Global warming could cost billions

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 30 2006, 02:38 PM) [snapback]340731[/snapback]</div>

Agree - let the marketplace handle this. And if we are smart, we will make $ off this whole thing. Totally correct.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 30 2006, 03:18 PM) [snapback]340748[/snapback]</div>

1. Yes, when someone is insistent on being aggressive and violent, nonviolence doesn't really work... however, thats not the case in this thread. This is a good example of how nonviolence can effect change, by denying a violent organization the tools they need to promote their violence.

2. Greenpeace is a peaceful organization that has effected change in environmental policy for years. you asked for examples where nonviolence has saved something real - how about saving those whales? Do they just not count in your world view?

3. Not the exception. What about MLK? He preached nonviolence and freedom, and he managed to enact some pretty powerful change here in the US. The fact is, nonviolence is often the harder route to follow - and often gets derailed by those who see a "quicker" way through violence.

4. no, I'm referring to a rather powerful movement during the civil rights movement. to laugh at it simply shows your ignorance.

Some more (specifically from American history):
5. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kans.

6. Rosa Parks refusing to give up her bus seat.

7. Montgomery Al. bus boycot.

8. Southern Christian Leadership Conference

9. "Freedom Riders" from The Congress of Racial Equality

10. Television coverage of the May, 1963 Birmingham Al. civil rights protest

11. march on Washington, culminating in the famous "I have a dream" speech.

12. Civil Rights Act of 1964

I could go on, but you only asked for 12. And before you dismiss these out of hand like you seem to do with every argument, do a little background research - all of these events had a huge impact on individuals, communities, and the nation.

Are you incapable of actually fully reading a post? If you did, you would have realized that those polls were from well respected organizations that follow proper practices to ensure a full, even spread of beliefs. As such, they are held under strict review by their peers and by society. Also, the dates were right in the headings for each and every poll.

And how would you propose to poll all 300MM people? At some point you have to extrapolate, and the statistical techniques for determining a proper sample size and proper demographics are very well established. Don't dismiss something just because it doesn't agree with your particular vision of the world.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 30 2006, 02:23 PM) [snapback]340761[/snapback]</div>

Now, now young man, relax... We heard you on your first post. Don't get into such a hissie fit over the doc's statements.

Just say after me three times:

Liar, liar pants on fire
Liar, liar pants on fire
Liar, liar pants on fire

Now, does that feel better?

Back to our regularly scheduled programming...

#4 2006
Man of action, tigers tamed, revolutions started, witnesses rehearsed, airplanes driven, bars emptied, broads chased, fancies tickled, and Global Warming debunked!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 30 2006, 12:27 PM) [snapback]340764[/snapback]</div>

We still need some gov't action however. Markets don't have a long term view. A couple of years at best. There needs to be positive support from the gov't to get alternatives competitive. This is especially true since the energy sector is NOT a free market. Conventional forms of energy get MASSIVE tax breaks/right offs and out right subsidies that keep their "cost" low. These things need to be removed or renewables should be subsidized at even greater levels. That has not happened thus far, though the fed is starting to come around. The States should not have to be the leaders on these issues.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 30 2006, 08:18 AM) [snapback]340628[/snapback]</div>

Dr Bernman: It is insulting, vicious, and dishonest of you, to accuse me of calling for violent revolution when in my post I so categorically denounce violent revolution.

Have you no shame?

You have a right to your opinions. You do not have a right to accuse me of advocating the opposite of what I in fact advocate.

If you cannot be bothered to read a post in its entirety and make some effort to understand it, then you should at least have the decency to refrain from commenting on it.

Not only do you insult me, but you rob yourself of any sort of credibility.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 30 2006, 09:20 PM) [snapback]341064[/snapback]</div>

In my interchange with Dr. lie, in another thread, I came to a similar conclusion you just did and for the first time have decided to put someone on ignore. I can only see what others are now saying to him. It is a real hoot. I really think he does what he does just to get attention which an individual with a doctorate should never need to do. I, for one, do not believe he has a medical degree. Nor do I know a MD who would normally have the time to respond to threads like he does. It is just merely an attempt at elevating his status in your minds eye. Why the majority continues to give him this attention is beyond me. But I must admit it took a few days of interaction to make my conclusions.

Have you noticed how little progress is made in discussions with Dr. Lie? Once people start to respond to him it appears they are compelled to undo the obvious wrongs he comes up with. Then after enough banter the thread dies and the same group of people start over again with another thread.....and so it goes.

Anyway.......

I have done some research on the subject of global warming. I have concluded there is scientific consensus that it exists. Just do some research of your own and it doesn't take much to see what is going on around us. Hurricane Katrina and the sheer number of other hurricanes last year, the warmest winter ever in my lifetime last winter, hotter than normal summers and just today (October 30, 2006) a report from Sir Nicholas Stern, former World Bank chief economist concluded that ignoring climate change could lead to economic upheaval on the scale of the 1930's depression.

These are wake up calls to every country in the world. By the way, that includes us.

The report is clear:

We are heading toward catastrophic tipping points in our climate unless we act.

A portion of the Stern report. (PDF file) commissioned by the British government. This is but a portion of a 700 page report which details the risks to our world economy by doing nothing.

It doesn't get any clearer than this. The bad thing is to those who do not believe in global warming would you want to honestly risk the consequences of doing nothing if you are wrong? What is the worst that would happen? Even a green economy can be a good thing.

So, whatever Dr. Lie is telling you, forget it. To those who wish to have a dialog ,which can be backed up, then let us have an intelligent interaction. But please do not make up poll results or conclusions not backed up by the facts.

 

How embarrassing to be a republican:

LAST to grasp global warming
FIRST to fool's wars
FIRST to fascism
FIRST to torture
STILL thinks WMD were in Iraq in 2001

 

Please put me, too, on your ignore list. I also disagree with the manmade Global Warming scheme. Soon you will be in utter bliss with only people who agree with your conclusions.

You should probably put all of Australia on your ignore list, that as a state who one could argue is very leftist, disagrees with the latest report out from Britain. While the British government believes it may fool much of the population to pay enormous Global Warming taxes (which I believe will fail), the Australian government thinks not. If the UN is able to push a worldwide Global Warming carbon trading scheme, highly developed nations such as the US, Australia, Britain, will be obligated to pay enormous sums of money to undeveloped third world nations whose so called carbon footprint is less than ours. A socialists dream...

Although I do not believe in manmade Global Warming, I do believe that governments who push a Global Warming agenda will only be able to address the situation with a capitalist approach as touted by even the most leftist of posters on Priuschat. Carbon trading schemes and additional fuel taxes (gas, coal, fuel oil) come to mind. I have seen mandates for reductions of carbon output of up to 80%.

What does that mean to you? If you are middle class or below and living in a developed country, then be prepared for a drastic lifestyle change. If you are upper middle class or wealthy (as are government officials and most Global Warming pundits) then you just pay more. I doubt Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, and even Sir Nicholas Stern will notice a lifestyle change. Their Bentley's and Gulfstreams will still be at their service.

Rick
#4 2006
Not a Phd, so just call me Mr. Lie... then I won't be confused with the Dr. Lie in future posts.





<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Three60guy @ Oct 31 2006, 01:45 AM) [snapback]341151[/snapback]</div>

 

his point of ignore wasn't because dbermanmd disagreed with him - it was with the nature of the "Facts" presented by said individual - in almost every case they can be shown to be completely false, and his arguments without any research behind them. "touting the party line", so to speak, without understanding it.

On the other hand, while i disagree with you on the issue of global warming, i do agree with the consequences you pointed out to proposed carbon trading schemes.

It was for those reasons that Clinton didn't try to get the Kyoto treaty ratified. He saw that, while we do need to reduce our carbon footprint in order to reduce global warming, such a bill would require us to pay huge amounts of money to undeveloped countries, which could very well lead us into economic ruin. He chose, instead, to have the Us be one of the signatories of the bill, indicating that we felt it was important, but not to ratify it, meaning we don't have to actually follow it.

Essentially, he said "Global warming is bad, and we should do something about it, but we aren't going to allow others to police our emissions and impose fines and taxes on our sovereign nation for not reaching the levels they want"

Since then, we have seen some progress in America towards attempting to reduce our footprint, in the way of legislation requiring reduced emissions from various sources, although it hasn't been enough yet.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 30 2006, 03:38 PM) [snapback]340771[/snapback]</div>

He didn't dismiss it because he didn't agree with it, he dismissed it because it proved he was completely wrong.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 31 2006, 12:15 PM) [snapback]341307[/snapback]</div>

Just to be clear. . .

You do or do not believe Global Warming is now occurring? I understand your preposition that man has nothing to do with it.

Do you also subscribe to the notion that man has little or no effect on the environment or on the remaining quantity or quality of natural resources? Or, is our impact so slight that it is insignificant on a local, regional, or global scale?

If I understand correctly then, the basic supposition of your argument is - if we didn't cause the problem, why should we try to do something to slow it? - especially if the financial burden causes a change in my lifestyle?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 31 2006, 11:35 AM) [snapback]341321[/snapback]</div>

eagle you nailed it.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Oct 31 2006, 12:07 PM) [snapback]341347[/snapback]</div>

Again, total agreement with kingofgix

 

The Global Warming argument on hand as it relates to this and many other threads on this board is not IF not Global Warming is actually occurring, but IF man can actually affect/control the climate through reductions (or increased emissions) of CO2. We are not talking about rain forest depletion, world oil reserves, Republicans or Democrats.

I'll make myself clear: I do not believe manmade (excluding natural CO2 emissions) emissions or reductions of CO2 will have any measurable effect on the world's climate now or in the foreseeable future.

Yes, I do subscribe to the notion that man can and does have an influence on a great many of the natural resources this planet has to offer. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone of reasonable character, no matter their political persuasion, who would believe otherwise.

Your final supposition takes my conclusion not in a direction of my beliefs. Yes, I believe MAN cannot cause Global Warming through the increased emissions of CO2 and therefore should not attempt any of the schemes purported by the Global Warming community BECAUSE (and this is important) WE (man only, not natural sources) cannot affect climate change through the reduction of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.

Rick
#4 2006



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dreichla @ Oct 31 2006, 01:25 PM) [snapback]341356[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 31 2006, 01:55 PM) [snapback]341389[/snapback]</div>

Finally! Someone with a positive outlook. Can you give me the reference to where your conclusions are published in a peer reviewed journal? This is great news!!

 

The Journal is called "Ostriches, unite !!"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 30 2006, 02:38 PM) [snapback]340731[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for bringing this up Tripp. Viking31 has a strong opinion about global warming that he has completely failed to support. He has not addressed the logic or the science behind GW that was presented in the previous thread.

And this whole notion that GW is just a scheme of environmentalists or fill in the blank group is preposterous. There has been a legitimate scientific debate on the subject to be sure, but if you really take the time to do a little research on the subject you will find an enormously strong scientific foundation for both the concept of GW and the predictions. The amount of scientific investigation that has taken place on this subject in the past 10 years is truly incredible.

Exactly what is the motive of "environmentalists" that would warrant this bogus, yet massive worldwide scientific conspiracy that it would appear Viking31 so strongly believes exists? What is the motive that would unite scientists, universities, agencies and governments all over the world including the EPA, NOAA, NASA, the Wood's Hole Oceanographic Institute, etc. etc.? What benefit or motive, COMENSURATE WITH THE MAGNITUDE OF THE REQURIED CONSPIRACY, would these groups mutually receive or share from this bogus theory?

On the other hand, who might have a stake in spreading misinformation and doubt about GW? Could it be the largest and most profitable compaines in the world? Companies like Exxon/Moblie, Phillips/Conoco, General Motors, etc.? Might they have something to gain by maintaining the status quo? Might they have the resources and motive to fund a misinformation campaign?

Nah, what a silly idea.....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Oct 31 2006, 03:21 PM) [snapback]341470[/snapback]</div>

Well, that was me a few dozen years or so ago, but not now! I have lived through the following end of the world disasters:

Predicted world overpopulation by the turn of the century (and then the ensuing worldwide food shortages: Soylent Green for all you whippersnappers), Global Cooling, exhaustion of the world's oil supply by the year 2000, flu epidemics that would rival the 1918 one, fresh water shortages, Y2K (anyone care for a few dated boxes of rice and beans?), the deadly ozone hole, carnage on the highways because of the end of the 55 MPH speed limit, carnage in the streets because of the end of the assault weapons ban, higher taxes if the Democrats take power, Voodoo economics if the Republicans take power,...

So now the latest rage is everyone is waiting for manmade Global Warming to strike at any moment. I know, this is the real one, "were not kidding this time" (they weren't kidding on the other disasters too). Oh, please, wake me when it's over... I think I'll have a better chance of seeing the "Great Pumpkin" tonight!

Rick
#4 2006

P.S. It got too hard to breathe under all that sand.

 

Read this. I know, it's from the Cato institute and for many of you it's poison, but just read it (it will only take a few minutes of your time). Please critique it. Show me where he is just wrong and why. And, please, "oh it's not peer reviewed..." Your big boys and girls now. At least old enough to drive. Think for yourself.

Essentially the numbers just don't support the disasters predicted and show how it is just impossible for man to emit enough CO2 (which, by the way, only accounts for a few percent of the so called greenhouse gases) to affect the atmosphere and weather. And it's impossible for the greenhouse effect alone to raise the temps to the levels Global Warming supporters predict.

And most importantly, careers, livelihoods, and whole institutions depend on Global Warming to happen. It's all in the M-O-N-E-Y. Don't support Global Warming; then your papers won't even get reviewed. Support Global Warming, well write something nice and you'll get published.

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 31 2006, 02:55 PM) [snapback]341389[/snapback]</div>

Viking31, thank you for making you opinion clear. But on what do you base that opinion? CO2 has a known "greenhouse" effect. Global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels are linked. Man is producing massive quantities of CO2 and releasing them into the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 levels are going up at a rapid rate, and the rate of rise roughly parallels the production of CO2 by man made activities. It started to rise slowly with the advent of the industrial revolution, and the rate of rise has increased with our increased use of fossil fuels. Also, the rate of rise is faster than at anytime in the measureable past. What about that set of facts do you not agree with?

I have seen the shallow argument about how much CO2 there is in the atmoshphere and how little humans produce in comparison. It's a nice straw man argument for the unthinking, but it fails to address the issue of BALANCE. If your bathtub is full, how much water to you have to add to it to make it overflow? One cup maybe? How much is that one cup in comparison to the amount of water in the bathtub? Similarly, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant to the question of atmospheric balance.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 30 2006, 10:20 PM) [snapback]341064[/snapback]</div>

Please daniel, surely you realize what does not exist cannot be stolen.