Dealt with in number 43 https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.phpQuote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Printable View
Dealt with in number 43 https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.phpQuote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
One: Human's put 100 times more carbon dioxide (by mass) into the atmosphere than all of Earth's volcanic activity does.
Two: Before the evolution of photosynthesis the Earth's atmosphere did indeed have very little free oxygen. Photosynthesis is the process that was responsible for putting oxygen into the atmosphere. In fact those ancient plants put so much oxygen into the atmosphere (before the current balance was established) that they nearly poisoned themselves. This nicely demonstrates that living things (plants, flowers, cows, humans etc.) can effect change on a planetary scale and do harm to themselves. Producing more carbon dioxide in the hopes of producing more carbon dioxide 'eating' plants (while btw deforesting whole continents) is like everybody hoping to get rid their weekly garbage by throwing it out the window hoping to attract more rats and other garbage eating rodents. Think that will really take care of the garbage, or only produce an additional problem or two?
Three: Our climate is constantly changing, and we are part of it. When that change works against us, and especially when we're ourselves are primarily responsible, it only makes sense to try to limit those of our practices that are having a deleterious effect on our climate and our own well-being.
To say it again: climate change deniers are not motivated by the science of climate change, about which they know nothing. Most, if not all were electrocuted into action when the remedies to global warming were proposed, two words and phrases sending them into an uncontrollable rage: carbon taxes, and subsidies. People who claim they are opposed to an increase in the powers of the state, who believe taxes inhibit market freedom, and subsidies undermine it, are the same people who support the means whereby large corporations use an army of lawyers to reduce the 'trickle down' taxes they ought to pay, and protect subsidies when they go to farmers, or tax beaks worth $8bn a year to 'protect jobs' in the aerospace industry in their state -the idea that producers and consumers should be on a level-playing field never entering the equation.
Meanwhile, as time goes on the practical benefits of alternative energy and, in economic terms their cost and efficiency will improve, and the use of fossil fuel -oil in particular- will decline (gas has a future as a low-carbon energy source). Many consumers are now taking their own vital action to protect their environment as we should, but the question is -is it too late to stop the planet warming beyond what is sustainable for many forms of life? I fear the problem for some people who have contributed to this thread is clear: they don't care what the science is, because they don't care, because in spite of the bitter orange skies over Beijing in mid-afternoon, thick with noxious chemicals that weren't there in 1977, 'nothing has changed'.
I am not surprised that dim communists like you guys just keep repeating the same bullshit over and over again without presenting any logic, hoping that eventually people will start believing them.
The data about volcanoes is taken out of Wikipedia rather than some dodgy website that looks like it was created by a 10-year old.
Saying that plants' feeding processes are complex and reducing climate change process to CO2 just shows how illogical your way of thinking is. At least you do acknowledge that the plants almost killed themselves rather became extinct. If our climate changes then we have to adapt to it rather than constrain our development by funding inefficient wind turbines from public money, telling people to stop eating proper food, introducing more and more taxes, taking children away from their parents etc. It is not climate that strangles the so called "western civilisation" it is idiots like you, who believe in the all the nonsense you are trying to promote here and try to put technological advancement to a halt (which has already happened at least in the EU), if not turn it into regression all together in the name of some belief that it may bring us some sort of salvation.
As for taxes, they do inhibit market freedom. They make manufacturers waste the time and effort which could be used for developing their produce or technologies they use, on thinking about how to pay less tax. We would probably be flying between Mars and Venus if it wasn't for cretins who think they can fix the world with bureaucracy.
I am not sure who has advocated taking children away from their parents as a remedy for climate change, that is a new one for me and sounds illogical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
The EU, far from halting technological advancement is one of the leading sources of R&D in the world today-
Among top 50 R&D investors, there are 15 EU companies, same as in last ranking and 30 firms among top 100, one more than last year. The two top investors are Volkswagen (€13.6bn) in 1st place and Samsung (€12.5bn) from KOR in 2nd. The other firms in top-ten are Intel, Alphabet and Microsoft (€11.0bn) from the US; Novartis (€9.0bn) and Roche (€8.6bn) from Switzerland; Huawei (€8.4bn) from China; Johnson & Johnson (€8.3bn) from the US and Toyota Motor (€8.0bn) from Japan
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publicat...ent-scoreboard
As for taxes and market freedom, consider this:
Sky high taxes in the USA when Eisenhower was President -economic growth, full employment, budget surplus;
Lower taxes in the USA when Reagan was President -low growth, high unemployment, the biggest budget deficit in US history.
Indeed. Humans best adapt by adapting their technology to the changing world, which is exactly what the move to renewables is; i.e. an adaptation in response the pressures placed upon us by a changing climate. We already know our response was neither soon enough nor great enough to prevent disaster. The question now is, “Thanks to the paucity of our action, how many and how great are the catastrophes that lie ahead?”Quote:
If our climate changes then we have to adapt to it...
Markets adapt to market pressures. Democracies adapt to political pressures. The pressure made evident by atmospheric science is existential. Those who care are currently attempting to translate that into both political and market pressures. It’s not communism. It’s democracy. It’s science. It’s survival.
No, this is what Wikipedia says:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
"Human activities emit about 29 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, while volcanoes emit between 0.2 and 0.3 billion tons." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
"The greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is emitted from volcanoes, accounting for nearly 1% of the annual global total." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_gas
0.2-0.3 billions tons per year equates to around 500,000-800,000 tonnes per day from all volcanoes, compared to your claim for a single volcano:
"If a volcano can emit 300kt of CO2 daily, then a supervolcano can emit at least 300Mt of CO2 daily."
Your first figure is similar to estimates for the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland several years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...imate-sceptics Your second figure seems to be something you just made up.
Thanks for the economics lesson, but I already have a degree. You obviously missed the class on externalities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_taxQuote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, it's difficult to get a person to understand something when their ideology depends on them not understanding it.
I didn't miss anything and your statement is irrelevant. I do agree that if one's car produces fumes or bad smells then there should be a penalty for it. It doesn't mean that such fee is not bad for whoever runs the business which requires them to drive the car.
I was referring more to punishing people for working at all, e.g. income tax, taxes for buying or selling, etc..
I was also referring to a supervolcano, whose eruption is at least 1000time bigger than that of a small one, which may erupt in future. So according to your data a supervolcano would emit in one year 1000% or what humans' yearly produce - 300Gtonnes. I suggest that rather than worrying about some minute problems like cars or power plants, we would focus on figuring out how to control things like that.
"Give people democracy and they will start building socialism for you" (Karl Marx) - This is what has been happening for quite some time in Western Europe and the USA for quite a while now. There is no efficient technology for producing enough electricity to satisfy the increasing needs of mankind as of yet. Telling people lies and encouraging them to use solar or wind powered generators is a bad idea because those who would be able to develop an efficient technology (that would not need any encouragement from mainstream media or fascist governments to be implemented) waste their potential on trying to make a living with what is available. Saying that implementation of these inefficient technologies wont sort climate change anyway in the same paragraph you advocate their implementation makes you look utterly stupid. It is policies that try to artificially regulate markets that pose threat to mankind, not the climate change.
Implementation of laws that prohibit parents from bringing their children up will result in a generation that does not know anything about values that brought "Western Civilisation" to the top. Once they grow up, the people will have their heads filled with misbeliefs like "humans cause global warming". You guys already seem to have lost your perception (unless you never had it in the first place).
I have already wrote about taxes I'll move on to unemployment and growth. Unemployment is good because it teaches people to think. They open their own companies which create competition, invent new things, in general unemployment propels a country's economy. Budget deficit is also good because any money in a state's hands is 40% less efficient than the same amount of money in the hands of the country occupied by that state (or government).
I don't have time right now to challenge some of the ideas you lifted from the anarchist's cook-book, but with regard to the quote from your post, I am not familiar with it, and if I google it, the only source I can find is in Hung Angels in a post written by someone called Ts RedVex. Either you did just make this up on Marx's behalf, or you are translating from another language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX