Originally posted by whodeyAnd how is this relevant? Do you have anything useful to say, or do you conceed that you have nothing useful to contribute and are just trying to use irrelevancies and strawmen to block any efforts others may make to make life better on this planet?
Guess what would happen without human activity on earth.
1. The environment would change.
2. The sea level would fluctuate.
Originally posted by normbenignNo, I do not. I presume that we can change the climate, and that if we work at it, we can change it in the direction we choose.
You presume that mankind can stop climate change.
You at least recognize there are costs, whereas most of the proponents deny there are such. The question is whether the costs are justified by the chances of success, against the chances that nature will take care of itself.
Of course nature will take care of itself. I may not take care of us however. The question is whether the costs of doing something are higher or lower than the costs of not doing something.
As far as I know, nobody denies the existence of costs. But in some cases the 'costs' are actually benefits. For example investing in some renewable energies will not only be good for the climate, but also good for the economy. Even more importantly, investing in energy saving technology even something as simply as house insulation, saves everybody money. The only 'loosers' are the people trying to sell you energy.
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76You forget that it was you in an earlier post who introduced the distracting assertion: "The left says: Rich people are BAD; poor people are GOOD." It is against that straw man idiocy that I wrote my response.
I agree with your basic point (until you started getting into the oligarchs ruling the planet stuff) that excessive income inequality is, by and large, a negative. You can help this by raising taxes a little and increasing opportunity through education. All that is fine and good.
But making this about "getting" the rich or disliking people merely because the d is downright crazy. You don't want to discourage people from trying to become rich either.
My post makes no suggestion of disliking people because they succeed but instead pointed out that wealth is not the product of a meritocracy. Even in business, unfair competition destroys enterprise -as for example when dealing with multi nationals that evade taxes and corporate responsibility and eliminate swathes of less flagrantly dishonest competitors. To regard income distribution or wealth as the product of meritocracy is to live in a utopian fantasy. Far from discouraging people from getting rich, I have given (quite good, I think) business advice to several very wealthy owners of good businesses and worked (with more mixed outcomes) to induce my (adult) children to make their way economically and to be ambitious.
The association of wealth with power is blatant and hardly merits a debate. The extent to which inherited wealth shapes opportunities is also evident and the ladder is being kicked away in Britain by the Bullingdon Boys as in the US in the name of an ideology of self styled individualism (actually - oligarchy). The beneficiaries of inherited privilige are protesting about the "something for nothing society" on the basis that only wealthy families should enjoy plenty for nothing. The features of oligarchy are as blatant in the modern West as in the Roman Empire, which also offered a surface ideology of rule by law and religion.
Originally posted by whodeyFunny thing: Dinosaurs existed for over 150 million years. Man has produced significant carbon emissions for about 200 years.
As sh76 indicated, the left's approach is just to create another big pile of money as a "save the world fund". You know, kinda like how the stimulus saved us all. Even if cap and trade was inacted today, from what I read it would not significantly reduce carbon emissions.
Sorry, but there were more carbon emissions according to scientists from dinosaur ...[text shortened]... amed the earth are now extinct and most of it was not at the hand of mankind. Life goes on.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have absolutely no problem with people buying technology they see as beneficial. I drive an economic vehicle. I've looked at building both wind turbines and solar collection panels.
No, I do not. I presume that we can change the climate, and that if we work at it, we can change it in the direction we choose.
[b]You at least recognize there are costs, whereas most of the proponents deny there are such. The question is whether the costs are justified by the chances of success, against the chances that nature will take care of itsel ...[text shortened]... ulation, saves everybody money. The only 'loosers' are the people trying to sell you energy.
The problem is that when government dictates technologies, costs escalate exponentially. And since the advocates don't pay any price for advocating costly but foolish methods, there isn't any incentive for them to check first.
The Mackinac Center, for example, calculates the cost to each taxpayer for each Chevy Volt sold at as high as $250K. The people pushing for electric cars will never be held accountable for this, since they are widely viewed to be on the side of the angels, and if they are mistaken their motives are pure.
Originally posted by normbenignI don't know what advocates you are talking about. Surely if you pay then they pay, or are they rich?
The problem is that when government dictates technologies, costs escalate exponentially. And since the advocates don't pay any price for advocating costly but foolish methods, there isn't any incentive for them to check first.
I also don't understand why your disgust with politics has anything to do with the question of whether climate change is going to harm us and whether or not doing something about it is a wise thing to do.
The Mackinac Center, for example, calculates the cost to each taxpayer for each Chevy Volt sold at as high as $250K. The people pushing for electric cars will never be held accountable for this, since they are widely viewed to be on the side of the angels, and if they are mistaken their motives are pure.
Well the US is hardly a leader in electric cars, so who cares? I am pushing for electric cars because here in Africa it could potentially save me a massive amount of money. My sister claims it would save here 60% of here yearly fuel costs - and that fuel costs are a significant proportion of her farms costs.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNice blog referenced there though it is discussing the Greenland surface melt maps rather than the iceberg the size of Manhatten which sparked this thread. It is worth reminding anyone who cares that I said in a post earlier that it would take thousands of years to melt all the ce over Greenland even with global warming. I could be wrong - but this was said by a scientist on BBC Radio 4 this week. The blog makes the excellent point as follows:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/unprecedented-greenland-surface-melt-every-150-years/
The inaccurate headline and burst of hyperventilating coverage and commentary ..have already provided fodder for those whose passion or job is largely aimed at spreading doubt about science pointing to consequential greenhouse-driven warming.
This is unfortunate because the NASA release otherwise provided a fascinating, timely description of an unusual event, along with the historical context,...
Climate change is taking place at a pace too slow for tabloid journalism to keep much interest in - it does not seem exciting enough - just a few degrees on average over a longer time period than even a two term presidency like Obama's. The reality is a lot less colourful unless you have the imagination to consider where it is leading. No disaster has happened yet - the point is to anticipate and hopefully pre-empt a potential and realistically predicted disaster while it remains a possibility. Imagination? Not a lot in evidence. 🙁
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy point is not anti electric cars. It is leave car making to car makers. Government bureaucrats aren't good at much of anything, so keep them out of making landmark choices on the direction of our economy.
I don't know what advocates you are talking about. Surely if you pay then they pay, or are they rich?
I also don't understand why your disgust with politics has anything to do with the question of whether climate change is going to harm us and whether or not doing something about it is a wise thing to do.
[b]The Mackinac Center, for example, calculate ...[text shortened]... here yearly fuel costs - and that fuel costs are a significant proportion of her farms costs.
I'm talking about advocates such as former VP Al Gore, and his cap and trade notions which are nothing but enrichment schemes for him and his friends. By now Global Warming (now climate change) advocates have been so wrong, so often, and at times fraudulently so, it is hard to imagine why anyone believes them anymore.
As I said previously, these advocates always position themselves as angelic, and are seldom taken to account for their mistakes.
Originally posted by normbenignSo in your opinion the whole NASA thing and science budget are mistakes? What about the bailing out of the car makers?
My point is not anti electric cars. It is leave car making to car makers. Government bureaucrats aren't good at much of anything, so keep them out of making landmark choices on the direction of our economy.
I'm talking about advocates such as former VP Al Gore, and his cap and trade notions which are nothing but enrichment schemes for him and his friends. By now Global Warming (now climate change) advocates have been so wrong, so often, and at times fraudulently so, it is hard to imagine why anyone believes them anymore.
They haven't been wrong nearly as much as the anti-global warming group (who are really anti cap and trade because they are involved in enrichment schemes that depend on not having a carbon tax).
But ultimately its not about Cap and Trade. You can discuss that separately as part of possible solutions to the problem. Problems don't go away simply because you don't like one of the proposed solutions.
Rising sea levels are going to cost an awful lot. So are other factors related to Climate change. The question is whether to move all our coastal cities, wall them in, or stop the sea level rising. Or a bit of all three. Denying that the ocean is rising because cap and trade is profitable for someone you don't like is simply stupid.
As I said previously, these advocates always position themselves as angelic, and are seldom taken to account for their mistakes.
I think you would find that really hard to substantiate. I certainly have never seen them as angelic. But maybe its different in the US where Al Gore seems to be the only person anyone listens to when it comes to climate change. Its as if they are blind and deaf to anyone else. I on the other hand knew about climate change long before Al Gore did.
Originally posted by twhitehead"So in your opinion the whole NASA thing and science budget are mistakes? What about the bailing out of the car makers?"
So in your opinion the whole NASA thing and science budget are mistakes? What about the bailing out of the car makers?
[b]I'm talking about advocates such as former VP Al Gore, and his cap and trade notions which are nothing but enrichment schemes for him and his friends. By now Global Warming (now climate change) advocates have been so wrong, so ofte ...[text shortened]... deaf to anyone else. I on the other hand knew about climate change long before Al Gore did.
NASA has been an expensive luxury. The bailouts whether of bankers and stockbrokers or auto makers isn't proper in our system of government. Regardless of the size or nature of an enterprise, nothing is irreplaceable, and bailouts remove the punishments for malfeasance which tend to restrict irresponsible risk taking. Repeated bailouts of auto and banking interests make these unresponsive, and it is predictable that they will get more bailouts in the future.
If rising sea levels is a guaranteed fact, it surely can't be ignored, but as far as I can see, there are no guarantees. It is smart to evaluate how many of these threats are just attempts to change local or regional politics, or create economic opportunities.