U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-13-2013, 08:59 AM
 
13,056 posts, read 12,478,338 times
Reputation: 2613

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
Well, it's obvious from my posts that I am just 'Joe Public'. It is easy to see that I don't have a file cabinet full of indexed folders of propaganda and clippings. It is obvious that I merely read the daily news headlines and post from there, as I am posting articles FROM headlines of commonly used sites and wide circulation newspapers. Nothing esoteric in my posts.

So what you are saying is that if people are ignorant like you about the topic and simply post improperly sourced gossip articles about the topic, then they are "Joe Public", but if someone is informed about the topic, cites actual research and specifics concerning it, it means... they are paid for doing such?

You just made the case that ignorant means you are legit. Good job!

Last edited by Nomander; 04-13-2013 at 09:15 AM..
Rate this post positively

 
Old 04-13-2013, 09:14 AM
 
13,056 posts, read 12,478,338 times
Reputation: 2613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
The question is really about whether or not alternative energy technology would benefit us overall.

In some limited ways it can (currently), in many others no. Many of these kids have been duped into believing that these technologies are new. Many of them have been around for over 100 years and many private enterprises have put a lot of money into trying to make them practical. There is a reason that in less than a year or two the car companies had products to roll out for electric and hybrids. They had been working on some way to corner the market for years, but... these products have massive cost issues are impractical in many ways and their performance is not sufficient to replace our current ones. Only reason they are out right now is because Papa Government is raping the tax payers for money and irresponsibly throwing it at these companies so they can push failed technology on the public and still make a profit. It is capitol cronyism at its finest.

You would think that if they were so concerned about what is best for the environment, they would be promoted technology that serves it in the most efficient and practical manner currently. Instead, we push all these extensive regulations on vehicles to the point where they are less efficient than having them in limited form or not at all in the first place (ethanol for example).

The poster has a nifty emotionally driven good intentions and that makes them a good pawn for politics, but it makes them a dangerous driver for practical and efficient change. If we promoted practical while pushing efficient, we would be further along than we are now. Instead, we dump trillions of dollars into failed concepts and solutions that serve no benefit even for their intentions and destroy the economy at the same time.

We have become a media driven idiocracy with lots of feel good motivations that are worthless.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-13-2013, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Earth Wanderer, longing for the stars.
12,408 posts, read 18,203,472 times
Reputation: 8884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
. . .

The reality is that, if you subsidized alternative energy, the subsidies have to be raised through taxes, which will inevitably cause the prices of everything else to go up. For instance, if we put in cap and trade, the cost of energy would skyrocket, and the cost to manufacture basically anything would also go up sharply. Thus, our manufacturers who are already having a hard time competing on the world market, would have an even more difficult time competing. Thus there is no reason to believe that there would be a net increase in jobs if cap and trade were to go into effect.
If we stopped subsidizing fossil fuel then the consumer would be paying the true price of these pollutants and alternates would be demanded.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-13-2013, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Earth Wanderer, longing for the stars.
12,408 posts, read 18,203,472 times
Reputation: 8884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
So what you are saying is that if people are ignorant like you about the topic and simply post improperly sourced gossip articles about the topic, then they are "Joe Public", but if someone is informed about the topic, cites actual research and specifics concerning it, it means... they are paid for doing such?

You just made the case that ignorant means you are legit. Good job!
No, I am saying that it really appears as though one of us has a life and the other has a life that must be dedicated to this one topic. That is abnormal and calls our attention to question the motivations of that person who seems so much to speak for the pollution industry and not the average citizen.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-13-2013, 09:46 AM
 
13,056 posts, read 12,478,338 times
Reputation: 2613
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
No, I am saying that it really appears as though one of us has a life and the other has a life that must be dedicated to this one topic. That is abnormal and calls our attention to question the motivations of that person who seems so much to speak for the pollution industry and not the average citizen.

So one can not have a life and be fairly well informed on an issue like this? So apparently, talking about the details of the science, pointing out the process of science and how a given claim fails to meet such requirements is "speaking for the pollution industry"? You do realize that such a comment is a political fallacy used by activist groups.

Lets face it. You don't like the fact that I interrupt your attempt to emotionalize and demand submission to your environmental activist position and so since you are ignorant of the details of the science specifically, you must resort to accusations of character and motive.

Maybe spend a bit more time reading about the things you parrot off so you don't have to resort to such tactics? Or... maybe accept that what you "believe" is not "fact" and as it concerns sciences, facts are all that matter, not beliefs, guesses, or emotional dogma.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-13-2013, 09:48 AM
 
13,056 posts, read 12,478,338 times
Reputation: 2613
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
If we stopped subsidizing fossil fuel then the consumer would be paying the true price of these pollutants and alternates would be demanded.

How much do we subsidize oil? Do you have any tangible figures or is this simply another talking point you are passing on?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-13-2013, 09:48 AM
 
5,706 posts, read 3,422,688 times
Reputation: 3907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Maybe this is why they decided to change "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

Winter Storm Virgil Targets Mid-Atlantic Monday - weather.com

As any grade school kid know, the earth's climate has been changing forever.


So here is an interesting stat:

Number of US States who set or tied their record HIGH temp in the past 18 years: TWO

Number of US States who set or tied their record LOW temp in the past 18 years: SEVEN

Just food for thought.
I love the supporting facts you provided. Is google difficult for you to use? Here, let me help.

How To Use Google To Search
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-13-2013, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
12,772 posts, read 6,633,491 times
Reputation: 4018
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
If we stopped subsidizing fossil fuel then the consumer would be paying the true price of these pollutants and alternates would be demanded.

Well, no one is a bigger advocate for stopping the subsidization of fossil fuels than me. My argument is that, most of the US military is used to protect worldwide oil supplies. Thus, most of the cost of the US military should be paid for through taxes on anything related to oil.

Secondly, the current gas tax is already insufficient for paying for the roads as it is. So roads in this country are already being paid for through other means of taxation. Moreover, certain forms of transportation do far more damage to the roads than others(Semi trucks), and the higher taxes on trucks don't actually cover the additional cost of the damage they do.


If I had my way, there would be a considerable increase in the number of railroads. And almost all freight would be moved by rail(steel wheel on steel rail = amazingly efficient).

Of course, the problem is that the railroad union helps to create a sort of monopoly in the railroads. Considerably driving up the cost of shipping practically anything by rail(a guy driving a train gets paid 2-3 times as much as a guy driving a semi truck). And the government has so many regulations on the railroads, that its nearly impossible to build any new railroads.



As for your complaint about "pollutants" and the cost associated with them. I'm all for making them pay for the pollutants. The problem though is, how much should the pollutants cost? Is CO2 a pollutant? How much should we allow to be released every year?

The truth is, its impossible to even know how much damages are caused by "pollutants" because we don't even have a working model of how these "pollutants" affect the environment. For instance, all the models for CO2 would have us believe that the world should be much hotter today than it is. Some of the models, were predicting that the Earth would be several degrees hotter today, but its actually cooled somewhat over the last decade. The infamous "hockey stick" chart in Al Gore's inconvenient truth.


I would love us to do something different. But I haven't found a real solution. Other than my ideas of simply taking away the military/road subsidies that already exist.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-13-2013, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Central Ohio
10,671 posts, read 14,129,809 times
Reputation: 15859
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
You are talking about weather patterns, not global warming.

Food for thought.
Exactly right, the Mayans ignored global warming opting to do nothing about it which in the end caused the collapse of their civilization.

Maya civilization's collapse linked to climate change: study | Reuters

Quote:
(Reuters) - For a clue to the possible impact of climate change on modern society, a study suggests a look back at the end of classic Maya civilization, which disintegrated into famine, war and collapse as a long-term wet weather pattern shifted to drought.

An international team of researchers compiled a detailed climate record that tracks 2,000 years of wet and dry weather in present-day Belize, where Maya cities developed from the year 300 to 1000.

snip
The Mayan's did nothing and if we don't we will follow them into oblivion.

OMG, here is another article

Climate change may explain Maya rise and fall, study says - Los Angeles Times


Quote:
By AD 700, that wet weather gave way to a "general drying trend that lasted four centuries and was punctuated by a series of major droughts," he said. "That triggered a decline in agricultural productivity and contributed to societal fragmentation and political collapse. ... Maya kings lost their power and influence."

Researchers said the severe drought the Maya experienced was akin to the one that devastated Mexico in the 16th century and brought crop failure, famine and death. Kennett said such circumstances probably visited the Maya during their classic period, which lasted from AD 250 to 1000.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-13-2013, 01:58 PM
 
13,056 posts, read 12,478,338 times
Reputation: 2613
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
Exactly right, the Mayans ignored global warming opting to do nothing about it which in the end caused the collapse of their civilization.

Maya civilization's collapse linked to climate change: study | Reuters

The Mayan's did nothing and if we don't we will follow them into oblivion.

OMG, here is another article

Climate change may explain Maya rise and fall, study says - Los Angeles Times
/facepalm
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:26 AM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top