Page 67 of 161 FirstFirst ... 175763646566676869707177117 ... LastLast
Results 1,651 to 1,675 of 4001
  1. #1651
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Given:

    1) All pseudoscientists have ty logical reasoning.

    and

    2) WC/Darrin/Yonivore have ty logical reasoning.

    Can we safely conclude, based on this information, that WC/Darrin/Yonivore are NOT pseudoscientists?
    We can conclude from your posts that you are a .
    DarrinS is offline

  2. #1652
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    We can conclude from your posts that you are a .
    I actually find his approach to be consistent and logical. Yours on the other hand is consistent in that you parrot from your email and Fox News.

    He is being a to you for very clear, detailed and thought out reasons. Thats the entire point of this thread which you fell right into.

    This thread is the ultimate troll job. Yet even trolls can find the truth to be important.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  3. #1653
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Boutons, of course we will continue to see more warming, even if the causes cease. For decades, there has been missing energy in the energy budget. Less energy leaving than what is incoming which means the earth, most likely the oceans, have been storing heat. The we get a net global warming or cooling is because the energy budget is out of balance. The earths heat content, weather seen in temperature increases or not, will continue until there is balance.

    Why is Alternet making known science as if it wasn't foreseen? Is it because the AGW crowd doesn't understand enough of the various geosciences to see the reality of the forces at work?

    Regardless of man or not. The earth would be warming, It's natural.
    This is almost as good as when you wiki'd basic properties of caps.

    A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
    You sure dumbed this one down.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  4. #1654
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    We can conclude from your posts that you are a .
    Fair enough.

    You get the "dishonest" tag, and I get the " " tag.

    Now can we all agree I am right, even if I am a douchbag?
    RandomGuy is offline

  5. #1655
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Do economists all favour a carbon tax?

    LAST week, a Twitter conversation broke out among a few economists concerning whether any serious economists opposed a carbon tax. No, concluded the tweeters, but Tyler Cowen begged to differ. Mr Cowen writes that he personally favours a carbon tax but can imagine a number of principled reasons other economists might not.

    Why would we expect economists to support a carbon tax? It's very close to the economic ideal. Global warming is a phenomenon associated with emissions of greenhouse gases over and above natural cycles—largely those resulting from the burning of carbon fuels humans have dug up out of the ground. We expect normal economic activity to maximise social good because each individual balances costs and benefits when making economic decisions. Carbon emissions represent a negative externality. When an individual takes an economic action with some fossil-fuel energy content—whether running a petrol-powered lawnmower, turning on a light, or buying bunch of grapes—that person balances their personal benefits against the costs of the action. The cost to them of the climate change resulting from the carbon content of that decisions, however, is effectively zero and is rationally ignored. The decision to ignore carbon content, when aggregated over the whole of humanity, generates huge carbon dioxide emissions and rising global temperatures.

    The economic solution is to tax the externality so that the social cost of carbon is reflected in the individual consumer's decision. The carbon tax is an elegant solution to a complicated problem, which allows the everyday business of consumer decision making to do the work of emission reduction. It's by no means the only economically sensible policy response to the threat of climate change, but it is the one we'd expect economists to embrace.

    Mr Cowen argues for caution on this point for several reasons. A carbon tax will be less effective if it's not universally applied, potentially leading to carbon leakage to countries with looser environmental rules. He worries that where carbon fees have been applied innovation has not been quick to respond. He fears that good subs utes for carbon fuels don't exist, especially in the transport sector, and worries that higher fuel prices might harm the economy. He suggests that a "green-energy subsidies first" policy might make more sense, and he talks about distributional and rent-seeking costs of the policy.

    I think the weakness of these arguments is telling, and it's not surprising that Mr Cowen continues to support a carbon tax. What if a carbon price doesn't immediately drive emission reductions? Then the tax will be an effective revenue raiser, much more efficient than a tax on income. Either way you win. The worry about carbon leakage is a real one, but this dynamic also implies that each new country that prices carbon increases the benefit of existing carbon-price policies in other countries.

    Subs ution in the transport sector is somewhat problematic, but a viable carbon price would not have much effect on petrol costs at the outset. A carbon tax of $30 per tonne of CO2 would only increase petrol costs by about 9 cents per gallon. This is dwarfed by moves in the market price of petrol. The vulnerability of the American economy to oil shocks argues for an increased tax on petrol, but that's a different policy debate. Mr Cowen seems to ignore the fact that oil is just one small part of the American economy's fossil-fuel use.

    A carbon tax would attract rent-seeking, but arguably less than alternative policies, like subsidies or a cap-and-trade system. Importantly, money spent on adaptation or post hoc climate-disaster relief is also subject to rent-seeking and corruption issues. Given that many poor countries with weak ins utions are likely to feel the brunt of the impact of global warming first and are likely to be poor spenders of the aid money that will invariably flow, a carbon tax looks like one of the policy solutions best suited to the minimisation of these ills.

    Mr Cowen doesn't mention what I see as one of the most important roles of a carbon tax: as a check on other ill-advised programmes. A carbon tax would have quickly made the net dirtiness of corn-based ethanol obvious (by helping to offset subsidies and making corn-based ethanol more expensive). It would be more difficult to roll out and sustain such misguided programmes with a carbon tax, and the ones that went ahead anyway would do less damage. A carbon tax is also the easiest way to capture whatever low-hanging emission-reduction fruit is out there. Right now, consumers are generally indifferent between similarly-priced goods with wildly different carbon profiles. A carbon tax encourages consumers to realise the easy carbon gains available from switching to good low-carbon subs utes wherever they exist.

    The biggest problem with a carbon tax is that America's government seems unable to deliver one. At udes may change, however, and near-uniform economist support for the policy (probably) doesn't hurt its odds of eventual passage.
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...climate-policy

    For the love of Christ, don't make me explain negative externalities again. ing get off your lazy denier asses, and learn the concept.
    RandomGuy is offline

  6. #1656
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Who said anything about heat? I said energy. You have no clue and its obvious. I don't need that clarified.
    You obviously never studied the Earth's Energy Budget.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  7. #1657
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    You obviously never studied the Earth's Energy Budget.
    You apparently have and Bert was right:

    A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  8. #1658
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I've never heard of that either tbh. Maybe he has a point here....
    I understand. Manny cannot debate me so he picks up any little thing and tries to smack me with it, but doesn't explain why he thinks he's right over me. Attacking rather than asking for a clarification. He can go himself.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-19-2011 at 03:32 PM.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  9. #1659
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117

    It is a bit damning that WC didn't figure out that you meant conservation.
    Why, because didn't respond directly to chemical changes or state changes? This is a very complex field. One could go on for thousands of words just responding to something, and still miss what the other person intends.

    It's pretty unscientific to jump to conclusions.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-19-2011 at 03:31 PM.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  10. #1660
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Why, because didn't respond directly to chemical changes or state changes? This is a very complex field. One could go on for thousands of words just responding to something, and still miss what the other person intends.

    It's pretty unscientific to jump to conclusions.
    its a complex field but state change versus chemical change is taught in middle school. Keep on dumbing it down, dimwit.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  11. #1661
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    RG,

    As an accountant, if you "cooked the books" to give your boss (or client) a result they wanted, as opposed to the actual result, could you get into any legal trouble?

    Just curious.
    DarrinS is offline

  12. #1662
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Um I'm not even talking about state changes. I'm talking about conservation of energy. If energy in the ocean is transfered to the atmosphere should the energy in the ocean decrease, increase, or stay the same? Its ridiculously simple.
    MannyIsGod is online now

  13. #1663
    Moss is Da Sauce! mouse's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    26,358
    Without bothering to read the piece, I am going to take a wild guess...
    expected from you....
    mouse is offline

  14. #1664
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Um I'm not even talking about state changes. I'm talking about conservation of energy. If energy in the ocean is transfered to the atmosphere should the energy in the ocean decrease, increase, or stay the same? Its ridiculously simple.
    Yes, that part is simple. Of course if energy is transferred to the atmosphere, the ocean loses an equal amount. I do understand those simple aspects of science, and you thinking I don't is very insulting.

    Remember, the Thermohaline Circulation is a very long process, and changes in absorbed heat have some predictable results that the AGW crowd completely ignores. There are several aspect to climate change, besides greenhouse gasses. the ocean can sore and release stored energy as well.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-20-2011 at 02:27 AM.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  15. #1665
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    No, you don't understand this easy science. I find it laughable that within a few posts you claim scientists with more expertise in their little finger than you have in total body don't know simple science and then claim to be insulted when its pointed outhow your theories ignore fundementals because you're too stupid to understand them.

    So, is the ocean losing energy or gaining it?
    MannyIsGod is online now

  16. #1666
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    No, you don't understand this easy science. I find it laughable that within a few posts you claim scientists with more expertise in their little finger than you have in total body don't know simple science and then claim to be insulted when its pointed outhow your theories ignore fundementals because you're too stupid to understand them.

    So, is the ocean losing energy or gaining it?
    I already answered your question. Do you think by asking again, I will change my answer?
    Wild Cobra is offline

  17. #1667
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    No, you don't understand this easy science. I find it laughable that within a few posts you claim scientists with more expertise in their little finger than you have in total body don't know simple science and then claim to be insulted when its pointed outhow your theories ignore fundementals because you're too stupid to understand them.

    So, is the ocean losing energy or gaining it?


    Well I have my own article on “where the heck is global warming?” We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. …

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The … data published in the August … 2009 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

    ...

    How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter?

    We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we cannot account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geo-engineering quite hopeless, as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
    DarrinS is offline

  18. #1668
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    I already answered your question. Do you think by asking again, I will change my answer?
    Yes or no, is the ocean losing energy? Yes or no? True or false?
    MannyIsGod is online now

  19. #1669
    selbstverständlich Agloco's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    9,013
    Um I'm not even talking about state changes. I'm talking about conservation of energy. If energy in the ocean is transfered to the atmosphere should the energy in the ocean decrease, increase, or stay the same? Its ridiculously simple.
    It's so easy, WC could do it.

    Agloco is offline

  20. #1670
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Yes or no, is the ocean losing energy? Yes or no? True or false?
    You change the question.

    I don't know if it is losing or gaining energy right now. So many factors to consider, and I haven't been tracking them. I will assume, because of where we are in our elliptical orbit, and passing the equinox into winter, that we are gaining energy in the ocean.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  21. #1671
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    You know Manny, the bottom line is this. You don't want an honest debate. When I say something incorrect, that could be a misstatement or incorrect term, rather than ask for clarification, you use it as a weapon. I have asked several times recently and in the past for you to ask what I mean rather than accuse. Now, you expect me to answer silly ass questions when you wont answer mine. My answers in such cases will be illusive since I will pick my own parameters behind such silly questions.

    I understand. Manny cannot debate me so he picks up any little thing and tries to smack me with it, but doesn't explain why he thinks he's right over me. Attacking rather than asking for a clarification. He can go himself.
    Someone want to explain to the partschanger whythis is ironic and funny as ?
    Because you cannot explain it to me, right?

    How about it Manny. Why was my remark funny? Don't you understand solubility of gasses in liquids, and how the equilibrium respond to temperature?
    Wild Cobra is offline

  22. #1672
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    You change the question.

    I don't know if it is losing or gaining energy right now. So many factors to consider, and I haven't been tracking them. I will assume, because of where we are in our elliptical orbit, and passing the equinox into winter, that we are gaining energy in the ocean.
    Then you don't know if the oceans are the reasonfor the warming and you obviously don't understand basic physics principles. Conservation of energy. Look it up.
    MannyIsGod is online now

  23. #1673
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    You know Manny, the bottom line is this. You don't want an honest debate. When I say something incorrect, that could be a misstatement or incorrect term, rather than ask for clarification, you use it as a weapon. I have asked several times recently and in the past for you to ask what I mean rather than accuse. Now, you expect me to answer silly ass questions when you wont answer mine. My answers in such cases will be illusive since I will pick my own parameters behind such silly questions.



    Because you cannot explain it to me, right?

    How about it Manny. Why was my remark funny? Don't you understand solubility of gasses in liquids, and how the equilibrium respond to temperature?
    Its not my fault your ignorance leads to youconstantly spewing garbage. Don't claim to understand things you don't and then get butthurt when you get called out.
    MannyIsGod is online now

  24. #1674
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    You change the question.

    I don't know if it is losing or gaining energy right now. So many factors to consider, and I haven't been tracking them. I will assume, because of where we are in our elliptical orbit, and passing the equinox into winter, that we are gaining energy in the ocean.
    No he didn't. You are just too ignorant to figure it out. While you are at it look up zero sum. Its at the root of that energy budget stuff you tout. Btw I love how those budget guys tout the inaccuracies of data collection on the one hand but then feel free to make claims about the enthalpy of the entire the globe.

    I purposely stay out of this discussion because large scale models such asthis are nonperiodic and have no sense of linearity even in small domains. Yet your dumb ass has no problem acting the fool.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  25. #1675
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Then you don't know if the oceans are the reasonfor the warming and you obviously don't understand basic physics principles. Conservation of energy. Look it up.
    I understand conservation of energy. I am not claiming any violation of such physics. Do you believe that regardless of the shortwave and longwave energy the ocean absorbs, it maintains a constant temperature?
    Wild Cobra is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •