• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

I am posting this to be “fair and balanced.”
I have a lot of respect for Roger Pilke Jr., his writing; work on the role of science in the policy process has been very important to my own career (e.g., https://books.google.com/books/abou...rMC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button). On Twitter, he occasional rails against popular media’s attribution of single extreme weather events to climate change. Here is one thread highlighting a recent paper looking for a trend in catastrophic weather events and not finding one, that never made its way into popular media:

 
sailordeac said:
climate alarmism is just like resource depletion alarmism, and the predictions of both are equally reliable


https://www.nationalreview.com/2019...ce-exhaustion-excuse-government-intervention/
Click to expand...

So the premise of this article is that environmentalists raise the alarm about some resource depletion problem and the government steps in and implements some regulation and restrictions on the use of that resource and then the depletion never actually happens and the alarm was therefore not necessary? Maybe because the alarm was raised and regulations were implemented the depletion was avoided? What a weird premise.
 
Anyone who doesn't believe in climate change is a moron or an employee of a fossil fuel company.
 
sailordeac said:
Maybe
Click to expand...

Are you admitting that it's possible that environmentalist alarmism might have actually avoided resource depletion crises? We know for certain that catastrophic resource depletion events occurred before environmentalists existed (e.g., Passenger pigeon extinction, Bison near extinction in North America, world wide whale population collapse 200 years ago), and now that we have environmental alarmists around those catastrophic resource depletion episodes are less frequent, so, maybe...
 
birdman said:
Are you admitting that it's possible that environmentalist alarmism might have actually avoided resource depletion crises? We know for certain that catastrophic resource depletion events occurred before environmentalists existed (e.g., Passenger pigeon extinction, Bison near extinction in North America, world wide whale population collapse 200 years ago), and now that we have environmental alarmists around those catastrophic resource depletion episodes are less frequent, so, maybe...
Click to expand...

I am on record and have been for quite some time with advocating efforts, assisted and encouraged in some form by government, for dealing with environmental problems clearly caused by human beings and for which practical solutions are available. I am also in favor of research, funded in part by government if necessary, to help develop better methods for environmental clean ups and prevention of further damage. However, I am not in favor of projects involving huge government bureaucracies and centralization such as the Green New Deal, whose effectiveness is questionable, the cost prohibitive, and the social and economic dislocation incalculable.
 
sailordeac said:
I am on record and have been for quite some time with advocating efforts, assisted and encouraged in some form by government, for dealing with environmental problems clearly caused by human beings and for which practical solutions are available. I am also in favor of research, funded in part by government if necessary, to help develop better methods for environmental clean ups and prevention of further damage. However, I am not in favor of projects involving huge government bureaucracies and centralization such as the Green New Deal, whose effectiveness is questionable, the cost prohibitive, and the social and economic dislocation incalculable.
Click to expand...

How would you know anything about cost prohibitiveness you don’t even live in the US and by all accounts you don’t work or contribute to an economy
 
WFcatamount22 said:
Exactly, the earths climate has been constantly in flux since it’s creation.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous comment. Inherent in my statement is that man is causing the most part of climate change. This has been definitively proven by ice cores and the rising of temps and sea level.

The insane part of this issue is that fixing it would create millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in revenues. Hell, the US renewable industries added more jobs in 2016 than the total number of people working in the coal industry.
 
RJKarl said:
Ridiculous comment. Inherent in my statement is that man is causing the most part of climate change. This has been definitively proven by ice cores and the rising of temps and sea level.

The insane part of this issue is that fixing it would create millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in revenues. Hell, the US renewable industries added more jobs in 2016 than the total number of people working in the coal industry.
Click to expand...

Well yeah there are more Wake basketball fans than the total number of people working in the coal industry.
 
sailordeac said:
I am on record and have been for quite some time with advocating efforts, assisted and encouraged in some form by government, for dealing with environmental problems clearly caused by human beings and for which practical solutions are available. I am also in favor of research, funded in part by government if necessary, to help develop better methods for environmental clean ups and prevention of further damage. However, I am not in favor of projects involving huge government bureaucracies and centralization such as the Green New Deal, whose effectiveness is questionable, the cost prohibitive, and the social and economic dislocation incalculable.
Click to expand...

Your cost prohibition equation should factor in the cost of inaction. No one ever considers the cost of not acting.

Also, I love the excuse that we shouldn’t do something if it’s hard or expensive. The Cold War was wildly expensive, created a massive centralized government bureaucracy, at the start success was highly uncertain and it was entirely based on the unproven theory that dictatorial communism would spread worldwide unless defeated.
 
birdman said:
Your cost prohibition equation should factor in the cost of inaction. No one ever considers the cost of not acting.

Also, I love the excuse that we shouldn’t do something if it’s hard or expensive. The Cold War was wildly expensive, created a massive centralized government bureaucracy, at the start success was highly uncertain and it was entirely based on the unproven theory that dictatorial communism would spread worldwide unless defeated.
Click to expand...

He doesn’t understand cost he just heard that somewhere. He sits on his ass all day soaking in the benefits of socialism while railing against it on here, his cognitive dissonance flapping wildly in the wind
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top