DURR it's cold outside there can't be no global warming or hurrrrr

[Gulo Blue]

So it?s not like Exxon was sitting on information.

I think that's exactly what some are claiming and trying to prompt an investigation of. How greenhouse gasses work in general terms wasn't new. Projections of the impact of our real word actions have slowly improved over time; new data is created all the time.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Here?s a link to information that is interesting. Link

That is interesting. To draw a covid analogy, it's the "nobody needs to wear a mask" phase of climate science.

 

[byco42]

I think that's exactly what some are claiming and trying to prompt an investigation of. How greenhouse gasses work in general terms wasn't new. Projections of the impact of our real word actions have slowly improved over time; new data is created all the time.

?Pulitzer Prize-winning, nonpartisan reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet.?

The tag line of Inside Climate News. One strike for the Pulitzer, two strikes for ?nonpartisan? and three strikes for claiming that [climate change] is the ?biggest crisis facing our planet.? Talk about self-promotion!

I can think of a dozen other ?crises? more imminent. But I?ll deliberate on spending the 5.99 on the paperback.

 

[Gulo Blue]

“Pulitzer Prize-winning, nonpartisan reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet.”

The tag line of Inside Climate News. One strike for the Pulitzer, two strikes for “nonpartisan” and three strikes for claiming that [climate change] is the “biggest crisis facing our planet.” Talk about self-promotion!

I can think of a dozen other “crises” more imminent. But I’ll deliberate on spending the 5.99 on the paperback.

Probably no chance in selling you Bill Gate's new book on how to fix it...unless maybe to look for a chapter or two on population reduction.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52275335-how-to-avoid-a-climate-disaster

(I haven't read the Climate Crisis thing for the record. Or the Gates book yet, it just came out.)

 

[byco42]

Probably no chance in selling you Bill Gate's new book on how to fix it...unless maybe to look for a chapter or two on population reduction.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52275335-how-to-avoid-a-climate-disaster

(I haven't read the Climate Crisis thing for the record. Or the Gates book yet, it just came out.)

I wonder if there is a chapter on how China especially needs to eliminate CO2 emissions or the whole point of the venture is lost, or why, with China being the #1 CO2 emitter in the world by a factor of two over the US, Microsoft even does business there.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I wonder if there is a chapter on how China especially needs to eliminate CO2 emissions or the whole point of the venture is lost, or why, with China being the #1 CO2 emitter in the world by a factor of two over the US, Microsoft even does business there.

I'd be very surprised if it doesn't discuss China at length.

 

[byco42]

That is interesting. To draw a covid analogy, it's the "nobody needs to wear a mask" phase of climate science.

That?s accurate as an analogy.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Has everyone heard of 'climate migrants'? I wish we hadn't politicized immigration as badly as we have.

 

[Spartanmack]

A little empathy wouldn?t hurt, then.

I have empathy. I'm not excluding anyone in my thoughts, prayers and hope for the people dealing with this.

Except for this of MC?s particular rant was not aimed at any single poster here. Others jumped in with some support, others didn?t, and only you ambushed him.

He politicized the situation and I responded. It's a bit of a stretch to call in an ambush. In the context of the bigger picture of our interactions, I'd say it was inline, on the mild side even.

Context. It?s all about context. And I would not categorize your response as ?insensitive.? ?Unnecessary? is how I read it, for starters.

I recall that I was fairly emphatic about expressing my disdain about that, too.

As I recall however, you did not make it a point to let everyone know what an indelible impression those intentionally insensitive and mean spirited comments left on his character in your mind. Seems a disproportionate response if you thought mine was merely unnecessary. You did say "for starters" but I won't speculate as to how else you would characterize it.

RE: ?Selective? ... see above. Yet, you responded.

You have the floor for the final word, if you want.

-30-[/QUOTE]

I did, for a couple reasons. You did pass judgement on my character in an open forum, which to me seems more about virtue signaling than trying to bridge a gap. In addition I respect you, enjoy reading your posts and agree with you most of the time. in this instance, I think your judgement is inaccurate. I don't think providing context for why I think it's inaccurate or unbalanced and explaining why it I don't take it to heart is inconsistent.

 

[Spartanmack]

Like I said, the discussion has moved on from what they know to when they knew it.

who cares when they knew something that turned out to be wrong? I don't agree that the science is settled.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Has everyone heard of 'climate migrants'? I wish we hadn't politicized immigration as badly as we have.

I know, right?

Because like in that movie, when the global warming caused a new ice age, we?ll all have to relocate to Mexico and Latin America, and they?ll separate us from our kids and put them into cages just as payback, which sucks, because that shouldn?t happen to us, because we?re white.

 

[Gulo Blue]

who cares when they knew something that turned out to be wrong? I don't agree that the science is settled.

Do you think it's wrong or unsettled? Neither is a good word for the state of things.

 

[byco42]

I'd be very surprised if it doesn't discuss China at length.

Or how the Photovoltaic industry needs to clean up its act, too. Because Gates is an investor.

 

[byco42]

I did, for a couple reasons. You did pass judgement on my character in an open forum, which to me seems more about virtue signaling than trying to bridge a gap. In addition I respect you, enjoy reading your posts and agree with you most of the time. in this instance, I think your judgement is inaccurate. I don't think providing context for why I think it's inaccurate or unbalanced and explaining why it I don't take it to heart is inconsistent.

Okay. I’ve calmed down. I withdraw my comment on your character. That was unworthy of me and I apologize. I need to remember that I have a plank in my own eye.

 

[Spartanmack]

Do you think it's wrong or unsettled? Neither is a good word for the state of things.

Both probably - certainly the latter and probably the former. Neither is ACCC a good term for the state of things, particularly if it leads to disastrous policy that doesn't fix anything.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Or how the Photovoltaic industry needs to clean up its act, too. Because Gates is an investor.

There isn't a big energy tech that doesn't have a dark side yet. If there ever is, it will be something like nuclear where it's only good as long as safety is top priority, but risks persist. This is all about mitigation and balance, and trying to figure out the least bad option in the next 30 years. That's really tough to get right in a world where doing things the old way gets to put its thumb on the scale through lobbyists, layers, and economic pressure.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Both probably - certainly the latter and probably the former. Neither is ACCC a good term for the state of things, particularly if it leads to disastrous policy that doesn't fix anything.

Do you know right now your mind will never change on this?

 

[Spartanmack]

Do you know right now your mind will never change on this?

no, but the hurdle is pretty high. Will yours? I get the "what if" argument but even that isn't very persuasive when you look around and see that these measures are being applied selectively and exemptions are made for the top offender (who also happens to be the one that produces billions of dollars of cheap stuff every other country buys) as well as the close second or third (wherever India falls in the rankings). To me that indicates the people pushing these policies the hardest don't believe it, they just see it as politically expedient.

 

[Gulo Blue]

no, but the hurdle is pretty high. Will yours? I get the "what if" argument but even that isn't very persuasive when you look around and see that these measures are being applied selectively and exemptions are made for the top offender (who also happens to be the one that produces billions of dollars of cheap stuff every other country buys) as well as the close second or third (wherever India falls in the rankings). To me that indicates the people pushing these policies the hardest don't believe it, they just see it as politically expedient.

Same. High bar.

The worst offender is outspending us on green energy tech like 2:1 or 3:1 I think. They aren't doing it because of their extreme wealth and wastefulness or to placate our left wing.

I don't follow your logic at all. You can look at it per country or per capita or scaled to economic output and get different rankings.

 

[Spartanmack]

Okay. I?ve calmed down. I withdraw my comment on your character. That was unworthy of me and I apologize. I need to remember that I have a plank in my own eye.

Fair and appreciated. If I'm being honest, I could do better about not widening the gap.