Sivad wrote:yeah, I really don't get it? All you have to do is read the 2013 survey, or the 2011 survey, and you'll see there is no consensus. There's a majority opinion on some issues but nothing even close to a 97% consensus(other than that the earth has warmed). There are dissenting opinions from many prominent members of the scientific community and even those that say there is cause for concern also say that the issue has been shamelessly hyped and distorted in the media by activist scientists and media popularizers.
There is no excuse for persisting in this bullshit, people just refuse to come off it because they have so much of their political identities invested in it and if they admitted that they got carried away with hype and bullshit they'd lose ground politically for their side in the great liberal-conservative conflict.
You are wrong.
Sivad wrote:The debate has gotten so stupid that there are even people denying the potential for abuse and manipulation with carbon pricing. Right off the top of my head I can't think of a lot of ways a carbon price could be used for major geopolitical steering, massive financial profiteering, controlling the development of the global periphery, central economic planning in developed countries, etc. And I'm just one guy, the ruling class has thousands of think tanks and tens of thousands of technocrats working for them, there is no strategy or method for using the carbon price as an instrument for profit, power, or control that they're not aware of.
And given history, it's not a question of it will be abused, the only question is how and how much the ruling class is gonna abuse the masses with it. If you trust those fuckers or their institutions then you're just an idiot.
Wait, what? What are you ranting about? You are discussing 2 different points as if they are all the same.
Whether human activity has a measurable impact on climate change is completely independent of what are the possible steps that we could take to address this problem.
Perhaps you are right that carbon taxing is not the most appropriate approach, perhaps it is, perhaps it is just a tiny step on a more complicated multi-target system. Whatever a "possible solution" might look like, STEP 1 is recognizing the problem, STEP 2 is deciding whether we should do something about it or whether we say, screw it, I rather get cooked and STEP 3 is to debate possible ways to solve the problem STEP 4 is to try the solution, STEP 5 is to go back to step 3 if STEP 4 solution is inadequate or insufficient.
You are denying step 1 while ranting that one of possible solutions in STEP 2 is not to your taste.... silly.
You use words such as "major geopolitical steering, massive financial profiteering, controlling the development of the global periphery, central economic planning in developed countries, etc" as if that was not happening already. You don't think there is massive geopolitical steering around fossil fuels? What are all the wars in the middle east about, what is the deal with stupid Venezuela just to name a few. Drop from your cloud, you are not suggesting a problem that does not already exist. In fact, independence from fossil fuels, regardless of wether climate change is real or not, it is a good thing. Environmental damage is not limited to climate change, air polution is also of concern and undeniable AND... dependence from these unstable countries (and a fairly volatile market at that) is simply not in our best interest.