"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

xckjoo wrote: »

There we go. Only took 62 pages to get to the root of it. Nothing to do with science or climate change. Just a paranoia about a New World Order which has resulted in viewing everything as an "attack vector". That explains the lack of anything resembling a discussion on the accuracy of the science. One side is trying to discuss science while the other is discussing the belief in nefarious conglomerates seeking global domination. Both might be valid topics of discussion in their own right but they aren't interchangeable.

If you're so unhappy with this thread, you have a number of options at your disposal which include not looking at it, not commenting, making a relevant contribution to it or even starting a different thread where you lay out the rules about how the thread should progress, what it should contain and what it shouldn't, who can post in it , and what they can post in it, in order that you might be completely satisfied with it.


You are not being forced to participate in this thread, indeed your participation and contribution to it is minimal one way or another, consisting primarily of predictably randomly commenting about posters in order to deflect from the points being discussed, which you now concede "might be valid topics".


How might they be "valid topics" and at the same time not be up for discussion here?

Why don't you want them discussed here? It seems a good a place as anywhere else to discuss them?

The truth is, you don't want the UNIPCC's stated urgent global transformation agenda, based on incontrovertible climate science discussed here or anywhere else. That is quite clear by now.

Because whenever I ask what this unprecedented global transformation will involve, or how it might urgently and properly be implemented and monitored, and how it's "unprecedented" changes will impact upon every aspect of society, you and everyone else here endorsing it just start mumbling something about conspiracy theories and a new world order.

maccored wrote: »

the earth is warming and weather is changing. doesnt really matter the reasons why after that.

Does really.

We're being told we've modified the climate by adding CO2 and that we can stop modifying it (it won't repair it or reverse what's already been done) by rapidly stopping our usage of petrol, coal, diesel, oil, non renewable electricity etc.

On the other hand, if the issue now is that temperatures are rising, presumably those with that issue believe that instead of rising, temperatures should now be falling, with the opposite effects or what global warming is supposed to be causing.

You will accept that global warming is now cited by alarmists as being responsible for virtually every weather event from too much snow to not enough snow, to too much rain to too much drought.

They're on to a win win situation either way until one analyses weather records for the supposedly ideal pre industrial period, (now unanimously agreed upon by climate science as the period from 1850 to 1900).

If CO2 controlled "the climate" and world weather, it certainly wasn't doing much of a job of it when it was at 280ppm.

http://www.pascalbonenfant.com/18c/geography/weather.html

This is what you're all demanding to fix the broken climate, right?
Sensible carbon taxes at last.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/households-face-3000-tax-bill-on-fuel-and-energy-to-cover-climate-costs-37550460.html

Hope you're all happy when it happens.
Self flagellation was always a thing with cults.

dense wrote: »

This is what you're all demanding to fix the broken climate, right?
Sensible carbon taxes at last.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/households-face-3000-tax-bill-on-fuel-and-energy-to-cover-climate-costs-37550460.html

Hope you're all happy when it happens.
Self flagellation was always a thing with cults.

Unless emissions are reduced. Reduce emissions we won't need to increase the carbon tax. The theory is quite simple to follow.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It worked for plastic bags.

If you look at it as a measure in isolation, it possibly wouldn't be that effective. But if you ring-fence the money and use it to incentives improvements in energy efficiency (our building stock is pretty bad), upgrades in hearing systems, R&D for new technologies, then the tax is facilitating incentives.

It worked for plastic bags because they are not essential to our everyday lives like fossil fuels are, and can be reused so are not needed to be purchased every time something is purchased. Thus Jimbobs assertion of if you can pay for it carry-on still stands.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It was a behavioural change. Most people could afford the bag. But the salient part was to raise money to offer incentives, ie the tax wouldn't be the ultimate means to effect any change.

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean, raise money to offer what incentives?

The point I'm making is that t is easy to affect behavioural change with something like plastic bags as they are not essential for our day to day existence the way fossil fuels are.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

My point originally wasn't really about the plastic bag tax.

I mentioned ring fencing the tax to create a fund for offer incentives to improve the efficiency of our homes, improved heating systems, etc.

Oh, apologies. Well maybe so but no tax in Ireland is ever ring fenced as far as I'm aware?

The problem with the carbon tax is it is just an excuse for politicians to use to pretend they are actually doing something to stop the affects of human caused climate change, without actually doing anything that is productive ("oh we'll raise the carbon tax!"). This ringfencing also doesn't address Jimbob's assertion that it allows those who can afford to just carry on as they are.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Maybe it's is just posturing by politicians. Maybe it isn't.

Maybe people who can afford it will carry on. Business as usual.

But if it was ring fenced, then maybe that money they generate for a fund would allow a lot of efficiency works to be done.

Again, that's a model that has been proposed and it's not unreasonable.

And it's not just about climate change...energy efficiency is inextricably linked with air quality and health.

Tax for tax sake won't be a good enough answer. The tax has to be used properly. Stick and carrot.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying in Ireland I think it's unlikely that it will be ring fenced, as no tax is.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

No tax has been. Doesn't mean it's difficult to do.

You'd be surprised. People like Dense exist!