Global warming and politics

[kevm14]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/ ... d11be87ebb

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period.

That is crazy. And not a dime of that seems to authorize any studies, papers or grants that consider whether perhaps humans haven't drastically changed the climate, or, even the benefits of increased atmospheric CO2 (which we seem to be contributing to) or warming itself (which we don't seem to be contributing to).

Then there's the matter of those escalating climate-premised EPA regulation costs that are killing businesses and jobs under cover of the Clean Air Act. These rampant overreaches are being justified by the agency's Endangerment Finding proclaiming CO2 to be a pollutant. The finding ignored a contrary conclusion in EPA's own "Internal Study on Climate" that: "Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based upon a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

The single worst thing the EPA did under Obama: classified CO2 as a pollutant. It was a step too far and a vast overreach of authority. Also, no warming since 1998, which not a single model predicted. Not one.

As to why you should still do something, even if we are wrong, just in case we are not wrong:

A U.S. Energy Information Administration economic forecasting model indicates that a proposed 70% cut in CO2 emissions will cause gasoline prices to rise 77% over baseline projections, kill more than 3 million jobs, and reduce average household income by more than $4,000 each year.

Also you know what else that reminds me exactly of? People's rationalization of religious practice/belief (people are of course allowed religious freedom but that is the intellectually weakest argument I've ever come across). Heard it plenty of times. Of course this is no shock to me.

[bill25]

whether perhaps humans haven't drastically changed the climate,

I still disagree that this matters at all. IF there is temperature/climate change, and it is going to wipe the human race from the planet due to no food/water, too hot/cold, whatever, we should be actively trying to understand what is happening and how to maintain the planet being inhabitable. Why it is happening doesn't really matter.

What if for example, we are causing the planet to warm from burning too much oil and eating too many farting cows, and the solution is easy, and we don't have to stop burning oil or eating cheeseburgers?

[kevm14]

Man of the year.

EPA chief wants scientists to debate climate on TV

http://a.msn.com/r/2/BBEfnGx?a=1&m=EN-US

[bill25]

Hey don't eat that. It's hot outside:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/world/cli ... index.html

[Adam]

I've nearly watched all the videos. Its taken....a while.

[Adam]

As to why you should still do something, even if we are wrong, just in case we are not wrong:

A U.S. Energy Information Administration economic forecasting model indicates that a proposed 70% cut in CO2 emissions will cause gasoline prices to rise 77% over baseline projections, kill more than 3 million jobs, and reduce average household income by more than $4,000 each year.

The only way to cut CO2 emissions by 70% would be to levy enough taxes on it so people would stop buying it. I can't think of any time taxing something out of existence has helped anything. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Adam]

Hey don't eat that. It's hot outside:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/world/cli ... index.html

I love articles that highlight problems but don't offer solutions.

[kevm14]

In the end I think the participants aren't going to feel very bad about this as some regular people slowly wise up. Because the garbage science was just a means to get to the desired result (and the result isn't necessarily "environmental concern"). I do think some folks are actually concerned about the planet and would be pretty pissed looking back at the articles that report a doubling down of sky is falling scare tactics. The evidence is nonexistent. The polar bears are fine (and are assholes). For one thing, the money could have been better used elsewhere. And it dilutes from actual environmental concerns (I have always said the NOx smog thing was real, not phony science). But anyone standing behind CO2 as a pollutant is not credible imo. I've said this before about the articles about climate change with stock photos of factories belching out black smoke - I bet many people on the street think that's what CO2 is, or have no clue what a harmful concentration actually is. It's quite high. And there's barely any of it in our atmosphere. And we contributed about 7% of that small amount. The result being an infinitesimal amount of warming (yes, there is, but it's very, very small).

Liberals say they want to help minorities and the poor of third world countries. Yet the policies concocted do the opposite. True conservative policies (which I don't know that we've really seen many in decades) get gov't out of the way of people. I have learned this from Tom Sowell. Three examples: 1) Tom Sowell's stance is that affirmative action has done significant harm to the black cause rather than help it as it is intended. It is in several of the videos and the short answer is, it ends up placing students at the wrong schools and the graduation rates dropped significantly because they couldn't handle the curriculums. If gov't wasn't in the way they could go to a school that was matched for their abilities, still get a great education (it doesn't need to be Ivy League), and actually graduate. It also fosters contempt and racism - how do you think other kids felt about someone being given such an artificial advantage? I'd rather let Tom explain though. 2) Climate change policies significantly stunt or even set back the economic possibilities in third world countries by telling them, no, you can't have that fossil fuel energy that we had, good luck with wind and solar. 3) Black households were generally more successful before the 60s liberal wave, despite the policies and rhetoric specifically designed to "help.". Tom has the data on that. And he does a much better job explaining. Basically the welfare state has corrupted the black culture and caused people to feel hopeless because that's what they are told they should feel.

The whole "south" thing needs some coverage from him though, as his experience is based on being raised in Harlem in the 40s (and having moved from NC to NY at the age of 9, specifically for better opportunities so his parents seemed to recognize it at least). In any event, black people were generally doing way better then than they are now, in every metric you can find: poverty, crime, fatherless children, education, etc.

But again, we haven't had many real conservative policies from even our Republican presidents. Both parties practice crony capitalism.

[bill25]

billgiacheri wrote:
Hey don't eat that. It's hot outside:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/world/cli ... index.html

I love articles that highlight problems but don't offer solutions.

This was just a joke to send Kevin off the deep end because he spent 3 weeks watching YouTube videos that agreed with his stance and getting more and more angry with each view. Dude needs to get back to cars. It is way less stressful, and way more fun.

[Adam]

This was just a joke to send Kevin off the deep end because he spent 3 weeks watching YouTube videos that agreed with his stance and getting more and more angry with each view. Dude needs to get back to cars. It is way less stressful, and way more fun.

Maybe we should give him a TV?