Jump to content
Eise

Climate science was wrong!

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, iNow said:

During WWII, the US government reached out to US automakers asking if any could help build planes for the war effort. One raised their hand and said, “we built 2 last year.” The government said, “we need 300,000.” Within 2-3 years, the auto industry has built 300,000 planes and we won the war.

It’s time we declare war now on atmospheric cancer and set these types of audacious goals toward building clean energy like our grandparents did for building war planes.

This. Exactly this. We could cope with the crisis, but only when also really see it for what it is: a life-threatening crisis. Otherwise we will gloriously fail. Spreading lies about climate change for me is the equivalent of 'wir haben es nicht gewusst'. (I hope I do not have to translate that.)

+10 if I could.

(But I am not free to do that... 😋)

Edited by Eise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sensei said:

Tax, fine, fee on corporation, especially in monopolistic or oligopolistic environment, is almost always passed on customers of what they sell to people. So direct tax on corporation is actually indirect tax on ordinary people who are end users of the product. 

This argument gets trotted out in a lot of situations, but it doesn't hold up. A company can only raise prices if there is no competition, and the idea would be that there would be greater competition from alternatives that did not produce as much CO2. The profits go to different companies, which is one reason why the industry opposes it.

7 hours ago, iNow said:

During WWII, the US government reached out to US automakers asking if any could help build planes for the war effort. One raised their hand and said, “we built 2 last year.” The government said, “we need 300,000.” Within 2-3 years, the auto industry has built 300,000 planes and we won the war.

It’s time we declare war now on atmospheric cancer and set these types of audacious goals toward building clean energy like our grandparents did for building war planes.

You can also look at the Manhattan project and the moon landings as other examples of tackling big, tough problems and succeeding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, YJ02 said:

Meanwhile, to the extent that TIME magazine matters and to whom it matters to. Did TIME make the wrong choice for person of the year by selecting Thunberg-the talker, over Vague,- the actual scientist with a process that will be very impactful on the environment?

from: https://100percentfedup.com/time-chooses-angry-teen-climate-actress-for-person-of-the-year-overlooks-college-student-who-discovered-way-for-bacteria-to-eat-plastic/

If the choice is strictly between those two then the answer is clear: Thunberg. Bioremediation is not new nor revolutionary, identifying bacteria able to degrade tough compounds are not super rare and already in use for a number of purposes, with varying success. The is almost always in situ efficiency. If that problem had been solved it would have been a much larger project involving many folks rather than just one student. Moreover, the credit ultimately would go to the PI who got the project funded in the first place. From the title alone one can deduce that a) the person writing the blog post has not expertise in either topic, b) clearly just wants to get reads by emotional appeal (clickbait outrage industry comes to mind) c) clearly shows bias in the title alone and therefore c) is it really a good source to foster a discussion?

We have talked about quality of sources and articles so I am really surprised that you drag something like that into the discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, just over 300000 was the total aircraft production during the war years.
Of the automotive companies, most produced sub-assemblies, and parts; not whole aircraft.
H Ford was retired at the time, but still had some control over the company he built. He had Ford take over some land and an airport, Willow Run, where they were the only automotive manufacturer to build whole planes. Of the total 18000+ B-24 Liberator bombers built, almost 7000 were built by Ford ( with a lot of initial problems ).

As for G Thunberg, I'll be impressed when she has a climate change rally in China.
All she's doing in the West, is taking a popular subject and running with it ( thereby increasing her popularity, to Person of the Year, no less ).
Until then, she's mostly 'preaching to the choir'; Only people who agree with her listen to her.
Real change comes when you start changing people's minds.

These are just some facts and opinions as I know and see them.
Neither is meant to belittle the seriousness of AGW.

Edit:
And given the choice, people prefer the 'carrot , not the stick'.
Change people's minds by offering them something better and/or a choice, not by punishing them with regressive taxation without an alternative.
One change will be embraced, the other resented.
( IE you haven't changed their mind, just forced them to comply )

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

As far as I know, just over 300000 was the total aircraft production during the war years.
Of the automotive companies, most produced sub-assemblies, and parts; not whole aircraft.
H Ford was retired at the time, but still had some control over the company he built. He had Ford take over some land and an airport, Willow Run, where they were the only automotive manufacturer to build whole planes. Of the total 18000+ B-24 Liberator bombers built, almost 7000 were built by Ford ( with a lot of initial problems ).

As for G Thunberg, I'll be impressed when she has a climate change rally in China.
All she's doing in the West, is taking a popular subject and running with it ( thereby increasing her popularity, to Person of the Year, no less ).
Until then, she's mostly 'preaching to the choir'; Only people who agree with her listen to her.
Real change comes when you start changing people's minds.

These are just some facts and opinions as I know and see them.
Neither is meant to belittle the seriousness of AGW.

Edit:
And given the choice, people prefer the 'carrot , not the stick'.
Change people's minds by offering them something better and/or a choice, not by punishing them with regressive taxation without an alternative.
One change will be embraced, the other resented.
( IE you haven't changed their mind, just forced them to comply )

Again, we can't pray for it to stop, the stick and carrot are just a means to an end. And this war...

Is the end of our means, we can pay for it to stop...

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

Change people's minds by offering them something better and/or a choice, not by punishing them with regressive taxation without an alternative.

I am not sure about that, in Europe high taxation of fuel has forced the automobile industry to produce more efficient cars. Some of those technologies then spilled over to North America. One can argue that these development would not have happened without the whip.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

As for G Thunberg, I'll be impressed when she has a climate change rally in China.

Well, she has increased political pressure on Western politicians, and as you know there are plenty who are still denying (for whatever reasons) that AGW exists in the first place. Mainstreaming the issue is not a bad thing. One could argue whether it is worthwhile of the nomination, but these are of course highly subjective (but it is also clear that the other person named in the blog by YJ02 was only there to stir an argument ). 

I think what you have wrong is what activism is about. It is not that we are lacking means, what we have is political apathy and denial. Things like carbon taxing are used as they are the easy way out. Realistically we would need more drastic measures, but no one really wants that. You are probably right that folks want to stop climate change only if it costs them nothing. But it is increasingly clear that that may not be an option (or we just continue and leave it to the next generation).

Activism really does not much more than highlight that hypocrisy and while it may not solve problems per se, it raises awareness and I think it does go beyond preaching to the choir. The whole movement has tangible impact where organization try to become more sustainable. Sure it is a buzzword but if it reduces waste and CO2 emission I still think it is better than nothing and clearly better than waiting for the perfect solution that may never come (or come too late). That being said, I would also not that the person of the year award always had these discussions and for the most part it is about complaining about said choices. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, swansont said:

This argument gets trotted out in a lot of situations, but it doesn't hold up. A company can only raise prices if there is no competition, and the idea would be that there would be greater competition from alternatives that did not produce as much CO2. The profits go to different companies, which is one reason why the industry opposes it.

Healthy competition is only possible when there is no monopoly or oligopoly in the country and cost of entering industry is not as extreme as in the case of massive electricity production.

Let me give you example. We have two hypothetical countries A and B. Country A has already 50% renewable energy sources, and 50% fossil, and B has 10% renewable and 90% fossil. Now, somebody above both countries makes law that CO2 emission will require payment. Country A has smaller dependence on fossil, so increase of prices to end users will be lower. Country B has huge dependence on fossil fuels, so increase of prices to end users will be also huge. What does it mean? That the all products made by the all firms from country B will have higher prices, which will mean less competitive product on global market, and perhaps customers will chose cheaper products from country A. Firms from country B could have economical problems due to smaller orders for their more expensive products. They won't have money for investment in newer technologies. Instead of fighting with CO2, it will bring country B to economical stagnation, slowdown, or collapse (depending on CO2 prices)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Healthy competition is only possible when there is no monopoly or oligopoly in the country and cost of entering industry is not as extreme as in the case of massive electricity production.

In this context, healthy competition is, massive Bollox.

not a compliment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, YJ02 said:

Meanwhile, to the extent that TIME magazine matters and to whom it matters to. Did TIME make the wrong choice for person of the year by selecting Thunberg-the talker, over Vague,- the actual scientist with a process that will be very impactful on the environment?

from: https://100percentfedup.com/time-chooses-angry-teen-climate-actress-for-person-of-the-year-overlooks-college-student-who-discovered-way-for-bacteria-to-eat-plastic/

Quote

TIME Chooses Angry Teen Climate Actress For “Person Of The Year” Overlooks College Student Who Discovered Way For Bacteria to Eat Plastic

 

I hate this right wing drivel. Facts over character assassination would be nice once in a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't build too many nuclear reactors in Canada anymore as they are expensive to build and maintain.
But the biggest drop in CO2 emissions in my province of Ontario was due to closing down some coal fired generating plants and replacing them with natural gas generation.
Lately My ( Conservative ) Premier and two others from neighboring provinces have been talkin about SMRs/SSRs ( small modular/scale reactors ) quite a bit.
I would love to see even natural gas generation shelved in favor of these small cheaply built reactors which are assembled on site; every major city could have one. Along with wind/solar and a little natural gas for peak loads, we would have enough electrical to go totally electric in transportation. Gas stations would have only one pump for gasoline, like they do for diesel now, and multiple quick charge stations. That would drive electric car sales, and reduce their prices.
I see that as the 'carrot' approach.

Telling me ( through taxation ) to buy an electric car, at twice the price ( because nobody buys them ), and then I can't go anywhere more than 100 mi away because of the lack of infrastructure ( which is why nobody buys electric cars outside metropolitan areas ), is the 'stick' approach

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sensei said:

@Ken Fabian

..yet another unknown is what governments will do with this way gathered money from CO2 emission taxes... will they by themselves build powerful solar power plants, solar furnaces, etc. competing with (perhaps state owned) traditional coal power plants, or "as always" waste money on something unrelated, or give away money to people to buy their votes.. , sooner or later will happen, and I am afraid that they will simply waste this way gathered money..

History learns that money from targeted taxes are later abused and misused.

This sounds very much like the good governance issue I think is so central to our (in)ability to manage the climate problem - and not only the climate problem. Oversight and review of government finances are - or should be - stage centre, always.

I am not inclined to tie government hands in a misplaced desire to limit the ability of poor governance to respond badly to complex problems and changing circumstances; I think poor governance can squander tax money no matter how many specific provisions are attempted and the solution is not tying revenues to specific spending but in improving governance. If we cannot improve governance then all those problems - Budget deficit, economic slowdown, worldwide collapse of economics - which climate change will exacerbate but are serious regardless, will be more likely and more damaging.

Taxes on emissions are only directly linked to specific spending choices if the policies are set up that way - and I am not a big fan of prescribing where specific revenues go, preferring that ongoing oversight of the whole rather than excessively focusing on particular elements; having revenues tied to specific purposes tends to limit the ability to review and redirect them according to current or projected needs. Directing taxpayer money to specific projects or to R&D or to subsidies - or to tax relief - can be part of such schemes or not but I favour pricing of emissions that is sufficient to be a real incentive in and of itself, irrespective of where the taxes go.

Also, Emissions taxes should be designed to be avoidable - the incentive to choose investments and activities that don't have to pay them is their purpose; if they get treated as sources of essential, ongoing revenue then they are set up wrong.

There can be built-in tying of funds to make those low emissions options cheaper and easier and more desirable - ie subsidies - and that may be a compromise to allow lower emissions taxes to be applied but if that is not working and companies simply raise price revenues on fossil fuel energy rather than change then the tax settings as well as spending (subsidy) options are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sensei said:

Now, somebody above both countries makes law that CO2 emission will require payment. 

Who is this somebody, with the authority to impose such a tax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CharonY said:

We have talked about quality of sources and articles so I am really surprised that you drag something like that into the discussion. 

yes, we did, and it seems we never got anywhere. some tend to believe that a site's bias or political leanings have no impact on how the story being reported is received by a reader

but in this article i posted, we can see that it (a site/writer's bias) clearly does have an impact on reader reception

one is instantly turned off by the way it is presented, the writer(s) are obvious in their views

 < warning!!! opinion ahead >>  as for who should have actually gotten the 'honor' -- I mean, it is only TIME not the Nobel- that is why I ask you, the scientists as to which person's actions have a greater impact

I would say that Vague's project has the potential for physical impact while Thunberg's activities has had a impact on how people think and approach MMCC, perhaps they should be judged separately? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean TIME who in 2006 named “You!”  as person of the year? 

Nobody cares. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, iNow said:

During WWII, the US government reached out to US automakers asking if any could help build planes for the war effort. One raised their hand and said, “we built 2 last year.” The government said, “we need 300,000.” Within 2-3 years, the auto industry has built 300,000 planes and we won the war.

It’s time we declare war now on atmospheric cancer and set these types of audacious goals toward building clean energy like our grandparents did for building war planes.

but it was not voluntary in WW2. companies could not continue to build cars or trucks for non military uses, and the rationing of steel and rubber would have stopped production if the govt had not, only cars built by january 42 were allowed to be sold after and then only to those deemed necessary for civilian use

 with MMCC issues, we are allowing corporations to choose if they will turn their efforts to help ameliorate or reverse the effects of this crisis

that goes to my statement that we cannot allow corporations to decide if it is in their financial interests to stop production of items unneeded and begin work on products needed to fight MMCC effects. no matter the impact on its profits

in ww2 the US govt-and other govts- required industry to contribute to the war effort; the same should be done now

from: https://www.teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24088

Quote

On January 1, 1942, all sales of cars, as well as the delivery of cars to customers who had previously contracted for them, were frozen by the government’s Office of Production Management. As a temporary measure, local rationing boards could issue permits allowing persons who had contracted for cars before January 1st to secure delivery.

 

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

You mean TIME who in 2006 named “You!”  as person of the year? 

Nobody cares. 

exactly!! i agree with you, but one only need look to the coverage by the media every year and the fuss they make over the announcement

what you and i think about it is apparently in the minority opinion. sadly more people care about fluff than substance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

 i agree with you, but one only need look to the coverage by the media every year and the fuss they make over the announcement

As best I can tell, you’re the only one here making any fuss about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iNow said:

As best I can tell, you’re the only one here making any fuss about it. 

I am flattered by your attention..really,i am. but you are so temperamental..now  I can't even agree with you without you still disagreeing.. so, in effect, you are disagreeing with you

but the TIME p.of the year is a fluff fest every year for the media. they portray the winners as if they were gods

google search tells us that there are quite a few 'fussy' people out there on the topic :  "About 7,870,000,000 results"

well, i know you like evidence, so here's some. i won't go and post the other 7.87 billion links though

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/12/11/time-person-year/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/greta-thunberg-bad-choice-times-person-year-105012

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/11/787026271/greta-thunberg-is-time-magazine-s-person-of-the-year-for-2019

https://heavy.com/news/2019/12/time-person-of-the-year-2019/

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, iNow said:

You mean TIME who in 2006 named “You!”  as person of the year? 

Nobody cares. 

(Aside: I put being named person of the year in my list of yearly accomplishments)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, YJ02 said:

I would say that Vague's project has the potential for physical impact

As  thesis projects by almost all graduate students. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CharonY said:

As  thesis projects by almost all graduate students. 

true. But as I said, she worked on an actual fix for part of the issue and Thunberg rallied people and spread a message. I think both are important

Vague wasn't on the nominee list, but you see how a right wing site, with people who may or may not believe in MMCC will throw the proverbial 'spaghetti at the wall' and see what sticks?

and though the final choice is with the editors, this year they went hard against the 'people's choice'. so, basically Greta won with just 2% of the vote..another indication- although an outlier- of just how much so many people believe in the 'kick the can down the road' methodology for dealing with climate change?

a TODAY show poll on the question

poy-poll_7efb74067421485a784a1907e9efc74f.fit-760w.PNG https://www.today.com/news/who-will-be-time-s-2019-person-year-see-shortlist-t169374

Edited by YJ02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.