What do you think of climate change?

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The Obamas apparently just closed on a $15 million dollar beachfront property, 20+ acres and huge house, in Nantucket. I guess, just as an observation, they’re not worried much about global warming and a rising ocean.

The house is actually on Martha’s Vineyard, not Nantucket. It is beachfront property, but only if you consider the shore of Edgartown Great Pond to be a beach. (It is not oceanfront property.) It probably is subject to sea level rise, though, being so close.

Thanks for the correction. I’ve made the change.

Since Marthas Vinyard is an Island 7 miles off the coast of Cape Cod, and the Obamas property / house is on the shore, then I’d consider that ocean property. Supposedly they are next to the Kennedy estate.

LeafByNiggle:

I think of the Obama’s purchase as displaying not so much a disbelief in global warming, but a willingness to share a little bit in the fate of humanity at large.

I see you are a big fan, regardless of the optics

LeafByNiggle:

Imagine if the Obama’s had purchased a mountain top retreat instead.

Here’s what I’m thinking.

If climate change is really THAT important,

Why are we being lectured to by hypocrites on what WE are to do but not THEM.

Why are sycophants putting their allegiances with these same hypocrite polyticians who are making tons of money on this subject?

All one has to do is follow the money.

LeafByNiggle:

"They’ve got money to protect them from global warming, and don’t care what befalls the rest of us."

Based on what they DO and NOT what they SAY, …THAT is an honest statement

 

[pnewton]

Here’s what I’m thinking.

If climate change is really THAT important,

Why are we being lectured to by hypocrites on what WE are to do but not THEM.

This is one of the best points I know against working to stem climate change. However, it is important to remember that most scientists are not the wealthy or powerful, flying on the private jets, living in over-sized houses, and leaving a carbon footprint the size of Manhattan, while lecturing to use about rain forest and fossil fuels. Powerful environmentalists are a great danger to the public, as their hypocrisy reveals their true intent. If believe the same of the anti-abortionist conservatives that usurp the value of life as a coin for power. They are a the greatest threat to meaningful cultural change.

Nonetheless, I fear the response to this hypocrisy may be to cut off our nose to spite our face, leaving the planet in far worse shape for our children and grandchildren than how we found it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here’s what I’m thinking.

If climate change is really THAT important,

Why are we being lectured to by hypocrites on what WE are to do but not THEM.

If you listen to those “lectures” you will see they are proposals for all of us - rich and poor alike, such as taxing carbon emissions.

But the whole discussion of hypocrites promoting green energy is another example of whataboutism to deflect from any serious discussion of climate change.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Here’s what I’m thinking.

If climate change is really THAT important,

Why are we being lectured to by hypocrites on what WE are to do but not THEM.

If you listen to those “lectures” you will see they are proposals for all of us - rich and poor alike, such as taxing carbon emissions.

But the whole discussion of hypocrites promoting green energy is another example of whataboutism to deflect from any serious discussion of climate change.

hypocrites are hypocrites. Pure and simple.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

steve-b:

Here’s what I’m thinking.

If climate change is really THAT important,

Why are we being lectured to by hypocrites on what WE are to do but not THEM.

If you listen to those “lectures” you will see they are proposals for all of us - rich and poor alike, such as taxing carbon emissions.

But the whole discussion of hypocrites promoting green energy is another example of whataboutism to deflect from any serious discussion of climate change.

hypocrites are hypocrites. Pure and simple.

Not simple when the accusation is thrown around with as much abandon as the term “racism.” It is the “deflection de jour”.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

LeafByNiggle:

steve-b:

Here’s what I’m thinking.

If climate change is really THAT important,

Why are we being lectured to by hypocrites on what WE are to do but not THEM.

If you listen to those “lectures” you will see they are proposals for all of us - rich and poor alike, such as taxing carbon emissions.

But the whole discussion of hypocrites promoting green energy is another example of whataboutism to deflect from any serious discussion of climate change.

hypocrites are hypocrites. Pure and simple.

Not simple when the accusation is thrown around with as much abandon as the term “racism.” It is the “deflection de jour”.

Now THAT response, is a deflection on steroids

 

[Theo520]

If you listen to those “lectures” you will see they are proposals for all of us - rich and poor alike, such as taxing carbon emissions.

Isn’t the goal for all to reduce carbon emissions? Unless the goal is just for poorer people to be forced to reduce their emissions due to it’s regressive nature, while the rich go about business as usual.

If a rich person is going to evangelize the need to reduce, they need to walk the talk.

This is why I respected Ed Begley Jr preaching on the environment, he lived it.

‘Live simply:” Ed Begley Jr. encourages environmental protection at Springfield Public Forum - masslive.com

 

[Theo520]

I’m a chemist. The evidence does not defend the use of DDT as responsible stewardship of the Earth

Scientists disagree with you

Should DDT Be Used to Combat Malaria? | Scientific American

 

[PetraG]

Scientists disagree with you

If you think we all have the same opinion about this, you both did not read the review I posted and also cannot possibly be one of us.

Let me repeat:
“In some situations, DDT will provide the greatest achievable health benefit, but arguing that DDT is safe is ignoring the cumulative indications of many studies. The centrist-DDT position, including its recognition of this paradox, seems the only logical and rational conclusion. We have suggested possible ways to manage or address the paradox. A major priority of the centrist position is to use or develop effective alternatives to DDT. The centrist-DDT position remains, however, open to attack from both sides of the spectrum. The debate is likely to continue, but this must not hinder improvement and innovation for a better, safer, and healthier future.”

An alternative needs to be found.

Actually, I have to wonder if you even read the piece you posted yourself!!

A panel of scientists recommended today that the spraying of DDT in malaria-plagued Africa and Asia should be greatly reduced because people are exposed in their homes to high levels that may cause serious health effects.

The scientists from the United States and South Africa said the insecticide, banned decades ago in most of the world, should only be used as a last resort in combating malaria.

 

[Theo520]

If you think we all have the same opinion about this, you both did not read the review I posted and also cannot possibly be one of us.

Wow aren’t we feeling touchy!
I provided a valid source that disagreed with your conclusion (which I quoted).

That an alternative needs to be found doesn’t mean DDT doesn’t have a current role to play.
We’re in a constant search for new antibiotics, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use the drugs we have available now.

 

[PetraG]

Wow aren’t we feeling touchy!
I provided a valid source that disagreed with your conclusion (which I quoted).

That an alternative needs to be found doesn’t mean DDT doesn’t have a current role to play.
We’re in a constant search for new antibiotics, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use the drugs we have available now.

I’m not using the royal we, but yes, I wonder why I post if you’re going to reply not only without reading the piece I linked to but apparently without reading the one you linked to.

It isn’t responsible stewardship of the Earth to keep using DDT. It is not just a durable toxin. It also poses a health threat to the people it is being used to help protect. An alternative has to be found. Does that mean there is no way it ought to ever be used even in the short term no matter how urgent the need? I did not say that, as I would hope my link to a “centrist” review indicates.

Remember, I am responding to this supposed “rebuttal”:
“DDT has more in common with climate change, in that the research was grossly misrepresented to push an agenda.”

You’d think all the early research on DDT was a hoax or overplayed by a bunch of alarmists. No, it is really bad stuff, it breaks down really really slowly and it was very good to stop pumping so much of it into the environment.

https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr236_E.pdf

(And so help me, if you respond by saying that WHO says DDT is “only” probably a carcinogen, you are not helping the case that you are looking at the dangers that either elevated CO2 levels OR DDT very credibly seem to pose and responding as a reasonable person would, assuming that person is someone who can count how many planets the Good Lord gave us to live on…)

 

[Theo520]

I’m not using the royal we, but yes, I wonder why I post if you’re going to reply not only without reading the piece I linked to but apparently without reading the one you linked to.

I responded to your conclusion,

if your conclusion didn’t really represent what you were thinking of the complexities, well that’s on you. Learn to qualify what you conclude. I’m not going to bother with everything you’ve posted if I can just refute your conclusion.

 

[Ender]

It isn’t responsible stewardship of the Earth to keep using DDT.

It may not be good for the Earth but it is undeniably good for the people living on it who are exposed to malaria. I guess the decision to use it or not depends on which you think is more important to protect.

You’d think all the early research on DDT was a hoax or overplayed by a bunch of alarmists.

Yes, that’s correct, and quite literally millions of people died as a result.

 

[phaster]

If a rich person is going to evangelize the need to reduce, they need to walk the talk.

This is why I respected Ed Begley Jr preaching on the environment, he lived it.

‘Live simply:” Ed Begley Jr. encourages environmental protection at Springfield Public Forum - masslive.com

yup,… there is too much hypocrisy in the environmental movement by cash rich but morally bankrupt activists/politicians

Begley opened his talk by saying he wanted to puncture “two big lies.” One, he said, is the claim that manmade climate change and other environmental crises are not happening.

“The other lie is equally insidious: that there are big problems, so huge we can’t do anything about it. I don’t think that’s true at all," Begley said.

…His lifestyle changes were significant but affordable, he said, and within the reach of ordinary people.

…he argued that people’s personal choices add up and can pressure governments into action, encouraging people to stay engaged.

‘Live simply:” Ed Begley Jr. encourages environmental protection at Springfield Public Forum - masslive.com

 

[HarryStotle]

steve-b:

The Obamas apparently just closed on a $15 million dollar beachfront property, 20+ acres and huge house, in Nantucket. I guess, just as an observation, they’re not worried much about global warming and a rising ocean.

The house is actually on Martha’s Vineyard, not Nantucket. It is beachfront property, but only if you consider the shore of Edgartown Great Pond to be a beach. (It is not oceanfront property.) It probably is subject to sea level rise, though, being so close. I think of the Obama’s purchase as displaying not so much a disbelief in global warming, but a willingness to share a little bit in the fate of humanity at large.

Uh huh. Most of humanity can hardly afford three multimillion dollar residences in disparate parts of the United States. Traveled to mostly by private jet.

The “fate of humanity,” you say?

Perhaps moving to China or India or Africa and cavorting with the common people there would be closer to sharing a bit of the “fate of humanity.” Or, even better, just living in a reasonably sized 3 or 4 bedroom house with a couple of bathrooms (instead of 7 or 8) would actually be sharing in the fate of humanity (in the western world.) Baby steps.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

1cthlctrth:

I’m sorry to say that it appears that the idea of “man-made” climate change is an Alinsky tactic to give Leftists power over all of life.

Then I guess those nefarious forces must have started really early, because the theory was first proposed in 1896.

Yeah, but it wasn’t proposed as the reason to initiate centralized government interference in all areas of life back then, like it is today.

That is a different discussion. I am not arguing for any centralized government interference, or indeed for any specific remediation measures. I am only arguing for the scientific facts.

And the scientific fact on the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature is that there is very little historical correlation, primarily because global temperatures are dependent upon a large number of variables and CO2 hardly registers as a determiner. Just naming it a “greenhouse gas” doesn’t make the case.

 

[HarryStotle]

However, it is important to remember that most scientists are not the wealthy or powerful, flying on the private jets, living in over-sized houses, and leaving a carbon footprint the size of Manhattan, while lecturing to use about rain forest and fossil fuels.

Ah, but the question is whether those scientists who are most invested in climate alarmism are making out like bandits from their activism? Perhaps worth a research project?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

1cthlctrth:

I’m sorry to say that it appears that the idea of “man-made” climate change is an Alinsky tactic to give Leftists power over all of life.

Then I guess those nefarious forces must have started really early, because the theory was first proposed in 1896.

Yeah, but it wasn’t proposed as the reason to initiate centralized government interference in all areas of life back then, like it is today.

That is a different discussion. I am not arguing for any centralized government interference, or indeed for any specific remediation measures. I am only arguing for the scientific facts.

And the scientific fact on the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature is that there is very little historical correlation, primarily because global temperatures are dependent upon a large number of variables and CO2 hardly registers as a determiner. Just naming it a “greenhouse gas” doesn’t make the case.

It is a greenhouse gas because it traps infrared heat radiation.

 

[pnewton]

Ah, but the question is whether those scientists who are most invested in climate alarmism are making out like bandits from their activism?

Such a question is too loaded with rhetoric to answer. “Invested in climate alarmism?” Circular logic does not make good reasoning, but yes people who are “invested” also “make out like bandits” which is how they are invested, whether climate change or oil production. This is the difference between science and propaganda.

I would note that the private industrial sector pays a whole lot more than the public sector, non-profits, or social work. Following the money will point much more toward industrial propaganda driving climate change denial than ecological reform.

There is a third option. The Church also teaches the importance of caring for the environment. If one does not know where to turn, then I would suggest that Laudato Si provides us guide.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/france...-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

 

[Ender]

There is a third option. The Church also teaches the importance of caring for the environment. If one does not know where to turn, then I would suggest that Laudato Si provides us guide.

The church tells us that we should be good stewards of the earth, but she tells us nothing whatever about what specific actions we should take. Pope Francis’ opinion that man is responsible for global warming doesn’t make it true, and adds nothing whatever to the scientific arguments either for or against the claim.