By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - They myth that is man made global warming.

SnesTea on 28 June 2009
akuma587 said:

Cause they produce coal.

@ stickball:

That's totally fair, but there is no way to address the national debt unless the problem is addressed on both fronts. We have to substantially raise taxes and substantially cut spending. That is all I am saying. And I don't think there is really any argument that can be made for an alternative considering the size of our national debt.

And I agree with you that people in government are too willing to spend money they don't have (both Democrats and Republicans). But it is also true that some are willing to cut taxes even while we are running major deficits. Sometimes it is justified (like under Reagan, though even Reagan raised a lot taxes a few years later, but don't tell conservatives that), and sometimes it is not (Bush Jr. for instance).

For the most part, the spending situation should be addressed in this order

1) Entitlements (especially Medicare, the Social Security problem is actually much easier to fix)
2) Military Spending
3) Revamping the tax code
4) Pet projects (farm subsidies comes to mind)
5) Overhauling government departments on many levels

But in all reality this country is so big that it really isn't realistic to expect the federal government to spend much less than $2.5-3 trillion considering that the population grows yearly, and when you consider natural inflation. I mean $1 trillion in 1975 (which we were already spending) would be around $4 trillion in today's dollars.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

What cost $1000000000000 in 1975 would cost $3959022166696.21 in 2008.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2008 and 1975,
they would cost you $1000000000000 and $240317097222.62 respectively.

Do you want to do another calculation?

But you know what one of the biggest differences between then and now was? Tax rates.

This looks like a well thought out post. I agree.



Around the Network
elprincipe on 28 June 2009
highwaystar101 said:
elprincipe said:
highwaystar101 said:
With all respect I can see why people like to debate this point as it is not a black and white issue by any means. But can people stop saying 'global warming'? All it does is show that you don't know much about climate change, the earth isn't 'just' going to get warmer, just more extreme.

Why should we call it "climate change"? Because the globe is no longer warming so they needed a new term? Open your eyes, man; that's called propaganda.

What "extreme" things are you talking about? I'd really like to know. Global cyclone strength is at its lowest recorded level, to take an example, despite doomsayers claiming we would have more frequent and stronger hurricanes. Please give examples of "extreme" weather you believe is caused by global warming (sorry, climate change). I'm very interested.

You needed examples of the extreme weather conditions, I guess taking two seconds to click on the links I provided was to taxing then. But then again you cut them out when quoting so hey, they must not have been important enough.

Oh and the globe is getting warmer, it's the heat that will cause a climate shift in many parts of the world, that's why global warming is an incorrect term. Who's feeding me this propaganda then? The scientists who run a quest for knowledge not propaganda? No, the only propaganda is the media overblowing it. It's like that old saying PHd students have about the media "A clever mans words published in a silly salesmans words". (or something to that effect)

I wont say climate change isn't happening, because it is, all my point is that the media has overblown it a lot. But that doesn't stop the fact that we have to make very small changes to make a difference.

So your evidence that global warming is causing "extreme weather events" is two rainy summers in England?  I'm sorry, trying not to laugh, but you're going to have to do a lot better than that.



In Memoriam RVW Jr.

SSBB Friend Code = 5455-9050-8670 (PM me if you add so I can add you!) 

Tetris Party Friend Code = 116129046416 (ditto)

elprincipe on 28 June 2009
akuma587 said:
Here are the actual cost estimates to dispel some of the misinformation:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2009/Jun/26/house_narrowly_passes_major_energy_climate_bill.html

The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year.

So, don't you guys agree that if you tax a behavior people are less likely to do it? I hear you guys say all the time that taxing rich people discourages investment. So wouldn't taxing the use of carbon based fuels significantly discourage people's use of those fuels?

And I don't see how you guys can argue that the government is not investing in alternative energy. The government is pouring TONS of movie into wind, solar, and also nuclear energy initiatives.

This CBO study is VERY suspect.  Even if you believe them (I certainly don't), they don't account for massive effects on GDP (trillions of dollars lost) and job losses (up to 2+ million per year).  Remember, under the insane bill that passed the House (certainly the worst piece of legislation passed by either chamber in my lifetime), we can expect electricity prices to double and gasoline/natural gas/home heating oil prices to rise by 60+ percent.  So remember that everything you buy will be 2+ times more expensive, since these things take electricity and fuel to produce and transport.  And you thought groceries were expensive now, wait until a gallon of milk is $9 on sale.  Thanks Congress!  Good thing we prevented that 0.5 degrees of warming by 2100!



In Memoriam RVW Jr.

SSBB Friend Code = 5455-9050-8670 (PM me if you add so I can add you!) 

Tetris Party Friend Code = 116129046416 (ditto)

HappySqurriel on 28 June 2009
NJ5 said:

@HappySqurriel: I see your point, but there's still a lot of crap around to burn other than oil... we can (and unfortunately, probably will) burn coal, wood, plastic...

 


Natural Gas and Coal may be tapped more heavily in the future, but we will (probably) never use wood/charcoal or any other material in high quantities to produce energy because of how inefficient and expensive other materials are ... Even then , it is unlikely that we could ramp up production of Natural Gas and Coal at a fast enough rate to get to 150% of current CO2 emissions before they were approaching peak production and the decline in oil production eliminated any gains they made.

The fact is that we're creating policy based on computer models that are full of awful assumptions, that are based off of "science" which refuses to follow the scientific method and question their hypothesis in the presence of conflicting data.



HappySqurriel on 28 June 2009
elprincipe said:
highwaystar101 said:
elprincipe said:
highwaystar101 said:
With all respect I can see why people like to debate this point as it is not a black and white issue by any means. But can people stop saying 'global warming'? All it does is show that you don't know much about climate change, the earth isn't 'just' going to get warmer, just more extreme.

Why should we call it "climate change"? Because the globe is no longer warming so they needed a new term? Open your eyes, man; that's called propaganda.

What "extreme" things are you talking about? I'd really like to know. Global cyclone strength is at its lowest recorded level, to take an example, despite doomsayers claiming we would have more frequent and stronger hurricanes. Please give examples of "extreme" weather you believe is caused by global warming (sorry, climate change). I'm very interested.

You needed examples of the extreme weather conditions, I guess taking two seconds to click on the links I provided was to taxing then. But then again you cut them out when quoting so hey, they must not have been important enough.

Oh and the globe is getting warmer, it's the heat that will cause a climate shift in many parts of the world, that's why global warming is an incorrect term. Who's feeding me this propaganda then? The scientists who run a quest for knowledge not propaganda? No, the only propaganda is the media overblowing it. It's like that old saying PHd students have about the media "A clever mans words published in a silly salesmans words". (or something to that effect)

I wont say climate change isn't happening, because it is, all my point is that the media has overblown it a lot. But that doesn't stop the fact that we have to make very small changes to make a difference.

So your evidence that global warming is causing "extreme weather events" is two rainy summers in England? I'm sorry, trying not to laugh, but you're going to have to do a lot better than that.

Another way to look at it is, how can we seperate the increase in the number of weather events we know about from the number that is supposed to be produced by global warming?

If you split the Earth into areas by 10 degrees of lattitude and 10 degrees of longitude you have 648 massive, of which at least 25% of which will have some populated land-mass within them. With how large these areas are (hundreds of thousands of square kilometers) these each have their own weather patterns that exist within them. What this means is that we should be hearing about several hundred year droughts, floods, rain storms, heat waves and countless other extreme weather events every year (and we should hear about multi-decade events daily) simply due to probability.

Local weather (in general) should always be colder, warmer, weter, or dryer than average because (realistically) average weather is a statistical construct; and extreme weather is a constant on a global scale simply because given enough opportunities even unlikely events happen.



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 29 June 2009
HappySqurriel said:

Natural Gas and Coal may be tapped more heavily in the future, but we will (probably) never use wood/charcoal or any other material in high quantities to produce energy because of how inefficient and expensive other materials are...

Millions of people burn wood in fireplaces, pellet stoves, and wood furnaces every year to generate energy.

I can't see us using wood for electricity, but as a nation we still burn a crap load of it for energy.



akuma587 on 29 June 2009
elprincipe said:
akuma587 said:
Here are the actual cost estimates to dispel some of the misinformation:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2009/Jun/26/house_narrowly_passes_major_energy_climate_bill.html

The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year.

So, don't you guys agree that if you tax a behavior people are less likely to do it? I hear you guys say all the time that taxing rich people discourages investment. So wouldn't taxing the use of carbon based fuels significantly discourage people's use of those fuels?

And I don't see how you guys can argue that the government is not investing in alternative energy. The government is pouring TONS of movie into wind, solar, and also nuclear energy initiatives.

This CBO study is VERY suspect.  Even if you believe them (I certainly don't), they don't account for massive effects on GDP (trillions of dollars lost) and job losses (up to 2+ million per year).  Remember, under the insane bill that passed the House (certainly the worst piece of legislation passed by either chamber in my lifetime), we can expect electricity prices to double and gasoline/natural gas/home heating oil prices to rise by 60+ percent.  So remember that everything you buy will be 2+ times more expensive, since these things take electricity and fuel to produce and transport.  And you thought groceries were expensive now, wait until a gallon of milk is $9 on sale.  Thanks Congress!  Good thing we prevented that 0.5 degrees of warming by 2100!

Ironically Republicans in Congress didn't believe it either even though they regularly laud the CBO estimates when it makes Obama look bad.  But they certainly wouldn't pick and choose like that now would they.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Spankey on 29 June 2009

best way to stop global warming: Stop forest fires and volcanoes.

and cows farting.



Proud Sony Rear Admiral

highwaystar101 on 29 June 2009
elprincipe said:
highwaystar101 said:
elprincipe said:
highwaystar101 said:
With all respect I can see why people like to debate this point as it is not a black and white issue by any means. But can people stop saying 'global warming'? All it does is show that you don't know much about climate change, the earth isn't 'just' going to get warmer, just more extreme.

Why should we call it "climate change"? Because the globe is no longer warming so they needed a new term? Open your eyes, man; that's called propaganda.

What "extreme" things are you talking about? I'd really like to know. Global cyclone strength is at its lowest recorded level, to take an example, despite doomsayers claiming we would have more frequent and stronger hurricanes. Please give examples of "extreme" weather you believe is caused by global warming (sorry, climate change). I'm very interested.

You needed examples of the extreme weather conditions, I guess taking two seconds to click on the links I provided was to taxing then. But then again you cut them out when quoting so hey, they must not have been important enough.

Oh and the globe is getting warmer, it's the heat that will cause a climate shift in many parts of the world, that's why global warming is an incorrect term. Who's feeding me this propaganda then? The scientists who run a quest for knowledge not propaganda? No, the only propaganda is the media overblowing it. It's like that old saying PHd students have about the media "A clever mans words published in a silly salesmans words". (or something to that effect)

I wont say climate change isn't happening, because it is, all my point is that the media has overblown it a lot. But that doesn't stop the fact that we have to make very small changes to make a difference.

So your evidence that global warming is causing "extreme weather events" is two rainy summers in England? I'm sorry, trying not to laugh, but you're going to have to do a lot better than that.

Floods, lakes drying up, increasingly violent hurricanes, Desertification, Melting antarctic ice



The Fury on 29 June 2009
Spankey said:
 volcanoes.

Not to be picky but while I agree on your cows farting thing, Volcanoes are one cause of the planet decreasing in overal temperature. This isn't just the constant Volcanoes like Hawaii producing magma, I mean the large eruptions. Volcanic Explosivity Index is what they go by and we haven't had any big ones in a few years. We had 2 Cat 4 in 2008 and the last big one was a 6 in 1991. Without any truely large ones the earths temperature doesn't get the volcanoes 'cooling' effect on the planet.

One of the many causes of, as well as man produced pollutions, Climate Change. As in not having a big volcanic eruption. When Yellow Stone goes up though...



Hmm, pie.