This winter is killing two of the biggest scare tactic lies ever told...

#151
#151
he must be deeply involved in the study. he's got to get all his info from books and stuff since he is so skeptical of the internet.
 
#152
#152
Last edited:
#153
#153
TennTradition said:
Wackos. How many carbon prices are they going to set? I live less than a mile from Cambridge and work in Cambridge, and I have no qualms saying they're are some serious nut-jobs around here.
Click to expand...

If it isn't revenue-neutral, it probably isn't for the purpose it is claimed to be for. That goes for any kind of tax.
 
#154
#154
IPorange said:
If it's on the internet, it must be true.

I'll tell you what: pick something you feel to be proof against global climate change, and I'll tell you why it is crap. The same BS has been floating around for over a decade. There is nothing to the hardcore skepticism. The question isn't if there IS global climate change. The question isn't COULD it be influenced by people. The questions are how much and what can we do about it, if anything?
Click to expand...

This is about where I am right now on this issue, I think we do have an impact on the earth and can influence it's climate to some degree. Some areas appear to be getting warmer while others appear to be getting cooler at any given time.

What I don't understand is how much man's activities influences the climate and to what degree, I don't think any expert in the field can sufficiently explain that either. What I am opposed to is wide reaching government policy that effects every business and every human being in America given we don't fully understand the ramifications. Call me a skeptic but governments unintended consequences are often much worse than the problem itself.

If we want people to choose cleaner energy it must first be affordable, taxing does nothing to promote cleaner energy, in fact all it is really is government mandated gouging.
 
#155
#155
I agree with most of you post, KB. I disagree with the past paragraph to an extent, though. I think that taxing can certainly promote clean energy. If current clean energy is more expensive than other, less clean forms, then setting a tax on those forms so that the cleaner energy becomes more cost-competitive would surely promote the use of cleaner energy. The point of whether or not it is worth it could still be argued, but it would seem to promote the use to some degree.
 
#156
#156
TennTradition said:
I agree with most of you post, KB. I disagree with the past paragraph to an extent, though. I think that taxing can certainly promote clean energy. If current clean energy is more expensive than other, less clean forms, then setting a tax on those forms so that the cleaner energy becomes more cost-competitive would surely promote the use of cleaner energy. The point of whether or not it is worth it could still be argued, but it would seem to promote the use to some degree.
Click to expand...

I guess what I am saying is there is no alternative energy that is slightly comparable with those we use now, if the government did tax at a rate that would put them on even ground with more expensive alternative fuels there would be riots and the nation would quickly break down.

I could be wrong though, there may be a practical alternative on the horizon that isn't that expensive, if there is I'm unaware of it. This where some of my main points of opposition come into play, right now there seems to be no practical alternative that isn't far more expensive, and no reasonable tax rate (one that wouldn't hobble the American economy and public) is going to make said alternative competitive.
 
#157
#157
volfanjustin said:
When they impose a big tax on corporations who release CO2 that would kill jobs and raise prices on goods, corporations don't pay taxes. Plus India and China release way more into the atmosphere than we do, so us putting in these policies would only hurt us.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying that its a US-only issue. But you've got to start somewhere. That others might not have done their fair share will be small comfort if the worst eventually comes to pass.



volfanjustin said:
I don't want the federal gov't making policies around faith based beliefs, I want the states making those policies. I want us to protect and help defend all of our allies. Not sure how these are related, but there you have it.
Click to expand...


And issues like global warming make our sense of who is, and is not, an "ally" totally meaningless. Having an us against the world mentality on this is shortsighted at best.



volfanjustin said:
Because liberals want to destroy our economy due to this false belief. And make no mistake about it, that is their main purpose in pushing this lie.
Click to expand...


Uh oh, you are on to us! Yep, all of us "liberals" want to destroy our own economy. Brilliant.



KB5252 said:
Why do you continually try to pigeon hole those who disagree with you on this subject by saying they don't believe in Climate change for one reason (cold outside)? To me that seems every bit as ridiculous as you believe they are if not more. They have stated other reasons they do not believe.

For what it's worth I'm not convinced either way, I'm sitting on the fence but I am opposed to plans that would hamstring our economy, cost tax payers billions and very likely do little or nothing towards this problem if in fact man does have a serious effect on global climate.
Click to expand...


I am not pigeonholing anyone. If someone thinks they can say that climate change is not a problem because its cold today then they are far past being pigeonholed as anything other than retarded.

I understand your own views on the science, and we are probably not that far apart. I remain skeptical.

But I'm not waiting for proof in the sense that I wake up one day and the effects have happened over night. One of the problems is that, if we don't see it, we don't think its real. We may see it, and not recognize it, because its such a slow process. You know?


droski said:
i don't think it's an exageration. if the world economy implemented the type of restrictions obama wants in the US i seriously think we will go into a global depression. even if we are the cause of global warming can we really stop it at this point?
Click to expand...


First, we might already be headed for one. Second, if we went into one, but the benefit was that generations of people might survive when they otherwise wouldn't, I guess I am okay with that. Third, he won't get everything he proposes. Fourth, got any unbiased science to back up your claim as to the effect on the economy of what might actually be implemented? Fifth, I don't know if we will succeed, but that is no reason not to try since the alternative is pretty poor (if you are on the road and a car is about to hit you, do you not jump out of the way because you can't be sure you'll make it?) Sixth, its probably a matter of gradation in that its not absolute disaster either way, but more akin to a better resolution if you act soon enough and deeply enough.
 
#158
#158
lawgator1 said:
I'm not saying that its a US-only issue. But you've got to start somewhere. That others might not have done their fair share will be small comfort if the worst eventually comes to pass.






And issues like global warming make our sense of who is, and is not, an "ally" totally meaningless. Having an us against the world mentality on this is shortsighted at best.






Uh oh, you are on to us! Yep, all of us "liberals" want to destroy our own economy. Brilliant.






I am not pigeonholing anyone. If someone thinks they can say that climate change is not a problem because its cold today then they are far past being pigeonholed as anything other than retarded.

I understand your own views on the science, and we are probably not that far apart. I remain skeptical.

But I'm not waiting for proof in the sense that I wake up one day and the effects have happened over night. One of the problems is that, if we don't see it, we don't think its real. We may see it, and not recognize it, because its such a slow process. You know?





First, we might already be headed for one. Second, if we went into one, but the benefit was that generations of people might survive when they otherwise wouldn't, I guess I am okay with that. Third, he won't get everything he proposes. Fourth, got any unbiased science to back up your claim as to the effect on the economy of what might actually be implemented? Fifth, I don't know if we will succeed, but that is no reason not to try since the alternative is pretty poor (if you are on the road and a car is about to hit you, do you not jump out of the way because you can't be sure you'll make it?) Sixth, its probably a matter of gradation in that its not absolute disaster either way, but more akin to a better resolution if you act soon enough and deeply enough.
Click to expand...

I wish the thanks button was still available. :good!:
 
#161
#161
IPorange said:
Throwing out numbers like 4 billion and .05 % without understanding their context is ridiculous. Would you say these things out loud to people?
Click to expand...

Hey, brother. What percentage of 2.5 billion years is 40 years? How about 80 million years? :crazy:

You still look bad in thrying to determine what climate/weather will be like in 100 years based on such a small data sampling size.
 
#162
#162
IPorange said:
This post will get ignored by most.
Click to expand...

Nope, in fact, it just proves and points out what most reasonable people already know. Weather is variable. Climate changes are more dependent on astronomical activity (solar bursts, earth's orbit, rotation around it's axis, etc) than man raising the atmosphere's CO2 content from .05% to .08%...
 
#163
#163
lawgator1 said:
On the other hand, jumping to the conclusion that there is no global warming because, at the moment, its freakin cold outside, is just so ridiculous its hard to put it into words.
Click to expand...

It is no more ridiculous than someone claiming that increased hurricane activity over a given year is evidence of "man-made" global warming. Or no more ridiculous than someone pointing out a .5 degree rise in average temperature over a given period of time is evidence of "man-made" global warming.
 
#164
#164
lawgator1 said:
First, we might already be headed for one. Second, if we went into one, but the benefit was that generations of people might survive when they otherwise wouldn't, I guess I am okay with that. Third, he won't get everything he proposes. Fourth, got any unbiased science to back up your claim as to the effect on the economy of what might actually be implemented? Fifth, I don't know if we will succeed, but that is no reason not to try since the alternative is pretty poor (if you are on the road and a car is about to hit you, do you not jump out of the way because you can't be sure you'll make it?) Sixth, its probably a matter of gradation in that its not absolute disaster either way, but more akin to a better resolution if you act soon enough and deeply enough.
Click to expand...

what generations of people are surviving who otherwise wouldn't?

I don't need unbaised science, it's common sense. If you increase the cost of production by 20% things cost more and people will produce and sell less.
 
#167
#167
Rasputin_Vol said:
It is no more ridiculous than someone claiming that increased hurricane activity over a given year is evidence of "man-made" global warming. Or no more ridiculous than someone pointing out a .5 degree rise in average temperature over a given period of time is evidence of "man-made" global warming.
Click to expand...

So, because nutty folks want to pin a dangerous hurricane down as being caused by global warming, you feel its reasonable to pin a snowstorm down as evidence it doesn't exist? That says a lot about the rest of your logic.

On the other hand, I would argue that it isn't ridiculous to pin a portion of observed temperature increases down as being caused by increases in greenhouse gas if you have carried out analysis, that you can defend, that suggests this to be the case. That analysis doesn't exist for one snow storm or one hurricane, it does for the 100 year trend.

I was taking a class from a climate scientist shortly after Katrina, and I can remember him saying that it was going to do big things for public opinion with regards to global warming. He also lamented that, saying that people were going to be believe the hurricane was caused by warming, that they were then going to believe in anthropogenic global warming for the wrong reasons, and that in the end, this would cause more confusion/harm than good ... and he was right.
 
#168
#168
Rasputin_Vol said:
What does that mean? :crazy:
Click to expand...

It means not actually taking in more money from the public, but rather just changing where it is coming from. Otherwise, you are in effect getting a tax increase and that ticks people off. Then, they turn against the original point of a measure. For example, if Cambridge wants to charge for the amount of meat you consume, they should drop their food sales tax to compensate. They shouldn't just charge both.

It isn't my idea or term, it's been around for as long as I have been alive.



I had heard many scientists in the field say the same, TT. It has certainly come to pass. The Recession also makes people extra skeptical about anything that might take away from their current way of living.
 
Last edited:
#169
#169
TennTradition said:
So, because nutty folks want to pin a dangerous hurricane down as being caused by global warming, you feel its reasonable to pin a snowstorm down as evidence it doesn't exist? That says a lot about the rest of your logic.
Click to expand...

There is a saying that goes something like, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"...

What I did was suggest that something didn't exist based on no evidence... forgive me. I essentially said that Santa Clause doesn't exist without the supporting evidence or sufficient sample size of data.

What the other side does is a lot worse. They essentially try to prove that something DOES exist (man-made global warming) with no evidence or suffiecient data samples.

So I get questioned for saying something doesn't exist when I don't see any real proof, yet the other side maintains their credibility for doing the exact samething in claiming that global warming does exist???

Really... At best both of us should be ridiculed and have no credibility. But the tree huggers and their allies are given enough to where that are actually setting policy and affecting our economy and our way of life... based on the same flimsy evidence I used in the opening post.
 
Last edited:
#170
#170
i'd love to know what the margin for error was in that huge .5% increase in temperature. bet it's more than .5%.
 
#171
#171
IPorange said:
It means not actually taking in more money from the public, but rather just changing where it is coming from. Otherwise, you are in effect getting a tax increase and that ticks people off. Then, they turn against the original point of a measure. For example, if Cambridge wants to charge for the amount of meat you consume, they should drop their food sales tax to compensate. They shouldn't just charge both.

It isn't my idea or term, it's been around for as long as I have been alive.
Click to expand...

Oh, I've heard the term before, I just wanted to see how you would define it. Because most revenue-neutral measures do end up raising taxes and for the most part, bring in less revenue. If raising taxes on cigarettes is a way to discourage smoking, why are politicians surprised to see cigarette tax revenues fall?

By the same token, what will happen if you have a carbon tax? What are you trying to discourage... and what will most likely happen to your revenues?
 
#172
#172
That isn't true. By definition, scientific research begins assuming the null hypothesis. The null keeps being shown not to be true- there IS warming.

Not sure what you mean by insufficient data samples. It isn't like there is one "Is there global warming?" experiment, and all the information is dumped in. There are thousands of independent focused studies with robust data sets for their scope that keep coming to similar conclusions. It forms a mosaic image that points to GCC.
 
#173
#173
IPorange said:
That isn't true. By definition, scientific research begins assuming the null hypothesis. The null keeps being shown not to be true- there IS warming.
Click to expand...

But is it man-made warming? That is what can't be proven... notice that in the previous posts, I made sure to make the distinction of highlighting the man-made aspect of the tree huggers' argument.

It could very well be possible that we are in a warming tend. But for some of you guys and these politicians to point to human industrialism as the cause or an increase in a gas that is less than .1% of our atmosphere is a reach... sorry.
 
#174
#174
Rasputin_Vol said:
But is it man-made warming? That is what can't be proven... notice that in the previous posts, I made sure to make the distinction of highlighting the man-made aspect of the tree huggers' argument.

It could very well be possible that we are in a warming tend. But for some of you guys and these politicians to point to human industrialism as the cause or an increase in a gas that is less than .1% of our atmosphere is a reach... sorry.
Click to expand...

Wait, I thought you were saying there ISN'T warming? Isn't that what you've said in multiple posts now? So what is your position? That there ISN'T warming, or that there is but man isn't the cause? Those are two very different stances.

And again, you saying "less than .1 % of our atmosphere" is like saying it makes no difference whether water is fresh or sea water, since salt is only 3.5 % or less of sea water. It's a number that you are applying meaning to from outside the context of the topic in question.
 
#175
#175
There was a petition last year that 31,000 US scientists signed that said they reject the theory that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.”.

Sorry, but robbing Peter to give to Paul's flawed and young science experiments, is just wrong. If there is a threat, I think that the private sector would be making a bigger deal about it, but yet I hear crickets from everyone but the government agencies. The liberal media and the government are driving this argument that we need to tax the hell out of people and businesses to try and compensate for .5 of a degree. If we had warmed 5-10 degrees, then I would be on board.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top