Fatal blow to Climate Denial

[freebeard]

redpoint5 -- I came back to ask a question. If OP blocks a member how to they maintain control of the thread. Hmmm?

I'm a little behind the times on the Kochs. Last I'd heard was when they cornered the silver market in the 1980s. DDG:

How The Hunt Brothers Cornered The Silver Market | GBS ...
https://globalbullionsuppliers.com › blogs › blog › inside-story-hunt-brothers-cornered-silver-market
March 21, 2018 It's a saga that almost sounds fictional but it's the real-life story of two American wealthy brothers who cornered the silver market and caused the price of silver to rocket from $2 an ounce (all currency US) to more than $50 an ounce. It all began when oil tycoon H.L. Hunt died in 1974,

[redpoint5]

I suppose I'd like to know more about the Koch Bros since the environmental religion type view them as worse than Stalin and Hitler combined.

As far as I can tell, they appear to be genuine in wanting human flourishing to continue and expand, but that doesn't mean they are always correct in how to pursue that end. Perhaps that their main industry depends on fossil fuels influences their receptivity to negative consequences of fossil fuel consumption, but they appear to be concerned more with winning issues they value than a particular political party holding power. They've made political contributions to Democrats, for example.

... and then one of them died not to long ago, if I recall correctly.

Probably the Koch Bros are to the left as George Soros is to the right. Neither will be around much longer.

EDIT: Listened to episode 2.

Koch Bros are in favor of economic prosperity for the US, which naturally makes them opposed to anything that is anti-prosperity. Unilateral carbon taxation is both ineffective and anti-prosperity, so that's why they chose that position. It's still the position most Americans would favor.

In episode 3 is Frontline going to discuss the economic cost and the ripple effect through the future if carbon taxation had been implemented? Are they going to discuss how cap and trade is about the dumbest way to tax fossil fuel consumption because it adds tons of unnecessary administrative overhead? Is Frontline going to show how economic prosperity and fossil fuel consumption are, for the time being, inextricably linked?

This episode has the clip of Obama saying we would look back and see his presidency as being the beginning of a healing earth. He can't be talking about CO2 emissions, because global CO2 skyrocketed during and following his presidency. Even in the US emissions have remained relatively steady, regardless who is president. Only Covid seriously put a dent in consumption.

If they're going to portray various people and groups as villians for being opposed to something, they had better let those people steel-man their reasons for doing so.

This series seems to clumsily walk around the various elephants under the rug, but perhaps they are saving those for future episodes. I shall hold my breath.

EDIT2: I'm pretty slow, but here's what the stated purpose of the series is;

"investigating the fossil fuel industry’s history of casting doubt and delaying action on climate change. "

They've conveniently focused narrowly enough that any discussion about certain climate actions being reasonable are not in scope. In other words, they want the viewers to "think past the sale" by assuming anything a politician would do under the guise of "for the planet" is certainly good.

[freebeard]

Redpoint5 --

Which do you prefer?

Kitty, Daisy & Lewis - Say You'll Be Mine

Kitty, Daisy, & Lewis - I'm Coming Home

I shan't block OP if he were to listen in.

The road to Utopia is paved with good intentions.

[redpoint5]

The road to Utopia is paved in the imagination. The road to hades is paved with good intentions. The road to somewhere incrementally better is paved with truth, honesty, and integrity.

BTW- that's another "tell" in this Frontline documentary of dishonesty, that they included someone saying "the science is easy and it's clear". Never trust a person who says the solution to something infinitely complex is easy. They're on the road to hades, and not on the road to something incrementally better.

I like the first song better because it's got a faster beat and the harmonica is cool, but then I like the second song better because it's Pickathon and that yellow dress is fetching.

[freebeard]

What is a portmanteau in more than one words? A mashup? A Yogi Beraism?

The second harmonica solo is a bit much. But the drummer definitely has 'restless leg syndrome'.

At ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/what-you-listening-39587-3.html#post666734 there is another. And the Wikipedia backstory.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'll quote you. Really surprised you're the one getting muted though, as I'm way more directly adversarial than you are. At least you dress up skepticism in witty humor.

... and, I'm going to listen to the next Frontline episode and comment here.

I'll take a wild guess.

Freebeard declared he wasn't going to watch the topic of the thread and then went on to add post after post of off-topic material. It is pretty typical of his response to any thread.

On the other hand you actually are watching / listening to the topic of the thread and responding.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Fell asleep watching last night and continued watching now...

I'll post more as my thoughts arise. One thing that occurs to me is the absurdity of the statement "those who have historically contributed most to the problem should step up to the plate first in the effort to reduce emissions".

If I'm the first to discover a large river and fish all I want, there's no problem. Nature is practically unimpacted by the few fish I gather. Later on, if many others start fishing all they want and that causes a problem with the fish population, is the correct course of action to tell all those first to the stream to leave, or is it to apply limits everyone wanting to fish?

Well the problem is your example. There was a problem. It isn't like sustainably fishing - it is more like draining a lake.

Say you have a lake that has no source of replenishment. For 100 years you and a friend have been drawing water out of the lake - steadily draining it. Heck - you've been just letting the water run because why bother to pay to put in a valve. Just fill your pool and let the water run out the other side. But it is a huge lake so surely it will never run dry. Meanwhile there are 10x as many people on the other side of the lake using a bare minimum of water, hauling it in buckets just for what they need for basic necessities of life. A 100 years go by and suddenly the lake is almost dry and you notice those people across the lake now have a faucet and a shower and are using more water. Only half as much per person as you but they are taking water out of the lake and the lake is going dry. You decided to have a sit down to work out a solution.

So everyone sits down and the people across the lake point out that this is mostly your problem as you used 90% of the water that was in the lake. They only started using more water a few years ago and they take a navy shower each day while you soak in your overflowing pool. They propose that each person get to take the same amount of water out of the lake and you cut back to their level. You refuse - that isn't fair because all of them combined now use more than you do even though you are massively wasting water. You also hate the idea of a navy shower instead of soaking in a pool. You propose that each group gets the same amount of water and they combined cut back to your daily consumption. They refuse - you took 90% of the total water and are still wasting a massive amount of water. So the meeting goes nowhere and everyone keeps doing what they were doing and the lake goes dry.


Almost all the CO2 that western industrial society put into the atmosphere is still there warming the earth. It is incredibly disingenuous for us to be sitting in our 25 mpg cars telling all the people in China riding scooters that they are the problem and we won't downsize to a 30 mpg crossover unless they all agree to ride bicycles.

[redpoint5]

I thought about taking out the analogy because arguing by analogy is usually dumb, and I see many flaws with it.

My main points being, unilateral action is ineffective, and per-capita CO2 is not a fair criteria for negotiating national limits because it ignores the growing capita portion of the CO2 equation.

This is precisely what makes peaceful agreement among all nations an impossible task.

It seems more probable that technology will continue to mitigate the problem rather than some genius politician that brokers a deal, saving the day.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by JSH

Freebeard declared he wasn't going to watch the topic of the thread and then went on to add post after post of off-topic material.

Permalink#6

3x1.5hr is an investment in time. I will wait for the series to air and people I respect offering reaction videos on Youtube. 12 minutes is the sweet spot.

permalink #12

I'm not going to read The Adam And EVE STORY, so I can't address that.

permalink #23

In accordance with prophesy:

The Doomsday Glacier Is Collapsing…Who Is Most at Risk?
...
12:50 from PBS themselves.

[f]reebeard wasn't the one that refused to read Chan Thomas. Just the one that waited for a synopsis.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Permalink#6

[f]reebeard wasn't the one that refused to read Chan Thomas. Just the one that waited for a synopsis.

You have 15 out of 49 posts on this thread so far. #6 was the only on the original topic on the PBS show - that you aren't going to watch.