Comments by "bj0rn" (@TheLivirus) on "Weather Channel Founder On Climate Change" video.

  1. I think blocking them on YouTube only prevents them from sending PM and commenting your videos.
    1
  2. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
    1
  3. ***** A reference to IPCC in the introduction is not a reason to disqualify the subsequent body of evidence. That is pure confirmation bias.
    1
  4. ***** If global warming is a conspiracy, what are they (whoever they are) trying to accomplish? What is the purpose of the fraud?
    1
  5. Gray Cat If you're going to claim this is a global fraud to make a profit, you need to tell me who and how. A global warming caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions implies that consumption must reduce in general, petroleum products in particular. It demands a complete rehaul of our infrastructure away from petroleum dependence. We must turn away from cheap low-tech fossil power sources and invest in R&D for more sustainable solutions. All of this imples increased short term costs and loss of revenue, not profit. There is more short term economical incentive in clinging to a petroleum based society than chasing CO2 emissions.
    1
  6. Gray Cat No one states that global warming is going to eradicate mankind in one generation. A complete ban would incapacitate society, ensuring complete chaos and death in millions/billions. The idea is to instead make a smooth transition through rehabilitation and technological innovation. Emission taxes stimulate innovation in appropriate areas and grants more sustainable technologies a competitive advantage. Also, taxes aren't simply ending up in the pockets of the legislators. Tax spending is public record, and most of it is spent on public services. Theft for personal gain through taxation of carbon emissions would be ridiculously complicated, risky and inefficient. Also, considering that these taxes doesn't exist in a vacuum, but constitute a rather tiny fraction of the total tax revenue makes your hypothesis look a bit silly. In fact, some countries where this tax has been introduced have actually lowered the total tax burden over the years. Seems quite stupid if they're trying to steal through taxation, don't you think?
    1
  7. Gray Cat No. You pick out the best example and we can take it from there. I'm not gonna do your work and guess what argument you were trying to make.
    1
  8. Gray Cat Though briefly, I did answer your question, but since it didn't get through to you I'll elaborate a little more. I repeat: "No one states that global warming is going to eradicate mankind in one generation." I would even go as far as to say global warming isn't going to eradicate mankind, period. Things that are likely to happen is: ocean level will rise, deserts will grow, the frequencies of extreme weather events will increase, ecosystems will be disrupted, habitats will drift north, species will go extinct, human lives will be lost, cities destroyed. However, in the long run we will likely survive and adapt to the new less preferable conditions. These consequences are considered severe enough to make an effort. The urgency that is communicated is not due to some imminent apocalypse. It stems from the understanding that there is a threshold of global warming beyond which natural feedback loops and synergies will take over and shift the climate even further away from the norm even if we later stop introducing new CO2 to the atmosphere. Examples are that as the amount of ice and snow decrease more sun light is absorbed; a retraction of the permafrost leads to large amounts of methane being released which is a strong greenhouse gas. So why isn't anyone just putting the foot down and ban CO2? Well as I already explained, this would cause unnecessary harm. So let's instead ask why politicians aren't doing more than they are. First of all, one can not simply force radical solutions in democracies. Citizens must be aware of the issue and willing to take part in the solution. As you are a good example of, it is not easy communicating science with the masses. Secondly, the global nature of the issue: no one nation can solve the problem on their own. It requires everyone to take part. Any nation that takes initiative does so at the cost of GDP and competitiveness, hence they are hesitant to do so unless they are sure their effort is not going to be in vain. This makes it necessary to make these decisions on a global level through e.g. international treaties. So, countries that are competitors, sometimes enemies, needs to meet, discuss, negotiate, and commit to feasible goals. This is not a easy and rapid process. I hope that helped.
    1
  9. Gray Cat No, that's definitely not what I'm saying. The level of black and white thinking you display is starting to bother me. It's not either imminent apocalypse or nothing at all. There is a wide scale in between and I've provided plenty of examples that should help you estimate the level severity. I'm starting to think this discussion is over. You are bending over backwards to find excuses to misinterpret everything I say. This is an indication that you are not interested in knowledge but about something else. Regarding making money: You implied there are plenty of examples of this, and I asked you to pick an article.
    1
  10. Gray Cat Let's summarize our discussion so far. I questioned the suggestion that global warming is a global conspiracy and asked whom these conspirators in that case are. "Money." you suggested without further explanation. I argued that there is more short-term profit in clinging to the petroleum dependence by pointing out costs and challenges associated with a transition towards a sustainable society. Instead of addressing my argument you ignore it and shift the conversation to "if we're all gonna die, why are we taxing it as opposed to a ban?". I explain that this is a straw man, we're not all going to die in the near future, but it will certainly claim casualties and destruction over a longer time scale. I also explained why a ban is not feasible nor preferable as well as how emission taxes stimulate the market to solve the problem through technological innovation. I also argue that taxation is not a realistic mean of theft for personal gain, pointing out that total tax burden has in fact dropped in some countries, tax spending is public record and that taxes are mostly spent on public services. You seem to acknowledge that no one claims global warming pose an immediate threat and suggest instead that a "slow ban" is preferable to taxation without further explanation of what a slow ban constitutes, ignoring my arguments for emission tax, simply arguing "Taxes are about money, hence the money in taxes" (wft does that even mean?). After this you commend me to google for evidence for your extraordinary claim. I explain that the burden of proof is yours. You insist that I should answer your question without addressing the answers I have already made, arguing from a straw man I have already debunked, repeating assertions I have already presented arguments against. I now make a thorough effort to clarify my case, explaining your misconceptions about global warming and explaining the difficulties of implementing actions against fossil fuel emissions. You disregard all my arguments, misinterpret this (seemingly intentionally) as consequences of global warming being negligible or natural. I point out your misinterpretation and explain why it's wrong and remind you of providing evidence for your claim, i.e. that global warming is a scam designed by some people to benefit them financially through taxation. Again, and I hope this will be the last time, you repeat the same straw man, arguments and assertions I have already addressed. Please, for the love of god, go back and read what I have already written and make an effort to address this before you go any further. If you think my arguments are flawed, explain why. And please understand that you are the one making the extraordinary claim, and that the burden of proof is on you. If there's something I have claimed that you don't trust, I'm perfectly willing to provide a source for you, but your claim is on you to prove.
    1
  11. Gray Cat If you had asked me to support that statement with evidence I would be happy to do so, but you are clearly not interested.
    1
  12. Please present your best argument and I'll explain how you are wrong.
    1