How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[charter.rights]

But they are not allowing his Barney lunchbox...

[Wild Bill]

So first of all, I note that you have argued from authority here. The thing is, once you have engaged in that kind of argument, you implicitly allow it to be used against you. You have no idea of my qualifications for example.

Let me ask where you got your ideas, I.e. that global warming is, I presume NOT man made ?

Michael, again I say that I don't think I can make you properly understand. I have read your posts on this subject for a long time now. You have never been technical yourself in your arguments. You have been logical, within the limits of your understanding but you can logically prove anything if you don't allow any contrary factors into the equation. I believe that it would take a LONG time to give you enough background not to prove or disprove the climate change argument but to get you to the level where you could properly form your OWN opinions!

Besides, I have not formed my opinions by taking on the arguments point by point. That's a trap to get one into a mug's game of trying to refute one thin argument after another. Rather, I have followed how those pushing the climate armageddon arguments have exaggerated and pontificated. They cite one argument with weak evidence and its shot down. They cite another and another, each being shot down in turn. Then they claim that because of all these arguments where there's smoke there must be fire!

When they actually fabricate evidence, as with the "hockey stick" graph and with the "climategate" emails, they are excused, by claiming the incidents are really not that important to the total argument (this after being cited as absolute proof!) or in the final analysis, forgivable since it is so important to "save the planet" that the end justifies the means.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, Micheal. Certainly not you. I simply have my own criteria for a credible sounding scientific arguement and so far nothing has passed the "smell test" as far as I'm concerned.

Meanwhile, as I've said, the meme has become a religion and it is pointless to bang one's head against the wall, trying to stamp out the new faith.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Wild Bill

[TimG]

Yes I do, that was a sarcastic smile.

Perhaps it has more to deal with the fact that you are such a naive buffoon that it would have been completely in character for you to treat that as a serious post.

In any case, you still have not addressed the real issue:

You claim to care about consensus science but you appear to be making up whatever crap you want and calling it "science". The consensus science does not say that society will disappear because of global warming which means your argument is nonsensical.

Edited August 7, 2011 by TimG

[CitizenX]

Perhaps it has more to deal with the fact that you are such a naive buffoon that it would have been completely in character for you to treat that as a serious post.

In any case, you still have not addressed the real issue:

You claim to care about consensus science but you appear to be making up whatever crap you want and calling it "science". The consensus science does not say that society will disappear because of global warming which means your argument is nonsensical.

There is plenty of scientific research out there. But you are a climate change denier, that only wants to discuss the financial feasibility of saving society from a horrific future. You are in denial.

All truth passes through three stages.

First, it is ridiculed......................>> YOU ARE HERE

Second, it is violently opposed.

Third, it is accepted as self-evident.......>> This is the end of the world as we know it

I dedicate this song to you sir

Edited August 7, 2011 by CitizenX

[TimG]

There is plenty of scientific research out there.

Perhaps there is some - but it is fringe. It is NOT the "consensus" that you keep going on and on about.

Please provide evidence that the "consensus" among climate scientists is that society cease to exist because of AGW. Provide evidence or acknowledge that you are simply making crap up.

Here is come counter evidence that shows you are full of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

The Review points to the potential impacts of climate change on water resources, food production, health, and the environment. According to the Review, without action, the overall costs of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, now and forever. Including a wider range of risks and impacts could increase this to 20% of GDP or more.

The Stern review is worst case. Other economists put the cost of climate change to be much lower. None of the say that society will not exist.

Edited August 7, 2011 by TimG

[CitizenX]

Some men you just can't reach

Edited August 7, 2011 by CitizenX

[bush_cheney2004]

Some men you just can't reach

Agreed...global warming climate change hysteria is dead:

The emerging economies of Asia, especially, are refusing to allow their possibilities for growth to be curbed by obligatory CO2 reductions.

Everywhere across the world

, climate laws are being buried for good or put on ice. The once ballyhooed instrument of the emissions trading scheme is becoming obsolete. China, India and Australia are waving goodbye. In the US, the Chicago Climate Exchange was closed just after the last mid-term Congressional elections. Just before that, the self-anointed climate pope Al Gore cashed in by selling his shares.

Edited August 7, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[CitizenX]

Maybe they know were already fucked and want to go out partying.

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe they know were already fucked and want to go out partying.

No, there are much higher priorities to worry about. Polar bears don't vote.

[eyeball]

No, there are much higher priorities to worry about.

Who's, what and how much higher?

[bush_cheney2004]

Who's, what and how much higher?

Anything is more important than Al Gore's bank account balance.

[CitizenX]

No, there are much higher priorities to worry about. Polar bears don't vote.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is one good thing about the 2008 recession and financial crisis...it drove a stake into the heart of the climate change Dracula.

[CitizenX]

There is one good thing about the 2008 recession and financial crisis...it drove a stake into the heart of the climate change Dracula.

You must be the arithmetic man; you add trouble, subtract pleasure, divide attention, and multiply ignorance.

If you were twice as smart, you’d still be stupid

Edited August 7, 2011 by CitizenX

[bush_cheney2004]

If you were twice as smart, you’d still be stupid

You are way too late to this game son...we have already beaten back far better climate change zombies than you.

Edited August 7, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[CitizenX]

Gotta go for now, but I want to leave you with this.

The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Professor Al Bartlett

[bush_cheney2004]

Gotta go for now, but I want to leave you with this.

The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Professor Al Bartlett

So long kid....go hug a tree for us!

[Remiel]

There is one good thing about the 2008 recession and financial crisis...it drove a stake into the heart of the climate change Dracula.

More likely that von Helsing was the one who got staked...

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, again I say that I don't think I can make you properly understand. I have read your posts on this subject for a long time now. You have never been technical yourself in your arguments. You have been logical, within the limits of your understanding but you can logically prove anything if you don't allow any contrary factors into the equation. I believe that it would take a LONG time to give you enough background not to prove or disprove the climate change argument but to get you to the level where you could properly form your OWN opinions!

Besides, I have not formed my opinions by taking on the arguments point by point. That's a trap to get one into a mug's game of trying to refute one thin argument after another. Rather, I have followed how those pushing the climate armageddon arguments have exaggerated and pontificated. They cite one argument with weak evidence and its shot down. They cite another and another, each being shot down in turn. Then they claim that because of all these arguments where there's smoke there must be fire!

When they actually fabricate evidence, as with the "hockey stick" graph and with the

"climategate" emails, they are excused, by claiming the incidents are really not that important to the total argument (this after being cited as absolute proof!) or in the final analysis, forgivable since it is so important to "save the planet" that the end justifies the means.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, Micheal. Certainly not you. I simply have my own criteria for a credible sounding scientific arguement and so far nothing has passed the "smell test" as far as I'm concerned.

Wild Bill - I get the sense that you are backing away from an argument here.

We have debated the debunks here more than the science behind warming. I would be glad to explain it to you.

In the meantime you decry the meme, the religion of GW without knowing what it is yourself. You note that believers are nyot qualified to understand, yet you appear to only be self taught. You repeat the accusations of the talk radio set, but claim to have not listened to them.

If you believe in your opinions, you should at least be able to explain why without fear that someone will logically take you apart.

I have had my position attacked, and have changed my mind on several topics including GW.

[Oleg Bach]

I'm sorry I would like to respond, but can make no sense of what you are babbling about.

So when you say you do not understand, you assume it is because someone is babbling? Maybe it's just in the fact that you are young and assume that if you don't get it - it is the other guys fault?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

In the meantime you decry the meme, the religion of GW without knowing what it is yourself.

What I don't understand is why people still refer to it as global warming. Climate change is the broader issue.

Yes the world is warming based on data collected, yes a few people have screwed up here and there but it is not some world wide conspiracy theory by scientists to keep their jobs.

There are way too many people who fall for the propaganda being emitted by "grass roots" movements created and funded (indirectly or directly) by the oil companies of the world. I wouldn't be shocked if there was someone on this board who was funded by an oil company to spread misinformation in posts. It is really shocking how easy it s to manipulate people with enough money to pay a few people to spread misinformation.

And I think it has been so successful because conservative ideology tends to favour black and white thinking. There is only two options. This ends up giving more weight to misinformation because there is no such thing as a compromise on ideology in the center, we are either experiencing extreme climate change or we aren't... or the result will be either disastrous or create a "garden of eden". Especially in one sided situations where there is consensus because, there "has" to be an alternative.

All of the documentaries I've watched, corporations being outed for spreading misinformation... I guess it can be labelled left wing propaganda... by your local conservative politician who received a big cheque from big oil in their campaign...

It sickens me...

It was even present during our election. They didn't release word of an oil spill in Alberta until after their pro-oil Prime Minister was elected. Our last election was more dubious than anyone realizes... I wonder how much money was spent by oil companies through creative shell companies or grass roots movements to get editorials that favour Harper, the only pro-oil candidate available.

Edited August 7, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[TimG]

All of the documentaries I've watched, corporations being outed for spreading misinformation... I guess it can be labelled left wing propaganda... by your local conservative politician who received a big cheque from big oil in their campaign...

Yet the misinformation spread by organizations like Greenpeace is perfectly acceptable to you.

Greenpeace, the WWF and all other NGOs are businesses like any other. They need to attract sales and increase their revenue. Misinformation and propaganda is still misinformation and propaganda even if the purveyor is motivated by ideology rather than profit.

Edited August 7, 2011 by TimG

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Yet the misinformation spread by organizations like Greenpeace is perfectly accept to you.

Example of black and white thinking.

I don't support misinformation that is pro-corporation so, I must support misinformation from the anti-corporation spectrum.

Edited August 7, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[eyeball]

You are way too late to this game son...we have already beaten back far better climate change zombies than you.

Not with lame-ass replies like this.

Anything is more important than Al Gore's bank account balance.

[CitizenX]

Here is come counter evidence that shows you are full of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

The Stern review is worst case. Other economists put the cost of climate change to be much lower. None of the say that society will not exist.

There is something called a tipping point. Without people like me expressing the urgency, and screaming for action nothing will ever be done.

Stern Review

Summary of the Review's main conclusions

• The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs.
  
• The scientific evidence points to increasing risks of serious, irreversible impacts from climate change associated with business-as-usual (BAU) paths for emissions.
  
• Climate change threatens the basic elements of life for people around the world — access to water, food production, health, and use of land and the environment.
  
• The impacts of climate change are not evenly distributed — the poorest countries and people will suffer earliest and most. And if and when the damages appear it will be too late to reverse the process. Thus we are forced to look a long way ahead.
  
• Climate change may initially have small positive effects for a few developed countries, but it is likely to be very damaging for the much higher temperature increases expected by mid-to-late century under BAU scenarios.
  
• Integrated assessment modelling provides a tool for estimating the total impact on the economy; our estimates suggest that this is likely to be higher than previously suggested.
  
• Emissions have been, and continue to be, driven by economic growth; yet stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere is feasible and consistent with continued growth.
  
• 'Central estimates of the annual costs of achieving stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e are around 1% of global GDP, if we start to take strong action now. [...] It would already be very difficult and costly to aim to stabilise at 450ppm CO2e. If we delay, the opportunity to stabilise at 500-550ppm CO2e may slip away.'[3]
  
• The transition to a low-carbon economy will bring challenges for competitiveness but also opportunities for growth. Policies to support the development of a range of low-carbon and high-efficiency technologies are required urgently.
  
• Establishing a carbon price, through tax, trading or regulation, is an essential foundation for climate change policy. Creating a broadly similar carbon price signal around the world, and using carbon finance to accelerate action in developing countries, are urgent priorities for international cooperation.
  
• Adaptation policy is crucial for dealing with the unavoidable impacts of climate change, but it has been under-emphasised in many countries.
  
• An effective response to climate change will depend on creating the conditions for international collective action.
  
• There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change if strong collective action starts now.
  

sounds allot like what I said earlier

How about using some common sense...

More fuel efficient cars.

More mass transportation.

Less clear cutting of forests.

More use of green technology like solar and wind.

Better city planning that allows for safer bicycle transportation, and walking.

Better building codes that require better energy reduction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_O0vuUrjbo&feature=related

Edited August 7, 2011 by CitizenX