Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: AZDuffman

Climate activist Steven Spielberg's private jet has burned $116,000 worth of jet fuel in two months

Yet again.

Because he is a big contributor to global warming doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It just means that he is a hypocrite.

It means it is not what he claims it to be. Same as all the elites who want us to change our lives because of it. Watch what these people do, not what they say.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: AZDuffman

Climate activist Steven Spielberg's private jet has burned $116,000 worth of jet fuel in two months

Yet again.

Because he is a big contributor to global warming doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It just means that he is a hypocrite.

It means it is not what he claims it to be. Same as all the elites who want us to change our lives because of it. Watch what these people do, not what they say.

Unless he donates enough to Climate organizations to offset his footprint (which he does). And, he also supports a carbon tax which would tax such activities (which would negate the need to donate).

I don't understand the obsession of the right of watching miles of private jets by certain Climate people (Spielberg, Musk, Decaprio, etc....), it does nothing to prove that the climate is not changing, and it also does not reflect their contributions to climate and environmental organizations (and activism for a carbon tax). If somebody donates many Xs more to climate and environmental organizations than their carbon footprint, the miles they flew in a private jet that year is irrelevant.

Quote: Gandler

Unless he donates enough to Climate organizations to offset his footprint (which he does). And, he also supports a carbon tax which would tax such activities (which would negate the need to donate).

Nope. If he really cared he would not fly private jets and still donate. The carbon tax thing is just a shakedown. Gullible sheep beg for themselves to be taxed, why I have no idea.

Quote:

I don't understand the obsession of the right of watching miles of private jets by certain Climate people (Spielberg, Musk, Decaprio, etc....), it does nothing to prove that the climate is not changing, and it also does not reflect their contributions to climate and environmental organizations (and activism for a carbon tax). If somebody donates many Xs more to climate and environmental organizations than their carbon footprint, the miles they flew in a private jet that year is irrelevant.

Because it proves those people do not really believe that climate change is manmade. If they did they would alter their behavior. They are just like when the Catholic church sold indulgences. IOW, sinning if forbidden, unless you pay a few dollars to those who can forgive you.

You are being a sucker believing that they can just pay off for their what you folks call "carbon footprint." And they love suckers. They tell you to one thing, they do what they tell you not to do, and you defend them for doing it.

They are the TV Evangelists for atheists.

Duffman's arguments are as bad as arguing Trump can't be a man for the people because he doesn't live like an average American.

He believes these guys spend millions of dollars on carbon credits just for show.

Quote: rxwine

He believes these guys spend millions of dollars on carbon credits just for show.

Of course they do. If they did not do it for show they would not show they did it.

Quote: rxwine

Duffman's arguments are as bad as arguing Trump can't be a man for the people because he doesn't live like an average American.

He believes these guys spend millions of dollars on carbon credits just for show.

Carbon credits do not reduce carbon though. So he is adding more than his share of carbon to the atmosphere.

Quote: AZDuffman

They are just like when the Catholic church sold indulgences. IOW, sinning if forbidden, unless you pay a few dollars to those who can forgive you.

Although the Protestant Reformation was about more than just indulgences, I hink indulgences were the main reason the Reformation ended up a bloody warfare that cost a sizeable percentage of the population to be killed.

Now that environmentalism has replaced Communism as the world's greatest secular religion, can we look forward to communist level of bloodshed?

Quote: Pacomartin

Although the Protestant Reformation was about more than just indulgences, I hink indulgences were the main reason the Reformation ended up a bloody warfare that cost a sizeable percentage of the population to be killed.

Now that environmentalism has replaced Communism as the world's greatest secular religion, can we look forward to communist level of bloodshed?

Probably. Will see farmland shall we say. We already see them wanting to severely limit meat production because they cannot figure how to put a catalytic converter on a cow. They will probably try to reduce farming in general because of some farfetched claim it causes global warming. They already say this about cows, ignoring that we had tens of millions of buffalo pre-1900s to no global warming problems.

A generation ago they banned DDT and caused many malaria deaths. Why not cause more to die this time?

Quote: Pacomartin

Although the Protestant Reformation was about more than just indulgences, I hink indulgences were the main reason the Reformation ended up a bloody warfare that cost a sizeable percentage of the population to be killed.

Now that environmentalism has replaced Communism as the world's greatest secular religion, can we look forward to communist level of bloodshed?

Quote:

164 Environmental Activists Were Killed While Protecting Their Homes Last Year, Watchdog Says

https://time.com/5638438/global-witness-environmental-activists-murdered/

Quote: AZDuffman

Nope. If he really cared he would not fly private jets and still donate. The carbon tax thing is just a shakedown. Gullible sheep beg for themselves to be taxed, why I have no idea.



Because it proves those people do not really believe that climate change is manmade. If they did they would alter their behavior. They are just like when the Catholic church sold indulgences. IOW, sinning if forbidden, unless you pay a few dollars to those who can forgive you.

You are being a sucker believing that they can just pay off for their what you folks call "carbon footprint." And they love suckers. They tell you to one thing, they do what they tell you not to do, and you defend them for doing it.

They are the TV Evangelists for atheists.

There are things known as "sin taxes" these are to reduce behavior. Alcohol, tobacco (and certain firearms) are taxed to decreased the rate at which they are purchased (often called sin tax). Carbon Tax is the same thing (and could be classified as a sin tax), its to reduce a behavior that is damaging to society. It sounds very similar to your church example (except the money would be used for positive infrastructure projects).

It forces people to change behavior. If you live in NYC and cigarettes cost 13 USD a pack, you are probably not going to smoke three packs a day anymore, and may cutback to one or quit.

High taxes do reduce the behavior which is taxed.

Now, the issues (which can be positive or negative) with carbon tax compared to other sin taxes is that it would increase the cost of many (probably most) goods. Of course, this is not inherently a bad thing, during extreme times (such as most wars), the cost of everything goes up drastically until society reaches a point in which it can normalize. It causes people to live more responsibly.

Also, I am not a sucker for celebrities, if I sent them money every month, I would be a sucker (I consume less popular media than most people, so I barely even indirectly support them). So if some random rich guy claim to be responsible and flies on a plane, it does not effect me in the slightest.