[noemon]

Are you shilling for the more pollution lobby, Sivad? Why would you defend more pollution, plastic, more shitty urban planning, more shitty building regulations? Less energy efficient buildings, cities, transport, households and scrub all these efforts as a conspiracy? What the fuck?

[Sivad]

Are you shilling for the more pollution lobby, Sivad? Why would you defend more pollution, plastic, more shitty urban planning, more shitty building regulations? Less energy efficient buildings, cities, transport, households and scrub all these efforts as a conspiracy? What the fuck?

This one has me dumbfounded, you took the pofo to a whole new level.

[noemon]

It's quite hilarious coming from someone who is calling those who argue for the reduction of carbon-emissions as "conspiracy theorists shilling for bankers"

The motley-crew of US, China, Russia is playing victim of a conspiracy against it.

People get literally burned in New Zealand and Australia, people have 20 times the cancer they had 50 years ago. Our seas are polluted to the brim, and still we have people like Sivad fighting the "noble" pro-carbon cause.

"Carbon despotism". It is precisely through carbon that we measure the efficiency of buildings, transport, etcetera. Are you suggesting we measure the efficiency of buildings, cars, cities in sivads instead of carbon? Truly, what is it that you are suggesting?

[maz]

The CIA and FBI don't investigate conspiracy theories, they cover them up

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Just investing heavily in energy and tech development would solve the problem in less than 30 years, but really there are so many things, big and small, that it would take a month to list them all. Things like modernizing energy infrastructure, building more public transportation, reducing frivolous consumerism, better urban planning and resource management, poverty reduction in the developing world. There's no end to the things we should be doing anyway that don't cost us anything and would not only solve the "climate crisis" but would radically improve life in general for everyone on the planet but all the liberals want to talk about is carbon despotism.

We will build 21st century energy and water systems ... This bank will provide loans and other financial assistance for investments in energy, water, broadband, transportation, and multi-modal infrastructure projects.
...
BUILDING A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY
We are committed to getting 50 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources within a decade, with half a billion solar panels installed within four years and enough renewable energy to power every home in the country. We will cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals, and offices through energy efficient improvements; modernize our electric grid; and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world. These efforts will create millions of new jobs and save families and businesses money on their monthly energy bills. We will transform American transportation by reducing oil consumption through cleaner fuels, vehicle electrification increasing the fuel efficiency of cars, boilers, ships, and trucks. We will make new investments in public transportation and build bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure across our urban and suburban areas. Democrats believe the tax code must reflect our commitment to a clean energy future by eliminating special tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel companies as well as defending and extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy.
...
We will support developing countries in their efforts to mitigate carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases, deploy more clean energy, and invest in climate resilience and adaptation.
...
We believe that development assistance is an essential instrument of American power. It can prevent threats, enhance stability, and reduce the need for military force. With less than one percent of the federal budget, our development assistance has helped cut extreme poverty in half, drastically decreased maternal and child mortality, reduced global hunger, provided food security, countered deadly pandemics, promoted education, and put an AIDS-free generation within reach. This investment reflects the best of America and makes us safer. We need to continue this work and make more progress on important global goals like ending extreme poverty and hunger.

https://democrats.org/about/party-platform/

Nothing about 'neoliberal pricing schemes' or carbon taxes. Pretty much everything you want is in the US Democratic Party's 2016 platform. And the same goes for centre-left parties around the world. You are inventing a strawman before saying it's tyrant.

If you actually look at the surveys you find there is no consensus on catastrophic man made climate change. I've posted them on this board multiple times now.

If you look at the link, you find there is consensus on catastrophic man made climate change. If you read IPCC reports, you find there is consensus. Whatever surveys you think you've posted, they obviously don't agree with reality.

[Steve_American]

Sivad wrote:
, they've implemented all kinds of shit from hundred billion dollar carbon markets to carbon taxes that go to paying the vig on bankster debt.


Please provide evidence for this claim.

Pants, i googled 'nations with carbon tax' and got this result ---

Countries with carbon tax
In Europe, a number of countries have imposed energy taxes or energy taxes based partly on carbon content. These include Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK.
Carbon tax - Wikipedia

And of course, France tried to do it.

However, notice the "partly" in the above. I think a tax that is partly on carbon content is not a carbon tax.
Also, a proper carbon tax has a rebate system and IIRC none of the nations above have that yet. So, it is just another tax.

[Godstud]

NOT a conspiracy theory.

Carbon taxes have been shown to actually change behavior, so the end result of a carbon tax is favourable.

[blackjack21]

It's quite hilarious coming from someone who is calling those who argue for the reduction of carbon-emissions as "conspiracy theorists shilling for bankers"

The motley-crew of US, China, Russia is playing victim of a conspiracy against it.

People get literally burned in New Zealand and Australia, people have 20 times the cancer they had 50 years ago. Our seas are polluted to the brim, and still we have people like Sivad fighting the "noble" pro-carbon cause.

"Carbon despotism". It is precisely through carbon that we measure the efficiency of buildings, transport, etcetera. Are you suggesting we measure the efficiency of buildings, cars, cities in sivads instead of carbon? Truly, what is it that you are suggesting?

First, people do not get sunburns because of carbon dioxide. They get sunburns because of sitting in the sun, because they think tanning makes them sexier. Second, we aren't dealing with "carbon emissions," but rather carbon-dioxide emissions. Third, trash in the ocean has nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Additionally, most of the trash in the ocean comes from Asian countries. Finally, carbon is not a pollutant. It is the fundamental building block of all life on Earth.

[Sivad]

However, notice the "partly" in the above. I think a tax that is partly on carbon content is not a carbon tax.

desperate flail.

France just had riots over carbon taxes, 80% of which were going towards paying the interest on the national debt. The EU has had the EU ETS market going for 15 years now, every major country in Europe has a carbon price. This lame sophistry isn't fooling anyone, it's beyond retarded.

Also, a proper carbon tax has a rebate system and IIRC none of the nations above have that yet. So, it is just another tax.

a proper carbon tax is just a tax on emissions, where the revenue goes is irrelevant.

[Pants-of-dog]

If the entire purpose of this worldwide conspiracy was to enact a Pigovian tax that has made no discernible change to most people’s lives, then the conspirators sure went to a lot of trouble for nothing.

[Sivad]

Whatever surveys you think you've posted, they obviously don't agree with reality.

I posted the surveys from the wiki article you referenced. There is no consensus on catastrophic man made climate change. The consensus is merely that the Earth has warmed and human activity has contributed to the warming, that's it.

[Sivad]

If the entire purpose of this worldwide conspiracy was to enact a Pigovian tax that has made no discernible change to most people’s lives, then the conspirators sure went to a lot of trouble for nothing.

You keep repeating this and I keep explaining why it's bullshit.

A point refuted a thousand times, commonly abbreviated as PRATT, refers to a point or argument that has literally been refuted so many times that it is not worth bothering with.

It is a common phrase on internet forums — as debates have a tendency to go in circles. Once people have refuted a point the first thousand times, it's hard for them to muster the motivation to do it again.

[Pants-of-dog]

If I were cooking up a scheme where I had to force all climatologists to lie, and had to seize control of all funding sources for climatologists to do this, and control NASA and other scientific bodies around the world, this would be a lot of effort.

It does not seem worth it just so I can implement a tax that may not even cover the negative externalities it supposedly limits.

[Steve_American]

I posted the surveys from the wiki article you referenced. There is no consensus on catastrophic man made climate change. The consensus is merely that the Earth has warmed and human activity has contributed to the warming, that's it.

Sivad, even if I accepted your limited claim about the consensus, I still disagree with you that there is a conspiracy and that little or nothing needs to be done.

Remember when we about to invade Iraq. The US Gov. acted with a lot less evidence than it has now for this different problem.
Remember Bush II said the worst case was possible and it was a mushroom cloud rising over a US city. And that it would be easy to go in, fix the problem, and get out. So, he worst cased the threat and best cased the costs.
Now the US Gov. [judging by its actions, not the desires of some in it] is best casing the threat and worst casing the costs. You seem to agree with the US Gov. on this.

I and others here see this as pie in the sky optimism. We think it is better to go to the other extreme, and worst case the threat* and best case the costs. I claim the the Repuds have proved over the last 35 years that deficits don't matter much, or at all. So, the costs can be partly born by deficit spending. This will get all the US work force working on projects that will help with AGW. Only when all the people are working at full capacity and all the real natural resources are being used at full capacity is there a risk of inflation.

.* . After all losing one US city would have been far, far less terrible than losing the ability to carry on civilization or even see human extinction.

[Sivad]

[Sivad]

Sivad, even if I accepted your limited claim about the consensus

Why not just go read the surveys? It's not hard and it cuts through all the bullshit.

I still disagree with you that there is a conspiracy

So you think the idea that lying conniving opportunistic political elites would try to exaggerate a threat in order to exploit it for their own advantage is just totally preposterous? Okay, I guess I just have one final question for you then: what planet are you living on?

and that little or nothing needs to be done.

I never said that, in fact I provided a list of things that would address all of the alarmist's concerns and would pay huge dividends over the next 50 - 100 years.

Remember when we about to invade Iraq. The US Gov. acted with a lot less evidence than it has now for this different problem.

Yeah, and it was a retarded disaster predicated on fraudulent data and exaggerated threats. You people just do not learn.

[Sivad]

If I were cooking up a scheme where I had to force all x to lie, and had to seize control of all funding sources for x to do this, and control x bodies around the world

That seems totally preposterous until you realize that it's already been done with most of our major institutions. Capture is a well established phenomenon that really does occur, there's a shit-ton of scholarship on it. The media has definitely been captured, electoral politics is undeniably captured, and regulatory capture is also a big problem in the US. So given that, the capture of one field of science isn't exactly a stretch. In fact it's only rational to expect that every field of science that impacts national policy would have been immediately targeted for capture by the special interests.

[Steve_American]

That seems totally preposterous until you realize that it's already been done with most of our major institutions. Capture is a well established phenomenon that really does occur, there's a shit-ton of scholarship on it. The media has definitely been captured, electoral politics is undeniably captured, and regulatory capture is also a big problem in the US. So given that, the capture of one field of science isn't exactly a stretch. In fact it's only rational to expect that every field of science that impacts national policy would have been immediately targeted for capture by the special interests.

What makes it hard for me to accept that climate science [worldwide] has been captured is exactly the worldwide nature of the required capture.
Also, scientists are reluctant to say what they believe but can't prove yet.
They like to stick to what they can definitely prove, and not go out on a limb to say what they know in their hearts to be true.

[RepubliConservative]

It was already proven with Climategate a decade ago. We saw the manipulation of data. We saw the manipulation of science journals. We saw widespread fraud like we'd never seen before in science.

As far as I'm concerned, we're a decade removed from proving AGW is a fraud. The problem is, only those of who love and value science care, while the rest of society -- including leftist politicians, the supports of said politicians, and the main stream media -- go on as if nothing happened.

[noemon]

I posted the surveys from the wiki article you referenced. There is no consensus on catastrophic man made climate change. The consensus is merely that the Earth has warmed and human activity has contributed to the warming, that's it.

Hey folks, we are not at the stage of catastrophic extinction. So we 're good.

I never said that, in fact I provided a list of things that would address all of the alarmist's concerns and would pay huge dividends over the next 50 - 100 years.

You copy/pasted the list of all those arguing for carbon-based solutions, while at the same time trying to call them conspiracy theorists. You are merely appropriating the argument of the side you are arguing against and then trying to be edgy about it. It's quite silly.

That seems totally preposterous until you realize that it's already been done with most of our major institutions. Capture is a well established phenomenon that really does occur, there's a shit-ton of scholarship on it. The media has definitely been captured, electoral politics is undeniably captured, and regulatory capture is also a big problem in the US. So given that, the capture of one field of science isn't exactly a stretch. In fact it's only rational to expect that every field of science that impacts national policy would have been immediately targeted for capture by the special interests.

Considering the efficacy, popularity and influence of the pro-carbon dioxide argument in the USA, everything you just said proves beyond any doubt that -by your own logic- you and yours have been captured by special interest groups.