Inboard engines and a changing world

[GordMay]

Greetings and welcome aboard the CF, Ralsy.

[Ralsy]

Thanks

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That doesn't have to be the case... here's an example of a revenue-neutral carbon tax that works, without punishing the low and middle classes.

that's the best way to get a new revenue stream goes government agency do a carbon tax as a pass through . Then a few years later decide that the people don't need it and stop the pass through and keep the revenue in the governments hands .

The people are codified into believing its a good thing for the government to take your money for what they want it used on .
At least the French were up front about stealing money from the people in the name of climate change . ( we all know how I feel about that )

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

that's the best way to get a new revenue stream goes government agency do a carbon tax as a pass through . Then a few years later decide that the people don't need it and stop the pass through and keep the revenue in the governments hands .
The people are codified into believing its a good thing for the government to take your money for what they want it used on .
At least the French were up front about stealing money from the people in the name of climate change . ( we all know how I feel about that )

“I abhor the proposed cure(s), so the disease can’t be real.”

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

“I abhor the proposed cure(s), so the disease can’t be real.”

sorry you feel that the changing climate is a disease. ( the climate is in a constant state of flux ) the disease is big government that thinks they can tax their way to what they want.
Btw the climate is currently in a state of cooling.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

... Btw the climate is currently in a state of cooling.

Indeed. It seems to have been an annual occurrence, at this time of year, for as long as I can remember.

[a64pilot]

I can name all kinds of taxes that are supposedly for something, but in fact the money goes into some kind of general fund and is spent on whatever the politicians decide to, while what it was collected for, fails.
Of course then there is talk that it was underfunded and taxes must be increased in order for there to be enough money to keep the system alive.

[a64pilot]

Remember this?
Had me really worried as a kid in the 70’s. I mean it was written by a real expert a Stanford University Professor, it had to be correct.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

[GordMay]

“The Population Bomb” by Paul R. Ehrlich (1968) helped launch a worldwide debate that continues today.

It introduced millions of people to the fundamental issue of the Earth’s finite capacity to sustain human civilization.
While Ehrlich has acknowledged significant errors, he was correct that lowering birth rates was (and remains) a crucial plank in addressing global environmental crises.
Although Erhlich never called population the only variable, he proposed the I = P x A x T formula, which describes human impact as the product of population, affluence (the effects of consumption) and technology.
Ehrlich did believe that population was the key multiplier, and massive reductions in global population were critical for human survival.
Even if many details, and his timing were off, he got much right.
Global population has increased, at a remarkably steady rate, since 1968, and the United Nations projects that it will reach 9.8 billion by 2050, and 11.2 billion by 2100. Scientists continue to extend his prescient warnings that efforts to feed all these people through pesticide-intensive monoculture may backfire. And although Ehrlich may have exaggerated the threat of mass starvation, about 8,500 young children do die, from malnutrition, every day.
So, a real expert University Professor didn’t get it exactly right, 50 years ago. What should we take from that?

[a64pilot]

Children starving is a political issue. There is plenty of food to go around, but for one political reason or another, it’s not distributed.
Mogadishu Somalia there was plenty of food, given to them by other countries, however the Warlords took possession of it and it was of course a basis of their power.
Malaria likely kills more children, and I maintain it could pretty easily be prevented, but there is a very well entrenched position on how to do it, and that’s lifetime jobs and mucho money for some, the existing methods only slightly control it, so jobs and money forever.
Politics if you will. Just not liberal vs conservative.
Point I’m making about the Population bomb is not that population growth is an issue, obviously it is, but we didn’t end up with mass riots and eating Soylent Green like we were supposed to 40 years ago either. It was supposed to literally be an end to civilization.

Climate change I’m sure exists, and in my uneducated opinion it’s likely man made, but maybe, just maybe it won’t be the mass extinction event that it’s being forecasted to be by some?
You have to admit there is huge, tremendous amounts of money to be made on both sides of the argument, and when huge sums of money seems to be in contention, I become suspicious.
We have one side saying it’s a hoax, and the other side saying it will be mass extinction and the end of the World. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle?

By the way, whether you want to admit it or not, I doubt any of us here really have the education and expertise to actually have an informed opinion. We believe what we are told by whatever sources we chose to listen to.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by GordMay

So, a real expert University Professor didn’t get it exactly right, 50 years ago. What should we take from that?

Several things, first you seem to argue that the ends justify the means by saying it started a movement, which I don’t believe, I believe that was there before.

But primarily it’s not that he didn’t get it exactly right, it’s that he didn’t get it right at all, not even close, not even in the ballpark, in fact I’d say he couldn’t have been more wrong if he tried.
I wonder how much money and fame he got though?

[Chotu]

But that's how science works. It doesn't presume to be right. It presumes to have a process. The scientific method.

Scientists search for the truth. They don't have an agenda. They don't have politics.

Science is often right because of the scientific method.

Someone has an idea. They perform experiments to see if reality matches the idea. If it doesn't, they try to formulate new ideas to match what the data is telling them. If the experiment does match the idea, it is sent out world wide in a peer review process which is frankly, brutal.

All the other scientists in the world then try to disprove the idea, the data and find any mistakes that could call the new idea supported by the discoverer into question.

That's how science works. Don't confuse a single guy writing a book about his ideas with science. This guy had the idea, made his predictions and they were wrong. He may have been a professor but he wasn't a scientist or at least not in this case.

It's great to be wrong in science because you can then move on to a better path to discovering truth.

I think a lot of people lose sight of this when getting all anti-science.

[a64pilot]

Surely you can admit that “Science” can be bought. And on the flip side “Science” often has political agenda’s and many times it justified in their opinion by the ends justifying the means.

There are many, many examples of both, neither “side” is pure.

Trust if you want to, but verify if you can.
Although the verification is tough, I mean how do you know this Dr. is better than that Dr. when trying to find who you want to operate on you? Your not really qualified and don’t have access to the data to find out. Now if you are a Surgeon and watch several of his operations, then you can have an informed opinion, but if your not, how do you find out?

So how does a plumber, or bank teller, Physician etc. validate data?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Climate change I’m sure exists, and in my uneducated opinion it’s likely man made, but maybe, just maybe it won’t be the mass extinction event that it’s being forecasted to be by some?

Couple of things:

• From the human point of view, climate change will not wipe us out. It will make things progressively more difficult, but it's slow moving and those with resources will manage. Might suck to be poor or in a hard-hit region. Most people in the CF tax bracket will get by.
  
  
• Climate change is just the poster-boy for the way we're abusing the planet. There are many other related and stand-alone human-caused problems that also demand a concerted effort to address, but pretty much the same people who oppose any significant efforts to mitigate CC also oppose any serious action on those too. Taken all together, all of these are a very serious assault on the planet's systems, We might not go extinct, but many, many other species are and it won't be the amazing, diverse, balanced planet we were given to start with.

You have to admit there is huge, tremendous amounts of money to be made on both sides of the argument, ...

It's amazing how this lie has become entrenched. Why are people blind to the vast, vast amounts of money tied up in the status quo? Most of the current conflicts have oil at the center. And what exactly are the huge tremendous amounts of money to be made by transitioning away from fossil fuels? And why is making money in a sustainable industry worse than making money while depleting a finite resource and causing harm? it's mostly the same investor class who will benefit either way.

There is no kind of parity between current fossil-fuel wealth and the possible money to be made from alternatives. The "money" at stake is the relatively easy money currently made from oil. it's like crack, and it papers over many economic weaknesses.

We have one side saying it’s a hoax, and the other side saying it will be mass extinction and the end of the World. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle?

...We believe what we are told by whatever sources we chose to listen to.

Yes, it's important to be working with real information. There ARE subject-matter experts who are speaking up.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Surely you can admit that “Science” can be bought. And on the flip side “Science” often has political agenda’s and many times it justified in their opinion by the ends justifying the means.

It's insane to look for deliberate intent to mislead from science when there's a huge fossil-fuel industry and trillions of dollars who are feeling threatened. It implies an ignorance about how science works, and particularly the people in it.

Yes, some scientists can be bought, and the fossil-fuel lobby has managed to find a few - some genuinely skeptical, and some downright sleazy. But do you really think that just about an entire field can be bought and convinced to ignore what their education and experience tells them is true?