More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[gnarlylove]

Wasting money huh? Ever heard of "How to Spend It" magazine (http://howtospendit.ft.com/)? It's for the rich who have so much money they don't know how to spend it so a magazine helps them. Most if not all the ideas are 100% superfluous to human needs and fulfillment.

Basic science tells us all fossil fuels are limited. Why is it wasting money to avoid the obvious necessity of extracting the last drop of oil--then what do you do? Switch to natural gas till it runs out? Switch to coal till it runs out?
Basic deduction tells us eventually WE MUST use renewables. But since in your limited lifetime fossil fuels are the shit it prevents you from recognizing the obvious deduction. So we should prevent my generation and future generations from experimenting with alternatives that simply cannot be exhausted (aka wasting money).

 

[polarbear]

Wasting money huh? Ever heard of "How to Spend It" magazine (http://howtospendit.ft.com/)? It's for the rich who have so much money they don't know how to spend it so a magazine helps them. Most if not all the ideas are 100% superfluous to human needs and fulfillment.

Basic science tells us all fossil fuels are limited. Why is it wasting money to avoid the obvious necessity of extracting the last drop of oil--then what do you do? Switch to natural gas till it runs out? Switch to coal till it runs out?
Basic deduction tells us eventually WE MUST use renewables. But since in your limited lifetime fossil fuels are the shit it prevents you from recognizing the obvious deduction. So we should prevent my generation and future generations from experimenting with alternatives that simply cannot be exhausted (aka wasting money).

How the hell did you arrive at that "obvious deduction"..???
Nobody in the oil/gas and coal sector is preventing energy research....and only total idiots would quit using cheaper energy sources right now while we still have them.
It`s not as if the technology that is needed after these resources are eventually exhausted does not exist. There is no point to use it as long as it is more expensive than what we do now.
Doing it your way would be a waste of money and the only way it could be done is not on a unilateral basis.
Are you that naive to think that if the West is dumb enough to switch to a more expensive energy source right now, that Russia, China, India etc will do the same?....because you say it`s an "obvious deduction" ?
The only way that will ever happen is
a.) through force of arms or..
b.) once the existing resources are exhausted.

So which do you prefer?
You say:

I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it the condition under which intelligence, dignity & human happiness can develop; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out & regulated by the State

yet that is precisely what you are suggesting !

 

[gnarlylove]

Nobody in the oil/gas and coal sector is preventing energy research....and only total idiots would quit using cheaper energy sources right now while we still have them.

I'd think lobbying to loosen EPA regulations and increasing subsidies for fossil fuels is an indirect hit on renewables. But I agree, fossil fuels are mainly looking out for themselves and are relatively unconcerned for the development of solar or lack therein.

Where we disagree is that cheapest=best. But arguing this point with you would be rather unproductive use of my time so I'll just say thank you for lucidly identifying a linchpin in your argument and mine.

I'd argue there are reasons to spend more money now to help lower costs making solar cheapest (which as we agree is inevitable but disagree if its in a decade or 200 years from now). In other words, spending more now can also help reduce or prevent negative consequences--which we disagree. It's like fighting terrorism in one aspect. You spend tons of money preventing what hasn't necessarily been manifested in the hope that it alleviates potential chaos in the future. I don't think climate change is all that debatable, it's a matter of if its rapidly changing due to industry and consumption or if it's just a blip that the last 15 years were hottest on record and will be duly noted by historians and climatologists only.


I think you confused what my obvious deduction was. I was referring to the simple matter of fact that eventually fossil fuels will either be exhausted or will no longer be the cheapest source. Thus renewables will eventually succeed and supersede unrenewable sources, by either becoming cheaper/more efficient/or we just plain run out of fossil fuels.

I never commented on other countries accepting anything. For clarification I am speaking about America and not other countries or whether they would follow America in energy.

I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it the condition under which intelligence, dignity & human happiness can develop; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out & regulated by the State

yet that is precisely what you are suggesting !

Those are two separate goals. One is the ultimate goal where no state is oppressing anyone and that community reps only have power from below (don't forget social pressure to conform to certain demeanors must also virtually cease as they also control and inhibit liberty).

Suggesting this in our modern times would attract a large hissy fit and be altogether inappropriate or impossible. Once must understand the difference between the abstract "how we think the world should be" and "what's best for the concrete world." So I think the feasible option in promoting liberty is inching closer towards more readily available options that may indeed support a state. However, I know ultimately my goal is liberty for all but my immediate goals are to act where it's feasible. This includes defending the rights of every human for clean water and food and that is best exercised by bolstering welfare state in the current political climate and by my volunteerism.

Dismantling the state tomorrow would be idiotic, we can both agree there.

 

[westwall]

The Green Party did not "usurp" power in Germany. They were elected.

They had 16.7 % of the vote...they were not elected...they got cabinet seats through a back-room deal with Angela Merkel behind closed doors, which is "usurping" by any standard !

Did they usurp the government at gunpoint or was it some form of blackmail?

Making a deal with Angela Merkel is not usurpation. One would presume she wanted the support of the 8.4% of Germans they represented - they 8.4% o fGermans who did VOTE for them. It sounds as if you're not crazy about the way your own government works (assuming you actually are a German citizen).

Why blackmail of course.... the bread and butter methodology of the unskilled.

 

[orogenicman]

They had 16.7 % of the vote...they were not elected...they got cabinet seats through a back-room deal with Angela Merkel behind closed doors, which is "usurping" by any standard !

Did they usurp the government at gunpoint or was it some form of blackmail?

Making a deal with Angela Merkel is not usurpation. One would presume she wanted the support of the 8.4% of Germans they represented - they 8.4% o fGermans who did VOTE for them. It sounds as if you're not crazy about the way your own government works (assuming you actually are a German citizen).

Why blackmail of course.... the bread and butter methodology of the unskilled.

As opposed to the way the republicans tried to extort concessions out of the government by threatening, and then carrying out the threat to shut the government down?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Time for us warmers to write to the noaa and ask them to make up scientific and repeatable experiments on the greenhouse effect of co2.

They need to post a link to it within every paper, news report and article they make.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The skeptics are winning because of confusion....

Science can win by using science to show the common man how co2 works within experimental form that the skeptics can't spin. Next we have to show the complexity of the system and this is why we have to teach people how the positive forcing is part of a larger forcing that is our climate system....

The common man doesn't understand that oceans have huge effects
The common man doesn't understand that the climate of one place that is normally 20f during January can warm up to 25f = more snow. Simply because the air can hold more moisture.
The common man doesn't understand and it is the jobs of the noaa to make him understand.

 

[HenryBHough]

Not so much that the common man doesn't understand.

More that the common man just doesn't give a shit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wasting money huh? Ever heard of "How to Spend It" magazine (http://howtospendit.ft.com/)? It's for the rich who have so much money they don't know how to spend it so a magazine helps them. Most if not all the ideas are 100% superfluous to human needs and fulfillment.

Basic science tells us all fossil fuels are limited. Why is it wasting money to avoid the obvious necessity of extracting the last drop of oil--then what do you do? Switch to natural gas till it runs out? Switch to coal till it runs out?
Basic deduction tells us eventually WE MUST use renewables. But since in your limited lifetime fossil fuels are the shit it prevents you from recognizing the obvious deduction. So we should prevent my generation and future generations from experimenting with alternatives that simply cannot be exhausted (aka wasting money).

Wasting money huh?

Yes, wasting money.

Basic science tells us all fossil fuels are limited. Why is it wasting money to avoid the obvious necessity of extracting the last drop of oil-

I can heat my house for $200 a month using fossil fuels.
Spending $1000 a month on renewables, because fossil fuels are "limited", would be wasting money. You're free to waste your money in that manner, if it somehow makes you feel better.

So we should prevent my generation and future generations from experimenting with alternatives

No one is preventing you from experimenting with your own money.
Please leave my money out of it.

that simply cannot be exhausted (aka wasting money)

If your inexhaustible energy is several times more expensive than my exhaustible energy, your energy must be superior to mine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nobody in the oil/gas and coal sector is preventing energy research....and only total idiots would quit using cheaper energy sources right now while we still have them.

I'd think lobbying to loosen EPA regulations and increasing subsidies for fossil fuels is an indirect hit on renewables. But I agree, fossil fuels are mainly looking out for themselves and are relatively unconcerned for the development of solar or lack therein.

Where we disagree is that cheapest=best. But arguing this point with you would be rather unproductive use of my time so I'll just say thank you for lucidly identifying a linchpin in your argument and mine.

I'd argue there are reasons to spend more money now to help lower costs making solar cheapest (which as we agree is inevitable but disagree if its in a decade or 200 years from now). In other words, spending more now can also help reduce or prevent negative consequences--which we disagree. It's like fighting terrorism in one aspect. You spend tons of money preventing what hasn't necessarily been manifested in the hope that it alleviates potential chaos in the future. I don't think climate change is all that debatable, it's a matter of if its rapidly changing due to industry and consumption or if it's just a blip that the last 15 years were hottest on record and will be duly noted by historians and climatologists only.


I think you confused what my obvious deduction was. I was referring to the simple matter of fact that eventually fossil fuels will either be exhausted or will no longer be the cheapest source. Thus renewables will eventually succeed and supersede unrenewable sources, by either becoming cheaper/more efficient/or we just plain run out of fossil fuels.

I never commented on other countries accepting anything. For clarification I am speaking about America and not other countries or whether they would follow America in energy.

I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it the condition under which intelligence, dignity & human happiness can develop; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out & regulated by the State

yet that is precisely what you are suggesting !

Those are two separate goals. One is the ultimate goal where no state is oppressing anyone and that community reps only have power from below (don't forget social pressure to conform to certain demeanors must also virtually cease as they also control and inhibit liberty).

Suggesting this in our modern times would attract a large hissy fit and be altogether inappropriate or impossible. Once must understand the difference between the abstract "how we think the world should be" and "what's best for the concrete world." So I think the feasible option in promoting liberty is inching closer towards more readily available options that may indeed support a state. However, I know ultimately my goal is liberty for all but my immediate goals are to act where it's feasible. This includes defending the rights of every human for clean water and food and that is best exercised by bolstering welfare state in the current political climate and by my volunteerism.

Dismantling the state tomorrow would be idiotic, we can both agree there.

I'd think lobbying to loosen EPA regulations and increasing subsidies for fossil fuels

What subsidies for fossil fuels? Where?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The skeptics are winning because of confusion....

Science can win by using science to show the common man how co2 works within experimental form that the skeptics can't spin. Next we have to show the complexity of the system and this is why we have to teach people how the positive forcing is part of a larger forcing that is our climate system....

The common man doesn't understand that oceans have huge effects
The common man doesn't understand that the climate of one place that is normally 20f during January can warm up to 25f = more snow. Simply because the air can hold more moisture.
The common man doesn't understand and it is the jobs of the noaa to make him understand.

How about a list of things that would falsify AGW?

As it stands now......
more rain = AGW
less rain = AGW
colder = AGW
warmer = AGW
floods = AGW
droughts = AGW

Is there anything this incredible AGW cannot do?

 

[gnarlylove]

The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $544 billion in 2012

from IEA - Energy Subsidies

In America alone the number ranges from 14 billion to 52 billion.

I wish it mattered but whatever I say means nothing to you. Your brain experiences perceived resistance and hence you respond to where you can find holes. I congratulate you for working with what you've got, I hope you continue to expand and maybe someday I'll be able to join you on top of Mount Right All The Time. I'd think it gets boring up there though, always looking down. You must be awfully courageous to repeat what you've heard about the caricatures of climate change.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The skeptics are winning because of confusion....

Science can win by using science to show the common man how co2 works within experimental form that the skeptics can't spin. Next we have to show the complexity of the system and this is why we have to teach people how the positive forcing is part of a larger forcing that is our climate system....

The common man doesn't understand that oceans have huge effects
The common man doesn't understand that the climate of one place that is normally 20f during January can warm up to 25f = more snow. Simply because the air can hold more moisture.
The common man doesn't understand and it is the jobs of the noaa to make him understand.

How about a list of things that would falsify AGW?

As it stands now......
more rain = AGW
less rain = AGW
colder = AGW
warmer = AGW
floods = AGW
droughts = AGW

Is there anything this incredible AGW cannot do?

Climate change, changes the weather patterns. So you can get more rain in one area and less for another.

Don't you understand this?

 

[polarbear]

[1]
I'd think lobbying to loosen EPA regulations and increasing subsidies for fossil fuels is an indirect hit on renewables. But I agree, fossil fuels are mainly looking out for themselves and are relatively unconcerned for the development of solar or lack therein.

Where we disagree is that cheapest=best. But arguing this point with you would be rather unproductive use of my time so I'll just say thank you for lucidly identifying a linchpin in your argument and mine.

[2]
I'd argue there are reasons to spend more money now to help lower costs making solar cheapest (which as we agree is inevitable but disagree if its in a decade or 200 years from now).


I think you confused what my obvious deduction was. I was referring to the simple matter of fact that eventually fossil fuels will either be exhausted or will no longer be the cheapest source. Thus renewables will eventually succeed and supersede unrenewable sources, by either becoming cheaper/more efficient/or we just plain run out of fossil fuels.

[3]
I never commented on other countries accepting anything. For clarification I am speaking about America and not other countries or whether they would follow America in energy.

I hope it`s alright with you if I just pick out and respond to these 3 points.
Let me start with [3]
What do you think the impact would be on the US economy if the US were to quit fossil fuels and switch over to more expensive sources of energy right now...while the other countries the US has to compete with go on using fossil fuels?
It`s already bad enough with the labor cost gap between us (Western countries) and those which exploit cheap labor to the fullest.
You would wind up either importing steel, concrete etc...everything that is energy intensive...or you have to implement punitive tariffs to "protect" the domestic industry...so that they can sell their overpriced products to the domestic market..they won`t be able to sell it to anybody else.

[1]
The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

1. Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
2. Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
3. Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

That foreign tax credit applies to everybody, not just to any oil company.
Nobody has to pay taxes for the same thing twice!
BP has to pay taxes on their profits already to the British Government and that`s why they get that tax credit.
How would you like it if an American company that already pays taxes in the US would have to pay the same tax in every country they do business in?

There would not be a business you would put out of business!


How that "Environmental Law" study wound up calling the $14.1 billion credit for production of non-conventional fuels a "subsidy" to the fossil fuel industry is absurd.


Aren`t "non-conventional fuels" what people like you are demanding ?


So, it`s okay with you as in your point [2] to "spend money to help lower costs" for solar...who`s money would that be?
Well so far it`s been tax money and a lot of that came from oil and gas !


Then there is the 7.1 billion oil and gas exploration "expensing", they called it". Again how is that a subsidy?
It`s not money given to them outright...like we have to for "renewables"
Name one business that does not deduct expenses !
You would kill just about any technology that requires research, first and foremost pharmaceutical and medical research



Nobody outside this idiotic "Environmetal Law" study would call that a subsidy.


That`s the whole problem with "environmental studies"...and the people who conduct these. They use a different standard just as soon as they study anyone they have an axe to grind with.


And that covers your point [1] , because none of that is really a subsidy as in money given to the oil and gas industry...
Not picking your pocket is not the same as if I gave you money !


It was just 3 weeks ago when somebody else posted the same "study" where they said that anything less than "optimal taxation" is a subsidy.
And "optimal taxation" was defined as the difference what you have to pay for oil and gas taxes in the US compared to some countries where they taxed the living shit out of it...to pay for "improved social infrastructure"...and when you looked at that list that meant pay-hikes for government employees.


I wish you newbies to this forum would read up a bit on what has been posted and discussed here already!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The skeptics are winning because of confusion....

Science can win by using science to show the common man how co2 works within experimental form that the skeptics can't spin. Next we have to show the complexity of the system and this is why we have to teach people how the positive forcing is part of a larger forcing that is our climate system....

The common man doesn't understand that oceans have huge effects
The common man doesn't understand that the climate of one place that is normally 20f during January can warm up to 25f = more snow. Simply because the air can hold more moisture.
The common man doesn't understand and it is the jobs of the noaa to make him understand.

How about a list of things that would falsify AGW?

As it stands now......
more rain = AGW
less rain = AGW
colder = AGW
warmer = AGW
floods = AGW
droughts = AGW

Is there anything this incredible AGW cannot do?

Climate change, changes the weather patterns. So you can get more rain in one area and less for another.

Don't you understand this?

When has climate not changed?
Can you show a period of time when rain in all areas was unchanging?

Yes, I understand unfalsifiable claims.
It's the opposite of science.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Climate has always changed. The debate we're having is how fast and why it is happening.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $544 billion in 2012

from IEA - Energy Subsidies

In America alone the number ranges from 14 billion to 52 billion.

I wish it mattered but whatever I say means nothing to you. Your brain experiences perceived resistance and hence you respond to where you can find holes. I congratulate you for working with what you've got, I hope you continue to expand and maybe someday I'll be able to join you on top of Mount Right All The Time. I'd think it gets boring up there though, always looking down. You must be awfully courageous to repeat what you've heard about the caricatures of climate change.

fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide

Yes, it's awful that governments give money to poor people to buy energy.
They should give them solar panels instead.
That would cost more, always a liberal goal, while giving less benefit to the end user.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Climate has always changed. The debate we're having is how fast and why it is happening.

Always changed? Even before we used fossil fuels? How is that possible?

How fast did that old change occur? How large is your data set?

 

[skookerasbil]

To tired tonight to post.......but be back for another episode of AGW k00k pwning sometime tomorrow.

 

[gnarlylove]

Yes, it's awful that governments give money to poor people to buy energy.
They should give them solar panels instead.
That would cost more, always a liberal goal, while giving less benefit to the end user

First you don't believe subsidies exist and then you just hop skip and jump to bashing liberals. I'd recommend a new tune, or challenge yourself to do something you wouldn't normally do like ride a bike or go for a walk. Maybe you do already and I'm glad for you.