2/22/11

If there is one bright spot to the financial crisis it is the slowdown of the global hype machine that is Global Warming.

This closeted socialist doctrine has thankfully left the headlines for the time being.

But don't be fooled into thinking it gone for good.

During the current de facto moratorium on the subject, I think it a reasonable idea to reminisce over its lunacy and true intended goals. As your generation moves towards being the decision making body of our country and our world it bares worth examining not just the short run cost benefits of an idea, but the long term impacts, as well.

Militant environmentalism is nothing more than a pseudo socialist power grab and I always enjoy seeing it debunked in public. Carbon tariffs, quotas and taxes are not the topic du jour these days, but it is good to remember that they are constantly lurking around the next corner...waiting to take more dollars of your paycheck and out of your pocket.

Now that my rant for the day is complete, I would like to proudly present to some and reintroduce to others...

The World's Most Highly Regarded and


Respected Speaker on The Subject



The President of the Czech Republic, Mr. Vaclav Klaus.




I wholeheartedly reiterate my suggestion to read his bookand learn in depth.

For those who are interested in a more academic perspective on the subject, however, here is HBS's James Heskettand his widely circulated paper on the market impact angle.

Comments (83)

2/22/11

Someone I know talked to you about that book once

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/22/11
happypantsmcgee:

Someone I know talked to you about that book once

lol no shout outs if i knew about it beforehand, will gladly trade SB stash for an al gore pinata,however.

2/22/11
2/22/11

Seriously Midas? Please stop watching Fox News. It fucks up your brain.

2/22/11
coach.captain:

Seriously Midas? Please stop watching Fox News. It fucks up your brain.

In fairness, this was CNN HLN, not Fox News...

2/22/11
coach.captain:

Seriously Midas? Please stop watching Fox News. It fucks up your brain.

There are a lot of people much smarter than you that think Global Warming is a scam. Environmental engineers, scientists, etc.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/22/11
happypantsmcgee:

There are a lot of people much smarter than you that think Global Warming is a scam. Environmental engineers, scientists, etc.

I dunno. Illinois' engineering program had a lot of very conservative profs- probably one or two steps away from the most conservative you can be while still calling yourself a serious academic. The bioengineers and geological engineers I knew all bought global warming beyond all reasonable doubt. They just had a lot of other solutions to it besides reducing energy consumption. You develop processes to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and convert it to graphite. You replace the coal plants with nuclear. You reduce natural gas emissions- one of the biggest drivers of global warming (not CO2). (Yes, cows produce more global warming emissions than some compact cars, but that is only a fraction of our CO2 emissions and even without cows, we'd be in trouble long run.)

I think Al Gore permanently screwed up the global warming debate with "An Inconvenient Truth". Less fearmongering= better politics = less knee-jerk reactions that global warming is a scam.

I guess my thing is that the US has been on an anti-regulation streak for the past 30 years. The deregulation that happened under Reagan was clearly healthy and necessary- and needs to stay. But the question is where do we stop? I think it needs to stop before we get to the point that only the rich and powerful are entitled to justice and the protection of their civil liberties and property rights.

2/22/11

I am a big environmentalist, but one thing I always find funny is how much the left supposedly champions the poor, but this environmental stuff directly hurts the poor the most.

2/22/11

Lol Glenn Beck as a source

2/22/11

Well, the majority of the scientists in the world state global warming is real and its effects are real. And it is man made.

I'm not talking about the few conspiracy theorists who believe global warming is a hoax made up by the left and Obama and muslims and gays and unicorns (yeah they're all working together to trick you..GET YOUR GUNS OUT).

2/22/11

And seriously...to have the title "Climate Control = Communism?", that's just pathetic. I know this is a wall street forum so obviously there will be a conservative bias but I mean lets not go mental.

2/22/11

Regardless of all the political leanings and everything I think the easiest way to break this down is to look at it logically. The Earth is a systems that has largely been in balance or cyclical or whatever for 4+ billion years. Now humans come along and in the last 2000 years have reshaped the landscape, cut down trees, burned things, created all kinds of waste (nuclear, heavy metal, and otherwise). Just based on this its ridiculous to think the system won't change at all in response to what humans have done. Now to what extent it will change and in what ways is a different beast.

Similar events have happened in the past - about 2.5 billion years ago the Earth had its first large scale "pollution crisis" as the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere went from around 1% to 15%. This led to one of the largest mass extinctions in Earth's history and life had to adapt and react and go from using anaerobic methods of respiration to aerobic. Of course this happened over hundreds of millions of years... So whether our carbon production now will cause a similar global crisis before we all kill each other in a global nuclear war is something I really don't know.

2/22/11

I think you have the wrong site, OP. This is wallstreetoasis.com not teapartynation.com

2/22/11
HappyThanksgiving:

I think you have the wrong site, OP. This is wallstreetoasis.com not teapartynation.com

+1 lol

2/22/11
HappyThanksgiving:

I think you have the wrong site, OP. This is wallstreetoasis.com not teapartynation.com

^what he said.

Best Response
2/22/11

Midas,

I hate to say it but you've gone off the deep end this time.

Most academics I know accept global warming. And global temperatures this year are at their highest level ever, despite a very short-term average temperature measure being lower in the midst of rising average temperatures over the past 50 years.

I think the real question is whether it is the government's role to stop negative externalities like global warming and air pollution. And if it isn't, where do we stop? If a large oil company spills millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, maybe they should leave it to homeowners to clean up the mess. Maybe when rich people commit fraud, they should be given a pass- because prosecuting them would constitute socialism. Maybe we should make society a place where he who has the most guns wins- to defend the weak and prevent injustice would constitute socialism.

Of course, without the enforcement of contracts, property rights, and the elimination or recompense for negative externalities, we can't really have a capitalist society, either. Instead, what we really have without recompense for negative externalities is a plutocracy. That's just as inefficient, unfair, and anti-capitalist as communism.

So here's the real question:

-If an energy company dumps oil on my beach, should they be required to make me whole?
-If a mine pollutes my groundwater, should they be allowed to walk away?
-If somebody puts my property underwater, am I entitled to recompense from that person?

If you answered those questions the way any capitalist would answer those question, then the answer must be that we need to do something to deal with global warming. Maybe it involves some combination of geoengineering and nuclear- both of which environmentalists will hate- but the fact is that we're dealing with a negative externality here and something has to be done to correct it.

2/22/11
IlliniProgrammer:

Midas,

I hate to say it but you've gone off the deep end this time.

Most academics I know accept global warming. And global temperatures this year are at their highest level ever, despite a very short-term average temperature measure being lower in the midst of rising average temperatures over the past 50 years.

I think the real question is whether it is the government's role to stop negative externalities like global warming and air pollution. And if it isn't, where do we stop? If a large oil company spills millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, maybe they should leave it to homeowners to clean up the mess. Maybe when rich people commit fraud, they should be given a pass- because prosecuting them would constitute socialism. Maybe we should make society a place where he who has the most guns wins- to defend the weak and prevent injustice would constitute socialism.

Of course, without the enforcement of contracts, property rights, and the elimination or recompense for negative externalities, we can't really have a capitalist society, either. Instead, what we really have without recompense for negative externalities is a plutocracy. That's just as inefficient, unfair, and anti-capitalist as communism.

So here's the real question:

-If an energy company dumps oil on my beach, should they be required to make me whole?
-If a mine pollutes my groundwater, should they be allowed to walk away?
-If somebody puts my property underwater, am I entitled to recompense from that person?

If you answered those questions the way any capitalist would answer those question, then the answer must be that we need to do something to deal with global warming. Maybe it involves some combination of geoengineering and nuclear- both of which environmentalists will hate- but the fact is that we're dealing with a negative externality here and something has to be done to correct it.

nice post!

2/22/11
IlliniProgrammer:

Midas,

I hate to say it but you've gone off the deep end this time.

Most academics I know accept global warming. And global temperatures this year are at their highest level ever, despite a very short-term average temperature measure being lower in the midst of rising average temperatures over the past 50 years.

I think the real question is whether it is the government's role to stop negative externalities like global warming and air pollution. And if it isn't, where do we stop? If a large oil company spills millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, maybe they should leave it to homeowners to clean up the mess. Maybe when rich people commit fraud, they should be given a pass- because prosecuting them would constitute socialism. Maybe we should make society a place where he who has the most guns wins- to defend the weak and prevent injustice would constitute socialism.

Of course, without the enforcement of contracts, property rights, and the elimination or recompense for negative externalities, we can't really have a capitalist society, either. Instead, what we really have without recompense for negative externalities is a plutocracy. That's just as inefficient, unfair, and anti-capitalist as communism.

So here's the real question:

-If an energy company dumps oil on my beach, should they be required to make me whole?
-If a mine pollutes my groundwater, should they be allowed to walk away?
-If somebody puts my property underwater, am I entitled to recompense from that person?

If you answered those questions the way any capitalist would answer those question, then the answer must be that we need to do something to deal with global warming. Maybe it involves some combination of geoengineering and nuclear- both of which environmentalists will hate- but the fact is that we're dealing with a negative externality here and something has to be done to correct it.

Very disappointed with you IP. You haven't watched the videos or ( much more importantly) read the book, have you? I expect the usual ad hominem from our resident liberal idiots in attendance, but I'd like to think of you as the sort of person who researches an argument before he speaks or (in the least) is aware of what the argument is.

The topic is not the validity of the global warming theorem (don't be so sure you are talking to the right people, there has yet to be anything but opinion presented on both sides of the argument), it is specifically about the underlying economic issues which serve to act as behavior modifiers and not problem or issue solvers.

You should ask yourself why there has not been a single comment with regards to Mr. Klaus in this thread and then watch the videos again. I am sure you will find the answer poignant if you proceed unbiased.

2/22/11
Midas Mulligan Magoo:

Very disappointed with you IP. You haven't watched the videos or ( much more importantly) read the book, have you? I expect the usual ad hominem from our resident liberal idiots in attendance, but I'd like to think of you as the sort of person who researches an argument before he speaks or (in the least) is aware of what the argument is.

1.) Can't watch the videos at work.
2.) Not an ad-hominem. Just think it's crazy to suggest that global warming is a liberal conspiracy. This is the right's equivalent of the left saying that Iraq was a Republican conspiracy. You'd say I'd gone off the deep end too if I posted an anti-capitalist conspiracy theory.

The topic is not the validity of the global warming theorem (don't be so sure you are talking to the right people, there has yet to be anything but opinion presented on both sides of the argument), it is specifically about the underlying economic issues which serve to act as behavior modifiers and not problem or issue solvers.

Yes. My point is that given global warming generates a contingent liability for people on the coasts, that's a negative externality that needs to get resolved. We either need to be paying coastal residents in low-lying areas money when we put CO2 into the air, or we need to consider spending some money on mitigating global warming's impact.

You should ask yourself why there has not been a single comment with regards to Mr. Klaus in this thread and then watch the videos again. I am sure you will find the answer poignant if you proceed unbiased.

There has not been a single comment with regard to Mr. Klaus in this thread because we can't see the video.

And the notion that global warming is a liberal conspiracy is as silly as the notion that the fed is privately owned and the FOMC is appointed by corporations.

I will agree with you that if you spend too much time watching/promoting an Inconvenient Truth- and there are a number of mischaracterizations in that movie, you will turn into a leftist. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Global Warming is a legitimate concern and traditional ways of resolving negative externalities in capitalist societies (regulating and transferring costs) are perfectly legitimate components of capitalism.

2/22/11
Midas Mulligan Magoo:
IlliniProgrammer:

Midas,

I hate to say it but you've gone off the deep end this time.

Most academics I know accept global warming. And global temperatures this year are at their highest level ever, despite a very short-term average temperature measure being lower in the midst of rising average temperatures over the past 50 years.

I think the real question is whether it is the government's role to stop negative externalities like global warming and air pollution. And if it isn't, where do we stop? If a large oil company spills millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, maybe they should leave it to homeowners to clean up the mess. Maybe when rich people commit fraud, they should be given a pass- because prosecuting them would constitute socialism. Maybe we should make society a place where he who has the most guns wins- to defend the weak and prevent injustice would constitute socialism.

Of course, without the enforcement of contracts, property rights, and the elimination or recompense for negative externalities, we can't really have a capitalist society, either. Instead, what we really have without recompense for negative externalities is a plutocracy. That's just as inefficient, unfair, and anti-capitalist as communism.

So here's the real question:

-If an energy company dumps oil on my beach, should they be required to make me whole?
-If a mine pollutes my groundwater, should they be allowed to walk away?
-If somebody puts my property underwater, am I entitled to recompense from that person?

If you answered those questions the way any capitalist would answer those question, then the answer must be that we need to do something to deal with global warming. Maybe it involves some combination of geoengineering and nuclear- both of which environmentalists will hate- but the fact is that we're dealing with a negative externality here and something has to be done to correct it.

You should ask yourself why there has not been a single comment with regards to Mr. Klaus in this thread and then watch the videos again. I am sure you will find the answer poignant if you proceed unbiased.

As for the

Really? That's your comeback...make a decision by watching Glenn Beck videos I put up? You're in finance and well respected on this forum, so I know you can't be a moron.

Hate to say it but the nutjobs on the right screaming "Global warming is a hoax" sound a lot like the psychos on the left saying "9/11 was an inside job".

Please STOP!

2/22/11
coach.captain:
Midas Mulligan Magoo:
IlliniProgrammer:

Midas,

I hate to say it but you've gone off the deep end this time.

Most academics I know accept global warming. And global temperatures this year are at their highest level ever, despite a very short-term average temperature measure being lower in the midst of rising average temperatures over the past 50 years.

I think the real question is whether it is the government's role to stop negative externalities like global warming and air pollution. And if it isn't, where do we stop? If a large oil company spills millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, maybe they should leave it to homeowners to clean up the mess. Maybe when rich people commit fraud, they should be given a pass- because prosecuting them would constitute socialism. Maybe we should make society a place where he who has the most guns wins- to defend the weak and prevent injustice would constitute socialism.

Of course, without the enforcement of contracts, property rights, and the elimination or recompense for negative externalities, we can't really have a capitalist society, either. Instead, what we really have without recompense for negative externalities is a plutocracy. That's just as inefficient, unfair, and anti-capitalist as communism.

So here's the real question:

-If an energy company dumps oil on my beach, should they be required to make me whole?
-If a mine pollutes my groundwater, should they be allowed to walk away?
-If somebody puts my property underwater, am I entitled to recompense from that person?

If you answered those questions the way any capitalist would answer those question, then the answer must be that we need to do something to deal with global warming. Maybe it involves some combination of geoengineering and nuclear- both of which environmentalists will hate- but the fact is that we're dealing with a negative externality here and something has to be done to correct it.

You should ask yourself why there has not been a single comment with regards to Mr. Klaus in this thread and then watch the videos again. I am sure you will find the answer poignant if you proceed unbiased.

As for the

Really? That's your comeback...make a decision by watching Glenn Beck videos I put up? You're in finance and well respected on this forum, so I know you can't be a moron.

Hate to say it but the nutjobs on the right screaming "Global warming is a hoax" sound a lot like the psychos on the left saying "9/11 was an inside job".

Please STOP!

Are you serious? There are a ton of republicans who don't agree with the global warming consensus, last time I checked the dems were not taking to the floor of the house and claiming 9/11 was an inside job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAaDVOd2sRQ

If you want to see some of the nutjobs the repubs have in their party (and endorse for christ sake) look at this video of Michele Bachmann. People like this should not even be given the time of day.

2/22/11
awm55:
coach.captain:
Midas Mulligan Magoo:
IlliniProgrammer:

Midas,

I hate to say it but you've gone off the deep end this time.

Most academics I know accept global warming. And global temperatures this year are at their highest level ever, despite a very short-term average temperature measure being lower in the midst of rising average temperatures over the past 50 years.

I think the real question is whether it is the government's role to stop negative externalities like global warming and air pollution. And if it isn't, where do we stop? If a large oil company spills millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, maybe they should leave it to homeowners to clean up the mess. Maybe when rich people commit fraud, they should be given a pass- because prosecuting them would constitute socialism. Maybe we should make society a place where he who has the most guns wins- to defend the weak and prevent injustice would constitute socialism.

Of course, without the enforcement of contracts, property rights, and the elimination or recompense for negative externalities, we can't really have a capitalist society, either. Instead, what we really have without recompense for negative externalities is a plutocracy. That's just as inefficient, unfair, and anti-capitalist as communism.

So here's the real question:

-If an energy company dumps oil on my beach, should they be required to make me whole?
-If a mine pollutes my groundwater, should they be allowed to walk away?
-If somebody puts my property underwater, am I entitled to recompense from that person?

If you answered those questions the way any capitalist would answer those question, then the answer must be that we need to do something to deal with global warming. Maybe it involves some combination of geoengineering and nuclear- both of which environmentalists will hate- but the fact is that we're dealing with a negative externality here and something has to be done to correct it.

You should ask yourself why there has not been a single comment with regards to Mr. Klaus in this thread and then watch the videos again. I am sure you will find the answer poignant if you proceed unbiased.

As for the

Really? That's your comeback...make a decision by watching Glenn Beck videos I put up? You're in finance and well respected on this forum, so I know you can't be a moron.

Hate to say it but the nutjobs on the right screaming "Global warming is a hoax" sound a lot like the psychos on the left saying "9/11 was an inside job".

Please STOP!

Are you serious? There are a ton of republicans who don't agree with the global warming consensus, last time I checked the dems were not taking to the floor of the house and claiming 9/11 was an inside job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAaDVOd2sRQ

If you want to see some of the nutjobs the repubs have in their party (and endorse for christ sake) look at this video of Michele Bachmann. People like this should not even be given the time of day.

I agree.

2/22/11

Complete intellectual dishonesty from the Leftist crowd.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64734

"More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. - including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties - have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate."

2/22/11
Virginia Tech 4ever:

Complete intellectual dishonesty from the Leftist crowd.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64734

"More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. - including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties - have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate."

Dude, I normally agree with you on a lot of stuff, but I don't think WND is a reputable source. Regardless, this is a tiny fraction of the PhDs who support the notion of global warming and if you factor out all of the PhDs from more ideological and less research-oriented schools like Liberty University, the number is much smaller.

Engineering at Va Tech has a lot of similarities to Illinois in terms of research strength and politics (maybe it is one step more conservative). How did your profs approach global warming? Didn't most of them buy it like at Illinois?

2/22/11

Regardless, I am not worried about us turning into Venus in the long term as we will probably run out of flammable carbon before that happens. But we are already starting to feel the impacts of global warming, there was a lot less land during the carboniferous period when all of our oil/coal deposits were in the atmosphere, and at the very least, there is an obvious connection between human activity and atmospheric CO2. Take a look at the recessions in the graph and line them up with the US's economic recessions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_data_mlo.svg

We don't need a socialist environut solution- but we do need to start working on an engineering solution to global warming. We either need to focus on more nuclear power and perhaps solar satellites- or we need to focus on geoengineering where we remove carbon from the atmosphere or push SO2 into the upper atmosphere to increase the planet's albedo.

2/22/11

Anthropogenic global warming debate is basically Leftists/Europeans and American Democrats saying, "No, no, nope, no, no, the debate is over. The sun revolves around the earth. No, that guy is an MIT atomospheric scientist but he has no credibility. Nope, that scientist is from Colorado - Boulder but he has no credibility. He's a nut. Nope, those 31,000 scientists come from all types of fields, including unrelated fields, like engineering. Nope. Let's repeat it over and over again--the debate is over--and maybe the world will believe us."

2/22/11
Virginia Tech 4ever:

Anthropogenic global warming debate is basically Leftists/Europeans and American Democrats saying, "No, no, nope, no, no, the debate is over. The sun revolves around the earth. No, that guy is an MIT atomospheric scientist but he has no credibility. Nope, that scientist is from Colorado - Boulder but he has no credibility. He's a nut. Nope, those 31,000 scientists come from all types of fields, including unrelated fields, like engineering. Nope. Let's repeat it over and over again--the debate is over--and maybe the world will believe us."

What is your take on the fact that the slope of the CO2 concentrations/time graph as measured at Mauna Loa is roughly correlated with global economic activity? In particular, the Arab Oil embargo caused a significant flattening of the atmospheric CO2 concentrations graph between 1973 and 1974? Is it all just a coincidence?

2/22/11

Illini, WND is REPORTING this. Google it. It was just the first page that came up. And this is typical liberal fashion--"nope, the source isn't any good. Nope. Look to the UN."

2/22/11
Virginia Tech 4ever:

Illini, WND is REPORTING this. Google it. It was just the first page that came up. And this is typical liberal fashion--"nope, the source isn't any good. Nope. Look to the UN."

First off I'm not a liberal and second off, I'd reject Huffington Post as a source, too.

2/28/11
IlliniProgrammer:
Virginia Tech 4ever:

Illini, WND is REPORTING this. Google it. It was just the first page that came up. And this is typical liberal fashion--"nope, the source isn't any good. Nope. Look to the UN."

First off I'm not a liberal

Oh really? I thought you were a Christian who almost always votes for Dems or something like that?

What is the point of lying about being a liberal?

(If it was someone else who said something along those lines then my apologies to you)

"Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America."

2/22/11

I support the Tea Party. People need to read their actual stated goals instead of listening to CNN.

2/22/11
ANT:

I support the Tea Party. People need to read their actual stated goals instead of listening to CNN.

Not CNN. The majority of the scientists in the world. Its a fact that the Earth is becoming warmer - if you don't believe that you're just an idiot and can't see what's happening in the world and are unable to read the facts.

Where most scientists' opinions differ is the cause of this change, whether it is human made or part of the planet's natural cycle? And amongst most scientists, the consensus is that the rise in temperature is mainly due to greenhouse gas emissions.

SOURCE : The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 2007
"With the release of the revised statement[104] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming."

2/22/11
coach.captain:
ANT:

I support the Tea Party. People need to read their actual stated goals instead of listening to CNN.

Not CNN. The majority of the scientists in the world. Its a fact that the Earth is becoming warmer - if you don't believe that you're just an idiot and can't see what's happening in the world and are unable to read the facts.

Where most scientists' opinions differ is the cause of this change, whether it is human made or part of the planet's natural cycle? And amongst most scientists, the consensus is that the rise in temperature is mainly due to greenhouse gas emissions.

SOURCE : The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 2007
"With the release of the revised statement[104] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming."

Please post a link that states most scientists believe global warming is because of greenhouse gases.

2/22/11
ANT:

I support the Tea Party. People need to read their actual stated goals instead of listening to CNN.

Everyone wants fiscal responsibility, but something like 82% (i may be off by a few percentage points) of tea baggers think Obama raised their taxes with just isn't true. With people like Michele Bachmann (who literally is insane, like really really insane) running the party, I can't really take them seriously.

2/22/11
awm55:
ANT:

I support the Tea Party. People need to read their actual stated goals instead of listening to CNN.

Everyone wants fiscal responsibility, but something like 82% (i may be off by a few percentage points) of tea baggers think Obama raised their taxes with just isn't true. With people like Michele Bachmann (who literally is insane, like really really insane) running the party, I can't really take them seriously.

I cant support the Tea party for the same reasons. I love their fiscal ideology, but they are too misinformed as whole. Moreover, I hate Glen Beck. Unfortunately, he is on to something with this global warming thing. There is simply too much evidence rejecting it for me to accept it. Plus there are too many instances of pro global warming scientists misrepresenting data. For example http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...

The global warming debate is like debating if God exists. Its almost impossible to unequivocally prove one way or another.

2/22/11

Illini, the argument isn't about whether or not there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, it's whether or not it creates significant global temperature change. There is DEFINITELY debate about that point. I'm sick and tired of you liberals telling us that the debate is over! That's part of the scientific method! Debate. Especially when there is considerable evidence on the other side and a huge number of people who disagree with the mainstream.

2/22/11
Virginia Tech 4ever:

Illini, the argument isn't about whether or not there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, it's whether or not it creates significant global temperature change. There is DEFINITELY debate about that point. I'm sick and tired of you liberals telling us that the debate is over! That's part of the scientific method! Debate. Especially when there is considerable evidence on the other side and a huge number of people who disagree with the mainstream.

I'm not saying the debate is over. I'm just saying that if we accept that humans are causing CO2 increases and if we agree that CO2 is a global warming gas like what we see on Venus, and from earth's geological history, then it follows that it may be possible that human activities are causing the planet to warm up. I do know that if you do not believe the planet is more than 7,000 years old like some of the signatories rejecting global warming, that's definitely going to limit the evidence you have available to study.

I am not a meteorologist, physicist, or geologist, so I don't know what an atmospheric CO2 increase from 320- 390 ppm over the past 50 years means. I do know that it's a 20% change in the fourth most prevalent gas in our atmosphere and that we see some relatively clear correlations between it and human behavior.

Finally, one last overlooked part on the global warming front isn't CO2 emissions but CH4 emissions. Methane spends less time in the atmosphere than CO2, but it is a much more powerful warming agent. Human activities related to increased beef consumption and natural gas drilling might be responsible for a lot more global warming over the past 50 years than just CO2. So many of these scientists might have overlooked other warming connections besides just CO2.

If there was a 10% chance trans fats dramatically increased your risk of a heart attack, would you stop eating Crisco?

If there was a 5% chance that living immediately next to a power line increased your risk of cancer, would you think about building your house a couple dozen feet further from the lines if it were feasible and your front lawn still looke reasonable?

That's my point. There's some strong evidence- both logical and modeled- in support of global warming- and you don't need a smoking gun to respond.

2/22/11

This debate is absurd. Neither of us is a scientist. Richard Lindzen from MIT could eviscerate every single one of your points about CO2. And plenty of scientists could, too.

This approach to the debate gets so old by the Left. Attack the person, not his methods. Attack the funding, not the research. Attack everything that isn't relevant. Repeat over and over again, and in the most condescending way possible, that the debate is over and that almost no one rejects anthropogenic global warming. Throw up the same stats over and over again, many that have already been eviscerated by the skeptics. This tripe gets old. I grew up in D.C. around the most liberal of people--I know exactly your type, brother.

2/22/11
Virginia Tech 4ever:

This debate is absurd. Neither of us is a scientist. Richard Lindzen from MIT could eviscerate every single on eof your points about CO2. And plenty of scientists could, too.

This approach to the debate gets so old by the Left. Attack the person, not his methods. Attack the funding, not the research. Attack everything that isn't relevant. Repeat over and over again, and in the most condescending way possible, that the debate is over and that almost no one rejects anthropogenic global warming. Throw up the same stats over and over again, many that have already been eviscerated by the skeptics. This tripe gets old.

This is what makes Mr. Klaus such an intriguing character. He has spent a good chunk of the last decade traveling the debate circuit with Al Gore, debunking this emotion and bias perverted theorem.

This is precisely why I made Vaclav Klaus the focus of this post. Notice, (as you already have) how the Jr. Marxist crowd has attacked everyone/everything in the thread except Vaclav Klaus.

Perhaps it is not due do to ignorance, perhaps they are well aware (as most educated debaters of the topic outside of the U.S. are) the Mr. Klaus has been mopping the floor with Gore and his neocolonialist global tax vehicle, that he is the WORLD'S most sought after UNBIASED speaker on the subject, that nobody has ever publicly been able to refute ANYTHING he says on the subject.

You have no clue how much fun I am having reading some of these comments. Pure comedy.

2/22/11
Midas Mulligan Magoo:

Perhaps it is not due do to ignorance, perhaps they are well aware (as most educated debaters of the topic outside of the U.S. are) the Mr. Klaus has been mopping the floor with Gore and his neocolonialist global tax vehicle, that he is the WORLD'S most sought after UNBIASED speaker on the subject, that nobody has ever publicly been able to refute ANYTHING he says on the subject.

Klaus is a politician, often called the "Margie Thatcher" of the EU. But rather than going into attacks on him, I'm going to take some of his arguments- in an article I can actually read- head on:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/20...

I am convinced this is a misguided strategy - not only because of the uncertainty about the dangers that global warming might pose, but also because of the certainty of the damage that policies aimed at mitigation will cause.

Absolutely. In finance, we call this an out-of-the-money put or an insurance policy. You put up a certain amount of money right now to help mitigate something that may or may not be a problem later. It's actually a very capitalist, very conservative, very self-reliant concept. And given that there are no known extraplanetary entities to bail us out if we really screw this up, we need to play a bit of a conservative game on global warming.

With the global financial crisis and the sudden economic downturn, two things are becoming clear. First, it will be difficult to afford these expensive new sources of energy. Second, energy rationing policies like cap-and-trade will be a permanent drag on economic activity. Ironically, emissions have not decreased as a result of these policies, but are doing so now as the world economy moves into recession.

Yes, but there are other approaches that we can take which will have huge expected benefits in the future without being as big of a drag on our economy.

For instance, generating electricity from nuclear ultimately costs about 2 cents/kwh in operating expenses and about 4 cents/kwh in capital expenses at a 10% ROI. This is about 1 cent more expensive than coal and natural gas. Why not provide subsidies for closing coal and natural gas plants and replacing them with nuclear plants so that we can mitigate the damage of global warming if science finds a smoking gun or much stronger evidence later?

One other thing we can do is regulate natural gas pipelines and producers and limit CH4 emissions- a much more power warming agent. Devoting a little more energy here is something we can do to mitigate potential damage later. And the fact that there are legitimate, material concerns about global warming means that the government does have the authority to impose some modest restrictions on it until we have more information- in the same way that an injunction works.

It is necessary to look at the bigger picture. Profits can be made when energy is rationed or subsidised, but only within an economy operating at lower, or even negative, growth rates. This means that over the longer term, everyone will be competing for a piece of a pie that is smaller than it would have been without energy rationing.

Not necessarily true. You take steps to mitigate NET emissions by shifting towards nuclear, wind, and geoengineered carbon sequestration and you can still have a growing economy. It might not grow quite as fast, but we can still grow the energy base while keeping emissions under control.

I still think the most important thing right now is to focus on making non-emissions generating technologies cost-effective rather than completely eliminating greenhouse gas emissions. If we allow nuclear plants to have their licenses extended to 80 years after a careful inspection by the NRC, regulate just natural gas emissions from fracking- which have a much more immediate and stronger impact on warming than CO2, and find ways to make wind and solar more cost effective- we can naturally bend the global warming curve down not necessarily between 2010 and 2020 but between 2020 and 2030.

You have no clue how much fun I am having reading some of these comments. Pure comedy.

Likewise :D It's interesting how some of the self-described capitalists seem to oppose any consideration for the property rights of coastal homeowners.

2/22/11

MMM, the man is a politician. He isn't an engineer or scientist. I hate how politicized global warming has become. Either carbon dioxide and nitrogenic emmissions are increasing the temperature of the globe or they aren't. While there are a few deniers, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists think global warming is a man made phenomena.

To those denying climate change,/global warming, do you disagree with the science or do you disagree with the politcal affiliations/aspirations of those who believe it?

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

2/22/11

nm

2/22/11

^^^I'll ask you as well Eok, please post a link where it says "the overwhelming majority of climate scientists think global warming is a man made phenomena".

2/22/11
txjustin:

^^^I'll ask you as well Eok, please post a link where it says "the overwhelming majority of climate scientists think global warming is a man made phenomena".

I'll admit that's a strong statement, but here's a quick list of organizations that endorse global warming. You can find the actual citations at the bottom of the article. These organizations represent a double-digit multiple of the 9,000 scientists who signed a petition opposed to global warming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

To be fair, most of these organizations don't argue that there is a total consensus. But I think "majority"- perhaps even "relatively strong majority"- is a fair term to use here.

And I'll admit there's not a 100% chance of global warming. But if there were a 10% chance or a 20% chance, wouldn't it be worth taking at least some moderate economic action on? Maybe not to the point where we're cutting economic growth by 1%, but perhaps by 0.1%? I think the put might be worth at least worth that much growth- about $13 Billion/year of the US GDP.

When the market gets overbought and a correction is possible though not necessarily likely, the conservative course of action is to maybe buy puts on 25-40% of your portfolio if they're cheap. Not because you're hoping a correction will happen but because just in case you get one, you're a little bit safer.

The irony here is that deep out of the money puts on global warming benefit from NEGATIVE kurtosis and skew. It's pretty darned easy to draw up a plan as to how we're going to approach global warming if we have to deal with it than to be 100% certain it won't be a problem. And developing cheap, efficient non-GHG-generating technology now is a really cheap way for the government to fulfill its role of mitigating and transferring negative externalities.

Emissions caps are a very heavy-handed way of mitigating the negative externality. But if we can figure out a way to make wind or nuclear cheaper than coal so that we don't have to worry about the negative externality in the first place and the economy gets more efficient, everyone wins.

2/22/11
IlliniProgrammer:
txjustin:

^^^I'll ask you as well Eok, please post a link where it says "the overwhelming majority of climate scientists think global warming is a man made phenomena".

I'll admit that's a strong statement, but here's a quick list of organizations that endorse global warming. You can find the actual citations at the bottom of the article. These organizations represent a double-digit multiple of the 9,000 scientists who signed a petition opposed to global warming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

To be fair, most of these organizations don't argue that there is a total consensus. But I think "majority"- perhaps even "relatively strong majority"- is a fair term to use here.

And I'll admit there's not a 100% chance of global warming. But if there were a 10% chance or a 20% chance, wouldn't it be worth taking at least some moderate economic action on? Maybe not to the point where we're cutting economic growth by 1%, but perhaps by 0.1%? I think the put might be worth at least worth that much growth- about $13 Billion/year of the US GDP.

When the market gets overbought and a correction is possible though not necessarily likely, the conservative course of action is to maybe buy puts on 25-40% of your portfolio if they're cheap. Not because you're hoping a correction will happen but because just in case you get one, you're a little bit safer.

The irony here is that deep out of the money puts on global warming benefit from NEGATIVE kurtosis and skew. It's pretty darned easy to draw up a plan as to how we're going to approach global warming if we have to deal with it than to be 100% certain it won't be a problem. And developing cheap, efficient non-GHG-generating technology now is a really cheap way for the government to fulfill its role of mitigating and transferring negative externalities.

Emissions caps are a very heavy-handed way of mitigating the negative externality. But if we can figure out a way to make wind or nuclear cheaper than coal so that we don't have to worry about the negative externality in the first place and the economy gets more efficient, everyone wins.

Though I have my doubts about global warming, I can agree with you that it is often prudent to take a more conservative approach, in case this does turn out to be a huge problem. The question is how do you go about that. When you say "making wind or nuclear cheaper" I'm curious as to what you mean. If by "make cheaper" you mean hand them government money, then I'd have to object. Then you have the government picking winners and losers. In my mind there are already plenty of incentives for cleaner fuels, particularly with the prices of fossil fuels being so high. There are plenty of alternative energy startups selling for impressive valuations, plenty of people buying overpriced "green" cars, etc. No matter your political views, there is money to be made in alternative energy- why do we need the government involved? I guess the obvious reason would be because they're so successful at everything else (sarcasm).

2/22/11
Tar Heel Blue:

Though I have my doubts about global warming, I can agree with you that it is often prudent to take a more conservative approach, in case this does turn out to be a huge problem. The question is how do you go about that. When you say "making wind or nuclear cheaper" I'm curious as to what you mean. If by "make cheaper" you mean hand them government money, then I'd have to object. Then you have the government picking winners and losers.

A couple of thoughts:

Currently, there is no provision for nuclear plants to have their licenses extended more than 60 years past the date that they came online. The NRC could go a long way towards reducing the capital costs of keeping existing plants open- particularly older ones built in the late '60s and early '70s, by coming up with a plan to allow plants to operate for up to 80 years, rather than the current 60- obviously with careful engineering studies and a lot of research. It might cost us $3-5 Billion to figure out how gracefully certain plants age and what engineers should be looking for at age 60 in the nuclear reactors, but the 60 PWRs in this country provide 5% of our energy. That's a very small price to keep safe, cheap, clean nuclear in service for another 20 years. In other words, if we had to replace these plants with a mix of natural gas and coal, about $250 million/year might be able to mitigate about 5% of the US's GHG emissions.

I am a little more pessimistic about BWRs, but we can spend the same amount of money to find out if we can keep them in service as well, which account for 3% of the US's energy consumption. $250 million/year for maybe a 50% shot at mitigating 3% of our GHG emissions for 20 years on top of the 5%- see how the positive skew/kurtosis that I talked about earlier is coming in? Figuring out ways to mitigate 20%-30% of our emissions- along with coming up with contingencies for dealing with global warming on a ten year plan is relatively cheap and easy. It's deliberately capping emissions and going into a panic over GHG that's tough.

Also, we can provide X-prizes for technology development. This is actually what the British government did back in the 1700s and it was a remarkable success- ultimately resulting in the development of the pocket watch, a number of scientific discoveries, and a huge boon to shipping and commerce. The Ansari X-Prize, a private challenge, also has probably done something similar- though privately funded

I think clean energy technology is an area that really has the potential to reduce government involvement in the long run. If there's a $5 Billion prize attached to developing a wind turbine or PV cell that's cost-competitive with coal and natural gas, we might get our next pocketwatch while mitigating government involvement with the environment. Or maybe a $5 billion prize for an efficient way of getting existing CO2 or CH4 out of the atmosphere would work just as well, too. The alternative is coal and natural gas generating more negative externalities and liberals and conservatives fighting over who should pay for the damage. Compared to that, I'd rather see my taxes increased 0.5% and used to fund alternative energy technology like nuclear, wind, and carbon sequestration.

The liberal approach might be one rooted in social "science"- but the response for moderate conservatives who want to head off global warming fears is an approach rooted in engineering. Stuff that's actually feasible, inexpensive, and won't involve us handing the keys to our cars over to the commies. And $500 Billion contingencies that we will make the oil companies and car owners pay for if it turns out that global warming actually does threaten life on our planet and threaten trillions in negative externalities like Al Gore claims from his private jet or mansion with $5K/month in utility bills.

In my mind there are already plenty of incentives for cleaner fuels, particularly with the prices of fossil fuels being so high. There are plenty of alternative energy startups selling for impressive valuations, plenty of people buying overpriced "green" cars, etc. No matter your political views, there is money to be made in alternative energy- why do we need the government involved? I guess the obvious reason would be because they're so successful at everything else (sarcasm).

I agree with you to an extent, but we're not doing very much right now. Over the past five years, we've offered about $2 Billion in loan subsidies for nuclear, which makes up 60% of our non CO2-emitting generation. IMHO, this is pathetic.

2/22/11
txjustin:

^^^I'll ask you as well Eok, please post a link where it says "the overwhelming majority of climate scientists think global warming is a man made phenomena".

Lets make this a closed example. Lets only include scientists from America, Canada, the UK, and Northern Europe.

Using those parameters, there are 1372 engineers and scientists who are actively doing research, writing and investigating climate science. Of those 1372 active climatologists, 97% believe that climate change is man made! Also, their is a prominence gap.

Many of those supporting the claim are prolific researchers on meterology and climate, while the there are very few deniers who are prominent in climate science.

the telegraph:

Climate change sceptic scientists 'less prominent and authoritative'
Scientists who believe in man-made climate change have better scientific credentials than global warming sceptics, according to a study.

Scientists were grouped as "convinced" or "unconvinced", and researchers examined how many times they had published papers on the climate By Nick Collins 8:03AM BST 22 Jun 2010
38 Comments
The research indicates that scientists who blame human activity for global warming have published more relevant and influential papers than those who question man's impact.

The analysis of climate scientists claims the "vast majority" of climate change researchers agree on the issue, and that those who oppose the consensus are "not actually climate researchers or not very productive researchers".

But the study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has been dismissed as misleading by critics.

Opponents said that the paper divided scientists into artificial groups and did not consider a balanced spectrum of scientists.

They also pointed out that climate sceptics often struggled to get their papers accepted by journals, as they must first be reviewed and approved by climate change "believers".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clima...

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/...

Again, I think this is an issue that has been hijacked by large companies that would be affected by any benevolent legislation on climate change and by prominent, active environmental groups.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

2/22/11

Bottom line, when lower Manhattan floods in 40 years and employees at a certain prestigious lower-Manhattan BB investment bank need to take boats to work, I have a feeling that the ultraconservative business Republicans out there might become a little more capitalist when it comes to dealing with the negative externalities of global warming.

In the late '70s, Jimmy Carter spent a lot of federal funding on energy research. Back then, conservatives called it a boondoggle. But a lot of that technology paved the way for higher mileage cars, economical wind turbines, and (perhaps soon) economical solar energy.

I think we need to take a few of the next steps today- developing plans for rehabbing old nuclear reactors and keeping them safe, geoengineering the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, and perhaps working on carbon nanotubes that have the ability to act as a space elevator and economically get energy-collecting satellites into orbit. If we devote $5 Billion in research to these ends, it might just save us hundreds of billions in a decade or so like Carter's energy research initiatives.

If we had to run our economy on mid '70s energy technology, the economy would still be in free-fall with oil at $90/barrel.

2/22/11

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/22/11

Although I am not sure what causes global warming, I think that we should try to move towards sustainable energy for purely economics reasons. Our dependance on OPEC is disgusting, independence from them will be better in the future. Continued investment in alternative energy will bring costs down to sustainable levels eventually. I don't think carbon caps are good for this, we need to invest in finding a cheaper way of doing non-carbon energy production.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

2/22/11
MMBinNC:

Although I am not sure what causes global warming, I think that we should try to move towards sustainable energy for purely economics reasons. Our dependance on OPEC is disgusting, independence from them will be better in the future. Continued investment in alternative energy will bring costs down to sustainable levels eventually. I don't think carbon caps are good for this, we need to invest in finding a cheaper way of doing non-carbon energy production.

Of course. I have been doing research on wave reactors. Wave reactors use nuclear waste to generate heat. Currently, we have enough waste to provide electricity to every American household, nonstop, for 200 years. We really need to convert al electricity production into nuclear and nuclear waste.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

2/22/11

A little more color on the scientific views on global warming:

Bray and von Storch, 2008Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[107] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[108]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

In the section on climate change impacts questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20 "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much agree, 26.7% to some large extent (5-6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2-4), none said not at all. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent (5-6), 15.1% to a small extent (2-4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

It's interesting to note that most scientists agree with the notion of anthropogenic global warming, but a sizeable number disagree or think the impact will be small.

Bottom line is that it seems like a relatively strong majority of scientists who responded to a survey publicized in both pro and anti global warming circles agree with global warming, but a majority also don't seem to hold incredibly strong convictions about it. I think that's enough for a well-reasoned response that's mildly inconvenient to economic growth, but not a panicked rush to stop GHG emissions from increasing like many environmentalists are advocating.

I don't think there is any evidence that environmentalist is a communist plot. In fact, the last communists were very anti-environmentalist.

2/22/11
IlliniProgrammer:

A little more color on the scientific views on global warming:

Bray and von Storch, 2008Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[107] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[108]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

In the section on climate change impacts questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20 "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much agree, 26.7% to some large extent (5-6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2-4), none said not at all. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent (5-6), 15.1% to a small extent (2-4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

It's interesting to note that most scientists agree with the notion of anthropogenic global warming, but a sizeable number disagree or think the impact will be small.

Bottom line is that it seems like a relatively strong majority of scientists who responded to a survey publicized in both pro and anti global warming circles agree with global warming, but a majority also don't seem to hold incredibly strong convictions about it. I think that's enough for a well-reasoned response that's mildly inconvenient to economic growth, but not a panicked rush to stop GHG emissions from increasing like many environmentalists are advocating.

I don't think there is any evidence that environmentalist is a communist plot. In fact, the last communists were very anti-environmentalist.

You're on fire today!

2/22/11

Guess nowadays every bad thing is done by "Socialist" and "Communist" and St.Capitalist is as clean as the lamb.

2/22/11

The arguement is not about polution and the likes, the arguement the guest is providing is that should countries give up their sovergenity to a group of "elites' that have dollar signs on their mind more so than really trying to clean up the problem. For example GE gave massive amounts to the obama admin and now they have a guy in the admin making economic ploicy. The problem I think that alot of people have with this is that no one stops to think about how much power is actually being concentrated by this. Take the democrats for example, the self procalaimed "champions of the poor" passed the cap and trade bill that taxes forms of energy that are generated in high polution ways. The estimated cost of the cap and trade bill was around 1400 dollars a year per household. The cost isnt the only problem the tax money generated was supposed to go to boost green and renewable energy, here lies the big problem. The major renewable projects are going on in places where there is lower proverty levels. This ensurse that the areas that are more well off are hurt less from the taxes than those who arent. So in a sense you are taking money from people who are much more harmed by this and giving it to people who arent.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

2/22/11
heister:

The arguement is not about polution and the likes, the arguement the guest is providing is that should countries give up their sovergenity to a group of "elites' that have dollar signs on their mind more so than really trying to clean up the problem. For example GE gave massive amounts to the obama admin and now they have a guy in the admin making economic ploicy. The problem I think that alot of people have with this is that no one stops to think about how much power is actually being concentrated by this. Take the democrats for example, the self procalaimed "champions of the poor" passed the cap and trade bill that taxes forms of energy that are generated in high polution ways. The estimated cost of the cap and trade bill was around 1400 dollars a year per household. The cost isnt the only problem the tax money generated was supposed to go to boost green and renewable energy, here lies the big problem. The major renewable projects are going on in places where there is lower proverty levels. This ensurse that the areas that are more well off are hurt less from the taxes than those who arent. So in a sense you are taking money from people who are much more harmed by this and giving it to people who arent.

ROFLMAO. 50+ comments before somebody actually comments on the issue. Good work, sir. SB for you.

  • VanillaThunder12
  •  2/22/11

I don't think I have faith in any of the links posted in this thread. Glen Beck, a president of a former communist country, a post saying 9,000 Atmospheric Science Ph.D.s in the U.S. signed a petition (I highly doubt there are even 9,000 Atmospheric Science Ph.D.s on this continent, as a point of reference there are about 150-200 Accounting Ph.Ds graduating per year in the entire U.S.)

Please send reputable sources.

2/22/11
VanillaThunder12:

I don't think I have faith in any of the links posted in this thread. Glen Beck, a president of a former communist country, a post saying 9,000 Atmospheric Science Ph.D.s in the U.S. signed a petition (I highly doubt there are even 9,000 Atmospheric Science Ph.D.s on this continent, as a point of reference there are about 150-200 Accounting Ph.Ds graduating per year in the entire U.S.)

Please send reputable sources.

"including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties"

  • VanillaThunder12
  •  2/22/11
Virginia Tech 4ever:
VanillaThunder12:

I don't think I have faith in any of the links posted in this thread. Glen Beck, a president of a former communist country, a post saying 9,000 Atmospheric Science Ph.D.s in the U.S. signed a petition (I highly doubt there are even 9,000 Atmospheric Science Ph.D.s on this continent, as a point of reference there are about 150-200 Accounting Ph.Ds graduating per year in the entire U.S.)

Please send reputable sources.

"including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties"

Here is how you prove you are a Ph.D. on that petiton: http://www.petitionproject.org/GW_Petition.pdf
I just became one of 10,000 engineering Ph.Ds.

2/22/11

very well said, IlliniProgrammer !!

2/22/11

Right, I'm sure we have a lot of people fabricating their education on a well known national petition with easily verifiable information that a detractor would love to have.

2/22/11

I guess my thing is that I tend to be a moderate conservative, and I know that unnecessary environmental regulation can cause a lot of huge problems, but the fact is that conservatives have lost the thought leadership in science and engineering- the only place where we're still the innovators is on the economics front. But the irony is that it's a lot less expensive for us to have a response to global warming today than it is 10 years ago. Here's the talking points for conservatives:

-We can forgo hundreds of billions in economic growth over the next five years to force emissions down, or we can devote our efforts to finding new technologies that will make coal and carbon technology obsolete. Why spend hundreds of billions when we can spend billions and grow our economy at the same time. In fifty years, the right energy technology can make coal plants as obsolete as cigarettes are today.

-The Democrats' only plan for global warming is to reduce emissions. There's no Plan B. Our Plan A is similar to theirs by accelerating ways to make it cheaper for the market to create non-emitting technology, but we've got a Plan B. It's called geoengineering, and it's something the environuts hate. But it can work if things get as bad as Greenpeace claims they're going to get.

-There's a scientific majority on global warming, but it comes with a lot of nuance and hedging. Most scientists are pretty sure humans are causing global warming, but we might not be. Wouldn't it be a travesty if we spent trillions of dollars cutting emissions just to find out that there was no warming or it was caused by something else? Let's spend tens of billions developing alternatives and contingencies now, so that we probably don't have to panic later, rather than panicking now and spending trillions that might be completely worthless later.

2/22/11
IlliniProgrammer:

But the irony is that it's a lot less expensive for us to have a response to global warming today than it is 10 years ago. Here's the talking points for conservatives:

A lot of economists will tell you it's the other way around, that is, we should wait until the future when the world is wealthier. The argument is presented and defended in this short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

2/22/11
econ:
IlliniProgrammer:

But the irony is that it's a lot less expensive for us to have a response to global warming today than it is 10 years ago. Here's the talking points for conservatives:

A lot of economists will tell you it's the other way around, that is, we should wait until the future when the world is wealthier. The argument is presented and defended in this short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

Absolutely. In 20 years, we'll have more resources to deal with global warming, but we need to start developing the technology today. The technology for Apollo 11 was really developed during WWII- arguably even in the early '30s. The first ten years of development in the '30s were vital but cost less than 0.1% of a single moonshot, inflation-adjusted.

All the money in the world won't help us 20 years down the road if we don't start developing the technology today.

I know it might make economic sense to put off Global Warming, but I have a feeling that a lot of Louisiana and Florida residents will sleep better at night knowing that there is a concrete plan for dealing with it.

2/22/11

The climate is changing. Humans are influencing it. We are like termites.

The Tea Party has wacko's without a doubt, but give it a chance. The damn movement is only a year or so old. It is nice to see a third party pushing liberty and fiscal conservative behavior.

2/26/11

right after glenn beck uttered the words, "If you listen to the mainstream media..." i pretty much tuned out....

Here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, you are the sucker.

2/27/11

Climate change is something to be taken seriously for one simple reason: over the last +/- 10,000 years, a period of relative warmth, but more importantly, STABILITY, has enabled human developement to an extent that our species has not seen in the preceeding 100K years. Much like the internal stability in the US allows people up to engage in creative and economic developements since we are freed up from merely surviving, the stable climate of the last ten millenium has provided the substrate that allowed humans to PLAN AHEAD and settle into productive gooves.

Whether or not we are pushing the temperatures up or down is besides the point: we are pumping massive amounts of chemicals into the air and water that eventually WILL destabilize the general environment. Ironicly, the greenhouse gasses that we currently worry about so much are helping stave off a mini ice age that typically hits every 10K years or so. There is no fossil record of such a fast alteration of the cyles induced by a species, so we're basically in uncharted waters here.

Personally, I'm optimistic: the changes are gradual enough and humans a sophisticated enough to spot a substantial change and plan ahead. As for the communists who use 'greenhouse gases' as an excuse to crack down on business: eat shit and die. I once had an argument with a hippie and he thought that planting trees for harvest was bad for air quality while not realizing that 90% of the earth's oxygen comes from the algae in the world's oceans.

In the future, I think we will have the technology to control the weather

Get busy living

2/27/11

I'm a scientist by degree, physics, and took atmospheric physics in my final year. Personally I don't believe humans are responsible for the scale of global warming that we have at the moment, but I am a supporter of treating the planet properly. I'm not going to psychobabble the science onto you, but i'll support my arguments with reasoning, sometimes using the climate changers own arguments against them.

"Climate change is happening faster than we expected" - That's science talk for "We don't know what is causing it"

The numbers don't add up. The theory is there qualitatively, but to quantify it, It's off. The change we're seeing is not solely caused by man's activities. Thus we have to actively try and cool the planet to retain the current climate.

I'm always wary of arguments made using fake science. "The icecaps will melt and the sea levels will rise."

ONLY for ice that melts in Antarctica and Greenland. Everywhere else will have no affect on the sea levels. For reasons, put an icecube in a glass of water, and watch what happens to the water level as the ice cube melts.
If you're using fake science to make your point, you're running out of convincing arguments in my book.

"The vast majority of scientists say its true" This one winds me up a touch. a) The ones that argue against it are called Deniers and categorised with racists/socialists/sex offenders. b) Science is funded. This leaves 2 outstanding issues with it. Firstly, the funder owns the research. If it doesnt prove what they wanted to find. Then it doesnt get published. The funder wants to use this to further there own ends. There are countless examples of scientifically proven stuff out there that does nothing at all. Plus if you dont find what the funder is looking for, they dont give repeat business.

Now why would people want to push an agenda around phoney science? Is there money in no global warming? Of course not. Am I some ranting climate change denier? Possibly, but lets put some evidence to that.

The Toyota Prius: Uses more energy in making it, and its batteries are more toxic for the planet than any internal combustion engine could possibly be than it will ever save in its life. So why so popular? To be seen to be ecological. Which is EXACTLY what this is about. There are others but don't want a tl;dr. most people have already decided what they think about it and ignore evidence.

worth thinking about anyway.

Anything else? What about investment from GOVERNMENT, into alternative energy sources. Free taxpayers money. How do we do that, make it the in thing.

2/27/11
trazer985:

I'm a scientist by degree, physics, and took atmospheric physics in my final year. Personally I don't believe humans are responsible for the scale of global warming that we have at the moment, but I am a supporter of treating the planet properly. I'm not going to psychobabble the science onto you, but i'll support my arguments with reasoning, sometimes using the climate changers own arguments against them.

"Climate change is happening faster than we expected" - That's science talk for "We don't know what is causing it"

The numbers don't add up. The theory is there qualitatively, but to quantify it, It's off. The change we're seeing is not solely caused by man's activities. Thus we have to actively try and cool the planet to retain the current climate.

I'm always wary of arguments made using fake science. "The icecaps will melt and the sea levels will rise."

ONLY for ice that melts in Antarctica and Greenland. Everywhere else will have no affect on the sea levels. For reasons, put an icecube in a glass of water, and watch what happens to the water level as the ice cube melts.
If you're using fake science to make your point, you're running out of convincing arguments in my book.

"The vast majority of scientists say its true" This one winds me up a touch. a) The ones that argue against it are called Deniers and categorised with racists/socialists/sex offenders. b) Science is funded. This leaves 2 outstanding issues with it. Firstly, the funder owns the research. If it doesnt prove what they wanted to find. Then it doesnt get published. The funder wants to use this to further there own ends. There are countless examples of scientifically proven stuff out there that does nothing at all. Plus if you dont find what the funder is looking for, they dont give repeat business.

Now why would people want to push an agenda around phoney science? Is there money in no global warming? Of course not. Am I some ranting climate change denier? Possibly, but lets put some evidence to that.

The Toyota Prius: Uses more energy in making it, and its batteries are more toxic for the planet than any internal combustion engine could possibly be than it will ever save in its life. So why so popular? To be seen to be ecological. Which is EXACTLY what this is about. There are others but don't want a tl;dr. most people have already decided what they think about it and ignore evidence.

worth thinking about anyway.

Anything else? What about investment from GOVERNMENT, into alternative energy sources. Free taxpayers money. How do we do that, make it the in thing.

Excellent, excellent post. Well informed and very insightful, clearly a very educated approach to the matter. Confirms a lot of my feelings on the issue and how absurd it is that people who may not "walk the party line" on the issue are so viciously derided publicly. +1 for you sir.

2/27/11
trazer985:

"The icecaps will melt and the sea levels will rise."

ONLY for ice that melts in Antarctica and Greenland. Everywhere else will have no affect on the sea levels.

I'm thinking something got lost in the grammatical syntax here? Add mass to a glass of water, and the level rises everywhere....help me out here, I'm confused

Get busy living

2/27/11
UFOinsider:
trazer985:

"The icecaps will melt and the sea levels will rise."

ONLY for ice that melts in Antarctica and Greenland. Everywhere else will have no affect on the sea levels.

I'm thinking something got lost in the grammatical syntax here? Add mass to a glass of water, and the level rises everywhere....help me out here, I'm confused

Because the other major icecaps are already floating and thus if they were to melt would not affect water levels to the degree of the Antarctica/Greenland ice which aren't current;y displacing their mass of water..

2/28/11
trazer985:

I'm always wary of arguments made using fake science. "The icecaps will melt and the sea levels will rise."

ONLY for ice that melts in Antarctica and Greenland. Everywhere else will have no affect on the sea levels. For reasons, put an icecube in a glass of water, and watch what happens to the water level as the ice cube melts.
If you're using fake science to make your point, you're running out of convincing arguments in my book.

Just for the record, that isn't fake science. It would be fake science to say "the icecaps will melt and that will Cause the sea levels to rise." Both the ice-caps melting and the sea levels rising are expected to be caused by rising ocean temperatures. (thermal expansion)

3/1/11

only in the states can anything that mildly disagrees with your own views be immediately labelled as communism.

Like honestly, in the US if you like vanilla icecream and the guy next to you like chocolate icecream do you accuse him of being a gay muslim terrorist communist?

Introducing the idea of occams razor:

Whats more likely given these facts:
The vast majority of the scientific community believes global warming to be man made.
A small minority of this same community does not believe it is man made.

Conclusion 1:
The vast majority is likely right, and the costs of not doing anything are gargantuan. Prevention pays, even if there is a reasonable chance of the vast majority being wrong.
Conclusion 2:
The vast majority is a bunch of former soviet communists looking to establish world domination together with the gays, the muslims, and the jews. The average american needs to get his gun out and killlll KIILLLLL KILLLLL all scientists in favour of this heretic communist idea, and brand them as evil nazi communist traitors.
These scientists are likely also collaborating with Hitler,Stalin, Mao a revived Julius Caesar and BILL CLINTON(the arch communist).

I mean the kinda shit that gadaffi talks about in his speeches is nothing compared to the ridicoulus shit some of the people on this forum believe in.

that said, I don't believe that Global warming is man made, but thinking its some greater communist conspiracy is fkin ridicoulus.

3/1/11
leveredarb:

that said, I don't believe that Global warming is man made, but thinking its some greater communist conspiracy is fkin ridicoulus.

Not as RIDICULOUS as your spelling

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

3/1/11
leveredarb:

only in the states can anything that mildly disagrees with your own views be immediately labelled as communism.

Like honestly, in the US if you like vanilla icecream and the guy next to you like chocolate icecream do you accuse him of being a gay muslim terrorist communist?

Introducing the idea of occams razor:

Whats more likely given these facts:
The vast majority of the scientific community believes global warming to be man made.
A small minority of this same community does not believe it is man made.

Conclusion 1:
The vast majority is likely right, and the costs of not doing anything are gargantuan. Prevention pays, even if there is a reasonable chance of the vast majority being wrong.
Conclusion 2:
The vast majority is a bunch of former soviet communists looking to establish world domination together with the gays, the muslims, and the jews. The average american needs to get his gun out and killlll KIILLLLL KILLLLL all scientists in favour of this heretic communist idea, and brand them as evil nazi communist traitors.
These scientists are likely also collaborating with Hitler,Stalin, Mao a revived Julius Caesar and BILL CLINTON(the arch communist).

I mean the kinda shit that gadaffi talks about in his speeches is nothing compared to the ridicoulus shit some of the people on this forum believe in.

that said, I don't believe that Global warming is man made, but thinking its some greater communist conspiracy is fkin ridicoulus.

in a hugely rounded set of statistics, at least 80% of people believe that every major world religion is wrong. Millions upon millions of people believed that houses would go up in value, almost ad infinitum with circular flawed logic, and not to mention how many people thought the dude attributed to finding america was wrong.

Sheep mentality is also responsible for burning witches, electing infamous 20th century dictators and the crusades. I guess noone ever learned from that lesson.

I think/hope, the analogy between communism and climate change was a metaphor illustrating that anyone that spoke against it was labelled evil. If it's not, you have a point, but I disagree with your methods of stating it.

3/1/11
leveredarb:

Whats more likely given these facts:
The vast majority of the scientific community believes global warming to be man made.
A small minority of this same community does not believe it is man made.

Conclusion 1:
The vast majority is likely right, and the costs of not doing anything are gargantuan. Prevention pays, even if there is a reasonable chance of the vast majority being wrong.
Conclusion 2:
The vast majority is a bunch of former soviet communists looking to establish world domination together with the gays, the muslims, and the jews. The average american needs to get his gun out and killlll KIILLLLL KILLLLL all scientists in favour of this heretic communist idea, and brand them as evil nazi communist traitors.
These scientists are likely also collaborating with Hitler,Stalin, Mao a revived Julius Caesar and BILL CLINTON(the arch communist).

I think you're missing a few key points:

1) There are more conclusions to add to the list. There are plenty of times in science where wrong ideas are believed by the majority of practitioners. The world is complicated and hard to figure out, even scientists often get it wrong...

2) Do any of us know how scientific climate science really is? Many, many academic disciplines look scientific and rigorous, but at their core they're not always very accurate.

3) You alluded to the costs of not doing anything about it. Unfortunately, climate scientists are not experts at assessing costs and public policy. The closest thing to that is economists (and maybe political scientists).

3/1/11
econ:
leveredarb:

Whats more likely given these facts:
The vast majority of the scientific community believes global warming to be man made.
A small minority of this same community does not believe it is man made.

Conclusion 1:
The vast majority is likely right, and the costs of not doing anything are gargantuan. Prevention pays, even if there is a reasonable chance of the vast majority being wrong.
Conclusion 2:
The vast majority is a bunch of former soviet communists looking to establish world domination together with the gays, the muslims, and the jews. The average american needs to get his gun out and killlll KIILLLLL KILLLLL all scientists in favour of this heretic communist idea, and brand them as evil nazi communist traitors.
These scientists are likely also collaborating with Hitler,Stalin, Mao a revived Julius Caesar and BILL CLINTON(the arch communist).

I think you're missing a few key points:

1) There are more conclusions to add to the list. There are plenty of times in science where wrong ideas are believed by the majority of practitioners. The world is complicated and hard to figure out, even scientists often get it wrong...

2) Do any of us know how scientific climate science really is? Many, many academic disciplines look scientific and rigorous, but at their core they're not always very accurate.

3) You alluded to the costs of not doing anything about it. Unfortunately, climate scientists are not experts at assessing costs and public policy. The closest thing to that is economists (and maybe political scientists).

to add to your 3) point, the weak point about the cost argument is that is logically flawed. It's similar to the argument of religion that if you don't believe you go to hell. That is not a logically coherent argument.

My point isn't about climate change happening or not, its about highlighting the fact that calling pro climate change scientists communists is batshit insane.

3/1/11
leveredarb:

My point isn't about climate change happening or not, its about highlighting the fact that calling pro climate change scientists communists is batshit insane.

Fair enough. So, you're not criticizing those who are skeptical about the "science," but rather the ad hominem communist attacks?

3/1/11

Get busy living

3/7/11
3/7/11

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

3/7/11
5/7/11
Add a Comment
WallStreet Prep Master Financial Modeling