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

Forums - General - Climate Change, No peer reviewed evidence to prove it isn't happening

megaman79 on 18 August 2009

I dk what to say, analogies are pointless now because the reality is much worse than a rusting car.



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 18 August 2009
megaman79 said:
I dk what to say, analogies are pointless now because the reality is much worse than a rusting car.

No, the ramifications of me being wrong are very high, but the ramifications of me being right, and us spending trillions of dollars to solve a problem we don't have is high as well.

The right thing to do, is wait until we know what the problem is, and then try and solve it. For example, let's say the world is getting warmer, and has nothing to do with what we did to the earth.

Would you rather spend trillions trying to stop the world from getting hotter, or spend trillions on how to live in a world that's heating up?

I would take the later, if the former is a waist of time.

You want to do the former, regardless of reality, and I think that's unwise.



megaman79 on 18 August 2009

No one is listening to you. The rest of the world are going to try and prevent this, regardless of whether america wants in on the next economic boom or not.



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

HappySqurriel on 18 August 2009
megaman79 said:
No one is listening to you. The rest of the world are going to try and prevent this, regardless of whether america wants in on the next economic boom or not.

If by economic boom you mean gigantic waste of resources ...

A couple of months ago a Spanish University did a cost benefit analysis of green jobs that were promoted by the Spanish government and it turned out that for every green job created the Spanish economy lost 2.2 regular jobs, and to create that job the Spanish government spent $774,000; and to make matters worse, only 10% of these positions were permanent.

For the past 30 years (since the oil crisis in the 1970s) there has been massive investment in alternative energy technology by both public and private institutions and the technologies are creeping along at (about) as fast of a rate as they can. Now, most green alternative energy technologies only become cost competitive with coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and so on when energy prices are far higher than they currently are. The economic costs associated with a rapid shift towards green technologies can be seen by wondering what would happen to businesses within a country if a country was forced to pay double or triple the cost for energy.

 

The costs associated with "Going Green" right now are so high that there is no way for an economy to grow in any way (besides unemployment) by forcing the adoption of green energy.



Sardauk on 18 August 2009
HappySqurriel said:

The costs associated with "Going Green" right now are so high that there is no way for an economy to grow in any way (besides unemployment) by forcing the adoption of green energy.

That is absolutly false.... well.. maybe not for the USA who is fully addicted to oil business...

 

Cheap energy is a myth...

 



 

Evan Wells (Uncharted 2): I think the differences that you see between any two games has much more to do with the developer than whether it’s on the Xbox or PS3.

Around the Network
megaman79 on 18 August 2009

double post



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

megaman79 on 18 August 2009
HappySqurriel said:
megaman79 said:
No one is listening to you. The rest of the world are going to try and prevent this, regardless of whether america wants in on the next economic boom or not.

If by economic boom you mean gigantic waste of resources ...

A couple of months ago a Spanish University did a cost benefit analysis of green jobs that were promoted by the Spanish government and it turned out that for every green job created the Spanish economy lost 2.2 regular jobs, and to create that job the Spanish government spent $774,000; and to make matters worse, only 10% of these positions were permanent.

For the past 30 years (since the oil crisis in the 1970s) there has been massive investment in alternative energy technology by both public and private institutions and the technologies are creeping along at (about) as fast of a rate as they can. Now, most green alternative energy technologies only become cost competitive with coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and so on when energy prices are far higher than they currently are. The economic costs associated with a rapid shift towards green technologies can be seen by wondering what would happen to businesses within a country if a country was forced to pay double or triple the cost for energy.

 

The costs associated with "Going Green" right now are so high that there is no way for an economy to grow in any way (besides unemployment) by forcing the adoption of green energy.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2496352

I just gave a source from economists who are experts in renewable energy investment portfolios, they claim the exact opposite. So where is your source to prove your claims? Come to think of where is Sqrl when we need him to give credence to a fact based argument.



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

TheRealMafoo on 18 August 2009
megaman79 said:
HappySqurriel said:
megaman79 said:
No one is listening to you. The rest of the world are going to try and prevent this, regardless of whether america wants in on the next economic boom or not.

If by economic boom you mean gigantic waste of resources ...

A couple of months ago a Spanish University did a cost benefit analysis of green jobs that were promoted by the Spanish government and it turned out that for every green job created the Spanish economy lost 2.2 regular jobs, and to create that job the Spanish government spent $774,000; and to make matters worse, only 10% of these positions were permanent.

For the past 30 years (since the oil crisis in the 1970s) there has been massive investment in alternative energy technology by both public and private institutions and the technologies are creeping along at (about) as fast of a rate as they can. Now, most green alternative energy technologies only become cost competitive with coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and so on when energy prices are far higher than they currently are. The economic costs associated with a rapid shift towards green technologies can be seen by wondering what would happen to businesses within a country if a country was forced to pay double or triple the cost for energy.

 

The costs associated with "Going Green" right now are so high that there is no way for an economy to grow in any way (besides unemployment) by forcing the adoption of green energy.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2496352

I just gave a source from economists who are experts in renewable energy investment portfolios, they claim the exact opposite. So where is your source to prove your claims? Come to think of where is Sqrl when we need him to give credence to a fact based argument.

Before you go off on someone, you might want to spend 30 seconds on google.

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf



HappySqurriel on 18 August 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
megaman79 said:
HappySqurriel said:
megaman79 said:
No one is listening to you. The rest of the world are going to try and prevent this, regardless of whether america wants in on the next economic boom or not.

If by economic boom you mean gigantic waste of resources ...

A couple of months ago a Spanish University did a cost benefit analysis of green jobs that were promoted by the Spanish government and it turned out that for every green job created the Spanish economy lost 2.2 regular jobs, and to create that job the Spanish government spent $774,000; and to make matters worse, only 10% of these positions were permanent.

For the past 30 years (since the oil crisis in the 1970s) there has been massive investment in alternative energy technology by both public and private institutions and the technologies are creeping along at (about) as fast of a rate as they can. Now, most green alternative energy technologies only become cost competitive with coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and so on when energy prices are far higher than they currently are. The economic costs associated with a rapid shift towards green technologies can be seen by wondering what would happen to businesses within a country if a country was forced to pay double or triple the cost for energy.

 

The costs associated with "Going Green" right now are so high that there is no way for an economy to grow in any way (besides unemployment) by forcing the adoption of green energy.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2496352

I just gave a source from economists who are experts in renewable energy investment portfolios, they claim the exact opposite. So where is your source to prove your claims? Come to think of where is Sqrl when we need him to give credence to a fact based argument.

Before you go off on someone, you might want to spend 30 seconds on google.

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

You'd think that after so many respected economists claimed that the fundamentals of the economy were sound before the economy started to collapse 2 years ago, and with how many had over-estimated the impact of the stimulus and the rate of economic recovery, that people would start to realize that economists don't make good predictions and would start to look at the results from similar actions rather than believe these (generally very bad) economists. Sadly enough, people will never let facts get in the way of their beliefs



megaman79 on 18 August 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
megaman79 said:
HappySqurriel said:
megaman79 said:
No one is listening to you. The rest of the world are going to try and prevent this, regardless of whether america wants in on the next economic boom or not.

If by economic boom you mean gigantic waste of resources ...

A couple of months ago a Spanish University did a cost benefit analysis of green jobs that were promoted by the Spanish government and it turned out that for every green job created the Spanish economy lost 2.2 regular jobs, and to create that job the Spanish government spent $774,000; and to make matters worse, only 10% of these positions were permanent.

For the past 30 years (since the oil crisis in the 1970s) there has been massive investment in alternative energy technology by both public and private institutions and the technologies are creeping along at (about) as fast of a rate as they can. Now, most green alternative energy technologies only become cost competitive with coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and so on when energy prices are far higher than they currently are. The economic costs associated with a rapid shift towards green technologies can be seen by wondering what would happen to businesses within a country if a country was forced to pay double or triple the cost for energy.

 

The costs associated with "Going Green" right now are so high that there is no way for an economy to grow in any way (besides unemployment) by forcing the adoption of green energy.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2496352

I just gave a source from economists who are experts in renewable energy investment portfolios, they claim the exact opposite. So where is your source to prove your claims? Come to think of where is Sqrl when we need him to give credence to a fact based argument.

Before you go off on someone, you might want to spend 30 seconds on google.

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

Its interesting. Its not a university though, wrong on that count.



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.