you a metal board, seats and a motor, see how you keep safe then...

 

Not all melanoma's have genetic dispositions (aka higher risk factors), but perhaps I should be happy that you heared something scientific?

.

I would be in favor of cutting off all foreign aid.

.

mkay

.

This is not an analogy... this is reality. I am in my office. I am not on a railroad track. There is no overloaded cargo train coming at me. I don't hear a train. I don't see a train. I have heard the case for the calamitous climate change catastrophe, and digested all the information. I have decided that all these zealot environmentalists are full of shit. I don't care. Did you get it this time?

.

I get that you don't get it, but I get that you don't get it because of insufficient critical information processing.

 

Is there over-shouting? Yes

 

Sadly over-shouting has become the go-to for any campaighn being brought towards the general public, coupled with our inherent desire for "disaster-tourism" you can't really blame the message being garbage just cause you don't like the noice it generates. Look past the hysterics and get to the bottom of it yourself.

 

As for not caring, can't help that, I can only be saddened by the influence it has on you or anyone that has stopped caring completly.

.

At this point I would just stop trying @@onbekende. As long as it doesn't affect Lys in either his feelings or his wallet, he doesn't care. To him even something as wide scaled of a problem like global warning (reality check, the US still is part of this world, believe it or not) will leave Lys cold if HE isn't directly influenced by its effects. Some people just have their head too far up their ass. Arguments made by onbekende are only valid if they 100% apply to Lys or he either don't want to relate or just ignore it completely. I would safe my breath on this one as there is no sensible argument here to make to get through that thick skull.

.

I can't stop caring cause it would only make me the same as him about it. Same way I can both be annoyed at someone tryong to influence someone but I can't blame their act itself.

 

If he wants to ignore my message that is for him to decide, but I shall not stop engaging in something I care about.

.

 

something as wide scaled of a problem like global warning

That is completely your personal belief. I believe differently. There is no solid evidence to support either belief. You can say over and over that it's settled science, but that does not make it so. The planet gets hotter... that's cool, adapt. The planet gets colder... that's cool, adapt. Everything stays the same... that's cool, adapt. If the oceans rise and flood the coast... fucking move you idiot. Live your life and let other people live theirs. You have a problem with something, that's your problem, not mine. Quit blaming others for your own paranoid beliefs. I have 4 children in their 30's... I've probably consumed more arguments about global warming than you, and the common thread in every solution is taking wealth from one institution and giving it to another. That's not a solution, and it's total BS.

 

.

You do know that the entire current line about global warming is about ADAPTION towards the expected rise in temperature and its effects on our lifes on this earth. A part of this adaption is to change our influence on this phenomena to a minimum so our need for adaption isn't as high as feared might be needed.

 

Your entire dislike seems to be based on this preceived "taking wealth from ME to X" line that is just utter crap and clearly shows both your own egocentric viewpoint (which we all have, just not so "developed" >_>) and negates your thoughts about this being "BS".

Wow, I thought this had run it's course. Once again you show nothing except the cold fact that you are the pristine, unvarnished, quintessential, definition of the modern Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Democrat... choose your own label please, because I'm sick of them all... that will stop at nothing to achieve the ultimate goal of world domination, and everyone having to live the way you decree.

 

Where does this arrogance come from? Your own minds... that spin your thoughts into clusters of hate for anyone that doesn't believe the same way you do. When you can't win on the battlefield of ideas, you will resort to defamation, cheating, smear tactics, lies, name calling, theft, and utterly destroying the lives of anyone that stands in the way of your will. In short, you just think you're better than everyone else. You're not.

 

It brings me great comfort that you're a Belgian, and it doesn't make any difference to me, or my country, what you think. To me, you are a Progressive, and what Progressives do best is trivialize the momentous, and complicate the obvious.

 

My position has not changed one bit. I believe in living my life to the fullest, and doing exactly what I wish to do at all times. If your brilliant scientists can come up with better and more efficient ways for me to do that... I'll buy it.

Well the slowness of my reply was more cause my wifi decided to play "which second in this next 5 min will I stay connected!" >_>

 

Why you think I exhibit any of these traits is a mystery, let alone you lumping any possible ideology not your own on 1 huge pile. I have no idea where any of such hostility comes from, both towards me or my thoughts voiced. (Let alone anyone seemingly at odds with your thought process...)

 

This entire debate is founded in measurable facts but the future with its implications are up for debate (both scientifically as ideological).

 

I deliberately won't quote or reply to any specific comments made cause it is more than obvious that they will not only be ignored for their actual thoughts but also skewwed to fill in your already slanted stereotype of whatever "ideology" you think I follow.

 

I don't engage in a debate to press my view unto the other members, neither would I like for such a member to be present. What I like to get from a debate is not only an understanding of the opposing/different views but I also hope that the other members involved feel likewise and can get away from the debate with a sense of broader understanding.

Related to this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/13/thousands-of-scientists-issue-bleak-second-notice-to-humanity/?utm_term=.f5552dde5fe7

 

I know, I know, Whashington Post. Everything in there is just liberal propaganda, with no factual basis whatsoerver.

 

I eventually opted not to reply. I had 1/3rd of a post typed up, then I said fuck it, I would not waste my time by wrting the other 2/3rd

Why you think I exhibit any of these traits is a mystery, let alone you lumping any possible ideology not your own on 1 huge pile. I have no idea where any of such hostility comes from, both towards me or my thoughts voiced. (Let alone anyone seemingly at odds with your thought process...)

Sorry for my delay, I was making money... so allow me try to explain it for you.

 

I'm just me. I'm minding my own business, I'm not hurting anyone, and I'm not looking for an argument. I'm just living my life and raising my family the best I can. I am then accosted by a fanatic liberal in a Che Guevara t-shirt and a Greenpeace hat, yelling in my face about climate change, accusing me of murdering animals, and future generations of children. It's been going on for decades. Sorry if I have zero patience left for any type of conversation.

 

If you really believe this stuff, the part that went horribly wrong for you was politicizing it. If you want half the people to not listen to you, then the first thing you do is tie yourself to Progressives. Now you have alienated yourself from half the population. Next you need to falsify documentation to support your proposal. Lie to the right people. Now try to legislate it. You want to make it law that entire industries are eliminated. Thousands of jobs would vanish. When we say no to that... you use appointed government agencies to do it anyway... without caring what the people want, and without consent of our representatives in Congress.

 

So yeah, there is no discussion anymore. The answer is NO! Period.

1) Fanatics come from all sides, I can only hope you show as much disdain for anyone skewing a thoughtbase into the absurd. Nothing can be done on 1 ideology, no single idea is the end solution. Compromise and mutual understanding are the basis of our society and mankinds force in becoming the dominant species on this planet. Sure loudmouths will always be present, but to skew once own ideas just to be at odds with the shouters on the other side of your mutual made ravine is a contest in stupidity. To take a note from your "leftist fanatic liberal" stereotype, you do know that a Westboro Baptist signweaving "Thank god for dead soldiers" is an equal true "rightist fanatic conservative" stereotype yeah?

 

2) I think you are conflating idea platforms with strict political parties. Offcourse certain advocacy groups will allign with certain political parties, just as much as likeminded individuals will form advocacy groups to begin with. Both sides have entrenched political parties but the scientists themselfes weren't looking for such a thing, they just report their findings and make recommendations.

 

3) I have already previously stated that the US political spectrum is a farce, you have a locked 2 party system hovering on the right side of virtual any political spectrum used to quantify ideology (you guys are like only "left" on personal freedoms, with a twist I might add, but left nonetheless!). That any idea with a "label" automatically makes it inconceivable for "the other side" to even think about it is a loss to your very society and the idea of being a nation for all who are willing to follow its notions of democratic freedom.

 

4) Nearly anything mentioned can and will be flying right back in your face like a boomerang cause BOTH SIDES employ such tactics. Ignore the peasant rabble and just focus on the people who speak with authority on the subject. You would equally not care if a car mechanic starts berrating you about matters like plumbing, since he was not qualified to speak about it.

Lys, our resident succesfull capitalist entrepreneur has deduced that there is no solid evidence of global warming over 1000s of scientists and decades of their work and research.

 

This is an equivalent of Donald Trump winning the AVN award for being the best female lead.

 

Jokes aside, Lys, maybe you're more of hands on person who'd like to see things for yourself, it's fair to have that kind of skepticism. Perhaps you live in part of the world that isn't affected yet by global warming, perhaps you could try and visit the areas that are?

Shah! I have missed you!

 

I keep hearing about those "thousands of scientists", but I don't hear a thing from the millions of other scientists. It's like idiots that keep harping about the "6 million" that will lose their healthcare if we dump Obamacare, but they don't say a thing about the 300 million others that are getting screwed by it. A couple thousand scientists that receive a paycheck for supporting the climate change theory is a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of scientists that do not support it. I am hearing more that an actual increase in greenhouse effect would be a boon to the planet due to an increase in foliage production. Where are these areas that are affected by global warming?

Shah! I have missed you!

 

I keep hearing about those "thousands of scientists", but I don't hear a thing from the millions of other scientists. It's like idiots that keep harping about the "6 million" that will lose their healthcare if we dump Obamacare, but they don't say a thing about the 300 million others that are getting screwed by it. A couple thousand scientists that receive a paycheck for supporting the climate change theory is a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of scientists that do not support it. I am hearing more that an actual increase in greenhouse effect would be a boon to the planet due to an increase in foliage production. Where are these areas that are affected by global warming?

 

If there were "millions of scientists" who who would disagree with the "thousands" they would say it. This is not a situation where you claim the "silent majority" is on this or that opinion, because there is no such thing in science. There are only research findings which A) support or are against a theory. Available research overwhelmingly "support" climate change.

 

Yes, increased CO2 would theoretically boost foliage growth, unfortunately it can't manifest, because we are busily deforesting the planet at the same time. So there's that.

 

The effects of climate change manifests itself everywhere, but it is true that some areas are hit harder than others. Incidentally these areas are also that parts of the world that sucked to begin with. The mixture of these will eventually create unlivable conditions which these poor or failed states are ill equipped to deal with, and humans will start moving away. Away to places that do not need them, because all they could give in return is unskilled physical labor, which modern economies need less and less of.

 

 

Yes, increased CO2 would theoretically boost foliage growth, unfortunately it can't manifest, because we are busily deforesting the planet at the same time. So there's that.

 

 

Well there is an uptick in jungle/forrest growth, mainly that the current greenery is indeed taking in more CO₂ then before (aka the foliage growth), this is because of greater availability of the CO₂ itself (It is related to this nifty sciency principle: Le Chatelier).

 

Sadly we are indeed cutting down on these excellent CO₂ sinks and the nasty effects of global warming will endanger current forrests/jungles aswell (desertification for example).

 

 

If there were "millions of scientists" who who would disagree with the "thousands" they would say it. This is not a situation where you claim the "silent majority" is on this or that opinion, because there is no such thing in science. There are only research findings which A) support or are against a theory. Available research overwhelmingly "support" climate change.

The available research has been overwhelmingly altered to support climate change by thousands of scientists that make a living off billionaires that stand to make trillions from carbon offsets, solar panels, batteries, and windmills... if they can manage to criminalize the production and use of cheaper and more efficient energy sources. It's the same business model of organized crime. It's not a silent majority... It's a majority that does not care, or are they paid, to get involved.

 

 

Yes, increased CO2 would theoretically boost foliage growth, unfortunately it can't manifest, because we are busily deforesting the planet at the same time. So there's that.

You use a weak theory to counter a much stronger theory, and then dismiss the stronger theory as pointless by implying that any benefits will be destroyed by humans regardless. Sounds like you're saying "No matter what is done... we're fucked anyway".

 

The effects of climate change manifests itself everywhere, but it is true that some areas are hit harder than others. Incidentally these areas are also that parts of the world that sucked to begin with. The mixture of these will eventually create unlivable conditions which these poor or failed states are ill equipped to deal with, and humans will start moving away. Away to places that do not need them, because all they could give in return is unskilled physical labor, which modern economies need less and less of.

It doesn't matter if Death Valley gets hot and Mount Everest gets cold... no one lives there, and no one wants to live there. I believe this issue lives in the minds of people that have a false assumption about "fairness". To some people, it's not fair that I live in the USA, and others live in Afghanistan. They feel they have to support this fraud because it's a chance to level the playing field. Here's some breaking news... nothing is fair. The one complaining about something not being fair is the one that is too stupid, too slow, or too lazy. Nothing in life is fair.

 

The planet will take care of itself, the same way it's taken care of itself for billions of years. The starving people in Buttcrust Milvania are not my problem, nor is it my responsibility. I care about me and my family... and if everyone would do that, we all would have more fun during our very short and precious time breathing air in this wonderful life.

Could probably quote half my posts here in responce to Lys, but I shall keep it to 1 quote:

 

 

 

I can give you a simple solution even to this "fantasy global disaster scheme", cut yourself out of the world and enjoy blissfull ignorance! Perhaps even get a fancy hat, I hear aluminum is in fashion!

 

Could probably quote half my posts here in responce to Lys, but I shall keep it to 1 quote:

 

 

 

I can give you a simple solution even to this "fantasy global disaster scheme", cut yourself out of the world and enjoy blissfull ignorance! Perhaps even get a fancy hat, I hear aluminum is in fashion!

 

Typical Progressive.

 

Cry that the sky is falling, demand action, offer no solution, and pout about how no one pays attention to you.

 

I'm not the one trying to sell anything to you. You are the one trying to sell something to me. I'm not buying it.

If we are offering no solutions, what are you crying about then?

If we are offering no solutions, what are you crying about then?

LOL! Can't stop laughing. You want me to join your cause. I say no. You try again. I say no. You throw graphs at me. I say no. It's exposed that the graphs have been altered. I really say no. You still try again. I say no. You make glossy movies to move people to believe. I still say no. You call me a "science denier". I really say no again. You go to the UN. I say no. You try to tax me for emitting carbon. I say no. You try to have my breath declared a poison. I say no. You create a global gathering of idiots to force people to believe it. I say no... so I elect a President that throws power behind my no... and you say I'm crying? That's delusional.

 

You just can't take no for an answer.

 

I know, and you know, that you have a solution to offer... but you won't offer your solution, because your solution proves my point. My point is that any effort to control the climate is fantasy, and your solution is to take money from me and give it to Buttcrust Milvania. That's not a solution, and it exposes your true agenda. Global Redistribution of Wealth... and I say no. If the climate is changing, and the change will destroy the planet... there is no solution. Best to have hope that this scenario will not happen. It's all a fraud.

So, would you explain how exactly this redistribution of wealth works? How exactly would you be losing money?

Cause one fictional disaster needs to be countered by another fictional solution I guess.

 

Again, you keep thinking I want/need "stuff" from you for which I showed not an inkling of proof during my postings here or in history. Stop painting everything black&white and learn what a society actually means to the person in it.

So, would you explain how exactly this redistribution of wealth works? How exactly would you be losing money?

The so-called solution is to "prepare for the inevitable climate change disaster by taking money from developed nations and giving it to underdeveloped nations because underdeveloped nations will be hit hardest with the greatest negative effects of climate change".

 

In reality it's creating a phony global disaster that is blamed on wealthy countries in order to extort money from them and give it to countries that are too stupid, too slow, or too lazy to take care of themselves. Global Redistribution of Wealth. The Earth Welfare Act. The Socialist One World Government Scheme of the 21st Century... I can see the headlines decades in advance from where I sit.

 

It will be taken from me because I'm an American taxpayer, and the money would be extorted from the US Federal Government... which is my money! Another thing the Progressives don't understand. They believe it's the governments money, and the government gives us our money. Wrong. It's our money and the government takes it from us. It's called "Tax".

 

So, would you explain how exactly this redistribution of wealth works? How exactly would you be losing money?

The so-called solution is to "prepare for the inevitable climate change disaster by taking money from developed nations and giving it to underdeveloped nations because underdeveloped nations will be hit hardest with the greatest negative effects of climate change".

 

No that's not the solution. The solution is to restructure your OWN economy to be more efficient and eco friendly. Instead of allocating money to save declining polluting industries subsidize green solution companies. You can do a whole lot home before you give a penny to anyone abroad.

 

 

The solution is to restructure your OWN economy to be more efficient and eco friendly.

That has already been done. I was a child in Los Angeles California during the 60's and 70's, and I am an eyewitness to the good that environmental regulations, and the EPA, has accomplished since. The L.A. basin was a soup of car exhaust and manufacturing waste. You couldn't go outside for a few hours without your lungs hurting from the air you breathe. That is all gone now. There is a line drawn between an untouched environment, and the land of the living... and people live there, so enough is enough. The EPA was founded on doing what it has done... what Obama tried to do was way over the line of reasonable, and the courts agreed with the people. The environmental zealots need to be happy with what they have accomplished, because they are now biting off more than they can chew.

The things accomplished are marvelous and would be considered miraculous by standards decades ago.

 

They aren't enough...

 

The Earth is 1 big eco system, you can be as "in touch with nature" all you want on your own, if nobody else follows suit you have truely invested for nothing.

 

What scientist have agreed opun is the fundamental acts required to combat this problem: less pollution (of any kind). What a nation/all nations have to come together for is how they can best implement such actions. Your current line of thinking would mean you don't want to give money to California to continue combatting polution. Stop thinking about borders and "me me me", a CO₂ molecule doesn't just stop at the border and wanders back.

 

Unless offcourse you wanna build a dome over the US, the world might be "sympathetic" with that plan

 

Just stop calling it a distribution of wealth, cause any plans currently on the drawing board will give 0$ to the population of any "underdeveloped" nations.

I have a solution. 100% guarantied to work perfectly. The entire climate change problem will be solved instantly.

 

If climate change is caused by too many people, and you guys are completely convinced that this is true, then the only real solution is to eliminate that which is causing climate change. I propose you guys sacrifice yourselves for the greater good of Gaia. We could televise the whole ritual. Throw it up online so everyone can witness the heroic deed. Monuments would be built in your memory.

 

We will create a Go Fund Me page. Raise the money from all of us that really wish this issue to die. We'll fly you all in at our expense. Set you up in the finest hotel, and lavish you with everything your heart desires. Then you guys can all march up in front of the cameras, and leap into a volcano. You can actually sacrifice yourselves to the climate change god.

 

After that, we would all live in peace, and climate change would end... and we could all thank you for ending it.

 

Whadaya think of my solution?

A solution proposed by many, sadly to return to a more balanced output of pollution the Earth can sustain we would need to kill ALL of us and we should have done it roughly 2 centuries ago.

 

You can't just magically wish the toxins away, it will take our most significant edge in life to combat this: human ingenuity. Coupled with the biggest perk our animal background has given us: cooperation.

 

But sure, kill off 99% of the population to greatly reduce our footprint on this planet. It isn't like the other solutions put forth demand such great sacrifice, heck the expected backlash from global warming itself won't have such a devastating effect on us humans (but for any other organism, we could be looking at mass extinction #6)

You can't just magically wish the toxins away, it will take our most significant edge in life to combat this: human ingenuity. Coupled with the biggest perk our animal background has given us: cooperation.

Hear hear!

 

Now we just need to actually get down to it...

Progressives are a real piece of work. Always a problem, and always expecting everyone else to sacrifice for their problem. Progressives believe the weather is out of control and we are causing it. So we can't fly planes or drive cars. We have to bake in the summer and freeze in the winter. We have to turn vegan and pony up for carbon credits. All because Progressives have a paranoid fear that the climate is gonna kill them... all because there are too many other people living and breathing the air. Progressives are assholes.

 

So you're not willing to die for your cause? I know my side would have a problem with the whole assisted suicide thing, but your side has two ways to rationalize your sacrifice... assisted suicide is a big issue for Democrats, and if any of you have a problem with that, you can always just call it a late term abortion. To end the danger of climate change, I'm sure we could hold our nose and let you do it.