BF2S Forums Rick Perry, Republican Presidential candidate

AussieReaper wrote:

Spark wrote:

He hasn't?

"I've now had quite a number of years exposure to scientists, and they tend to either be apolitical (as in they don't give a shit), or they lean libertarian/conservative. The only liberal scientists I've met have gone into the field with an agenda in place already."

Yeah, he thinks those liberal scientists have an "agenda" of, wait for it - wealth distribution.

You are beyond stupid.

AussieReaper wrote:

You're the one claiming left wing scientists are in the field with the agenda of wealth redistribution and are distorting the numbers of real scientist who do/do not believe in climate change.

You never did answer how many scientists you think don't consider climate change real. You did say that the numbers were exaggerated...

A lot of them have an agenda Aussie. Did I say that it was necessarily wealth redistribution? No, I didn't. You're putting words in my mouth. I said the green agenda is wealth redistribution. They are not necessarily the same. That said, I wasn't wrong. Science and math don't seem to appeal to people who lean left for whatever reason. The only left-leaners that I've known went into it specifically so they could work for NPO's and have credibility when speaking. Those specific people had an agenda. One girl I went to school with was into the whole shebang: PETA, vegan, greenpeace, oil company hating etc. What was her field of study? Geology. Why? So she could rip into oil companies with a semblance of scientific credibility to back her up. Thankfully, my school didn't have an environmental science field or it would've been even worse. Who goes into environmental science without an agenda? No one. It's not real science by the normal definition i.e. Calculus and physics based. It's data collection.

So again, believing in climate change is not the same as believing in the fixes that are pushed on the left. Stop equating scientific consensus on climate change with scientific consensus on your own agenda.

It doesn't matter. They can deny all they want. It will have less impact on the world than if the left got their way. Installing cap and trade or a carbon tax in America will do absolutely nothing to fix the problem. Throwing money into creating algae blooms in the oceans in order to each carbon will do more harm than good. Throwing billions of dollars into inefficient feel good green energy projects does nothing but raise the price of electricity without putting a dent in emissions. I'd rather side with the people that will do nothing than with the well intentioned do-gooders that will destroy the world economy while fixing nothing. China and India aren't going to slit their own throats and accede to carbon caps, and even if they did, the caps are set at such a high level that it's meaningless anyway. You just have to accept the way the world is, rather than wishing it was something it can never be. If the climate changes, we'll have to adapt. That's the only real course of action that is rational. Everything else is like trying to push water uphill.

AussieReaper wrote:

You don't think that by denying climate change, that they would be making those inevitable conditions worse?

Disbanding the EPA isn't a great idea when your rivers become filled with pollutants for the sake of "well we'll just adapt" or the air pollution causes acid rain but "hey the economy is doing well".

I'd rather side with the group that accepts the science and tries to fix it than the group that shove their heads into the sand while at the same time pissing into the sandpit.

It's got nothing to do with not wanting clean rivers Aussie, it has to do with the expansion of power and scope that the Obama administration has been trying to push via the EPA. He put activists in charge. Activists that want to do an end run around congress and start fining carbon polluters. If you fine carbon polluters, they will just move to China and pollute more than they can get away with here. You make the problem worse, and you lose jobs in the process. That's the argument.

Or, if they don't move, like energy companies are unable to do, they'll just tack the extra costs onto the consumers bill. Either way, it would end up hurting America for no gain.

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

It doesn't matter. They can deny all they want. It will have less impact on the world than if the left got their way. Installing cap and trade or a carbon tax in America will do absolutely nothing to fix the problem. Throwing money into creating algae blooms in the oceans in order to each carbon will do more harm than good. Throwing billions of dollars into inefficient feel good green energy projects does nothing but raise the price of electricity without putting a dent in emissions. I'd rather side with the people that will do nothing than with the well intentioned do-gooders that will destroy the world economy while fixing nothing. China and India aren't going to slit their own throats and accede to carbon caps, and even if they did, the caps are set at such a high level that it's meaningless anyway. You just have to accept the way the world is, rather than wishing it was something it can never be. If the climate changes, we'll have to adapt. That's the only real course of action that is rational. Everything else is like trying to push water uphill.

China is throwing ridiculous amounts of money at renewables tbf (comparatively). And opening more nuclear plants than the rest of the world combined - some of them starting to branch into 5th gen territory. They're going to be the first to MSTR. Unless India gets there first, they're also throwing a lot of money at the projects.

blame the greenie weenies for not wanting nuclear.

Cybargs wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

It doesn't matter. They can deny all they want. It will have less impact on the world than if the left got their way. Installing cap and trade or a carbon tax in America will do absolutely nothing to fix the problem. Throwing money into creating algae blooms in the oceans in order to each carbon will do more harm than good. Throwing billions of dollars into inefficient feel good green energy projects does nothing but raise the price of electricity without putting a dent in emissions. I'd rather side with the people that will do nothing than with the well intentioned do-gooders that will destroy the world economy while fixing nothing. China and India aren't going to slit their own throats and accede to carbon caps, and even if they did, the caps are set at such a high level that it's meaningless anyway. You just have to accept the way the world is, rather than wishing it was something it can never be. If the climate changes, we'll have to adapt. That's the only real course of action that is rational. Everything else is like trying to push water uphill.

China is throwing ridiculous amounts of money at renewables tbf (comparatively). And opening more nuclear plants than the rest of the world combined - some of them starting to branch into 5th gen territory. They're going to be the first to MSTR. Unless India gets there first, they're also throwing a lot of money at the projects.

blame the greenie weenies for not wanting nuclear.

I can, I will, and I am.

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

You don't think that by denying climate change, that they would be making those inevitable conditions worse?

Disbanding the EPA isn't a great idea when your rivers become filled with pollutants for the sake of "well we'll just adapt" or the air pollution causes acid rain but "hey the economy is doing well".

I'd rather side with the group that accepts the science and tries to fix it than the group that shove their heads into the sand while at the same time pissing into the sandpit.

It's got nothing to do with not wanting clean rivers Aussie, it has to do with the expansion of power and scope that the Obama administration has been trying to push via the EPA. He put activists in charge. Activists that want to do an end run around congress and start fining carbon polluters. If you fine carbon polluters, they will just move to China and pollute more than they can get away with here. You make the problem worse, and you lose jobs in the process. That's the argument.

Or, if they don't move, like energy companies are unable to do, they'll just tack the extra costs onto the consumers bill. Either way, it would end up hurting America for no gain.

That's sort of the point, isn't it? Elasticity arguments notwithstanding (which I know you can't ignore, but here I am doing that anyway for sake of argument)

I can't abide coercion.

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

It's got nothing to do with not wanting clean rivers Aussie, it has to do with the expansion of power and scope that the Obama administration has been trying to push via the EPA. He put activists in charge. Activists that want to do an end run around congress and start fining carbon polluters. If you fine carbon polluters, they will just move to China and pollute more than they can get away with here. You make the problem worse, and you lose jobs in the process. That's the argument.

Or, if they don't move, like energy companies are unable to do, they'll just tack the extra costs onto the consumers bill. Either way, it would end up hurting America for no gain.

That's sort of the point, isn't it? Elasticity arguments notwithstanding (which I know you can't ignore, but here I am doing that anyway for sake of argument)

I can't abide coercion.

That's a philosophical objection though, not an effectiveness one.

Jay wrote:

I don't like wasting money on dead end technology like solar plants and wind farms. They're inefficient and overly costly (and no, those costs won't decrease with higher production, they will increase).

And it's not like efficiency standards ever improve, is it?

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

I don't like wasting money on dead end technology like solar plants and wind farms. They're inefficient and overly costly (and no, those costs won't decrease with higher production, they will increase).

And it's not like efficiency standards ever improve, is it?

Not really much more that you can do with either technology. Wind turbines are pretty much at their peak. Solar could get more efficient, but it would be much more expensive.

Eco-warriors. Gotta love indoctrination.

Spark wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Jay wrote:

Time marches on AR, the climate has changed continuously throughout human history. What the activists want is essentially to lock the climate in stasis because they've chosen the current point in history as the one that they like the most (because they know no other). What hubris! Look, I'm not a global warming denier, I just laugh at the End Is Nigh crowd. They're no different than the Christians praying for the rapture in their lifetime. They seek purpose, and to have their opinions validated, even if it means destroying the human race in the process.

The future is going to be fun because the kids going to primary school right now are taught about 'the evils of global warming' and its 'ultimate solution' being windmills and solar panels. They label the next generation as being "environmentally conscious" (read; indoctrinated in a religion-esque fashion).

I had a 9 year old tell me that man is evil because we are 'destroying the planet'.

Little kids tbh. What I fear is the potential of a backlash response driving them against science in general. That'll kill Western pre-eminence as surely as anything else we might envisage.

Kind of like those of us that were religiously indoctrinated as children became fervently anti-religious? That's always the drawback for any sort of indoctrination, especially when it doesn't fit reality.

Spark wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Jay wrote:

Time marches on AR, the climate has changed continuously throughout human history. What the activists want is essentially to lock the climate in stasis because they've chosen the current point in history as the one that they like the most (because they know no other). What hubris! Look, I'm not a global warming denier, I just laugh at the End Is Nigh crowd. They're no different than the Christians praying for the rapture in their lifetime. They seek purpose, and to have their opinions validated, even if it means destroying the human race in the process.

The future is going to be fun because the kids going to primary school right now are taught about 'the evils of global warming' and its 'ultimate solution' being windmills and solar panels. They label the next generation as being "environmentally conscious" (read; indoctrinated in a religion-esque fashion).

I had a 9 year old tell me that man is evil because we are 'destroying the planet'.

Little kids tbh. What I fear is the potential of a backlash response driving them against science in general. That'll kill Western pre-eminence as surely as anything else we might envisage.

They're not really teaching these kids science or reason tbh.