Again, that's fine. It's your choice... but at least understand what vaccines are designed to accomplish.
Again, that's fine. It's your choice... but at least understand what vaccines are designed to accomplish.
Quite telling that a discussion of global warming devolved into one on vaccination.
I remember when "science" was actually science, and not a belief system.
I remember when "science" was actually science, and not a belief system.
Yep… Bring up some provocative thoughts or solutions and the response is digging in heels and shouting down. Some of these people must be a lot of fun to work with.
Yep. The correlation between global warming alarmists and covid fanatics is strong.
The new religion. Replete with its own apocalyptic narrative, zealous evangelists, ruthless inquisitors seeking to excommunicate all heretics and a phalanx of martyrs willing to make material sacrifices for the higher cause.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Seriously. Is it though? The most passionate and extreme positions on climate change here can’t offer one suggestion on what to do. The only thing I see is “do something”. That’s not a strategy.
And vice versa?
I mean with hundreds of thousands of American deaths and millions world wide, I think it's pretty clear that you were wrong when you said this will blow over like SARS and MERS, right?
That doesn't mean you're wrong about global warming as well, but given that any action we take to reduce our potential impact on climate change results in many other positive results, it seems like it makes a ton of sense to do it anyway even if human activity impacting climate change is not material at all.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Whether you or I offer a strategy on piratecrew to mitigate climate change is irrelevant since we are not policy makers. The people who acknowledge the climate change on here are simply digesting the trends and warnings identified by some of the smartest people in our society known as scientists with their kids/grandkids future in mind. It is up to our elected officials to implement meaningfull changes on a large scale that will mitigate the climate change that is occurring from humans.
If you truly feel this is the major issue facing mankind, you would either have some ideas or have done some research and suggested. Instead of just shouting down someone who questions the extent that man has contributed to climate change and what we can really do if in fact it is a dire situation. It’s hard to support someone’s position when all they can suggest is “do something”.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
I think its pretty clear man has had a dramatic effect on climate when the temperature rise coincides with the industrial revolution. Could it be a coincidence? Possibly. I am more a believer of cause and effect.
I've read about the issue, but I'm not a scientist. Some ideas would be eliminating coal power plants worldwide, developing technology to mitigate carbon emissions from cars/airplane with a goal of net 0, wind & solar power, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well thanks for offering some ideas which is at least a starting point for a discussion. That has been the exception if you look back at this thread. Do you really think eliminating coal power plants worldwide is an achievable goal? China produces/consumes over 50% of the worlds coal.
Shouldn't have to apologize for not being a scientist. I'm no healthcare expert, but I have a lot of opinions....
Ladies and gentlemen, the most truthful post in the history of Piratecrew.
I agree. This guy is 100% not an expert in healthcare and 100% not involved in public health in any way.
My stance on global warming is that it’s a non-starter for ppl like Hall85 and other self-proclaimed selfish people until the WIIFM is established. Things such as direct property values losses and business negatively affected in a short window of time may work a little, good publicity for companies “going green” may move needle a bit too.
Start talking about grandkids, great grandkids and even worse, future generations not related to them the Scrooge comes out.
Think"; "believe"...these are not suggestive of actual indisputable scientific fact. No mystery as to why as "climate change" is nothing more than a hypothesis with an extremely checkered track record. (See image below).
In the end, in the absence of an authentic scientifically verifiable framework, one is left with nothing more than a system of values and beliefs. Eg a new religion.
Hold on. Let me clarify. I truly believe Hall85 understands many aspects of pharma and healthcare. That's not what makes me love him. It's his vast knowledge on every other topic that draws me to him like a moth to a flame. That, and a rolodex that must be 18 inches in diameter.
While I get your point, unless any of us here have the education and years of scientific analysis required to have an informed opinion here, all of us here really only have a couple choices.
1. Place trust that the scientists are doing their best to provide information based on their best methods available.
2. Place doubt on the scientists or believe that the scientists have been manipulated by some power to state things that are not true.
The problem is that there is not a scientifically verifiable framework for any of this. It is about probabilities and just like the weather when 90% of the models say it is going to be sunny - 1 time out of 10 it will rain. You will be fine 9 out of ten times and the one time out of ten you will be mad when you didn't bring an umbrella and be mad that the weather prediction was "wrong". On that 1 day, they verified the models that said it was going to rain were correct, but that doesn't mean those models are more reliable than the models that said it was going to be sunny.
Right now scientists are modeling global temperature changes over the next several decades with carbon emissions as one of their variables. Based on that modeling, it is the general consensus now that the earth is warming and human activity is playing a part and if we reduce carbon emissions, the modeling suggests that we will reduce our impact to global temperature increases.
I get the skepticism, but investing heavily in clean energy which will create jobs and provide a cleaner environment has very little downside (if any) even if the scientists are wrong about climate change. Not sure why so many are content to just let China dominate the renewable industry either.
I think there is a difference between letting the market drive innovation and change for a cleaner environment, improved efficiencies, etc., vs. creating scare tactics based on projecting scientific studies with a great deal of uncertainty. If building electric cars creates a better environment and improves our competitive standing in the world, I'm all for that. We have some innovative companies that are doing that (and also looking at hydrogen fuel cell technology which may leapfrog electric vehicles at some point.). The markets/investors are betting on companies like Tesla. Good old capitalism. We should do everything we can to advance our competitive edge vs. China. Other countries are; companies here in the U.S. are.
Why do we have to scare people with inconclusive scientific data and prop up children like Greta Thornburg?
If the problem were obvious and short term, I agree. But the market just isn't going fix a problem that is 20,30 or 50 years away (if there is one) though. Without government intervention, we will just keep kicking the can down the road and leave it for the next generation to fix.
You have to project scientific studies to project what the uncertain future looks like, and these are all best guesses based on probability. Just because the projections present a scary path, that doesn't mean we shouldn't tell people what the path of not doing enough might look like - Certain or not.
So are you saying that the problem is not as dire as the U.N. study is indicating?
What government intervention would you suggest in this example of electric vehicles? How would they speed to market what the market is already doing?
And assuming that going to 100% EV's in the U.S. is doable by a future date, shouldn't we have those same scientists project what the impact would be on reducing the global temperature increase?
Your post reflects a sincerely held belief in climate theory and a reverential attitude to "scientists" (the new clericalism?) but not much that's tangible.
"Scientists" are just as prone to ideology, careerism and pressure to conform to agendas as any other profession. As far as models go, all I can say is that you need to posess an extremely high degree of faith and trust to believe in models. Not sure the climate modelers have any better demonstrated accuracy than some of the fringe televangelists peddling their own flavor of doomsday prophecies.
In any case, it is your right as an American to hold your own beliefs on climate scenarios. I don't seek to dissuade you as much as to point out that, as a "climate rationalist," I myself fail to muster up the same degree of faith, trust and confidence in "scientists" and "models".
Is it really?
Value system of old religion: God>Man>Nature
Value system of new religion: Nature>Man>God
I am all for electric cars, solar panels, windmills, etc if they will help keep our planet in better shape.
But do all these people worried about the dire warnings, do they order items every day items every day with Amazon Prime and worry about the amount of damage that does to environment? Drink Fiji bottled water? Have homes at the beach? Do they get the newest iPhone every year? Have big house and run AC all summer? Use fertilizers on their nice front lawns?
We should all do things to protect the environment whether you believe in climate change or not. But by same token, lots of people like to point fingers and place blame, but have no solutions and in end are hypocrites because focus on one clean item while doing many other things that are also bad for environment.
But do all these people worried about the dire warnings, do they order items every day items every day with Amazon Prime and worry about the amount of damage that does to environment? Drink Fiji bottled water? Have homes at the beach? Do they get the newest iPhone every year? Have big house and run AC all summer? Use fertilizers on their nice front lawns?
We should all do things to protect the environment whether you believe in climate change or not. But by same token, lots of people like to point fingers and place blame, but have no solutions and in end are hypocrites because focus on one clean item while doing many other things that are also bad for environment.
No. The study is suggesting that we have to act relatively soon to avoid a path which has catastrophic consequences decades years down the line.
On EV's specifically. We’re getting to where we should have been a decade ago, and much of it is because of government spending and incentivizing purchasing these vehicles. We still need expansion of charging networks. That is happening in some spots, but again - government doesn’t have to worry about the ROI of funding rapid expansion here.
Still need advancements in battery production, storage and how quickly we can charge batteries, so grants and investments into developing the next generation of EV vehicles. Including trucks and buses.
Exxon did their own internal report 40 years ago on what global temperatures would be next year noting that carbon emissions was driving the increase and pretty much got it exactly correct.
the scientists I am referring to though are preparing studies that are peer reviewed. True scientists welcome criticism and debate, and there has been plenty of debate over the last couple decades as we watch the predictions of 20 years ago actually happening.
If you don’t want to trust the peer review process, that’s fine. I choose to believe they are doing the best they can. I don’t expect them to be 100% correct. I expect them to come up with the best analysis and adjust when needed.
I think you nailed exactly my point here.
Free market won’t fix this because people don’t see the problem in front of them. If global warming truly does present an existential problem that’s 50 years away, but requires action now... that is just not something humans are willing to do. They (we) would only make changes if we were forced to.
I’m not perfect here, I try to consider the planet when making decisions... but I do drive an electric vehicle for example not just because it is better for the environment but because it was subsidized by the government and ended up being cheaper than other cars I was considering at the time. Same should happen with all things that are better for the environment.
Last edited:
Isn’t that how the markets works? There’s lots of money that gets invested in these technologies (stock market, private equity, venture capital, etc). What’s the difference of whether a company gets a government grant vs. a capital infusion from the private markets? Just trying to understand how governments involvement will make this happen any faster.
And as I asked before, if we get to 100% EV’s to what degree will this slow the warming trend.
I would also argue, if we are really trying to save the earth, wouldn’t we look to move toward mass transit EV solutions?
Lots they could do to build the network before there is demand. Don’t have to worry about the ROI.
I appreciate your question on EV’s, but it’s not quite that simple. It also depends (fairly heavily) on where that energy is coming from. That is why this topic is talked about in decades, not years. We need to revamp our entire energy infrastructure to get to where we need to be.
Yes?
Unfortunately our political system and process is set up for this type of long-range planning and collaboration. First thing that needs to get done to make this a reality, is get the money out of politics. None of this is going to happen as long as there are special interests that can influence a long range plan. Both sides shout at each other and pocket money in the process.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
To answer your questions-
I try not to use Amazon, I'd rather support stores in my town. Some stuff is only available online though.
Dont drink Fiji bottled water
Dont have a beach house
My phone is 5 years old with a cracked screen. I get a good chuckle from those that buy a new phone every year.
I live in a 1200 sq. Ft. Home (officially it's less than that, but I finished basement) well below my means. I did put in central air, minimal increase in my electric bill since house is small. It wont be my forever home but I dont have a desire for anything over 1800-2000 sq ft.
Last edited by a moderator:
I disagree with this completely. If the free market can make better options than what they are currently using and that are better for the environment people would glady switch. The problem you see is the free market is flat out beating these eco friendly products big time. People tend to buy the best product. As a result the best products tend to win. Don't just create better eco friendly products, create elite products that are also eco friendly.
The same holds true for Made in the USA. I have friends that won't buy anything but a toyota or lexus because of how good the cars are and how long they last. If they felt Ford or GM was a better product they'd gladly switch and would be happy to buy Made in the USA. Ford and GM improving their products is not good enough for those customers. They have to raise it above toyota.
China and Vietnam aren't exactly helping the polution going into the atmosphere, when does Nike bring everything home to be made in the USA. When will people stop buying products produced in those countries?
Last edited:
But we have to pay for the innovation. I don't really blame someone who can't afford to pay an environmentally friendly premium.
People don't just want the best product. They want the best produce in a certain price range. Innovation makes things prohibitively expensive in a free market when the environmentally unfriendly product is cheap. The only way to change the equation there is through government funding and/or inceptives.
Side note - Electric cars are so much better unless you go on frequent longer distance trips. I will be interested to see how well the Ford F-150 lightning sells. It's made in America, better than it's gas counterpart and with incentives will be priced well to compete with the gas f-150.
Yes some cannot afford it, it's true. The majority probably can. See whose buying $1,000 cell phones annually or every 2 years. If the products are so good people will find a way to make that happen. I've met many people who can't afford Catholic grammar school yet drive BMWs.
Similar threads
