Reply With Quote
NIMBY issues aside, we already have strict air quality regulations.
Actually sea level is rising but thats besides the point. I'm giving you an example of what has happened and further more what will happen at an accelerate rate in the coming century. When it does, it will be wealth redistribution.
Once again however, the context and ultimate point is missed.
NIMBY issues aside, we already have strict air quality regulations.
Your missing the point yet again. The point isn't about any specific legislation but a general economic point about wealth redistribution in general. How would you react to my plant?
US ships $400B a year overseas to buy carbon(oil), no problem, because the US oilcos skim 10s of $Bs in profits that they use to fund the VRWC global warming denial scam.
Your ultimate point is that you believe in AGW and because of the collective guilt of the industrialized world they should be punished and third world countries compensated.
Guilt? No, you miss the point again. Its economics. That is the point. When I place plant that makes your land completely unusable then there is a very simple point that your wealth was redistributed to me and my money making efforts via the pollution I emitted.
What is being spoken of in the OP and those quotes is economics.
Manny, I get the economics argument but in this application it is based on the religion/premise of AGW.
Ah. We are having two different conversations then.
I know there is a proposal for direct transfers to mitigate the effects of environmental damage, I have read the news reports, and understood your concerns.
My statement was simply a way of addressing those concerns, which I happen to share to some extent. (surprise!)
I was merely pointing out that there are ways to limit the involuntary/indirect wealth transfers without actaully sending dollars into sinkholes.
There are also ways of ensuring any actual dollars sent actually go where they are supposed to, nes pa?
And yes, I think AGW is a lot like a religion.
Like religion, you have to accept some parts on faith.
It preys on our collective guilt.
It requires a confession of guilt and a he for our salvation.
You prefer the religion/premise of the denier movement then.
We will be at an empasse as long as you assert the conspiracy theory that all climate scientists are lying.
Few religions are based on testable science.
(shrugs)
We learn more all the time. If the deniers/skeptics have the more solid case, that will win out.
The fact that CO2 emissions will continue their exponential climb will make it a lot easier to ferret out the ultimate causes of warming trends.
The best that the denier pseudoscientists seem to have come up with is "its the sun", but the sun's output really doesn't vary that much.
If it continues to warm, and the sun's output doesn't change, we can discard that theory pretty conclusively, and will be left with little else to explain why things are changing, other than the obvious variable.
I don't think anyone denies global warming/cooling happens.
proving AWG is another thing entirely.
Are all Climate Scientists lying? Meh. Probably not, but they have a vested interest in proving the AWG theory.
It's the cause/effect assumptions that are flaky.
CO2 goes up, temperature goes up, therefore Man caused CO2 caused temperatures to rise.
Incidents of Somali Piracy go up, temperatures go up, therefore Somali Pirates caused temperature to rise.
See, I understand how this "science" works too.
Faith huh? I'd love to know what parts of AGW theory are based upon faith.
Too bad the CO2 is verifiable and the Somali Piracy theory is not. I'm sorry, but this post is complete bull especially after what you posted to RG in this very thread.
Manny, we get that you are a true believer in AWG and witness on your faith at every opportunity.
I get that when your cornered that you resort to bull posting like that or you resort to the LOL I WAS TROLLING defense.
Let me know when you can name what parts of AGW theory are based upon faith.
Do you know what the climate will be 100 years from now? If you think you do, what is that based on?
Darrin, pick up a dictionary. Look up the word faith. Thanks.
Manny, I don't see the "corner" you speak of.
The "faith" part is believing in a direct relationship between small changes in atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures.
I get that you believe it.
I get that the career academics at your university are probably believers too.
No need to get personal.
A recent related thread explicitly called out AGW debunkers as paranoid, cultish and irrational. This sort of thread is an appropriately tedious reply to the very broad brush applied there IMO.
Career academics huh? You should talk to my calculus professor who was a conel in the air force and was responsible for a good amount of R&D at NASA as well who I guess is just full of AGW faith.
I don't think you understand what the word faith means because you're using it incorrectly. When there is evidence that is testable then it becomes quite the opposite of faith.
I understand that you find it hard to believe that a small amount of a substance can have drastic effects but I'm assuming you've run across rattlesnakes on your ranch before.
Scientific, rational, and logical skepticism is and always will be welcome in any scientific community. That is how you advance knowledge. But if I prove to you that 2+2 is 4 only to have you question how 2+2 could possibly equal four over and over and then still claim it equals 5 then I will probably become annoyed and dismissive.
I find it rather laughable how an argument is thrown out that climate scientists come to the conclusions they do based upon funding. Funding was there for science prior to AGW theory and it will be there after AGW theory. Scientists study out of curiosity and a general desire for understanding.
2+2=4 is a theorem. AGW, at this point, is still theory absent conclusion. AGW aint 2+2=4 yet.
No, you're right. But I was trying to make a broader point that scientists are far from above questioning but asking the same questions that have been answered and explained over and over again gets tedious and leads to annoyance.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
