• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

What will it take to convince you of climate change?

mean dad said:
Agree 100%.
Click to expand...

LOL That's what I get for copy/paste on the phone.

What I meant was, if they truly didn't believe that CC was human caused, they wouldn't be funding the shadow campaigns. The very fact that they are trying to hide this proves they are feeling guilty. If they didn't believe climate change was real, they'd have no reason to hide.
 
brichter said:
LOL That's what I get for copy/paste on the phone.

What I meant was, if they truly didn't believe that CC was human caused, they wouldn't be funding the shadow campaigns. The very fact that they are trying to hide this proves they are feeling guilty. If they didn't believe climate change was real, they'd have no reason to hide.
Click to expand...

:laughing

I'll admit I was pleasantly surprised that you seemed to agree with me...

And them paying money to keep the status quo could happen regardless of scientific consensus. It's a solid business move whether or not CC is real.
If the climate isn't really changing then it's money well spent and they'll look like heroes to the right; and if it is really changing, they'd pay to keep the info squashed so they can continue to bolster profits as long as possible.

I find it hard to swallow the idea that high-level executives believe Climate Change is real while they're paying to have false science spread...that they do know and believe it is real and are really trying to maximize profit no matter the cost.
Frankly I'd rather them think it's a hoax than to be that evil and greedy.


Also, I said Chevron et al.
While Chevron may have a token statement on their page regarding CC, the industry as a whole seems committed to denying it.
 
mean dad said:
:laughing

I'll admit I was pleasantly surprised that you seemed to agree with me...

And them paying money to keep the status quo could happen regardless of scientific consensus. It's a solid business move whether or not CC is real.
If the climate isn't really changing then it's money well spent and they'll look like heroes to the right; and if it is really changing, they'd pay to keep the info squashed so they can continue to bolster profits as long as possible.

I find it hard to swallow the idea that high-level executives believe Climate Change is real while they're paying to have false science spread...that they do know and believe it is real and are really trying to maximize profit no matter the cost.
Frankly I'd rather them think it's a hoax than to be that evil and greedy.


Also, I said Chevron et al.
While Chevron may have a token statement on their page regarding CC, the industry as a whole seems committed to denying it.
Click to expand...

Go to your grading website and take a look at how Shell rates. Still not the best but head and shoulders above Chevron/Exxon... I started using Shell gas because of this.

As far as their motives... Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon, etc. show us altruism isn't really in their repertoire, they have shareholders to answer to.

Biggest problem is, they really missed the boat. Those profits could have been targeted at alternative energy as well as looking for more shitty oil to drill now that we used up all the good shit... but they decided to exclude themselves from the game, and now they can only stand on the outside looking in at what will be the Next Big Thing.
 
Oh, they'll pay someone to enact laws and regulations to hinder anything they aren't profiting off of already.
 
mean dad said:
Oh, they'll pay someone to enact laws and regulations to hinder anything they aren't profiting off of already.
Click to expand...

You are so insensitive to corporate America. It costs way more and takes more time to do what you are describing. First they have to provide enough campaign contributions to legislators. (Fortunately, Citizens United really helped with this; it's much faster and easier to give huge amounts of money when it's considered speech). THEN, they have to pay a lobbyist to keep the wheels greased on Capitol Hill. Very time consuming. THEN they also have to pay the lobbyists' firm to write the legislation that has no purpose other than to subsidize industry. THEN they have to remind all the politicians to force the legislation through congress (hopefully without pesky senators like Warren and Sanders getting in the way).

It's very expensive to get public subsidy while shifting all the costs to the working class. Have you no consideration for all the hard work corporate America does?
 
mean dad said:
Correct, many school rooms in San Diego do not have air conditioning. the average temperature is under 80 degrees year-round.

We were let out at 1:00 at South High in Bako if the temps were over 90, because some temp classrooms didn't have a/c.
Click to expand...
You Valley Boys were kind of dainty. :twofinger

Abacinator said:
Huh. Today I learned.
giphy.gif
Click to expand...
:laughing

Reli said:
The thread is still going?

I've often wondered why climate change became political. Perhaps it's because conservatives tend to be money-grubbers. So anything that cuts into profit or increases taxes is a no-go for them.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the bump. I was trying to inject a little levity here.

mean dad said:
I feel dirty now.
Click to expand...
:love
 
bruceflinch said:
That is a good read..very interesting.
Still baffles me that they developed all this land that was under water to begin with and now they have to "battle" the rising waters of climate change.. :laughing
Click to expand...

It's not just that it has low points, but land is being lost to the ocean. Granted part of it is due to land sinking without new sediment being deposited, because Missipie river was "tamed".
 
Climber said:
All of the toxic crap dumped into the Mississippi (mostly in Ohio) upstream from New Orleans has probably done more damage than the oil companies, you certainly wouldn't want to swim in it and forget about drinking the tap water in New Orleans!
Click to expand...

Well that is probably true, what I was reffering to is actual wetland loss to salt water.
An interesting article I found from 1997: link
Twenty years later...
 
Last edited:
UDRider said:
Well that is probably true, what I was reffering to is actual wetland loss to salt water.
An interesting article I found from 1997: link
Twenty years later...
Click to expand...

Very Interesting!
 
It was 83 degrees in Oakland today and the snow line is 1300 feet higher than it was in the 1950s. But mumble mumble Chinese hoax.
 
Gabe said:
It was 83 degrees in Oakland today and the snow line is 1300 feet higher than it was in the 1950s. But mumble mumble Chinese hoax.
Click to expand...

Continuously posting the temperature on a single given day in a specific place only hurts your argument and makes the idea of man made climate change seem well beyond your understanding. If there is a record low somewhere in the world does that mean the planet is cooling?
 
nbean16 said:
Continuously posting the temperature on a single given day in a specific place only hurts your argument and makes the idea of man made climate change seem well beyond your understanding. If there is a record low somewhere in the world does that mean the planet is cooling?
Click to expand...

+1

Pretty much the equivalent of taking credit for the stock market. What happens when there’s a day you don’t want to take credit for?
 
nbean16 said:
Continuously posting the temperature on a single given day in a specific place only hurts your argument and makes the idea of man made climate change seem well beyond your understanding. If there is a record low somewhere in the world does that mean the planet is cooling?
Click to expand...

I only post when a record is set for a given day. It was 83 degrees in Oakland - the last record high was 68.
 
Gabe said:
I only post when a record is set for a given day. It was 83 degrees in Oakland - the last record high was 68.
Click to expand...

Will you post it in the summer when temperature is record low?
 
Gabe said:
I only post when a record is set for a given day. It was 83 degrees in Oakland - the last record high was 68.
Click to expand...

Not that that is indicative of anything, but you have a link? Can't find anything near those numbers. Mercury says high was 72° in Oakland and not a record.

Also, are you saying this latest high pressure system was caused by man?
 
Last year was nice.

This year feels to be right back to drought for CA. Drier than a popcorn fart this "winter."
 
I kinda like the weather now...it's nice to ride without wearing winter gear
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top