Should professional kiters carbon offset their (many) flights?

[Pemba]

If you can easily imagine that Big Oil, "the establishment" etc. is making money off it ... why not the "other" side? There's plenty of money in alternate stuff -- just ask the "non-GMO" folks, or the alt med crowd... Hopefully it's not something as petty as making sure your doctorate is topical... Tenure, bitches!

Climate change is not *caused* by humans, but *clearly* the industrial revolution has had a hand in tipping the scales of the natural progression.

But carbon offset credits tax whatever? No, that's just NOT a solution.

O, I accept that there is a possibility that the "Other side" might want to make money and distort the narrative. It's just not very convincing that this lies behind the "science" that claims that humans are causing problematic global warming. I don't want to make this any more political than necessary but 187 countries have ratified the Paris agreement, only Trump in his wisdom has pulled out because "he doesn't believe" in global warming (ok, and a bit more than that). 187 countries all fooled by the hippies, the commies, the non GMO lobby etc etc, only Trump has seen through it all ?? It is far far easier to believe that "big oil" etc are contaminating the narrative. But I think I'm open to listening to all arguments. I try to be anyway.
Carbon offset credits tax whatever ? Agreed that's probably not a solution, sounds more like something to get political brownie points, maybe something for (most of) the 187 climate accord ratifiers. But I think the "solution" starts at personal level. I really don't want to be telling people what they should or shouldn't do, however I do appreciate anybody that tries. Doing something is better than complaining at others and doing nothing.

these are honest..non-leading or pointed questions... (for anyone to answer)

#1 do you TRULY believe that humans will (or can) stop global warming?



and then....if you can accept that the planet has history of heating and cooling throughout its history....
#2 do you think there may be blowback or potential ramifications of breaking that natural cycle?
#3 do you feel humans as a whole are smarter than the lump of chemical/physical reactions that we call "mother nature"?

and then...
#4 what causeD the previous ice ages to start...and stop... the previous dozen plus times that happened?
(for background.. we have not have a true ice age since western industrialization)

Do I believe, do I think, do I feel etc ? I think the world is round, I think the holocaust happened, I think smoking might cause lung cancer. And I think that global warming is caused by humans simply because I am told by what I conclude is a majority of scientists that it is so, same as with the shape of the world, the holocaust etc. But there is debate about all of these things and that's fine. Pointing out the holes in science/methodology is a good thing, manipulating evidence is a bad thing, agree to all that. Calling something a hoax as I think some are doing just because there is still a debate, well that's something else. I think that a majority of scientists thinks the world as we know it is in big big trouble. Saying it's all a hoax is like when 10 people are telling you that you have a green loaded gun against your head with somebody wanting to pull the trigger and you say no that's a hoax, guns aren't green. Better move your head out if the way and then look up to see if green guns exist (well, I think my meaning must be clear). The Paris accord might be window dressing, I don't know but I'm ready to believe that. But sadly it's apparently the best the world is able to come up with. A Paris accord is better than no Paris accord. If a Washington accord would do more for the environment, I'm likely to be all for it. In the mean time..

[foilholio]

According to ER, the solution both does and doesn't start at the personal level perhaps confusion is their agenda...

That poor person of color. Having to put up with that clearly racist sexist cis white male mansplaining. How dare he ask if she has a TV.

[Kamikuza]

That poor person of color. Having to put up with that clearly racist sexist cis white male mansplaining. How dare he ask if she has a TV.

Did you just assume his identity? Or hers?

[Pemba]

According to ER, the solution both does and doesn't start at the personal level perhaps confusion is their agenda...

I see what you mean. That's quite painful..

[Matteo V]

But there is debate about all of these things and that's fine. Pointing out the holes in science/methodology is a good thing, manipulating evidence is a bad thing, agree to all that. Calling something a hoax as I think some are doing just because there is still a debate, well that's something else.

Let me try to explain. While this is more complicated than the average person is capable of understanding, it is not beyond reach of most rational people willing to put some time and thought into it.

Climate change deniers believe that the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans is of mostly NO SIGNIFICANCE. They also almost unanimously believe that all warming on the globe is only caused by the natural warming cycle the earth has been in since before anthropogenic CO2 became an influence. There is some shaky evidence for this, but no actual proof of this

Climate change enthusiasts believe that the natural warming of the Earth's climate is being added to by the greenhouse effect of CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans. There is some shaky evidence for this, but no proof. Again, no model can produce definitive results with the current data, and our assumptions as to the weight of the variables. Slightly change the weight of a few variables, or add a new data point or variable, and you can produce warming or cooling in the model - as desired.

Thus there is no way we can make a conclusion as to what is actually happening or going to happen based on our current level of understanding. So.....enter politics, religious belief, personal gain, and big money - and possibly some other hidden agendas. None of which change the fact that there is still some science to be done and some challenges to it still to be addressed.

The "hoax" is that either side claims are backed up by falsified data, propaganda, and blatant agenda's for producing each sides desired result. Again, it is a hoax when you make something up that you cannot know at your current level of understanding. Your level of religious belief in you own lie does not make it true. Could you be right? Sure! But the claiming you are absolutely sure, and denying any challenge to your position, is nothing less than presenting a hoax.

The Paris accord might be window dressing, I don't know but I'm ready to believe that. But sadly it's apparently the best the world is able to come up with. A Paris accord is better than no Paris accord. If a Washington accord would do more for the environment, I'm likely to be all for it. In the mean time..

Let me make this clear. The past 50+ years of "good intentions" toward the environment has demonstrably done more harm than good.

The US, through regulation, drastically reduced the amount of pollution produced and disposed of in the US with EPA mandates. This stopped much pollution from entering the water, land, and air in the US. However, those actions shipped industrial production to 2nd and 3rd world countries where NO industrial waste regulation was, or is currently in effect. So instead of keeping production here and pouting the US twice as much as it is now, the US (through it's consumption of foreign produced goods) polluted the rest of the world many more times than they would have on their own soil. This also produced high levels of economic development in those countries with willingness to regulate those industries.

Recycling programs of the West, shipped huge quantities of supposedly recyclable materials to the 2nd and 3rd world to be recycled. Most of this was simply dumped into the ocean. How much plastic pollution in the ocean would have been saved by simply putting those supposedly recyclable materials into a landfill in the Western countries that produced it?

And many more examples exist.

So be careful of the Paris accord and other environmental initiatives. There is little question why "other countries" are in favor of these. Given that it puts the West in the immediate position to have to start dealing with issues, but allows other countries to "wait", the strategic advantage goes to those countries not bound to make a sacrifice now - or not truly intending to later.

[knotwindy]

So, the ‘facts’ are limited and in dispute. We, as a species, don’t and can’t know enough at this time to make a rational decision so, as always, we do the best we can with the information available.
It is also incredibly arrogant to think we can improve the situation with our current state of understanding. There is a Law of Unintended Consequence that is almost never noticed until much to late.
Good luck to you all believers in religion, science or politics. Seems they all lead to the same place; illusion/delusion.

[tautologies]

Thus there is no way we can make a conclusion as to what is actually happening or going to happen based on our current level of understanding. So.....enter politics, religious belief, personal gain, and big money - and possibly some other hidden agendas. None of which change the fact that there is still some science to be done and some challenges to it still to be addressed.

The "hoax" is that either side claims are backed up by falsified data, propaganda, and blatant agenda's for producing each sides desired result. Again, it is a hoax when you make something up that you cannot know at your current level of understanding. Your level of religious belief in you own lie does not make it true. Could you be right? Sure! But the claiming you are absolutely sure, and denying any challenge to your position, is nothing less than presenting a hoax.
....

Let me make this clear. The past 50+ years of "good intentions" toward the environment has demonstrably done more harm than good.

....
So be careful of the Paris accord and other environmental initiatives. There is little question why "other countries" are in favor of these. Given that it puts the West in the immediate position to have to start dealing with issues, but allows other countries to "wait", the strategic advantage goes to those countries not bound to make a sacrifice now - or not truly intending to later.

You are so far from the middle it is not even funny.

[tautologies]

Good luck to you all believers in religion, science or politics. Seems they all lead to the same place; illusion/delusion.

Well, science got you your kites, phones and computers and the Internet.

[tegirinenashi]

Well, science got you your kites, phones and computers and the Internet.

And now it wants to take them away!

[Pemba]

But there is debate about all of these things and that's fine. Pointing out the holes in science/methodology is a good thing, manipulating evidence is a bad thing, agree to all that. Calling something a hoax as I think some are doing just because there is still a debate, well that's something else.

Let me try to explain. While this is more complicated than the average person is capable of understanding, it is not beyond reach of most rational people willing to put some time and thought into it.

Climate change deniers believe that the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans is of mostly NO SIGNIFICANCE. They also almost unanimously believe that all warming on the globe is only caused by the natural warming cycle the earth has been in since before anthropogenic CO2 became an influence. There is some shaky evidence for this, but no actual proof of this

Climate change enthusiasts believe that the natural warming of the Earth's climate is being added to by the greenhouse effect of CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans. There is some shaky evidence for this, but no proof. Again, no model can produce definitive results with the current data, and our assumptions as to the weight of the variables. Slightly change the weight of a few variables, or add a new data point or variable, and you can produce warming or cooling in the model - as desired.

Thus there is no way we can make a conclusion as to what is actually happening or going to happen based on our current level of understanding.

I don't know much about it but I admit that sounds a bit disappointing for the theory of climate change enthusiasts. "Shaky evidence but no proof". I'm wondering how an enthusiast would have put it. Or a denier (are you a denier ?). When do you draw a conclusion in a potentially threatening situation like this one ? When you're 100% sure ? 99 % ? 90 ? Given the potential "dangers" I'd be fine in doing something even if there would be a very low certainty. I expect it should be possible even if there are conflicting theories, to come up with a likelihood that something, if not the whole theory, is correct. The number of scientists supporting something would be a very basic way. Surely it should be possible to reach a consensus about the distinction between real and fake science here ? Maybe not.. Feeding data into a computer ? What data exactly.. But you can't wait and do nothing because you're not yet 100 or 90 % sure I think.

So.....enter politics, religious belief, personal gain, and big money - and possibly some other hidden agendas. None of which change the fact that there is still some science to be done and some challenges to it still to be addressed.

Yes, agreed

The "hoax" is that either side claims are backed up by falsified data, propaganda, and blatant agenda's for producing each sides desired result. Again, it is a hoax when you make something up that you cannot know at your current level of understanding. Your level of religious belief in you own lie does not make it true. Could you be right? Sure! But the claiming you are absolutely sure, and denying any challenge to your position, is nothing less than presenting a hoax.

I agree in general with what you say about a hoax and I'm ready to believe that there's some "fake science" (hoax) going on on both sides of the argument. Obviously it goes back again then to when do you draw a conclusion. I'm not ready to believe that thousands if not millions of scientists are actively involved in falsifying data etc. Religious belief in lies, absolute certainty etc, I can only assume that you weren't talking about me personally. If you were then you're really getting carried away, uncharacteristically I'll say. Which lie are you referring to ? I've pointed out what I believe and why, read it, you'll see there is no claim, no religious belief no absolute certainty.

The Paris accord might be window dressing, I don't know but I'm ready to believe that. But sadly it's apparently the best the world is able to come up with. A Paris accord is better than no Paris accord. If a Washington accord would do more for the environment, I'm likely to be all for it. In the mean time..

Let me make this clear. The past 50+ years of "good intentions" toward the environment has demonstrably done more harm than good.

I expect that would be difficult but maybe so.

The US, through regulation, drastically reduced the amount of pollution produced and disposed of in the US with EPA mandates. This stopped much pollution from entering the water, land, and air in the US. However, those actions shipped industrial production to 2nd and 3rd world countries where NO industrial waste regulation was, or is currently in effect. So instead of keeping production here and pouting the US twice as much as it is now, the US (through it's consumption of foreign produced goods) polluted the rest of the world many more times than they would have on their own soil. This also produced high levels of economic development in those countries with willingness to regulate those industries.

Recycling programs of the West, shipped huge quantities of supposedly recyclable materials to the 2nd and 3rd world to be recycled. Most of this was simply dumped into the ocean. How much plastic pollution in the ocean would have been saved by simply putting those supposedly recyclable materials into a landfill in the Western countries that produced it?

And many more examples exist.

Agreed.

So be careful of the Paris accord and other environmental initiatives. There is little question why "other countries" are in favor of these. Given that it puts the West in the immediate position to have to start dealing with issues, but allows other countries to "wait", the strategic advantage goes to those countries not bound to make a sacrifice now - or not truly intending to later.

You might well be right with regards to the economic implications. Are you of the opinion that the global environment would be better off without the Paris accord ?