Global warming?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Coign

My point is we are doing damage to our economy, our rights, and social structure in the attempt to fix something that most likely doesn't even need fixing.

It is the equivalent of Dark Age medicine. We know a fraction of what we need to, yet we are bleeding ourselves out in hopes that it will cure us.

My offered solution, is quit trying to fix it until you know what it is you are trying to fix. You are causing way more damage than you are pretending to solve.

I see the expense as analogous to homeowner's insurance. You pay for it, not knowing what might happen, you may never need it, but if you don't spend that money, you might get fucked.

[Coign]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I see the expense as analogous to homeowner's insurance. You pay for it, not knowing what might happen, you may never need it, but if you don't spend that money, you might get fucked.

But this should be voluntary not mandatory. It is an invasion of my rights to require what and how much insurance I have. The Federal Government should have ZERO say in this. (Car insurance is a state law, not federal. And that is an argument on a whole different track.)

Federal Government should have just enough money to:

However, the Constitution assumes some civil duties, and these are inherent in the Constitution.

For example, the Constitution presumes lawfulness. It is a responsibility, then, to obey the law. For those who do not, there are protections, but the presumption of lawfulness is apparent.

The Constitution sets rules for a conviction for treason against the United States. This presumes loyalty to the United States. It is a responsibility, then, to be loyal to the United States

The Constitution presumes juries, particularly an impartial one. It is a responsibility, then, to serve as an impartial juror when called.

The Constitution presumes an army and a navy, and provides the Congress with the power to raise armies. Service during war is also mentioned. It is a responsibility, then, to serve in the armed forces when called.

The Constitution is peppered with amendments that expanded the right to vote - many people, over several centuries, have worked hard to bring the vote to as many people as possible. With few exceptions, all persons, 18 or older, can vote in any public election. It is a responsibility, then, to vote.

Every other dollar of funding should be removed from the Federal Government.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_resp.html

The Bill of Rights are there to protect us from the Constitution and Government.

They are constantly under attack by our Federal Government who thinks they know better than we do on how to live.

Here is another link you should watch on how we are slipping from a Republic and into a Democracy and this "green movement" is another lubricant making it happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQo...&feature=share

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Coign

But this should be voluntary not mandatory. It is an invasion of my rights to require what and how much insurance I have. The Federal Government should have ZERO say in this.

Your rights end where mine begin, and I have a right to not have my climate fucked up by you. You don't have the right to do any damn thing you please without regard for other people. If we could put a big bubble around you, you can pollute as much as you want, and you only hurt yourself. But since we can't, the government can regulate how much you pollute.

[Coign]

Originally Posted by glatt

Your rights end where mine begin, and I have a right to not have my climate fucked up by you. You don't have the right to do any damn thing you please without regard for other people. If we could put a big bubble around you, you can pollute as much as you want, and you only hurt yourself. But since we can't, the government can regulate how much you pollute.

No they can't. That is not their job, their right, or their responsibility. A bureau they created was given more power than our Constitution granted them. This country was built on the understanding of a limit of government to only do what they needed to keep our country running. But Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President keep pushing their power into the lives of the people and gain more control and more of a "nanny-state" with every passing month.

But let's take the above fallacy as a truth. Let's put us into a horrible nanny-state where we have lost the right to decide what to buy or how to live.

You think light-bulbs are the big majority of energy spending? This regulation is what will save us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_..._United_States

http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/190426

This is not a RIGHT of protecting people but a LOSS of freedom to enjoy our modern clearly lit life.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

I've read her stuff... She's been spouting that same story for years.

Funny how others who use logic, honesty, and numbers to predict accurately are, to you, lying. Your political agenda petticoat is showing.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Funny how others who use logic, honesty, and numbers to predict accurately are, to you, a lie.

tommy - where did I say it was a lie?

Please quote and/or cite or apologize.

[Pico and ME]

I got the sense that you were being dismissive - must be the word 'spouting'.

[Undertoad]

[piercehawkeye45]

Right now there is more than enough evidence to say that the Earth's climate is changing. While climate changes are normal throughout Earth's history, it has always had negative short term consequences on humans, usually results in declining economies (from drought and shortage of food), many people dying, and forcing humans to adapt to the new climate. More than ever, with how our agriculture system, economic system, and infrastructure works, a climate shift will have very large short term negative effects on the Earth and humans as an entirety.

Does this mean that our way of life will end as we know it? No, we will have to adapt to the new climate. But, the transition process will be very brutal on our economy and many people, mostly people in third world countries, will die or go through some very tough times.

Going back to the climate shift. The question is not whether it is happening but how much is from human impact? There is a large amount of evidence supporting both sides and I imagine that we are going through a natural climate shift and human impact is just exaggerating the effects. That means we can probably do some to lower the magnitude of changes but they will still occur no matter what.

So this is where government regulations come in. Since one consequence of a free market is that it tends to put short term investment gain over potential long term interest, especially when it comes to situations where the future is completely uncertain as with climate change, sometimes government regulation is needed to act in those long term interests. Banning DDT is a great example of how government regulation can be positive for our society. But, as you said, we can not accurately predict how we will affect the environment, it is too complicated for that, so the impact of government regulation or lack of government regulation is uncertain. That is why climate change is so controversial. Government action could result in positive consequences or negative consequences. We just don't know. And since we only have one life, we can never check to see if any other decision would have been better. But, this lack of knowledge is also not an excuse for inaction either.

If you want to take government regulation on climate change as an excuse for a power grab, go ahead. I realize I am not going to change your mind. But, we are not blind to what is happening. We just see it in a different way.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Coign

So instead of a 100 watt incandescent bulb you prefer the mercury in florescent bulbs?

And the pusher for this law was/is GE. Because I am sure they are only thinking about energy conservation and not the money they will reap by forcing you to buy their product.

You are again forgetting to learn the facts and numbers. A symptom of junk science reasoning.

Which puts more mercury into the environment? Incandescent bulbs. That one is a no brainer. But is not found where subjective reasoning is promoted in sound bytes. I leave it to you to either provide the facts and numbers. Or ask to learn rather then tell us what junk science says.

GE was opposed to the high efficiency light bulbs - completely opposite of what you have been told to believe. Please learn facts before 'knowing'. GE had demonstrated the technology in 1975. And refused to implement it. GE now finds itself playing catchup. Most of the new technology light bulbs are made in China - where people would rather innovate. Once a characteristic of Americans before knowledge only came from sound bytes.

Wal-Mart discovered GE was stifling technology. So Wal-Mart told GE to provide those clearly superior bulbs. GE said they would slowly implement them. Not good enough. Wal-Mart invited all other companies to replace GE as a primary supplier. Only then did GE decide to get serious about finally implementing their 1975 product.

Wal-Mart also asked Home Depot to join them in advancing mankind. But Home Depot, then, was being run into the ground by another anti-American named Nardelli. Nardelli also could not see any value in innovation - and refused.

You know Nardelli by his anti-American thinking. After being paid $200million to leave Home Depot (they had to save the company), he then took over Chrysler. And ran that into the ground. Did what anti-Americans do. Cost control. Stifle innovation.

You advocate hate of innovation - the only thing that every great American does. And you would not know that. Your posts are based in sound bytes reasoning. Lies that exist only when technical facts and numbers are ignored. See how much it took to explain reality misrepresented in those two sentences? Only patriotic Americans learn this stuff before having an opinion. Due to sound byte reasoning, you must love Nardelli. His reasons are so similar to yours.

GE did everything they could not maximize profits at the expense of all Americans. Those informed only by soundbytes would not know that. Therefore another industry that should have been dominated by America is now in Chinese hands. Anti-Americans will blame everyone - and not their own thinking - for those job losses.

You make a valid complaint about whether government should ban crappy technology that could have been eliminated 20 years ago. In theory, American industry should want to innovate. So why did GE refuse to make those light bulbs for over 35 years? We do have a serious problem. Some industries conspire to keep superior products out of the market.

Example: The radial tire arrived in 1975. Why was the radial tire routinely sold all over the world starting in 1948? Kept out of American until 1975 - long after it was standard all over the world? There is no magic philosophy that explains everything. You must learn details and numbers - or be extremist dumb. By assuming a magic philosophy, you are literally insulting all others with the resulting diatribe. Are so divorced from the details and numbers as to not even know you are insulting.

Meanwhile Uniroyal, Goodrich, Firestone, Goodyear, and so many other American tire companies. Which one is still American? Goodyear. All others so hated innovation - conspired to keep radial tires out of America - so to be sold to foreigners. So many American tire companies fired Americans only because, like GE, they conspired to stifle innovation. To enrich American management even after they destroyed American jobs. Your sound bytes simply ignore hard facts and numbers. And the #1 reason why American jobs are lost.

But you would not know this. Soundbytes even back in 1975 blamed everyone but America's greatest enemies. A majority then recited those soundbytes. It is called brainwashing. You are doing same. Your citation insults me because you clearly have no idea what it says. Some political agenda has told you how to think - brainwashing. With sufficient knowledge, then you summarized the key points and numbers. You don't. And do not even realize how insulting you are being.

The cigarette industry proved that cigarettes increase health. Using soundbytes, most Americans knew it must be true. When challenged to prove it in court, they simply dumped millions of pages of documents. You are using the same insulting logic. Dumping reams of URLs without any idea what any of them say.

Prove me wrong. Post as any better educated persons does - with the reasons why and numbers. You never do.

Meanwhile, there is virtually no valid research that denies global warming. There are some theories such as the Atlantic Oscillatory Effect. You get respest when you cite such basic science with numbers. You don't and you can't. Meanwhile those who pioneered and championed that theory now say it was completely wrong. Now agree that mankind is creating global warming. Because the science that say so is overwhelming. And is mostly denied only by those brainwashed by subjective spin and soundbytes - and no numbers.

You post subjectively. That is insulting. You only assumed GE wanted the new light bulbs. A conspiracy attitude demanded it. You could not bother to first learn facts - GE was stifling the technology for 35 years. Had you bothered to first learn facts, then "brainwashing by soundbyte" would not be possible. But you never bothered to first learn. Nor demand numbers. Numbers. 35+ years ago.

> And the pusher for this law was/is GE.
Because that is how brainwashing works. Knowledge because one feels it must be true. No daming questions. No first learning the details. And no numbers. Brainwashing by soundbyte.

[Coign]

Originally Posted by tw

Prove me wrong. Post as any better educated persons does - with the reasons why and numbers. You never do.

More reports from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University about the fallacy of man-made global warming. (Along with the two times I posted the 900 papers saying your "consensus" is wrong.)

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2011/...ctics-are.html

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Coign

More reports from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University about the fallacy of man-made global warming. (Along with the two times I posted the 900 papers saying your "consensus" is wrong.)

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2011/...ctics-are.html

Cherry picking reports that express a minority view, particularly if those reports/studies are not peer reviewed (as is the case with many of the denier "studies") does not make the broad consensus among nearly every national science organization in the world any less valid as a consensus.

Nor does pulling $50 billion cost out the air make it valid and ignoring the savings resulting from the benefits... or suggesting that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to regulate the environment in the interest of the general welfare of the people.

[Coign]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Cherry picking reports that express a minority view, particularly if those reports/studies are not peer reviewed (as is the case with many of the denier "studies") does not make the broad consensus among nearly every national science organization in the world any less valid as a consensus.

Nor does pulling $50 billion cost out the air make it valid and ignoring the savings resulting from the benefits... or suggesting that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to regulate the environment in the interest of the general welfare of the people.

They are peer reviewed. Click the link for the blog post that states that and gives you links to the original papers. Denying that puts you in the wrong.

And cherry picking? 900 papers is cherry picking?

As for amounts, here is 2.5 billion in just the climate studies.

http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/08/...so-much-money/

Here is an article detailing 4 billion annually.

http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarmi...-spending.html

Here is another 300+ million a year in ethanol subsidiaries.

http://www.congressionalchange.com/w...s-by-plant.pdf

The 50 billion number is taken from estimates in research, subsidiaries, and grants from 1990 to current date. This is all tax payer dollars just so they can tell us after 21 years of research, "um we don't know what causes climate change and we are not really sure how much the climate has changed. We THINK it may have warmed up by .7 degrees but we can't tell you if it will continue to get warmer or we might be going into an ice age soon."

That is not worth 50 billion dollars.

[Undertoad]

You should be able to buy any light bulb you like, as long as you generate the electricity for it.

[classicman]

climate shift. The question is not whether it is happening but how much is from human impact? There is a large amount of evidence supporting both sides and I imagine that we are going through a natural climate shift and human impact is just exaggerating the effects. That means we can probably do some to lower the magnitude of changes but they will still occur no matter what.

Excellent