Man Based Global Warming....

Every now and then it might be instructive to introduce an elemental reality into this thread. Frankly, I don't even know why I waste my time here.

While some pinheads fret over levels of CO2 and what will we do, it apparently never occurs to them that there is NOTHING they can do, short of annihilation, to dissuade developing nations from using the cheapest sources of energy available to them. We did/do it and they will as well.

Only leftist fantasists believe they can save the world through cap and trade, climate protocols, etc. If they are truly convinced (even though the "science" they claim proves AGW is 'irreproducible', in fact, can't even reproduce observed data) then their efforts should be directed toward finding ways to 'sink' greater and greater levels of CO2. Once again, there is NO way to stop developing nations from using their natural resources.

So, instead, let us destroy OUR economy. Let us dictate how much energy each U.S. citizen can use. Let’s force our citizens to abandon the free market, capitalist system that has produced the world's richest nation, where most of the 'poor' all have cars, T.V. and appliances. Let's let the Obama regime take over private business, dictate our every move in the name of change and hope. Change what has worked so magnificently and hope for the worst. Brilliant!

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_carbon.html

…We don’t control the global supply of carbon.
Ten countries ruled by nasty people control 80 percent of the planet’s oil reserves—about 1 trillion barrels, currently worth about $40 trillion. If $40 trillion worth of gold were located where most of the oil is, one could only scoff at any suggestion that we might somehow persuade the nasty people to leave the wealth buried. They can lift most of their oil at a cost well under $10 a barrel. They will drill. They will pump. And they will find buyers. Oil is all they’ve got.

Poor countries all around the planet are sitting on a second, even bigger source of carbon—almost a trillion tons of cheap, easily accessible coal. They also control most of the planet’s third great carbon reservoir—the rain forests and soil. They will keep squeezing the carbon out of cheap coal, and cheap forest, and cheap soil, because that’s all they’ve got. Unless they can find something even cheaper. But they won’t—not any time in the foreseeable future.

We no longer control the demand for carbon, either. The 5 billion poor—the other 80 percent—are already the main problem, not us. Collectively, they emit 20 percent more greenhouse gas than we do. We burn a lot more carbon individually, but they have a lot more children. Their fecundity has eclipsed our gluttony, and the gap is now widening fast. China, not the United States, is now the planet’s largest emitter. Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and others are in hot pursuit. And these countries have all made it clear that they aren’t interested in spending what money they have on low-carb diets. It is idle to argue, as some have done, that global warming can be solved—decades hence—at a cost of 1 to 2 percent of the global economy. Eighty percent of the global population hasn’t signed on to pay more than 0 percent.

Accepting this last, self-evident fact, the Kyoto Protocol divides the world into two groups. The roughly 1.2 billion citizens of industrialized countries are expected to reduce their emissions. The other 5 billion—including both China and India, each of which is about as populous as the entire Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—aren’t. These numbers alone guarantee that humanity isn’t going to reduce global emissions at any point in the foreseeable future—unless it does it the old-fashioned way, by getting poorer. But the current recession won’t last forever, and the long-term trend is clear. Their populations and per-capita emissions are rising far faster than ours could fall under any remotely plausible carbon-reduction scheme…

 

please, please don't waste any more time here.

 

Ufourya,

So following your logic,, the house is on fire,,, and so we should really do nothing?

The sad part of your argument is that it is so self centered,, with little or no regard for the public (world wide) good. Because we don't have all the answers as to how to solve the problem we should deny the problem exists. As long as I close my eyes,,the train that is going to hit me isn't real?

"it is idle to argue, as some have done, that global warming can be solved—decades hence—at a cost of 1 to 2 percent of the global economy. Eighty percent of the global population hasn’t signed on to pay more than 0 percent."

Folks like you who have lived well during the last few generations (I include myself in this as well) have got to wake up and realize that the planet is a finite place,,, and as such,, we cannot continue to use resources at either the rate not on a per captia basis. Economics is the only " Science" that is predicated on the notion that unlimited growth is not only good,,, but possible.

I just hope you have no children,, and certainly no grandchildren who will reap what we all have sown. At least some of us are honest enough to recognize our own culpability in creating the problem,, and within the bounds of our own hypocrisy are doing ALL we can to try to change the world,,, not for us,, but for our kids. I live simply, use energy wisely, generate much of my power myself, speak out whenever I can.

And yes,,, I'm glad I don't have to get my high school diploma from the Texas board of Education who if memory serves,, has just required the teaching of "Creation Science" with the same weight as Evolution. Clearly you must be a student of that great state!

Icarus

 

Man, someone please kill this thread.

 

Ufourya,

So following your logic,, the house is on fire,,, and so we should really do nothing?

No, the house is not on fire. BUT, the people who think it is are spending all their time pouring water on the lawn.

The sad part of your argument is that it is so self centered,, with little or no regard for the public (world wide) good. Because we don't have all the answers as to how to solve the problem we should deny the problem exists. As long as I close my eyes,,the train that is going to hit me isn't real?

Don’t stand on the tracks.

"it is idle to argue, as some have done, that global warming can be solved—decades hence—at a cost of 1 to 2 percent of the global economy. Eighty percent of the global population hasn’t signed on to pay more than 0 percent."

This is a simple statement of fact from a quoted article.

Folks like you who have lived well during the last few generations (I include myself in this as well) have got to wake up and realize that the planet is a finite place,,, and as such,, we cannot continue to use resources at either the rate not on a per captia basis. Economics is the only " Science" that is predicated on the notion that unlimited growth is not only good,,, but possible.

Sorry, but this is incomprehensible.

I just hope you have no children,, and certainly no grandchildren who will reap what we all have sown. At least some of us are honest enough to recognize our own culpability in creating the problem,, and within the bounds of our own hypocrisy are doing ALL we can to try to change the world,,, not for us,, but for our kids. I live simply, use energy wisely, generate much of my power myself, speak out whenever I can.

The main worry I have for EVERYONE’s children and grandchildren in this country is that they will be (and are being) saddled with unbelievable debt by politicians running our country. Part of that debt will be in the form of paying for unworkable ‘solutions’ to problems that probably do not exist. In addition, even though it’s beside any point, I would wager that my ‘carbon footprint’ is no larger than yours.

And yes,,, I'm glad I don't have to get my high school diploma from the Texas board of Education who if memory serves,, has just required the teaching of "Creation Science" with the same weight as Evolution. Clearly you must be a student of that great state!

Why jump to non-sequitur conclusions about me? You ‘clearly’ have no idea what you are talking about. My undergraduate and graduate degrees, as well as most of my life experiences, were taken outside the great state of Texas. I live here for reasons people in Canada, California and Washington probably wouldn’t understand. One is that there isn’t any income tax and the state isn’t in danger of bankruptcy. Another is that I can paint my house without getting approval from anyone. I can say anything I like without being hauled before government entities to apologize or pay restitution.

By the way, no ‘requirement’ to teach ‘creation science’ exists. Your memory is faulty. You clearly misunderstand most of what I have said and have not responded in any substantive way to questions raised by my posts and links.

In fact, no one here has. So, Tim, I’m doing my part to kill the thread. So long, folks.

P.S. Fibbb2222, I am changing my avatar back to the original one. I will no longer honor your obdurate dullness with the “I ‘heart’ CO2.†Eh? Whole.

 

Well, it's not like people haven't tried.

You know what you have to do for that to happen.

:cheer2:

 

Pssst,,, hey,, are they really gone??? Can we come out into the sunshine again?




Icarus

For Ufoura,



"Why jump to non-sequitur conclusions about me? You ‘clearly’ have no idea what you are talking about. My undergraduate and graduate degrees, as well as most of my life experiences, were taken outside the great state of Texas. I live here for reasons people in Canada, California and Washington probably wouldn’t understand. One is that there isn’t any income tax and the state isn’t in danger of bankruptcy. Another is that I can paint my house without getting approval from anyone. I can say anything I like without being hauled before government entities to apologize or pay restitution."

You were the one who made it personal by suggesting that you hope I graduate from High School. I don't know why you have to cast aspersions on California. I never mentioned California. As for Washington State,,, it has a higher gross income than Texas,, a higher level of education per capita than Texas,, Oh and Canada has a lower infant mortality rate than Texas,, a longer life expectancy, and by the way about 1/2 the health care cost per capita than the US.

So feel free to stay in Texas with similar like minded folks. I will enjoy the open minds elsewhere thank you, and you were so clever with your closing to fibb,,, eh!

I don't like these banters to get personal,, so I am going to stop now,,, and it is my sincere hope that others will as well..

Icarus

 

My apologies upfront as I may add a AGW news report from time to time if I happen to come across one.

Your only real protection may be to unsubscribe!

 

So much for letting the thread die. Uh, your memory really is faltering. You accuse me of being the one to 'make it personal' while forgetting that you called me a 'right wing whacko' back in post #1105. In addition, almost every response you have is directed toward a person's affiliations, residence or political persuasion rather than to what he says. So you are rife with hypocrisy.

I'll refrain from further personal comment - other than to say that you have a great deal to be modest about.

 

I'll let your gentle readers be the judge on whether or not I was "getting personal" I believe if the shoe fits,,

Oh,, I plead quite guilty to being a hypocrite on many levels,,, like ALMOST every one. At least I admit it,, unlike many. I also plead guilty to ribbing folks on their residence, political views and personal affiliations. Like it or not,, these things do say something about us. You drew an conclusion about me based on "Washington, Canada and (incorrectly) California" So look in the mirror!

For those that don't remember,,, here is the post number 1105, just so folks can judge:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ufourya
Are you willing to bankrupt your 'great-greats' future by supporting the energy and health policies that will come down the road from the present administration? In less than four months Obama has been able to put in place the heretofore unbelievable prospect of a bunkrupt U.S.A. The furher he goes with his programs, the worse it will get.

As opposed to what you and GWB are (were) offering,,, YES! At the very least the current administration can put to cogent thoughts together in a row,,,AND the money they are spending, (big bank bailout not withstanding) they are spending in ways that will have some value in the future,, unlike the $billion/month we have seen go up in smoke in Iraq!

You right wing whacko's have pretty short memories. Look at the deficit numbers under republican administrations and then under democratic ones. Can you say budget surplus and Bill Clinton in the same breath without your head exploding?

No,, the current president and administration are having to spend way too much money, way too much time, and way too many resources fixing the last eight years.

I applaud the right wings vision on how to return to power. The more they suggest that Cheney/Palin/Huckaby et al are in the control of the right wing fringe,,, I smile,, and realize how out of touch they really are."

Icarus

PS I thought you were leaving?

 

No matter how hard you attempt to put me into a convenient box of your ideological imaginations, you will be unable to point out any place where I supported excess government spending by any administration of any stripe.

With all due respect and not getting 'personal', you are an economic ignoramus - i.e. vast new spending far outstripping previous spending 'fixing' the problem of the previous spending. Obama's projected spending dwarfs that of any other president. It will exceed revenues to such an extent that the only way to cover it will be to print money (now occuring at an unbelievable rate, massive inflation to follow) and to raise taxes (which usually has the negative effect of lowering revenues).

Although it is often mentioned that Bill Clinton had a budget surplus, he INCREASED spending by around 30% during his time in office. What was the difference? Tax revenues INCREASED as well - by over 80%.

So, I've said it and my head is still here.

Here is a graphic depiction of what Obama's spending and revenues will look like:

Congressional Budget Office - A Preliminary Analysis of the President's Budget and an Update of CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook

This is information from the right-wing 'whackos' at the CBO website. Will you ignore this link as well? Yeah, I think so.

Can you contribute anything to a conversation that does not regurgitate ideological talking points? No, I think not.

Sample Icarus/Ufourya discourse:

U - "The sun has more influence on the earth's climate than mankind."
I - "But you live in Texas and so does GWB."
U - "Boo!"
I - "Oh my, you're a meanie. I recycle my baggies."

So, now, I really, really will opt out of this non-productive, one-sided drubbing. Blast away with your inconsequentia.

 

"With all due respect and not getting 'personal', you are an economic ignoramous - i.e. vast new spending far outstripping previous spending 'fixing' the problem of the previous spending. Obama's projected spending dwarfs that of any other president. It will exceed revenues to such an extent that the only way to cover it will be to print money (now occuring at an unbelievable rate, massive inflation to follow) and to raise taxes (which usually has the negative effect of lowering revenues)."

Point 1. The GWB administration double the national debt,, in eight years,,, as much as the previous ~225 years in just eight. The money went to fund a completely misguided war,, the only real benefit we have gotten from it is higher gas prices and bigger debt, with almost nothing invested in lasting infrastructure. The money also went to tax breaks to the wealthy that by any measure DON'T trickle down to the working classes from the wealthy.

Point 2. It is arguable (and argued by conservatives) that "The New Deal" didn't cure the depression,, the argument amongst economists is whether the stimulus effect was TOO SMALL and or TOO LATE. The basic conclusion is that WWII ended the depression,, and it was the biggest "public works project" ever,, both in terms of gross dollars,,, and as a percentage of GDP. (We are no where near the same percentage now even with the massive stimulus/bailout $$ in the pipeline) We borrowed from the future to pay for the war (with war bonds) and it worked!

Point 3. In the 1950's economic growth,, both in GDP,, as well as personal income was better than in any decade of the 20th century,, at the same time that marginal tax rates were higher (way higher,, as much as 90%) Please explain then how higher tax rates depress the economy in the long term,,,rather than in the next fiscal quarter?

Point 4. During the Clinton administration,, the country went into fiscal surplus,, and positive GDP growth (with questionable person income growth net/net) with slightly higher marginal tax rates than we have now. Please explain how these higher tax rates depressed economic growth?

I will concede that there is a risk of inflation,,, but one can counter that by progressive tax policy that addresses the need to reduce the deficit and to begin to pay down the debt. I also contend that stimulus spending on infrastructure, will on balance become an appreciating asset rather than a depreciated waste. The interstate hiway system investment in the 1950's is way more valuable today,, in spite of our neglect the past generation in keeping it up, than it cost to build. So spending money now on new schools, public buildings, transit systems etc,, while they have a cost today,, can and should be an investment in the future,,, and their cost not just be amortized over the life of the "loan" but the net value later will be greater than the cost now.

So my biggest objection to "conservatives" is that they are, in my opinion very selfish. They don't want to 'spend' money on anything (metaphorically!) and as such they don't get the idea that all public spending is not wasteful. I contend that much is,, but as a society we have the ability to steer our governments at all level to spend wisely,,, which is not the same as not spending at all.

Icarus

 

Conservatives are NOT selfish. They are very very willing to spend other people's money to send other people's kids to war.

 

Hey, this time I really, really, really will comment no further, regardless of all the lies people will tell in my absence. :cheer2:

Liberals consistently demonstrate their duplicity by doing one thing, then saying they didn't, and regardless of the demonstrated truth, pretend to be superior. Hypocrites! Liars!

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives"][/ame]
On September 14, 2001 bill House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting (the Nay was Barbara Lee, D.)
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate"][/ame]

On September 14, 2001 Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig, R., and Jesse Helms, R.)

 

Something that is not specifically quantifiable,,but clearly has value is the value of a well educated, healthy populous. Americans often ridicule the French and even the Germans,, and their economic growth rate, (being substantially less than the US's)

To paraphrase a recent study by Anton Brendar,, who suggested (as I did a few posts ago) that Amercian's tend to view government spending as waste, while Europeans tend to view it as a way to acquire assets (Investments) Bridges, power plants, subway systems are easy to quantify,, universal health care harder to quantify.

It is also suggested that while France has had a slower "growth rate" in the last decade,, unemployed middle class French people have continued to spend during the current recession (because the have income due to the social safety net!) and they don't have to spend out of pocket for basic health care.

So ridicule France all you want,, but while having a "growth rate of ~60% of the US's over the last decade on an annual basis,,the current recession has hit only about 1/3 as hard.

Icarus

 

GDP has to be corrected for inflation (as "real" GDP) and real GDP has to be corrected for deficit spending.

As for *what* the money is spent on, I'll just say that the Germans have been subsidizing local clean energy, while the US has been Neo-conning.

 

Just for comparison,,,

Like the 40 hour work week?
How about unemployment insurance?
How about Medicare?
Social Security?
FDIC?
Minimum wage?
FDA for safe food and drugs? (Before gutting I might add!)
Voting rights?

"Liberal idea(l)s one an all. I could go on and on,, but I don't want to clean up the mess when a certain someone's head explodes.

 

Global Warming is a dramatically urgent and serious problem. We don't need to wait for governments to find a solution for this problem: each individual can bring an important help adopting a more responsible lifestyle: starting from little, everyday things. It's the only reasonable way to save our planet, before it is too late.

1. Replace a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb (cfl)
   
   
2. Install a programmable thermostat
   
   
3. Move your thermostat down 2° in winter and up 2° in summer
   
   
4. Clean or replace filters on your furnace and air conditioner
   
   
5. Choose energy efficient appliances when making new purchases
   
   
6. Do not leave appliances on standby
   
   
7. Wrap your water heater in an insulation blanket
   
   
8. Move your fridge and freezer
   
   
9. Defrost old fridges and freezers regularly
   
   
10. Don't let heat escape from your house over a long period
    
    
11. Replace your old single-glazed windows with double-glazing
    
    
12. Get a home energy audit
    
    
13. Cover your pots while cooking
    
    
14. Use the washing machine or dishwasher only when they are full
    
    
15. Take a shower instead of a bath
    
    
16. Use less hot water
    
    
17. Use a clothesline instead of a dryer whenever possible
    
    
18. Insulate and weatherize your home
    
    
19. Be sure you’re recycling at home
    
    
20. Recycle your organic waste
    
    
21. Buy intelligently
    
    
22. Choose products that come with little packaging and buy refills when you can
    
    
23. Reuse your shopping bag
    
    
24. Reduce waste
    
    
25. Plant a tree
    
    
26. Switch to green power
    
    
27. Buy locally grown and produced foods
    The average meal in the United States travels 1,200 miles from the farm to your plate. Buying locally will save fuel and keep money in your community.
28. Buy fresh foods instead of frozen
    
    
29. Seek out and support local farmers markets
    
    
30. Buy organic foods as much as possible
    
    
31. Eat less meat
    
    
32. Reduce the number of miles you drive by walking, biking, carpooling or taking mass transit wherever possible
    
    
33. Start a carpool with your coworkers or classmates
    
    
34. Don't leave an empty roof rack on your car
    
    
35. Keep your car tuned up
    
    
36. Drive carefully and do not waste fuel
    
    
37. Check your tires weekly to make sure they’re properly inflated
    
    
38. When it is time for a new car, choose a more fuel efficient vehicle
    
    
39. Try car sharing
    
    
40. Try telecommuting from home
    
    
41. Fly less
    
    
42. Encourage your school or business to reduce emissions
    
    
43. Join the virtual march
    
    
44. Encourage the switch to renewable energy
    
    
45. Protect and conserve forest worldwide
    
    
46. Consider the impact of your investments
    
    
47. Make your city cool
    
    
48. Tell Congress to act
    
    
49. Make sure your voice is heard!
    
    
50. Share this list!
    
    

 

That's a pretty cool list (heh) although I don't get #43 or #8. And 31 should be at the top of the list as it would probably have the biggest impact!!!

 

It's a good list, although seems to suffer from a common malady: it tends to imply that people should cut back -- but not so much that it can be felt. The thermostat change of *two* degrees in either direction is so typical. The horror.

Oh no, we wouldn't want americans to make a sacrifice of convenience for the planet or future generations. That would just be so librel; So, so, C0MMUNIST.