Who knows, the whole thing is a mess. Either way my personal philosophy sidesteps the issue. We should strive to become more efficient and less wasteful anyway. And even if it was occurring governments should help by no longer artificially encouraging growth, not schizophrenically encouraging growth but also taxing it.
Amen to that. I think that would be a big mistake. For one thing, trying to be more efficient and less wasteful may leave us with less wealth and technology to deal with a species-survival threat. For another thing, what most people think of as efficiency is usually extremely inefficient. We may go to lots of effort to develop a solar infrastructure only to invent fusion two years later. Generally, you want to make major changes as late as possible so you have as much wealth, information, and technology when you do it. There is no advantage to having saved lots of a resource when it becomes no longer useful.
Not if we consider genuine efficiency and waste. A big clue is that if something costs more than you make back in savings, it probably is actually inefficient (as you suggest). Ethanol in gas for one incredibly retarded example. |
|
|
|
Do you have scientific studies showing all this damage that will occur to billions if we take action?
Really? I make no claims of veracity of the following chart as I just grabbed it off of google indiscriminately but if you will post up a chart showing the inverse, I will happily consider myself schooled.  Are you aware of the damage that is occurring right now by doing nothing?
Are you aware of how disagreement works? My position is that this claimed damage has not been sufficiently and scientifically demonstrated. |
|
|
|
Except for the once-a decade cold fusion hoaxes. Can't go without mentioning them  But look on the bright side, if the trend holds you can buy thorium reactors from China by 2022. Yeah, but the paint on them will contain lead. |
|
|
|
Look at the boldfaced statement above. Now, we know you have libertarian views. Fine. How do these work together? You're suggesting that we wait, and wait, and wait, until it's all settled. But perhaps, it's exactly because of your libertarian views, is the reason you want to argue against what others believe to be already settled.
It has now been predicted that the arctic will be ice free in the summers within 20 years. We broke yet another record this year regarding arctic ice melt. Now, factor in ice albedo feedback loops. Google "ice albedo feedback loop". It's not good. And you want to wait.
You put words in my mouth again (surprise surprise). I'm suggesting both that we should be certain of what is occurring before taking actions that would certainly damage the wellbeing and health of millions, if not billions of human beings and that the solutions as proposed by the watermelon faction (that's you) are almost certainly not the correct ones. |
|
|
|
Read it again. We were discussing pollutants. With regard to pollutants, which can be naturally occurring, or caused by humanity, the question is: are we putting out enough pollutants to cause global warming?
Questions: 1)Is CO2 a pollutant? How so? 2)Is AGW caused to any degree by any pollutants other than CO2? (allowing that CO2 is a pollutant for the purposes of this question). |
|
|
|
Various governments around the world exist for lots of different reasons.
Unfortunately, for some reason Bitcoin seems to attract a few extremist nutters who worship Property (and money) above all else as their god, and equate most forms of 'community' and organisational structures with Satan. They see Bitcoin as a useful tool that they can misuse to promote their crazy utopias.
If property is such a terrible thing, why do the statists want to take it so badly? |
|
|
|
I was hoping to have a discussion with you about climate change, but it's becoming apparent that you can't. Anyway, where was that circular logic you were talking about? And where did I mention reverting society to the stone age? You have all these funny assumptions, and they're quite cliched, and frankly, worthless.
The question really boils down to whether there is enough humanity driven pollution to make AGW a reality.
If AGW is not a reality then CO2 is not a pollutant (by your earlier definition which does not match that in the OED btw). Unless you are claiming that AGW is driven by things other than CO2 which *are* conventional pollutants. If you weren't playing lefty word-games and used simple statements like "The question really boils down to whether there is enough humanity driven CO2 emission to make AGW a reality." , there wouldn't really be much of a problem. Your use of words belies your deep-rooted biases. Since you seem to have made some assumptions about my position, I will say that I think it seems likely that human CO2 emissions may be having some warming effect. What I have problems with are the idea that this is in any way "settled" (code for "Shut up, the sooner we can just stick you in a re-education camp, the better") that it is particularly significant (extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence and all that) and with the suggested solutions ("All you have to do is subscribe to the political dogma that we just happen to have been advocating since 1867"). |
|
|
|
In other words, you're not qualified to render an opinion on the subject matter here. Try again.
My point is that most people who do, including statist control freaks like yourself aren't. The difference is, I'm not trying to send us back to the stone age. |
|
|
|
\....\The reason for price to rise is buyers out number sellers. \....\
THIS! Not necessarily. |
|
|
|
I believe you think you know a fair amount, and I believe most of what you know is bogus material that you have absorbed through fringe websites which are politically motivated to smear climate science.
I believe you are attaching way to much significance to your suspicions, likely because it fits what you wish for.
Oh the irony... |
|
|
|
We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.
The science behind AGW does not purport to recognize anything but humanity driven pollution as the cause of AGW. Granted, one can call attention to the notion that there is not enough humanity driven pollution to cause global warming, but that's all. The question really boils down to whether there is enough humanity driven pollution to make AGW a reality. Gotta love your circular logic. AGW is happening because of pollution and it's pollution because it's causing AGW. By conflating CO2 emissions with pollution, you immediately prejudice the argument. The usual word games
I will make a guess as to what you know scientifically about climate change. I believe you think you know a fair amount, and I believe most of what you know is bogus material that you have absorbed through fringe websites which are politically motivated to smear climate science. That's my prediction. I'm challenging you right now, Mr "I have a scientific background." Show us. I will address what you share.
Meh, I'm not climate scientist and I haven't particularly followed it for a while. I don't trawl "fringe" websites either (standard mud-slinging attempt duly noted though). However, even when I was a lefty environmentalist myself, all the political bullshit and media hysteria surrounding what was a solid scientific endeavor was palpable. My point is that as a scientist you get used to picking out the wheat from the chaff and what's flying around today is mostly chaff (on both sides. I've seen deniers confuse CO2 with CO for example and others who think that NO2 and other real pollutants from exhaust gases get turned to CO2 by the catalytic converter). |
|
|
|
I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.
Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this: You tried to supply a non-sequitur as a logical progression. That's about all that matters. |
|
|
|
Some kind of anonymous gateway might be fairly cool but the problem is anonymity is a double edged sword. Just ask (name escapes me), an old anonymous email service that got shutdown because of abuse (I want to say anonnet.fi but that's incorrect)
anon.penet.fi? They shut down in 1996 after the Cult of $cientology alleged that someone had used them to email their "secrets." That's the one (and the correct reason). Slightly different risk but basically the same problem overall. |
|
|
|
Edit: Also all you repeat is argument from consensus and argument from authority mixed with arbitrary references to what you deem as important events. Look I am not even anti-AGW, I am pro-rationalism. Modern science is widely recognized to be driven by publish or perish and anything that results from it should be scrutinized with a critical eye. That is all I was saying a year ago.
+1. I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around. Most of what I see (on both sides) just makes me want to face-palm. The court of public opinion, particularly with modern media and politicians in general is a terrible place for this debate to be playing out. |
|
|
|
Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.
I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow. |
|
|
|
To prevent this from being too obnoxious, they are also broadcasting American popular music from the loudspeakers.
Quite, quite masterful. |
|
|
|
|
If the transaction was reversed, wouldn't that be a tip-off though? And wouldn't that let you know who it was too (or at least reduce the field somewhat).
Shame as I was looking forward to doing more. If you feel like going forward with people you've had successful business with before, drop me a PM.
|
|
|
|
We pollute. Pollution isn't good.
Global warming is happening. Look at the arctic ocean, among other issues.
Anthropomorphic Global Warming is claimed to be caused by CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. whether AGW is real or not, when supporters do this kind of thing, it harms their argument (though I've seen plenty of blunders on the denier side too to be fair). I think AGW and CAGW are interesting ideas and deserve to be studied and properly proven or disproven by appropriate scientists in the field. Unfortunately, the issue has been hijacked by those who would have us living in the stone age and have been running around chicken-littleing about global warming/global cooling/peak oil/nuclear/the steam engine/the wheel/fire since forever. As such, I stand in strong opposition to any change which could radically alter our quality of life until and unless we have much more solid proof. (This is the true implication of the precautionary principle by the way). |
|
|
|
|
To paraphrase from a different debate, AnCap is a state like bald is a hair color.
|
|
|
|
Thanks, and I do agree that a house is an investment so don't get me wrong there. If you are financially stable and you can handle it, I don't see a problem. But for me, I have prayed about it, and this is what I've been told to do. house can be an investment but your home isn't. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
