Doug Casy on the Climate Change Hoax Part 2

[stand@desk]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03- ... oax-part-2

A different viewpoint on climate change!

The real reason for it is bigger government.

Money going to "fight climate change" just disappears into the Government abyss.

What I'd like to know is what has climate change action over the last 20 years done to change the climate? Whatever they have been doing it hasn't nearly been enough (because we just had our coldest winter in 40 years here), so how are we to trust that what they do in the next 20 will do anything?

Will action taken make our winters here warmer or colder? Impossible to really know I'd bet.

"Humans can have an effect on the planet, but not as major as the sun, volcanism, and other natural processes. The big danger isn’t climate change, it’s hysteria." and On Climate: "Absolutely nothing should be done about it. As I’ve tried to indicate, the climate has a life of its own."

The fact is that as technology improves – which is happening at the rate of Moore’s Law practically across the board – things become vastly more efficient, with much less waste.

[tonyedgecombe]

A different viewpoint on climate change!

No, it's the same old stuff from the climate change deniers.

[Jean]

I don't know about climate change (here we had the warmest february ever), but i don't see how raising taxes to keep paying growing interest will solve it.

[ZAFCorrection]

I kind of wonder if the existence or non-existence of climate change is being reasoned backwards from the proposed solutions. For whatever reason dealing with climate change became a progressive issue and their proposed solution was necessarily more government intervention. Since government intervention is bad, climate change must not exist.

Contrast if somehow the conservatives picked climate change out of the policy hat* and it became an issue of rugged self-reliance and conserving resources for future generations in the vein of Teddy Roosevelt. Maybe something along the lines of a less extreme ERE. Then climate change doesn't exist because dealing with it further impoverishes poor and stupid people.

*the source of all reasoned positions.

[Jean]

Complètement agree.

[C40]

yawn

[Tyler9000]

I don't know about climate change (here we had the warmest february ever), but i don't see how raising taxes to keep paying growing interest will solve it.

Yeah, I think the thing that got the biggest rise out of AOC's "Green New Deal" proposal even among the progressive left was the degree to which is was a transparently anti-capitalist manifesto wrapped in a green cloak. It actually did more harm than good to the true environmentalist movement.

IMO, it's ok to agree with the premise of the underlying climate science and to seek reasonable next steps to reduce our impact on the planet around us while rejecting the grand solutions of greedy politicians using hyperbolic doomsday scenarios to push their own economic agenda.

[Mister Imperceptible]

Yeah, I think the thing that got the biggest rise out of AOC's "Green New Deal" proposal even among the progressive left was the degree to which is was a transparently anti-capitalist manifesto wrapped in a green cloak. It actually did more harm than good to the true environmentalist movement.

The GND was anti- a lot of things. “Anti-personal responsibility” for one. “Ensure prosperity and economic security for all” and “promote justice and equity by stopping, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression.” And they pulled the “guarantee housing and healthcare for those unwilling to work” bit out of the FAQ sheet on AOC’s website but the fact that it even got far enough to get “accidentally” published shows what they are thinking about behind closed doors. Wtf does “racial equity” have to do with climate change?

You can suggest we need to address climate change but its adherents are not doing themselves any favors by mixing it up with magical thinking and identity politics.

[IlliniDave]

IMO, it's ok to agree with the premise of the underlying climate science and to seek reasonable next steps to reduce our impact on the planet around us while rejecting the grand solutions of greedy politicians using hyperbolic doomsday scenarios to push their own economic agenda.

That's true and well-put, but it is still deemed grounds for being branded a denier (i.e., heretic). I don't think the perceived heresy has anything to do with the science, it has to do with resisting the underlying political/power gambit. It is similar with the casual broadening in the use of -ophobes, -ists, and -isms. Even the act of participating in long-form critical discussions on many thrust-into-the-mainstream-by-progressivism topics is labeled an "alt-right" activity.

Unfortunately the tactic of using hyperbole along with strategic shaming to shut down discourse amplifies the platform of those on the other side of the issue who would use the same tactic, and the voices form sort of a barbell distribution where there is only shouting across vast gulfs.

[7Wannabe5]

The atmosphere doesn't give a flying f*ck whether we burn fossil fuel to build walls, prisons, hospitals or schools. Planting trees could maybe help a little.

[Jean]

Plant trees, restore our natural habitat.

[tonyedgecombe]

Same old climate change denial.

[ZAFCorrection]

@Augustus

Nevermind the environmental consequences which would necessarily be catastrophic*, 2000 ppm is way beyond what is recommended for indoor air quality.

https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre ... 2-in-rooms

*Also, I'm not entirely sure if there would be a net win in terms of arable land and productive plants, but you are talking about completely readjusting which areas of the world are inhabitable and which aren't. Most of the world's wealth is sitting in coastal cities, which would either be underwater or subject to continuous flooding. Evacuating all of them is not exactly a good trade-off for getting some "arable" arctic circle land with no topsoil.

[ZAFCorrection]

It seems even the people monitoring indoor air quality do not think it is totally fine. Also, saying the species survived or didn't survive different values of CO2 kinda sorta glosses over whether or not modern civilization could survive it. My understanding is people bringing up climate change generally don't bring up "everyone will literally die" as the first reason to combat it.

Also, your method of arguing is somewhat disingenuous. If you search around the galaxy at every point in time, you are bound to find something orders of magnitude more "catastrophic" than climate change on earth. That does not invalidate the usage of the word in this case.

[Mister Imperceptible]

We are in the interglacial period of the Quaternary Glaciation. I do not know how attributable the recent warming is to man, although I am sure Dr. Fisker would roll his eyes and instruct me to get a textbook.

I think it is very fragile to try and maintain a homeostasis. That does not mean just keep on doing what we are doing. But China is not going to prioritize reducing emissions over catching up with the US.

We have to embrace the volatility. If that means building cities at higher altitudes, so be it.

I do not know where the line is, between doing what we can to preserve finite resources, and grabbing at the available resources to compete with one another.

[IlliniDave]

Submariners typically live and work in environments with > 3000 ppm CO2. Dunno if it is optimally healthy or not, but they don't drop dead on the spot.

[Redo]

While I do agree that government is useless, and carbon taxes are just an excuse to collect more money, climate change is not a hoax. WTF, why is this still a debate? Do people not pay attention to the extreme weather that is worsening in the news? And even if climate change was a hoax, is overpopulation a hoax? Is overconsumption? Is air/water pollution? Microplastics in our bodies as well as every creature in the ocean? Global topsoil running out? Call it climate change, call it whatever you want, we need to fix these issues.

[Mister Imperceptible]

Maybe the solution to overpopulation is a secular humanism that leads to polyamory and the degradation of family values, advanced technology and globalization that leads to a power law distribution of wealth and the cost prohibitiveness of having children, central banking that crushes the spirit of the middle class and exacerbates said power law distribution of wealth, 5G radiation that roasts your testicles makes you infertile and gives you cancer, and doctors that prescribe opioids the minute your back is thrown out from shoveling snow because central banking made it too expensive for the middle class to pay the plow truck guy.

If that doesn’t work, there’s always nukes, smallpox, or a piece of nanotechnology slipped into your brain that makes you lie down in front of a lawnmower.

[Redo]

Maybe the solution to overpopulation is a secular humanism that leads to polyamory and the degradation of family values, advanced technology and globalization that leads to a power law distribution of wealth and the cost prohibitiveness of having children, central banking that crushes the spirit of the middle class and exacerbates said power law distribution of wealth, 5G radiation that roasts your testicles makes you infertile and gives you cancer, and doctors that prescribe opioids the minute your back is thrown out from shoveling snow because central banking made it too expensive for the middle class to pay the plow truck guy.

If that doesn’t work, there’s always nukes, smallpox, or a piece of nanotechnology slipped into your brain that makes you lie down in front of a lawnmower.

That's too easy, too obvious. Almost as obvious as using common sense to have less kids. We need to think outside the box here, we need some new super technology that will break the laws of physics and make the Earth quantum. That way people can have both 0 kids and 100 kids at the same time, we won't have to make any sacrifices.

[IlliniDave]

My understanding, which may be faulty, is that the elevated CO2 is the byproduct of a sub being a closed environment for significant stretches with a bunch of people breathing in it, not something that is set "artificially" high on purpose.