"22 Inconvenient Truths About Global Warming"

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Still citing studies that you don't understand, I see.

Not at all

You still cant see, I see

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Maybe you will like this one better

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

Quote

Various mechanisms, involving changes in ocean circulation, changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases or haze particles, and changes in snow and ice cover, have been invoked to explain these sudden regional and global transitions. We do not know whether such changes could occur in the near future as a result of human effects on climate. Phenomena such as the Younger Dryas and Heinrich events might only occur in a 'glacial' world with much larger ice sheets and more extensive sea ice cover. However, a major sudden cold event did probably occur under global climate conditions similar to those of the present, during the Eemian interglacial, around 122,000 years ago. Less intensive, but significant rapid climate changes also occurred during the present (Holocene) interglacial, with cold and dry phases occurring on a 1500-year cycle, and with climate transitions on a decade-to-century timescale. In the past few centuries, smaller transitions (such as the ending of the Little Ice Age at about 1650 AD) probably occurred over only a few decades at most. All the evidence indicates that most long-term climate change occurs in sudden jumps rather than incremental changes.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

Quote

I wouldn't expect you to take the black or white approach, but there you have it written above.

So now you are all, " if you aren't with us, you are against us" now, huh

Um, no.

I was paraphrasing the logical conclusion of the position taken by lawrocket (and rushmc). They think that all the politicians who believe in AGW only want to extert control over the lives of the little people. By extension, the politicians who disbelieve AGW must be doing it out of an altruistic sense of keeping big bad government from growing out of control.

This is a crock of shit. They truly believe that the world is threatened. They want to fix it. But the only way to do it is to exert control. Unfortunately, I live in California where there is a lot of climate control law going on. The state manages to raise a billion dollars by auctioning off carbon credits. Then they require refiners to do it. Money to the state. So the refiners pass on the cost to consumers.

And what is the long term effect? Optimist forecasts are that it will be responsible for dropping worldwide warming by .03 degrees Celsius by 2100. But the State of California has the promises of billions of dollars of revenue for the State to hand out.

So there is a law that has optimistically stated that the desired effect will be for all intent and purposes undetectable. But there will be billions in additional revenue for the government.

And you think I have little reason to be dubious of the intentions? They want to slow global warming to less that 2 degrees celsius. This won't do it or even come fucking close. But it raises a lot of money! In fact that's what is always being touted is how much money is being raised by taking them from those lousy corporations (who will then pass those costs to the public, which is a way of taxing the public and hosing the poor even more).

Quote

That position is hogwash.

Both sides have a broad spectrum of people, some of whom truly believe (or disbelieve) that there is a serious problem with AGW, and some who only care about their own bottom line. Most people fall in between.

What can be done about it without controlling the economy or controlling the people? There are those like Bill who really puts his money where his mouth is. But then there are others who think that only by radical change to the energy production system (and immediate changes) are acceptable. And of course, they want to be the people in charge of it and will be grandly compensated for it.

I'm not worried about the ones that fudge on it. Those are the ones who come up with workable solutions. It's the true believers that worry me. Try cutting a deal with a religious zealot over abortion. Won't happen. Try cutting a deal with a vocal alarmist. Won't happen.

It's simple. Pretty much every commercial activity affects the climate equation. This means pretty much everything that anybody does affects it. Thus in order to do something about it, control over economic activities must be established.

The distortion is greatest from those who have the most to gain and the most to lose.

When you tell me how to fix this carbon stuff without taking more control over the economy and giving a lot of power over to people to direct it, please let me know. So there are two types of people: the altruists who look at controlling the economy as a necessary thing for the good of everybody. And there are the egotists who want to control the economy and use whatever reason they have to do it.

Consider the war in Iraq. There were people who supported the War because they truly believed that the world was threatened. And there were others who wanted war in Iraq and just looked for a reason.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

I assume that you understand that study to say that climate changes in the past have occurred without man's input.

That is true, but that doesn't mean that climate changes can't occur in the future because of man's input. As you like to point out, there are many variables that impact the climate. The gap in your logic is that you believe that one of those variables is not man's activity.

Man's activity has an impact on the climate. The stuidy you cite is evidence that small changes in the variables that affect the climate can result in rapid changes to the system. I don't understand why you can't make the connection between that fact and the idea that we might be pushing the climate into one of those periods of rapid change.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

I assume that you understand that study to say that climate changes in the past have occurred without man's input.

That is true, but that doesn't mean that climate changes can't occur in the future because of man's input. As you like to point out, there are many variables that impact the climate. The gap in your logic is that you believe that one of those variables is not man's activity.

Man's activity has an impact on the climate. The stuidy you cite is evidence that small changes in the variables that affect the climate can result in rapid changes to the system. I don't understand why you can't make the connection between that fact and the idea that we might be pushing the climate into one of those periods of rapid change.

I will keep this simple for you

I am rebutting the oft made point that the climate is changing at an unprecedented rate.

As both of these links point out, climate has changed at a rate faster today in the past.

So, the alarminsts need to find supporting info that the climate IS changing faster than ever before or

give it the fuck up


Just like the 97% consensus bs

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

And what is the long term effect? Optimist forecasts are that it will be responsible for dropping worldwide warming by .03 degrees Celsius by 2100. But the State of California has the promises of billions of dollars of revenue for the State to hand out.

No one thinks that California's changes by themselves are going to stop climate change. What they do, however, is get the ball rolling. Someone has to lead the way, and when it is a large state like California, it makes it easier for other states to follow suit, which makes it easier for other countries to follow suit. Using your logic, there's no point in quitting smoking, since that next cigarette haas a miniscule effect on your long term health. Taken as a single event, smoking a cigarette isn't a big deal. Smoking 100,000 of them over a lifetime, however, adds up.

Quote

What can be done about it without controlling the economy or controlling the people? There are those like Bill who really puts his money where his mouth is. But then there are others who think that only by radical change to the energy production system (and immediate changes) are acceptable. And of course, they want to be the people in charge of it and will be grandly compensated for it.

Is Elon Mush controlling the economy by developing electric cars and solar storage devices? Are grocery stores controlling the economy by selling reusable bags, or streamlining their supply chain to use shorter shipping routes? Smart companies realize that there are econimc benefits to "going green". That's not controlling the economy, that's growing the economy. Do I think some of the government's programs result in an overcontrolled economy, sure. But to imply that there is no way to reduce climate change without a totalitarian green state is disingenuous.

Quote

I'm not worried about the ones that fudge on it. Those are the ones who come up with workable solutions. It's the true believers that worry me. Try cutting a deal with a religious zealot over abortion. Won't happen. Try cutting a deal with a vocal alarmist. Won't happen.

Luckily most people don't reside at the extremes.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

I will keep this simple for you

I am rebutting the oft made point that the climate is changing at an unprecedented rate.

As both of these links point out, climate has changed at a rate faster today in the past.

So, the alarminsts need to find supporting info that the climate IS changing faster than ever before or

give it the fuck up

I'm sorry, but you're not thinking this position through.

The argument from the AGW supporters has never been that the climate is changing faster than in ever has before. The argument is that for the first time ever, the climate is changing due to man's activity. If man's activity were cyclic (like all the cycles pointed out in your study) it wouldn't be a big deal. Our activity is not cyclic, it is only going one direction.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that a lynchpin to the AGW argument is that the climate has never changed faster. That's not a fundamental part of the argument.

- Dan G

[brenthutch 444]

Who is Elon Mush?

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

I will keep this simple for you

I am rebutting the oft made point that the climate is changing at an unprecedented rate.

As both of these links point out, climate has changed at a rate faster today in the past.

So, the alarminsts need to find supporting info that the climate IS changing faster than ever before or

give it the fuck up

I'm sorry, but you're not thinking this position through.

The argument from the AGW supporters has never been that the climate is changing faster than in ever has before. The argument is that for the first time ever, the climate is changing due to man's activity. If man's activity were cyclic (like all the cycles pointed out in your study) it wouldn't be a big deal. Our activity is not cyclic, it is only going one direction.NO PROOF!!

I'm not sure where you got the idea that a lynchpin to the AGW argument is that the climate has never changed faster. That's not a fundamental part of the argument.

Sorry
That very point has been made more than once on this sight
And it was made after points about the climate having more or less CO2 in the past as well as higher or lower global temps


I never said it was a lynchpin
cause
there is not one

Too hot,
AWG
Too cold
AWG
Too windy
AWG
Too calm
AWG
Stronger storms
AWG
Less violent storms
AWG
Too dry
AWG
Too wet
AWG
More huricane
AWG
Less huricanes
AWG


Hard to find a lynchpin in that line of thinking

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

And what is the long term effect? Optimist forecasts are that it will be responsible for dropping worldwide warming by .03 degrees Celsius by 2100. But the State of California has the promises of billions of dollars of revenue for the State to hand out.

No one thinks that California's changes by themselves are going to stop climate change. What they do, however, is get the ball rolling. Someone has to lead the way, and when it is a large state like California, it makes it easier for other states to follow suit, which makes it easier for other countries to follow suit. Using your logic, there's no point in quitting smoking, since that next cigarette haas a miniscule effect on your long term health. Taken as a single event, smoking a cigarette isn't a big deal. Smoking 100,000 of them over a lifetime, however, adds up.

Quote

What can be done about it without controlling the economy or controlling the people? There are those like Bill who really puts his money where his mouth is. But then there are others who think that only by radical change to the energy production system (and immediate changes) are acceptable. And of course, they want to be the people in charge of it and will be grandly compensated for it.

Is Elon Mush controlling the economy by developing electric cars and solar storage devices? Are grocery stores controlling the economy by selling reusable bags, or streamlining their supply chain to use shorter shipping routes? Smart companies realize that there are econimc benefits to "going green". That's not controlling the economy, that's growing the economy. Do I think some of the government's programs result in an overcontrolled economy, sure. But to imply that there is no way to reduce climate change without a totalitarian green state is disingenuous.

Quote

I'm not worried about the ones that fudge on it. Those are the ones who come up with workable solutions. It's the true believers that worry me. Try cutting a deal with a religious zealot over abortion. Won't happen. Try cutting a deal with a vocal alarmist. Won't happen.

Luckily most people don't reside at the extremes.

WHOOSH
the major point?
the state gets money
the refiners pass this defacto tax onto the people

AND

nothing that can or will change anything happens

And, the ones at the extreme are the ones pushing the agenda

this IS about government control
If not, the UN would not give a rats ass about it at any level

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

Our activity is not cyclic, it is only going one direction.NO PROOF!!

What part of pulling carbon out of the ground and putting it into the air is cyclic?

Quote

I never said it was a lynchpin
cause
there is not one

Yes you did. You said that if AGW proponents can't show that the climate is changing faster than ever then they need to shut the fuck up. Maybe you don't know what I mean by lynchpin. It means an aspect of the argument that is vital to the success of the position. Without a lynchpin, the whole thing falls apart.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

Quote

And what is the long term effect? Optimist forecasts are that it will be responsible for dropping worldwide warming by .03 degrees Celsius by 2100. But the State of California has the promises of billions of dollars of revenue for the State to hand out.

No one thinks that California's changes by themselves are going to stop climate change. What they do, however, is get the ball rolling. Someone has to lead the way, and when it is a large state like California, it makes it easier for other states to follow suit, which makes it easier for other countries to follow suit. Using your logic, there's no point in quitting smoking, since that next cigarette haas a miniscule effect on your long term health.

Your logic is off. The logic is if I don't smoke this next cigarette then I will be better off. On the other hand, if the logic is that this next cigarette will mean that I pay money to the government.

Which is what happens. In fact, in California they need to keep raising the taxes on cigarettes because revenues from cigarettes are dropping. It isn't about stopping smoking, anymore. It's about revenue falling short of projections. It is now at the point where they don't even lie about it being smoking cessation. It's about taxing. Period.

California is taxing itself out of dominance. Businesses and manufacturing are going elsewhere. Our own governor has declared good riddance on it. The taxes are increasing because the tax base is decreasing.

So the largest companies that can afford o go someplace else do it. Which means more taxes are proposed and enacted to cover the losses.

It's a nice first step. I see the symbolic message behind it. But to deliberately do something that admitted will do so little is downright frightening. Well, it will do a lot. IT puts a lot of money into the tax coffers. An immediate good thing, eh?

Quote

Is Elon Mush controlling the economy by developing electric cars and solar storage devices? Are grocery stores controlling the economy by selling reusable bags, or streamlining their supply chain to use shorter shipping routes? Smart companies realize that there are econimc benefits to "going green". That's not controlling the economy, that's growing the economy

Right. And this being the case, there is no issue. But nobody bitches about Elon Musk. Except for he received taxpayer subsidies for Tesla Motors. Look at how Tesla Motors makes money? It sells cars that most of the public can't afford. A Model S costs $100k. And that's less than what it costs to manufacture.

Tesla makes its profit on credits. $30k to $40k per car sold. It got an almost $500 million subsidized loan from the DOE. Then it paid that loan off early with other subsidies, tax credits, carbon credits, etc and issuing stock to pay it off. Heck, for each car sold that $30-$40k subsidy is little more than a transfer of money from taxpayers to the wealthy who can afford it.

So no, Elon Musk isn't controlling the economy. The politicians in Nevada who gave Musk a $1 billion package to build batteries in Nevada.

THis is how Musk is a genius, among so many other things. The guy is able to get the government to eat the costs while he takes the profits.

Do

Quote

I think some of the government's programs result in an overcontrolled economy, sure. But to imply that there is no way to reduce climate change without a totalitarian green state is disingenuous.

There are ways to do it. Each person. Just planting a tree helps. But consider that the arguments on this subject are all about what the GOVERNMENT should do about it. Does the PResident have an agenda for it? Do Congresspersons and state and local legislators have things they are trying to do?

Do I have a choice about whether Tesla gets some of my money? No. I don't. I'll be in the market for a new car soon. Either I buy one from Tesla (I have nowhere near enough money for it) or I buy one from another manufacturer (in which case I am giving money to Tesla because those manufacturers pay Tesla for the Carbon Credits). Answer is that, no, I cannot.

Quote

Luckily most people don't reside at the extremes.

True. The loudest reside there. And do you really think I am one of those at the extreme?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

Our activity is not cyclic, it is only going one direction.NO PROOF!!

What part of pulling carbon out of the ground and putting it into the air is cyclic?

Quote

I never said it was a lynchpin
cause
there is not one

Yes you did. You said that if AGW proponents can't show that the climate is changing faster than ever then they need to shut the fuck up. Maybe you don't know what I mean by lynchpin. It means an aspect of the argument that is vital to the success of the position. Without a lynchpin, the whole thing falls apart.

Again
Not a lynchpin
Just one piece of the debate
One (debate) that many on the pro AWG side wish not to have anymore
you know
The science is settled bs??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

Which is what happens. In fact, in California they need to keep raising the taxes on cigarettes because revenues from cigarettes are dropping. It isn't about stopping smoking, anymore. It's about revenue falling short of projections. It is now at the point where they don't even lie about it being smoking cessation. It's about taxing. Period.

Perhaps, I don't live in california. Perhaps the thinking is that raising the tax by X cents caused a Y% reduction in smoking, so if we raise the tax even higher, more people will quit.

Quote

Right. And this being the case, there is no issue. But nobody bitches about Elon Musk. Except for he received taxpayer subsidies for Tesla Motors. Look at how Tesla Motors makes money? It sells cars that most of the public can't afford. A Model S costs $100k. And that's less than what it costs to manufacture.

Tesla makes its profit on credits. $30k to $40k per car sold. It got an almost $500 million subsidized loan from the DOE. Then it paid that loan off early with other subsidies, tax credits, carbon credits, etc and issuing stock to pay it off. Heck, for each car sold that $30-$40k subsidy is little more than a transfer of money from taxpayers to the wealthy who can afford it.

So no, Elon Musk isn't controlling the economy. The politicians in Nevada who gave Musk a $1 billion package to build batteries in Nevada.

THis is how Musk is a genius, among so many other things. The guy is able to get the government to eat the costs while he takes the profits.

Maybe you're right. I don't know a lot of the details about their tax incentive structure. I doubt they are reallyu making $30-40k per car from the government. Do you have a source for that?

Quote

True. The loudest reside there. And do you really think I am one of those at the extreme?

No, but in your rhetorical passion you sometimes head that way.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

Again
Not a lynchpin
Just one piece of the debate
One (debate) that many on the pro AWG side wish not to have anymore
you know
The science is settled bs??

So, you take back what you just said about AGW proponents shutting the fuck up if they can't prove that one point?

I don't want to have that part of the debate since it was never part of the debate to begin with. Although the word gets thrown around here too often, on this one point you're arguing against a strawman.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Maybe you're right. I don't know a lot of the details about their tax incentive structure. I doubt they are reallyu making $30-40k per car from the government. Do you have a source for that?

Here are California purchaser incentives. http://my.teslamotors.com/incentives/US/California


Here's a link to Tesla's 2014 annual report.

http://ir.teslamotors.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-14-69681&

"We have entered into contracts for the sale of regulatory credits with several automotive manufacturers. For the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, we earned revenue from the sale of regulatory credits of $194.4 million, $40.5 million, and $2.7 million, respectively. We earned revenue from the sale of ZEV credits specifically over the same time periods of $129.8 million, $32.4 million, and $2.7 million."

I had read the $30k-$40k number somewhere a while back. I'll see if I can find it.

But I will narrow down what Tesla exemplifies. When a company is advertising the government benefits one can get by buying a car, it is not interested in developing products that are beneficial to the consumer but instead is interested in creating products that provide favors to the governing elite. And Tesla aggressively markets for more favors to be given to it.

Tesla is a company that filled the niche. Government said it wanted something and has dispensed mony and favors to a company. It makes its money off of politics and sells its product to the wealthy elite.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Quote

But I will narrow down what Tesla exemplifies. When a company is advertising the government benefits one can get by buying a car, it is not interested in developing products that are beneficial to the consumer but instead is interested in creating products that provide favors to the governing elite.

I'm not sure I buy that argument. No company is in the business of developing products that are beneficial to the consumer. All companies (ones that wish to succeed at least) develop products that consumers will buy. Whether or not the product has any great societal benefit doesn't matter. The government's role (in a partially controlled economy) is to help make those products which do have a great societal benefit more attractive to the consumer. Hence the tax on cigarettes, and the incentives for buying a non-polluting car. You can argue (and I'll agree to a limited extent) that the government shouldn't be doing that. But it isn't just with "green" companies, or even "liberal" companies that this is happening. The largest subsidies go to farmers and traditional energy companies, not to mention big box stores like Walmart. Subsidies to companies like Tesla are a drop in the bucket. You can't complain about Tesla subsidies, while turning a blind eye to subsidies of oil, gas, and coal companies.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

Again
Not a lynchpin
Just one piece of the debate
One (debate) that many on the pro AWG side wish not to have anymore
you know
The science is settled bs??

So, you take back what you just said about AGW proponents shutting the fuck up if they can't prove that one point?

I don't want to have that part of the debate since it was never part of the debate to begin with. Although the word gets thrown around here too often, on this one point you're arguing against a strawman.

The OP was about 22 truths
Which one did you address?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

DanG

The government's role (in a partially controlled economy) is to help make those products which do have a great societal benefit more attractive to the consumer.

I am sorry
but this part of your post is completly nuts!
Off the raving nuts

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

The OP was about 22 truths
Which one did you address?

None. I addressed your later post of another study.

If you didn't want to discuss it, you shouldn't have brought it up.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

I am sorry
but this part of your post is completly nuts!
Off the raving nuts

No, that part of my post was reality.

We live in a partially controlled economy. Perhaps you don't know what that means. It means that the government has a partial say in what does and doesn't get made, or what services are or aren't available. In a pure capitalist economy, the government would have no say in what people do economically. Want to sell arms to Iran, go for it! Want to sell cigarettes to kids, go for it! In a completely controlled economy, the government distates all economic activity. They tell you where to work, what to make, and how much you get paid. The United States has always been somewhere between the two. Much of the debate between left and right is how close to either side we should be.

It was a statement of economic reality, nothing more, nothing less.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

I am sorry
but this part of your post is completly nuts!
Off the raving nuts

No, that part of my post was reality.

We live in a partially controlled economy. Perhaps you don't know what that means. It means that the government has a partial say in what does and doesn't get made, or what services are or aren't available. In a pure capitalist economy, the government would have no say in what people do economically. Want to sell arms to Iran, go for it! Want to sell cigarettes to kids, go for it! In a completely controlled economy, the government distates all economic activity. They tell you where to work, what to make, and how much you get paid. The United States has always been somewhere between the two. Much of the debate between left and right is how close to either side we should be.

It was a statement of economic reality, nothing more, nothing less.

No
it is not reality
But, it is where big government liberals want to take it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

***The government's role (in a partially controlled economy) is to help make those products which do have a great societal benefit more attractive to the consumer.

I am sorry
but this part of your post is completly nuts!
Off the raving nuts

Uhmm no, that is how the system works. You may not like the system, but that doesn't make the statement nuts.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

No
it is not reality

Then what in your opinion is reality? Try and think about it, because it gets tiresome when you change your mind the following post.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

******The government's role (in a partially controlled economy) is to help make those products which do have a great societal benefit more attractive to the consumer.

I am sorry
but this part of your post is completly nuts!
Off the raving nuts

Uhmm no, that is how the system works. You may not like the system, but that doesn't make the statement nuts.

No
It is not and has never been the governments role to make sure a product wanted by the people has a societal benefit.
Period
If that was the case MJ would not be legal anywhere

Now, they are involved with public safety
That is part of thier role

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln