4 ms·

for this article to reference the EPA is laughable. The EPA is run by former lobbyists of the world’s major polluters and producers of pesticides/herbicides/fu

for this article to reference the EPA is laughable. The EPA is run by former lobbyists of the world’s major polluters and producers of pesticides/herbicides/fungicides.

jesterson 4y ago
"Climate change" scam is run by corrupted politicians who do scaremongering over decades just because people have short memory. We need listen to rational arguments and statistically verifiable concepts if we are seeking the truth instead of focusing on personalities.
- mcv 4y ago
  This is bullshit and you know it. Politicians have been incredibly slow to accept the reality of climate change because they depend on oil dollars. Oil companies have spent 40 years spreading misinformation to mislead people on this issue because they knew very well that a fixing this problem would lead to reduced profits for them. They bought politicians to block proposals, pushed the least effective solutions when blocking it became infeasible. Politicians with any meaningful power have been squarely on the side of the oil companies in this, and that's why so little has been done these past 40 years. The rational arguments warning us about global warming and climate change go back more than 100 years. Alexander Graham Bell (inventor of the telephone) wrote an article in 1908 where he explained why burning oil would eventually lead to global warming. Because scientists already knew how this worked over 100 years ago. Politicians have only very recently been coming to grips with this, and even then extremely reluctantly, because they know it will hurt their powerful oil buddies.
  - jesterson 4y ago
    > This is bullshit and you know it. Statements like that are not leading to fruitful discussions and signals of you as not very intelligent person. I suggest to stay away from it. > Politicians have been incredibly slow to accept the reality of climate change because they depend on oil dollars. That's very primitive state of facts. While it is certainly true in many cases, industry changes imposed by "climate change" lobby are resulting in huge redistribution of wealth. Companies and countries who benefit from that certainly incentivise the process and lobbyists. So you are right - but that's only part of the picture. > The rational arguments warning us about global warming and climate change go back more than 100 years To the best of our knowledge, climate change happens on this planet for all time of its existence. How much human activity contributes to that is something extremely difficult to measure and understand.
    - mcv 4y ago
      > Statements like that are not leading to fruitful discussions and signals of you as not very intelligent person. I suggest to stay away from it. Normally yes, but not in this case. You were repeating a nonsense conspiracy theory that's completely detached from reality. That is something that signals you as a not very intelligent person, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. > That's very primitive state of facts. Facts nonetheless. You try to present it as if politicians have been pushing the idea of climate change, but the fact is that they've been lagging, very slow to accept the facts until it really couldn't be denied anymore, and then they still didn't do anything. Scientists are the ones who've been telling us about climate change for over a century now. Climate activists have picked up that message and have been pushing it. Major parties have mostly ignored it or at best paid lip service to it. > While it is certainly true in many cases, industry changes imposed by "climate change" lobby are resulting in huge redistribution of wealth. In what way? You state this as if it's a fact, but this really depends on what kind of industry changes you're going to impose. Well, it's obvious that the oil industry is going to lose their business, which is why they've been investing so much effort into spreading misinformation about it. But industry changes are normal. Every technological and societal change causes changes to industries. Look at the rise of computers, for just one of many examples. > To the best of our knowledge, climate change happens on this planet for all time of its existence. How much human activity contributes to that is something extremely difficult to measure and understand. That is completely missing the point. We're talking specifically about climate change caused by the greenhouse effect, caused by putting more CO2 in the atmosphere by burning more fossil fuels. The greenhouse effect has been well known for practically 2 centuries now. It's been well-proven on a small scale: more CO2 or other greenhouse gasses (methane, water vapor) in a container that light can enter (like a greenhouse) means the air in the container absorbs more heat and gets hotter. 1 century ago, Alexander Graham Bell wrote a paper that said if this process worked on a small scale, there's no reason why it wouldn't work the same on a large scale, like our atmosphere. If we kept burning oil and coal, eventually the level of CO2 in our atmosphere would rise and our atmosphere would start to heat up. Of course he had no idea yet how fast or how dramatically that would happen, but that it would eventually happen is simply a logical consequence of everything known at that point. Even since, scientists have been working on models to predict how fast that would happen. How fast are we putting CO2 into the atmosphere, what other processes are there that take it out again (photosynthesis, dissolving as acid into the oceans, and a million other factors). Modelling all those effects is where all the work in climate science has been. The basis of the greenhouse effect is very well established, has been confirmed again and again, and you need to be quite detached from reality to deny it. All those alternative theories (it's just "natural variation") do not explain the data we've got, and also fail to explain why the greenhouse effect wouldn't work on this scale. In recent decades, the urgency of this issue has finally reached political levels, but as one politician coined it, it's a very inconvenient truth that lots of politicians still refuse to accept. Many politicians have very strong ties to the oil industry (see the Iraq War, Iran 1953 and many, many other examples where leading politicians have been completely in bed with oil companies and basically doing their bidding). Some, but still sadly a minority, are finally coming to grips with how important this issue is, but there have been and still are complicit in spreading the misinformation of the oil industry. And you're doing the same. You're spreading intentional misinformation designed to muddy the issue and postpone necessary measures from being taken. I really strongly hope this was not your intent, and you merely fell for the propaganda, but having access to a bit more background now, I really hope you're going to rethink your position.

for this article to reference the EPA is laughable. The EPA is run by former lobbyists of the world’s major polluters and producers of pesticides/herbicides/fungicides.

jesterson 4y ago

"Climate change" scam is run by corrupted politicians who do scaremongering over decades just because people have short memory. We need listen to rational arguments and statistically verifiable concepts if we are seeking the truth instead of focusing on personalities.

mcv 4y ago
This is bullshit and you know it. Politicians have been incredibly slow to accept the reality of climate change because they depend on oil dollars. Oil companies have spent 40 years spreading misinformation to mislead people on this issue because they knew very well that a fixing this problem would lead to reduced profits for them. They bought politicians to block proposals, pushed the least effective solutions when blocking it became infeasible. Politicians with any meaningful power have been squarely on the side of the oil companies in this, and that's why so little has been done these past 40 years. The rational arguments warning us about global warming and climate change go back more than 100 years. Alexander Graham Bell (inventor of the telephone) wrote an article in 1908 where he explained why burning oil would eventually lead to global warming. Because scientists already knew how this worked over 100 years ago. Politicians have only very recently been coming to grips with this, and even then extremely reluctantly, because they know it will hurt their powerful oil buddies.
- jesterson 4y ago
  > This is bullshit and you know it. Statements like that are not leading to fruitful discussions and signals of you as not very intelligent person. I suggest to stay away from it. > Politicians have been incredibly slow to accept the reality of climate change because they depend on oil dollars. That's very primitive state of facts. While it is certainly true in many cases, industry changes imposed by "climate change" lobby are resulting in huge redistribution of wealth. Companies and countries who benefit from that certainly incentivise the process and lobbyists. So you are right - but that's only part of the picture. > The rational arguments warning us about global warming and climate change go back more than 100 years To the best of our knowledge, climate change happens on this planet for all time of its existence. How much human activity contributes to that is something extremely difficult to measure and understand.
  - mcv 4y ago
    > Statements like that are not leading to fruitful discussions and signals of you as not very intelligent person. I suggest to stay away from it. Normally yes, but not in this case. You were repeating a nonsense conspiracy theory that's completely detached from reality. That is something that signals you as a not very intelligent person, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. > That's very primitive state of facts. Facts nonetheless. You try to present it as if politicians have been pushing the idea of climate change, but the fact is that they've been lagging, very slow to accept the facts until it really couldn't be denied anymore, and then they still didn't do anything. Scientists are the ones who've been telling us about climate change for over a century now. Climate activists have picked up that message and have been pushing it. Major parties have mostly ignored it or at best paid lip service to it. > While it is certainly true in many cases, industry changes imposed by "climate change" lobby are resulting in huge redistribution of wealth. In what way? You state this as if it's a fact, but this really depends on what kind of industry changes you're going to impose. Well, it's obvious that the oil industry is going to lose their business, which is why they've been investing so much effort into spreading misinformation about it. But industry changes are normal. Every technological and societal change causes changes to industries. Look at the rise of computers, for just one of many examples. > To the best of our knowledge, climate change happens on this planet for all time of its existence. How much human activity contributes to that is something extremely difficult to measure and understand. That is completely missing the point. We're talking specifically about climate change caused by the greenhouse effect, caused by putting more CO2 in the atmosphere by burning more fossil fuels. The greenhouse effect has been well known for practically 2 centuries now. It's been well-proven on a small scale: more CO2 or other greenhouse gasses (methane, water vapor) in a container that light can enter (like a greenhouse) means the air in the container absorbs more heat and gets hotter. 1 century ago, Alexander Graham Bell wrote a paper that said if this process worked on a small scale, there's no reason why it wouldn't work the same on a large scale, like our atmosphere. If we kept burning oil and coal, eventually the level of CO2 in our atmosphere would rise and our atmosphere would start to heat up. Of course he had no idea yet how fast or how dramatically that would happen, but that it would eventually happen is simply a logical consequence of everything known at that point. Even since, scientists have been working on models to predict how fast that would happen. How fast are we putting CO2 into the atmosphere, what other processes are there that take it out again (photosynthesis, dissolving as acid into the oceans, and a million other factors). Modelling all those effects is where all the work in climate science has been. The basis of the greenhouse effect is very well established, has been confirmed again and again, and you need to be quite detached from reality to deny it. All those alternative theories (it's just "natural variation") do not explain the data we've got, and also fail to explain why the greenhouse effect wouldn't work on this scale. In recent decades, the urgency of this issue has finally reached political levels, but as one politician coined it, it's a very inconvenient truth that lots of politicians still refuse to accept. Many politicians have very strong ties to the oil industry (see the Iraq War, Iran 1953 and many, many other examples where leading politicians have been completely in bed with oil companies and basically doing their bidding). Some, but still sadly a minority, are finally coming to grips with how important this issue is, but there have been and still are complicit in spreading the misinformation of the oil industry. And you're doing the same. You're spreading intentional misinformation designed to muddy the issue and postpone necessary measures from being taken. I really strongly hope this was not your intent, and you merely fell for the propaganda, but having access to a bit more background now, I really hope you're going to rethink your position.