[Hindsite]

:lol: Yeah right. Look at pollution per capita. It's lower in these countries. The higher pollution rates have more to do with industry lacking regulation than the everyday people living their lives. You'd hate to admit that, wouldn't you?

You're silly.

So dishonest.

[Godstud]

I'm not dishonest. I am arguing a different point but you are too fucking stupid to understand it, or don't want to acknowledge it.

[Hindsite]

I'm not dishonest. I am arguing a different point but you are too fucking stupid to understand it, or don't want to acknowledge it.

How many times do I have to tell you that I am a near genius before you get it?

[Rugoz]

:knife:

So instead of responding to my point about newly installed capacity, you post some random doom and gloom article about the German Energiewende? Truly lazy.

I didn't claim we'll have 100% renewables by 2050, certainly not worldwide. That said, estimating the cost of 100% renewables by 2050 based on current technology is stupid. Last year renewables produced more than 40% of electricity in Germany, if you asked 20 years ago what that would cost, the projections would have been astronomical as well. Germany is also a special case since it was a first-mover, it adopted renewables when the cost was still high, but it has driven technology forward and others benefit from it now.

[Godstud]

How many times do I have to tell you that I am a near genius before you get it?

Compared to you, I am Albert Einstein. Your ego vastly over-rides your capacity for intelligent conversation.

[Truth To Power]

Yes, colonialism does explain a lot even if the entire explanation involves more than that.

Nope. Colonialism doesn't explain $#!+ and never did. Singapore and HK were colonies, now they're rich. Zimbabwe and Bangladesh were colonies, but they are still poor. Switzerland and Germany were never colonies but they are rich. Russia and Thailand were never colonies, but they are still poor. Colonialism doesn't explain anything because it doesn't say anything about the actual POLICIES of colonial governments. It is only the content of government policy that determines whether countries advance economically or stay poor, not whether that government is a colonial one.

This does not change the fact that we have had the resources to combat world poverty and climate change for decades, and that the only reason we have not implemented them is because the capitalist system has found no way to profit from any solutions.

It's true that capitalism does not provide solutions to market failure problems, and has aggravated poverty in every single capitalist society in the history of the world whose government has not intervened massively to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners. But combatting climate change is a fool's game, because climate has always changed, it will continue to change, and even devoting the aggregate GDP of the entire world to stopping it from changing would not stop it from changing.

Which Countries Produce The Most Pollution?
Country & Emissions per capita
1 Qatar 39.7
2 Kuwait 24.4
3 United Arab Emirates 21.8
4 Australia 18.6
5 Turkmenistan 17.5
6 Oman 17.5
7 United States 16.1
8 Saudi Arabia 16.0
9 Canada 15.5
10 Kazakhstan 15.2
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/whi ... ution.html

So, that makes you patently wrong.

No, because carbon dioxide is not a pollutant: it is not harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration.

[Pants-of-dog]

Nope. Colonialism doesn't explain $#!+ and never did. Singapore and HK were colonies, now they're rich. Zimbabwe and Bangladesh were colonies, but they are still poor. Switzerland and Germany were never colonies but they are rich. Russia and Thailand were never colonies, but they are still poor. Colonialism doesn't explain anything because it doesn't say anything about the actual POLICIES of colonial governments. It is only the content of government policy that determines whether countries advance economically or stay poor, not whether that government is a colonial one.

It's true that capitalism does not provide solutions to market failure problems, and has aggravated poverty in every single capitalist society in the history of the world whose government has not intervened massively to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners. But combatting climate change is a fool's game, because climate has always changed, it will continue to change, and even devoting the aggregate GDP of the entire world to stopping it from changing would not stop it from changing.

No, because carbon dioxide is not a pollutant: it is not harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration.

...except when it ends up warming the Earth to the degree that it causes climate changes which in turn has negative impacts.

[Truth To Power]

Capitalism is when things are made for capital, another term for that is profit.

No, you are again just redefining words to vacate them of meaning. Capitalism, like socialism, is defined specifically by OWNERSHIP of the means of production: natural resources (land) and capital goods.

A capitalist state monopoly is capitalism.

No, it most certainly and indisputably is not.

The Soviet Union was full of non socialists because their households conditioned them to be capitalists.

False. They became non-socialists because they experienced first-hand the evil of socialism.

They were conditioned under non socialist context without fully understanding that they are conditioning themselves and their families to be capitalists.

You are effectively claiming to be the recipient of divine revelation not available to other mortals who have all been "conditioned," while you somehow haven't. It's just absurd, disingenuous garbage.

Non socialist people abuse a socialist economy, thus ruining everything, and they call that an experience of "socialism" which is false because it is a spiral trap.

Wrong again. Honest, intelligent, psychologically healthy human beings undermine socialism because socialism is evil, anti-human filth.

Capitalists live in a socialist economy. Capitalists abuse socialism because they're capitalists. Capitalists experience bad socialist economy because of the capitalists' self destructive actions. Capitalists ruin their product of socialism that they had. Capitalist people destroy socialist economy, blaming "socialism" rather than the capitalists' self destructive actions such as corruption.

Wrong again. It is not capitalism that is self-destructive but socialism, because it tries to force people to give up their humanity and consequently forces them to corrupt the evil socialist system in order to survive.

That is an insult.

I can understand why you would perceive it as such.

Socialists appear to be ignorant to you because they don't match your mindset.

No, because they refuse to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.

Socialists appear to be stupid to you because you do not understand socialism.

No, because THEY obviously do not understand it.

And socialists have to be dishonest in a capitalist or a non socialist economy to save themselves from economic issues.

They have to be even more dishonest in a socialist economy just to survive.

Losing a job for being a socialist.

I wouldn't hire a socialist. They are too ignorant, stupid and dishonest to make productive workers, and will reliably bankrupt and destroy any employer that hires them.

Getting harassed for being a socialist.

See above.

Or getting personal property vandalized for being a socialist are some examples.

Some people do get carried away when they see an enemy of liberty, justice and truth.

Integrity can put yourself in danger and in 'harm's way.'

Especially in a socialist economy.

One who does not want their hearts to be liberated from false consciousness has to view reality as a joke because that is used to control them.

Whatevs.

:roll:

Thank you for agreeing that you have been comprehensively and conclusively refuted, you know it, and you have no answers.

...except when it ends up warming the Earth to the degree that it causes climate changes which in turn has negative impacts.

Nope. Wrong. Any change for the better, no matter how positive in net effects, is going to have some negative impacts. E.g., even a cure for spinal cord injuries would have negative impacts on wheelchair manufacturers. Even if CO2 from burning fossil fuels were capable of causing significant warming of global climate (it isn't), the net effect would still be positive because of the effect on plant growth and increased rainfall. That's why periods of warm global climate were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically incorrect.

[Pants-of-dog]

For your incorrect assertions about colonialism, please note that you are off topic, and have not addressed my actual point about capitalism’s failures.

As for your incorrect assertion that the net benefits from climate change outweigh the negative impacts, then I would merely say that the negative impacts will far outweigh any net benefits, and probably already do. Ask the i-Kiribati about it.

[Truth To Power]

For your incorrect assertions about colonialism, please note that you are off topic, and have not addressed my actual point about capitalism’s failures.

Capitalism's failures, of which I am well aware and understand better than you, are not the same as colonialism.

As for your incorrect assertion that the net benefits from climate change outweigh the negative impacts,

My statement is correct. That is why periods of warm global climate were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically incorrect.

then I would merely say that the negative impacts will far outweigh any net benefits, and probably already do.

No, it is clear that the positives outweigh the negatives. Crop yields are up, deserts are shrinking, droughts have been relieved.

Ask the i-Kiribati about it.

<yawn> All coastal land is either rising, stable, or sinking. Just as a fact of statistics, nearly half is sinking. Land that is sinking is going to be submerged even if sea level is stable. The fact that one can find land that is being submerged because it is sinking is not evidence that sea level is rising, let alone rising unnaturally fast, sorry.

[SSDR]

@Hindsite,

That's sounds like a bunch of double talk nonsense.

Socialist appear ignorant because they are ignorant.

You talk a lot of nonsense. And you appear to be ignorant with your religious replies "praise the lord" or "halleLujah."

[SSDR]

@Truth To Power,

No, you are again just redefining words to vacate them of meaning. Capitalism, like socialism, is defined specifically by OWNERSHIP of the means of production: natural resources (land) and capital goods.

What economics do you support? And what definitions would you use to describe your ideal economics?

No, it most certainly and indisputably is not.

A company taking over a capitalist economy completely, thus making it a monopoly would still keep the economy capitalist because the mode of production in terms of ownership and how currency is established has not changed. The monopoly can change that via buying laws or currency, but the medium of exchange, and currency would still exist.

False. They became non-socialists because they experienced first-hand the evil of socialism.

Labeling socialism "evil" emotionally is not political. The capitalist, and monarchist workers made the socialist economy evil because they lacked real consciousness.

:lol: You are effectively claiming to be the recipient of divine revelation not available to other mortals who have all been "conditioned," while you somehow haven't.

Explain more, because this makes no sense.

Wrong again. Honest, intelligent, psychologically healthy human beings undermine socialism because socialism is evil, anti-human filth.

There are people who support slavery who are honest, intelligent, and psychologically healthy. And you believing that socialism being "evil" is not a political statement.

No, because they refuse to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.

There is no fixed physical reality because the questions that are given to socialists by non socialists are in a non socialist context.

They have to be even more dishonest in a socialist economy just to survive.

Exactly! Capitalists and sexist people are very dishonest filth!

No, because THEY obviously do not understand it.

YOU do not understand what socialism is.

I wouldn't hire a socialist. They are too ignorant, stupid and dishonest to make productive workers, and will reliably bankrupt and destroy any employer that hires them

This is a very false, general stereotype. It's like saying that non socialists are too stupid and ignorant to be productive in a socialist economy. Non socialists will destroy any socialist economy that they have.

:lol: Whatevs.

Nothing will stop the hearts of the locomotives who drive forward away from false consciousness.

[Hindsite]

Capitalist company has apparently solved the problem of carbon emission and can produce electric power at lower cost. FOX Business News Network interveiws 8 Rivers Capital President and CEO Bill Brown on Net Power’s zero-emissions power plant in Houston, Texas.

US energy startup builds power plant that produces no carbon emissions

Fox Business
Published on Jun 27, 2019

[AFAIK]

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant: it is not harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration.

Carbon dioxide caused the 4th mass extinction event.

The story that emerges repeatedly from the fossil record is mass extinction caused by three deadly impacts, occurring simultaneously: global warming, the acidification of the oceans and the loss of oxygen from seawater. All these effects are caused by large amounts of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere. When seawater absorbs CO2, its acidity increases. As temperatures rise, circulation in the oceans stalls, preventing oxygen from reaching the depths.
[...]
The volcanoes exploded through the Tunguska sedimentary basin, cooking much of the coal, petroleum and methane it contained. Particles of coal fly ash have been found in rocks as far away as the Canadian Arctic. Rising temperatures might also have destabilised methane hydrates – a frozen form of natural gas – causing the kind of runaway feedback that terrifies some climate scientists today. Yes: the geological record suggests that fossil fuel burning might have eliminated most life on Earth.
https://www.monbiot.com/2015/05/27/a-pr ... -violence/

[Truth To Power]

Carbon dioxide caused the 4th mass extinction event.

No, it most certainly and indisputably did not. Monbiot's absurd speculations are nothing but more baseless fossil fuel scaremongering, which he has been practicing so prolifically. We KNOW that CO2 could not have caused the Permian-Triassic extinction, because CO2 was even higher for many millions of years when life thrived.

First, Monbiot's absurd assertion that the K-T extinction could not have been caused by the Chicxulub impact because it was 100Ky out of sync merely cherry-picks one paleodating timeline and ignores the error bars on dating events that far in the past. He essentially claims the dating is so accurate, it can distinguish events to 1 part in 650 with universal scientific consensus. Ah, sorry, but no, actually, it can't.

Monbiot's second howler is his claim that it was CO2 from burning fossil fuel deposits that caused a sudden, extreme warming event, acidified the oceans, blah, blah, blah when the Siberian Traps eruption ended the Permian. In fact, it was SULFUR dioxide, SO2, which the Siberian eruption produced in massive quantities, that turned the oceans into SULFURIC ACID. H2SO4 is orders of magnitude more toxic than the carbonic acid created by aqueous solution of CO2 -- which you are DRINKING, and at a pretty high concentration, every time you have a beer, a Coke, or a glass of champagne.

Try to be a little more fastidious about the nonsense you believe.

[Politics_Observer]

A lot of these people who are climate change deniers obviously have a problem of engaging in self deception.

[Pants-of-dog]

My statement is correct. That is why periods of warm global climate were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically incorrect.

No, it is clear that the positives outweigh the negatives. Crop yields are up, deserts are shrinking, droughts have been relieved.

No, and furthermore, you will not provide evidence to support your claims.

All coastal land is either rising, stable, or sinking. Just as a fact of statistics, nearly half is sinking. Land that is sinking is going to be submerged even if sea level is stable. The fact that one can find land that is being submerged because it is sinking is not evidence that sea level is rising, let alone rising unnaturally fast, sorry.

This reminds me of the time you claimed the recorded sea rise in Louisiana was due to the land sinking, and when we looked at an actual study that measured the land movement in the area, it was actually rising.

So I will assume you are equally incorrect about this.

Also, your weird attack against Monbiot does not change the science that shows that co2 was one of the causes of a previous extinction event.

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/2300 ... rs-ago.htm

[Truth To Power]

What economics do you support?

The truth.

And what definitions would you use to describe your ideal economics?

Definitions that reflect empirically observable facts to disaggregate quantities that do not have like relations to production, allocation and exchange.

A company taking over a capitalist economy completely, thus making it a monopoly would still keep the economy capitalist because the mode of production in terms of ownership and how currency is established has not changed. The monopoly can change that via buying laws or currency, but the medium of exchange, and currency would still exist.

A monopoly company is not a state.

Labeling socialism "evil" emotionally is not political.

It's not emotional. It's a fact.

The capitalist, and monarchist workers made the socialist economy evil because they lacked real consciousness.

No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Explain more, because this makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Whenever your claims are proved objectively false, you just claim the facts reflect others' "conditioning" rather than objective physical reality. Somehow, everyone else has been "conditioned," but you are magically free of any conditioning.

There are people who support slavery who are honest, intelligent, and psychologically healthy.

They can't be really honest unless they are also ignorant.

And you believing that socialism being "evil" is not a political statement.

Sure it is.

There is no fixed physical reality because the questions that are given to socialists by non socialists are in a non socialist context.

Anti-scientific gibberish.

Exactly! Capitalists and sexist people are very dishonest filth!

YOU do not understand what socialism is.

Wrong. I have a good dictionary, and I know how to use it.

This is a very false, general stereotype.

Wrong again. I've seen it, and more than once.

It's like saying that non socialists are too stupid and ignorant to be productive in a socialist economy.

Only dupes are productive in a socialist economy.

Non socialists will destroy any socialist economy that they have.

In self-defense.

Nothing will stop the hearts of the locomotives who drive forward away from false consciousness.

[Truth To Power]

No, and furthermore, you will not provide evidence to support your claims.

False:

https://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html

You have told the lie that I do not provide evidence for my statements of fact many times, and continue to repeat it no matter how many times I prove it is a lie by providing evidence to support my statements of fact, as above. Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation

This reminds me of the time you claimed the recorded sea rise in Louisiana was due to the land sinking, and when we looked at an actual study that measured the land movement in the area, it was actually rising.

No, Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation. I proved you wrong then, and provided the evidence:
https://www.livescience.com/4186-real-r ... nking.html

So I will assume you are equally incorrect about this.

I am equally correct.

Also, your weird attack against Monbiot does not change the science that shows that co2 was one of the causes of a previous extinction event.

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/2300 ... rs-ago.htm

No, that is just more anti-CO2 nonscience propaganda. These "scientists" claim carbonic acid from volcanic eruptions poisoned sea life, leading to hypoxia, but ignore the fact that sulfuric acid from SO2, which volcanic eruptions also produce in massive quantities, is orders of magnitude more toxic than carbonic acid.

[Pants-of-dog]

False:

https://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html

So you have provided evidence for one of your three claims, so I will wait for the other two.

But just to be clear, you agree with all of Dr. Donohue’s study concerning the increased foliage in some places due to CO2 fertilisation?

I proved you wrong then, and provided the evidence:
https://www.livescience.com/4186-real-r ... nking.html

I do not remember you providing this at the time. However, this is irrelevant to the current discussion.

These "scientists" claim carbonic acid from volcanic eruptions poisoned sea life, leading to hypoxia, but ignore the fact that sulfuric acid from SO2, which volcanic eruptions also produce in massive quantities, is orders of magnitude more toxic than carbonic acid.

Please quote the text from the studies that shows they ignored this. Thanks.

You have told the lie that I do not provide evidence for my statements of fact many times, and continue to repeat it no matter how many times I prove it is a lie by providing evidence to support my statements of fact, as above. You are lying again this time.

No, you are lying again.

I am equally correct.

No, that is just more anti-CO2 nonscience propaganda.