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.
What's the point of "THIS PURPOSE OF ARGUMENT" when we are talk about events that occurring in the real world? Yes in your fantasy argument world we should be matching the extreme with extreme. However, it really doesn't matter because....
My apologies for thinking this a discussion on matters in the real world, instead of for "the sake of argument".
Does this really need to be spelled out?
If it hasn't been immediately obvious, I come down on the skeptical side of this argument, so I say "for the sake of argument" because I don't think that climate change is an immediate and urgent threat.
So when I say "for the sake of argument", it means that I am trying to follow the thought patterns, the motives and the logic of the people who DO believe that it is.
It is a matter in the real world to me because policy decisions are being made and tax payer money is being spent or rather wasted on it.
Last edited by voiceofreazon; 10-12-2014 at 10:09 PM..
I absolutely want nuclear and I bet have I more in nat gas related index funds than you. Don't pretend to know me.
That makes you quite the hypocrite if you think climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed yet see no problem in investing in that which contributes to it.
Last edited by voiceofreazon; 10-12-2014 at 09:48 PM..
The price has come down bust still higher than most other energy sources (only wave power is more expensive). Solar is being installed but that doesn't mean it's the cheapest, and we all know that it is heavily subsidized. With current solar technology we might not even have enough rare earth metals to provide the massive amounts of energy we consume.
Solar is just one key to our energy future. Nuclear is still the best bet, in my opinion. Also a fan of nat gas but the infrastructure needed to support isn't fully there, especially in the Great Plains. Too much flaring (lots of methane released) occurring because of low prices and not enough infrastructure to move the product.
It's unfortunate the environmentalist are focusing too much on emissions, instead of recycling. Cradle to grave baby.
Quote:
We probably are causing part of the warming. How much is impossible to determine..... However, these same climate scientists now claim that the ocean drivers are causing the global warming hiatus which has persisted over nearly 20 years.
It hasn't completely stopped warming, no hiatus, but you absolutely have a point. Our understanding of how the oceans affect the heat absorption is clearly far from complete. Not to mention we missed coal usage's effects of emitting lots of SOX, NOX, and particulate matter that work to cool the planet. It's a complicated issue that some speakerboxes jumped too far to conclusions.
What didn't you find? That the IEA said it will cost 45 trillion to cut emissions in half by 2050 or that it may cost 545 trillion if there is no spontaneous decarbonization
45 trillion is pretty reasonable for cutting global emissions emissions in half, global world product is $85 trillion. It's the $545 trillion figure that is crazy high, as your article states it's impossible to know the costs until we start paying.
Quote:
And lets not be naive and believe that this tax wouldn't effect industrial output...
Industrial output is already being threatening by globalization and technology. As I said in another response, we would need a lot of infrastructure spending. It would need to be on the level of the New Deal or post WW2. A combination of smart initiatives to promote energy efficiency, targeted spending cuts, and infrastructure spending is certainly possible and one solution to solve climate change and how to accommodate our global population.
Does this really need to be spelled out?
If it hasn't been immediately obvious, I come down on the skeptical side of this argument, so I say "for the sake of argument" because I don't think that climate change is an immediate and urgent threat.
LOL, you've been entirely on the skeptical side. I understand, but you still made an argument, simply for arguments, without anything bearing on reality.
I think climate change is not the most immediate environmental disaster, but climate change action solves most of the issues that will plague accommodating over ten billion people scrambling to try and become like American consumers in the coming decades.
Quote:
So when I say "for the sake of argument", it means that I am trying to follow the thought patterns, the motives and the logic of the people who DO believe that it is.
You just stop short when these people turn thought patterns into political action conveniently.
Quote:
It is a matter in the real world to me because policy decisions are being made and tax payer money is being spent or rather wasted on it.
So where would you rank climate science/action in the wastefulness category?
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
That makes you quite the hypocrite if you think climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed yet see no problem in investing in that which contributes to it.
No it makes me a realist. Natural gas use is better than coal use and if done properly it can not only provide jobs domestically but a cleaner energy source if we enact better energy export policies. We could become one of the top energy exporter and do it cleaner than some terrorist and corruption desert country that ends in "-stan".
You don't want nuclear, don't want coal or gas, but you still want the power. Now that's an absolute impossibility.
You got it. The Democratic Party has been systematically limiting and restricting power availability and access since the 1990s in order to turn the US into a third-world nation, just like North Korea. Such is their abject hatred of the US.
Once we exert that control, the climate will NEVER change, and we can get on with the establishment of perfection on earth.
At least until the next asteroid strike, that is
But humans are powerful because we pollute every aspect of the earth. You don't think it affects nature but I do. We pollute the air, water and land. How can that not affect us. You know what, I don't care for myself but I do care about future generations and we can't be so cavalier about this. It may not affect you and maybe you don't believe in it but give it the benefit of the doubt and think about our children and future generations.
LOL, you've been entirely on the skeptical side. I understand, but you still made an argument, simply for arguments, without anything bearing on reality.
It wasn't an argument simply for arguments, it was an attempt to figure out the mindset of the AGW folks.
Much like when posts ask what you actually plan to do about the problem.
Nothing bearing on reality? A carbon tax would drive up the cost of everything, how does that not have a bearing on reality?
How does the corruption and politicization of the scientific community not have a bearing on reality.
I'm starting to think you are the one who has lost his bearing on reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
I think climate change is not the most immediate environmental disaster, but climate change action solves most of the issues that will plague accommodating over ten billion people scrambling to try and become like American consumers in the coming decades.
Doesn't even come close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
You just stop short when these people turn thought patterns into political action conveniently.
No I don't. Once again your reading comprehension failed you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
So where would you rank climate science/action in the wastefulness category?
I don't care. Waste is waste. It's certainly up near the top. We spend tens of billions of dollars continuing to research ice cores and tree rings that lead the the exact same conclusions so that the cottage industry of climate alarmists can continue to justify their existence with more alarmism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
No it makes me a realist. Natural gas use is better than coal use and if done properly it can not only provide jobs domestically but a cleaner energy source if we enact better energy export policies. We could become one of the top energy exporter and do it cleaner than some terrorist and corruption desert country that ends in "-stan".
No, it makes you a hypocrite, by definition. Now you are basically saying that you think climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed but profiting from contributing to the problem is OK as long as it allows the US to export natural gas rather than a terrorist country. Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense
So much of your side is defined by hypocrisy is it sickening and you steadfastly refuse to own up to it.
-The president taking the jumbo jets out so he can vacation in particular beach in Hawaii.
-Al Gore selling out to Al Jazeera for oil money.
-Rich celebrities jet setting around the world while they lecture the rest of us on our carbon footprint.
-"Green" Climate marchers littering trash at their protest sites.
It's just more of the same "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy that we see over and over and over again.
It's up to others to do the heavy lifting and make the sacrifices.
It wasn't an argument simply for arguments, it was an attempt to figure out the mindset of the AGW folks.
What mindset? Why is it important? What does it matter in the actual world? Is this just some sort of "internet winz" for you?
Quote:
Much like when posts ask what you actually plan to do about the problem.
I live close to work, use public transit/bike when I can, and try and buy local as much, especially produce. What do you do?
Quote:
Nothing bearing on reality? A carbon tax would drive up the cost of everything, how does that not have a bearing on reality?
A 1 cent carbon tax wouldn't do much of anything. Stop being disingenuous and dishonest about solutions. There are many different ones, yet you are stuck on the tired old "but, but, but, the carbon tax can only do harm".
Quote:
How does the corruption and politicization of the scientific community not have a bearing on reality.
I'm starting to think you are the one who has lost his bearing on reality.
That's everywhere and not unique to anything. There are scientists on both sides in it just for the money and fame. You don't seem to be talking about the scientist on YOUR side who work(ed) for the energy producers, manufacturers, distributor. Hell, you even link their work like Dr Vincent Gray. Since you are making this polarizing, how about you start talking about YOUR side, or do two wrong make a right?
Quote:
Doesn't even come close.
How? Specifically how is it not even close?
Quote:
No I don't. Once again your reading comprehension failed you.
You claimed it was irrelevant.
Quote:
I don't care. Waste is waste. It's certainly up near the top. We spend tens of billions of dollars continuing to research ice cores and tree rings that lead the the exact same conclusions so that the cottage industry of climate alarmists can continue to justify their existence with more alarmism.
LOLz you think all waste is equal and you don't care? Again, convenient. You posted a link that claimed we have spent around ~$170 billion on green energy and initiatives since ~1970.... that's not that much money in the big picture. We have single weapon systems that cost more than the amount of money that are sitting on the shelf.
Quote:
No, it makes you a hypocrite, by definition. Now you are basically saying that you think climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed but profiting from contributing to the problem is OK as long as it allows the US to export natural gas rather than a terrorist country. Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense
How does it make me a hypocrite? How is it realistic to stop using carbon? Again you have unrealistic expectations, I think purposely. Lastly, you are lumping me into a group of people and attributing characteristics and beliefs that I don't share. If you would stop doing that maybe this discussion can go somewhere....
The world needs energy and we have an abundance of it due to improved technology. ALl of sudden people can't make money off of progress?
Quote:
So much of your side is defined by hypocrisy is it sickening and you steadfastly refuse to own up to it.
-The president taking the jumbo jets out so he can vacation in particular beach in Hawaii.
-Al Gore selling out to Al Jazeera for oil money.
-Rich celebrities jet setting around the world while they lecture the rest of us on our carbon footprint.
-"Green" Climate marchers littering trash at their protest sites.
It's just more of the same "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy that we see over and over and over again.
It's up to others to do the heavy lifting and make the sacrifices.
Yawn.... more of the same argument from you. Arguing over things that reflect a drop in the ocean. I'm pretty sure the climate marchers do more in than daily lifestyle than most of YOUR side. Like I said, you make up these strawman so you can knock them down. Being green doesn't mean you go back to living a cave or you can't ever improperly dispose of your trash during a very large event (do you even know if there were enough trash cans available?). It's simply unrealistic and makes no sense.
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.
