Corruption by UN head of climate change

[killacs]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

[quote] No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN

[killacs]

How do we get the copy paste to work grrrr

Jist of it, guy isn't even an actual scientist and has great financial interests in the green movement.

[X Bones X]

So this is what you read behind your riot shield?

[rank is dumb]

Didn't Jesse Ventura's conspricy theory do a show on this a couple weeks back? Going as far as flying in some lady who feld the country for a interveiw lol

[killacs]

So this is what you read behind your riot shield?
Ya that and other things. Guess you could say I'm a "tin foil hatter" lol. I'm also on the we didn't get the whole story behind 9/11, the FED is destroying the country, and the NWO. We shall see what else turns out to be true or not.



Didn't Jesse Ventura's conspricy theory do a show on this a couple weeks back? Going as far as flying in some lady who feld the country for a interveiw lol
They did indeed though I'm not certain that lady was the global warming episode, she might have been.

[RicoVacilon]

I hate how serious problems like this get corrupted and politicized by everyone involved. Meanwhile the problem continues. That was a depressing story.

[killacs]

I hate how serious problems like this get corrupted and politicized by everyone involved. Meanwhile the problem continues. That was a depressing story.

I hope you don't still believe climate change is man made...

[rank is dumb]

I hope you don't still believe climate change is man made...

We still have problems with our waste and the earths ablity to consume it.. Those issues need addressed or our food chain will drasticly change! We will lose many many sources of food of we do not change our ways..

[killacs]

We still have problems with our waste and the earths ablity to consume it.. Those issues need addressed or our food chain will drasticly change! We will lose many many sources of food of we do not change our ways..

That wasn't the question at all

[RicoVacilon]

I hope you don't still believe climate change is man made...

Yea, you're right. That seventh grade level science is pretty tough to wrap your head around. . .

[killacs]

Yea, you're right. That seventh grade level science is pretty tough to wrap your head around. . .

The corruption and agendas behind the people pushing man made climate change is insane, they're using it as a means to get rich (in most cases richer).

Want some more data? How about where in their studies they left off a 400 year warming period from the times when places like Greenland where inhabited.

I don't doubt climate change is happening, I doubt it is man made.

[BigD]

The corruption and agendas behind the people pushing man made climate change is insane, they're using it as a means to get rich (in most cases richer).

Want some more data? How about where in their studies they left off a 400 year warming period from the times when places like Greenland where inhabited.

I don't doubt climate change is happening, I doubt it is man made.

We do have a negative effect on our environment. We have to take some responsibility for the damage that we have done, but most of the negative information that we hear about is way overblown! Most of the climate change would happen with or without human interference.

[conviction]

Yea, you're right. That seventh grade level science is pretty tough to wrap your head around. . .

Can you please stop acting like there is a scientific consensus please

[killacs]

Can you please stop acting like there is a scientific consensus please

Some scientists are worried about cooling some about warming. I read a report that we might be in the midst of a 30 year cooling period. IE: no one klnows their azz from a hole in the ground.

[RicoVacilon]

The corruption and agendas behind the people pushing man made climate change is insane, they're using it as a means to get rich (in most cases richer).

While it's despicable, it doesn't change the evidence or the viability of the theory.


I don't doubt climate change is happening, I doubt it is man made.

How can we pump as much man-made greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and expect there NOT to be an effect? That's just ludicrous. You can argue the quantitive nature of the effect, but to argue qualitatively that it doesn't exist seems awfully untenable.

[RicoVacilon]

Can you please stop acting like there is a scientific consensus [sic] please

Except there IS a scientific concensus. You don't need unanymity to have a concensus.

[Gtrght77]

I hope you don't still believe climate change is man made...

I don't see how human greed makes climate change any less real.

[RicoVacilon]

Some scientists are worried about cooling some about warming. I read a report that we might be in the midst of a 30 year cooling period. IE: no one klnows their azz from a hole in the ground.

You didn't read more than the headline, did you? Because the scientist who said that said it would be a 30 year year cooling period before the climate resumes it's MAN MADE INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE. lol Gotta be careful what evidence you cite. Just might bite you in the ***.

[Gtrght77]

Whether it is man made or a natural cycle doesn't change the impact it will have on civilization when it gets worse.

[killacs]

I don't see how human greed makes climate change any less real.
Greed makes the idea that human made climate change less real when the people who are pushing climate change stand to make millions from having their changes passes.

You didn't read more than the headline, did you? Because the scientist who said that said it would be a 30 year year cooling period before the climate resumes it's MAN MADE INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE. lol Gotta be careful what evidence you cite. Just might bite you in the ***.

lol, how about this one the sun is having increased solar activity which can cause changes in our climate. Let me guess we are responsible for the sun's increased activity too?

btw way to ignore the idea that certain climate change scientists tend to leave out the 400 year warming period. Manipulation of data can be done to show anything.

[killacs]

Whether it is man made or a natural cycle doesn't change the impact it will have on civilization when it gets worse.

Agreed, I'll never deny that. I doubt highly it is man made, there is too much that has come out to show the shadiness of those in charge.

[sideoutshu]

How do we get the copy paste to work grrrr

Jist of it, guy isn't even an actual scientist and has great financial interests in the green movement.

As does Al Gore. Go figure.:rolleyes:

[killacs]

As does Al Gore. Go figure.:rolleyes:

Mr private jet first class flying while filming Inconvenient Truth and his $30,000 a year electric bill. But we gotta reduce carbon emissions or we're all doooomed :rolleyes:

[BigD]

Mr private jet first class flying while filming Inconvenient Truth and his $30,000 a year electric bill. But we gotta reduce carbon emissions or we're all doooomed :rolleyes:

He is a "do as I say not as I do" kind of person. Come to think of it most politicians are that way.

[RicoVacilon]

Ad hominem attacks are fallacious for a reason.

[killacs]

Ad hominem attacks are fallacious for a reason.

lol that is the best you got? I'm sorry I have a hard time believing someone when they make millions upon millions and are set to make even more all the while their actions continue to contradict what they are saying.

All I hear from you as you again dodged the warming period that is left is "Baaaaaaa"

8787

[RicoVacilon]

lol that is the best you got?

No, it's not. I already gave you the best there is--seventh grade science class.

[killacs]

No, it's not. I already gave you the best there is--seventh grade science class.

You continue to say this yet there is dispute among scientists, proof that scientists altered data to better reflect their agenda, proof that people in positions of power for man made climate change stand to make millions. What more do you need? You going to keep spouting off seventh grade science like it means something?

[RicoVacilon]

You going to keep spouting off seventh grade science like it means something?

It doesn't mean something? Because it's seventh grade means it is somehow "untrue" now? Even though I learned how to spell "cat" in kindergarten, it's still spelled "cat."

[killacs]

It doesn't mean something? Because it's seventh grade means it is somehow "untrue" now? Even though I learned how to spell "cat" in kindergarten, it's still spelled "cat."

Why don't you go ahead and explain to me how the seventh grade science means ANYTHING when data has been altered to fit the agenda? I don't know why I keep giving you the time of day but.

Corruption at head of UN check - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

What is this? CO2 is irrelevant in debate? This comes from MIT? Check - http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist

Climategate, more corruption by the heads of this movement. Check - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-change

Altered data while throwing away the original? You best believe! Check - http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/282951

Lack of consensus? Check - http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7 but wait didn't you say there was consensus earlier? :o


Except there IS a scientific concensus. You don't need unanymity to have a concensus.

That IS what you said. Wow ok so no consensus got it. Also Climategate emails on record with guys saying they will do whatever it takes to keep their peer reviewed positive warming trended articles in the forefront. Lucy you gots some explainin to do

At this time I cannot locate the 400 year warming period left off, I'm waiting on a friend to get back to me with it. I'll leave you with this instead, remember the 70s and the threat of another ice age? Fear mongering is nothing new my friend.

Now are you going to continue and spew off one line or actually respond with something that has substance.

[killacs]

This isn't the exact link I remember but it'll do.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths#3

so between 800 and 1300 AD it was SEVERAL degrees warming than today. Yet you're telling me what happens today is man made?

[RicoVacilon]

Corruption at head of UN check - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

Already read it.


What is this? CO2 is irrelevant in debate? This comes from MIT? Check - http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist

You're citing the Portland Civil Rights Examiner?


Altered data while throwing away the original? You best believe! Check - http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/282951

Digital Journal? Seriously?


Lack of consensus? Check - http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7 but wait didn't you say there was consensus earlier? :o

It mentions 10 dissenting opinions. That doesn't mean there isn't consensus. You know what consensus means, right?


Now are you going to continue and spew off one line or actually respond with something that has substance.

Seventh grade science--I learned about the greenhouse effect. It's what keeps us alive. Did YOU learn about it? Greenhouse gasses prevent all of the radiated heat from escaping the atmosphere. More greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere mean more radiated heat is contained within the atmosphere. Less greenhouse gasses mean more radiated heat escapes the atmosphere.

I would say this is "elementary" but it's more junior high.

[killacs]

Already read it.



You're citing the Portland Civil Rights Examiner?



Digital Journal? Seriously?



It mentions 10 dissenting opinions. That doesn't mean there isn't consensus. You know what consensus means, right?



Seventh grade science--I learned about the greenhouse effect. It's what keeps us alive. Did YOU learn about it? Greenhouse gasses prevent all of the radiated heat from escaping the atmosphere. More greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere mean more radiated heat is contained within the atmosphere. Less greenhouse gasses mean more radiated heat escapes the atmosphere.

I would say this is "elementary" but it's more junior high.

lol @ you calling out where I got the articles from. A simple google search with the name of the article shows plenty of different places reporting the article.

I know what consensus is, it is the majority opinion. Now when people in charge are found out to be pushing their agenda driven peer reviews ahead of everyone else that doesn't exactly make it consensus does it?

Again the 7th grade science, I know about greenhouse effect. I also see stuff coming from other respected scientist telling us man made is a bunch of hogwash. Let me point you to Venus. It should have a temperature roughly that of Earth's. Instead it is about as hot as Mercury. How can this be? Greenhouse effect. You going to tell me man is responsible for that one? Greenhouse effect is something that can naturally occur regardless of what people do.

Like I said before, the clear money agenda driven man made climate change is a bunch of bull

Also way to totally ignore Climategate. Kind of destroys your consensus idea when certain scientists are keeping their articles up and others down.

[RicoVacilon]

Again the 7th grade science, I know about greenhouse effect. I also see stuff coming from other respected scientist telling us man made is a bunch of hogwash. Let me point you to Venus. It should have a temperature roughly that of Earth's. Instead it is about as hot as Mercury. How can this be? Greenhouse effect. You going to tell me man is responsible for that one? Greenhouse effect is something that can naturally occur regardless of what people do.

Holy crap dude this paragraph really makes me doubt ever being able to explain anything to you. There's straw mans and red herrings all over it not to mention a fundamental inability for analysis.

[killacs]

Holy crap dude this paragraph really makes me doubt ever being able to explain anything to you. There's straw mans and red herrings all over it not to mention a fundamental inability for analysis.

So you're just going to ignore the idea that other planets experience greenhouse effects without humans there? Nicely done. And nice job to ignore everything else I've said. You haven't had any sort of solid rebuttal for the articles and information I've provided.

[RicoVacilon]

So you're just going to ignore the idea that other planets experience greenhouse effects without humans there? Nicely done.

Dear Lord you're dense. Did I ever say the greenhouse effect was man made? Ever? Or imply it? Ever? I can't even call your argument a straw man. It's like an epi-straw man. Or a meta-straw man.

[killacs]

Dear Lord you're dense. Did I ever say the greenhouse effect was man made? Ever? Or imply it? Ever? I can't even call your argument a straw man. It's like an epi-straw man. Or a meta-straw man.

So let me get this straight, you claim 7th grade science (greenhouse), you claim climate change is man made. So by that it is pointing to man made caused greenhouse. Now please explain what you mean cause that is what I've heard from you this thread.

[Gtrght77]

Using Venus as a way to support your claim that greenhouse effects can't be caused by man is absurd. I just don't understand that logic, also Venus should not be the same temp as Earth any more then Mars is, it's atmosphere shows a greenhouse effect gone wild. Even without the greenhouse effect it would still be much much hotter then Earth considering it is much closer to the Sun.

No matter how the gas gets into the atmosphere the effects are almost always the same.

[RicoVacilon]

So let me get this straight, you claim 7th grade science (greenhouse), you claim climate change is man made. So by that it is pointing to man made caused greenhouse. Now please explain what you mean cause that is what I've heard from you this thread.

You have serious problems with reading then. I suggest some remediation.

[theanalogkid]

I don't believe the science is really in on Global Warming. Science has shown that the Earth has been hotter than before and cooler than before. There just isn't enough data out there to claim that in the future the Earth is going to soar past even the hottest temperatures of the past.

I do think we should be making cars more efficient for economic reasons, but cap and trade is garbage and will only make the cost of doing business in the US more expensive while China and India still are unrestrained by such rubbish.

[killacs]

You have serious problems with reading then. I suggest some remediation.

Like I said why don't you fully explain your belief and why it is that way. The way you are making it sound is that 1) you have no problem that corrupt people are leading the charge here, 2) no matter what happens it seems you are 100% certain we are leading our own demise. I've made my stance on the issue VERY clear, why don't you clearly spell yours out.


Using Venus as a way to support your claim that greenhouse effects can't be caused by man is absurd. I just don't understand that logic, also Venus should not be the same temp as Earth any more then Mars is, it's atmosphere shows a greenhouse effect gone wild. Even without the greenhouse effect it would still be much much hotter then Earth considering it is much closer to the Sun.

No matter how the gas gets into the atmosphere the effects are almost always the same.

Venus should be closer to Earth's temp than to Mercury's the greenhouse gone wild caused. I was not using Venus to try to show that it can't be caused by man, just to show that greenhouse can go crazy as a natural part of a planet.

[RicoVacilon]

I do think we should be making cars more efficient for economic reasons, but cap and trade is garbage

What's garbage about it? You pay for the right to pollute. And if you don't pollute you can sell your rights to someone else that pollutes more than they're allowed. This is pretty clear cut laissez faire economics as far as I'm aware. Yet I will admit a limited reading on the subject.


while China and India still are unrestrained by such rubbish.

I think you can eliminate the value judgement and still have a valid point. The fact that other countries have little or no environmental restrictions means they can make stuff for a HECK of a lot less than we can. Cadmium in your kids jewelry anyone? I'm not for tariffs or anything limiting international trade--but that also includes having a level playing field in this regard as well.

[RicoVacilon]

The way you are making it sound is that 1) you have no problem that corrupt people are leading the charge here,

Then, like I said, you need reading remediation because I was explicit how I felt about that.


2) no matter what happens it seems you are 100% certain we are leading our own demise.

Sounds very teleological. I'm not a fan of teleology.

If you can't understand what someone is saying, the fault doesn't always lie with them. . .

[theanalogkid]

What's garbage about it? You pay for the right to pollute. And if you don't pollute you can sell your rights to someone else that pollutes more than they're allowed. This is pretty clear cut laissez faire economics as far as I'm aware. Yet I will admit a limited reading on the subject.

Government regulation is not laissez faire. Laissez faire is when the government doesn't do anything as far as regulation or interventionism, such as when Hoover was accuses of it by history books (although false because he was very much into interventionism) as a cause of the Great Depression. Big business of course will love it, since it locks out smaller players by increasing the cost of entry.




I think you can eliminate the value judgement and still have a valid point. The fact that other countries have little or no environmental restrictions means they can make stuff for a HECK of a lot less than we can. Cadmium in your kids jewelry anyone? I'm not for tariffs or anything limiting international trade--but that also includes having a level playing field in this regard as well.

The fact of the matter is, it's rubbish since developing countries aren't part of this cap and trade, so cap and trade won't do much, especially with China's goal of building over 100 more coal power plants.

[killacs]

Then, like I said, you need reading remediation because I was explicit how I felt about that.



Sounds very teleological. I'm not a fan of teleology.

If you can't understand what someone is saying, the fault doesn't always lie with them. . .

Ok I said this....

I hope you don't still believe climate change is man made...
Then you said

Yea, you're right. That seventh grade level science is pretty tough to wrap your head around. . .
That leads me to you believing in man made climate change centered around greenhouse gases. Now I COULD be wrong but it seems clear as day that is what you believe.

To the point of the man made crap, I have provided information that:


shows scientists are not in agreement
shows the Earth was actually warmer for a period from 800 AD to 1300 AD
shows the extreme corruption and monetary value that could be gained should their policies pass
the railroad engineer who has been heading the UN's project


I could go dig up the articles talking about the increased solar activity which increase the temperature too if you want more. The Earth is getting warmer, I never once disputed that, the question is what is the cause I don't see greenhouse gases or anything man is doing being the cause. The Earth AND the Sun go through their own cycles which this is just another part of. .

[RicoVacilon]

Government regulation is not laissez faire.

Anarchism is not laissez faire either which is what you're espousing when you claim that prohibiting pollution is outside the realm of what government is allowed to do even by free market capitalists.


The fact of the matter is, it's rubbish since developing countries aren't part of this cap and trade, so cap and trade won't do much, especially with China's goal of building over 100 more coal power plants.

Except a nearly identical cap and trade system was put in place over the pollutants that caused acid rain--and it worked! Notice, there's been no talk of acid rain for decades. . . .

[RicoVacilon]

That leads me to you believing in man made climate change centered around greenhouse gases.

You're correct so far. Then you go on to ASSume that that means I think the greenhouse effect is man made. Which is obvious hogwash.


shows scientists are not in agreement

It would be more accurate to say "there are dissenting opinions." A consensus still exists.


shows the Earth was actually warmer for a period from 800 AD to 1300 AD

From one of your dubious links? Link it again, I'll read this one.


shows the extreme corruption and monetary value that could be gained should their policies pass

Yup. That's nasty. There's also extreme corruption and profit to be made by continue to rely on ridiculous amounts of oil. So I could use the same argument to say your point of view is flawed. But I haven't.


I could go dig up the articles talking about the increased solar activity which increase the temperature too if you want more.

You could do that. You could also agree that there are more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere now than there were 200 years ago. You COULD. Don't know if you will or not.


The Earth is getting warmer, I never once disputed that, the question is what is the cause I don't see greenhouse gases or anything man is doing being the cause.

Is it possible Man is the cause?

[theanalogkid]

Anarchism is not laissez faire either which is what you're espousing when you claim that prohibiting pollution is outside the realm of what government is allowed to do even by free market capitalists.

Where did I say anywhere that government shouldn't place pollution controls on polluters? Nowhere. You just said it was laissez-faire which it clearly isn't.

[RicoVacilon]

Where did I say anywhere that government shouldn't place pollution controls on polluters? Nowhere. You just said it was laissez-faire which it clearly isn't.

Hmm. . . you're not very well versed in your classical economists then. NONE of them think the government regulating certain things is interventionist or non-laissez faire. None of them were stupid enough to think that the market would completely govern itself without any say at all coming from the government.

[theanalogkid]

Hmm. . . you're not very well versed in your classical economists then. NONE of them think the government regulating certain things is interventionist or non-laissez faire. None of them were stupid enough to think that the market would completely govern itself without any say at all coming from the government.

I'm sure government regulation where the big time players benefit from is really what they had in mind right?

[RicoVacilon]

I'm sure government regulation where the big time players benefit from is really what they had in mind right?

Red Herring.

[killacs]

You're correct so far. Then you go on to ASSume that that means I think the greenhouse effect is man made. Which is obvious hogwash.



It would be more accurate to say "there are dissenting opinions." A consensus still exists.



From one of your dubious links? Link it again, I'll read this one.



Yup. That's nasty. There's also extreme corruption and profit to be made by continue to rely on ridiculous amounts of oil. So I could use the same argument to say your point of view is flawed. But I haven't.



You could do that. You could also agree that there are more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere now than there were 200 years ago. You COULD. Don't know if you will or not.



Is it possible Man is the cause?

From people individuals I know who belong to respected groups there was not consensus even 2 years ago on the man made climate change. Specifically among the IAU according to one professor I had who was a member at least.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths#3 there is even comment there about the northern hemisphere reflecting the solar activity period.

Sure there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than 200 years ago. More people more factories more everything. Still doesn't change that the world was warmer in 800 AD

[RicoVacilon]

Sure there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than 200 years ago. More people more factories more everything.

So do more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere mean an increase in the greenhouse effect?

[killacs]

So do more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere mean an increase in the greenhouse effect?

You would obviously think that. What is the main greenhouse gas we are putting out there? Isn't it CO2? According to things I've read (including that MIT article) CO2 isn't nearly the major problem.

To me the signs point to things outside of our control causing the change.

[RicoVacilon]

You would obviously think that. What is the main greenhouse gas we are putting out there? Isn't it CO2? According to things I've read (including that MIT article) CO2 isn't nearly the major problem.

To me the signs point to things outside of our control causing the change.

So an increase in CO2 causing an increase in the greenhouse effect is only a prima facie argument? It doesn't hold water in the end? So if the greenhouse effect is cause by greenhouse gasses, of which CO2 is one of them, then an increase in greenhouse gasses does NOT produce an increase in the greenhouse effect? Is that your position?

[killacs]

So an increase in CO2 causing an increase in the greenhouse effect is only a prima facie argument? It doesn't hold water in the end? So if the greenhouse effect is cause by greenhouse gasses, of which CO2 is one of them, then an increase in greenhouse gasses does NOT produce an increase in the greenhouse effect? Is that your position?

"What this data does tell us is if CO2 concentration should double, global temperatures will not rise by the devastating 6 degrees F the UN predicts, but by a completely harmless 1 degree F. The ERBE data shows an Earth system that is radiating more heat into space as sea surfaces warm, in other words a system at equilibrium, and is clearly demonstrated by observed data." From the MIT article, so while CO2 does yes affect us, it is nowhere near to the degree that some would like us to believe.

[theanalogkid]

Red Herring.

lol...wrong. It's not a red herring to reiterate an earlier point.

[RicoVacilon]

while CO2 does yes affect us, it is nowhere near to the degree that some would like us to believe.

No need to quote anymore articles--I'm asking what YOU think.

So you qualitatively agree with me. You just don't agree with the amount as quantified by the IPCC or whatever it's called.

So given the exponential growth of the human population along with an exponential growth of industrialization within that, you don't believe the increase in anthrogenic greenhouse gasses could ever be a problem? 1 degree F right now isn't a problem and doesn't point to any future problem even while growth continues exponentially?

[RicoVacilon]

lol...wrong. It's not a red herring to reiterate an earlier point.

Wrong. It has nothing to do with what I had asked you. That, by definition, is a red herring. A non sequitur to distract from the fact that you didn't have a reply to the actual question.

[killacs]

No need to quote anymore articles--I'm asking what YOU think.

So you qualitatively agree with me. You just don't agree with the amount as quantified by the IPCC or whatever it's called.

So given the exponential growth of the human population along with an exponential growth of industrialization within that, you don't believe the increase in anthrogenic greenhouse gasses could ever be a problem? 1 degree F right now isn't a problem and doesn't point to any future problem even while growth continues exponentially?
What I think: Certain people used their positions of power to influence studies and media to result in a fear tactic to push certain changes that net them large amounts of money. I also think that the greenhouse gases won't be the largest cause of climate change, it'll be things outside our control.

As for the population problem, eventually we're going to plateau at a point where we physically can't support anymore we may already be at that point

[RicoVacilon]

What I think: Certain people used their positions of power to influence studies and media to result in a fear tactic to push certain changes that net them large amounts of money.

You realize that there is nothing in the above statement that is mutually exclusive from what I'm saying, right? You actually agree with me that humans can cause climate change. And in so doing, you agree that humans can limit, even if only to an extent, their effect on the climate.

[theanalogkid]

Wrong. It has nothing to do with what I had asked you. That, by definition, is a red herring. A non sequitur to distract from the fact that you didn't have a reply to the actual question.

You didn't ask anything.

[killacs]

You realize that there is nothing in the above statement that is mutually exclusive from what I'm saying, right? You actually agree with me that humans can cause climate change. And in so doing, you agree that humans can limit, even if only to an extent, their effect on the climate.

We half agree at best, you seem to side more on the UN side of things I'm more on the yeah we might alter it 1 degree at best that isn't the real concern, the real concern are factors outside of our control.

[RicoVacilon]

We half agree at best, you seem to side more on the UN side of things

Not really. I side on the "we're putting a lot of crap into the atmosphere that wasn't there before and it's going to have an effect sooner or later" side of things. Which you seem to as well.


I'm more on the yeah we might alter it 1 degree at best that isn't the real concern, the real concern are factors outside of our control.

This seems a bit myopic considering the rate at which we increase our output given the status quo.