-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Chopr147
Active Member
2 totally hypocritical , self important people who refuse to practice what they preach. John Kerry and Leo? Really?
Really? In what way? I know at least for Leo he drives a Tesla and he paid to offset all the traveling he did for his climate doc. But before you go on, we don't have big ass electric planes and boats, so don't start there.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
The Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation
Leonardo DiCaprio Gives $20 Million In Grants To Save The Environment
I'll assume you've done more than that.
Chopr147
Active Member
I don't like wealthy celebrities who burn a countries worth of CO2 telling me to cut back. But hey, that's just me.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Chopr147
Active Member
Data? Really? Maybe just a report of flying in his hairstylist for some Hollywood award show. Or hey, look up Al Gore. Plenty of "data" on his house usage. So no, I won't bother with links. Plenty of CO2 usage reports on these losers. Believe what ya want.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Climate deniers want to protect the status quo that made them rich
Climate deniers want to protect the status quo that made them rich
Interesting insight into climate deniers.
“Perhaps white males see less risk in the world because they create, manage, control and benefit from so much of it.” Others, who have not enjoyed such an armchair ride in life, report far higher levels of risk aversion.
The BBC needs to accept that Nigel Lawson doesn’t exist
Another 2011 paper observed uncontroversially that “conservative white males are likely to favour protection of the current industrial capitalist order which has historically served them well”. It added that “heightened emotional and psychic investment in defending in-group claims may translate into misperceived understanding about problems like climate change that threaten the continued order of the system.”
I like this bit at the end
A century after elderly military leaders cheerfully sent millions of young men from the trenches to their slaughter in the first world war, the defiant mood of today’s climate deniers is best captured by the stirring words of Blackadder’s General Melchett: “If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through!”
Climate deniers want to protect the status quo that made them rich
Interesting insight into climate deniers.
“Perhaps white males see less risk in the world because they create, manage, control and benefit from so much of it.” Others, who have not enjoyed such an armchair ride in life, report far higher levels of risk aversion.
The BBC needs to accept that Nigel Lawson doesn’t exist
Another 2011 paper observed uncontroversially that “conservative white males are likely to favour protection of the current industrial capitalist order which has historically served them well”. It added that “heightened emotional and psychic investment in defending in-group claims may translate into misperceived understanding about problems like climate change that threaten the continued order of the system.”
I like this bit at the end
A century after elderly military leaders cheerfully sent millions of young men from the trenches to their slaughter in the first world war, the defiant mood of today’s climate deniers is best captured by the stirring words of Blackadder’s General Melchett: “If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through!”
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Clearly what you do. Unlike 99.99% of all wealthy individuals those two actively work towards reducing planetary CO2 output and put their money where there mouth is. You should be attacking the 99.99% who do nothing, yet you focus on these two individuals. I assume you also attack Elon for not doing enough?
Chopr147
Active Member
I did not bring up Leo and Kerry, ggies07 did.
You believe they "work towards reducing planetary CO2" I'm not so sure. Maybe i'm just a pessimist but the attacks at anything or anyone who dares question the science, leads me to believe Leo and company have a lot of their own money at stake here. I have read so many "facts" for and against it makes my head spin. I do not disregard either opinion.
Even Elon who is a 97 percenter is questionable due to his businesses. He may be sincere and "all in" on GW but we can't ignore the business end. W/O GW Tesla may not be a company.
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
Which would make perfect sense. If it weren't for climate change and the concern for the risks of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, I would still be happily driving my Ford Mustang GT, enjoying coal power without concern or plans to install rooftop solar, Elon would be spending all of his time on other pursuits like SpaceX without much interest in electric cars, and Tesla wouldn't exist. Maybe eventually someone would get EVs going for their other benefits, but it would not be nearly as far along as it is now.
The pushback against celebrities and rich philanthropists pushing climate change issues is largely marketing by fossil fuel interests. Fossil fuel interests want to discredit those people who actually have the wealth and power to advance climate change action on a scale larger than the average joe. In fact, these celebrities are often an example of the ideal we should be striving for. A world where you can care about climate change, convert to clean energy, but still have capitalism and the accumulation of wealth. It matters not that these people live in big houses. What matters is that they want their big houses, and everyone's houses, powered by clean sustainable energy.
If you do some research on Al Gore's house, you'll find exactly what I'm talking about. A big house. But a lot of work to increase it's efficiency and increase it's use of clean energy. And of course, Al himself pushing for clean energy on a larger scale. He should be commended for his actions and efforts, not condemned for being an American who has accumulated wealth and lives in a big house like pretty much all wealthy people do.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Text book Ad Hominem. 'I can't attack the message w/o looking insane... so I'll attack the messenger'
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
It is a lot more insidious. Attacking the messenger is easy, and it has the wonderful advantage of being understood by the intended audience.
Try approaching Joe Republican someday and mention that the Al Gore criticism is an Ad hominem fallacy. But be careful -- you might get shot for talking Islam or something.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
There are no facts against the physics of the CO2 molecule, any more than there are facts against the physics of a pane of glass.
"EV100 aims to fast track the drive towards electric vehicles; by signing up, companies can use their collective buying power and influence to build demand, cut costs and remove barriers to adoption."
THE CLIMATE GROUP LAUNCHES PIONEERING GLOBAL EV CAMPAIGN AT CLIMATE WEEK NYC | Climate Week
THE CLIMATE GROUP LAUNCHES PIONEERING GLOBAL EV CAMPAIGN AT CLIMATE WEEK NYC | Climate Week
Chopr147
Active Member
Problem is the message has changed too often. IDK how old you are but I am old enough to remember scientists (some of the same) telling the world we are headed toward an ice age. Then it was global warming which became climate change (we can argue the reason for the name change) And some coming disasters in-between. Having said that i'm all for lowering CO2 but maybe for different reasons than many posters here.
Back to celebrities: Whether its politics, CC or any other social issue, I don't form my opinion from their statements. Many of the most outspoken celebrities are kids of celebrities. To me that means they have never really lived in the real world. Same goes for products. I'm not going to buy a Cadillac because Matthew McConaughey is the spokesman. But I do enjoy the commercials
IIRC it was the media (Time Mag or something) made a big stink about that, not any legitimate scientific studies. So you're going to have to provide some references for that claim besides vague memories.
Here's my reference:
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
LOL.... are you seriously bringing that canard up? Was there a consensus? NO
'Some' scientists say a lot of things. The message (the consensus) hasn't changed in ~120 years. Even when 'some' scientists were saying we were headed toward an Ice age that was based on SO2 blocking sunlight more than CO2 trapped heat. That issue was resolved with the clean air act.
From @drees source;
'A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming'
'Yes, their global cooling projection was based on a quadrupling of atmospheric aerosol concentration. This wasn't an entirely unrealistic scenario - after all, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions were accelerating quite rapidly up until the early 1970s (Figure 2). These emissions caused various environmental problems, and as a result, a number of countries, including the USA, enacted SO2 limits through Clean Air Acts.'
Last edited:
Similar threads
