13rin
Member
+977|6766
Apparently Mother Nature isn't following the doom and gloom forecasts made by Gore or the millions of Scientists's who prescribe to the quasi science/relegion known as "Global Warming".  How can this be?  What will I ever do with the warehouse full of carbon credits I've amassed?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor … 92,00.html
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6842
Did you read the entire article or just post it based on the rather simplified headline?
13rin
Member
+977|6766

CameronPoe wrote:

Did you read the entire article or just post it based on the rather simplified headline?
No.  I read it.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
jord
Member
+2,382|6965|The North, beyond the wall.
I for one think a little warmer weather will be fantastic.
Runs_with_sciss0rs
Well butter my buscuit
+121|6479|14072
Haha, all I know that it's the middle of November, it hasn't snowed once yet and it's mid 50's Fahrenheit.
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6855|Mountains of NC

for you


























https://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/ozone-layer-2.jpg
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England
Don't do that! You'll kill Australians!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6936

Strange the only people who deny it are conservatives and all scientists still seem to back it.
13rin
Member
+977|6766

ghettoperson wrote:

Strange the only people who deny it are conservatives and all scientists still seem to back it.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? … nateReport
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6855|Mountains of NC

JohnG@lt wrote:

Don't do that! You'll kill Australians!
in that case







https://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/78458134.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=B76A55A3BFD3C6A02F26557EE4FF63B7E30A760B0D811297
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6908|London, England
I don't know why American right wingers hate all this stuff. It's because of Al Gore mainly I guess, if Al Gore wasn't a left wing Democrat then he'd probably find much more support for all his Climate Change shit from the right wingers. If you replaced Al Gore with I dunno, Glenn Beck or whoever, suddenly you'd get them all going "oh shit climate change", it all boils down to political spectrum/party allegiance for Americans.

That and there's the connection with Science which brings up memories of Science vs Creationism probably.

Personally, I don't think it's as big as people say, but there's still an impact that Humans are making on the environment, a negative one for the long term. Still need to clean up our act, pollute less, waste less and look for sustainable ways to produce electricity and shit like that. I don't know why people object so badly to all this environmental stuff. It's better for everyone, surely.

You can deny Climate Change if you want, but you can't deny that the Pollution and shit is still there. Go to China if you want a good example. I still don't see why the world shouldn't look towards cutting down pollution across the board and shit like that.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-11-19 13:01:43)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Mekstizzle wrote:

I don't know why American right wingers hate all this stuff. It's because of Al Gore mainly I guess, if Al Gore wasn't a left wing Democrat then he'd probably find much more support for all his Climate Change shit from the right wingers. If you replaced Al Gore with I dunno, Glenn Beck or whoever, suddenly you'd get them all going "oh shit climate change", it all boils down to political spectrum/party allegiance for Americans.

That and there's the connection with Science which brings up memories of Science vs Creationism probably.

Personally, I don't think it's as big as people say, but there's still an impact that Humans are making on the environment, a negative one for the long term. Still need to clean up our act, pollute less, waste less and look for sustainable ways to produce electricity and shit like that. I don't know why people object so badly to all this environmental stuff. It's better for everyone, surely.

You can deny Climate Change if you want, but you can't deny that the Pollution and shit is still there. Go to China if you want a good example. I still don't see why the world shouldn't look towards cutting down pollution across the board and shit like that.
I don't really know too many that refute that humans have an impact on nature. Drop a piece of trash on the sidewalk and you've degraded your environment. However, I find it really hard to believe that the world is going to end, the polar ice caps are going to melt and the polar bears are all going to drown because of a 0.02% increase in atmospheric carbon. Nor do I feel that carbon credits and cap and trade are the answer or even really anything more than another level of beurocracy in which people can make money by doing... nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's really nothing more than the old jobs the King of England used to give out back in the day: Customs officer. The guy made money every time wool was exported out of the country and all he had to do was support the king and provide him a line of credit. He did no work, just collected his money and went about his business.

"Rent seeking
In economics, rent seeking occurs when an individual, organization or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through manipulation or exploitation of the economic environment, rather than by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of added wealth.

Most studies of rent seeking focus on efforts to capture special monopoly privileges, such as government regulation of free enterprise competition, though the term itself is derived from the far older and more established practice of appropriating a portion of production by gaining ownership or control of land."

Now, I'm all for planting trees and having earth days and pollution caps on cars and filters in smokestacks. What I won't abide is rent seeking behavior hiding behind environmental causes and deceiving people into believing they're helping the environment by supporting these measures.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6952|NT, like Mick Dundee

SEREMAKER wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Don't do that! You'll kill Australians!
in that case







http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/784581 … 0B0D811297
:'(
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
13rin
Member
+977|6766

Mekstizzle wrote:

I don't know why American right wingers hate all this stuff. It's because of Al Gore mainly I guess, if Al Gore wasn't a left wing Democrat then he'd probably find much more support for all his Climate Change shit from the right wingers. If you replaced Al Gore with I dunno, Glenn Beck or whoever, suddenly you'd get them all going "oh shit climate change", it all boils down to political spectrum/party allegiance for Americans.

That and there's the connection with Science which brings up memories of Science vs Creationism probably.

Personally, I don't think it's as big as people say, but there's still an impact that Humans are making on the environment, a negative one for the long term. Still need to clean up our act, pollute less, waste less and look for sustainable ways to produce electricity and shit like that. I don't know why people object so badly to all this environmental stuff. It's better for everyone, surely.

You can deny Climate Change if you want, but you can't deny that the Pollution and shit is still there. Go to China if you want a good example. I still don't see why the world shouldn't look towards cutting down pollution across the board and shit like that.
Don't misunderstand me for I am a conservationist.  For me GW, has nothing to do with Gore.  Actually, I bow to his ingenuity of being able to make an outrageous profit off it.  Also, Beck is a loud mouth dipshit.  But for people to say Man is causing the planet to warm is arrogent and wrong.

I won't argue with you as to the pollution and I never have denied it.  Its fucking despicable.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Apparently Mother Nature isn't following the doom and gloom forecasts made by Gore or the millions of Scientists's who prescribe to the quasi science/relegion known as "Global Warming".  How can this be?  What will I ever do with the warehouse full of carbon credits I've amassed?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor … 92,00.html
Its a long term trend, the dataset taken is too small.
Or there is some unknown effect we are unaware of, like China pumping out billions of tonnes of smog or increased evaporation creating mroe clouds which reflect the heat.
Fuck Israel
Jenspm
penis
+1,716|7019|St. Andrews / Oslo

DBBrinson1 wrote:

But for people to say Man is causing the planet to warm is arrogent and wrong.
What's arrogant is you, having done zero real research on the subject, saying a massive ammount of highly-educated scientists, who have spent many years studying this, are wrong.

Last edited by Jenspm (2009-11-19 13:57:44)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png https://twitter.com/phoenix/favicon.ico
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6734|Chicago, IL
weather =/= climate, look it up.  Temperatures year to year shift wildly due to dozens of independent factors, it's the long term trends that are important.

As for global warming, I think it's rather naive of us, who as a race have been monitoring temperatures for about 200 years, to make predictions one way or the other about climate cycles that take 400,000 years to complete.  Sure the world may be getting warmer, but it's not all bad.  Louisiana, you're fucked, Canada and Siberia, you just got millions of acres of new farmland.  The Earth has cycled between tropical rainforests and frozen tundras many times in it's 4 billion year history, and will continue to do so, Humans, and everything else, will have to learn to adapt.

That said, regardless of whether or not our pollution is solely responsible for the climate shift, it's still toxic and dirty, and should be stopped.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6961|Canberra, AUS
When they do this for about two decade's worth of data then I'll take notice. One result does not overrule the weight of peer-reviewed research.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6961|Canberra, AUS

JohnG@lt wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

I don't know why American right wingers hate all this stuff. It's because of Al Gore mainly I guess, if Al Gore wasn't a left wing Democrat then he'd probably find much more support for all his Climate Change shit from the right wingers. If you replaced Al Gore with I dunno, Glenn Beck or whoever, suddenly you'd get them all going "oh shit climate change", it all boils down to political spectrum/party allegiance for Americans.

That and there's the connection with Science which brings up memories of Science vs Creationism probably.

Personally, I don't think it's as big as people say, but there's still an impact that Humans are making on the environment, a negative one for the long term. Still need to clean up our act, pollute less, waste less and look for sustainable ways to produce electricity and shit like that. I don't know why people object so badly to all this environmental stuff. It's better for everyone, surely.

You can deny Climate Change if you want, but you can't deny that the Pollution and shit is still there. Go to China if you want a good example. I still don't see why the world shouldn't look towards cutting down pollution across the board and shit like that.
I don't really know too many that refute that humans have an impact on nature. Drop a piece of trash on the sidewalk and you've degraded your environment. However, I find it really hard to believe that the world is going to end, the polar ice caps are going to melt and the polar bears are all going to drown because of a 0.02% increase in atmospheric carbon. Nor do I feel that carbon credits and cap and trade are the answer or even really anything more than another level of beurocracy in which people can make money by doing... nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's really nothing more than the old jobs the King of England used to give out back in the day: Customs officer. The guy made money every time wool was exported out of the country and all he had to do was support the king and provide him a line of credit. He did no work, just collected his money and went about his business.

"Rent seeking
In economics, rent seeking occurs when an individual, organization or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through manipulation or exploitation of the economic environment, rather than by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of added wealth.

Most studies of rent seeking focus on efforts to capture special monopoly privileges, such as government regulation of free enterprise competition, though the term itself is derived from the far older and more established practice of appropriating a portion of production by gaining ownership or control of land."

Now, I'm all for planting trees and having earth days and pollution caps on cars and filters in smokestacks. What I won't abide is rent seeking behavior hiding behind environmental causes and deceiving people into believing they're helping the environment by supporting these measures.
I'm interesteed in this. I myself thing cap and trade is the wrong way to go but what about the alternatives? No-one likes the sound of a 'carbon tax', even though that would be infinitely simpler and work infinitely better in the first few decades where it's hardest to get started. Plus it doesn't dissuade ordinary people like me and you for taking environmental measures (which cap and trade does, because if I save a credit of carbon dioxide, say, that credit just goes to someone else to use, making the whole thing an excercise in pointlessness. But if I save the same amount of carbon dioxide under a carbon taxation system it doesn't matter one bit what the other guy does, I save that amount.)

Oh, and inb4 "omg tax". Please let's have a sensible debate about this
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Jenspm wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

But for people to say Man is causing the planet to warm is arrogent and wrong.
What's arrogant is you, having done zero real research on the subject, saying a massive ammount of highly-educated scientists, who have spent many years studying this, are wrong.
Yeah? How many years have they been studying the polar ice caps? How many years have they been taking satellite images? Small sample size.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6961|Canberra, AUS

JohnG@lt wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

But for people to say Man is causing the planet to warm is arrogent and wrong.
What's arrogant is you, having done zero real research on the subject, saying a massive ammount of highly-educated scientists, who have spent many years studying this, are wrong.
Yeah? How many years have they been studying the polar ice caps? How many years have they been taking satellite images? Small sample size.
Probably at least two decades.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I don't really know too many that refute that humans have an impact on nature. Drop a piece of trash on the sidewalk and you've degraded your environment. However, I find it really hard to believe that the world is going to end, the polar ice caps are going to melt and the polar bears are all going to drown because of a 0.02% increase in atmospheric carbon. Nor do I feel that carbon credits and cap and trade are the answer or even really anything more than another level of beurocracy in which people can make money by doing... nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's really nothing more than the old jobs the King of England used to give out back in the day: Customs officer. The guy made money every time wool was exported out of the country and all he had to do was support the king and provide him a line of credit. He did no work, just collected his money and went about his business.

"Rent seeking
In economics, rent seeking occurs when an individual, organization or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through manipulation or exploitation of the economic environment, rather than by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of added wealth.

Most studies of rent seeking focus on efforts to capture special monopoly privileges, such as government regulation of free enterprise competition, though the term itself is derived from the far older and more established practice of appropriating a portion of production by gaining ownership or control of land."

Now, I'm all for planting trees and having earth days and pollution caps on cars and filters in smokestacks. What I won't abide is rent seeking behavior hiding behind environmental causes and deceiving people into believing they're helping the environment by supporting these measures.
I'm interesteed in this. I myself thing cap and trade is the wrong way to go but what about the alternatives? No-one likes the sound of a 'carbon tax', even though that would be infinitely simpler and work infinitely better in the first few decades where it's hardest to get started. Plus it doesn't dissuade ordinary people like me and you for taking environmental measures (which cap and trade does, because if I save a credit of carbon dioxide, say, that credit just goes to someone else to use, making the whole thing an excercise in pointlessness. But if I save the same amount of carbon dioxide under a carbon taxation system it doesn't matter one bit what the other guy does, I save that amount.)

Oh, and inb4 "omg tax". Please let's have a sensible debate about this
Tax would basically be the same rent seeking behavior except it would be the government doing it instead of the people that own the carbon exchange. Either way your tax does nothing except create a windfall for someone else. In this case it's the government and we all know how efficient they are.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6961|Canberra, AUS

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I don't really know too many that refute that humans have an impact on nature. Drop a piece of trash on the sidewalk and you've degraded your environment. However, I find it really hard to believe that the world is going to end, the polar ice caps are going to melt and the polar bears are all going to drown because of a 0.02% increase in atmospheric carbon. Nor do I feel that carbon credits and cap and trade are the answer or even really anything more than another level of beurocracy in which people can make money by doing... nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's really nothing more than the old jobs the King of England used to give out back in the day: Customs officer. The guy made money every time wool was exported out of the country and all he had to do was support the king and provide him a line of credit. He did no work, just collected his money and went about his business.

"Rent seeking
In economics, rent seeking occurs when an individual, organization or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through manipulation or exploitation of the economic environment, rather than by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of added wealth.

Most studies of rent seeking focus on efforts to capture special monopoly privileges, such as government regulation of free enterprise competition, though the term itself is derived from the far older and more established practice of appropriating a portion of production by gaining ownership or control of land."

Now, I'm all for planting trees and having earth days and pollution caps on cars and filters in smokestacks. What I won't abide is rent seeking behavior hiding behind environmental causes and deceiving people into believing they're helping the environment by supporting these measures.
I'm interesteed in this. I myself thing cap and trade is the wrong way to go but what about the alternatives? No-one likes the sound of a 'carbon tax', even though that would be infinitely simpler and work infinitely better in the first few decades where it's hardest to get started. Plus it doesn't dissuade ordinary people like me and you for taking environmental measures (which cap and trade does, because if I save a credit of carbon dioxide, say, that credit just goes to someone else to use, making the whole thing an excercise in pointlessness. But if I save the same amount of carbon dioxide under a carbon taxation system it doesn't matter one bit what the other guy does, I save that amount.)

Oh, and inb4 "omg tax". Please let's have a sensible debate about this
Tax would basically be the same rent seeking behavior except it would be the government doing it instead of the people that own the carbon exchange. Either way your tax does nothing except create a windfall for someone else. In this case it's the government and we all know how efficient they are.
Does it not encourage people to save money by reducing emissions, which after all is the whole point of the scheme?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Spark wrote:

Does it not encourage people to save money by reducing emissions, which after all is the whole point of the scheme?
No. The company isn't going to eat the loss, they'll just pass it on to the consumer. Our biggest polluters are utilities companies. You think they'll think twice before tacking on another surcharge? No way.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6961|Canberra, AUS

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:

Does it not encourage people to save money by reducing emissions, which after all is the whole point of the scheme?
No. The company isn't going to eat the loss, they'll just pass it on to the consumer. Our biggest polluters are utilities companies. You think they'll think twice before tacking on another surcharge? No way.
True, but that's why the utilities sector needs an utter and total overhaul.

Last edited by Spark (2009-11-19 14:44:56)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard