Originally posted by kmax87I forget, are you talking about the first auto bail out or the second? In fact, perhaps you are predicting a third.
[b]Its this very stance of retrograde backwards thinking that nearly wiped out the US auto industry. If it were not for government handouts the US car industry would be long dead.
Originally posted by WajomaHilarious! 😵
:
"Polls show large majorities in the US support the regulating and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; so people have set the values and the value of continued high level of greenhouse gas emission is very low.
with this:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?subject=Creationist_Gallup_Poll&threadid=136479[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaThe same type of "thinking" that generates a small minority to deny Man's effect on climate change is the same type of thinking that leads a minority to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence regarding the date of Man's origins. There is nothing remotely contradictory about my stances in the two threads even if the resident moron finds such a baseless assertion as "hilarious".
Nope, 'undesirable' is not a quantity, so we need the temp difference (if any), what it was caused by (i.e. what is mans contribution) then once we have that we need to know how much of a differeence the EPAs latest wet dream will make (temp difference) then we can do a cost/benefit on cap and trade, or carrot and stick as kmax more correctly puts it, with th p://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?subject=Creationist_Gallup_Poll&threadid=136479
The EPA doesn't have to quantify with exact precision what level of pollutants cause X amount of harm; the Clean Air Act would have been a nullity if they such a standard had been insisted on (there's always some amount of scientific disagreement on such a technical matter) and air pollution levels wouldn't have been sufficiently reduced. Your insane hostility to any regulation of business no matter what amount of harm they inflict on the public is just another example of your appalling ignorance of economics.
The public, if it so desired, could come to the judgment that even though these industries are causing harm by the amount of their emissions that it is unwise or impracticable to regulate them. But the people have decided otherwise so their agents at the EPA are proceeding to do what both the majority of scientists and of the people feel is necessary. That's democracy at its finest.
EDIT: As an analogy, if the fire department comes to a burning building they don't have to measure the exact temperature of the fire before they start to put it out. Anyone who insisted that it was "unscientific" for them to proceed without such precise, technical information would be judged a lunatic. That is exactly the position you are adopting as regarding greenhouse gas emissions given that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that present levels of emissions are harmful.
Originally posted by no1marauderI love it when you attempt analogy, it's so often fail, and this one is another prime example. Claiming that the numbers and dooomsday scenarios pumped out of such outfits as the IPCC or East Anglia Institute or Al bore are as accurate as what happens when your house is on fire goes way beyond exageration. It makes me think of another much more accurate analogy though, A frothing preacher standing on a pulpit with his bible in hand screaming "You're all going to fry, fry, fry in hell unless you do as I say."
The same type of "thinking" that generates a small minority to deny Man's effect on climate change is the same type of thinking that leads a minority to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence regarding the date of Man's origins. There is nothing remotely contradictory about my stances in the two threads even if the resident moron finds such a basele ...[text shortened]... overwhelming scientific consensus is that present levels of emissions are harmful.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaI never really worry about the assessments of close minded fanatics like yourself. Given that your claim is nothing should be done until the precise amount of harm is determined + the exact cost of the doing something be infallibly calculated, I'd say the analogy is apt. In essence, you are insisting on conditions that make doing anything virtually impossible. Surely you don't conduct yourself or propose that others conduct themselves in such a manner under normal conditions.
I love it when you attempt analogy, it's so often fail, and this one is another prime example. Claiming that the numbers and dooomsday scenarios pumped out of such outfits as the IPCC or East Anglia Institute or Al bore are as accurate as what happens when your house is on fire goes way beyond exageration. It makes me think of another much more accurate ana ...[text shortened]... bible in hand screaming "You're all going to fry, fry, fry in hell unless you do as I say."
As to the usual science bashing, the scientific consensus is overwhelming and goes far beyond the usual targets of right wing complaints:
Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
In the past few years, scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and whether it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, IPCC, 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level”
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
IPCC defines "very likely" as greater than 90% probability of occurrence.
Scientific Societies
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (October, 2009)
American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
"Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change." (February 2007)
American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (November 2007)
American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate
"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)
American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (December 2006)
Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006)
American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change
"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." (July 2004)
National Science Academies
U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (pdf)
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)
International academies: Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (pdf)
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring." (2005, 11 national academies of science)
International academies: The Science of Climate Change
"Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified." (2001, 16 national academies of science)
Research
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
Doran surveyed 10,257 Earth scientists. Thirty percent responded to the survey which asked: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? and 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Naomi Oreskes
"Oreskes analyzed 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the ISI database with the keywords 'climate change.'... Of all the papers, 75 percent either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it; 25 percent dealt with methods or ancient climates, taking no position on current anthropogenic [human-caused] climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
UCS Sign-on Statements
U.S. Scientists and Economists' Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
"We call on our nation's leaders to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions. The strength of the science on climate change compels us to warn the nation about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures continue to increase over pre-industrial levels (i.e. prior to 1860). As temperatures rise further, the scope and severity of global warming impacts will continue to accelerate." (2008)
Increase Your Leadership on Global Warming: A Letter from California Scientists
"If emissions continue unabated, the serious consequences of a changing climate for California are likely to include a striking increase in extreme heat and heat-related mortality, significant reductions in Sierra snowpack with severe impacts on water supply, mounting challenges to agricultural production, and sea-level rise leading to more widespread erosion of California’s beaches and coastline." (2005)
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
Originally posted by no1marauderTake it to Spirituality spanky.
I never really worry about the assessments of close minded fanatics like yourself. Given that your claim is nothing should be done until the precise amount of harm is determined + the exact cost of the doing something be infallibly calculated, I'd say the analogy is apt. In essence, you are insisting on conditions that make doing anything virtually impos ...[text shortened]... .ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
Originally posted by no1marauderrecc'd
EDIT: As an analogy, if the fire department comes to a burning building they don't have to measure the exact temperature of the fire before they start to put it out. Anyone who insisted that it was "unscientific" for them to proceed without such precise, technical information would be judged a lunatic. That is exactly the position you are adopting as reg ...[text shortened]... n that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that present levels of emissions are harmful.
Originally posted by Wajoma...and the analogy extends further, we have a kind of pascals wager parallel with the god botherers, the panic merchants don't know mans effect, they don't know what effect all their talk fests will have, they don't know the effect their taxes, penalties, legislation, regulation will have on the environment, but you shouldn't question it, follow the word of the environmental fundamentalists...
I love it when you attempt analogy, it's so often fail, and this one is another prime example. Claiming that the numbers and dooomsday scenarios pumped out of such outfits as the IPCC or East Anglia Institute or Al bore are as accurate as what happens when your house is on fire goes way beyond exageration. It makes me think of another much more accurate ana ...[text shortened]... bible in hand screaming "You're all going to fry, fry, fry in hell unless you do as I say."
...just in case.
1 edit
Originally posted by Wajoma"Environmental fundamentalists" like the American Meteorological Society and the other scientific organizations mentioned in the cite I provided?
...and the analogy extends further, we have a kind of pascals wager parallel with the god botherers, the panic merchants don't know mans effect, they don't know what effect all their talk fests will have, they don't know the effect their taxes, penalties, legislation, regulation will have on the environment, but you shouldn't question it, follow the word of the environmental fundamentalists...
...just in case.
Originally posted by whodeycome up with a better plan then or quit yer whining
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-epa-emissions-20101224,0,4110504.story
"The EPA announced a timetable Thursday to curtail greenhouse gas emissions from two major sources of the pollution scientists link to global warming: power plants and oil refineries.
The announcement was the latest step in an ambitious effort to begin taking ac ...[text shortened]... dministration to regulate what they have been unable to legislate."
Originally posted by WajomaYour response remided me of a C.S. Lewis quote I read the other day.
I love it when you attempt analogy, it's so often fail, and this one is another prime example. Claiming that the numbers and dooomsday scenarios pumped out of such outfits as the IPCC or East Anglia Institute or Al bore are as accurate as what happens when your house is on fire goes way beyond exageration. It makes me think of another much more accurate ana ...[text shortened]... bible in hand screaming "You're all going to fry, fry, fry in hell unless you do as I say."
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber baron's cruelty than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own "good" will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
He was but a prophet!!
Originally posted by uzlessHow about carbon free nuclear power and cleaner burning natural gas for starters? Then convert all government buildings to solar power.
come up with a better plan then or quit yer whining
I don't mind paying more money for viable alternatives, however, the cap and tax scheme, which would make people like Al Gore and company even more wealthy than they already are, is a complete joke.
In short, I am sick to death of the redistribution of wealth, as are most other Americans. Now its time to make some investements in the US.
Originally posted by whodeyYour response reminds me ......................... that you are an idiot.
Your response remided me of a C.S. Lewis quote I read the other day.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber baron's cruelty than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satia ...[text shortened]... end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
He was but a prophet!!
The "tyranny" of popular measures to control pollution makes me tremble in terror.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe EPA proposals have nothing to do with "cap and trade", you dolt.
How about carbon free nuclear power and cleaner burning natural gas for starters? Then convert all government buildings to solar power.
I don't mind paying more money for viable alternatives, however, the cap and tax scheme, which would make people like Al Gore and company even more wealthy than they already are, is a complete joke.
In short, I am sick ...[text shortened]... tion of wealth, as are most other Americans. Now its time to make some investements in the US.
Apparently you have no problem redistributing wealth to owners of nuclear power plants.
Originally posted by no1marauderWho is the bigger idiot? Is it the one who is accused of being an idiot or the one who constantly argues with the one he accuses of being an idiot?
Your response reminds me ......................... that you are an idiot.
The "tyranny" of popular measures to control pollution makes me tremble in terror.