Bob in Mich Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 Ever been in a bar or dinner conversation and a friendly difference of opinion leads to a 'bet you a buck' handshake? You could take a minute and google it but, what the hell, for a buck, you'll gladly chance being wrong. The problem with the bet on 'no climate action required' is that the stakes are incredibly high. If at the earlier mentioned difference of opinion, the bet was on your life, you would be a hell of a lot more cautious. In fact if there was actually a serious bet on their life, most people would not take that bet regardless of the issue, as the stakes are just too severe. In this case, deniers are advocating actually gambling with not only their well being, but with the well being of all creatures on the planet. If the size of the bet is that high, I would prefer the cautious approach. The other point I would like to make is that, taking the science seriously and beginning to make changes does in no way lock us into that path if it turns out to be unnecessary a few years out. If the deniers are right and the CO2 and temperature trends reverse naturally, we can all have a good laugh at the advocates expense and back off the CO2 limiting measures. Boy if that happens, just imagine too all of the great memes you guys will be able to post then. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 41 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Ever been in a bar or dinner conversation and a friendly difference of opinion leads to a 'bet you a buck' handshake? You could take a minute and google it but, what the hell, for a buck, you'll gladly chance being wrong. The problem with the bet on 'no climate action required' is that the stakes are incredibly high. If at the earlier mentioned difference of opinion, the bet was on your life, you would be a hell of a lot more cautious. In fact if there was actually a serious bet on their life, most people would not take that bet regardless of the issue, as the stakes are just too severe. In this case, deniers are advocating actually gambling with not only their well being, but with the well being of all creatures on the planet. If the size of the bet is that high, I would prefer the cautious approach. The other point I would like to make is that, taking the science seriously and beginning to make changes does in no way lock us into that path if it turns out to be unnecessary a few years out. If the deniers are right and the CO2 and temperature trends reverse naturally, we can all have a good laugh at the advocates expense and back off the CO2 limiting measures. Boy if that happens, just imagine too all of the great memes you guys will be able to post then. All I know is I’m doing my part. I don’t use a traditional garbage company to pick up my recyclables due to their reliance on fossil fuel. I toss all my empty Diet Mountain Dew bottles along the side of the road, and just the other day saw a guy on a bike stop to pick them up. I chastised him for using a Hefty cinch sack and reminded him that paper is much more environmentally friendly. I live my truth.
IDBillzFan Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 Just want to let you tree-huggers know I'm doing my part to make a difference. I recently bought a new truck, and on the sticker is a thing that rates the vehicle emissions on a scale of 1 (bad) to 10 (great). My truck is a solid 3. Only because I couldn't find one that had a lower score.
Deranged Rhino Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 anticipating the heads exploding: 2 4
unbillievable Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 6 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Ever been in a bar or dinner conversation and a friendly difference of opinion leads to a 'bet you a buck' handshake? You could take a minute and google it but, what the hell, for a buck, you'll gladly chance being wrong. The problem with the bet on 'no climate action required' is that the stakes are incredibly high. If at the earlier mentioned difference of opinion, the bet was on your life, you would be a hell of a lot more cautious. In fact if there was actually a serious bet on their life, most people would not take that bet regardless of the issue, as the stakes are just too severe. In this case, deniers are advocating actually gambling with not only their well being, but with the well being of all creatures on the planet. If the size of the bet is that high, I would prefer the cautious approach. The other point I would like to make is that, taking the science seriously and beginning to make changes does in no way lock us into that path if it turns out to be unnecessary a few years out. If the deniers are right and the CO2 and temperature trends reverse naturally, we can all have a good laugh at the advocates expense and back off the CO2 limiting measures. Boy if that happens, just imagine too all of the great memes you guys will be able to post then. What if we told you that you have to put $20 into a jar, every day, to stop a giant meteor from hitting the earth? ...and then added that everyone in your neighborhood has to also chip in 20 bucks , but you're the only one who has agreed to do it. How many days will you keep putting $20 in the jar before you realize it's pointless? Also, how stupid would you have to be, to believe putting money in a jar will stop a giant meteor? 1
4merper4mer Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 16 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: These are not serious people. They’ve come up with an earth centered religion who’s hidden , but sole purpose is to confiscate property from successful people and redistribute it to unsuccessful people and their friends in the government class. Maybe some worship the Earth. Most are garden variety commies looking for BS reason # 548765491 to control everything. 3
ALF Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 85 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html 2
Warren Zevon Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) 73 year old creep trolls a 16 year old girl and disciples of the 73 year old creep everywhere rejoice Deplorable Edited September 24, 2019 by Gary Busey
SoCal Deek Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 I’ve had solar on my house for a decade now. As soon as all of these whining climate change hucksters can say the same thing, I’ll believe their nonsense. Until then STFU 1
ALF Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 17 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: I’ve had solar on my house for a decade now. As soon as all of these whining climate change hucksters can say the same thing, I’ll believe their nonsense. Until then STFU Well I get hydro power from Niagara Falls?
3rdnlng Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 2 hours ago, ALF said: 85 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html Can you give us a synopsis of that article? I would guess that most of us don't subscribe to the NYT. What kind of rules are they? What affect will their elimination have on our environment? Were they good rules in the first place?
Bob in Mich Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, unbillievable said: What if we told you that you have to put $20 into a jar, every day, to stop a giant meteor from hitting the earth? ...and then added that everyone in your neighborhood has to also chip in 20 bucks , but you're the only one who has agreed to do it. How many days will you keep putting $20 in the jar before you realize it's pointless? Also, how stupid would you have to be, to believe putting money in a jar will stop a giant meteor? There is a lot there to unpack. Are these your points? Did I miss any others? Which do you think are the most important? - You don't trust the 'experts' telling you of the coming danger. - Future predictions are not certainties - You shouldn't be forced to change just because experts, or governments, decide it is in the greater good - You don't think that humans are able to prevent the coming danger, even if it exists - You don't want to sacrifice for this issue even if real because not everyone will be sacrificing the same Edited September 24, 2019 by Bob in Mich
unbillievable Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 2 hours ago, ALF said: 85 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html That is a lot of Obama-era policies. Just how many did that guy change with his pen? 8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Can you give us a synopsis of that article? I would guess that most of us don't subscribe to the NYT. What kind of rules are they? What affect will their elimination have on our environment? Were they good rules in the first place? They're all changes put in by Obama. Mostly stuff requiring measuring output, (probably in preparation for a carbon tax), regulations intended to shut down coal/natural gas power plants, and altered emission calculations to make them more severe.
unbillievable Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: There is a lot there to unpack. Are these your points? Did I miss any others? Which do you think are the most important? - You don't trust the 'experts' telling you of the coming danger. I trust science. Would help their crusade if they actually used it. - Future predictions are not certainties. Predict just one thing correctly and we can start a real conversation - You shouldn't be forced to change just because experts, or governments, decide it is in the greater good. Freedom allows me to decide what is the greater good. - You don't think that humans are able to prevent the coming danger, even if it exists. The danger is so small that humans will adapt automatically, with little bother. - You don't want to sacrifice for this issue even if real because not everyone will be sacrificing the same. If you want to virtue signal, go ahead a make a pointless sacrifice. Just don't force me to join your hysteria. If you don't send me $1 a day for the rest of your life, the climate will beat you over the head with a banana leaf. This is your life we're talking about, are you willing to take the chance? Edited September 24, 2019 by unbillievable
B-Man Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 Wait...but what about the twerking dudes in D.C? I was convinced... .
Warren Zevon Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 1 hour ago, unbillievable said: They're all changes put in by Obama. You learn something new everyday here on BillsChan: The Endangered Species Act of 1973 was put in place by Obama
Koko78 Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, B-Man said: Wait...but what about the twerking dudes in D.C? I was convinced... Between the twerkers and the petulant 16 year old, I was ready to give up red meat, my vehicle, my job, and exist solely on my 'unwilling-to-work' government subsidy. Now, after this report showing scientific consensus that there's no actual 'climate emergency'... I just don't know how to live! Edited September 24, 2019 by Koko78
Bob in Mich Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 1 hour ago, unbillievable said: If you don't send me $1 a day for the rest of your life, the climate will beat you over the head with a banana leaf. This is your life we're talking about, are you willing to take the chance? You said 'freedom allows me to decide what is the greater good' and that is true but only to an extent. That decision can technically be made by the individual, but both of our actions will be dictated by our government's decisions on the greater good. For example if our leaders decide to spend tax dollars on this issue, they will be our tax monies and if they spend on a wall or a new weapon system instead, they will be our tax dollars. Ideally, to address societal problems governments wouldn't need to act on incomplete information, but the obvious reality is that they do. Governments often act on these problems without complete knowledge of future events and without complete course agreement within the population - for instance, buying Greenland or going to war. If the country declares war, the unconvinced go to war along with the convinced. What were your thoughts on the Ebola scare in Africa a few years back? Did you believe the dire predictions made by those experts? We weren't asked to make individual sacrifice but were you in favor of spending US (say CDC) dollars in this fight against the virus spread? Was that enough of a certain threat to you for you to want our government to act even though the deaths were occurring in Africa and not America? Or, at the time of the Ebola outbreak did you think we shouldn't spend US tax dollars on this because China, Russia, and India were not putting in the same effort and money?
Recommended Posts