Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 15, 2011 - 02:12pm PT
|
OK The Chief, how about a new DMM cam? Come on, I'm just asking you to back up what you claim. Even making an attempt would be special.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 15, 2011 - 02:14pm PT
|
OK, you pass on trying to back anything up. I get it.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2011 - 02:22pm PT
|
Seriously dealing with the threat of climate change would require government to heavily regulate corporations and subsidize renewable energy. It would entail a strong international body, most likely boosting the power of the UN. It would bring an end to the inefficient and energy-wasting free-trade agenda, as localizing economies would become necessary to sustain communities. And, most importantly, confronting climate change demands addressing climate justice for developing nations suffering from the pollution of industrialized nations, or more simply, a redistribution of wealth from North to South.
This kind of writing does nothing to help. It gives fuel to the deniers that believe it's all a hoax or scam. It's an all or nothing approach that says we have to have international heavy regulations to do anything about it.
Any efforts to combat AGW can help. Just encouraging voluntary conservation can help.
If we got lucky and simply put research money into renewable/green energy sources we might find an energy source as cheap as fossil fuels and we wouldn't have to regulate anything.
What will probably happen is that when we see more actual negative quantifiable economic effects of AGW we will make cooresponding efforts to combat it.
pro-AGW agenda. What is that agenda?
He's ducked that question a number of times.
Anti AGW science poses a threat to all that the Pro AGWers seek.
I could see buying into the idea that some scientists and some politicians have something to gain from action on AGW. But what do "all" AGWers seek? What is their agenda? I don't stand to make a dime and I understand that my energy costs could be higher with action on AGW, so doing something about AGW could cost me. So why would I be "pro" AGW, it makes no sense.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2011 - 02:27pm PT
|
The fact that you and the others can't see how narrow and single minded you all are towards anyone that does not agree with you or the AGW agenda, says more than to the fact that this is all a perfect example of fanaticism, than anything else.
Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]
Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2011 - 02:43pm PT
|
Chief, you are putting the cart before the horse. Awareness of AGW came from science and then later people started talking about what should be done about it.
Personally I would rather put the focus of our efforts to combat it into renewable / green energy research. If the US took the lead in this WE could be the ones making huge amounts of money from energy instead of the middle east, etc.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2011 - 02:50pm PT
|
This is an interesting article:
http://www.aceee.org/press/2010/04/americas-anemic-13-percent-economy-experts-warn-us-risks
I read on another site energy cost is about 9% of the economy.
Some quotes from the article above:
e U.S. economy remains only about 13 percent energy efficient. That still unacceptably high level of inefficiency either will be allowed to remain in place and therefore leave the U.S. mired in lackluster economic activity … or it will be tackled head-on, leading to new efficiency advances and unleashing robust future economic growth in the U.S. For example, Japan and several European countries are about 20% efficient, a factor of 1.5 higher than the U.S.
How big might the next round of potential energy efficiency be? If we invested in more energy productive technologies, energy efficiency investments can provide up to one-half of the needed greenhouses gas emissions reductions most scientists say are needed between now and the year 2050. And that gain in energy efficiency would not only mean reduced greenhouse gas emissions, it would result in lower energy bill for consumers.
Interesting. It seems investing in energy efficiency might be even more beneficial to the US economy than new energy sources.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 15, 2011 - 03:16pm PT
|
The fact that you and others on this thread that will not even contemplate the "other side's" view, speaks decibles [sic]. -- the Chief
You have zero idea of what I believe, what I "comtemplate," and what views I deem as valid. I simply asked you to back up one of your outlandish assertions. In response, all you can do is blather gibberish.
My response to that is to ignore your rantings--people who make stuff up and try to claim them as fact have little room for my time.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2011 - 06:13pm PT
|
Skepticism is a healthy part of truth, it's denial that's a problem.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 15, 2011 - 06:39pm PT
|
Are you now asserting that everything that you have posted on this thread in regards to AGW is complete bullshet and not at all what you believe, contemplate nor are your valid views?
You are absolutely right. If you read what I wrote then indeed you would have an idea of what I view as being valid. So I misspoke (score 1 for you, The Chief).
However, I took offense to your blanket statement that AGW believers "will not even contemplate the 'other side's' view..."
I've read much of what AGW deniers say and I take those views into formulating my own views. Funny, you have convinced me that you yourself do not take into accout AGW-believer's views.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2011 - 07:34pm PT
|
Chief, it seems from you previous post that your overriding opposition stems from you personal fear of the possibility that you and your wife, on limited budget, might be faced
with a "carbon tax" of some sort and undetermined amount.
I presume you have little income or assets to get by, and thus the fear of paying another tax.
This is a legitimate fear, personal fiscal preservation.
However, it has nothing to do with the actual "science" of climate change.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 15, 2011 - 07:58pm PT
|
Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar emissions, the magnetic activity that accompanies the sunspots can produce dramatic changes in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray emission levels.
Read more: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2011 - 08:06pm PT
|
Reposting from the previous page, in hopes that the Chief sees this and confirms
that his personal limited finances are a legitimate reason for his fear of paying some tax.
Chief, it seems from you previous post that your overriding opposition stems from you personal fear of the possibility that you and your wife, on limited budget, might be faced with a "carbon tax" of some sort and undetermined amount.
I presume you have little income or assets to get by, and thus the fear of paying another tax.
This is a legitimate fear, personal fiscal preservation.
However, it has nothing to do with the actual "science" of climate change.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2011 - 08:21pm PT
|
Norton - perhaps you'll tell us how much you've spent on carbon credits?
The carbon footprint of your existence makes a difference (it doesn't
really, but you think it does and that's what counts in the modern age of warmist thought crimes)
|
|
Lennox
climber
just southwest of the center of the universe
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2011 - 08:21pm PT
|
Don't confuse Chief with The Chief; those are two very different characters.
|
|
kunlun_shan
Mountain climber
SF, CA
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2011 - 10:48pm PT
|
^^ TFPU that article, Dr. F!
Very interesting story and studies. I've long wondered about the huge gap in public opinion about global warming/climate change, and how/why its become so political.
Was surprised to find the studies in Sociological Quarterly, that your story mentions, online for free:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tsq.2011.52.issue-2/issuetoc
|
|
Lennox
climber
just southwest of the center of the universe
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2011 - 11:25am PT
|
Natural events such as massive Wild Fires, have absolutely nothing to do with "climate".
Yes, that's why there are so many of them in Antarctica and Kauai.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 17, 2011 - 11:37am PT
|
History, a record or account, often chronological in approach, of past events, developments ...
So yes, the tornadoes this season were the worst in our history.
Fact: The Chief, one of the biggest blow-hards in history of SuperTaco. Like religious fanatics, possesses an inability to register scientific facts.
No matter.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!