The purpose of taxes should be only to fund the government, not manipulate the market. Obviously tools can be used incorrectly, and this is my opinion. All taxes which fund the government manipulate the market. |
|
|
|
It's not a tax it's a fee.
Two different words, one effect. |
|
|
|
If you have some logical conclusions to draw based upon observations and data, please share. If you wish to provide examples which would allow one to draw a conclusion counter to the things I've said, then do so.
Sorry just looked into your arguments considered them void, so opposed to see wether you can bring along something profound. What I have learned about global warming is: - Math is abused. Take a look into what they do and be amazed. They tune the models until able to perdict the past. Then of cause this will work for the future ... Ok those scientist donīt claim to have a valid proof. But as soon as its out to Television everything is so pretty obvious ... but still rubbish. So I just love to laugh about "audience's ignorance". No doubt burning oil and coal is second most stupid idea ever, right behind nuclear power blasts (weapons are out of my consideration here). But there is no point in putting wrong arguments for a right cause. People like me show up pick them, prove them wrong and thus cancel your reasonable goals by your own faulty arguments. Donīt let this happen in the wild out there (btw. it already happend). You have probably heard of the waldsterben. In my youth I learned, those trees I nowadays chop for firewood died long years ago. They came up with wrong arguments, concluded the wrong medicine, made things even worse. But the german forest is still prospering. Same thing for ozone depletion. It happens around south pole, so its cause has to be defeated on the northern half of the planet.  And now ... global warming. you canīt predict the weather for the next two weeks, but climate for centuries?!? That is ignorance at its best. The problem I see is the sand in whomsoever eyes, could be you do so as well. But rubbing does not help. Stop the guy throwing that sand. Global warming might be a very important issue. But you will never solve it. So take care for what you can handle and stick to that. Do never ever pick up arguments you canīt validate, just because they are stamped by some important whatsowever. ... just my 5 satoshis. There's a lot of contradictory and opinionated views in there, some not true, and there are some conclusions in there that don't really follow. Let me see if I can summarize your view: Kettonmonster's view in a nutshell: Science isn't applying the proper methods to properly predict Global Warming even though Global Warming is probably happening, so we shouldn't try and find alternatives to burning oil and coal even though it's really stupid to burn oil and coal. Weather isn't predictable two weeks out, and that must mean we can't do science. |
|
|
|
The purpose of taxes is to fund the government, not manipulate the market.
Oh, okay. If you say so. To deal with externalities, estimate the cost to society and charge more for drilling rights.
Oh, you mean tax drilling rights, and thus manipulate the market? |
|
|
|
|
Kettonmonster,
Here are some things for you to study:
- The Oregon Petition
- Frederick Seitz
- The background of those running the Heartland Institute
- Brownlash, as coined by Paul Ehrlich
- Ice albedo feedback loops
- Heat retention of ocean water
- Ice age sea levels
- Species extinction rates
- Milankovitch cycles
- Steady state economics
- Methods of determining the accuracy of historically recorded temperatures
- Correlation of independent data: ice cores, atmospheric temperature readings, sea level, satellite photos, etc.
|
|
|
|
The Earth's climate isn't going to respond to ignorance.
Is this approved by your profound experience?  Kettonmonster, If you have some logical conclusions to draw based upon observations and data, please share. If you wish to provide examples which would allow one to draw a conclusion counter to the things I've said, then do so. |
|
|
|
That would be scenario #2: audience's ignorance of the facts.
Whatever a fact might be and where audience references to. Just be aware, that different brains might work differently on different assumptions. The Earth's climate isn't going to respond to ignorance. |
|
|
|
In the end, in order for economies to become sustainable, one has to tax that which we want less of. One thing that we necessarily need less of are processes which consume more of the Earth's naturally produced capital than the Earth can produce per unit time. Such things typically are clean atmosphere, oil, natural gas, food, and most importantly, flora and fauna, since the Earth's flora and fauna contribute to the recycling of everything. Identifying and taxing such processes shifts competition, and by extension, research and development into processes which are sustainable. See link: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/ |
|
|
|
Show me an argument against Global Warming, and I'll show you that it contains a significant portion of the following: falsified documents; its authors are funded by Big Oil; it preys upon its audience's ignorance of the facts; its affiliated with groups who also were paid by tobacco companies to claim tobacco smoke does not cause cancer; its authors can be tied to the Heartland Institute or other similar organizations.
... uhm if you take a look back in the past few hundreds of thousands of years, you can easily see: The next ice age is just about to come.
That would be scenario #2: audience's ignorance of the facts. Do you understand Milankovitch Cycles and how they affect the periodicity of ice ages? I doubt it, but you're actually correct, dude! An ice age is coming. Which means the global rise in temperature over the past one hundred years must not be because of ice age cycles, huh? |
|
|
|
It's pretty much what you would expect. Jones makes some good points. Rothschild makes some good points. Then it devolves into name calling.
I wouldn't expect anything (therefore it couldn't possibly be what I would expect) because I don't whose side each one is on or what their points are. Nor do I know of any good points made by Global Warming deniers. They can all be demonstrated to be founded on fraudulent and deceptive premises. Exclusive statements are often proven to be false. You approach the topic with almost religious faith and equivalent disgust for nonbelievers. This is the "scientific" form of religion, and you practice it faithfully. Show me an argument against Global Warming, and I'll show you that it contains a significant portion of the following: falsified documents; its authors are funded by Big Oil; it preys upon its audience's ignorance of the facts; its affiliated with groups who also were paid by tobacco companies to claim tobacco smoke does not cause cancer; its authors can be tied to the Heartland Institute or other similar organizations. |
|
|
|
It's pretty much what you would expect. Jones makes some good points. Rothschild makes some good points. Then it devolves into name calling.
I wouldn't expect anything (therefore it couldn't possibly be what I would expect) because I don't know whose side each one is on or what their points are. Nor do I know of any good points made by Global Warming deniers. They can all be demonstrated to be founded on fraudulent and deceptive premises. |
|
|
|
|
Can I get the two sentence synopsis?
|
|
|
|
|
Also, for those interested, google the Valkyrie XB-70. It was a pretty amazing (and absolutely gigantic) aircraft circa 1963 or so.
|
|
|
|
It is happening in a sense right now. What you learn with regard to tech jobs becomes obsolete much quicker. Staying relevant becomes more work than it used to be. It probably is a contributing factor to today's unemployment levels. |
|
|
|
Simple explanation - the easy parts been done, any more advancement gets exponentially more difficult.
Yes. Does that analogize to other technologies and industries? Medicine? Computers? Or is it more an engineering thing. As an example, the Empire State Building was built in 1933. The Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge were also built in the '30s. We'll hit the wall in computers pretty soon, latest chips are already 22nm, we'll hit mono-layers within 10 years and I have no idea where things will go from there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22_nanometerYou might say aviation hit the wall at 70 years. Computers began in the '50s. |
|
|
|
Simple explanation - the easy parts been done, any more advancement gets exponentially more difficult.
Yes. Does that analogize to other technologies and industries? Medicine? Computers? Or is it more an engineering thing? As an example, the Empire State Building was built in 1933. The Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge were also built in the '30s. |
|
|
|
If you are trying to say that progress in some ways stopped in the 70's....
Pretty much. It's also interesting to simply point out what was going on in the fifties and sixties. I was going to mention the Concorde as well. And the whole 90 year planned service for the B-52 is pretty mind boggling. Oh, and the farthest man has ever traveled from Earth - that happened from 1969 to 1973. Today we can't seem to get past low earth orbit. |
|
|
|
|
Some 99 years ago, around about 1903, travel by horse and buggy was the norm, and the Wright Brothers flew the first powered aircraft. Fifty-five years later, we get the F-104 Starfighter, which could climb to 82,000 feet in 266 seconds and fly at 1400 mph. That was fifty-four years ago. Extrapolate that performance trajectory to today, and well...
Fifty-four years ago (fifty-five years after Kitty Hawk), Boeing 707 service began, and you could hop on an airliner and travel at the speed of 540 knots across continents. Today, you can hop on an airliner and travel across continents at the speed of, well, 540 knots.
The first B-52s flew in 1952 - sixty years ago. They're still in service and the military is committed to operating them into the 2040s. Yes, you read that correctly. That is an intended 90 year plus service record.
The Valkyrie XB-70 flew forty-eight years ago.
The SR-71 "Blackbird" began service forty-eight years ago.
Forty-six years ago, Stanley Kubrick began production on 2001: A Space Odyssey. That film extrapolated, and it extrapolated beautifully! The future just failed to commit.
Boeing 747s began service forty-two years ago in 1970. Grumman F-14 Tomcats first flew in the same year.
|
|
|
|
|
Need I point out that we're only one hundredth of one percent the way through pondering that which should be pondered in this thread?
|
|
|
|
Could someone unambiguously define a natural right, or an objective right?
In short, it is what you have alone on a deserted island, and what another has alone on her own deserted island, and what you both keep when together on the same island. Huh? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
