Bonam Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 That was the fear during the AGW heyday when the Mann Hockey Stick ruled the day, but in 2008 reality reared up and bit them squarely in the ass. Carbon trading is dead as originally envisioned and going green has been co-opted by corporations for bigger sales advantage. As always, conservation and efficiencies will be exploited because of economics, not polar bear politics. I was referring more to how the recent debt ceiling crisis was handled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 That's your response? The best you can do? You retort with "you're stupid"? The last of the three points you quoted was meant in mockery, the first two were serious. Methinks that is his (their) fuel....emotion. Nothing more. It must be his way because that's how he/she "feels". May as well be a G20 anarchist. Good luck with that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 (edited) I was referring more to how the recent debt ceiling crisis was handled. That was pure political theatre...the real hard choices will be driven by economics and are yet to come. In the 1980's, the US did change its social security entitlement program because of an imbalance. There were no bloody riots in the street. Edited August 7, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 WOW...I can only assume you are just trying to bug me now. Just trying to egg me on. No one is this ignorant? Ohhhh.......Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. ~John Stuard Mill Well, let's find out how smart YOU are! Can you build a wind generator? Do you understand the differences between different kinds of batteries? Do you know roughly what is the power demand of your home per typical day? Quick now, don't stop to google or buy a book! We want to know just how much you actually know about "going green" than just attending demonstrations. What's the typical efficiency of commonly available solar cells? What direction should they be pointed in on your roof? What's an inverter? Can you build one, or at least, if you buy one choose one that's appropriate for your installation? How many watts does your installation need to generate? What was your assumption as to the size of the battery bank? At the present price of electricity, how long will it take you to pay back the cost of that 13 watt CFL bulb? If you can't do all this then you really have no idea how to "go green", unless you simply choose to go live in a teepee instead! Why don't you read some textbooks and DO something, rather than just memorize silly chants for the next G20 protest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 That was pure political theatre...the real hard choices will be driven by economics and are yet to come. In the 1980's, the US did change its social security entitlement program because of an imbalance. There were no bloody riots in the street. That was under the legendary President Reagan, whom Democrats and Republicans alike now quote and refer to in awe. Perhaps you're right though. We'll see what the 12 person committee actually cuts or changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 That was under the legendary President Reagan, whom Democrats and Republicans alike now quote and refer to in awe. Perhaps you're right though. We'll see what the 12 person committee actually cuts or changes. The only real political barrier is more revenue through tax increases. I think that will be overcome if/when feeding the entitlement beast and defense is curtailed. One will not capitulate without the other giving way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 The only real political barrier is more revenue through tax increases. I think that will be overcome if/when feeding the entitlement beast and defense is curtailed. One will not capitulate without the other giving way. Perhaps. I just hope I get to enjoy a couple years of earning real money before they jack the tax rates up to 90% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 (edited) That's your response? The best you can do? You retort with "you're stupid"? The last of the three points you quoted was meant in mockery, the first two were serious. Really? It sound so ridiculous, and I get a little sick of answering to such dumb comments. But OK here I go again. 1) Slackers and criminals that burn police cars and break store windows are the people that "get things done"? I wouldn't want to live in a society where things "got done" by your standards, that's for sure. Is he really blaming all 10,000 lawful protesters for the actions of about 200 anarchists? Let me ask him a question. What is more likely, the 19,000 police officers drawn from across Canada to control and protect the summit couldn't contain 200 assholes? Or is it more likely that they let those cars burn, and let these buttheads destroy property to justify the 900 million dollar security cost. What do think the Canadian people would have said if it was just a peaceful protest and the police security wasn't really required to that extent? Why is it that North Americans have to "take the lead" and the rest of the world has to "follow"? What's with this paternalistic attitude of yours? Because they are ranked 7th and 8th overall Per capita greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita United States of America is 2nd, and Canada is 10th on List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions And finally they are two of the riches countries in the world. Plus they have taken the most advantage of the cheap energy that caused the problem. Now I refuse to answer any more dumb question. If you have something useful to say maybe. Edited August 7, 2011 by CitizenX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 Now I refuse to answer any more dumb question. If you have something useful to say maybe. LOL! Stop being such a big baby...this is an internet forum, not your AGW church for the faithful. No wonder your side is failing so miserably to win the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 Is he really blaming all 10,000 lawful protesters for the actions of about 200 anarchists? Let me ask him a question. What is more likely, the 19,000 police officers drawn from across Canada to control and protect the summit couldn't contain 200 assholes? Or is it more likely that they let those cars burn, and let these buttheads destroy property to justify the 900 million dollar security cost. What do think the Canadian people would have said if it was just a peaceful protest and the police security wasn't really required to that extent? I see, so the police purposely let the protesters burn and destroy things in order to save face. Thanks for clarifying that you are a conspiracy theorist. Because they are ranked 7th and 8th overall Per capita greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita United States of America is 2nd, and Canada is 10th on List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions And finally they are two of the riches countries in the world. So because these countries have some number on some ranking, everyone else is supposed to "follow"? Who is #1 by the way and why aren't you suggesting that we follow them? They're number 1 after all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 ....So because these countries have some number on some ranking, everyone else is supposed to "follow"? Who is #1 by the way and why aren't you suggesting that we follow them? They're number 1 after all! Bingo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 You are way too late to this game son...we have already beaten back far better climate change zombies than you. I just realized that they were probably smarter than me, and gave up earlier. It's like talking to a special needs class. You've beat another one, but believe me it wasn't through your intelligent remarks and questions. It's due to futility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 I just realized that they were probably smarter than me, and gave up earlier. It's like talking to a special needs class. Yes...they were smarter, and far more determined. You've beat another one, but believe me it wasn't through your intelligent remarks and questions. It's due to futility. Then how committed can you be? Kinda makes me respect member waldo a little bit more now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 What is clear is that regardless of the "science" discussions, the decision(s) to act or not act will be made by others based on economics and politics. It is not good enough to predict the end of humankind and expect people to join in the cause. You and I understand that line - where science turns to policy and political questions - but it seems hardly anybody else here does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 If you can't do all this then you really have no idea how to "go green", unless you simply choose to go live in a teepee instead! Why don't you read some textbooks and DO something, rather than just memorize silly chants for the next G20 protest? Wild Bill, you're calling the kettle black here. You have no qualifications in climate science, and yet you have mind up your mind based on a fringe point of view - without even realizing it is fringe. You're in no position to criticize people for memorizing silly chants - you yourself have merely memorized a different silly chant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 LOL! Stop being such a big baby...this is an internet forum, not your AGW church for the faithful. No wonder your side is failing so miserably to win the day. Sorry - Wild Bill (on the other side) - has effectively done the same thing here. There are poor arguments and good ones on both sides. This is what is true: 1) The science is sound - warming is happening 2) The science is sound - nobody knows exactly what the impact will be 3) The science is sound - political times on both sides are making fart noises Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 Sorry - Wild Bill (on the other side) - has effectively done the same thing here. There are poor arguments and good ones on both sides. This is what is true: 1) The science is sound - warming is happening 2) The science is sound - nobody knows exactly what the impact will be 3) The science is sound - political times on both sides are making fart noises Science is always right...at least with it - we make informed decisions unless the scientist is a total idiot and leads us astray through institutionalized eneptness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 Sorry - Wild Bill (on the other side) - has effectively done the same thing here. No he hasn't...and he is in good company. The cost of going green is plain to see at the consumer level, yet few have fully invested in the new energy and resource paradigm. Clearly member Wild Bill has the skill and experience to leverage "green energy" if he chooses to do so, but that very same skill and experience gives him an insight to the negative consequences (cost, safety, reliability, etc.). I have repeatedly exchanged with you the idea that...yes..we have warming, but we may consciously choose to do nothing overt about it save for continued adaptation and allocation based on economic impact. Sometimes I wonder if such ardent AGW proponents bother to understand why grandma can't bike 20km to work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted August 8, 2011 Report Share Posted August 8, 2011 Political choices will ultimately be made based on economics, not "science". Politics is not economics any more than it is science. By conflating them you commit the same sort of error as the one you are speaking against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 8, 2011 Report Share Posted August 8, 2011 (edited) Politics is not economics any more than it is science. By conflating them you commit the same sort of error as the one you are speaking against. You have conflated them...not I. Economics facilitates politics of all stripes. Edited August 8, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted August 8, 2011 Report Share Posted August 8, 2011 Wild Bill, you're calling the kettle black here. You have no qualifications in climate science, and yet you have mind up your mind based on a fringe point of view - without even realizing it is fringe. You're in no position to criticize people for memorizing silly chants - you yourself have merely memorized a different silly chant. You COMPLETELY missed my point, Michael. Again, I might add! My post to CitizenX wasn't about his point of view. It was about his ability to actually DO SOMETHING FOR REAL! For purposes of argument I had assumed that "going green" was necessary. I was asking CitizenX if he had the faintest idea of HOW to "go green"! All I had heard from him was a lot of rhetoric and the usual catechism of how IMPORTANT the issue was and how people were going to RISE UP and make their voices heard! Big deal! If you want to reduce your carbon footprint anymore than mice nuts in this country you have to do more than ride a bicycle if the weather is nice and attend some demonstrations. Anybody with hair in their ears can do that! How about actually BUILDING off-grid green power? It means opening a book, learning some science and techology, cutting wires and soldering parts. IOW, using your brain instead of your mouth! I notice I still haven't seen any reply from him. I really don't expect him to answer any of my questions. I don't really believe he can do anything but get together with other folks who couldn't replace a plug on a lamp and "raise their awareness"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted August 8, 2011 Report Share Posted August 8, 2011 No he hasn't...and he is in good company. The cost of going green is plain to see at the consumer level, yet few have fully invested in the new energy and resource paradigm. Clearly member Wild Bill has the skill and experience to leverage "green energy" if he chooses to do so, but that very same skill and experience gives him an insight to the negative consequences (cost, safety, reliability, etc.). I have repeatedly exchanged with you the idea that...yes..we have warming, but we may consciously choose to do nothing overt about it save for continued adaptation and allocation based on economic impact. Sometimes I wonder if such ardent AGW proponents bother to understand why grandma can't bike 20km to work! Exactly, BC! Or why Mom can't take 3 toddlers in tow and go get a week's worth of groceries, all on that same bike, in January! This is why I just can't buy the AGW arguments! The people involved and their public pronouncements are ALWAYS so ridiculously impractical! Few of them if any show the slightest clue about the technical factors involved, yet ONLY technical factors can possibly make a positive reduction in our carbon footprint, which these people are claiming is of absolute importance! If 50% of the AGW proponents in Canada read a few books and got themselves wholely or even partially off-grid, I'll bet we would exceed even those silly Kyoto targets Chretien made those broken promises about! Of course, we'll never see it happen. These people can't even change the oil in their own car, or repair a broken extension cord, or wire up a new basement rec room, or solder up some copper pipe in their house plumbing, or even grow some damn carrots, for Pete's sake! They can't do a single blessed damn practical thing, just bitch! If we were on a "Survivor" island the only thing they could contribute to our survival is their bodies for fish bait! Certainly, it would be a waste of resources to feed them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted August 8, 2011 Report Share Posted August 8, 2011 I have repeatedly exchanged with you the idea that...yes..we have warming, but we may consciously choose to do nothing overt about it save for continued adaptation and allocation based on economic impact. You acknowledge that the science is correct and that the politics is messed up - so you have passed the test. If other people want to howl at the moon over crazy ideas, you can indulge them and make them feel good about themselves if you like - I won't do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 8, 2011 Report Share Posted August 8, 2011 You acknowledge that the science is correct and that the politics is messed up - so you have passed the test.What do you mean by messed up politics? The fact that people cannot agree on the best approach to the stated problem? Is this unusual? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted August 8, 2011 Report Share Posted August 8, 2011 I notice I still haven't seen any reply from him. And I haven't seen any reply from you either as to where you get your ideas about climate change. I didn't start looking into the AGW question until after the climategate scandal broke. IN looking into that, I have satisfied myself that there is too far a bridge between the science and public knowledge for there to be a political answer to this. That said, the science itself is sound - and the noise from a thousand skeptic blogs and AM radio hog callers won't change that. There are hundreds of papers published on this matter, and none of them have said that CO2 doesn't cause warming, so as I said I'd like to hear where you get your ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.