Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 68

Thread: Texas fights global-warming power grab

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Texas fights global-warming power grab

    The OP doesn't make sense, as usual.

    Just because some people in power are using the issue of global warming to make a power grab, doesn't mean the science behind global warming is wrong. These are two separate issues: the science, and the politics. The former is truth, the latter is up to democratic processes.

    If you don't like the way your government is responding to the environmental issues, then attack your government, not the science.

    Honestly... use your brains.

  2. #32
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: Texas fights global-warming power grab

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Yes, I have. And most of that would be there regardless of their findings. It isn't there due to the result, like it is with the oil companies. Governments have no real gain concerning GW scinece. Companies do. In fact, it would work best for governments, for example, if the science wasn't what it was, which puts a whole in part of your argument.

    But the fact is the science overwhelmingly supports GW and that man plays a role. This can be supported with any honest

    search.
    The whole goal is to pass cap and trade. It's all about power and money. If it's only the environment and clean energy, we'll get there without cap and trade. We'll cut emissions without the government collapsing the economy and controlling every aspect of our lives. Let the free market work. There is no Global Warming Crisis that the Gov can use to do things they were never able to do before.
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Texas fights global-warming power grab

    Quote Originally Posted by Technocratic View Post
    Well, Al Gore is correct. People do not respond to arguments or empirical evidence.
    But, what does Charles Manson, James Lee (the discovery channel situation), and Obama's science scar have in common??

    They are all global warming alarmists, and advocate murder in order to accomplish their environmental objectives.... sure the science czar holdren is nice about it, he just advocates having everyone sterilized and has a beaurocrat decide if you can breed. The sad thing is, this isn't a joke.

    That's unfortunate, but a reality. You need to appeal to their emotions, because they will ignore other types of appeals. A recent study showed that warning labels are cigarette packs that focus on the objective health problems caused by tobacco smoke inhalation are not as effective as ones that appeal to the impact on somone's "personal looks or relations."
    This isn't true... if we were talking about REAL solutions to the REAL problems, and still offered sensible ways to mitigate or eliminate these problems in a safe a clean way, you would find that your scientific arguments would work because they don't conflict with even the most basic understanding of science. I mean, I didn't learn the full chemical process of photosynthesis, but I DO KNOW enough to know that CO2 is converted into O2.

    You need to hype up a problem like global warming and make it personal because no one cares otherwise. They think in terms of anecdotes and stories, not stats.
    It all depends on intent and medium...

    There is no big conspiracy to grab power. The biggest economic interests are in maintaining the status quo. You can make far more money opposing Global Warming than in supporting the concept.
    LMAO!!! Serious?? Ok, you probably think this has to do with money... have you seen the homes of these people??? SO long as the environmental "crisis" carries on, the more governments will fund the scientific developments... so, yes, there's ALOT of money to be made... but when you're talking about those in charge of the energy companies, oil companies, and the banks that fund them... they are already fabulously wealthy beyond what they would ever need if they lived 50 lifetimes. This isn't about the money in as much as that money keeps them in control.

    Edit: Regarding supposed fraud, all the scientists in 'climate gate" were exhonerated and no evidence of any wrongdoing was found. At this point, no one seriously doubts global average temperatures are increasing, except for a few select, and very vocal, interest groups. But these are the same groups of people who fought for decades against evidence that showed Tobacco smoke was bad for you.
    Yes, all it took was a hearing of a bunch of global warming alarmists who looked and said 'no no wrong doing, they are cleared of any charges.

    Your analogy is flipped around though... they are using 'tobacco science' to justify global warming.

    I mean seriously, I have YET to see an alarmist even ATTEMPT to consider the suns energy in the equation... because the ANGLE ALONE of the suns rays hitting earth can make a difference between sweltering hot and so cold your spit freezes before it hits the ground. Then they get into 'co2 half-lifes' like it's friggen radiation or something... like come on children, it's CO2... you exhale it, plants 'breath' it... the earth is at a co2 starved point compared to points in history, without mentioning that a doubling of CO2 ONLY MAKES PLANTS SOAK UP MORE!!!

    We can't get a weather forecast a week ahead with anything better then a 50-50 guess and these climate models,claim to be accurate HUNDREDS of years in the future. Yet they spend BILLIONS world wide... come on... there are SERIOUS and simple to remedy solutions... for example, pulp & paper replace it with hemp (not pot) and boom several issues just evaporate. Then you could look at the genetic pollution from genetic engineering of plants and animals... the recent studies on this subject are damning.

    But you tell an "environmentalist" these things and it doesn't matter... it's all because there are too many humans breathing... that's the root of the "problem" according to these psychos that are pushing this at the top... and yes there is a such thing as a smart psychopath.

  4. #34
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    98053
    Last Seen
    04-19-15 @ 03:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    264

    Re: Texas fights global-warming power grab

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    The whole goal is to pass cap and trade. It's all about power and money. If it's only the environment and clean energy, we'll get there without cap and trade. We'll cut emissions without the government collapsing the economy and controlling every aspect of our lives. Let the free market work. There is no Global Warming Crisis that the Gov can use to do things they were never able to do before.
    Unregulated markets don't work. The meltdown of our financial system proved that yet again. This is not really a matter of free market anyway, it is a problem of people misusing a common resource for their own benefit (the "sheep on the commons" problem). We have stopped companies from dumping cancer-causing crap in our rivers. It make sense to keep them, and all of us, from doing damage to the common resource that is our atmosphere. One way to motivate people to change their polluting ways is to make the cost of this behavior prohibitive. It exposes the true cost and it makes it alternatives more cost competitive. This is not so much a matter trying to regulate as it is an attempt to wean us from a really bad behavior, burning fossils for fuel.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Texas fights global-warming power grab

    Quote Originally Posted by zip98053 View Post
    Unregulated markets don't work. The meltdown of our financial system proved that yet again. This is not really a matter of free market anyway, it is a problem of people misusing a common resource for their own benefit (the "sheep on the commons" problem). We have stopped companies from dumping cancer-causing crap in our rivers. It make sense to keep them, and all of us, from doing damage to the common resource that is our atmosphere. One way to motivate people to change their polluting ways is to make the cost of this behavior prohibitive. It exposes the true cost and it makes it alternatives more cost competitive. This is not so much a matter trying to regulate as it is an attempt to wean us from a really bad behavior, burning fossils for fuel.
    No, it's not that 'unregulated' markets don't work... it's that there's been a lack of ENFORCEMENT of the crimes that can occur more easily in unregulated markets.

    Finally someone that wants to talk about REAL environmental damage... but then goes back to blaming it all on fossil fuels... oops.

  6. #36
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Soviet Technate
    Last Seen
    10-25-10 @ 06:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    359

    Re: Texas fights global-warming power grab

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    But, what does Charles Manson, James Lee (the discovery channel situation), and Obama's science scar have in common??

    They are all global warming alarmists, and advocate murder in order to accomplish their environmental objectives.... sure the science czar holdren is nice about it, he just advocates having everyone sterilized and has a beaurocrat decide if you can breed. The sad thing is, this isn't a joke.
    Well, first, the fact that some people are crazy doesn't mean the core idea isn't true. The character of adherants doesn't detract from the truth of the concept. While some environmentalists are certain crazy, thats not really ultimately important.

    But, regarding the no breeding thing, the basic concept is valid: people need to stop pumping out rabbit warrens. Too many people. No one likes to hear this, because everyone likes happy thoughts.

    it'sthe

    This isn't true... if we were talking about REAL solutions to the REAL problems, and still offered sensible ways to mitigate or eliminate these problems in a safe a clean way, you would find that your scientific arguments would work because they don't conflict with even the most basic understanding of science. I mean, I didn't learn the full chemical process of photosynthesis, but I DO KNOW enough to know that CO2 is converted into
    I don't see how it's false to say that people are often emotional, irrational, and do not respond well to statistical or empirical explanations. If that weren't the case, then modern mass advertisements wouldn't be so effective, and people wouldn't be more responsive to "smoking will make you look ugly" labels instead of objective health statistics.

    The problem with "sensible" methods to mitigate is "sensible" is really codeword for "anything that's not too inconvenient." People are generally lazy and short-term thinkers (just like the modern business model). Sensible to Joe Average is actually so insignficant a measure, it would never do anything, and even then, you will spend years trying to convince them of just doing that.

    There are still millions of people who think the Earth is 10,000 years old. THat's the population you're dealing with. Making a scientific argument to a lay audience is beyond pointless. You're better off using hand puppets and scare tactics.

    We're dealing with a very serious future problem, and while it's hardly going to be the end of human civilization, we need to address it. But we don't have the advantage of unity to fix it. You got a corrupt, slow democratic system where anything proposed is trapped in endless debate, a population that is either totally ignorant or apathetic if it involves sacrifice, and a firmly entrenched and powerful battery of interest groups that oppose any real change (most industries). It took forever just to get passed the front organizations that tried to argue smoke inhalation isn't bad for you. And people still don't respond that well to the medical science.



    LMAO!!! Serious?? Ok, you probably think this has to do with money... have you seen the homes of these people??? SO long as the environmental "crisis" carries on, the more governments will fund the scientific developments... so, yes, there's ALOT of money to be made... but when you're talking about those in charge of the energy companies, oil companies, and the banks that fund them... they are already fabulously wealthy beyond what they would ever need if they lived 50 lifetimes. This isn't about the money in as much as that money keeps them in control.
    Yea, I have seen the homes, and while some people certainly take advantage of teh whole green craze, far more money can be made and mustered by the opponents of change. Green industry or advocates are small chump change.

    Actually, the whole argument that global warming is some conspiracy to make money scientists is bizarre, since far more money would be made if they disproved it. The ones who have the real power are also the people most vocally against global warming.


    Yes, all it took was a hearing of a bunch of global warming alarmists who looked and said 'no no wrong doing, they are cleared of any charges.
    \

    That's an assumption with no evidence. The case was examined and dismissed, as it had no merit.

    Your analogy is flipped around though... they are using 'tobacco science' to justify global warming.
    Quite the contrary. No serious climatologist disagrees that average global temperatures are increasing. The only actual debate is the pace and the scope of damages. There are a few people who disagree, but then again, there are some biologists who don't believe in evolution, either (M. Behe). They are marginal.

    I mean seriously, I have YET to see an alarmist even ATTEMPT to consider the suns energy in the equation... because the ANGLE ALONE of the suns rays hitting earth can make a difference between sweltering hot and so cold your spit freezes before it hits the ground. Then they get into 'co2 half-lifes' like it's friggen radiation or something... like come on children, it's CO2... you exhale it, plants 'breath' it... the earth is at a co2 starved point compared to points in history, without mentioning that a doubling of CO2 ONLY MAKES PLANTS SOAK UP MORE!!!
    The Sun does have an impact on Earth's climate. If not, we'd all be dead. However, modern climate models do in fact take into consideratoin solar cycles. Ironically, a lot of warming happened when the sun was least active. The sun is not a major factor in this case of warming according to the best available data.

    Just because CO2 is natural, and common, does not mean it's harmless or without consequence. That's a serious error. Water can poison you, after all.

    Yes, plants can soak up more CO2, but only to a certain extent. To believe the Earth is an infinite sink would be to commit the No Limits fallacy.


    We can't get a weather forecast a week ahead with anything better then a 50-50 guess and these climate models,claim to be accurate HUNDREDS of years in the future. Yet they spend BILLIONS world wide... come on... there are SERIOUS and simple to remedy solutions... for example, pulp & paper replace it with hemp (not pot) and boom several issues just evaporate. Then you could look at the genetic pollution from genetic engineering of plants and animals... the recent studies on this subject are damning.
    Weather isn't climate. It's actually easier to predict and deal with climate than daily weather changes.

    But you tell an "environmentalist" these things and it doesn't matter... it's all because there are too many humans breathing... that's the root of the "problem" according to these psychos that are pushing this at the top... and yes there is a such thing as a smart psychopath.
    Wait, who said the problem is caused by too many humans breathing? I've never heard any actual authorities on the subject specifically say that. You mock the concept of overpopulation, but it's actually a serious problem, but not for the reason you outlined. Are you under the impression that resources are infinite and that the Earth can sustain an infinite population?
    Last edited by Technocratic; 09-09-10 at 02:15 AM.

  7. #37
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    98053
    Last Seen
    04-19-15 @ 03:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    264

    Re: Texas fights global-warming power grab

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    No, it's not that 'unregulated' markets don't work... it's that there's been a lack of ENFORCEMENT of the crimes that can occur more easily in unregulated markets.
    This is a non-sequitur. Regulation means having criminal penalties for bad behavior. If there were no penalties, then it is, by definition, unregulated and there is nothing to enforce.

    Finally someone that wants to talk about REAL environmental damage... but then goes back to blaming it all on fossil fuels... oops.
    I was staying relevant to the thread. If you would like to discuss other random environmental damage, maybe you should start a new one.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Texas fights global-warming power grab

    Quote Originally Posted by Technocratic View Post
    Well, first, the fact that some people are crazy doesn't mean the core idea isn't true. The character of adherants doesn't detract from the truth of the concept. While some environmentalists are certain crazy, thats not really ultimately important.
    Environmentalism is simply starting to show its true face, and that is of neo-eugenics.

    But, regarding the no breeding thing, the basic concept is valid: people need to stop pumping out rabbit warrens. Too many people. No one likes to hear this, because everyone likes happy thoughts.

    it'sthe
    Wrong... I don't care what any professor has told you in the past, there is NO overpopulation problem... especially in the western world where birth rates currently are no longer matching replacement rates. The only reason there seems any population increases is through migration.
    I don't see how it's false to say that people are often emotional, irrational, and do not respond well to statistical or empirical explanations. If that weren't the case, then modern mass advertisements wouldn't be so effective, and people wouldn't be more responsive to "smoking will make you look ugly" labels instead of objective health statistics.
    That's dealing with an addictive product, a different matter in a sense... but yes, it's through emotional arguments, that's why the 'environmentalist' commercials targeting kids show details like drowning puppies, talk about the plight of polar bears that will drown (when their numbers are increasing), the alarmism concerning deforestation never even considered that trees might pollinate and germinate to create new trees, that CO2 matters more then the sun's impact. So when you're violating all common sense, it's no wonder people don't take it serious.

    HOWEVER, if you show people the hair growing in the mouths of the third generations of rodents fed certain types of GM foods, that might get people thinking about what they eat. The difference being is that one study has all the raw data available, whereas the climatologists 'lost' raw data... probably cause of 'fudging the numbers'.

    The problem with "sensible" methods to mitigate is "sensible" is really codeword for "anything that's not too inconvenient." People are generally lazy and short-term thinkers (just like the modern business model). Sensible to Joe Average is actually so insignficant a measure, it would never do anything, and even then, you will spend years trying to convince them of just doing that.
    Well, that's because of other simultaneous problems beyond the scope of the thread.

    There are still millions of people who think the Earth is 10,000 years old. THat's the population you're dealing with. Making a scientific argument to a lay audience is beyond pointless. You're better off using hand puppets and scare tactics.
    Except even if you have a high school education, you should be able to debunk global warming alarmism... it's not much different that coming to the conclusion that santa claus isn't actually going to every house on earth in one night.

    We're dealing with a very serious future problem, and while it's hardly going to be the end of human civilization, we need to address it. But we don't have the advantage of unity to fix it. You got a corrupt, slow democratic system where anything proposed is trapped in endless debate, a population that is either totally ignorant or apathetic if it involves sacrifice, and a firmly entrenched and powerful battery of interest groups that oppose any real change (most industries). It took forever just to get passed the front organizations that tried to argue smoke inhalation isn't bad for you. And people still don't respond that well to the medical science.
    Yes, but here's where it goes from reasonable to retarded : Co2 does not cause cancer... it's generated constantly in your body for exhalation... you can't LIVE without CO2... so, inevitably this boils down to a 'population is killing the earth' and that's why these that buy into the death cult are now starting to act out on their deeply held belief that human caused co2 is ruining the earth.

    Yea, I have seen the homes, and while some people certainly take advantage of teh whole green craze, far more money can be made and mustered by the opponents of change. Green industry or advocates are small chump change.
    That however grows with their influence... and once you control CO2 you literally control life itself.... that's why we need to talk about REAL problems that don't require mass murder as a solution. For example; if an industry cannot create its product in a way that is not environmentally destructive (meaning actual dangerous chemical waste, not simply 'co2 and water vapour'), then perhaps the company should find an alternative means of creating that product or not make it at all... but to make the blanket statement that ALL human production is inherently bad, then you wind up with psychopaths and control freaks trying to run the show.

    Actually, the whole argument that global warming is some conspiracy to make money scientists is bizarre, since far more money would be made if they disproved it. The ones who have the real power are also the people most vocally against global warming.
    Actually, there are whole books (yes, plural) describing precisely the means, method and execution of the 'conspiracy', as well as explaining concisely WHY this needs to be done.


    That's an assumption with no evidence. The case was examined and dismissed, as it had no merit.
    Yes, like I said... it was examined and dismissed.... BECAUSE the investigators did not want to ruin the 'science', they were literal shills of the main priests of the GW church. In other words, a literal fox 'investigating' the hen house... I give it about as much credence as a 3$ bill.


    Quite the contrary. No serious climatologist disagrees that average global temperatures are increasing. The only actual debate is the pace and the scope of damages. There are a few people who disagree, but then again, there are some biologists who don't believe in evolution, either (M. Behe). They are marginal.
    Wrong again... That's why it's important for science to keep the raw data in tact... so, when these "scientists" are exposed when they commit blatant fraud.

    The Sun does have an impact on Earth's climate. If not, we'd all be dead. However, modern climate models do in fact take into consideratoin solar cycles. Ironically, a lot of warming happened when the sun was least active. The sun is not a major factor in this case of warming according to the best available data.
    That's the nice thing about computers, you can program them to provide anything you want... the REAL science can predict the weather for 7 days out with 50% accuracy, maybe 14 days out with increases in technology.... anyone that can predict or claims to any further is lying or believes their own guess.

    Just because CO2 is natural, and common, does not mean it's harmless or without consequence. That's a serious error. Water can poison you, after all.
    Lets' see, it would have toxic effect in about the 100s of times the concentration we see in the atmosphere... and plants grow at peak efficiency with double the current atmospheric CO2 levels.

    Don't believe me, go to a greenhouse.

    Yes, plants can soak up more CO2, but only to a certain extent. To believe the Earth is an infinite sink would be to commit the No Limits fallacy.
    Not 'no limits'... it's that our influence in terms of CO2 is negligeable AT BEST... we could talk about OTHER topics then CO2 where the effect is MUCH MORE drastic, but like I said, we can find a solution that doesn't require killing a few billion people.

    Weather isn't climate. It's actually easier to predict and deal with climate than daily weather changes.
    Ya... I can predict the future too... and like the climate scientists I'm almost always wrong as well, so I just make it sound plausible and tell you that if you give me millions of dollars I'll find a way to solve the problem.


    Wait, who said the problem is caused by too many humans breathing? I've never heard any actual authorities on the subject specifically say that. You mock the concept of overpopulation, but it's actually a serious problem, but not for the reason you outlined. Are you under the impression that resources are infinite and that the Earth can sustain an infinite population?
    Every scientist that sounds the alarm because of 'co2 levels' without considering anything else, is at the core of his belief saying 'there are too many people exhaling CO2'... Most people in the world DO NOT generate much more CO2 then they exhale and the occassional fire to cook food.

    Of course the earth couldn't sustain an infinate of people, HOWEVER humanity has shown time and again a limitless potential for ingenuity... and that as sanitation and industrialization goes to the third world, their populations will stabilize as well... the western world for all intents is dieing ... replace mommy OR daddy ONLY. The UN's own numbers show the case that proves that this concept of overpopulation is a complete exaggeration to say the least.
    Last edited by BmanMcfly; 09-09-10 at 02:59 AM.

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Texas fights global-warming power grab

    Quote Originally Posted by zip98053 View Post
    This is a non-sequitur. Regulation means having criminal penalties for bad behavior. If there were no penalties, then it is, by definition, unregulated and there is nothing to enforce.
    Not quite... regulation means controlled. There are laws in place that exist regardless of regulation or deregulation. White collar crimes are for the most part unenforced... the majority of law enforcement is focused on the poor - middle classes.

    I mean, it took 10 years before the SEC finally prosecuted Madoff...

    I was staying relevant to the thread. If you would like to discuss other random environmental damage, maybe you should start a new one.
    Can't do it, because for most so called environmentalists the ONLY problem is CO2.

  10. #40
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    98053
    Last Seen
    04-19-15 @ 03:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    264

    Re: Texas fights global-warming power grab

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Not quite... regulation means controlled. There are laws in place that exist regardless of regulation or deregulation. White collar crimes are for the most part unenforced... the majority of law enforcement is focused on the poor - middle classes.

    I mean, it took 10 years before the SEC finally prosecuted Madoff...
    The method of "control" IS enforment of the laws. We pass laws to make things not legal (like Ponzi schemes and making PCBs). It seems silly to say that laws are independent of regulation or vice versa.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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