Climate Change?

[Wry Catcher]

I know all about logical fallacies, as your posts present an ongoing clinic on them.

Claiming that man's activities of the past have had an impact on the environment, does not by extension express or imply that anthropogenic gullible warming is, as a matter of course, one of those impacts: Strawman.

Claiming the mantle of "making our world cleaner and more healthy" is non sequitur, as CO2 is not a pollutant.

You're welcome, fool.

"The issue of how much human behavior might cause climate change, or even if climate change is happening, is open to debate" does not express or imply anything else.

Suggesting I'm claiming a mantle is silly, and your usual dishonest hyperbole. Who wouldn't want to leave this earth cleaner and healthier for our kids and theirs?

I didn't say anything about that particular statement.

Is English a second language for you?

Ever hear of a topic sentence Odd-dude.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Did I hear someone say unfalsifiable?

A complete list of things caused by global warming

YouTube - ‪The Warm List‬‏

holy sheet, fuckin zombeite dude...way gnarly...

LOL. I just followed that link and WOW. It's absolutely AMAZING that any of us are still alive. Getting up in the morning. Going about our daily tasks. Doing our jobs and chores and perhaps engaging in a bit of recreation. The flowers are blooming across the street. Apples are growing on our apple tree. The hummingbird feeder is visited by hummingbirds. The usual procession of honey bees is working among the honeysuckle.

And yet the world is absolutely falling apart due to global warming?

One point to make based on the last few pages:

There are MANY environmental concerns that do not involve global warming or cooling. Despite what some 'warmers' seem to think, we skeptics absolutely do not want dirty air, water, or soil; nor do we desire extinction of species; nor do we want the aethetic beauty of the Earth spoiled. We are all for doing whatever is necessary to correct those things that are causing measurable harm.

And when there is credible evidence that human activity is artificially warming the climate in an unhealthy manner, and there is reasonable means to correct that, I am guessing that there isn't a single skeptic who will not be in favor of helping to fix the problem.

Until then, I am not in favor of giving up our freedoms, options, choices, and opportunities based on what very well may be flawed science put out there by people who have everything to gain and nothing to lose by promoting it.

So, in your opinion, there is no reason to make any adjustments, employ and enforce any regulations or do anything to protect the planet unless you are absolutely convinced a problems exists?

Since my degrees are not in the hard sciences, I'll risk listening to and heeding the warnings of the majority of the scientific community. You, Odd-dude, CrusaderFrank and the others have yet to convince me that the motives of the scientific community are biased, or that any of you have a backgound suggesting a knowledge base which would offer your opinions meritorious.

 

[Trakar]

...Give me an electric car that costs less to operate than an ICE car, has the same range and abilities, and requires the same level of operator skill, then I'm sold.

even if you have to pay the unsubsidized, true cost accounting price for your gasoline and oil?

If one had to pay what you call the "unsubsidized" cost of just about any product, you wouldn't be happy.

Your psychic abilities seem to have failed you once again!

What you call subsidies accountants call business expesnses, its just that subsidies sound like you are giving away something, and thus match your "evil corporation" talking points far better.

epic fail, pay another dollar and I give you two more guesses.

"expenses" are costs that all businesses pay, not expenses that the government should be expected to pay for them. That is simply corporate welfare.

All buisness have 99% commonality in deductions based on thier industry. Also when it comes to commodities such as gas, one has little choice but to pay what is charged, or do something else, like walking. Any cost increase the government imposes would trickle down to the price at the pump.

we aren't talking about cost increases, we are talking about letting businesses pay for the costs they incur instead of expecting the government to pay for their costs of doing business. If it raises the price of their products then it simply raises the price to the price it should have been in the first place. You were the one railing against the government subsidizing new energy start up programs. Personally, I don't care for government subsidization of business in any form, but I can understand why new industries that help one achieve desired goals might need a little help for the first few years to help them provide the benefits to all that is sought. What I don't understand is a century's worth of government subsidization when the industry is not only established but is racking in more profits than most nations on the planet and setting new record levels of profit every year for the last half century.

You also ignore that back when these technological changes happened we had no where near the level of invasive taxation we do now, so these deductions would not have existed, as the taxes they are based on did not exist.

first, we aren't just talking about tax deductions, we are talking about the government cutting tax-payer checks to the industry for a variety of private corporate uses! And to be honest, I'm not opposed to all corporate deductions, write-offs or government handouts, but I don't think that the most profittable industry on the planet should still be getting tax payer monies rained down upon them like they are a fledgling start-up.

In the case of electric lights you have to remember the initial use was for replacing gas street lamps. People noted them, and since you had to run the electric anyway for the street lights, the grid increased to private connections. Its similar to what we see with FIOS today, some areas get it, then the provider branches out service.

You were the one who started out complaining that the government shouldn't be expected to help subsidize and assist new technology companies get started, and now you seem to be saying that not only is that a good thing (in the case of gas, oil and coal) but that after the industries grow to dominate their market, are well established, and making more profits than most other industries combined, that we should keep paying them to do so.

People could keep thier candles if they wanted to, it just became more cost effective to use electricity. Today we are banning incandescent lights to get people to switch, but they didnt have to ban candles to get people to use light bulbs.

We aren't banning incandescent bulbs. The bill in question (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) merely mandates increased efficiency for certain ranges of light outputs ( 310–2600 lumens - roughly equivilant to old style incandescents of between 50Watts and 150Watts) for lamps manufactured in the US.

Read The Bill: H.R. 6 [110th] - GovTrack.us

 

[Trakar]

Right....No ban, but "standards" by which certain bulbs may not, under penalty of legal sanction, be manufactured or imported....

"commercially" imported. Private citizens can still order them from overseas for their own usage, if they desire.

 

[Trakar]

I don't know. I suspect the residents of Joplin, MO; Tuscaloosa, AL and the states which border the Mississippi River and its tributaries might be beginning to question the conventional wisdom (i.e. propaganda) of the right wing spin machine.

Trying to connect any single weather event to climate change is silly.

Statistically, can we see evidence of changes in tornadic activity?

If yes, then we can intuite that global changes are happening.

If not, then the evidence doesn't support your theory.

There are some statistically significant trends occurring:

http://benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V005/27TOASCJ.pdf

But it will be a while before we can truly distinguish between regional trends and global trends with regards to tornadoes, specifically.

 

[Trakar]

...Again, candles werent banned to make people use electric bulbs, or even gas lamps...

they de facto were along with interior gas lighting, if you wanted to insure your house and the property within it against fire from any of the major insurers. The biggest point that you fail to acknowledge, however, is that for the most part these utilities that made the initial pushes for streetlighting and trolley services, weren't private corporations, most of them were city or government utilities. Electricity wasn't switched to because it was more profittable, it was switched to because of governmental decisions to do so. most of these early systems were later bought by private investors in the early 1900s, but this was, for the most part after all of the conversions to electricity had already been made.

 

[martybegan]

...Give me an electric car that costs less to operate than an ICE car, has the same range and abilities, and requires the same level of operator skill, then I'm sold.

even if you have to pay the unsubsidized, true cost accounting price for your gasoline and oil?

Your psychic abilities seem to have failed you once again!



epic fail, pay another dollar and I give you two more guesses.

"expenses" are costs that all businesses pay, not expenses that the government should be expected to pay for them. That is simply corporate welfare.



we aren't talking about cost increases, we are talking about letting businesses pay for the costs they incur instead of expecting the government to pay for their costs of doing business. If it raises the price of their products then it simply raises the price to the price it should have been in the first place. You were the one railing against the government subsidizing new energy start up programs. Personally, I don't care for government subsidization of business in any form, but I can understand why new industries that help one achieve desired goals might need a little help for the first few years to help them provide the benefits to all that is sought. What I don't understand is a century's worth of government subsidization when the industry is not only established but is racking in more profits than most nations on the planet and setting new record levels of profit every year for the last half century.



first, we aren't just talking about tax deductions, we are talking about the government cutting tax-payer checks to the industry for a variety of private corporate uses! And to be honest, I'm not opposed to all corporate deductions, write-offs or government handouts, but I don't think that the most profittable industry on the planet should still be getting tax payer monies rained down upon them like they are a fledgling start-up.

In the case of electric lights you have to remember the initial use was for replacing gas street lamps. People noted them, and since you had to run the electric anyway for the street lights, the grid increased to private connections. Its similar to what we see with FIOS today, some areas get it, then the provider branches out service.

You were the one who started out complaining that the government shouldn't be expected to help subsidize and assist new technology companies get started, and now you seem to be saying that not only is that a good thing (in the case of gas, oil and coal) but that after the industries grow to dominate their market, are well established, and making more profits than most other industries combined, that we should keep paying them to do so.

People could keep thier candles if they wanted to, it just became more cost effective to use electricity. Today we are banning incandescent lights to get people to switch, but they didnt have to ban candles to get people to use light bulbs.

We aren't banning incandescent bulbs. The bill in question (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) merely mandates increased efficiency for certain ranges of light outputs ( 310–2600 lumens - roughly equivilant to old style incandescents of between 50Watts and 150Watts) for lamps manufactured in the US.

Read The Bill: H.R. 6 [110th] - GovTrack.us

Your ideas on tax deductions and such evidently starts with the logic that the companies money belongs to the government, and its up to the company to figure out how to keep its own money. It doesnt work like that. Remember corporate tax is an INCOME tax, gross reciepts minus expenses. If you want to tax just profit, why not just make a profit tax? That would eliminate the need for deductions. Until then there are no subsidies, there are DEDUCTIONS, as the current law says we dont tax the cost of doing buisness.

As for the oil/gas company thing, I am saying no such thing. You arent getting the point, or you are, and refuse to conceed it.

Let me ask you a question. In 2012 will I be able to buy the same 100 watt incandescent light bulb I can buy right now?

 

[martybegan]

holy sheet, fuckin zombeite dude...way gnarly...

LOL. I just followed that link and WOW. It's absolutely AMAZING that any of us are still alive. Getting up in the morning. Going about our daily tasks. Doing our jobs and chores and perhaps engaging in a bit of recreation. The flowers are blooming across the street. Apples are growing on our apple tree. The hummingbird feeder is visited by hummingbirds. The usual procession of honey bees is working among the honeysuckle.

And yet the world is absolutely falling apart due to global warming?

One point to make based on the last few pages:

There are MANY environmental concerns that do not involve global warming or cooling. Despite what some 'warmers' seem to think, we skeptics absolutely do not want dirty air, water, or soil; nor do we desire extinction of species; nor do we want the aethetic beauty of the Earth spoiled. We are all for doing whatever is necessary to correct those things that are causing measurable harm.

And when there is credible evidence that human activity is artificially warming the climate in an unhealthy manner, and there is reasonable means to correct that, I am guessing that there isn't a single skeptic who will not be in favor of helping to fix the problem.

Until then, I am not in favor of giving up our freedoms, options, choices, and opportunities based on what very well may be flawed science put out there by people who have everything to gain and nothing to lose by promoting it.

So, in your opinion, there is no reason to make any adjustments, employ and enforce any regulations or do anything to protect the planet unless you are absolutely convinced a problems exists?

Since my degrees are not in the hard sciences, I'll risk listening to and heeding the warnings of the majority of the scientific community. You, Odd-dude, CrusaderFrank and the others have yet to convince me that the motives of the scientific community are biased, or that any of you have a backgound suggesting a knowledge base which would offer your opinions meritorious.

In my opinion I do not want to radically change our economy based on the chance we might have warming/cooling whatever without knowing 100% for sure what we do is

1) nessasary
2) will actually work

As an addendum, I also dont want to do it unless everyone else gets on board i.e. if China and India keep increasing thier output while we reduce ours (and at the same time retard out economy) how is that "saving the planet" instead of just making some other country stronger at our expense?

 

[daveman]

In my opinion I do not want to radically change our economy based on the chance we might have warming/cooling whatever without knowing 100% for sure what we do is

1) nessasary
2) will actually work

As an addendum, I also dont want to do it unless everyone else gets on board i.e. if China and India keep increasing thier output while we reduce ours (and at the same time retard out economy) how is that "saving the planet" instead of just making some other country stronger at our expense?

These points prove that AGW is not about the environment, it's about greater government control over individual lives.

 

[Oddball]

Since my degrees are not in the hard sciences, I'll risk listening to and heeding the warnings of the majority of the scientific community. You, Odd-dude, CrusaderFrank and the others have yet to convince me that the motives of the scientific community are biased, or that any of you have a backgound suggesting a knowledge base which would offer your opinions meritorious.

Since you're as socialistic authoritarian before all else, of course you'd lean toward centralizing more power into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, before allowing the proletariat to live their peaceful lives as they see fit....That doesn't allow for any risk at all.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Since my degrees are not in the hard sciences, I'll risk listening to and heeding the warnings of the majority of the scientific community. You, Odd-dude, CrusaderFrank and the others have yet to convince me that the motives of the scientific community are biased, or that any of you have a backgound suggesting a knowledge base which would offer your opinions meritorious.

Since you're as socialistic authoritarian before all else, of course you'd lean toward centralizing more power into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, before allowing the proletariat to live their peaceful lives as they see fit....That doesn't allow for any risk at all.

Listen carefully, and try to put your ideology aside, Odd-dude. Elected officials will do whatever is necessary to win their next election; business and industry leaders will do whatever is necessary to keep their jobs. The mob/hoi polloi aren't smart enough, educated enough or interested enough to know what to do and ususally can't figure out what's in their own best interest until they put into power/office those who put themselves and pals before the people.

Our system of government as designed by the founders ain't perfect but it seems to work. Every election is a new referandum on governance, and in every election we collectively throw the bums out. We the people can't throw out the Kock brothers, or other leaders of industry who put profit over public safety, but we can and must make sure our government provides some measure of protection.

The New Right, of which you seem to be a proud and loud member, is in my opinion anarchy light. You hate rules which effect your bottom line; the city/county inspectors who examine your work are to you the "gubmit". They interfere with you, waste your time and you view them as vermin. Tough shit, it's because we can't throw out the bums who fail to follow the rules, take short cuts which effect the safety of others and otherwise do shoddy work to profit more that such a system of supervision exists.

I'm not suggesting that all contractors do shoddy work, but, human nature is human nature. Hence, supervision is necessary, though not always sufficient. Every bribe anyone Odd-dude? Of course I don't expect a answer, so I'll close by pointing out one more time name calling ("socialistic authoritarian") is always your fall back position, and remains a weak and rather silly ad hominem.

 

[Oddball]

Thanks for once again displaying that reactionary authoritarians are reactionary authoritarians first, above all else...Your pedantic and all-too-predictable "anarchist" ad hom is non sequitur and irrelevant.

If anyone is failing to set aside their politics, it's you, Vermin.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Thanks for once again displaying that reactionary authoritarians are reactionary authoritarians first, above all else...Your pedantic and all-too-predictable "anarchist" ad hom is non sequitur and irrelevant.

If anyone is failing to set aside their politics, it's you, Vermin.

tu quoque

 

[Oddball]

 

[martybegan]

...Again, candles werent banned to make people use electric bulbs, or even gas lamps...

they de facto were along with interior gas lighting, if you wanted to insure your house and the property within it against fire from any of the major insurers. The biggest point that you fail to acknowledge, however, is that for the most part these utilities that made the initial pushes for streetlighting and trolley services, weren't private corporations, most of them were city or government utilities. Electricity wasn't switched to because it was more profittable, it was switched to because of governmental decisions to do so. most of these early systems were later bought by private investors in the early 1900s, but this was, for the most part after all of the conversions to electricity had already been made.

Was there even insurance as we know it back then? I am not so sure.

The point I am still trying to get across is that these technologies were a net improvement, and the improvement was tangible, concrete and right in your face. Once the wires got to your house, electric lights meant no more soot, no more smoke, and a decreased fire hazard, all at a lower overall cost.

The green technologies today, at their current level of efficiency and practicality are steps backwards from what already exists in terms of concrete benefits, unless you add the intangible benefit of helping to reduce climate change. There is always some component to them that is less viable than the technology they are trying to replace be it interittent availibility, cost, or durabilty.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thanks for once again displaying that reactionary authoritarians are reactionary authoritarians first, above all else...Your pedantic and all-too-predictable "anarchist" ad hom is non sequitur and irrelevant.

If anyone is failing to set aside their politics, it's you, Vermin.

That is all right. Call all the names that you care to. Ryan, Walker, and Ritter have all demonstrated what people like you are all about. And the reaction of the electorate ain't a bit positive, boy.

 

[Old Rocks]

...Again, candles werent banned to make people use electric bulbs, or even gas lamps...

they de facto were along with interior gas lighting, if you wanted to insure your house and the property within it against fire from any of the major insurers. The biggest point that you fail to acknowledge, however, is that for the most part these utilities that made the initial pushes for streetlighting and trolley services, weren't private corporations, most of them were city or government utilities. Electricity wasn't switched to because it was more profittable, it was switched to because of governmental decisions to do so. most of these early systems were later bought by private investors in the early 1900s, but this was, for the most part after all of the conversions to electricity had already been made.

Was there even insurance as we know it back then? I am not so sure.

The point I am still trying to get across is that these technologies were a net improvement, and the improvement was tangible, concrete and right in your face. Once the wires got to your house, electric lights meant no more soot, no more smoke, and a decreased fire hazard, all at a lower overall cost.

The green technologies today, at their current level of efficiency and practicality are steps backwards from what already exists in terms of concrete benefits, unless you add the intangible benefit of helping to reduce climate change. There is always some component to them that is less viable than the technology they are trying to replace be it interittent availibility, cost, or durabilty.

Bullshit. Wind is now cheaper than dirty coal. Solar will soon be that way. As well as Geo-Thermal. And Geo-thermal is 24-7, as is Thermal Solar. In the meantime, even without factoring in the cost of the environmental damage, and the damage to humans, coal costs are continueing to go up, while all of the alternatives are decreasing in cost.

 

[martybegan]

they de facto were along with interior gas lighting, if you wanted to insure your house and the property within it against fire from any of the major insurers. The biggest point that you fail to acknowledge, however, is that for the most part these utilities that made the initial pushes for streetlighting and trolley services, weren't private corporations, most of them were city or government utilities. Electricity wasn't switched to because it was more profittable, it was switched to because of governmental decisions to do so. most of these early systems were later bought by private investors in the early 1900s, but this was, for the most part after all of the conversions to electricity had already been made.

Was there even insurance as we know it back then? I am not so sure.

The point I am still trying to get across is that these technologies were a net improvement, and the improvement was tangible, concrete and right in your face. Once the wires got to your house, electric lights meant no more soot, no more smoke, and a decreased fire hazard, all at a lower overall cost.

The green technologies today, at their current level of efficiency and practicality are steps backwards from what already exists in terms of concrete benefits, unless you add the intangible benefit of helping to reduce climate change. There is always some component to them that is less viable than the technology they are trying to replace be it interittent availibility, cost, or durabilty.

Bullshit. Wind is now cheaper than dirty coal. Solar will soon be that way. As well as Geo-Thermal. And Geo-thermal is 24-7, as is Thermal Solar. In the meantime, even without factoring in the cost of the environmental damage, and the damage to humans, coal costs are continueing to go up, while all of the alternatives are decreasing in cost.

I would consider cost increases due to oil to be more of a factor than coal. Our coal reserves are very adequate, more so if you do include any future switches to nuclear/renewables.

And while wind may be cheaper (I dont have the numbers on that) you have to look at ALL limitations on a technology. It may be cheaper, but it doesnt work when it isnt windy, same as solar doesnt work when it isnt sunny. As long as you keep delivering coal to a coal plant it keeps running. Geothermal is site limited, same as hydro. Placing a coal plant has less requirements (usually only cooling water and roads/rails/bargeways).

The big change to wind/solar needed is short term storage (by short I mean 1-3 days) so that the plants can act as a baseload generator. without that you cannot use them to provide the majority of power for an electrical grid without either massive brownouts or a grid wide way of storing power.

 

[Trakar]

Your ideas on tax deductions and such evidently starts with the logic that the companies money belongs to the government, and its up to the company to figure out how to keep its own money. It doesnt work like that. Remember corporate tax is an INCOME tax, gross reciepts minus expenses. If you want to tax just profit, why not just make a profit tax? That would eliminate the need for deductions. Until then there are no subsidies, there are DEDUCTIONS, as the current law says we dont tax the cost of doing buisness.

As for the oil/gas company thing, I am saying no such thing. You arent getting the point, or you are, and refuse to conceed it.

Let me ask you a question. In 2012 will I be able to buy the same 100 watt incandescent light bulb I can buy right now?

As you don't seem to be reading or considering what I am actually saying, but rather seem to be working solely off of some predetermined script that exists only in your head, I'll leave you to continue your internal discussion all on your own.

 

[daveman]

I don't know. I suspect the residents of Joplin, MO; Tuscaloosa, AL and the states which border the Mississippi River and its tributaries might be beginning to question the conventional wisdom (i.e. propaganda) of the right wing spin machine.

So, to summarize this thread, you say these tornadoes and floods would not have happened if people had voted Democrat.