Reply With Quote
What do you want to wager on that?
No one ever did.
What do you want to wager on that?
How would you try to prove something like that?
Care to wager or not?
Who is "we"?
If your proof merely consists of the testimony of some other stranger, then I'll just say lol.
OK, forget the wager.
From Basketball Phrases:
Sports Basketball Net SwooshBury -A "swoosh" (a successful SHOT that only touches the net after it leaves the hands of a player). Otherwise known as a perfect shot.You will hear people use the Basketball Phrase "Nothin' but Net!" which is the same as a bury!
Now I don't know if the presence of NIKE in Beaverton, OR has anything to do with it, but they have a "swoosh" symbol, also created here Oregon, buy a Portland college student. Maybe "swoosh" was only used here in Oregon in the 70's when I was in school.
I had a hard time finding a reference, but the above does show it was used.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-07-2012 at 04:20 AM.
OK. I can believe someone used it at some time.
"Hey, coach! I made a swoosh! Can I play varsity now?"
Why are you always a condescending twit?
Not really condescending. That particular usage I inferred just seems strange. But if it was so long ago, I can accept it.
/thread
This is not the answer to this question,
Can Poptech bring a novel argument instead of the takes we've all heard before?
The answer is "no".
Keep in mind you are dealing with someone deeply insecure, to the point of what trained psychologists would call mild insanity.
This deep insecurity means that he cannot admit any of the following:
- Someone has found a weak point in his reasoning.
- He has made a mistake.
- Someone he disagrees with can make good point.
No matter what pile of valid evidence or reasoning may be presented to him, he will persist in his beliefs. Further, being unable to admit he has made a mistake, or has any weakpoints in his arguments means that he is incapable of a basic function of critical thinking: determining one's own biases.
His narcissism drives him to believe that he is smarter than you or I, and more logical, to the point of infallibility. You can't hold the ideas "I am smarter than these people, more logical, and don't make mistakes", while admitting that people who, to him, are less intelligent, illogical, and obviously have made the mistake of accepting AGW as a reasonable theory, have actually found a mistake of his, or have come to their conclusions logically using sound reasoning. To reduce the cognitive bias inherent in these two conflicting ideas, he takes the route of "it is a persecution of me and my ideas" route. It's a conspiracy against him and his ideas.
Anyone who doesn't see the exact same way, is obviously deluded. There is no room for honest conversation, because there is no "honorable dissent" in this worldview.
This is exactly the kind of person who buys into 9-11 conspiracy theories, fake moon landing theories, etc.
If one would care to swim through the sewers of 9-11 threads on just about any message board, you will see people fit into this pattern as well.
The kicker is that the truth of AGW, and its potential catastrophic effects, exists outside of how credible its skeptics are. You can't conclude it is valid/false and the "no harm" theory is wrong simply because they are nutters.
It is perfectly reasonable and logical though, to assign very little weight to their interpretation of the facts and evidence, and to subject their claims to a great deal of scrutiny.
I write this with the foreknowledge that PopTart's response will be to say "RG is just building another ad hominem" or, alternately one of his fanboys will say "RG is not a psychologist, so he is wrong about all of this".
As PopTech himself has stated "it is possible for someone without a PhD in a subject to be knowledgeable in a subject."
I have spent more hours arguing with conspiracy nutters of one stripe or another than I would care to admit to. I know 'em when I see 'em.
Thank you for casting your lot in on this thread.
It helps me make my case regarding the parallels between people who buy into the 9-11 conspiracies where the goverment is covering up "the truth", and people who think that climate scientists are engaging in a conspiracy to cover up "the truth".
What do you think about Global Warming? Mad-made or not? Really bad, or no big deal? Somewhere in between?
I just had to pick this one out as I quickly skimmed over you post:
So, is it your contention, that it is impossible for someone to know enough to have an working understanding of a topic, unless they have a PHD?
I would not ruin the economy to limit CO2.
I would not go to war.
My solution is simply a mild tax on fossil fuels. That's it. Start small, build it up for a bit, then taper it off with a definite fixed end time where it expires. Use the revenues to pay down debt that we need to pay off anyway.
Let the market figure out the best mix of efficiency, and other less CO2 intensive forms of energy.
We are already heading that direction anyway. If we can get there before depletion factors force this anyway, we will have a huge head-start compared to nations who don't, i.e. China, etc.
Long term economic trends indicate that it is 100% certain that renewables will get cheaper than fossil fuels, and for oil, that day is rapidly approaching.
There is some very strong evidence that event is about to happen, or quite possibly has already happened.
Huge market distortions that may produce any huge economi harm are not needed. Change the environmental conidtions a bit and let evolutionary/technological forces do the rest.
Negative.
It is possible.
Even you could be knoweldgable about climate science, since that is where you are going.
That is why I think you should get out there and get an eduction and/or publish, to see if your ideas really do hold any water to someone who has the expertise to effectively judge them outside an internet forum.
My su ion is that they don't, mostly because I see you make all sorts of poorly reasoned arguments and theories on things I *do* know about. But hey, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
If you really are right, I want that out there so that the correct theory is the one that everyone can see is correct, and get some professional agreement on.
"If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" --Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein
How do you get other nations to play along?
How do you impose that on Asia?
I'm OK with that, as long as it doesn't impose much of a burden. I honestly don't believe you can accomplish that without damaging the economy.
Do you really think other forms of power will be viable for our needs? I don't believe that will happen for a very long time. Still going to have a problem with nations like China cooperating.
This may happen, but it isn't 100% certain.
As I stated before, energy companies will move that way as a natural part of doing business when that time comes. No need to force it.
Don't we need to currently make fossil fuels about twice as expensive to accomplish that goal?
That may as well be my saying, but I wouldn't want to claim to be as good as him.
Just because I am in the minority of the AGW issue, it doesn't mean I am wrong. Consensus is not science.
There are a finite amount of fossil fuels. It is. You are wrong about this, and provably so to any reasonable person.
Long before the ultimate sucking out of the last unit of oil/coal/natgas, it will get more and more expensive relative to other forms of energy.
This is a long term trend.
Just because you say it isn't certain, doesn't make it so, unless you can show an infinite amount of oil under our feet.
Can you?
The other end of that would be if you could show something that would keep renewables from its long term downward trend on costs?
Do you think technological progress will stop in this one area? Can you show this?
I don't mind changing my mind if have some evidence I was unaware of.
Otherwise, this is hand-waving. If you can't admit I might have a point, then I can stop now. Let me know.
Irrelevant.
X is bad.
I say that we should stop doing X.
X does not become good if others do it too.
Long term, moving to renewables avoids a LOT of fuel costs on things that have to be imported, or dug up on a continuous basis.
Free market economics will dictate that if you can get your cost structure down to the point where you can underbid your rivals, you will get an advantage.
This would have that function, even if one only considers the imports of oil energy.
This is, essentially, the same logic you use to push for lower corporate tax rates.
Is it suddenly invalid now that you dont' like the conclusion?
Again, I am not saying we make a 100% switch tomorrow.
We will have to eventually, and that will be long after I am dead.
The answer to your question is yes, renewables can, and WILL provide an increasing fraction of our civilizations energy needs.
It is good policy to hurry that along.
Countries that don't... will not grow as fast over the long term.
If nothing changes that is roughly correct.
But
Technology is bringing down the costs of batteries and all the things that go into making things like EV's at the same time costs for oil/gasoline go up.
There are two trends at work, and they will meet in the middle at some point.
The cost of oil will double in the next ten years or so.
These costs will add to the cost of gasoline. (reference economist article to that rough effect).
Within 5 years a host of new technologies will bring down the costs of EV's from a pure cost standpoint, not to mention learning curve and efficiencies of scale gains.
I may not be able to tell you within a year or so when that crossover will happen, but it appears to be within that 10 years.
When that happens renewables will be provably cheaper. It will be a bit funny to watch the Free Market Brigade backpedal about "drill here, drill now" when the synergies of renewables start kicking in and jobs move that way.
Do you know that as fact?
What about the abiotic oil? Are you saying that is impossible?
Now I myself have stated that there will be a natural move away from fossil fuel as it gets more expensive. You however seem to advocate an unnatural approach to supply and demand pricing by reducing supply or increasing regulation, taxes, etc. Am I wrong about you wanting to make fossil fuel more expensive, forcing us to other means?
Of course not, but you cannot show we will actually run that low either.
Of course I cannot show the trend will slow of stop. I do believe there will be a point where it does, but I'm in no position to know where that will be.
Are you?
Past performance does not guarantee future performance.
I understand your points, I just disagree on how to handle them.
I agree, but if we do it when it costs too much more, it puts us in a worse global trading disadvantage than we already are. Besides, just how bad "X" is with modern technology is subjective.
Yes, in know. Isn't it a joke how much we waste to make and ship ethanol. The subsidies involved also.
My point on waiting for the natural evolution to green technology.
I am pretty consistent on reducing taxes and regulations. You seem to advocate the opposite since it takes more regulations and subsidies to make the renewable energy business grow right now.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
