Global Warming - Right & Wrong

WildmanWilson

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

Well !!

https://co2coalition.org/2023/07/14/epa-few-stations-show-increase-in-hot-days/

Yeah, well indeed!  The best part about this is that the web page you've linked to here actually contains a link to the EPA site.  But when showing the maps with the data, your site has actually cut off some of the key context.  It's not hot days that the EPA is reporting on, it's unusually hot days (above 95th percentile).  Here is the figure from the site you linked:




And here is what it looks like over at the EPA:




Notice the differences?  They took some effort to manipulate the Figure, didn't they?  Why would they do that, you might ask, if you had a brain cell to spare.  

In case the lights still haven't come on inside your head, the EPA includes a helpful explainer at the bottom of the page:



You see, entities like the CO2 coalition are counting on people like you not to read the fine print, or not even bothering to check the original source material.  How is it that they know they can count on that?  Because they know your priors very well, and that once you see something that confirms them... you stop asking questions.  

And all you need to do is look at the 1930s. It was extremely hot and dry as well. Why? We were not as populated nor used the fossil fuels to the levels we do now. So how is it possible to have such extremes weather then? Because its always going to happen. Its natural cycles. You people are so brainwashed to fear everything yet do nothing but **** and agree to let the government to push us back to the caveman days. Net zero...LOL 

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

I wonder how many of you alarmist snowballs are still driving gas powered  cars/trucks and eating belching and farting cows and using fossil fuels for your daily energy needs. If I could ever find one of you alarmist that wasn't a total hypocrite I'd buy that person a drink.

Obviously you don't understand what it means to be a hypocrite.  Nobody here has once asked you or anyone else to lead a carbon-neutral lifestyle.  

But I guess after getting your ass handed to you on this CO2 coalition disinformation, you haven't got much left. 

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:
 

And all you need to do is look at the 1930s. It was extremely hot and dry as well. Why? We were not as populated nor used the fossil fuels to the levels we do now. So how is it possible to have such extremes weather then? Because its always going to happen. Its natural cycles. 

HeavyG

https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/1680700286908727298?s=20

Cool (so to speak)!

Foghorn

WildmanWilson said:

I wonder how many of you alarmist snowballs are still driving gas powered  cars/trucks and eating belching and farting cows and using fossil fuels for your daily energy needs. If I could ever find one of you alarmist that wasn't a total hypocrite I'd buy that person a drink.

Actually, this is a really good point.  I think it just speaks to human nature.

People intend to quit smoking or quit drinking or lose weight but their actions often don't match their words - even though those words do reflect their true intentions.

I believe the climate scientists are ultimately going to be proven correct because their conclusions are based on the bulk of the data, not the handpicked equivalents of anecdotes that the Wildman is throwing out that go against the vast majority of the data but do happen to support his belief.

But I drive a gas powered car and in 2003 we moved into a 3900 square foot home that uses a lot of energy - so my actions don't really align with my understanding of the situation. (Note: We recycle, avoid plastic bottles, and do multiple other things that are relatively easy and convenient so as to reduce our contribution to the problem, but we still have a relatively big carbon footprint).

With that said, Wildman, you don't have to look hard to find people who are living their lives based on what is best for the earth and humanity.  There are people who bike to work to avoid using gas, people who take the subway to minimize their carbon impact, and there are multiple companies building 100 square foot homes that people are buying to reduce energy use, etc.  So, to claim that you can't find one person who lives like that just suggests that you need to get out more - or read a little.  

Unfortunately, though, all of this leads me to only one conclusion.  If majority of those of us who truly want to be part of the solution can't overcome our nature and desire to be part of societal norms won't just voluntarily do it in a way that is sustainable, the only option left is governmental policies that force us to do the right thing.  I'm no fan of government intervention, but I don't see another good option.  I'd love for someone to educate me about a better solution.

Gulfcoastguy

While I generally side with the eco friendly people I can understand Wildman's last post. Once back early in the Obama days a devote Democrat cited climate change as one of his motives, he drove a 4 door pickup truck 40 miles one way to work. He also had built a house and deliberately didn't choose a heat pump because a regular HVAC was a few hundred cheaper. I said "what are you doing personally to save the climate and I don't mean by voting?". He sold the truck and bought some small Chevrolet car. That lasted for about 4 months until he tried to put an ice chest into it. Back to a 4 door pickup he went. Take this post as you will.

WildmanWilson

I’ll let you watch the top climate God, that’s pushing your buttons, and see him answer these climate questions. You should like it. 

https://fb.watch/lRI6vEEWRT/?mibextid=YCRy0i

JohnInCarolina

Gulfcoastguy said:

While I generally side with the eco friendly people I can understand Wildman's last post. Once back early in the Obama days a devote Democrat cited climate change as one of his motives, he drove a 4 door pickup truck 40 miles one way to work. He also had built a house and deliberately didn't choose a heat pump because a regular HVAC was a few hundred cheaper. I said "what are you doing personally to save the climate and I don't mean by voting?". He sold the truck and bought some small Chevrolet car. That lasted for about 4 months until he tried to put an ice chest into it. Back to a 4 door pickup he went. Take this post as you will.

To me this just emphasizes @Foghorn’s last point.  It’s hard to convince people as individuals to make choices for themselves that are inconvenient.  That’s why real change that makes enough of a dent requires government policy.

Gulfcoastguy

No it just means that some people talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

nolaegghead

Just because one acknowledges the legitimacy of the concern but doesn't regress to a ridiculously ludite fringe-being doesn't mean one can't support proactive systemic changes to solve the problems.  This hypocrisy bit is myopic b*llshit by deluded lyin' ball sacks.

Legume

Gulfcoastguy said:

No it just means that some people talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

I think meaningful movement requires meaningful policy.  I get that you're saying there are outspoken hypocrites out there, and that probably works against generating momentum in a larger way when people know the person preaching at them is a hypocrite (that was your point, right?). That sucks, but how many people is that?

Maybe the question should be how do we get 50, 60, 70+ percent of our population to make meaningful lifestyle changes on a meaningful timeline.  Innovation alone won't go far enough or be adopted quickly enough - how many years have we had hybrids and electric cars and what % of new car sales does that rep now?) Pollicy should be used to generate the need that drives both innovation and adoption.  Blah blah mother of invention, blah blah. We need to create the necessity and that's hard when you have people quoting messages from a Cracker Jack box as evidence that climate change/crisis is fake.

fishlessman

Legume said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

No it just means that some people talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

I think meaningful movement requires meaningful policy.  I get that you're saying there are outspoken hypocrites out there, and that probably works against generating momentum in a larger way when people know the person preaching at them is a hypocrite (that was your point, right?). That sucks, but how many people is that?

Maybe the question should be how do we get 50, 60, 70+ percent of our population to make meaningful lifestyle changes on a meaningful timeline.  Innovation alone won't go far enough or be adopted quickly enough - how many years have we had hybrids and electric cars and what % of new car sales does that rep now?) Pollicy should be used to generate the need that drives both innovation and adoption.  Blah blah mother of invention, blah blah. We need to create the necessity and that's hard when you have people quoting messages from a Cracker Jack box as evidence that climate change/crisis is fake.

first electric cars were in the late 1800's. people went with the trusted horse and buggy instead

JohnInCarolina

http://twitter.com/TimMLatimer/status/1681304496234991620?s=20

Legume

fishlessman said:

Legume said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

No it just means that some people talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

I think meaningful movement requires meaningful policy.  I get that you're saying there are outspoken hypocrites out there, and that probably works against generating momentum in a larger way when people know the person preaching at them is a hypocrite (that was your point, right?). That sucks, but how many people is that?

Maybe the question should be how do we get 50, 60, 70+ percent of our population to make meaningful lifestyle changes on a meaningful timeline.  Innovation alone won't go far enough or be adopted quickly enough - how many years have we had hybrids and electric cars and what % of new car sales does that rep now?) Pollicy should be used to generate the need that drives both innovation and adoption.  Blah blah mother of invention, blah blah. We need to create the necessity and that's hard when you have people quoting messages from a Cracker Jack box as evidence that climate change/crisis is fake.

first electric cars were in the late 1800's. people went with the trusted horse and buggy instead

Exactly, the uptake is too slow at that pace.

HeavyG

JohnInCarolina said:

http://twitter.com/TimMLatimer/status/1681304496234991620?s=20

Couple of good threads there. Interesting to learn a bit about the history of the evolution of cutting bits.

YukonRon

Hydrocarbons have and will play a role in climate change. Their use has transformed each aspect of our lives, the degree of severity differs from person to person. 

CO2 is not the only culprit impacting climate change, there are so many other compounds which effect global temperature, as well as the health of every human on this planet, derived from the use of hydrocarbons.

Aromatic Compounds (Benzine), CFCs, Methane, Aldehydes, Peroxy-Alkyl-Nitrates, Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds, and several others are just as important, perhaps in some cases even more so, than Carbon Dioxide in the areas of photosynthesis suppression, upper-level ozone depletion, lower-level greenhouse gas (ozone) creation, and other concerns to human health, right down to cellular health, impacting RNA and DNA.

It remains to be seen whether influencers in the USA and China can mutually agree the current approach, in just two of the world's most industrialized nations, by taking the next step, could initiate a plan to meet the well documented climate concerns (much like India faces currently, with almost zero guidance on environmental impact. Anyone wishing to debate their issue is not directly related to hydrocarbon emissions?).

Exposure to these compounds are definitively linked to leukemia, brain, lung, throat, nasal cancers, as well as the diminished capacity to fight off infections of various sorts. There remain many other issues, we have just not had the time to study adequately, effecting the health of every animal on the face of the planet. The common denominator: compounds derived from hydrocarbons.

My career is based on the minimization of volatile organic compounds and the minimization of hydrocarbons in the manufacturing and curing of surface solutions, globally. We have made significant in-roads in meeting, and in most cases, beating the local, state and federal guidelines currently in place to control various emissions. These steps have required scientific breakthroughs in renewable energy, both in the development and the engineering to make these creations our choice moving forward as a responsible citizen in the global marketplace. In the collective, of industrial awareness, we still have a very long way to go.

Denying the hydrocarbon relationship shared with climate change, as well as the ecological conflicts it poses due to mining, processing, use and disposal, is infantile at its very core. Do better. If not for you, then do it for your family and the generations to come. Think globally, act locally.

Just a bit of history for the republicans in the BGE forum, the Clean Air Act of 1970, was during the Nixon administration, and was considered the beginning the processes of the commitment for a healthier environment via industrial technology, saving hundreds of thousands of lives each decade it has been in place. They recognized the need over 50 years ago. Playing politics as a denier is, at best, very misinformed and a platform of zero strength. 

Just my $.02.

nolaegghead

Legume said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

No it just means that some people talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

I think meaningful movement requires meaningful policy.  I get that you're saying there are outspoken hypocrites out there, and that probably works against generating momentum in a larger way when people know the person preaching at them is a hypocrite (that was your point, right?). That sucks, but how many people is that?

Maybe the question should be how do we get 50, 60, 70+ percent of our population to make meaningful lifestyle changes on a meaningful timeline.  Innovation alone won't go far enough or be adopted quickly enough - how many years have we had hybrids and electric cars and what % of new car sales does that rep now?) Pollicy should be used to generate the need that drives both innovation and adoption.  Blah blah mother of invention, blah blah. We need to create the necessity and that's hard when you have people quoting messages from a Cracker Jack box as evidence that climate change/crisis is fake.

We should do what most governments do to influence behavior - fund fixing problem by collecting money from those that contribute to the problem, and subsidize correct behavior by the usual means - tax breaks typically.  

WildmanWilson

Legume said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

No it just means that some people talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

I think meaningful movement requires meaningful policy.  I get that you're saying there are outspoken hypocrites out there, and that probably works against generating momentum in a larger way when people know the person preaching at them is a hypocrite (that was your point, right?). That sucks, but how many people is that?

Maybe the question should be how do we get 50, 60, 70+ percent of our population to make meaningful lifestyle changes on a meaningful timeline.  Innovation alone won't go far enough or be adopted quickly enough - how many years have we had hybrids and electric cars and what % of new car sales does that rep now?) Pollicy should be used to generate the need that drives both innovation and adoption.  Blah blah mother of invention, blah blah. We need to create the necessity and that's hard when you have people quoting messages from a Cracker Jack box as evidence that climate change/crisis is fake.

Maybe they should use the same draconian policies they did with covid. That really went over well. 

WildmanWilson

So what about Kerry testifying? 

https://fb.watch/lS_gJkpXss/?mibextid=YCRy0i

Botch

WildmanWilson said:
Maybe they should use the same draconian policies they did with covid. That really went over well. 

Yeah, it got us to  Number One!!  Not just in total deaths among "advanced" nations, but Number One among ALL nations!  And those policies weren't implemented all over!!  We're Number One!!!  
Do Better.  Do Better, Infantile.  

Legume

Draconian, lmao.

JohnInCarolina

Legume said:

Draconian, lmao.

Don’t forget, Wildman is one of those clowns who never got the Fauci ouchie.  You know, because reasons.

fishlessman

nolaegghead said:

Legume said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

No it just means that some people talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

I think meaningful movement requires meaningful policy.  I get that you're saying there are outspoken hypocrites out there, and that probably works against generating momentum in a larger way when people know the person preaching at them is a hypocrite (that was your point, right?). That sucks, but how many people is that?

Maybe the question should be how do we get 50, 60, 70+ percent of our population to make meaningful lifestyle changes on a meaningful timeline.  Innovation alone won't go far enough or be adopted quickly enough - how many years have we had hybrids and electric cars and what % of new car sales does that rep now?) Pollicy should be used to generate the need that drives both innovation and adoption.  Blah blah mother of invention, blah blah. We need to create the necessity and that's hard when you have people quoting messages from a Cracker Jack box as evidence that climate change/crisis is fake.

We should do what most governments do to influence behavior - fund fixing problem by collecting money from those that contribute to the problem, and subsidize correct behavior by the usual means - tax breaks typically.  

i remember in the 80's, a dirty burning paper mill plant could buy clean credits from a nonpolluting clean burning plant. if you owned two the clean credits were just exchanged. then nobody paid taxes. thats more how our govt works. wonder if they still do that or will they bring that back.....gotta love loop holes, makes the people happy, makes the polluting companies happy....

Legume

fishlessman said:

nolaegghead said:

Legume said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

No it just means that some people talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

I think meaningful movement requires meaningful policy.  I get that you're saying there are outspoken hypocrites out there, and that probably works against generating momentum in a larger way when people know the person preaching at them is a hypocrite (that was your point, right?). That sucks, but how many people is that?

Maybe the question should be how do we get 50, 60, 70+ percent of our population to make meaningful lifestyle changes on a meaningful timeline.  Innovation alone won't go far enough or be adopted quickly enough - how many years have we had hybrids and electric cars and what % of new car sales does that rep now?) Pollicy should be used to generate the need that drives both innovation and adoption.  Blah blah mother of invention, blah blah. We need to create the necessity and that's hard when you have people quoting messages from a Cracker Jack box as evidence that climate change/crisis is fake.

We should do what most governments do to influence behavior - fund fixing problem by collecting money from those that contribute to the problem, and subsidize correct behavior by the usual means - tax breaks typically.  

i remember in the 80's, a dirty burning paper mill plant could buy clean credits from a nonpolluting clean burning plant. if you owned two the clean credits were just exchanged. then nobody paid taxes. thats more how our govt works. wonder if they still do that or will they bring that back.....gotta love loop holes, makes the people happy, makes the polluting companies happy....

That sounds more like how industry lobbyists can be a horrible influence.

fishlessman

Legume said:

fishlessman said:

nolaegghead said:

Legume said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

No it just means that some people talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

I think meaningful movement requires meaningful policy.  I get that you're saying there are outspoken hypocrites out there, and that probably works against generating momentum in a larger way when people know the person preaching at them is a hypocrite (that was your point, right?). That sucks, but how many people is that?

Maybe the question should be how do we get 50, 60, 70+ percent of our population to make meaningful lifestyle changes on a meaningful timeline.  Innovation alone won't go far enough or be adopted quickly enough - how many years have we had hybrids and electric cars and what % of new car sales does that rep now?) Pollicy should be used to generate the need that drives both innovation and adoption.  Blah blah mother of invention, blah blah. We need to create the necessity and that's hard when you have people quoting messages from a Cracker Jack box as evidence that climate change/crisis is fake.

We should do what most governments do to influence behavior - fund fixing problem by collecting money from those that contribute to the problem, and subsidize correct behavior by the usual means - tax breaks typically.  

i remember in the 80's, a dirty burning paper mill plant could buy clean credits from a nonpolluting clean burning plant. if you owned two the clean credits were just exchanged. then nobody paid taxes. thats more how our govt works. wonder if they still do that or will they bring that back.....gotta love loop holes, makes the people happy, makes the polluting companies happy....

That sounds more like how industry lobbyists can be a horrible influence.

and thats how our government rolls. insanity at best

WildmanWilson

JohnInCarolina said:

Legume said:

Draconian, lmao.

Don’t forget, Wildman is one of those clowns who never got the Fauci ouchie.  You know, because reasons.

And yet here I am… A younger and strapping man at work had the jab and died of blood clots. He would be alive now had he not fallen to pressure and disinformation. 

WildmanWilson

Why don’t you alarmist want to talk about this? 

It must be a kick in the nuts. It’s okay…we know. 

https://fb.watch/lUnoJnL3h-/?mibextid=v7YzmG

Legume

I don't watch vids that are posted (not just yours).  Why don't you give me the high points?

JohnInCarolina

It seems Wildman gets much of his news from Facebook.  That certainly explains how well informed he is.  

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

Why don’t you alarmist want to talk about this? 

It must be a kick in the nuts. It’s okay…we know. 

https://fb.watch/lUnoJnL3h-/?mibextid=v7YzmG

By far the best part of that exchange comes at the end, where the GOP representative states that we can’t reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because plants need it to live, and we don’t want to kill off all the plants because then we’d die too.  😂😂😂

Are all of your heroes weapons-grade morons, or just the majority?