Should rich countries pay climate reparations to poor countries?

Bogan

.The whole Human Induced Climate Change farce is simply a tactic by a bunch of One World Government dreamers, neo Marxists, public service empire builders, left wing teachers federations, self aggrandizing publicly funded climate scientists, vegans and other kooks, extreme green environmentalists, sensation seeking shock/horror media people, self interested corporations, and  now a class of usually well off educated elitists, to whom virtue signaling and class identification is everything, to panic the ordinary they all despise into finally accepting a totalitarian government of their own caste's worldview, in order to control the lives of The Great Unwashed, and to redistribute the wealth of the advanced countries to the dysfunctional countries.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: There is a 97% scientific consensus on anthropogenic global climate change.

There is a 97% scientific consensus on anthropogenic global climate change.

Hmmm, I could have sworn there were more comments on this thread, maybe I misremember. I don't remember anything offensive about the comments.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm

https://crankyuncle.com/which-climate-scientists-are-in-the-97-consensus-poster/

MayCaesar

Countries cannot "pay" anything, only humans can. The properly rephrased question therefore is, "Should every taxpayer in a 'rich' country pay tribute to every taxpayer in a 'poor' country?" Should I pay to some African kid? 

The answer was determined millennia ago in the primitive legal systems and has never really changed: one is only to pay a compensation to someone else if the harm his actions caused is found in the court to be significant. If said African kid can demonstrate that me driving my car seriously damaged his lungs, then he may have a case to make; otherwise, no.

What did change relative to the primitive legal systems is only the concept of the economical agent. In the collectivist view prevalent today groups are collectively responsible for damages their members inflicted on others. This, of course, is rubbish. One cannot be responsible for things outside their control, and I have no control over what others do to the climate. I can only control what I do to the climate - so, again, if someone can demonstrate that my individual actions severely hurt someone, then I am happy to go to a court and dispute or concede the claim.

just_sayin

@xlJ_dolphin_473
If a true injustice has been committed, then reparations are not needed as the court system could provide a judgement.  When someone appeals to reparations rather than the courts, it seems they are acknowledging that a injustice has not really been committed, but wish to redistribute wealth by making someone feel guilty.  This is an immoral tactic and needs to be called out as such.  In the next 50 years, poorer countries will be increasing their use of CO2 emitting gases to increase their own wealth.  Why should they be paid, when almost all will be increasing their own pollution?  These are the projections of the UN.  To raise their people out of poverty, many will seek to increase their energy output, and the cheapest energy sources are still those that emit CO2.  Richer countries are leading the way in research for cleaner technologies.  Why should countries which have heavily invested in research and technology to reduce global warming also be punished by reparations?  Again, it is an immoral proposal that fails to recognize the efforts that rich countries have made to reduce global warming.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Solar is now the cheapest option.

@just_sayin

Solar is now the cheapest option.

https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/cheap-renewable-energy-vs-fossil-fuels/

Dee

@Dreamer



Nonsense ......

• High Cost of Solar Panels. ... 
• Sunlight Dependent. ... 
• Installation Can Be Difficult. ... 
• Space Constraints. ... 
• Solar Energy Storage Is Expensive. ... 
• Environmental Impact of Manufacturing. ... 
• Difficulty With Relocation. ... 
• Scarcity of Materials.

just_sayin

@Dreamer
It would be awesome if solar were cheaper than non-renewable sources.  First, we could remove the government subsidizes which have misrepresented the cost of solar for decades.  However, for solar to be a true alternative, there will need to be further upgrades to batteries, storage, and the grid that support them.  Solar causes far greater damage to the "grid" because it has such extreme fluctuations.  Often studies that find solar cheaper, only look at up front costs, and fail to consider ongoing and maintenance costs.  In contrast, a power source like nuclear is primarily upfront costs, with much smaller maintenance costs.  That's why people who live in areas where their power comes from nuclear pay lower electric prices than other areas where solar is used. 

Germany's transition to solar resulted in the average electric bill being almost $1,000 American dollars higher a year for the average family.  I know that people who buy Tesla's are saying "so what?", but to most people that is a "huge" increase in electric bills.  If you truly want people to switch to renewable energy sources, then investment in technology is crucial.  People will gladly switch to an energy source if they will REALLY save money.  

For more on Germany's continued surging energy price debacle see Clean Energy Wire:

Households in Germany on average paid 40.07 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) in the second half of 2022, compared to 32.16 ct/kWh in the previous year. The increase was mostly caused by higher procurement and retailing costs for electricity, which according to the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW) rose by 160 percent compared with 2021. At the same time, the price increase for households was dampened by the abolition of Germany’s renewable energy levy, which stood at 3.72 ct/kWh, before being eliminated in mid-2022.
The average household with an annual electricity consumption of 3,500 kWh was charged 116.86 euros per month in the second half of 2022, the BDEW said. In nominal terms, this corresponds to a total price increase of 134 percent compared to 1998, when the internal European energy market was introduced.

To compare the average residential electricity rate in the U.S. is 15.64¢ per kilowatt-hour (kWh). 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I disagree, but lack the time to invest deeply in the topic.

@Dee

In another post I just posted I had to apologize, the five million number was premature. I rather not repeat that mistake. This is why it is often best to find a group of experts' blog on a subject and ask them. As opposed to cherry picking mainstream media sources and peer reviewed articles.

There are both solar panels for the home and solar panel power plants. Location is a key factor, some places are better for sun than others.

Dee

@Dreamer

Argument Topic: I disagree, but lack the time to invest deeply in the topic 

But yet you spend considerable time answering others whys that?

In another post I just posted I had to apologize, the five million number was premature. I rather not repeat that mistake. This is why it is often best to find a group of experts' blog on a subject and ask them. As opposed to cherry picking mainstream media sources and peer reviewed articles.

Ok , but you still haven't attempted to address meaningfully even one questiom i asked despite me asking you to try, sorry but you  you seem to only copy and paste the opinions of others which is why i made the claim that you're preaching  

There are both solar panels for the home and solar panel power plants. Location is a key factor, some places are better for sun than others.

 Quote  Persuaded Fallacy Fist Bump Irrelevant Great argument Strong Argument

How does that even attempt to address what I asked ? It seems to me you're trolling at this stage are you? 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: There is a lot of other users responding to me.

@Dee

Hi Dee,

The main reason why I am not responding more to you is there are a lot of other users responding to me. I try to divide my attention evenly.

That being said I also try to respond to the most obvious and easiest to debunk first. Third, I can't help but focus on the more extreme and dangerous claims. Your claims tend to be more moderate. If for example you were to make an anti-vaxx comment you would get my full attention.

Your arguments are more difficult to debunk is the secondary reason. Take for example sonofason's remark about smoking. This is high priority because I see it as a more extreme and dangerous claim. If people believe sonofason more people could start smoking and thus more lung cancer. Second the comment is only a few sentences long, making it easier and faster to debunk.

Now compare to your long list, "

• High Cost of Solar Panels. ... 
• Sunlight Dependent. ... 
• Installation Can Be Difficult. ... 
• Space Constraints. ... 
• Solar Energy Storage Is Expensive. ... 
• Environmental Impact of Manufacturing. ... 
• Difficulty With Relocation. ... 
• Scarcity of Materials." Dee

This is going quite in depth list like this is somewhat similar to a qdrop as in the alt-right conspiracy theory qanon. I've also had flat Earthers make a whole bunch of claims and next when I couldn't address them fast enough declare victory. Then, when I address your comment and agree that solar panels are sunlight dependent and thus some geographically regions are better suited to solar panels you accuse me of trolling.

When talking about climate change I am not used to this response. More typical is outright denial from Trump supporters. For example I might say climate change is continuing to raise temperatures, and a Trump supporter might state the myth of global warming stopping in 1998 and then me linking to skeptical science with a brief description in my own words about how they cherry picked the data.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

This sort of moderate in depth discussion about solar energy is new to me and I have to learn more about solar panels before I can make an adequate response.  I am sorry that I made you feel that I was ignoring your comments.

As for me preaching by copying and pasting the opinions of others. That is my argument style. Information and debate in my opinion is who to ask and where to look. If I have a question about climate science I ask a climate scientist. If I need information about dentistry I ask my dentist. Car trouble? I ask my mechanic.

As for online it is where to look, as in which website. Science based medicine and quackwatch for health claims. Crankyuncle and skeptical science for climate change, and so forth.

I am doing the opposite of preaching I am respecting the expertise of experts. One of my favorite books is Tom Nicholas the Death of Expertise.

https://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

I am just gathering information to make a better rebuttal. In the book both parties are often wrong on debate sites. A good example is I might say five million deaths from climate change, incorrect. The denier might say it is all a massive conspiracy, also incorrect.

Again, I apologize if you feel that I have been unfair to you.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: The economics of various energy sources are new to me. But I stand by my claim.

@just_sayin

Hi just_saying,

According to Greta Thunberg fossil fuels are heavily subsidized by 5.9 trillion in 2020 alone.

https://journalnow.com/opinion/columnists/greta-thunberg-global-leaders-are-dropping-the-ball-on-climate-change/article_5516471c-accc-11ed-a58b-7baf4bb8c9ac.html

 I am surprised at how much push-back I am getting. I just thought most people knew that solar was cheaper than coal. Coal is historically the cheapest energy source. I heard this on NPR while driving.

I just figured more pushback would be directed at some of the other user's claims. Instead of me arguing with multiple people on what a lot of people would consider common or general knowledge.

Again, I don't stand by the 5.9 trillion number, I am way too new to the subject to know whether Thunberg is credible or not. I think we can both agree on that there is subsidizes going towards fossil fuels that skew the numbers. I agree if people saved money rather than having their bills raised by $1,000 a year they would be more enthusiastic.

Thank you for continuing the conversation. 

Dee

@Dreamer

Argument Topic: There is a lot of other users responding to me. 

@Dee 

Hi Dee,

The main reason why I am not responding more to you is there are a lot of other users responding to me. I try to divide my attention evenly. 

That being said I also try to respond to the most obvious and easiest to debunk first. Third, I can't help but focus on the more extreme and dangerous claims. Your claims tend to be more moderate. If for example you were to make an anti-vaxx comment you would get my full attention. 

Your arguments are more difficult to debunk is the secondary reason. Take for example sonofason's remark about smoking. This is high priority because I see it as a more extreme and dangerous claim. If people believe sonofason more people could start smoking and thus more lung cancer. Second the comment is only a few sentences long, making it easier and faster to debunk. 

Now compare to your long list, "

• High Cost of Solar Panels. ... 
• Sunlight Dependent. ... 
• Installation Can Be Difficult. ... 
• Space Constraints. ... 
• Solar Energy Storage Is Expensive. ... 
• Environmental Impact of Manufacturing. ... 
• Difficulty With Relocation. ... 
• Scarcity of Materials." Dee

This is going quite in depth list like this is somewhat similar to a qdrop as in the alt-right conspiracy theory qanon. I've also had flat Earthers make a whole bunch of claims and next when I couldn't address them fast enough declare victory. 

I'm not interested in claiming victory , I'm interested is why you make assertions regarding how the working classes will benefit from these radical changes but plainly refuse to address what I've asked several times now.

You claimed I was merely using "anecdotal evidence" regards lack of use in my country of bicycle lanes  yet at the moment I'm on a panel addressing my government regards the cost to citizens of making bicycle lanes that are still mostly unused.

You never answered how is it reasonable for a working couple to transport children to schools and then travel to work on bicycles in lashing rain, so can you explain how this is even feasible?

Then, when I address your comment and agree that solar panels are sunlight dependent and thus some geographically regions are better suited to solar panels you accuse me of trolling. 

I'm sorry but it seems that way because you actually claim solar energy is the way to go yet cannot explain how this is totally affordable to the working classes you claim you care about, so talk me through it please?

When talking about climate change I am not used to this response. More typical is outright denial from Trump supporters. For example I might say climate change is continuing to raise temperatures, and a Trump supporter might state the myth of global warming stopping in 1998 and then me linking to skeptical science with a brief description in my own words about how they cherry picked the data.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

But I'm not a Trump supporter or a climate change denier I'm concerned about costs to the working classes you claim you are also yet you sound exactly like one of the rip off merchants who feign concern over the planet yet profit significantly from forcing people into green schemes they cannot support, you have no explanation on how it's in anyway reasonable to expect people to pay for electric cars or solar panels, you also want to punish them further by insisting they cycle long distances to work in every sort of condition.

This sort of moderate in depth discussion about solar energy is new to me and I have to learn more about solar panels before I can make an adequate response.  I am sorry that I made you feel that I was ignoring your comments. 

That's ok, all I'm asking is that you at least try.

As for me preaching by copying and pasting the opinions of others. That is my argument style. Information and debate in my opinion is who to ask and where to look. If I have a question about climate science I ask a climate scientist. If I need information about dentistry I ask my dentist. Car trouble? I ask my mechanic. 

Yes , but who do you believe most and why? You keep posting links about science , quackwatch , crankyuncle etc,etc , I'm still not a climate change denier , so that's what I mean about preaching this is exactly what the religious do , will you please address what I'm asking , it's getting tiring the way you keep deflecting.

As for online it is where to look, as in which website. Science based medicine and quackwatch for health claims. Crankyuncle and skeptical science for climate change, and so forth. 

I am doing the opposite of preaching I am respecting the expertise of experts. One of my favorite books is Tom Nicholas the Death of Expertise. 

https://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

But I'm still not a climate change denier so why are you telling me all this?

I am just gathering information to make a better rebuttal. In the book both parties are often wrong on debate sites. A good example is I might say five million deaths from climate change, incorrect. The denier might say it is all a massive conspiracy, also incorrect.

You're still deflecting.

Again, I apologize if you feel that I have been unfair to you. 

Ok , thank you , can you try address what I'm actually asking you? Thanks

just_sayin

@Dreamer
First, the reason there are subsidies in European countries right now, is because the conversion to solar, and the Ukraine war has forced gas, oil, and natural gas prices through the roof.  These were put in place to lower the shock of how their policies have raised energy costs.  Don't blame gas and oil companies for this.

The reason coal production has decreased is due to government regulations making it impossible for many areas to continue using coal and because fracking has cut the cost of natural gas dramatically.  There is nothing wrong with solar.  I've considered it for my own home.  However, it just wasn't a wise investment as it would take far longer than I plan to own the home to break even.  I do think you have an overly optimistic view of where solar technology is right now.  Its costs have come down.  However, solar output is variable.  You couldn't convert the whole country to solar today if you wanted to - the battery technology and the impact on the grid would crash the system. Given time and technological advances - sure, you can make that change, but not at this time.  Given the U.S. consumes about 4 petawatt hours of electricity per year, we'd need about 13,600,000 acres or 21,250 square miles of solar panels .  Those locations need to be near where the energy will be used, and many locations are not as ideal as other areas in the US.  Back up energy sources will be needed until the battery storage issue can be fixed.

The artificial imposition of electric vehicles upon the public by government will only make the problem worse, as places like California are already unable to maintain their energy needs.  The average cost of an electric vehicle is $18,000 more than the average price of a gas vehicle.  Now that may mean nothing to someone who can afford a Tesla, but for poorer people, that's a lot of money they just don't have.  Rural locations will need a lot of infrastructure upgrades to accommodate the government mandates.  And again, the grid is not currently able to handle those problems.

Again, if you want people to adopt renewable energy sources you will have much more luck if they are cheaper than the alternatives.  People will more readily switch if the technology is cheaper than what they are already using.  Currently, that isn't the case. 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Responding to Dee's arguments.

@Dee

"That's ok, all I'm asking is that you at least try." Dee

Hi, Dee

First, I will begin by saying some arguments I can respond to very quickly, ten minutes, because I already read six books on the subject. My knowledge is so great, that I can quickly type a reply.

Learning is the bottleneck. If I hadn't read those six books, which maybe took about 60 hours total to read I might not be able to respond intelligently at all. An educated guess in contrast might take about 45 minutes.

Here goes nothing, I am going to at least try:

"You claimed I was merely using "anecdotal evidence" regards lack of use in my country of bicycle lanes  yet at the moment I'm on a panel addressing my government regards the cost to citizens of making bicycle lanes that are still mostly unused." Dee

I don't know which country you are from nor if the panel you are in gives you expertise in the subject. For example there is a program called D.A.R.E. here in the United States that is worse than useless. If somebody said there were on a panel for D.A.R.E. they would not be an expert. This would simply be a person with strong opinions as opposed to expertise and science based. Do you think being on that panel makes you an expert on bicycle lanes?

   If you answer no, then you are using anecdotal evidence. Maybe in one part of your country lots of people use the bicycle lanes. Or maybe you simply look at the bicycle lanes at an off time. Bicycling is great exercise.

  Lack of exercise is correlated with diabetes, heart disease, and lack of mobility, source Center for Disease Control.

https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/factsheets/physical-activity.htm

If you are worried about money lack of exercise costs the USA 117B per year. Add to the reduction in air pollution while health care costs soar.

 "From a practical point of view, however, it is critical to recognize that measures to reduce air pollution are cost effective. We don’t even have to make an economic trade off or sacrifice. Controlling air pollution is a win-win, saving lives and money." Steven Novella 2016

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/air-pollution-and-public-health/

" But in the US, we are still mostly talking about effects in the US – so while an average of 69% of the benefits remain regional, the vast majority remain national." Steven Novella on August 31, 2022

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/healthcare-costs-of-air-pollution/

Again, you don't live in the US. Maybe the number is higher or lower. Often, reduction in air pollution stays within the local area. That being said the local area will benefit from both exercise from bicycling and reduction in pollution.

"
You never answered how is it reasonable for a working couple to transport children to schools and then travel to work on bicycles in lashing rain, so can you explain how this is even feasible?" Dee

I don't think it is safe for cars nor bicycles to drive in torrential rain. People drown even in SUVs. Interesting, more intense and erratic weather is increased by climate change.

"Climate change affects global temperature and precipitation patterns. These effects, in turn, influence the intensity and, in some cases, the frequency of extreme environmental events, such as forest fires, hurricanes, heat waves, floods, droughts, and storms." 

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/influence-climate-change-extreme-environmental-events/

"The first climate study to focus on variations in daily weather conditions has found that day-to-day weather has grown increasingly erratic and extreme, with significant fluctuations in sunshine and rainfall affecting more than a third of the planet." Morgan Kelly 2011

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2011/11/15/erratic-extreme-day-day-weather-puts-climate-change-new-light

A bicycle may even be more safe in flooding conditions because the bicycle goes slower. Cars and SUVs go fast and people accidentally drive into rivers and other bodies of water drowning, is one of the main causes of death in such a situation. A bicycle would give the driver more time to react.

"I'm sorry but it seems that way because you actually claim solar energy is the way to go yet cannot explain how this is totally affordable to the working classes you claim you care about, so talk me through it please?" Dee

Fossil fuel subsidies artificially decrease the price of fossil fuels. Subsidies that the working class shoulders so rich people can drive gas guzzlers on the cheap. The robber baron fossil fuel companies take advantage of individual profits and socialized costs in the form of pollution and climate change. Resulting in healthcare costs that again burden the working class.

The solution is simple change all fossil fuel subsidies to renewable energy sources subsidies. For example tax credits for solar panels and electric cars instead of tax breaks for big fossil fuel.

This post is getting long, so I am going to stop for now. Remember a strategy of denial is on the spot fallacy or in extreme cases gish gallop. The idea is it takes more time, energy, and words to debunk than to create weak arguments. Therefore, it is possible to win an argument by simply overwhelming and exhausting the other person by flooding the zone.

Finally, people are often not even aware of doing this. I was guilty of believing in conspiracies in the past, chemtrails along others and unknowingly using gish gallop to win arguments I should have lost.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Thank you for continuing the conversation.

Dee

@Dreamer

Hi, Dee

First, I will begin by saying some arguments I can respond to very quickly, ten minutes, because I already read six books on the subject. My knowledge is so great, that I can quickly type a reply.

Hi, 
I wish you would type an answer to the 2 questions I've asked 4 times now instead of constantly deflecting and preaching ...

1: You never answered how is it reasonable for a working couple to transport children to schools and then travel to work on bicycles in lashing rain, so can you explain how this is even feasible?

2: I'm sorry but it seems that way because you actually claim solar energy is the way to go yet cannot explain how this is totally affordable to the working classes you claim you care about, so talk me through it please?

Learning is the bottleneck. If I hadn't read those six books, which maybe took about 60 hours total to read I might not be able to respond intelligently at all. An educated guess in contrast might take about 45 minutes.

Here goes nothing, I am going to at least try:

I don't know which country you are from nor if the panel you are in gives you expertise in the subject.

No you don't,  my credentials give me expertise , also the available data gives my case further credibility such so I've been granted a number of meetings on the topic with government,  so in future before you  misrepresent me and condescendingly claim my evidence is merely " anecdotal" have the common deceny to tell me how you reached these absurd conclusions?

 For example there is a program called D.A.R.E. here in the United States that is worse than useless. If somebody said there were on a panel for D.A.R.E. they would not be an expert. This would simply be a person with strong opinions as opposed to expertise and science based. Do you think being on that panel makes you an expert on bicycle lanes?

I never said being on a panel made me an expert, I have relevant credentials in the field.

Also you forgot that the cost of solar power is very expensive you admitted this what credentials do you need to work this out?

Also when you're at it what credentials do you need to gain video footage of bicycle lane usage?

   If you answer no, then you are using anecdotal evidence. Maybe in one part of your country lots of people use the bicycle lanes. Or maybe you simply look at the bicycle lanes at an off time. Bicycling is great exercise.

What are you on about do you know how to answer a question without constantly preaching?



1: You never answered how is it reasonable for a working couple to transport children to schools and then travel to work on bicycles in lashing rain, so can you explain how this is even feasible?

2: I'm sorry but it seems that way because you actually claim solar energy is the way to go yet cannot explain how this is totally affordable to the working classes you claim you care about, so talk me through it please?

  Lack of exercise is correlated with diabetes, heart disease, and lack of mobility, source Center for Disease Control.

https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/factsheets/physical-activity.htm

If you are worried about money lack of exercise costs the USA 117B per year. Add to the reduction in air pollution while health care costs soar.


Still preaching  , here again  are the questions you refuse to answer ......

1: You never answered how is it reasonable for a working couple to transport children to schools and then travel to work on bicycles in lashing rain, so can you explain how this is even feasible?

2: I'm sorry but it seems that way because you actually claim solar energy is the way to go yet cannot explain how this is totally affordable to the working classes you claim you care about, so talk me through it please?

 "From a practical point of view, however, it is critical to recognize that measures to reduce air pollution are cost effective. We don’t even have to make an economic trade off or sacrifice. Controlling air pollution is a win-win, saving lives and money." Steven Novella 2016

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/air-pollution-and-public-health/

" But in the US, we are still mostly talking about effects in the US – so while an average of 69% of the benefits remain regional, the vast majority remain national." Steven Novella on August 31, 2022

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/healthcare-costs-of-air-pollution/

Again, you don't live in the US. Maybe the number is higher or lower. Often, reduction in air pollution stays within the local area. That being said the local area will benefit from both exercise from bicycling and reduction in pollution.

Still appealng to authority and posting link after link which has nothing to do with what I keep  asking.

1: You never answered how is it reasonable for a working couple to transport children to schools and then travel to work on bicycles in lashing rain, so can you explain how this is even feasible?

2: I'm sorry but it seems that way because you actually claim solar energy is the way to go yet cannot explain how this is totally affordable to the working classes you claim you care about, so talk me through it please?

"

I don't think it is safe for cars nor bicycles to drive in torrential rain. People drown even in SUVs. Interesting, more intense and erratic weather is increased by climate change.

You're deflecting again what I actually asked  was....

1: You never answered how is it reasonable for a working couple to transport children to schools and then travel to work on bicycles in lashing rain, so can you explain how this is even feasible

"Climate change affects global temperature and precipitation patterns. These effects, in turn, influence the intensity and, in some cases, the frequency of extreme environmental events, such as forest fires, hurricanes, heat waves, floods, droughts, and storms." 

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/influence-climate-change-extreme-environmental-events/

"The first climate study to focus on variations in daily weather conditions has found that day-to-day weather has grown increasingly erratic and extreme, with significant fluctuations in sunshine and rainfall affecting more than a third of the planet." Morgan Kelly 2011

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2011/11/15/erratic-extreme-day-day-weather-puts-climate-change-new-light

A bicycle may even be more safe in flooding conditions because the bicycle goes slower. Cars and SUVs go fast and people accidentally drive into rivers and other bodies of water drowning, is one of the main causes of death in such a situation. A bicycle would give the driver more time to react.


1: You never answered how is it reasonable for a working couple to transport children to schools and then travel to work on bicycles in lashing rain, so can you explain how this is even feasible

"

Fossil fuel subsidies artificially decrease the price of fossil fuels. Subsidies that the working class shoulders so rich people can drive gas guzzlers on the cheap. The robber baron fossil fuel companies take advantage of individual profits and socialized costs in the form of pollution and climate change. Resulting in healthcare costs that again burden the working class.

The solution is simple change all fossil fuel subsidies to renewable energy sources subsidies. For example tax credits for solar panels and electric cars instead of tax breaks for big fossil fuel.

1: You never answered how is it reasonable for a working couple to transport children to schools and then travel to work on bicycles in lashing rain, so can you explain how this is even feasible?

This post is getting long, so I am going to stop for now. Remember a strategy of denial is on the spot fallacy or in extreme cases gish gallop

You should stop doing both if you feel that strongly about it , you cannot answer two simple questions  without deflecting and your whole argument is riddled with fallacies and you don't recognise  your constant fallacies or that you in actual fact are constantly resorting gish gallop tactics
 

. The idea is it takes more time, energy, and words to debunk than to create weak arguments. Therefore, it is possible to win an argument by simply overwhelming and exhausting the other person by flooding the zone.

But that's all you do as  you totally avoid answering  two simple questions you post link after unrelated link as you're totally uneducated on the matter 

Finally, people are often not even aware of doing this. I was guilty of believing in conspiracies in the past, chemtrails along others and unknowingly using gish gallop to win arguments I should have lost.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop


I know you do seem totally unaware  of the very tactic you use , you sound exactly like the most ignorant and uneducated Sunday preacher from the bible belt

Thank you for continuing the conversation. 

You didn't converse you preached,  appealing to" authorities" and flooding the site with unrelated nonsense proves you're not remotely interested in debate you're a preacher and a troll.

Here is a definition of the tactic you use but don't even realise you're using it .......

The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. It's essentially a conveyor belt-fed of nonsense 

I asked two simple questions and in 4 posts you've posted 42 ( and counting ) totllally untrelated comments and links that totally ignore what I said and asked proving the point that you're using the very tactic you st-pidly accuse me of , do you ever actually have an opinion of your own without resorting to the opinions of others?

John_C_87

@Dee
No you don't,  my credentials give me expertise , also the available data gives my case further credibility such so I've been granted a number of meetings on the topic with government,  so in future before you lie , misrepresent me and condescendingly claim my evidence is merely " anecdotal" have thecommon deceny to tell me how you reached these absurd conclusions?

  All this because you do not know the answers to a simple question you ask that has a simple solution?

John_C_87

@Dreamer

For solar energy to work best it will always be on a mass scale so you will always end up paying a power company for suppled  power. Just as safety, maintenance, and human desperation will always introduce they’re own implications of costs to energy in the future, they always have.

 To give you the answer to Dee's question before addressing your questions. All bikes can be fitted with a shell that would act like a lightweight car body. The issuing of operator’s license and insurance is then as now needed to operate them on roads. In bike lanes or not period. The number of bikes under cover of the body would vary from two to four bikes linked to the shell of the weather protected body and yes, the bikes will lose both speed and their maneuverability as result. As well as some storms will still be off limits and travel would stop.

 This process though comes at a price as the real issue of Human Temperature Climate manipulation will still be a major issue as salts and deicers will still be placed on all our roadways. This also means that the storage and the cleaning of the water must be not only accounted for, but it must take place before it is discharged off all roadways into the environment this necessity is a common defense towards the general welfare, the practice would be simple to stop the leading cause of temperature manipulations by humans today. As the first action of claiming responsible for our own actions.

Dee

@John_C_87

  All this because you do not know the answers to a simple question you ask that has a simple solution?

Right so you ridiculous troll tell me how a man and his partner are to effectively transport their kids to school  then cycle 10 to 20 miles to work and repeat  the same on the  way home is a " brilliant " solution to climate change issues?

Also tell me how solar panels/ electric cars  are an affordable option for working class people ?

You did say the solutions are "easy " right?

John_C_87

@Dee

E-mail me and I will be happy to send the confidentiality statements for you to sign.

John_C_87

@Dee
Right so you ridiculous troll tell me how a man and his partner are to effectively transport their kids to school  then cycle 10 to 20 miles to work and repeat  the same on the  way home is a " brilliant " solution to climate change issues?
Your free-be or pre-existing answer is put a cover over the bike...and people.

John_C_87

@Dee
You did say the solutions are "easy " right?
 Yes......
Also tell me how solar panels/ electric cars  are "MADE" an affordable option for working class people ?

It has to do with energy accumulators......

By the way we need to be honest this will never stop human climate manipulation and to focus on the "War with Nature" Declared. Any attempt at cost suppression is in the wrong location now to help "the people." I'm sorry but it is an open display of lack of ability to address a united states that must help all people as helping only people held by a political state of physical work will never create the neccesary effect. : the creation of a desired impression

Effect Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Dee

@John_C_87

Typical you think typing a pile of gibberish is a " good" response....seriously? 

John_C_87

Typical you think typing a pile of gibberish is a " good" response....seriously? I have concerns over my connection with terms of service with DebateIsland.

I know in advance it is not a "Good" response.....I am however holding a United State Constitutional Right to speak at liberty on a public made grievance. Good and bad are not right and wrong. It is possible for something bad to be right, and it is possible for something good to be wrong.

Consultation and troubleshooting are still a line of work a person can perform as something other then Lawyer, Doctor, and other and I am not here to solicit work from people I do not know.

As a writer whose work is protected by international copyright law were applicable an exoskeleton shell as a kit made for bikes, when properly planned to be road legal is the solution to your proposed problem. Do you need projected costs?

Amendment: 4:35 2/21/2023

I have just now deduced what you are describing as Spam…….I apologize.....However I assure you I am however documenting a process of filing on grievance you make. It is not spam to place "Header of a file as Attention Dee / @ Dee." As it does pose inconvenience to you, I will make corrections.

John_C_87

@xlJ_dolphin_473

The poor and wealth Countries alike should pay a proportional cost on America’s price to build a Canal from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. Which by the way had the suggestion been take seriously the life-threatening droughts in America’s South and South-West would have been minimized.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: You are asking two very specific questions in a very broad subject that I already answered.

@Dee

I am losing patience. I've told you repeatably that I didn't have enough information on the questions you asked. Interrupting my conversations with other users. Then, you scold me for responding to others first. Next, I answer anyways doing exactly what you ask I at least tried and you continue to scold me, falsely accuse me of preaching, and falsely accuse me of using a condescending tone when I call out your anecdotal evidence, erroneously declare all my efforts as an appeal to authority, gish gallop, deflection, and irrelevant, attempt to dominate the conversation, and call me a troll.

You claim expertise in the subject, but hide behind anonymity. In contrast I link to experts, public figures that can be verified as experts. Even very knowledgeable people have books to look up information instead of memorizing everything. To demand answers to a specific questions can often be asking too much of even experts in the field, on the spot fallacy.

This is a common tactic anti-vaxxers use. Ask the doctor or pharmacist all sorts of bizarre questions and then when the doctor can't answer right away declare the doctor unconfident.

I've tried being nice, and it has seemed to only backfire. Dee you are a climate change denier. All your arguments are against climate change action, a form of climate denial. None of your comments support climate change action.

I've already answered your questions. Nobody should drive or ride a bicycle in heavy rain, or as you call it lashing rain. Solar panels are the cheapest form of energy now, my sources are popularscience and national public radio. I even mentioned changing fossil fuel substitutes to clean energy sources, solar. This would make solar energy more affordable. The Ball is in your court to disprove me.

I am putting this discussion back on topic. Rich countries should pay reparations to poor countries. More importantly is mitigation. We need to stop polluting as much. Otherwise we will end with lots of refugees and migrants. A one meter rise in sea level would displace 230 million people, source Kulp & Strauss [2019].

Dee

@Dreamer


Argument Topic: You are asking two very specific questions in a very broad subject that I already answered.


Argument topic : Dreamer thinks pretending he answered questions means they go away 

Here are the 3 you're still refusing to answer ........


1 : You never answered how is it reasonable for a working couple to transport children to schools and then travel to work on bicycles in lashing rain, so can you explain how this is even feasible?

Your response was cycling to work was a great way of exercising,  seriously? How is that even attempting to address the question?

2: You  actually claim solar energy is the way to go yet cannot explain how this is totally affordable to the working classes you claim you care about, so talk me through it please?

So tell me how it's affordable?


3: I asked you how electric cars which you admit are unaffordable can be purchased by the working classes you hilariously claim you " care about"

So let's hear it I'm all ears?

I am losing patience. I've told you repeatably that I didn't have enough information on the questions you asked. Interrupting my conversations with other users

It's a debate site snowflake, maybe research your subject instead of constantly parroting the words of others that you don't even comprehend.

. Then, you scold me for responding to others first. Next, I answer anyways doing exactly what you ask I at least tried and you continue to scold me, falsely accuse me of preaching, and falsely accuse me of using a condescending tone

No snowflake I called you out because I was one of the first responders to your preaching and you had no answers as you've just admitted.


 when I call out your anecdotal evidence, erroneously declare all my efforts as an appeal to authority, gish gallop, deflection, and irrelevant, attempt to dominate the conversation, and call me a troll.

But my evidence never was " anecdotal " you troll you just st-pidly assumed that. Your whole argument is classic Gish gallop I provided the definition for you and you're to st-pid to even comprehend that.

You claim expertise in the subject, but hide behind anonymity

I'm hiding nothing it's you is hiding by cowering behind you latest so call"expert". You made several totally  ridiculous assumptions about me and when corrected make out you're the victim just like the despicable little toad you are.

In contrast I link to experts, public figures that can be verified as experts. Even very knowledgeable people have books to look up information instead of memorizing everything. To demand answers to a specific questions can often be asking too much of even experts in the field, on the spot fallacy.  

Who verified them as experts? Name the ones who did ? Stop saying truly things most experts love being asked questions and you are not an expert by any stretch in fact your knowledge on the subject is abysmal,  also no one put you" on the spot" , you've admitted your ignorance by stating you cannot answer my questions so why  are you still whining about it?

This is a common tactic anti-vaxxers use. Ask the doctor or pharmacist all sorts of bizarre questions and then when the doctor can't answer right away declare the doctor unconfident.

Don't do it to your doctor then I suggest , ive no time for anti vaxers like you.. So now another lie from you these questions are bizarre? Ok expain how?

1 : You never answered how is it reasonable for a working couple to transport children to schools and then travel to work on bicycles in lashing rain, so can you explain how this is even feasible?

Demonstrate how that question is " bizzare" ?

2: I'm sorry but it seems that way because you actually claim solar energy is the way to go yet cannot explain how this is totally affordable to the working classes you claim you care about, so talk me through it please?

Demonstrate how that question was" bizzare"?

3: How are electric cars affordable to the working classes you pretend to care for?

Demonstrate how that question was " bizzare"

I've tried being nice, and it has seemed to only backfire. Dee you are a climate change denier

Dreamer you are an ignorant troll  and compulsive ,my first sentence on this debate I said " Climate change is athing"


. All your arguments are against climate change action, a form of climate denial. None of your comments support climate change action.

Another of your ridiculous lies my three questions are regards the expenses and impractically of the solutions being offered up to the working classes you detest 

I've already answered your questions. Nobody should drive or ride a bicycle in heavy rain, or as you call it lashing rain.

Right so lose your job and cancel school for kids that's your " solution" your id-ocy is astounding,  also you just admitted you cannot answer my questions you brain dead troll 

 Solar panels are the cheapest form of energy now, my sources are popularscience and national public radio

No they are not you clown tell me how you worked out the costs for my country which you don't even know.?


. I even mentioned changing fossil fuel substitutes to clean energy sources, solar. This would make solar energy more affordable. The Ball is in your court to disprove me.

I'm asking about how is it affordable now.?

I am putting this discussion back on topic. Rich countries should pay reparations to poor countries.

I was on topic you being a pathetic preacher only want people who agree with you and being an uneducated parrot you keep getting schooled by me and others

You hate the working classes I get that , your attitude is vile and typically favours big business that feigns concern for the working classes whilst fleecing them under the guise of caring for the planet.


More importantly is mitigation. We need to stop polluting as much. Otherwise we will end with lots of refugees and migrants. A one meter rise in sea level would displace 230 million people, source Kulp & Strauss [2019].

Another meaningless link from the preacher reverend Dreamer

Dreamer

Argument Topic: You are a climate change denier Dee.

@Dee

The first thing you said was nonsense on this thread. "Nonsense ......" Dee

This is classic motte and bailey fallacy.  Hiding behind a moderate stance while holding onto an extreme stance. Everything you post points towards shutting down my ideas on climate change or just relentless ad hominems against me.

This is how climate change denial works. The goal of Big fossil fuel is to slow or stop climate change action. If you believe so strongly in climate change, why not suggest your own solutions? Ad hominems are red herrings and defending myself as tempting as it is, only falls for the trap diverting the discussion, which is the goal of a red herring.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z

Yes, declare my peer reviewed article useless. Again, and again you prove you are a climate change denier Dee.

Dee

@Dreamer



Argument Topic: You are a climate change denier Dee.

Argument topic: Why is Dreamer a compulsive l-ar?

The first thing you said was nonsense on this thread. "Nonsense ......" Dee

This debate is about reparations,  the other debate is about climate change itself on which my opening line was .......

My thoughts are it's a thing, but as usual working class people are the ones who have to pay and bear the brunt of the costs.

This demonstrates clearly you're  a l-ar

This is classic motte and bailey fallacy.  Hiding behind a moderate stance while holding onto an extreme stance

You again are proving you're an ignorant and uneducated troll who makes up nonsense because you haven't the intelligence to defend other people's views you don't even comprehend

. Everything you post points towards shutting down my ideas on climate change or just relentless ad hominems against me.

More l-es I asked you 3 questions that you admitted you cannot answer and you fly into a rage and attempt to blame others for your ignorance and st-pidity

Calling you a l-ar is not an ad hominem as I keep on proving this to be the case , calling you ignorant and uneducated is another truth as you keep on running around apologising for your total fabrications , lies and distortions from papers you don't understand 

This is how climate change denial works

But I said climate change is a thing so why do you continue l- ing and making nonsense up?  We all know why it's because of your lack of education which leaves you having to parrot and preach the words of others you cannot even comprehend ,you're anignorant science denier 

. The goal of Big fossil fuel is to slow or stop climate change action. If you believe so strongly in climate change, why not suggest your own solutions?

Again you're deflecting , you said you care about the working classes when in fact you worship big business profiteering from them as you let it be known you actually detest the working classes as you delight that they cannot afford solar panels or  electric cars and you insist they should be forced to cycle to work,
and only the rich you worship should have electric cars and solar panels , you really are a right wing fascist and a science denier.


 Ad hominems are red herrings

Yet you kept using them 

 and defending myself as tempting as it is, only falls for the trap diverting the discussion, which is the goal of a red herring.

Yet here are the 3 questions you claimed are "bizarre" yet  you  and your panel of "experts" keep running from them ......



1 : You never answered how is it reasonable for a working couple to transport children to schools and then travel to work on bicycles in lashing rain, so can you explain how this is even feasible?

Demonstrate how that question is " bizzare" ?

2: I'm sorry but it seems that way because you actually claim solar energy is the way to go yet cannot explain how this is totally affordable to the working classes you claim you care about, so talk me through it please?

Demonstrate how that question was" bizzare"?

3: How are electric cars affordable to the working classes you pretend to care for?

Demonstrate how that question was " bizzare"


Watch him l-e , deflect and run yet again. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z

Yes, declare my peer reviewed article useless.

No I pointed out " it was a meaningless link proving yet again you're a compulsive l-ar


 Again, and again you prove you are a climate change denier Dee.

Yet I stated in your very first sentence my belief climate change is a thing , all you do is lie ,deflect and distort because being a childish uneducated troll  your lack of education and abundance of ignorance has been put on show.

Your narrow minded right wing detestation of the poor and denial and hatred of science is scary whats worse is that being a vile hate filled fascist you want anyone who disagrees with you jailed ........wow!
.

John_C_87

@Dreamer
Yes, declare my peer reviewed article useless. Again, and again you prove you are a climate change denier Dee.

You had written the article or you are citing the article?

This is how climate change denial works. The goal of Big fossil fuel is to slow or stop climate change action. If you believe so strongly in climate change, why not suggest your own solutions? Ad hominems are red herrings and defending myself as tempting as it is, only falls for the trap diverting the discussion, which is the goal of a red herring.

That isn't whole truth...you are making an assumption that there are not people who must protect public corporations as a point law, meaning they must do so to a level of competence or face legally criminal not civil penalty. There is no doubt fossil fuel has dangers risks and environmental issues. At one time in America fossil fuel simply oozed its way out of the ground if you doubt this just look at the San Andreas tart pit's. Philadelphia with all its coal also had raw crude making its way to the earth’s surface while indigenous people of those time viewed the ground as cursed as it was surrounded by death.

This is how climate change denial works.

No, it is a clear demonstration of how it doesn't work. it misses the mark of a perfect state of the union in an American United States Constitutional Right.  Human Climate Manipulation is a better label for this grievance file name. Having a civil trial and a court ruling does not make any proposed state of the union a perfect United States and Constitutional Right. In Whole truth it only means under some interpretations of truth a grievance has been filed, by someone in a court, most likely a lawyer, in a way which might appear publicly to be held up for view in first place position in a race to a finish line. Where is the finish line? What is the finish line? Is the finish line a state of the union to united states constitutional right or is it something of less perfect establishment of whole truth?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I am citing the article.

@John_C_87

When I said my article, I meant the article that I am citing. I could have been more explicit. The article is relevant because it is a peer reviewed journal that states that one of the costs of climate change is rising sea levels that will cause migration of people. This will put a strain on already scarce resources.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: There is way too much to respond to and keep track of. Let's start with the jail claim.

@Dee

There was some ambiguity at first, I admit I could have done a much better job explaining exactly what I meant by jailing climate change deniers. I try to strike a balance between being succinct and explicit, difficult to do. Any vagueness is prime opportunity to strawman, I get it that's how a person wins a debate.

Yet, if in order to avoid misunderstanding being verbose often creates more confusion let alone nobody wants to read a super long post. I only wanted to jail the worst of the worst climate change deniers, the equivalent of David Koch, Dr. Mercola, and Andrew Wakefield. 

"We are calling on Facebook and Google to stop promoting and funding climate denial, start labelling it as misinformation, and stop giving the advantages of their enormous platforms to lies and misinformation." ccdh

https://counterhate.com/research/the-toxic-ten/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9vaXYeWhkhnpsXoAYk_TTku526RMn56x-LlgCj1Qz6xXPocSOiyVTAe8K9BZge5_X-j7pD

We cannot let these people go without consequences. Even if jail is too harsh, inaction is not the answer. Yet, over and over you hold me to the worst possible interpretation of my claim about jailing climate change deniers.

Liberals do this too. Liberal A says something that is probably anti-racist but could be misunderstood as racist. Liberal B jumps on the chance to vilify the person. Before liberal A can react a huge dog pile occurs and liberal B will hold liberal A to the worst possible interpretation until the end of time. Liberal A eventually gives up and leaves the group questioning liberalism.

You can read about this in the book Nice Racism by Robin DiAngelo, apparently this is a fairly common occurrence along liberals. 

Dee

@Dreamer

Argument Topic: There is way too much to respond to and keep track of. Let's start with the jail clai

ARGUMENT TOPIC  : Dreamer cannot answer 3 simple questions on the topic he claims expertise in so instead deflects yet again

Here are the 3 questions self proclaimed "expert" Dreamer refuses to answer as they only affect the working classes he detests......


Yet here are the 3 questions you claimed are "bizarre" yet  you  and your panel of "experts" keep running from them ......


1 : You never answered how is it reasonable for a working couple to transport children to schools and then travel to work on bicycles in lashing rain, so can you explain how this is even feasible?

Demonstrate how that question is " bizzare" ?

2: I'm sorry but it seems that way because you actually claim solar energy is the way to go yet cannot explain how this is totally affordable to the working classes you claim you care about, so talk me through it please?

Demonstrate how that question was" bizzare"?

3: How are electric cars affordable to the working classes you pretend to care for?

Demonstrate how that question was " bizzare"


Watch him l-e , deflect and run yet again. 

There was some ambiguity at first, I admit I could have done a much better job explaining exactly what I meant by jailing climate change deniers. I try to strike a balance between being succinct and explicit, difficult to do. Any vagueness is prime opportunity to strawman, I get it that's how a person wins a debate.

No there  wasn't you wanted climate change deniers jailed you were very clear on that , you cannot accept that you messed up and instead list of a load of excuses because you have a serious inability  to  think things through, you accuse  anyone who calls you out on your dreadfully weak arguments as resorting to strawmanning which clearly demonstrates how childishly immature you are.

Yet, if in order to avoid misunderstanding being verbose often creates more confusion let alone nobody wants to read a super long post.

If you have to make constant excuses for your poorly thought out arguments there's only one person to blame and that's you. 

 I only wanted to jail the worst of the worst climate change deniers, the equivalent of David Koch, Dr. Mercola, and Andrew Wakefield. 

But why not them all ? Why only these?  Why not jail all deniers of everything you disagree with? 

Why not jail your entire government and everyone in your country who uses ethanol  ?  As they are consistently and knowingly causing  irreparable damage to the environment by the use of ethanol which is 24% more carbon intensive than gasoline? All your so called green friendly agencies in the US call ethanol a " Climate solution " proving they are liars so why not jail them also?

The government in my country which claims to be " green friendly " on advise from the green party over here are buying increasingly more ethanol from the US end of this year and moving forward , all these people are hypocrites money talks and that's all they are interested in 

"We are calling on Facebook and Google to stop promoting and funding climate denial, start labelling it as misinformation, and stop giving the advantages of their enormous platforms to lies and misinformation." ccdh

https://counterhate.com/research/the-toxic-ten/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9vaXYeWhkhnpsXoAYk_TTku526RMn56x-LlgCj1Qz6xXPocSOiyVTAe8K9BZge5_X-j7pD

We cannot let these people go without consequences. Even if jail is too harsh, inaction is not the answer. Yet, over and over you hold me to the worst possible interpretation of my claim about jailing climate change deniers.

No I'm not holding you to the "worst interpretation " you constantly whine when you cannot back your words up.

Liberals do this too. Liberal A says something that is probably anti-racist but could be misunderstood as racist. Liberal B jumps on the chance to vilify the person. Before liberal A can react a huge dog pile occurs and liberal B will hold liberal A to the worst possible interpretation until the end of time. Liberal A eventually gives up and leaves the group questioning liberalism.

What are you rambling on about?

You can read about this in the book Nice Racism by Robin DiAngelo, apparently this is a fairly common occurrence along liberals. 

I've read the opinions of this id-otic creature and just to educate you even further John McWhorter professor of linguistics at Columbia who is black said the book was an insult to blacks as it " openly infantalised black people" and simply dehumanised black  people.

So again your obsession to childishly label anyone who disagrees with you a racist proves how hopelessly immature and childish you really are.

So your opinion of blacks again has being decided for you by an author who sees blacks as infantile.....wow!.