One calendar year difference in LA area

[HALL85]

You will never grasp the idea that making changes today doesn't impact us for decades. We focus on changes today to impact 2050-2100. You can buy a beach house and enjoy it until you die.

More misrepresentation. Sure we can do things now, but we don’t have unlimited funds and I can question how material the impact might even be in 50 years.

And sure, spend $5 million knowing that the investment is going to disappear in a few decades. I am just not buying the doomsday predictions. The existential threat is China, Russia and Islamic terrorism….not climate change.

The market needs ROI. That's the problem with expecting the market to fix this on its own. There is no profit in helping mitigate a problem that is decades away. The only entities that has the incentive to do something now and governments.

I disagree. Innovation happens in a free market.

 

[Merge]

I am just not buying the doomsday predictions

Right. You ask where are the scientists and leaders, and I point out that they are small saying what is happening and what needs to be done and you just don’t buy it… because you don’t want to. It will never impact you personally so you don’t care if the projections are right or wrong.

The worst case scenario of me being wrong and the government spends billions to enhance our energy grid and adds wind and solar farms to support it all over the country is that we wasted money creating jobs, providing energy from sources that give us cleaner air and water… the worst case scenario of you being wrong is quite a bit worse.

I disagree. Innovation happens in a free market

The government is the one that can place the right incentives for it to work though, just like they did for oil companies when they needed breaks to make it profitable for them to explore and drill. Hell, oil and gas are still HEAVILY subsidized. An even playing field and renewables get a lot more attractive and favor in that alternatives are far better for the air, water and our health… it’s honestly crazy that this is even a debate.

But fossil fuel companies have spent Billions to convince people not to believe all of the scientists, and that we can’t possibly know what’s going to happen in the future, so it’s pointless to think about.

 

[HALL85]

Right. You ask where are the scientists and leaders, and I point out that they are small saying what is happening and what needs to be done and you just don’t buy it… because you don’t want to. It will never impact you personally so you don’t care if the projections are right or wrong.

The worst case scenario of me being wrong and the government spends billions to enhance our energy grid and adds wind and solar farms to support it all over the country is that we wasted money creating jobs, providing energy from sources that give us cleaner air and water… the worst case scenario of you being wrong is quite a bit worse.



The government is the one that can place the right incentives for it to work though, just like they did for oil companies when they needed breaks to make it profitable for them to explore and drill. Hell, oil and gas are still HEAVILY subsidized. An even playing field and renewables get a lot more attractive and favor in that alternatives are far better for the air, water and our health… it’s honestly crazy that this is even a debate.

But fossil fuel companies have spent Billions to convince people not to believe all of the scientists, and that we can’t possibly know what’s going to happen in the future, so it’s pointless to think about.

You just can’t respect differing opinions. I believe the role government should play is to ensure we have emery independence and that we have a portfolio of energy sources that mitigate risk from foreign threats. That priority should drive any government support or subsidies, rather than global warming predictions.

 

[Shaheton]

Right. You ask where are the scientists and leaders, and I point out that they are small saying what is happening and what needs to be done and you just don’t buy it… because you don’t want to. It will never impact you personally so you don’t care if the projections are right or wrong.

The worst case scenario of me being wrong and the government spends billions to enhance our energy grid and adds wind and solar farms to support it all over the country is that we wasted money creating jobs, providing energy from sources that give us cleaner air and water… the worst case scenario of you being wrong is quite a bit worse.



The government is the one that can place the right incentives for it to work though, just like they did for oil companies when they needed breaks to make it profitable for them to explore and drill. Hell, oil and gas are still HEAVILY subsidized. An even playing field and renewables get a lot more attractive and favor in that alternatives are far better for the air, water and our health… it’s honestly crazy that this is even a debate.

But fossil fuel companies have spent Billions to convince people not to believe all of the scientists, and that we can’t possibly know what’s going to happen in the future, so it’s pointless to think about.

Climate change is an important issue that needs to be addressed. just read some of the bills congress presents.
Scientists are funded by politicians.

There’s no doubt that we have made significant strides. Don’t hear much about the positive impacts.

 

[Rockaway]

Lack of population control was supposed to doom the world some like Paul Ehrilch argue in his book The Population Bomb in 1968.He predicted millions would starve to death.The first sentence said “ The battle to feed all of humanity is over “.Will the climate alarmists suffer a similar failed prophecy fate.China adopted the one child policy which has led to their long range populatiin decline problem which is good news for US since China 50;+ years from now will not be the super power they currently are.

 

[Merge]

You just can’t respect differing opinions.

This isn’t something that you and I can’t possibly know to be certain, so how are you developing your opinion? Who do you trust on the issue? I’m challenging your opinion (and get off the high horse here as if you don’t do the same thing on this board) because some of what you’re saying doesn’t make sense (to me).

You ask where are the scientists to convince people what the situation is but when I pointed out there is a large consensus on this issue from scientists telling us what we should be doing - you then say that scientists can be wrong sometimes or that they are scaring us, and how even Exxon’s scientists showed in the 1970s how much warming we will see by 2050. Asking where the scientists and them complaining they are using scare tactics doesn’t really make sense.

You talking about security and gaining energy independence as if focusing on reducing emissions hurts both but we already produce more than we consume, and transitioning away from relying on fossil fuels and investing more heavily in renewable energy sources only shores that up and makes us less susceptible to global supply shocks all while creating jobs, cleaner air, cleaner water etc…

You make it seem like those who want net zero emissions are saying we need to stop using oil and gas’s that’s not the case. We need all of it. Shifting from coal towards natural gas has lowered US emissions quite a bit.

Now, the other side of this is the in the scenario where the earth does warm to a point where even the skeptics acknowledge we need to do something, there will be other possibilities. We could drop a bomb in a volcano and it would cool the earth for years. We can pump solar blocking aerosols into the atmosphere and it would cool the earth for decades. There will be other things we will be able to do - those are obviously more drastic measures than investing in technologies that create jobs, and clean the air and water…

 

[Merge]

Scientists are funded by politicians.

Ideally in your view, who should be funding them?

There is certainly a lot of government funded studies from governments all across the world. I’m just not sure why people view their analysis with more skepticism than the studies and marketing and billions spent from the fossil fuel industries to convince people that global warming is not a threat.

 

[HALL85]

This isn’t something that you and I can’t possibly know to be certain, so how are you developing your opinion? Who do you trust on the issue? I’m challenging your opinion (and get off the high horse here as if you don’t do the same thing on this board) because some of what you’re saying doesn’t make sense (to me).

You ask where are the scientists to convince people what the situation is but when I pointed out there is a large consensus on this issue from scientists telling us what we should be doing - you then say that scientists can be wrong sometimes or that they are scaring us, and how even Exxon’s scientists showed in the 1970s how much warming we will see by 2050. Asking where the scientists and them complaining they are using scare tactics doesn’t really make sense.

Look, this issue about global warming and prioritizing it is obviously more important to you than me. I see more important issues that will put our survival at risk. (Foreign adversaries, terrorist attacks, even a potential civil war, etc.). I’d rather see us spend resources on these shorter term threats or else it really doesn’t matter what the temperature is outside.

You talking about security and gaining energy independence as if focusing on reducing emissions hurts both but we already produce more than we consume, and transitioning away from relying on fossil fuels and investing more heavily in renewable energy sources only shores that up and makes us less susceptible to global supply shocks all while creating jobs, cleaner air, cleaner water etc…

Once again, we should aim to be energy independent and a net exporter of fossil fuels if we can. I said before I support renewable sources especially if it helps to mitigate security risks.

You make it seem like those who want net zero emissions are saying we need to stop using oil and gas’s that’s not the case.

I never said that.

We need all of it.

I never disagreed with that, but I want national security to dictate governments role in managing a long term strategy.

Shifting from coal towards natural gas has lowered US emissions quite a bit.

Now, the other side of this is the in the scenario where the earth does warm to a point where even the skeptics acknowledge we need to do something, there will be other possibilities. We could drop a bomb in a volcano and it would cool the earth for years. We can pump solar blocking aerosols into the atmosphere and it would cool the earth for decades. There will be other things we will be able to do - those are obviously more drastic measures than investing in technologies that create jobs, and clean the air and water…

I support the creation of jobs but let the market drive that, not government (unless it is for national security like I said earlier).