US, Saudi and Russia veto climate change research

a reply to: Peeple

I believe those climate scientists but I fully understand the denial. It's like the story about the people living beneath the dam. Everybody knows it will break but they claim it won't. It's a psychological trick of the mind because if you worry about the inevitable too much you ain't got the energy to live anymore.

Yes I think you are right. Denial is a way to protect people from the horror of the true consequences.
People think that they can't make an individual difference, when in fact collectively they can.

a reply to: narrator

If it is a hoax, then the main folks being fleeced (in terms of money) are governments and manufacturing corporations, not the general populace. Why would they hoax/fleece themselves?

Where do you think the governments get their money? You think it grows on trees or something?

Most don't consider climate change a hoax. We just think taxing us to give to some corporation or 3rd world countries government to "combat climate change" isn't acceptable. Too much corruption and no accountability is the issue with being taxed for climate change.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Dr X

When a solution other than raising taxes exists, then there might be some more support.

Even blind people see what a scam this is.

Here in the UK there is very little tax paid for polluting. Your opinion is purely from a US-viewpoint.
There is no scamming going on in Europe that's for sure.
The approach of Norway is to subsidise clean technology.

originally posted by: Dr X

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Dr X

When a solution other than raising taxes exists, then there might be some more support.

Even blind people see what a scam this is.

Here in the UK there is very little tax paid for polluting. Your opinion is purely from a US-viewpoint.
There is no scamming going on in Europe that's for sure.
The approach of Norway is to subsidise clean technology.

And government subsidizes with taxes.

a reply to: Dr X

You're halfway there, get solar panels and cut of the cable to the power company....

a reply to: Dr X

It is frustrating that so many refuse to accept the reality of human induced climate change, and not just on here. It does seem this board leans very right these days and pretending we are not responsible is one of the right's selling points.

I first joined ATS in search for the truth/alternative view points but nowadays I have to leave this site before I combust. I just can’t believe how some people are in such denial about climate change and our part in it.
I suspect my grandchildren will have little respect for what we have done, if they’re around to be able to give a damn anyway.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: narrator

If it is a hoax, then the main folks being fleeced (in terms of money) are governments and manufacturing corporations, not the general populace. Why would they hoax/fleece themselves?

Where do you think the governments get their money? You think it grows on trees or something?

Most don't consider climate change a hoax. We just think taxing us to give to some corporation or 3rd world countries government to "combat climate change" isn't acceptable. Too much corruption and no accountability is the issue with being taxed for climate change.

For starters, I know that the majority of money the government makes is from taxation. My (poorly worded) meaning was, if they really are trying to fleece the populace, they've come up with an incredibly weird plan to do it.
"We're going to raise their taxes 1% (or whatever) and immediately funnel it towards green energy, which is (supposedly) far less profitable than fossil fuels. That'll get 'em good, and make us super rich!"
That isn't exactly a get-rich-quick scheme, and makes SO much more work for them if it's only about making money. If it's truly about fleecing us to scam us out of more money, why not come up with something much easier, much more profitable, and (for some) more believable?
"Russia has new missile technology and we need to ramp up production in order to protect ourselves, so we're implementing a new tax". Boom. Arguably more average citizens would get behind that, and they'd only have to spend the money to build 1 rocket, if that. Rather than spend the majority of the money they'd collect on building an entirely new energy system that (according to some in the government) isn't even worth it, why not lie about defense, boost the military budget, pocket the profit, and call it a day?
That'd be so much easier. Makes me think that they know it's actually necessary to start combating climate change but don't want to admit it, or agree with Democrats on an issue, or some other petty thing rather than just saying "yup, let's fix this issue together", because that's what needs to be done.

As for most believing that climate change is real and are only against it because of the taxes...I'd love to believe that, but the person I replied to with that comment referred to it as "climate change BS", so I don't think everyone is in agreement with us that it's real. I wish they were though.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Dr X

Not surprising. The economies of SA, Kuwait, and Russia are all dependent on oil. Meanwhile the US acts like a b****h to each one of them.

Honestly this theory that climate change is happening because of us and humans is a myth. But dont tell the liberals that.

During the ancient times and in Roman/Greek era there was also some evidences of a mine Global Warming then as well.

a reply to: AtlasHawk

Do you have any evidence to back up your myth claim?(You Don't!)

The thing about science is it is true regardless of what one believes. We have drastically changed this planet since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels are just one piece of the problem but a vital piece.

The CO2 levels are now higher than they have ever been since humans existed on this planet. There is no doubt that this a direct result of us burning fossil fuels. CO2 does lead to warming as a result of radiative forcing.

What is concerning is the rate of change, yes C02 levels were higher in the far prehistoric past but the rate of change was never this drastic.

originally posted by: Saibotkram1988

originally posted by: dubiousatworst
The US is and has been a net oil/gas exporter since 2017, and has the largest refining capacity in the world, while also remaining one of the cleanest countries when relating to emissions at the same time.

What absolute bollocks. The US ranks as the second highest in emmissions and has done for over a decade.

www.ucsusa.org...

it isn't balls, it is a fact. giving a flat rate does not give you a clear picture of what I said what so ever. In order to get a clear picture there are two possible routes, per capita, and per GDP. Giving a flat rate alone is misleading, and talking about a single type of pollution (CO2) is also misleading. Why not include sulfur dioxide, oceanic waste, etc etc.

So lets do the analysis rather than just trotting out incomplete data that is misleading when quoted alone.

Germany
pop. 80,688,545
Emissions CO2 729.77
GDP 3.37T

USA
pop. 321,771,631
Emissions CO2 4997.50
GDP 18.12T

China
pop. 1,376,048,942
Emissions CO2 9040.74
GDP 11.06T

United Kingdom
pop. 64,715,810
Emissions CO2 389.75
GDP 2.88T

India
pop. 1,311,050,526
Emissions CO2 2066.01
GDP 2.10T

All data is from 2015! (www.populationpyramid.net... and www.statista.com... for sources, if you want specific citations for each data point feel free to ask for them CO2 is from your citation in millions of metric tones )

From this we can get that Germany has 197.23 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per trillion dollars of GDP and 9.4
metric tons of CO2 per citizen.
The US has 275.8 million metric tons of CO2emissions per trillion dollars of GDP and 15.38 metric tones of CO2 per citizen.
China has 817.42 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per trillion dollars of GDP and 6.57 metric tons of CO2 emissions per citizen.
The UK has 135.32 million metric tons per trillion dollars of GDP and 6.02 metric tons of CO2 emissions per citizen.
India has 983.81 million metric tons per trillion dollars of GDP and 1.57 metric tons of CO2 emissions per citizen.

From this we can clearly see that in 2015 (which is data you gave us) the US is far more efficient in production and comparable to other developed nations, while the economic powerhouses that do not abide by emissions standards are far and away worse polluters when related to tons of CO2 per Trillion dollars in GDP.

How about we broaden the scope beyond just CO2?


and the Trend in the USA (which has continued btw)


(citation of source ourworldindata.org...)

How about the latest map of PM2.5 from the WHO?

maps.who.int...

a reply to: narrator

We're going to raise their taxes 1% (or whatever) and immediately funnel it towards green energy, which is (supposedly) far less profitable than fossil fuels. That'll get 'em good, and make us super rich!"
That isn't exactly a get-rich-quick scheme, and makes SO much more work for them if it's only about making money. If it's truly about fleecing us to scam us out of more money, why not come up with something much easier, much more profitable, and (for some) more believable? 

It will be profitable, for the government, congressman, and their little pet projects alike.

It is already believable. Why do you think that every form of media is hammering us with the "climate change"?

It is being force fed every single waking moment of the day. It is already working and people are willing to give more of what little money they have to save the planet.

the first attempt

One question,

If the government is known to give in to big oil and money, what makes you think that they will do the "right thing" with billions upon billions more of our hard earned money?

Why does it involve us peons to pay more and more of our little precious money to try to force change?

Why can't there be another way instead of taxes and more taxes?

This is why so many people feel this is a sham. Because it always comes down to the working man/poor people paying more and more.

They want to force change from the working man's wallet. All while the Congressman/woman and big business decide what is best for us to make these changes.

I call B.S.

It will be profitable, for the government, congressman, and their little pet projects alike.

Very few politicians have any dealings with green energy, its quite the opposite, they have stakes in fossil fuels.

It is already believable. Why do you think that every form of media is hammering us with the "climate change"?

Because it is the biggest news story there is.

One question,

If the government is known to give in to big oil and money, what makes you think that they will do the "right thing" with billions upon billions more of our hard earned money?

They aren't doing the right thing they are criminals.

Why does it involve us peons to pay more and more of our little precious money to try to force change?

It doesn't? I don't know where you guys are coming up with this idea?

Why can't there be another way instead of taxes and more taxes?

There are lots of other ways including strong legislation to act on the evidence.
It doesn't help if you cannot accept the science and actively block countries trying to solve the problem.

They want to force change from the working man's wallet. All while the Congressman/woman and big business decide what is best for us to make these changes.

They already do this anyway

originally posted by: Dr X
a reply to: manuelram16

I drive an electric car. And your point is?

Which still needs a power station to charge it, power tools to make it, gas driven transport to deliver it, paint derived from oil to cover it, grease and oil from out of the ground to help it move, artificial rubber tyres, um, I think thats enough, dont you ?

a reply to: AtlasHawk

In one corner you have countless impartial climatologists saying one thing. In the other you have the Oil Industry that is currently worth $2 trillion thanks to fossil fuels. It doesn't seem like a hard thing to determine which side benefits from spreading lies.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Dr X

It is frustrating that so many refuse to accept the reality of human induced climate change, and not just on here. It does seem this board leans very right these days and pretending we are not responsible is one of the right's selling points.

I wonder if the constant promotion of the "human induced" divide is what is really the problem. After all, whoever or whatever is causing it, climate change is occurring and we need to get on with facing that along with all the other issues, such as sustainability, that we have to address if we are not going to leave the next generations with a wasteland where only conflict and fighting over ever decreasing resources can thrive.

We have not always had all the information. New information, data and scientific discovery is coming to light every day. Mistakes have been made, panics have been had, but whatever is causing climate change the climate is changing. Desertification is claiming more and more formerly productive land. Ground water is diminishing, and or contaminated, and some still have no access to clean, drinking water. We are increasingly preserving the lifestyles of the few at the expense, not just of the many, many other humans, but of the food chain that sustains all life here on the planet.

Even if fossil fuel are not a contributory factor in climate change, they are still far from conducive to a healthy enjoyment of life and are responsible for a number of health complaints, as is the production of derivatives in the petro-chemicals industry, pesticides and plastics. We should be imposing restrictions and holding corporations accountable. The major oil producing regions and the association corporations are naturally reticent to shoulder those costs and will continue to lobby and provoke the line that maintains ignorant seperatism, ie, human created climate change or not human created climate change. We need to move on.

a reply to: Dr X

Very few politicians have any dealings with green energy, its quite the opposite, they have stakes in fossil fuels.

The New Money

While green energy has donated less, it still is changing minds with the money they are donating, and it seems to be increaseing.

Because it is the biggest news story there is. 

I'll reword that for you, " it is the biggest news story because the media keeps it in primetime and forces it to be the biggest story there is".

They aren't doing the right thing they are criminals. 

Something we can both agree on.

It doesn't? I don't know where you guys are coming up with this idea? 

So are you saying that we wont have to pay more money out of our pockets even though the link I posted above says we will?

There are lots of other ways including strong legislation to act on the evidence. 
It doesn't help if you cannot accept the science and actively block countries trying to solve the problem. 

By actively trying to solve the problem, the governments wish to extort people out of their hard earned money. This is what your "strong legislation" gets the people, more of our money and rights stripped away to stuff government coffers, but you seem to be ok with that.

They already do this anyway

So that makes it ok to take even more? Make it more difficult for people to try to survive and forbid anyone actually wishes to work hard in a career and strive for better?