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.
I'm well aware of how science works. Usually, the actual scientists who spend years learning volumes of foundational knowledge and then slowly building and rigorously testing intricate models are more trustworthy than the people who parrot what their politicians and talk show hosts tell them, particularly when your arguments all have basically nothing to do with science and everything to do with, conveniently, your favorite political causes.
Climate science touches on a lot of areas, but that doesn't mean any ol' physicist has a credible opinion on it. It certainly doesn't mean that someone whose speciality is in a different field has the authority to, without doing any research in the area, overturn the the biggest, most prominent results in the field.
That's about as plausible as a chemist coming up with a magic bullet that disproves 150 years of research into evolution. It's only convincing to people who make it into a political issue and who are thus rooting for a particular outcome.
If you don't want to be associated with fringe opinions, don't share one. Simple. Side with the scientific experts instead of with the people with no expertise in the field but who are somehow certain that the experts are wrong.
No actually you're not well aware of how science works or you wouldn't have wasted a collective hour arguing in this thread about how AGW 'Climate scientists' outnumber those who are skeptical of the so-called science until I pointed out to you that it's not a popularity contest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlAndSparrow
Usually, the actual scientists who spend years learning volumes of foundational knowledge and then slowly building and rigorously testing...
As with any discipline, 'scientists' are on bell curves of competence, and depth of thought. History of Science is filled with Marc Hausers, Walter Freemans, Paul Ehrlichs,....
Except so-called climate scientist's models never work. The more frequent and severe hurricanes predicted year over year--publicized for several consecutive years in the 90s--never happened. Not only did their frequency and severity decline but they've been at their lowest number in 30 to 40 years. Florida has gone 10 years now without one. They also didn't predict that the eastern seaboard of the U.S. has had far-cooler than avg. summers, including this one, in five contiguous seasons.
That those "models" never worked--and common sensically wouldn't--isn't fringe opinion. You'd know this if you weren't dependent on Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg and other popular culture opinion-makers for your Climate religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlAndSparrow
Climate science touches on a lot of areas, but that doesn't mean any ol' physicist has a credible opinion on it. It certainly doesn't mean that someone whose speciality is in a different field has the authority to, without doing any research in the area, overturn the the biggest, most prominent results in the field.
You're continually oblivious to the fact that, far from "Climate science touches on a lot of areas," in actuality the new cross-discipline doesn't exist without those "other areas" coming together to discuss it, to collaborate, to contribute, and to disagree.
However, environmental regulations don't tend to affect my standard of living,
Sure they do, it's just not plain to see. A carbon tax may only increase the cost of goods slightly but it will increase the cost of everything. Certain products more than others, for example cement and steel production would take a very large hit on this. You only need cement and steel to build homes, sidewalks, roads, bridges, airports, schools, hospitals, manufacturing plants.......
Quote:
Mourning the death of fossil fuels as our primary energy source will soon be a thing of the past as the rest of us move on.
And what do you propose to replace it with? The fundmental reason fossil fuels will continue to dominate is storage and that applies to electric, automobiles etc. Let's take solar for example. Ignoring the fact presently it would take some ridiculous amount of money to do this compared to traditional fossil plants let's suppose we built enough solar arrays to replace the current crop of power plants. For 8 hours a day you can supply power with solar, what are doing for the other 16?
We could keep all those fossil plants and use them for the other 16 but now you have very expensive solar system and need to maintain a fleet of fossil plants on top of that.
We could triple the size of our arrays and build a storage system like pumping water uphill. This triples the cost of production, introduces it's own inefficiencies and the cost of the storage system. Now we're good for one day.
What if the sun isn't shining for one week? How much capacity and storage do you feel comfortable with having?
Last edited by thecoalman; 07-01-2015 at 01:50 AM..
The tax goes to pay off government debt, which goes through BIS.
What does paying off government debt accomplish. Nothing really. It's a blank check. Two political parties have ruled for decades and neither one has been able to control spending effectively.
So pay off the debt with a wealth transfer to government = a blank check to spend on whatever some elected lunatic can dream up. It's the crap sandwich with fresh bread and the same old disgusting taste.
I've heard that one before, I'll believe it when I see it.
The only thing taxes do is pay interest on the debt that the federal gov't has amassed. A carbon tax is intended only to contribute to those interest installments.
It has nothing to do with bettering the planet or paying off debt.
The only thing taxes do is pay interest on the debt that the federal gov't has amassed. A carbon tax is intended only to contribute to those interest installments.
It has nothing to do with bettering the planet or paying off debt.
Finally the question is answered and that is carbon taxes are not used to clean the environment or to mitigate the use of that carbon usage. Who has decided NOT to fly because of the de-incentive of a carbon tax.
The carbon taxes should go to the engineers who build the planes so future ones are more efficient. Gas taxes are designed to be rerouted back to repair highways.
Hawaii has the highest percentage of it's electricity produced by oil than any other state. Even though their solar panels per house is highest per capita, the surge requirements require industry to produce electricity as needed, which is oil burning electrical plants. Hawaii already has over $.30 per kw :eek and adding a carbon tax won't stop Hawaii's dependence on oil.
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.
