The So Called Deadly Climate Obsession of Governments, written by an idiot

[T. A. Gardner]

so you should be anti the replacements ban.

I have no problem with the replacements, if they are better, cheaper, and work. My issue is with all this being forced on the manufacturers on very questionable grounds and science by politicians and bureaucrats that aren't going to have to pay for it.

are you against all pollution regulation?

Complex question fallacy, but no I am not against all pollution regulation. I am for reasonable and sound pollution regulation, and zero tolerance regulations of the sort being used more and more today are not reasonable or sound.

don't throw the baby out with the polluted bathwater.

the idea of 'free markets' always selecting for the good products is farcical, as evidenced by the goverment openly abusing it's citizen free speech rights on behalf of big pharma. is big pharma really the victim of an overarching government here?

or are they into it?

It is government doing the victimization here. They are the ones abusing their authority and citizens. Government needs to be reigned in and put on a very sort leash.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I have no problem with the replacements, if they are better, cheaper, and work. My issue is with all this being forced on the manufacturers on very questionable grounds and science by politicians and bureaucrats that aren't going to have to pay for it.



Complex question fallacy, but no I am not against all pollution regulation. I am for reasonable and sound pollution regulation, and zero tolerance regulations of the sort being used more and more today are not reasonable or sound.



It is government doing the victimization here. They are the ones abusing their authority and citizens. Government needs to be reigned in and put on a very sort leash.

But you do believe in a government and having regulations at all.

Just checking for extremism. Carry on.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

But you do believe in a government and having regulations at all.

Just checking for extremism. Carry on.

Government and regulations are a necessity for any complex society. It's letting government and bureaucrats have unchecked ability to foist more and more of them on the population that's dangerous and extreme.

 

[AProudLefty]

Anyone knows why the Bird Man refuses to answer my question?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Government and regulations are a necessity for any complex society. It's letting government and bureaucrats have unchecked ability to foist more and more of them on the population that's dangerous and extreme.

And sometimes that government also favors corporations and their agenda/objectives.

 

[AProudLefty]

Government and regulations are a necessity for any complex society. It's letting government and bureaucrats have unchecked ability to foist more and more of them on the population that's dangerous and extreme.

Clearly pollution is dangerous to society which is why those companies have to be heavily regulated.

 

[AProudLefty]

And sometimes that government also favors corporations and their agenda/objectives.

Yes. Many in the GOP are in the pockets of those yuge corporations.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

And sometimes that government also favors corporations and their agenda/objectives.

Corporations are part of our society. They are run by people. Those people should have a say in things just like the rest of us. Therefore, if the people running a corporation want to do something that favors their corporation, they should get a say too.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Clearly pollution is dangerous to society which is why those companies have to be heavily regulated.

The question on the table isn't that pollution is dangerous or needs to be regulated, but rather how dangerous is pollution and how much regulation do we need? In short, the question comes down to How much pollution is acceptable and can we allow?

Note: The answer IS NOT ZERO!

 

[AProudLefty]

Corporations are part of our society. They are run by people. Those people should have a say in things just like the rest of us. Therefore, if the people running a corporation want to do something that favors their corporation, they should get a say too.

They favor profit, not people.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Corporations are part of our society. They are run by people. Those people should have a say in things just like the rest of us. Therefore, if the people running a corporation want to do something that favors their corporation, they should get a say too.

As another has noted: corporations are legally bound ONLY to serve the interests of the shareholders if they are publicly traded. And if the corporation fails to maximize profits they can be held in violation of their fiscal responsibility. Obviously they can't violate the LAWS to do that which is why we have laws putting guard rails up on corporate behavior.

Ironically enough Exxon was, prior to the 1980's, one of the leading group of researchers on global climate change. They seemed to find a lot of evidence that showed humans were acting in a way that may have been leading to the warming we've been seeing since the dawn of the industrial age. It was OK for Exxon to see that because they wanted to be a broader energy company, not JUST a petroleum company. They were diversifying into a variety of energy stuff outside of fossil fuels.

But then in the early 1980's the CEO of Exxon decided that the company needed to focus on their main area which he thought should be petroleum. Then the AGW research stopped and they became just another part of the problem.

You have NEVER in your entire life lived in a truly laissez-faire capitalist society. And you should thank God every day for that. WIthout the guardrails on industry we'd be in much worse shape ecologically. This is why corporations can't really be counted on to lead the charge in global climate change amelioration.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

The question on the table isn't that pollution is dangerous or needs to be regulated, but rather how dangerous is pollution and how much regulation do we need? In short, the question comes down to How much pollution is acceptable and can we allow?

Note: The answer IS NOT ZERO!

Remember: the government doesn't make up these laws out of spite. Usually the rules and environmental regulations are out there because of YOU THE VOTER. You see your children dying from horrific brain cancers and you DEMAND action. LOUDLY. People see your story on the news and are HORRIFIED and they demand action too! NO ONE wants their kids dying of horrible cancers. So we make environmental regulations. Because YOU WANT IT.

And good for you! That is a wonderful thing! I grew up in a town where a bunch of kids developed a rare brain cancer due to some old environmental disaster from a coal tar plant in the town that had shut down eons ago. But the damage was done, the poison already in the ground, ready for the kids. You don't want that. None of us do.

Do environmental regs go "too far" sometimes? I dunno. Part of me wants to say "probably", but then part of me realizes I'm not a toxicologist. I don't necessarily have all the information necessary to make the decree. Do I feel SAFER living and working in a society that takes environmental topics seriously? You BET I DO. And I work in the Chemical Industry. You think you have to toe the line closely....try working in a chem lab!

 

[T. A. Gardner]

They favor profit, not people.

So? There are greedy people in the world. What's new about that? There are others that crave power. Their motivation shouldn't be reason alone to bar them from having input. After all, it isn't the corporation that's making decisions, but rather the people running it.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Remember: the government doesn't make up these laws out of spite. Usually the rules and environmental regulations are out there because of YOU THE VOTER. You see your children dying from horrific brain cancers and you DEMAND action. LOUDLY. People see your story on the news and are HORRIFIED and they demand action too! NO ONE wants their kids dying of horrible cancers. So we make environmental regulations. Because YOU WANT IT.

And good for you! That is a wonderful thing! I grew up in a town where a bunch of kids developed a rare brain cancer due to some old environmental disaster from a coal tar plant in the town that had shut down eons ago. But the damage was done, the poison already in the ground, ready for the kids. You don't want that. None of us do.

Do environmental regs go "too far" sometimes? I dunno. Part of me wants to say "probably", but then part of me realizes I'm not a toxicologist. I don't necessarily have all the information necessary to make the decree. Do I feel SAFER living and working in a society that takes environmental topics seriously? You BET I DO. And I work in the Chemical Industry. You think you have to toe the line closely....try working in a chem lab!

The bureaucrats always go too far at some point. It's an inevitability of how bureaucracies work. See Parkenson's Law for more on that. A bureaucracy always goes towards expansion of its power and towards total control.

I don't feel safer in a world or society that tends towards zero tolerance on, well, virtually everything. You can be too safe. Environmental regulations that seek to eliminate all pollution are a fool's errand that will end up destroying society rather than helping it.

Things like environmental laws and rules shouldn't be based on feelings and a popular vote either. Ill-informed (stupid) voters are a serious potential threat to the stability of a society.

 

[AProudLefty]

So? There are greedy people in the world. What's new about that? There are others that crave power. Their motivation shouldn't be reason alone to bar them from having input. After all, it isn't the corporation that's making decisions, but rather the people running it.

The point is the corporations do not have people, even workers, in their best interests.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

As another has noted: corporations are legally bound ONLY to serve the interests of the shareholders if they are publicly traded. And if the corporation fails to maximize profits they can be held in violation of their fiscal responsibility. Obviously they can't violate the LAWS to do that which is why we have laws putting guard rails up on corporate behavior.

Ironically enough Exxon was, prior to the 1980's, one of the leading group of researchers on global climate change. They seemed to find a lot of evidence that showed humans were acting in a way that may have been leading to the warming we've been seeing since the dawn of the industrial age. It was OK for Exxon to see that because they wanted to be a broader energy company, not JUST a petroleum company. They were diversifying into a variety of energy stuff outside of fossil fuels.

But then in the early 1980's the CEO of Exxon decided that the company needed to focus on their main area which he thought should be petroleum. Then the AGW research stopped and they became just another part of the problem.

You have NEVER in your entire life lived in a truly laissez-faire capitalist society. And you should thank God every day for that. WIthout the guardrails on industry we'd be in much worse shape ecologically. This is why corporations can't really be counted on to lead the charge in global climate change amelioration.

Again, so? Individuals usually serve their own self-interests too. What's the difference? In a free and open society people, whether that is individually, or in groups, have no obligation morally or legally to act altruistically. You are arguing that they do have such an obligation. That's where Leftist Socialist and totalitarian government usually springs from--people thinking they know better how to run other people's lives than those people themselves, even as those seeking to do so can't even run their own fucking lives right.

 

[AProudLefty]

Again, so? Individuals usually serve their own self-interests too. What's the difference? In a free and open society people, whether that is individually, or in groups, have no obligation morally or legally to act altruistically. You are arguing that they do have such an obligation. That's where Leftist Socialist and totalitarian government usually springs from--people thinking they know better how to run other people's lives than those people themselves, even as those seeking to do so can't even run their own fucking lives right.

Families have their children in their interest. If the corporations don't give a fuck about them, it is the families right to know. Too many have broken laws such as dumping toxic waste in ground or water.

 

[Truth Detector]

From Uranus.

Absurdity; the last desperate refuge for the ignorant, the dishonest and the stupid.

 

[Truth Detector]

And those appear to have been done GWP (Global Warming Potential) not ozone damage.

This opens the door for refrigerants that are more hydrocarbon based. As such this isn't a critique of the Montreal Protocol or even CFC's impact on ozone as far as I can tell.

https://www.ecacool.com/en/news/r134a_chiller_ban/

 

[Truth Detector]

I clearly know more about thermo than the other poster.

Your high self-opinion is noted dipshit.

Who measures the earth's temperature? Are you not familiar with Global Warming? They use something called a temperature anomaly. It shows CHANGE in temperature without having to have the raw temperature.

Of course you don't seem to know much about this topic in any technical detail.

Temp anomaly is more quack science. What we do know is that EVERY wacko prediction made by the man caused global warming quacks have been dead wrong. They have NEVER been right about anything for decades. The idea that there are so many stupid people like you still buying into the bullshit illustrates how badly our educational establishment is failing us.

For some reason the world's experts on this topic disagree with you.

They are not experts. They are quacks. They've never gotten any of their predictions right. You're a dunce who gullibly swallows the bullshit.

Sure everyone knows the sun is the primary energy source, but the earth's surface temperature is NOT solely due to the sun. Without greenhouse gases at all the earth's surface would have near blackbody temperatures. But it doesn't. Even if we had a full oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere...without GHG's the temperature would be much lower at the surface.

In other words, man does not cause global warming or global cooling. Thank you.

The key problem in AGW is NOT the absolute temperature. The earth's been hotter in the distant past. But rather the change in climate as it impacts our society. Rapid change won't work well for a very large society. We can't adapt fast enough.

More bullshit. You seem to be quite full of it. There have been no "rapid" changes for decades dispstick.

The whole problem is one of RATE, not absolutes.

Stop it. You're cracking me up!