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.
Sure, you pick up the bill for it and I will support it fully.
What do you mean by "pick up the bill for it"?
Last I checked, it didn't cost any money to take plastic bottles to a place that recycles them, and I don't think it costs money to have a friend/co-worker carpool with you to work every once in awhile to save on gas.
My earlier post wasn't implying that you go out and buy a brand new hybrid car or some huge solar panel for your house, but to just do a few simple things like not using as much water when you brush your teeth or take shorter showers.
What do you mean by "pick up the bill for it"?
Last I checked, it didn't cost any money to take plastic bottles to a place that recycles them, and I don't think it costs money to have a friend/co-worker carpool with you to work every once in awhile to save on gas.
My earlier post wasn't implying that you go out and buy a brand new hybrid car or some huge solar panel for your house, but to just do a few simple things like not using as much water when you brush your teeth or take shorter showers.
Well lets look at some things. First, in the very small sense you are suggesting. When I used to live in California, I used to recycle quite often. I would recycle everything from paper, plastics, bottles, and cans. It was really a great deal. You see, I would save up these things, take them down to the recycle company and when I turned them in, I received money for them. Some were small returns such as plastic and bottles. Others were much larger like cans. Then the city decided it was going to start a "recycle program" to "help the earth".
They put in city ordinances that forced everyone to recycle. Well, not really "enforce" the action of recycling, they merely adding you another container and then charged you a monthly fee for giving it to you. You could decline the container, but they still charged you a fee anyway. They wanted everyone to put recycled goods into the container to which they were charging you a monthly fee on. They then took those goods and sold them off to the recycle companies themselves to make a profit. It wasn't a change to encourage recycling, it was merely an excuse to make money and create more taxes or charges if you like with no benefit to the citizen. Not only did they make a profit on charging for the container, but the made a profit on all the goods they collected as well.
See, this is the funny thing that you suggest. You want people to turn off water in between things, those types of changes? Thats all well and good, but in the greater scheme of things, they are actually useless gestures. They really don't make that much difference over all and they certainly don't make up for the extreme accounts of other nations that pollute in levels that would make your head spin. Its a nice gesture, but it doesn't do any good. It is much like a Hollywood actor stepping up on to a stage to announce they turn the water off while they shave their legs in front of a stage with 50,000 lights and numerous other energy consuming equipment talking to a crowd who is being served animal products (one of the highest contributers to emissions) just before they flew in on their private jets. I wonder how many of them car pooled to the event?
Don't get me wrong, every little bit is a reduction, but every little bit doesn't mean it has any tangible effect.
Thats the small stuff though, I wasn't talking about little things such as that. What I was talking about is the governmental and global policy effects. Read up on the Kyoto treaty and what it would require of a nation. Look at the expenses that a nation will spend to pay fines for not meeting goals that have been clearly established as "unobtainable" in their given time line.
Take a peek at the proposed legislation on state regulation and conversion to new energy sources. Look at the adjustment to ethanol requirements in fuel. Look up the mandatory regulatory requirements of all businesses concerning "green friendly" processes.
What you are suggesting doesn't cost anyone much. What the AGW crowd is pushing is "Doom unless we make drastic changes". Those "drastic changes" won't be simply turning off the water to shave your legs, but rather they will translate to extreme tax hikes on the citizens and regulations which will snowball extreme price hikes in goods within our economy.
So when you ask why those who object to the conclusions of the AGW analysis (that is, we are the cause), it is because we are likely to pay through the nose for such changes and many of us who spend our money wisely do not care to throw it away on guesses. If it is a fact, you will find most are willing to contribute, but that is still undecided. I am sorry if "could be" doesn't meet the qualifications to empty my pocket book. I get calls all day concerning "could be", "can make", "might make" scams. I don't throw my money at those and I am comfortable in life because of it. I will be thrown in a grave before I will allow the people to speak for me and siphon my earnings based on "guesses" and "possible conclusions".
So, like I said. You pick up the bill for all expenses that come from this groups "doom and gloom" and I will have no problems supporting it. If you want to get into my pocket book, I want proof, not "pretty sure" or "could be".
We will ALL "pick up the bill" for our lack of stewardship of the one and, so far, only place we can exist. Not that global warming threatens our existence, it only threatens our health and wealth.
Global warming is happening at a geologically unprecedented rate. What to do about it and how to pay for it is still being debated and will be debated until the seacoast cities of the world start to be lost to flooding. The fact that swamps like Bangladesh and the millions of indigenous peasants will either drown or push other people under is irrelevant. Something will be attempted when huge amounts of wealth are about to be lost. Unfortunately by then it will be too late to save much as we could have by starting to take appropriate measures now.
I find this amusing because the sheer amount of money to be made relocating to higher ground or building the protective structures should be driving the investment in these measures. I can only guess that the short-term profit in the existing situation outweighs the long-term losses caused by the changes in global climate..
So sure, so all knowing and confident in AGW. What happens if you are wrong? If you are wrong, will you do the world a favor and quit your work in climate science? Want to make that promise now? Do you believe so strongly in your position that you are willing to put your life in the field on the line? You seem to want everyone else to adjust their lives based on your predictions, you willing to do the same? Chances are, if this is found out to be yet another "global cooling, the world is ending" issue, you will continue on like nothing happened. Save your aluminum siding sales tactics for someone else.
So sure, so all knowing and confident in AGW. What happens if you are wrong? If you are wrong, will you do the world a favor and quit your work in climate science? Want to make that promise now? Do you believe so strongly in your position that you are willing to put your life in the field on the line? You seem to want everyone else to adjust their lives based on your predictions, you willing to do the same? Chances are, if this is found out to be yet another "global cooling, the world is ending" issue, you will continue on like nothing happened. Save your aluminum siding sales tactics for someone else.
nomander-
there is such an overwhelming framework of evidence pointing to climate science being right about warming actually occuring and it's likely attribution, this time around, significantly to human influence that i am not sure you have to worry much about climate/environmental scientists being "wrong" overall concerning the overall point ("GW" [global warming], and arguably "AGW" [anthropogenic global warming]).
nonetheless, right OR wrong, improved effiency, for example, CAN save money in the end (not to mention dependence on foreign whims when it comes to the materials that are needed - petroleum/poly-carbon goes into WAY more than just fuel: plastics, etc.). if you think about thermodynamics, if you can achieve something approaching a Carnot cycle, there's way less waste: more of what you put into production comes out as production. you waste less money on producing waste. sure the start up might be a bit more expensive to design and build the more efficient process, but you get that in pay back in time. and it seems clear that people actually BUY INTO IT, even when it's not politically correct. look at how well japanese auto manufacturers have done by putting the money and effort into designing and building higher quality, more efficient vehicles, even before anyone cared about something like a prius. there might be some lessons in that, whether or not you believe the evidence pointing to "AGW".
incidentally, people put their future in the field on the line OFTEN by talking to the media and saying with confidence that AGW seems to be a reality. if they are wrong, their stock goes down. my guess is they have good reason to believe that the risk of being "wrong" is small enough (i.e., as in they have seen enough good evidence, for example).
there is such an overwhelming framework of evidence pointing to climate science being right about warming actually occuring and it's likely attribution, this time around, significantly to human influence that i am not sure you have to worry much about climate/environmental scientists being "wrong" overall concerning the overall point ("GW" [global warming], and arguably "AGW" [anthropogenic global warming]).
nonetheless, right OR wrong, improved effiency, for example, CAN save money in the end (not to mention dependence on foreign whims when it comes to the materials that are needed - petroleum/poly-carbon goes into WAY more than just fuel: plastics, etc.). if you think about thermodynamics, if you can achieve something approaching a Carnot cycle, there's way less waste: more of what you put into production comes out as production. you waste less money on producing waste. sure the start up might be a bit more expensive to design and build the more efficient process, but you get that in pay back in time. and it seems clear that people actually BUY INTO IT, even when it's not politically correct. look at how well japanese auto manufacturers have done by putting the money and effort into designing and building higher quality, more efficient vehicles, even before anyone cared about something like a prius. there might be some lessons in that, whether or not you believe the evidence pointing to "AGW".
As you keep saying, who should I write my check out to? You can keep telling me that all the evidence is there, it doesn't make it so.
Will you come back here, make a post admitting to the fallacy of your position if this turns out to be garbage? Will you? I will sure do it. I will come back and say, you know hello, you were right, I was skeptical when all was shown to be leading to AGW. I was wrong.
Or, will you come back and make excuses, try to explain off issues until you can attempt to claim you weren't really wrong, but just not completely right?
If you want me to pay up, you better pay up with facts, not "we are pretty sure and even though we can't account for this, that, that, this, and maybe this, possibly this, some of that and that, we are 98% sure we are right". No thank you.
As you keep saying, who should I write my check out to? You can keep telling me that all the evidence is there, it doesn't make it so.
Will you come back here, make a post admitting to the fallacy of your position if this turns out to be garbage? Will you? I will sure do it. I will come back and say, you know hello, you were right, I was skeptical when all was shown to be leading to AGW. I was wrong.
Or, will you come back and make excuses, try to explain off issues until you can attempt to claim you weren't really wrong, but just not completely right?
If you want me to pay up, you better pay up with facts, not "we are pretty sure and even though we can't account for this, that, that, this, and maybe this, possibly this, some of that and that, we are 98% sure we are right". No thank you.
maybe you can look at it this way. who will be writing the check TO YOU? if things are cheaper because industry's become more efficient, thus spending less on production, thus passing some of those savings on to you, the customer, in order to compete with OTHER more efficient competitors, YOU win (as do they if they get more of your business than their competition). regardless of whether you believe the mountains of evidence (some "bad", most "good").
the facts are there, and more keep coming. this thread is some indication of that. anyone that's interested can go back and see that. in a recent post you said something like "you cover the bill, then i believe it". that might lead us to believe that you are strictly about "the bill", regardless of how solid the evidence is.
if i thought i was wrong, i would not care so much as to be writing on this forum. if i thought i was wrong, i would be making a lot more money and living more comfortably. if i thought i was wrong, i would absolutely admit it. i have a LOT of exposure to this stuff, and while i've seen some of the "Crap" you've seen, i have seen plenty to much more than compensate.
maybe you can look at it this way. who will be writing the check TO YOU? if things are cheaper because industry's become more efficient, thus spending less on production, thus passing some of those savings on to you, the customer, in order to compete with OTHER more efficient competitors, YOU win (as do they if they get more of your business than their competition). regardless of whether you believe the mountains of evidence (some "bad", most "good").
the facts are there, and more keep coming. this thread is some indication of that. anyone that's interested can go back and see that. in a recent post you said something like "you cover the bill, then i believe it". that might lead us to believe that you are strictly about "the bill", regardless of how solid the evidence is.
if i thought i was wrong, i would not care so much as to be writing on this forum. if i thought i was wrong, i would be making a lot more money and living more comfortably. if i thought i was wrong, i would absolutely admit it. i have a LOT of exposure to this stuff, and while i've seen some of the "Crap" you've seen, i have seen plenty to much more than compensate.
Cutting off ones own head to lose weight might make the weight loss more efficient, but it kind of defeats the point doesn't it? Taxing and putting in extreme regulation which will turn the economy upside down, so after 20-50 years of economic repair it might be more efficient is not a sales plan. If you are wrong, the people now live in much more hardships to pay for a surety in paranormal activity.
See, one could also lazily conclude that by assuming that I am entirely making this objection due to the bill is because you want to discredit the source rather than dealing with the issue itself. Works both ways, so why don't we leave the "assuming" to the jackasses.
Lastly, of course you believe. That is exactly what this is all about. You strongly "believe" and yet I can check off "strong believers" who caused disasters, atrocities and injustices all through history. I don't care what you "believe", I only care about what you can properly prove.
you use "certainty" or lack of 100% "certainty" as part of your foundation. and i can understand that people don't want to pay for absolutely nothing (though, actually, they do all the time when paying their cable bill for dozens of chanels they don't use, for example). yet, you don't have 100% certainty that your car is going to work (and not going to KILL you); neither does the engineer that designed it. you don't have 100% certainty that a house is going to appreciate, or that any investments whatsoever are going to pay some return, though if you abide by "conventional wisdom", you probably put your money there. you don't have 100% certainty that an asteroid's not going to blow out the planet tomorrow, so why would you care so much about your money? however, you have reason to believe that houses appreciate over the long haul, and that asteroids don't blow out the planet very regularly, and that the safety factors in your car may - when working in complex conjunction! - protect you from a lost wheel (or someone else's lost wheel) doing some damage to you. the likelihoods attributed to AGW and GW are possibly higher than your return on some investments, or your safety on the freeway.
Cutting off ones own head to lose weight might make the weight loss more efficient, but it kind of defeats the point doesn't it? Taxing and putting in extreme regulation which will turn the economy upside down, so after 20-50 years of economic repair it might be more efficient is not a sales plan. If you are wrong, the people now live in much more hardships to pay for a surety in paranormal activity.
See, one could also lazily conclude that by assuming that I am entirely making this objection due to the bill is because you want to discredit the source rather than dealing with the issue itself. Works both ways, so why don't we leave the "assuming" to the jackasses.
Lastly, of course you believe. That is exactly what this is all about. You strongly "believe" and yet I can check off "strong believers" who caused disasters, atrocities and injustices all through history. I don't care what you "believe", I only care about what you can properly prove.
how is reaping the benefits of more efficient competition analogous to cutting off one's head to save weight?
as for "the bill" and "assuming", YOU made the bill statement, noone else; and YOU are assuming that because you heard of SOME bad data and bad science (which i agree exists), the whole thing is not to be trusted.
my belief? go back through the thread, nomander. spend a few years looking at as many pieces of literature concerning this as possible, then tell us - where's the evidence point?
you use "certainty" or lack of 100% "certainty" as part of your foundation. and i can understand that people don't want to pay for absolutely nothing (though, actually, they do all the time when paying their cable bill for dozens of chanels they don't use, for example). yet, you don't have 100% certainty that your car is going to work (and not going to KILL you); neither does the engineer that designed it. you don't have 100% certainty that a house is going to appreciate, or that any investments whatsoever are going to pay some return, though if you abide by "conventional wisdom", you probably put your money there. you don't have 100% certainty that an asteroid's not going to blow out the planet tomorrow, so why would you care so much about your money? however, you have reason to believe that houses appreciate over the long haul, and that asteroids don't blow out the planet very regularly, and that the safety factors in your car may - when working in complex conjunction! - protect you from a lost wheel (or someone else's lost wheel) doing some damage to you. the likelihoods attributed to AGW and GW are possibly higher than your return on some investments, or your safety on the freeway.
That is avoiding the issue with these positions. You attempt to connect certainty to understanding the meaning of all things when I would just be happy with you being able to explain the inconsistencies and relevant unknowns in the research. The issues you attempt to bring up are accounted for, tested, proven to be reliable. Your methods of study have not. I get into a car, I know the risks of accidents, part failures, etc, but you know what? Ive been driving cars for a very long time and have never ran into the major issues. Can you say the same in climate research? I didn't think so.
All you use is "unknowns" to promote fear tactics to push people to agree with you. That or "its too complicated for you to understand, trust me". Heck even Einstien never took that lackluster position. He could explain very complex science in very simple ways, yet always answer for the discrepancies. Even on principals that were shown to be certain, proven, and accepted without conflict he stated as being only a truth until it could be unproven. Yet, here you are in climate research taking arrogant stances on definitives when you can't even push AGW into the field of a theory among scientific standards. Say you have and I know you are selling me a big fish story.
As I said though, we disagree. Accept that or move on. I dislike you approach to the discussion and I really don't want to bicker over "opinion" matters which is what we end up doing each time. So please, I won't respond to you anymore and you don't respond to me. No good will come of it.
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.
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.
