We are pretty much doomed........

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
He's into full throttle and the consequences be darned type of guy.

GROSS misrepresentation of my views and notice that I did not even mention market forces in this thread (only scientific transparancy and measurable goals) and yet I am greated with:
Quote:
mind pollution. Intractable, inflexible, and adamantine.

Telling indeed.

Quote:
The environmentalist paradigm of thinking is absolutely static.

http://www.vaclavklaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=IgDUIjFzEXAz

As far as wealth transfer, what's a measly $45 TRILLION between friends? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_bi_ge/japan_iea_climate_change
 
Well, you aren't for "letting the market handle everything"?? You see no margin in protecting the environment? No margin in even finding out about it, right?

Klaus? More nebulous "be afraid of finding out" rhetoric that assures that the undisclosed nature of things remains a constantly confused issue. More diffusion and confusion. If you can't win the chess game, upset the checkerboard and scatter the pieces.

45T? Okay ..and just what does this have to do with anything evil or clandestine or whatever else you can label it as??


You tell me "your point".
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

I need something solid here.
21.gif



Fair enough. Me, too. I like things solid.

But, instead of asking me, a skeptic, to produce something solid, how about asking the proponents of this kind of legislation to identify a single, solid, tangible or objective environmental result that will be achieved?

Since you are asking me, here is what I think IS solid: This type of stuff is a raw money and power grab. The legislation in the linked article does not specify any particular desired result because one does not exist. There is not one single living person on this planet who knows what the correct temperature of this planet should be, or even if there is one. They are all, ALL, just guessing. I expect the only tangible or objective result to be achieved will be a) a lot of money transferred from somebody to somebody else to pay somebody to do something that will be completely and utterly ineffectual in terms of global warming, and b) more govt. telling people what they cannot do, i. e. a raw power grab.

A lot of money would likely go into adaptation as well, but it would not go into the GW handwringer pockets, and joe taxpayer can look around and see if it is working or not, assuming, without conceding, that GW is in fact a problem in need of a solution.
 
Reducing fossil fuel use in the rich nations will lower the cost of those fuels so that investments in the poorer nations can turn a bigger profit.
 
Quote:
This type of stuff is a raw money and power grab.


Authoritarian ..yes ...raw money? I don't see it. And please don't mistake my postings here as endorsement of authoritarian socialist movements like this....

...but, as your own dialog testifies ... without such draconian movements ..left to your desires ..your ambitions ..your self interest motivated drives ..that nothing will ever be done willfully.

If you hate what they propose ..look to yourself and the total aversion to even entertaining the possibility that there's any validity to the notions ..even when, however uncertain, change is most assuredly occurring. CO2 and water vapor levels are rising ..yet you choose to ignore it and do everything you can to be display at totally suspect disposition that bends over backwards to discount everything
21.gif


You make socialists necessary due to your obvious lack of any sense of sensible stewardship. You don't really care what the issue is ..you just oppose government management and intervention ..yet you also refuse to do it yourself (as a group or whatever).

It's kinda a self created and self fulfilling philosophical issue. Oddly, it reminds me of 3rd world or middle eastern remedies.

Two people find a $1 on the street. Some talk about it and decide who has more valid claim to it ..maybe split it ..and move on. A middle easterner (skewed view for demonstration purposes only - no middle eastern people were harmed in this comparison), if he can't have the whole dollar ..burns it and claims victory.
 
Quote:
You make socialists necessary due to your obvious lack of any sense of sensible stewardship. You don't really care what the issue is ..you just oppose government management and intervention ..yet you also refuse to do it yourself (as a group or whatever).


Very good point.

I would take that $45 trillion figure with a grain of salt. You can't determine how much it will cost because nothing remains the same and as we progress, new technology etc. could be developed and be more affordable etc. I'm always skeptical of "long range" anything. Especially weather forecasts.
grin2.gif


But Gary is right, where the private sector fails, for whatever reasons, government intervention occurs. What scares me a bit though about this global warming issue is reliability of the data to say for sure we are the main contributor of global warming. The "alarmist" mentality could cost us a lot of money if they are wrong no?
 
Originally Posted By: buster
The "alarmist" mentality could cost us a lot of money if they are wrong no?


If they are wrong, we've still slowed our digging up of finite fuels, which will make them last longer into the future, and increased employment in the alternative energy industry, and therefore the moneyground.

Problem is, that if they are right, we'll never know because there will have been no massive climate change.

Our CEO was advocating dropping our condition monitoring contracts on all 4 power stations, because he wasn't seeing results. My reply was that with proper condition monitoring, the CEO wouldn't see a thing...without it, things would make his attention.
 
What kinda tips the hands of the contrarians here is the notion that they're going to "lose money" in the paying of some carbon credit thing to under developed countries to stay under developed. Yet they have no problem sending trillions to places like India and China for them to develop, draining the nation of vitality and revenue. They don't mind that "wealth redistribution" as long as they feel that they're not suffering under it. It's only when they think that it's out of their hands and will reduce them in some arbitrary status that they have a problem with it.

It's sorta like objecting to life boats being constructed for everyone on the ship just because you perceive that you've already got an assured seat on the few that are there.

Unfortunately, this ship comes with zero lifeboats ..at least at our level of technological development. We're not even a L2 civilization.
 
We will become less competitive if other nations are not restricted in their carbon emissions. Then those other nations will be able to afford more weapons, and larger armies. You can guess what happens next.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan


(most of nonsensical rant omitted for brevity)

..yet you also refuse to do it yourself (as a group or whatever).




Suggesting that a tax payer funded program should serve some purpose that will actually inure to the public good, won't cost a fortune, and have some objective benchmark so that its actual success or failure can be ascertained makes socialists necessary? OK, whatever.
crazy2.gif


If you are truly concerned for the welfare of the planet, why wait for the government to fleece you to do something about it. There are plenty of charities that deal with right now, real, as opposed to imaginary, environmental issues, and that produce real results, as opposed to feel good, pie in the sky, drivel, because people who voluntarily give their money expect objective results.

This one is my favorite: http://www.savethejaguar.com.

There are probably even charities for GW, but the only result they will ever produce is more propaganda to drum up money from their true believers, and umbrage and name calling against anyone who dare be unconvinced.

You do give to environmental causes, right? Or are you one of the all talk no action "environmentalists" that are only willing to give when it is somebody else's money that is going to the cause du jour?
 
I'm all for both actually. I want a clean planet. I want a clean environment. I want an economically viable one.

There are some things that just aren't going to be possible without sacrifice and costs. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

I guess California should have just left the air quality to the market.

Now I'll surely admit that their storm trooper mentality is way overbearing ..but it's only the fool that thinks that this "socialist mentality" grew out of some vacuum. It evolved with good cause.

So, do you blame the remedy for the remedy's methods ..especially when they were required?? Who let the evil genie out of the bottle??

Do you want to beat the socialists? Beat them to the punch. Blow up all their bombs before they get to pull the triggers. Make them look like fools and clowns ..so much so ..that no one will give them an ear.
 
How much carbon/water vapor/whatever should there be in the air and what temperature should the earth be and what are the relationships?

Until those questions can be answered, how can there be effective legislation regarding "climate change" (the new buzzword since GW has flopped).
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
How much carbon/water vapor/whatever should there be in the air and what temperature should the earth be and what are the relationships?

Until those questions can be answered, how can there be effective legislation regarding "climate change" (the new buzzword since GW has flopped).

Completely agree.

Good science is not consensus.
 
Quote:
How much carbon/water vapor/whatever should there be in the air and what temperature should the earth be and what are the relationships?


One that allows perpetual human occupation.

Quote:
Until those questions can be answered, how can there be effective legislation regarding "climate change" (the new buzzword since GW has flopped).


I semi agree, but what's the point when regardless of whatever evidence ..as it is researched, is automatically rejected unless it is 100% conclusive?


That is, if you recall, inflexible, intractable, and adamantine?

You'll just keep constructing higher and higher bench marks of validity. What's the most curious thing is that you seem totally centralized around NON-government in this matter, but there's no other entity that can possibly accomplish any remedy of merit.

Since you appear to hate government ..any remedy that they propose, however needed, sensible, appropriate (if you would ever bow to the preponderance of the evidence if and when it appears - again it can never be enough for you to begin with) ...will just be "wrong".

That about it??
21.gif


There is no remedy for you regardless of any "future proof", right?
 
Quote:
One that allows perpetual human occupation.

Please quantify.

Quote:
There is no remedy for you regardless of any "future proof", right?

Are you suggesting that we make sweeping legislation that negatively affects individual rights and economic activity based supposition?
 
Quote:
Quote:
One that allows perpetual human occupation.

Please quantify.


How about just saying one that makes all human influences transparent?? As in "maintenance".... (okay ..come back with another dodge/diversion from real discussion)

Quote:
Quote:
There is no remedy for you regardless of any "future proof", right?

Are you suggesting that we make sweeping legislation that negatively affects individual rights and economic activity based supposition?


Are you suggesting just doing absolutely nothing even if inaction will mean some point of no return?? ..and are individual rights more important to you than survival and/or perpetuation of the species??

So, you're in favor of your grandchildren paying for your negligence in good stewardship? As long as you get to do what you want ..who cares how many others pay the price? Your kids ..your brothers ..sisters? Their children too?

That sound right?? Did I miss anything?
 
Quote:
okay ..come back with another dodge/diversion from real discussion

Interesting how defining the topic of discussion is viewed as a dodge/diversion...
LOL.gif

Quote:
Are you suggesting just doing absolutely nothing even if inaction will mean some point of no return?? ..and are individual rights more important to you than survival and/or perpetuation of the species??


There is no demonstrable correlation...hence my previous post.
Quote:
Your kids ..your brothers ..sisters? Their children too?

"Think of the children for deity sake!!"
banana2.gif
Is that the best scare tactic you can come up with? That's got to be the oldest one in the book.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
What is this black sediment in the brake reservoir?
Replies
17
Views
1K
Creekside
wwillson
168k miles on these front rotors and pads - 2014 Durango
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
GMBoy
Graham Piccinini
Home DIYer scan tool.
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3K
nthach
Twisted1
High mile 4.6 Ford - Ok to use heavier oil?
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
2K
thastinger
A
How bad is this chain deflection?
Replies
7
Views
543
Number_35
Back
Top