PowerStroker wrote:

---

I never said Earth would end in 12 years, and I'm happy to pay for my pollution costs for the convenience of driving to work.

---

Your side keeps making the claim...

This I did not say it is bullshit...you support the side that is LYING ABOUT IT...

So now the pollution is fine, we can emit ALL THE CARBON WE WANT, just for a fee....lol

Well it's like this PowerStroker, a simple test will give you an immediate answer!

What you do is shit in one hand and dream/speculate in the other... let us know which hand fills up first!

PowerStroker wrote:

---

Nuffan wrote:

---

 

I do not think artificially raising the cost will do anything to solve the problem REGARDLESS of where the money goes...

I think we're getting to the truth here finally. The government being incompetent is a smoke screen for you to not want to pay for your pollution at all. You could have just said as much.

Added humans come with added carbon emissions? are we going to tax people for exhaling?

No need to be silly, breathing is a necessary function for life, burning fossil fuels isn't. 

 

---

 

---

I have said as much...and the reason I keep repeating it is because giving money to ANYONE ELSE is going to do NOTHING about our climate changing...

Our government is VERY incompetent..they continue to prove it over and over...

your notion that burning fossil fuels is not necessary is naive at best....

PowerStroker wrote:

---

I said it's not necessary to burn fossil fuels to live, as evidenced by most of human history. I did not say at any point that modern society could not do without it presently.

When I asked you for a suggestion on how to solve the problem, you suggested that we (humans) stop cutting down trees. That's all fine and good, but you didn't suggest how that could be accomplished. Whereas a great many people make their living by cutting down trees, it would seem that at some point money would need to be spent in some manner to get them to stop. Whether through socialism - paying them not to cut down trees, or through capitalism - buying the land the trees are on and protecting it from logging. Either way costs money, unless I'm missing some part of your master plan.

FDR warned us about people like you:

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Tuesday 23rd of April 2019 09:51:07 PM

---

This is WHAT you said

 breathing is a necessary function for life, burning fossil fuels isn't. 

presently it is necessary...

also not all trees are cut to sell the resource, some are cut to simply clear room for MORE HUMANS...

PS...I did not cut down a single tree this week...I am doing my part....lmao

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8936896/brazil-arara-tribe-bows-arrows-government-forces-invading-rainforest-home/

Last I checked the seas rose and fell once a day, EVERY DAY!

But that's just because it's normal and can be measured easily by anyone with more than a day of time to spend on a beach by the sea. 

You know, I have always thought maybe my wife was part alien... sometimes when she has had too much fermented grape juice she will actually say she is.... 

Not sure what to think of this... 

But at least it has a supporting link, so it must be true! LOL

PowerStroker wrote:

---

I didn't say that either. By adding the cost of carbon emissions in to the cost of energy, the free market will more quickly guide us toward cleaner sources.

Your side says climate change isn't real, so who is lying?

---

So when a LIBERAL State like Illinois wants to charge Total Electric Car owners $1000 Annually? what does that do for the free market? 

I am still laughing on how anyone proposes that government mandate allows the "FREE MARKET" to remain FREE much less make anything happen more quickly....ROFLMAO

PowerStroker wrote:

---

I'm not aware of what Illinois is doing, but it doesn't sound like a good incentive based on your description.

With regard to the second part, I would ask that you forget the government part for a second, and focus more on how free markets respond to anything when hidden costs are subsidized by taxpayers instead of being paid for up front. Government or no, whenever that happens, the free market won't deal with the problem.

---

Free Market will always self correct...

You fell for that bullshit narrative...

for over 50 years they have been selling a narrative and every 10-15 years they change the narrative as the old narrative proves to be false...

they have been selling people like you that oceans are rising due to melting icebergs...only they're not...tide goes in and out all the time...but the sea levels are not getting higher...

PowerStroker wrote:

---

Nuffan wrote:

---

 

Free Market will always self correct...

Possibly, but ONLY if it is truly a free market. So long as pollution costs are subsidized by the taxpayer, it's not truly a free market and the self correction theory won't apply because the market has no incentive to stop bilking the taxpayer. Therefore we should either take steps to make it a truly free market by adding pollution costs to the commodities that cause said pollution, or accept the fact the market isn't free, and enact appropriate government regulations instead. 

You fell for that bullshit narrative...

Is narrative your favorite word in the whole wide world?

for over 50 years they have been selling a narrative and every 10-15 years they change the narrative as the old narrative proves to be false...

The self-correction properties of free markets is a narrative too you know. It's one you not only bought in to, but made your religion. It may now even be part of your DNA. It's like Ayn Rand's soul found a fresh new meat sack named Nuffan to occupy... Like a deregulation sausage if you will.

they have been selling people like you that oceans are rising due to melting icebergs...only they're not...tide goes in and out all the time...but the sea levels are not getting higher...

NASA disagrees and says they are already an average of 3 inches higher since 1992. Where are you getting your info so I can compare their credibility with NASA please? ... Just to make sure I don't need to self correct my beliefs due to bad info.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2329/nasa-zeroes-in-on-ocean-rise-how-much-how-soon/

---

 

---

Unfortunately NASA is a government funded agency which has a vested interest in keeping their funding flowing by backing the narrative...

Climate Change has been selling end of the world since I was a child...I remember in the early 1980's being told the Florida peninsula will disappear by the year 2000 if we do not do something NOW!!!!!

Yet here we are almost 20 years past the mark and no noticeable change in sea levels...and yes they were using data from NASA in the 1980's as well...

Not particularly a fan of Ayn Rand...

Actually the self correction of free markets was a science until the liberal left took over higher education...

Hell Wharton's now teaches government stimulus is GOOD for the economy...

and we know beyond any doubt that is a complete lie...it has been proven over and over...

But since you are so fucking lost in the left wing narrative...here is one to ponder...

if icebergs were truly melting at the rate climate scientist are claiming sea levels would be several feet higher...not simply three inches...

as stated it was claimed by climate scientist we would lose Florida by the year 2000 some 50 years ago...

Hey it is a FREE COUNTRY you can believe whatever bullshit you like....

What you can not do is force me to go along with the bullshit...lol

Yeah the Illinois proposal to charge that much extra for electric vehicles is a dumbass idea.

I'm still waiting to hear where you are getting your climate facts from so I can compare their credibility with that of NASA.

With regard to melting icebergs they must be thought of as an ice cube in a glass of water... When floating icebergs melt it doesn't raise sea level, But when land based glaciers melt it does.

You may not believe anything is melting, but Mike Pompeo, someone you helped to empower sure does. He sees it as a business opportunity. In cases like this, the free market not only doesn't self-correct, it actively seeks to destroy the planet in the name of maximizing profits.  https://earther.gizmodo.com/u-s-refuses-to-recognize-threat-of-arctic-climate-chan-1834580141 

It's as if Earth itself was traded on the stock market, and those who buy shorts are praying for the failure of Earth so they can make a quick buck - it's sick really.

New York Times

Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science

WASHINGTON President Trump has rolled back environmental regulations, pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord, brushed aside dire predictions about the effects of climate change, and turned the term global warming into a punch line rather than a prognosis.

Now, after two years spent unraveling the policies of his predecessors, Mr. Trump and his political appointees are launching a new assault.

In the next few months, the White House will complete the rollback of the most significant federal effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, initiated during the Obama administration. It will expand its efforts to impose Mr. Trumps hard-line views on other nations, building on his retreat from the Paris accord and his recent refusal to sign a communiquéto protect the rapidly melting Arctic region unless it was stripped of any references to climate change.

And, in what could be Mr. Trumps most consequential action yet, his administration will seek to undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests.

[Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up here for Climate Fwd:, our email newsletter.]

Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter

Mr. Trump is less an ideologue than an armchair naysayer about climate change, according to people who know him. He came into office viewing agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency as bastions of what he calls the deep state, and his contempt for their past work on the issue is an animating factor in trying to force them to abandon key aspects of the methodology they use to try to understand the causes and consequences of a dangerously warming planet.

As a result, parts of the federal government will no longer fulfill what scientists say is one of the most urgent jobs of climate science studies: reporting on the future effects of a rapidly warming planet and presenting a picture of what the earth could look like by the end of the century if the global economy continues to emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution from burning fossil fuels.

The attack on science is underway throughout the government. In the most recent example, the White House-appointed director of the United States Geological Survey, James Reilly, a former astronaut and petroleum geologist, has ordered that scientific assessments produced by that office use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously.

Scientists say that would give a misleading picture because the biggest effects of current emissions will be felt after 2040. Models show that the planet will most likely warm at about the same rate through about 2050. From that point until the end of the century, however, the rate of warming differs significantly with an increase or decrease in carbon emissions.

The administrations prime target has been the National Climate Assessment, produced by an interagency task force roughly every four years since 2000. Government scientists used computer-generated models in their most recent report to project that if fossil fuel emissions continue unchecked, the earths atmosphere could warm by as much as eight degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. That would lead to drastically higher sea levels, more devastating storms and droughts, crop failures, food losses and severe health consequences.

Work on the next report, which is expected to be released in 2021 or 2022, has already begun. But from now on, officials said, such worst-case scenario projections will not automatically be included in the National Climate Assessment or in some other scientific reports produced by the government.

What we have here is a pretty blatant attempt to politicize the science to push the science in a direction thats consistent with their politics, said Philip B. Duffy, the president of the Woods Hole Research Center, who served on a National Academy of Sciences panel that reviewed the governments most recent National Climate Assessment. It reminds me of the Soviet Union.

In an email, James Hewitt, a spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency, defended the proposed changes.

The previous use of inaccurate modeling that focuses on worst-case emissions scenarios, that does not reflect real-world conditions, needs to be thoroughly re-examined and tested if such information is going to serve as the scientific foundation of nationwide decision-making now and in the future, Mr. Hewitt said.

However, the goal of political appointees in the Trump administration is not just to change the climate assessments methodology, which has broad scientific consensus, but also to question its conclusions by creating a new climate review panel. That effort is led by a 79-year-old physicist who had a respected career at Princeton but has become better known in recent years for attacking the science of man-made climate change and for defending the virtues of carbon dioxide sometimes to an awkward degree.

The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler, said the physicist, William Happer, who serves on the National Security Council as the presidents deputy assistant for emerging technologies.

Mr. Happers proposed panel is backed by John R. Bolton, the presidents national security adviser, who brought Mr. Happer into the N.S.C. after an earlier effort to recruit him during the transition.

Mr. Happer and Mr. Bolton are both beneficiaries of Robert and Rebekah Mercer, the far-right billionaire and his daughter who have funded efforts to debunk climate science. The Mercers gave money to a super PAC affiliated with Mr. Bolton before he entered government and to an advocacy group headed by Mr. Happer.

Climate scientists are dismissive of Mr. Happer; his former colleagues at Princeton are chagrined. And several White House officials including Larry Kudlow, the presidents chief economic adviser have urged Mr. Trump not to adopt Mr. Happers proposal, on the grounds that it would be perceived as a White House attack on science.

Even Stephen K. Bannon, the former White House strategist who views Mr. Happer as the climate hustlers worst nightmare a world-class physicist from the nations leading institution of advanced learning, who does not suffer fools gladly, is apprehensive about what Mr. Happer is trying to do.

The very idea will start a holy war on cable before 2020, he said. Better to win now and introduce the study in the second inaugural address.

But at a White House meeting on May 1, at which the skeptical advisers made their case, Mr. Trump appeared unpersuaded, people familiar with the meeting said. Mr. Happer, they said, is optimistic that the panel will go forward.

The concept is not new. Mr. Trump has pushed to resurrect the idea of a series of military-style exercises, known as red team, blue team debates, on the validity of climate science first promoted by Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. administrator who was forced to resign last year amid multiple scandals.

At the time, the idea was shot down by John F. Kelly, then the White House chief of staff. But since Mr. Kellys departure, Mr. Trump has talked about using Mr. Happers proposed panel as a forum for it.

For Mr. Trump, climate change is often the subject of mockery. Wouldnt be bad to have a little of that good old fashioned Global Warming right now! he posted on Twitter in January when a snowstorm was freezing much of the country.

His views are influenced mainly by friends and donors like Carl Icahn, the New York investor who owns oil refineries, and the oil-and-gas billionaire Harold Hamm both of whom pushed Mr. Trump to deregulate the energy industry.

Mr. Trumps daughter Ivanka made a well-publicized effort to talk him out of leaving the Paris accord in 2017. But after being vanquished by officials including Mr. Bannon, Mr. Pruitt, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II, there is little evidence she has resisted his approach since then.

The presidents advisers amplify his disregard. At the meeting of the eight-nation Arctic Council this month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo dismayed fellow diplomats by describing the rapidly warming region as a land of opportunity and abundance because of its untapped reserves of oil, gas, uranium, gold, fish and rare-earth minerals. The melting sea ice, he said, was opening up new shipping routes.

That is one of the most crude messages one could deliver, said R. Nicholas Burns, who served as the NATO ambassador under George W. Bush.

At the National Security Council, under Mr. Bolton, officials said they had been instructed to strip references to global warming from speeches and other formal statements. But such political edicts pale in significance to the changes in the methodology of scientific reports.

Mr. Reilly, the head of the Geological Survey, who does not have a background in climate change science, characterized the changes as an attempt to prepare more careful, accurate reports. Were looking for answers with our partners and to get statistical significance from what we understand, he said.

Yet scientists said that by eliminating the projected effects of increased carbon dioxide pollution after 2040, the Geological Survey reports would present an incomplete and falsely optimistic picture of the impact of continuing to burn unlimited amounts of coal, oil and gasoline.

The scenarios in these reports that show different outcomes are like going to the doctor, who tells you, If you dont change your bad eating habits, and you dont start to exercise, youll need a quadruple bypass, but if you do change your lifestyle, youll have a different outcome, said Katharine Hayhoe, the director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University and an author of the National Climate Assessment.

Not all government science agencies are planning such changes. A spokesman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, asked if its scientists would limit the use of climate models, wrote in an email, No changes are being considered at this time.

The push to alter the results of at least some climate science reports, several officials said, came after Novembers release of the second volume of the National Climate Assessment.

While the Trump administration did not try to rewrite the scientific conclusions of the report, officials sought to play it down  releasing it the day after Thanksgiving  and discredit it, with a White House statement calling it largely based on the most extreme scenario.

Still, the report could create legal problems for Mr. Trumps agenda of abolishing regulations. This summer, the E.P.A. is expected to finalize the legal rollback of two of President Barack Obamas most consequential policies: federal regulations to curb planet-warming pollution from vehicle tailpipes and power plant smokestacks.

Opponents say that when they challenge the moves in court, they intend to point to the climate assessment, asking how the government can justify the reversals when its own agencies have concluded that the pollution will be so harmful.

That is why officials are now discussing how to influence the conclusions of the next National Climate Assessment.

Theyve started talking about how they can produce a report that doesnt lead to some silly alarmist predictions about the future, said Myron Ebell, who heads the energy program at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-funded research organization, and who led the administrations transition at the E.P.A.

A key change, he said, would be to emphasize historic temperatures rather than models of future atmospheric temperatures, and to eliminate the worst-case scenarios of the effect of increased carbon dioxide pollution sometimes referred to as business as usual scenarios because they imply no efforts to curb emissions.

Scientists said that eliminating the worst-case scenario would give a falsely optimistic picture. Nobody in the world does climate science like that, said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton. It would be like designing cars without seatbelts or airbags.

Outside the United States, climate scientists had long given up on the White House being anything but on outlier in policy. But they worry about the loss of the government as a source for reliable climate research.

It is very unfortunate and potentially even quite damaging that the Trump administration behaves this way, said Johan Rockström, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. There is this arrogance and disrespect for scientific advancement this very demoralizing lack of respect for your own experts and agencies.

I don't see climate change as anything but a money/power grab by the Liberals. No amount of money is going to change the weather, and no amount of money is going to stop natural disasters from happening. 

I see the climate issue as nothing but a way for idiot liberals to put in place more taxes! Nothing more and nothing less.