Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

Very large subject and conflicting subject. Let me start by stating that I am not a c*****e c****e denier. I am however a “man-made c*****e c****e” skeptic. There is no doubt the climate is changing. The current change in climate has been going on for the last 150 years and has been the subject of political discourse the entire time. It has been changing since the end of the medieval warming period or mini-ice age that lasted for over 800 years. Long before automobiles or other currently claimed culprits.



You are confusing smog with green house gasses. One need only look at the following photos to see how bad smog had gotten by 1970 and how much things have improved since then. Oil companies and other industries have made great strides in the US to deal with smog as well as water pollution. Can't say much about how little other countries have done compared to the US. Especially China.

Good thing you cousin didn't live in LA in 1970 if today is really so bad on her.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Fe6%2FFanhe_Town_10_day_interval_contrast.png%2F800px-Fanhe_Town_10_day_interval_contrast.png&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSmog&tbnid=3hvTYiSbNVkduM&vet=12ahUKEwiewqXJzfL6AhWXQUIHHYFtAlgQMygRegUIARDBAQ..i&docid=xVKKlHC0U7ltyM&w=800&h=754&q=la%20smog%20then%20and%20now%202020&ved=2ahUKEwiewqXJzfL6AhWXQUIHHYFtAlgQMygRegUIARDBAQ



I can't disagree with #3. The problem is how we view what policies will gain the broadest effect and benefit the most people.

#4 has no reference point to mean anything.



The Paris climate accord had little to do with c*****e c****e and everything to do with t***sferring wealth from the west to the rest of the world. Particularly t***sferring wealth from the US.



I have no problem eliminating subsidies to oil companies and every other industry. Let's include no subsidies to any green industries as well. Should not be the job of 500 elected officials in Washington to pick winners and losers in the entire economy. Especially when they stand to benefit financially from advanced knowledge of those choices.



We'll get to greenhouse gasses in a bit. Again, that is different than smog and respiratory problems caused by air pollution. No one is having a hard time breathing due to greenhouse gasses. But, there has been plenty of regulation to reduce pollutants. See the link of photos above again to see the progress.



As I said at the beginning. Greenhouse gasses and air pollution are two different things in terms of cause and effect, even if politically people are trying to conflate the two. No one supports smog or air or water pollution. And where possible it should be reduced. Greenhouse gasses on the other hand are being contributed to the cause of “man made c*****e c****e”. That's where skepticism steps in.

Why am I a skeptic. Numerous reasons. Here are few.
1) A few years back promoters of man made c*****e c****e were caught creating and manipulating information to produce a desired result of man made c*****e c****e in there projections. They got caught. The hockey stick graph promoted by Al gore is one example. As has been stated, when one's testimony is caught in a lie all their testimony becomes suspect.
2) None of the c*****e c****e predictions over the last 100 years have come true or even close to true.
3) Claims have and still are being made that hurricanes are increasing in frequency and intensity. As of yet, that's just not true.
4) Claims are made that c*****e c****e is causing more fires. That is one possible contributing factor but not the only possible contributing factor. Why make the claim when you just don't know and ignore other contributing factors? And again the leap is made from c*****e c****e to man made c*****e c****e with no explanation of that leap. Few deny the climate is changing.
5) Man made c*****e c****e proponents are pushing electric but it's never mentioned that the resources to produce and sustain renewable, ie rare metals, are in fact not renewable and in the case of minerals are in limited supply and very damaging to the environment.
6) Why is it that US f****l f**ls are bad while Middle East, China, Russia, Venezuelan, etc are okay. If man made c*****e c****e is really serious that contradiction makes no sense what so ever. It can only be interpretative in one way. It is not a war on oil. It is a war on American oil.
7) If man made climate is real, a big if, then there is only one possible solutions. Reduce world population to reduce man's footprint.
8) To base the possible destruction of the US economy and way of life based on a theory that was promoted with lies and inconsistencies and failed forecasts is beyond foolish.

robertv3

You said: "Good thing you cousin didn't live in LA in 1970 if today is really so bad on her." It _was_ close to 1970; 1971 I think. I notice you say it's improved since then.

robertv3

I had said:
"4.a. Rejoining the Paris Climate Accord/Agreement. This supports cooperative action and pooling knowledge. It represents a few steps along a long road. It goes in the right direction instead of the wrong direction.
4.a. has been done about two years ago after Biden took office."

Then you said:
"The Paris climate accord had little to do with c*****e c****e and everything to do with t***sferring wealth from the west to the rest of the world. Particularly t***sferring wealth from the US."

You are too cynical about that.

Suppose for the moment that what you say is true: that the Paris climate accord did have "everything to do with t***sferring wealth from the west to the rest of the world", and "particularly t***sferring wealth from the US." What do you think the U.S. leadership was thinking about it when they joined -- that they only wanted to t***sfer wealth from the US?

Now let's suppose a different thing. You've already agreed that c*****e c****e is a real thing. I haven't studied your response in detail yet, but maybe we can agree that c*****e c****e (however it was caused, and whether humans had any significant affect on causing it at all) is a hazard to a lot of people around the world:

For example, c*****e c****e forces adaptations and the people have a lot of difficulty keeping up with the adaptations. So let's suppose for a moment that c*****e c****e is a big problem in this way and that it causes millions of people to starve or not get drinking water or have new diseases or have to move to new locations -- any of these would be a big problem. Now, just generally, what do you think the world's people should _do_ about that? I say, they should study it together and work cooperatively to lessen the hardships.

But when they _do_ come together to try to work cooperatively, what you have to say about it is that it's _all_ ("everything to do with") about t***sferring wealth from some countries to others. Don't you have any room for cooperation? Isn't cooperation valuable? Do you _only_ care that your group loses money in it? Maybe you think that everyone's as cynical as you and that they're all just money-grubbing with nothing to show for it but money.

You did say you couldn't disagree with my item 3, "The well-being of vast numbers of people has a higher value than the wealth of relatively few people." So I think you should allow for the possibility that many people value the well-being of vast numbers of people. And so, many people would come together in something like a Paris Accord _because_ they want to protect the well-being or lives of vast numbers of people. And they come together, not only because they want to "t***sfer wealth", but because cooperative effort has some advantage over disjointed sub-optimizations (I mean, disjointed efforts, each effort separately trying to optimize locally -- even at the expense of other locales), and because many people are smart enough to know that there's an advantage in cooperative effort.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

You are correct. I am very cynical about people's motivations concerning the Paris Accord. Especially the United Nations which is made up by extremes from all directions. From capitalist to c*******ts. From dictators to theocracies and everything in between. All with differing agendas. I am also very cynical about the motivations of people who seek power because, well, they seek power above all else. Very few people are truly altruistic. As far as the Paris accord. The essence is that if the West builds a train and throws itself under it now then China and the rest of the world agree, maybe, to throw themselves under the train in a decade or two. If you do everything someone asks you to do with only a promise in return that is not mutual cooperation. That's suicide.

You ask, “What do you think the U.S. leadership was thinking about it when they joined -- that they only wanted to t***sfer wealth from the US?” First off it wasn't US leadership that joined the Accord. It was the Obama administration acting unilaterally. Congress was bypassed or ignored because Obama knew that it would never have been approved by US leadership. Having said that, my answer would likely be that they were thinking about how they could personally benefit from t***sferring wealth from the US. Whether that be in wealth or power.

I did agree with your #3. "The well-being of vast numbers of people has a higher value than the wealth of relatively few people." I went on to say, “ The problem is how we view what policies will gain the broadest effect and benefit the most people.” Perhaps I should rephrase the concept as, the efforts and ideas of a vast number of people has a higher value than the opinions and ideas of a relatively few people. The UN is a relatively few people compared to 8 billion human beings. On any problem or any possible solutions, whether it be a better mouse trap or c*****e c****e, I would much rather millions of individuals, or as many as are interested, working in their own self interests with their own dime try to solve a particular issue rather than a relatively small group of politicians. Whichever individual, of those millions of people with millions of possible ideas, comes up with a solution that benefits the greatest number of people will be the one that succeeds for himself and humanity. Humanity does not advance due to the efforts of governments. It advances due to the efforts of individuals.

You go on to make a lot of suppositions about the possible effects of c*****e c****e. Note that is only some possibilities among many. As far as people suffering due to the effects, People are already suffering due to the efforts to control c*****e c****e. Just look at Sri Lanka food shortages. Or this winter people may be freezing in Europe. Again due to the green policies in Europe and the US. All roads have consequences and require adaptions. Your position that c*****e c****e is the worst of roads has not been proved out. It is only suppositions. However the road of g***n e****y if followed in the western world will cause major adaptations in quality of life and even death. Already is. I suspect that the intentional destruction that g***n e****y, as currently presented, will cause to world stability will be much more immediate, destructive and deadly than any supposed longer term consequences of c*****e c****e will ever be.

American Vet

The best path for American to become independent of oil by using the HUGE capabilities we have. Then begin research into other options in a careful, controlled manner - instead of rushing crazily into wind/solar and their well-documented inadequacies and failures.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

Agreed. Not only that but the research should be geared toward alternatives that would actually be sustainable and not even more harmful to the environment and resources than f****l f**ls. Wind/solar will be a environmental and economic disaster.

American Vet

I still think that intensive research into hydrogen is one way.

Someone else mentioned geo-thermal sources.

And, of course, nuclear power.

The greenies dislike all three….🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

robertv3

You say:

"I have no problem eliminating subsidies to oil companies and every other industry. Let's include no subsidies to any green industries as well. Should not be the job of 500 elected officials in Washington to pick winners and losers in the entire economy. Especially when they stand to benefit financially from advanced knowledge of those choices."

That's a reasonable position if we think of it as normal government in normal times.

In "capitalism" and in "a free market", subsidies from government look like c***ting or hypocrisy.

However, governments exist for more than one reason. One reason to have a government is that it is to help solve some problem.

One problem is that if the people aren't organized and it's "every man for himself", then when another country sends an organized army it might take the land and k**l or ens***e the people. So "defense" could be a solution to that problem. The people come together and get organized for national defense. The organization is called "government".

Another problem is some natural disaster, like a hurricane. Then we might want a government to help with disaster relief. Would disaster relief be a kind of subsidy?

From what I've read so far, you are skeptical that humans significantly "cause" c*****e c****e, so for the moment let's set aside causation and just say c*****e c****e, however it was caused, is a kind of natural disaster. We might want a government to help us cope with this natural disaster, as with the above-mentioned "hurricane". I think subsidies for some "green industries" might be justified for that; that's assuming that some "green industries" really would help us cope with c*****e c****e.

robertv3

You say:

"We'll get to greenhouse gasses in a bit. Again, that is different than smog and respiratory problems caused by air pollution. No one is having a hard time breathing due to greenhouse gasses."

True. Or at least it might be true.

However, there are more than one kind of pollution. Some kinds of pollution make it harder to breathe well. Pollution of water probably wouldn't make it harder to breathe well, but it's still a kind of pollution.

The situation may be like plants and weeds. A weed is an unwanted plant, or a plant that has some undesired effect. I think of "pollutant" as a word often used to describe some unwanted substance or some substance that has an undesired effect. I think of greenhouse gases as a kind of pollutant because they have an undesired, I'd say harmful, effect, because they cause the planet to warm up much faster than normal which causes problems in trying to keep up with adaptation.

I also use the word "pollution" when I say "noise pollution". To me, unwanted very loud music, coming from next door, would be "noise pollution" for me.

robertv3

You say:

"Why am I a skeptic. Numerous reasons. Here are few.
1) A few years back promoters of man made c*****e c****e were caught creating and manipulating information to produce a desired result of man made c*****e c****e in there projections. They got caught. The hockey stick graph promoted by Al gore is one example. As has been stated, when one's testimony is caught in a lie all their testimony becomes suspect."

I haven't noticed that, but am willing to grant that it may have happened just as you say here.

It's quite reasonable to suppose there's _some_ c***ting going on, in all sides of the issue.

What matters is whether the c***ting is a small part of the side, or a big part of the side. Just to construct an example here: If some "hockey stick graph" (which you mentioned) were merely an innocent mistake, it might be a negligible thing in an otherwise good and correct argument with almost all good evidence.

The way I interpret things, the basic idea of greenhouse gases accelerating g****l w*****g (causing c*****e c****es) is correct; and the main c***ters are big players like the oil industry who have a financial stake in keeping their industries going as usual for their profits even if they "pollute" (or, even if they "cause too much greenhouse gas emissions to occur"), so they obfuscate so that they will be allowed to continue with the industry practices which are profitable for them and harmful for the futures of millions of people. This scenario as I have described it in this paragraph seems very plausible to me, as it seems to fit how things work in the world (the way I see how things work in the world).

robertv3

You say:

"5) Man made c*****e c****e proponents are pushing electric but it's never mentioned that the resources to produce and sustain renewable, ie rare metals, are in fact not renewable and in the case of minerals are in limited supply and very damaging to the environment."

I don't know much about the rare metals, but I recognize your argument as valid (though possibly not sufficient). What I more often hear is a similar argument, that the electricity I use to charge my plug-in hybrid car was (or may have been) generated by means of a dirty coal-burning power plant. That too is a valid argument (though possibly not sufficient).

I just say there are many ways to generate electricity, but if I were to drive a traditional gasoline-only-powered car then I would be locked in to relying on gasoline. With the hybrid car there are more possibilities to fit into a better way of doing things.

I cannot solve all the problems at once. Getting a hybrid car is just one part, or one small step, leading to a general solution. This hybrid car happens to get good gas mileage (40-miles-per gallon) even when it's just running on its internal combustion engine, burning gasoline. I figure I'm not doing any net harm with it, and I'm getting ready for a future where I can get electricity that was cleanly generated. I also try to drive less than I would otherwise drive; I pool errands; I omit some unnecessary trips; and so on. There are lots of little things I can do, as I try to be part of a solution more than part of a problem.

If everybody just balked (saying: The whole solution isn't available yet, so I won't try to do anything), then progress would be even slower or non-existent.

robertv3

I finally finished reading all of that post. I disagree with (2) ...predictions..., (3) ...hurricanes..., and (4) ...fires...) but don't have a strong enough opinion (nor enough facts at hand) about those parts to argue them. I do want to comment on (6), (7), and (8):

You say:

"6) Why is it that US f****l f**ls are bad while Middle East, China, Russia, Venezuelan, etc are okay. If man made c*****e c****e is really serious that contradiction makes no sense what so ever. It can only be interpretative in one way. It is not a war on oil. It is a war on American oil.
7) If man made climate is real, a big if, then there is only one possible solutions. Reduce world population to reduce man's footprint.
8) To base the possible destruction of the US economy and way of life based on a theory that was promoted with lies and inconsistencies and failed forecasts is beyond foolish."

"F****l f**ls" are "bad" for the world the same way in one country as in another.

If somebody says it's basically bad here and okay there, they're incorrect.

Your conclusions about (6), (7), and (8) are each either too extreme or too absolute. The world doesn't work like a simple math problem where a person either gets the perfect solution or doesn't. People are busy surviving, cutting corners, trying to meet other people's expectations, and making compromises as they try to make things work. An example is what's going on with energy supplies in the world right now. You can see there are some complications in it. The adversarial relationship between the Russian government and the "West" right now is changing how much energy (natural gas or other) that western Europe can get from its usual sources. What Saudi Arabia, Russia, and maybe Iran, are doing has effects on oil and gasoline prices in places such as in the U.S. My point with all that is only to illustrate that there's complexity. Now some countries might be compromising their "g***n e****y" commitments, so as to produce enough energy for heating in the winter. This doesn't mean "g***n e****y" is a bad idea, and it doesn't mean they're just all a bunch of hypocrites; one needs to appreciate that they're trying to survive and they cannot do everything "green" all the time (particularly as they don't have their green solutions fully developed yet) -- at the same time they have to find a way to get through the winter in an unusual situation (the war in Ukraine and all the effects of it).

Civilization _does_ progress, even though it has setbacks. Some of the drivers of progress are intent, attempting, coordination, and cooperation.

In (7), in your hypothetical situation, you say, "...only one possible solutions. Reduce world population...". You're too quick to conclude that.

I do agree that a smaller human population would make some things easier. I'm in favor of limited population growth (though mandating it would be problematic). I think there are ways to limit population growth, such as by education, and making birth control methods available, and advancing women's rights (particularly in places where they don't have enough rights).

However, reducing population is not the _only_ thing to do! There are efficiencies to be obtained, which can be done either without reducing population or alongside some amount of reduction in population. I say that you're too quick to conclude that "reducing world population" is the _only_possible_ solution.

For some simple math problems, it is correct to say that something is "the only possible solution". Math is sometimes simple like that. It's often different in the wider world. When commenting on some topic in the real world, when people say something absolute such as that something is "the only possible solution", it usually says more about their thinking and talking habits than it does about the real situation at hand.

American Vet

Green industries are not to 'help in a natural disaster' - but trying to prevent what they believe is one coming.

Big difference.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

A lot to unpack in all those separate responses but here goes.

Certainly there are many types of pollution that fall under the word “pollution”. For the topic of c*****e c****e we are usually talking about the claim that greenhouse gasses are the overwhelming cause. Not smog in LA 50 years ago. There may or may not be some wisdom in not pumping excess gasses into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gasses may or may not be a overwhelming cause of future c*****e c****e or even to what degree of c*****e c****e the planet may actually experience. So far the data has been manipulated to produce desired predictions that have been mostly wrong. Simply put, it's all just a guess.

Also, let me clarify. When I say government in these conversations I am almost always referring to a large central government. All governments at all levels have some desirable effects and purposes. I am not promoting total anarchy. In the case of our Federal Government those purposes and limitations are clearly laid out in the constitution. At least they were until politicians started redefining words to alter the constitution's intent. National defense was one of those. Along with immigration, international trade and treaties, continuity of commerce between states and a number of other things. Obama complained that the constitution was/is too limiting on federal government duties and powers. I disagree, good government, to me, is very limited government. The government does not exist to solve problems outside of what is laid out in the constitution. Problem solving in most instances is and should be left up to the local governments or the citizens.

Disaster relief is not a subsidy. Nor has government disaster relief proven to be efficient, well administered or actually productive. Private run relief and individual efforts usually do quite well. Efforts from groups like the Red Cross or the Peace Corps or efforts from neighbors just helping neighbors. You want to see how poorly government run disaster relief works and how corrupt it is just look to the Haitian earthquake relief.

You say

Here is an alternative scenario. Lets say you invest heavily in an industry, say wind/solar, and then you push to create a need for that industry, in the name of social responsibility, so you can profit off your investment. You can push governments to sell that industry using trillions of tax payer dollars. You are quite aware that the resources needed to sustain that industry are in short supply and will all but disappear in 50 years or so. But that doesn't matter since you will have bailed out long before those resources run out. This scenario as I have described it in this paragraph seems very plausible to me, as it seems to fit how things work in the world (the way I see how things work in the world).

And yes, both sides c***t, or at least manipulate the narrative, to achieve their profit goals. Why would one side c***ting be more acceptable than the other?

You say

Yet current actions by the Biden Admin, the Paris accords and other world governments actions say otherwise. Why is that?



If the US and Europe had remained self sufficient then what Russia and other countries are doing would be irrelevant. It is only because we cut off our nose despite our face that it is relevant.

And, if g***n e****y was so important then why was Germany and other countries virtue signaling their green initiatives all while importing f****l f**ls. They did not get off of f****l f**ls. They simply changed how they got it.

Why would they or we destroy our self sufficiency when g***n e****y is not fully developed knowing what the likely outcome would be. They may not be hypocrites but at the very least there is gross incompetence. Why?

A final note on greenhouse gasses. CO2 is at around 400 PPM. It has gone from 200 PPM to 400 PPM in the last 100 years. The optimum level for plant growth is around 1500 PPM. So even at current rates plants won't reach their optimum levels for 200 years. And that's optimum level not max level. Who is to say that the world and humanity won't be much better off at those levels? We need more farmland and thriving plant populations to support an ever growing human population. Who's to say that more greenhouse gasses won't be a boon for humanity rather than a bust? Perhaps we should trust Mother Nature more and politicians less.