quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

What I don't agree with is the agenda and focus of most of the people who wish to therefore impose harsh, anti-free, anti-capitalistic, statist polices to achieve that goal. 

First, such methods in the long run will backfire.

Second, such methods won't be as effective as market-based methods, and will also cause as much, if not more disruption to the social environment than a few more years of "gas production".

Third, I think that it is hubris on the part of many to think that we now, finally, have a perfect understanding of exactly how climate works.  We barely have an understanding of how weather works!

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

"Global climate patterns stretching back 740,000 years have been confirmed by a three-kilometre-long ice core drilled from the Antarctic, Nature reports."

"Initial tests on gas trapped in the ice core show that current carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are higher than they have been in 440,000 years."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3792209.stm

Stick that in your volcano and smoke it.

Welllll .....

A couple of things.

It wasn't me that talked about "volcanos" so, I'll politely decline to "smoke it", thank you very much.

This is exactly the type of attitude that I was talking about in my post above.

I'm a skeptic.  The more someone tries to pound something into me, force me to accept it, the more that there is a feeling of "hey, you gotta believe this" I get, the more I tend to resist.

I've found over my life that when "everyone knows" something, there is a good chance that it isn't true, and I have to go through a pretty detailed and lengthy process before I'll accept their facts and beliefs.

I tend to be very much of a believer in critical thinking, and not much of a trusting person in what I read in the media, either good or bad about a subject. 

The BBC in particular, is a source that I'm skeptical of, for good reason, as it is a self-identified "progressive" partisan institution.

And a critical reading of that particular article doesn't really lead one to any kind of solid belief that it has much to do with global warming.  It's not a scientific paper.  It doesn't give any details that can tell you much of anything, or place it into any kind of framework.  It does, however, reinforce your belief of "global warming" if you are already so disposed to that belief.

Tell ya what I read from the article:

Over the last 400,000 years, generally the world is a much colder place.  Occasionally there are "warm spells" that generally last about 10,000 years (which is about how long our current "warm spell" has lasted), but because of similar planetary orbits, our current "warm spell" seems to be similiar to one about 400,000 years ago. In fact, what the article says is:

That warm spell lasted a whopping 28,000 years - so ours probably will, too.

"The next ice age is not imminent," said Dr Wolff, "and greenhouse warming makes it even less likely - despite what The Day After Tomorrow says."

Of course, this is all couched in weasal words (as it should be): "probably" and "likely"

I might theorize that if it wasn't due to "man's intervention" that the next ice age is just around the corner.  That it is simply the increase in CO2 that is preventing the next ice age.

But there simply isn't enough hard data in the article to make any kind of judgement.  It's a reporter's take on some information, strained through a non-technical mind, for entertainment and reading by non-technical people, and allows you to read into it whatever your prejudices already are.

Take that and smoke it. 

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

"Global climate patterns stretching back 740,000 years have been confirmed by a three-kilometre-long ice core drilled from the Antarctic, Nature reports."

"Initial tests on gas trapped in the ice core show that current carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are higher than they have been in 440,000 years."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3792209.stm

Stick that in your volcano and smoke it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

I posted that for general information, not to offend you. As you ably pointed out, you hadn't raised the volcano issue, so why take my contribution personally?

And I have to wonder just what sort of apparently offensive attitude I displayed by posting a link to an interesting, factual article. I thought you were the champion of sober debate.

I post one fact and you try to overwhelm it with more than a dozen, mostly distracting tangents. It’s like fighting a hydra on steroids. The irony being, any substantive points you make usually get lost in your inventive theorising, especially about the nefarious motives of anyone with the gall to disagree with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

First, the idea that we shouldn't do anything until we have a "perfect understanding of exactly how the climate works" is essentially the same thing as saying that we shouldn't do a goddamned thing at all.  We're never going to have a perfect understanding of how the climate works because human beings don't have perfect understanding.  But we have a very good idea, despite the smoke and red herrings raised by people who are usually lobbyists for energy companies (or their useful idiots), that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, and that unchecked global warming isn't in our social or economic interest.

Second, what "harsh, anti-free, anti-capitalistic, statist polices" are you talking about?  It's time to show your cards.  There are some very good pro-capitalistic things that we could be doing (and should be doing), but we don't, because the Administration is beholden to corporations that are trying to extract that last egg from the golden goose before it's time to turn out the lights.  Like a carbon tax.  That's not "anti-capitalistic" because it would REPLACE other taxes.  It would merely bring the market forces, which are currently out of whack because of insane subsidies, back into line to reflect the true costs of carbon emission.

Or how about a fuel-inefficiency tax on automobiles?  Same deal--it would merely REPLACE existing taxes, but, again, would make the price of inefficient automobiles reflect their true cost to the country as a whole.

What are YOUR ideas?  So far you started out by ridiculing the problem, then you accused people of crypto-Communism, and you've also suggested that we shouldn't do anything because supposedly we don't really know what's happening.  It's not too persuasive, Firmhand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

What I don't agree with is the agenda and focus of most of the people who wish to therefore impose harsh, anti-free, anti-capitalistic, statist polices to achieve that goal. 

First, such methods in the long run will backfire.

Second, such methods won't be as effective as market-based methods, and will also cause as much, if not more disruption to the social environment than a few more years of "gas production".

Third, I think that it is hubris on the part of many to think that we now, finally, have a perfect understanding of exactly how climate works.  We barely have an understanding of how weather works!

a.  Like a carbon tax.  That's not "anti-capitalistic" because it would REPLACE other taxes.

b. Or how about a fuel-inefficiency tax on automobiles?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer


2. (kinda actually answers #1) Scientists have confirmed that the sun is actually burning hotter than it was in the recent past.
 

quote:

......ok, what agenda?

quote:

Are you suggesting that the vast majority of scientists who feel the evidence supports a higher-than-ever-recorded human impact on global climate got together and decided to bring down industrial society? Just because, as you have admitted, the nay-sayers have an agenda it doesn't necessarily follow that all their opponents have one too....unless by agenda you mean someone who merely reports the evidence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Green taxes and the purchasing of green licences are the only realistic solution on the table at the moment because there doesn't seem to be any wonder technology on the horizon. Companies should be made to bid for licences to pollute and if they go over their allocation they should be heavily penalised, this will make companies cost conscious and give them an incentive to reduce energy use. Green taxes should be used so consumers pay the full costs of their life style such as flights etc. and cars which are at the moment heavily subsidized by the general tax payer. Monies collected should then be reinvested into repairing and maintaining the environemnt and investing in alternative energies and more fule efficent transport systems a modern country needs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY\

Seems like the "capitalist" have been tapping our fingers for years waiting for the "greens" to come up with alternate solutions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

1. The Polar Icecaps are receeding on Mars just as they are on Earth, Explain how gloabal warming on both planets can be happpening without Human interfereance on Mars being a factor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

2. (kinda actually answers #1) Scientists have confirmed that the sun is actually burning hotter than it was in the recent past.
  Please determine what part of the measured temperature changes on the Earth are due to greenhouse gases and what part         are due to the Sun's increased output of energy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

3. The Increase in temperatures measured in Urban areas has also been measured over the past 100 years and attributed to         Urban Sprawl. Please account for the changes in recorded temperatures at measuring stations in areas, that 100 years ago
  were small towns and development has now surounded the stations used to record the data trends.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

The misinformation that you people spread is absolutely unbelievable.  The polar ice on Mars is seasonal.  It recedes in the spring and summer, and is reformed during the winter.  Maybe you read an article in the summer about how "Mars is melting," misunderstood it, and thought that it meant global warming is taking place on Mars too?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

1. The Polar Icecaps are receeding on Mars just as they are on Earth, Explain how gloabal warming on both planets can be happpening without Human interfereance on Mars being a factor.

    The residual martian south polar cap is changing. The fact that it is changing suggests that Mars may have major, global climate changes that are occurring on the same time scales as Earth's most recent climate shifts, including the last Ice Age.

    ...

    These new observations indicate that the south polar residual cap is not permanent. It is disappearing, a little bit more each southern spring and summer season. At the present rate, a layer 3 m thick can be completely eroded away in a few tens of martian years. Since each layer is equivalent to about 1% of the mass of the present atmosphere (which is 95% carbon dioxide), if sufficient carbon dioxide is buried in the south polar cap, the mass of the atmosphere could double in a few hundred to a thousand Mars years. That could lead to profound changes in the environment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

 

2.  despite the smoke and red herrings raised by people who are usually lobbyists for energy companies (or their useful idiots), that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming,

corporations that are trying to extract that last egg from the golden goose before it's time to turn out the lights.

Examples of attacking people who should be part of the discussion.  Insulting even.  You already HAVE ALL the answers ... why waste any time or effort continuing to engage in a search for better understanding?

Hey, all the people who don't agree with you are insincere.  They are fools, and greedy sons-bitches anyway! String em up!

Yeah ... they are heretics who question the one true faith.

quote:


3.  Second, what "harsh, anti-free, anti-capitalistic, statist polices" are you talking about?

uh ... let's see ....

a.  Like a carbon tax.  That's not "anti-capitalistic" because it would REPLACE other taxes.

b. Or how about a fuel-inefficiency tax on automobiles?

What's interesting is what these specific two choices says about where your head is, LaM.

The two options you give are both ones that must be forced onto people against their will, by a government - "harsh, anti-free, anti-capitalistic, statist polices".

As an indication of your underlying beliefs, this is exactly what I am talking about what is wrong with many of the "early adopter", "true believers" of global warming.

Taxes are negative reinforcment (and btw, I find it interesting that you define capitalism as the ability to tax something or someone).  I'm a believer, generally, in positive reinforcement.  Instead of punishing someone for behavior you wish to change, why not reward behavior you wish to encourage?

Instead of taxing big vehicles out of existence, why not have positive enhancements for small vehicles?  You know, maybe tax-breaks for them. 

quote:


But lets look at three examples of the type of laws you want to pass:

1.  55 mile an hour speed limit.
2.  Prohibition
3.  Outlawing marihuana

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitchMistress4

Here's a $1 bill, FirmhandKY, go masturbate.

Looking for friends only.
please be respectful.