aonsquared 9 #1326 January 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, Coreece said: Then just market it as such. Personally I think the whole "green tech" marketing scheme has hurt "green" tech. If you're gonna go it that way, then just market them as gluten free EV's. XD. . . It is happening. However it would be more efficient with government support and policy. Strange how some people are so "free market" when it comes to green technology, but when it comes to warfare, become very socialist. Next time there's a war, the government shouldn't waste money on the military - just tell people to buy their own guns at Wal-mart and make their own way to the front. After all if fighting (insert war here) is good for the security and economy, the free market will take care of it. Blackwater made good money haven't they? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,299 #1327 January 13, 2020 1 hour ago, aonsquared said: It is happening. However it would be more efficient with government support and policy. Strange how some people are so "free market" when it comes to green technology, but when it comes to warfare, become very socialist. Next time there's a war, the government shouldn't waste money on the military - just tell people to buy their own guns at Wal-mart and make their own way to the front. After all if fighting (insert war here) is good for the security and economy, the free market will take care of it. Blackwater made good money haven't they? Ya, but haba beeba bobba yowza umza himza weeza youza libtards. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,122 #1328 January 13, 2020 1 hour ago, aonsquared said: Next time there's a war, the government shouldn't waste money on the military - just tell people to buy their own guns at Wal-mart and make their own way to the front. After all if fighting (insert war here) is good for the security and economy, the free market will take care of it. Blackwater made good money haven't they? That's kind of why we have a second amendment -- it was how war was done in the American Revolution. But then the government took over the provision of weapons for defense against other governmental entities, so people figured "cool -- free stuff that I actually use!" Now for many of them it's "cool -- toys for me me me me me!" and "fuck you if you want to take them away!" Wendy P. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #1329 January 13, 2020 2 hours ago, aonsquared said: However it would be more efficient with government support and policy. "While all these policies and programs can help reduce emissions and drive technological change, economists across the political spectrum agree that a flexible, market-based approach is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions, and should be a centerpiece of a comprehensive climate strategy." Source: https://www.c2es.org/content/federal-action-on-climate/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1330 January 13, 2020 (edited) On 1/11/2020 at 10:40 AM, brenthutch said: Right here' https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockford-fired-after-finding-polar-bears-th/ Here https://onenewsnow.com/science-tech/2017/02/15/reporter-fired-for-questioning-climate-change Here https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/17/patrick-moore-claims-google-scrubbed-founders/ Here https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/europe/france-weatherman-sacked-climate/index.html I could go on all day, but you get the idea. With regard to the money, Penn State hired Michael Mann because of the federal research dollars that would come with him not because of his ground breaking (fraudulent) research. Are those people who found the truth that they could prove and reproduce or are they peddling bullshit. I already knew the name Susan Crockford, she's an author of very poorly written polar bear attack books. She peddles bullshit. https://www.google.com/search?q=susan+crockford&oq=susan+crockford&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.2892j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Edit: I haven't looked at the rest of these but are they climate scientists, I see "reporter" in many of the stories. We're asking about people who conduct research. We'll talk about reporters and such too because I won't deny that some news groups simply don't want to be the source of what they think is disinformation and they don't by themselves have a research body to prove or disprove anything. Edited as I read: Mish Micheals: "On January 31, 2017, Michaels announced via Twitter her employment with WGBH as a science reporter.[4] As of February 8, 2017, it has been made public that she has been fired from this position as she "...has been outspoken in her controversial belief that vaccines cause autism..."[5] as well as a disbelief in man made climate change. Michaels later disputed these claims on her personal website.[6][7]" Patrick Moore: Your link doesn't appear to reference the findings up climate change just that he doesn't like the Green New Deal and says google deleted him. I'm not sure that google holds the record keeping duty for various organizations but links to his name show that he joined Greenpeace a year after it was formed. Phillipe Verdier: Reporter. Got fired for trying to promote his denier book which from a link in your own link about him says was full of errors and conspiracy theories. This is a private organization not wanting to support someone who appears unable to make a valid point. This is from the link YOU provided and does a pretty good job covering the same things we're talking about here regarding how scientists are paid and what model vs results have shown : https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2015/10/12/climat-les-mises-en-cause-erronees-de-philippe-verdier_4787865_4355770.html Edited January 13, 2020 by DJL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aonsquared 9 #1331 January 13, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, BIGUN said: "While all these policies and programs can help reduce emissions and drive technological change, economists across the political spectrum agree that a flexible, market-based approach is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions, and should be a centerpiece of a comprehensive climate strategy." Source: https://www.c2es.org/content/federal-action-on-climate/ Sorry, I should have used the word "effective" instead of "efficient". When the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, "cost-effective" was not a metric that people measured success on. Why does fighting climate change have to be "cost-effective", and fighting the Taliban or ISIS *not* have to be "cost-effective"? Market-based approaches do work somewhat but even the US administration is not doing the things exactly quoted from your source: Quote Traditional regulations, such as fuel efficiency and emissions standards for cars and trucks, require companies to increase energy efficiency or reduce emissions in their own operations or in the goods they produce. Market-based programs that put a price on carbon emissions, such as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program, require emission reductions but let the private sector determine the most cost-effective way to achieve them. BOTH points which have been vehemently opposed by climate change deniers. The Trump administration has tried (or is trying) to roll back fuel efficiency regulations, and refused to implement market-based programs like carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs, or a bigger scheme like the Paris Agreement. Edited January 13, 2020 by aonsquared Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1332 January 13, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, BIGUN said: "While all these policies and programs can help reduce emissions and drive technological change, economists across the political spectrum agree that a flexible, market-based approach is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions, and should be a centerpiece of a comprehensive climate strategy." Source: https://www.c2es.org/content/federal-action-on-climate/ From your link "A growing number of citizens and communities are bringing lawsuits seeking relief from the detrimental effects of increased carbon dioxide emissions" If the damage is so clear and widespread, and the cause so easily attributable why can't I find a single example of a successful litigant? Edited January 13, 2020 by brenthutch Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,122 #1333 January 13, 2020 54 minutes ago, brenthutch said: From your link "A growing number of citizens and communities are bringing lawsuits seeking relief from the detrimental effects of increased carbon dioxide emissions" If the damage is so clear and widespread, and the cause so easily attributable why can't I find a single example of a successful litigant? Maybe because of some of the same reasons as there were no successful cigarette lawsuits until the 90’s, and the first big one was in 2000? That whole deep pockets thing works, and the more we institute tort reform, the better it works. Wendy P. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1334 January 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, wmw999 said: Maybe because of some of the same reasons as there were no successful cigarette lawsuits until the 90’s, and the first big one was in 2000? That whole deep pockets thing works, and the more we institute tort reform, the better it works. Wendy P. Then there is already a blueprint for successful litigation. Lawyers across the nation should be lining up to dig into those deep pockets. BillV tells us all of the time that CO2 is just like smoking, it should be an easy lift. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,122 #1335 January 13, 2020 On 1/11/2020 at 7:40 AM, brenthutch said: Right here' https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockford-fired-after-finding-polar-bears-th/ Here https://onenewsnow.com/science-tech/2017/02/15/reporter-fired-for-questioning-climate-change Here https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/17/patrick-moore-claims-google-scrubbed-founders/ Here https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/europe/france-weatherman-sacked-climate/index.html I could go on all day, but you get the idea. With regard to the money, Penn State hired Michael Mann because of the federal research dollars that would come with him not because of his ground breaking (fraudulent) research. Ah you think anecdotes from newspapers is the same as data and study. Can't say I am overly surprised. (never mind that some of those articles are pretty questionable.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,122 #1336 January 13, 2020 On 1/11/2020 at 7:40 AM, brenthutch said: Right here' https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockford-fired-after-finding-polar-bears-th/ Here https://onenewsnow.com/science-tech/2017/02/15/reporter-fired-for-questioning-climate-change Here https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/17/patrick-moore-claims-google-scrubbed-founders/ Here https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/europe/france-weatherman-sacked-climate/index.html I could go on all day, but you get the idea. With regard to the money, Penn State hired Michael Mann because of the federal research dollars that would come with him not because of his ground breaking (fraudulent) research. Ah you think anecdotes from newspapers is the same as data and study. Can't say I am overly surprised. (never mind that some of those articles are pretty questionable.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1337 January 13, 2020 I was just a few examples of how the "no one ever gets hurt from questioning AGW" narrative is wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1338 January 13, 2020 1 hour ago, brenthutch said: I was just a few examples of how the "no one ever gets hurt from questioning AGW" narrative is wrong. Certainly, people who are publishing wrong, misleading and false articles concerning AGW will very quickly find their jobs at risk. The list you posted (and also the article you posted which began this topic) are prime examples of that. One of them was even an anti-vaxer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #1339 January 13, 2020 Whats an EV XD? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,122 #1340 January 13, 2020 On 1/12/2020 at 6:35 AM, brenthutch said: What damage? Can you give a single example of "damage" that was irrefutably caused by AGW? That's like asking for the one case of lung cancer that was irrefutably caused by smoking. It shows a gross misunderstanding of the subject. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1341 January 13, 2020 2 hours ago, SkyDekker said: That's like asking for the one case of lung cancer that was irrefutably caused by smoking. It shows a gross misunderstanding of the subject. There it is again, conflating smoking with climate change. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,122 #1342 January 13, 2020 32 minutes ago, brenthutch said: There it is again, conflating smoking with climate change. Just the logic. I could also use PCB and liver damage or a myriad of other incidences where an increased risk of something occurring exists. Should also add that I am not conflating, as in mixing together, the two. Rather, pointing out the fallacy you are exhibiting. The fallacy you are also not addressing. The only question remaining is if you simply don't understand or if you are willfully not understanding. Though, practically it doesn't really matter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1343 January 13, 2020 Since there is greater “consensus” about AGW then there was with smoking, those law suits should be raking in billions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #1344 January 13, 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/13/ocean-temperatures-hit-record-high-as-rate-of-heating-accelerates Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,299 #1345 January 13, 2020 8 hours ago, brenthutch said: From your link "A growing number of citizens and communities are bringing lawsuits seeking relief from the detrimental effects of increased carbon dioxide emissions" If the damage is so clear and widespread, and the cause so easily attributable why can't I find a single example of a successful litigant? Got me. I'm still trying to prove things go bump in the night so I can sue somebody. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,122 #1346 January 14, 2020 9 hours ago, brenthutch said: If the damage is so clear and widespread, and the cause so easily attributable why can't I find a single example of a successful litigant? Mainly because most of the litigation is ongoing. Though the Urgenda case in The Netherlands is a start where the litigant was successful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1347 January 14, 2020 6 hours ago, DJL said: Certainly, people who are publishing wrong, misleading and false articles concerning AGW will very quickly find their jobs at risk. The list you posted (and also the article you posted which began this topic) are prime examples of that. One of them was even an anti-vaxer. When folks publish wrong, misleading and false articles (An Inconvenient Truth for example) they suffer no such sanction. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1348 January 14, 2020 37 minutes ago, SkyDekker said: Mainly because most of the litigation is ongoing. Though the Urgenda case in The Netherlands is a start where the litigant was successful. The Netherlands? That makes perfect sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,122 #1349 January 14, 2020 12 minutes ago, brenthutch said: The Netherlands? That makes perfect sense. Also makes sense why you wouldn't be able to find it with a simple google search. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1350 January 14, 2020 1 minute ago, SkyDekker said: Also makes sense why you wouldn't be able to find it with a simple google search. Googled, "why would such a stupid lawsuit prevail" and that was at the top of the page Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
