Climate change - hoax or reality?

Philip_B said:

Whilst that may be a conclusion that sits well with the enlightened and the comfortable I am going to challenge it on a number of grounds.

1. It is merely an assertion and the reality is we need to know more about the individual circumstances of someone opposed to action on climate change.
2. It rings very thin when someone on say 30K has to listen to people on 250K telling him his motivation is Greed while he/she may well simply be struggling to provide food and shelter for the family, and is looking at policies that make this harder not easier. I did indicate in an earlier post that I felt this was more a reflection of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

And clearly I make this statement as one who is thoroughly convinced by the evidence and do believe it is part of our sacred duty of custodianship of the planet to try and move public policy so that humankind is on the right side of the ledger when it comes to the Environment and Climate Change.

But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. ​

Click to expand...

But the origin of climate change denial is the fossil fuel industry, who are absolutely in it for the money. They've bought off politicians and gotten right wing media to peddle their propoganda.

Zoii said:

Cash-crops like coffee, are notorious for clearing massive acreages but have no food value

Click to expand...

I know some CF members that would disagree with that.

*sip*

Sparagmos said:

But the origin of climate change denial is the fossil fuel industry, who are absolutely in it for the money. They've bought off politicians and gotten right wing media to peddle their propoganda.

Click to expand...

I don't know that we can say that. Not just like that, anyway.

Yes, it might be the fossil fuel industry that raised the objections first; and it is natural that it should since that is their area of expertise. But opposition to the Climate Change/Global Warming hysteria and the particular claims being made from that corner certainly is not confined to the fossil fuel industry.

People of all walks of life, having taken a closer look at the matter, can see the errors in the arguments made by the pop culture environmentalists, Green Raw Deal politicians, etc.

OldWiseGuy said:

That's actually quite efficient. One cow can produce milk, meat, butter, cheese, and yogurt for several families, plus lots of fertilizer.

Click to expand...

Yea but you can fit thousands of chickens in the same space and they give you eggs, meat, fertiliser, Kentucky Fried Chicken

Paulos23 said:

I know some CF members that would disagree with that.

*sip*

Click to expand...

I agree (waiting for tulc, three...two...one...)

Zoii said:

Yea but you can fit thousands of chickens in the same space and they give you eggs, meat, fertiliser, Kentucky Fried Chicken

Click to expand...

True that. I raised chickens back in the day; New Hampshire's for eggs and a Rock/cross for meat. If there had been any money in it I might have been a chicken farmer. Loved them little cluckers.

Of course the key is limited production, which relies on limited demand, which relies on education, which relies on acceptance of that education.

I kind of have to laugh a bit that we sit here and demonize the Chinese for pumping out so much CO2 and bad stuff.

Guess what folks? WE are buying their stuff. It's US (not USA... I mean us). The people with the CASH. It's not as htough all hte goods manufactured in China stay there. So to ONLY blame the manufacturing country may be a bit presumptive.

Ultimately, the problem lies with consumers and their choices.

It never was before.

We take it for granted that cities and states require returnable bottles, prohibit plastic straws, mandate auto emission standards, and much more. They certainly do not put it up to the consumer to choose on his own to do the preferred thing.

Yes, I know that liberalism cannot be accused of being consistent, but really....

Albion said:

It never was before.

We take it for granted that cities and states require returnable bottles, prohibit plastic straws, mandate auto emission standards, and much more. They certainly do not put it up to the consumer to choose on his own to do the preferred thing.

Yes, I know that liberalism cannot be accused of being consistent, but really....

Click to expand...

The economy depends on consumption...so there's that.

"Dey's too much consumin' goin' on 'roun' heah!"

-The late Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings of South Carolina.

Albion said:

It never was before.

We take it for granted that cities and states require returnable bottles, prohibit plastic straws, mandate auto emission standards, and much more. They certainly do not put it up to the consumer to choose on his own to do the preferred thing.

Yes, I know that liberalism cannot be accused of being consistent, but really....

Click to expand...

Incorrect but a comforting position, no doubt. The idea that this pitiable list that you include is having a meaningful impact of any kind, suggests you haven't quite grasped the scale of the problem worldwide.

Now that China is refusing to be the garbage and recycling heap of the world, wait 10 years and then we in the west will begin to get a SEMBLANCE of an idea of how much we consume. I mean, when the garbagemen go on strike, most cities can only last a few weeks before people get "disgusted by all the garbage". Our attitude with waste is like a hiding a treat from a dog: Object nonpermanence. Once our waste gets taken away, it ceases to exist.

That you think that because consumers are "forced" to recycle or not have straws is some kind of sacrifice is a fantastic example of that mindset.

109 Times Product Packaging Was So Wrong, People Couldn’t Stay Silent Any Longer

Not all of these examples are American but they all contribute to the ethos of convinience uber alles.

rambot said:

Incorrect but a comforting position, no doubt.

Click to expand...

Whatever makes you comfortable.

rambot said:

I mean, when the garbagemen go on strike, most cities can only last a few weeks before people get "disgusted by all the garbage". Our attitude with waste is like a hiding a treat from a dog: Object nonpermanence. Once our waste gets taken away, it ceases to exist.

Click to expand...

Just think how much worse it would be if people ate the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables (all those rinds, peelings, cores, seeds, etc).

OldWiseGuy said:

Just think how much worse it would be if people ate the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables (all those rinds, peelings, cores, seeds, etc).

Click to expand...

Well, if you could compost, that would actually be IDEAL....

Albion said:

Whatever makes you comfortable.

Click to expand...

That was about the LEAST important and, frankly, least relevant sentence in that post.

Did you want to address anything else that was actually a bit more relevant to a discussion or do you agree that consumers have FAR more impact with our choices than you originally stated?

rambot said:

Well, if you could compost, that would actually be IDEAL....

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Aren't they making diesel fuel out of garbage now? I'm doing my best to help the effort. I freeze my garbage and only put it out on collection day ( in degradable bags). No flies or raccoons.

OldWiseGuy said:

Absolutely. Aren't they making diesel fuel out of garbage now? I'm doing my best to help the effort. I freeze my garbage and only put it out on collection day ( in degradable bags). No flies or raccoons.

Click to expand...

Well in Sweden they are taking in garbage from their neighbours. They use yes, to create biodiesel. I'm not really suer why more places aren't doing it? Seems like a no brainer.

rambot said:

Well in Sweden they are taking in garbage from their neighbours. They use yes, to create biodiesel. I'm not really suer why more places aren't doing it? Seems like a no brainer.

Click to expand...

Maybe no one has proposed a workable program here yet. I think those in charge of such efforts are overwhelmed with work as it is. It is human nature to relax efforts once work is caught up. What is needed is to use that extra time to get ahead of things so that when new opportunities arise they can be taken advantage of. Sadly we are always running behind.

Albion said:

I don't know that we can say that. Not just like that, anyway.

Click to expand...

Climate change denial started with fossil fuel industries and the politicians they bought, who then hired scientists to corroborate their propoganda. And it looks like you agree that’s where it started because you said yourself:

Albion said:

Yes, it might be the fossil fuel industry that raised the objections first; and it is natural that it should since that is their area of expertise.

Click to expand...

Climate change is fossil fuel companies’ “area of expertise?” That’s absurd. Fossil fuel companies had everything to lose from the awareness of climate change. It’s no different than big tobacco spending billions of dollars to deny that smoking causes lung cancer.

Albion said:

People of all walks of life, having taken a closer look at the matter, can see the errors in the arguments made by the pop culture environmentalists, Green Raw Deal politicians, etc.

Click to expand...

I KNOW that you know that climate change “arguments”come from scientists, not “pop culture environmentalists” and politicians. 99% of climate scientists believe in climate change, and scientists were talking about it and studying it years before Al Gore came along or the “green energy” industry existed.

Why would the uneducated opinions of people “from all walks of life” matter more than scientists educated analysis?

Albion said:

It never was before.

We take it for granted that cities and states require returnable bottles, prohibit plastic straws, mandate auto emission standards, and much more. They certainly do not put it up to the consumer to choose on his own to do the preferred thing.

Yes, I know that liberalism cannot be accused of being consistent, but really....

Click to expand...

The consumers are the voters who do, in fact, prefer to have those laws in place.

Sparagmos said:

Climate change denial started with fossil fuel industries and the politicians they bought, who then hired scientists to corroborate their propoganda. And it looks like you agree that’s where it started because you said yourself:

Climate change is fossil fuel companies’ “area of expertise?” That’s absurd. Fossil fuel companies had everything to lose from the awareness of climate change. It’s no different than big tobacco spending billions of dollars to deny that smoking causes lung cancer.



I KNOW that you know that climate change “arguments”come from scientists, not “pop culture environmentalists” and politicians. 99% of climate scientists believe in climate change, and scientists were talking about it and studying it years before Al Gore came along or the “green energy” industry existed.

Why would the uneducated opinions of people “from all walks of life” matter more than scientists educated analysis?

Click to expand...

Most people, including global warming believers, have enough problems without worrying about the environment. At the end of a long day of calculating how much time we have until we all drown from rising seawater they just want to kick back with cold one and fergedabowdit.