Should global warming result in global cooling

[speaker]

Your grasp of economic principles is not good. One does not "save" capital by gutting demand for a principle market.

So correct me if I'm wrong, you have the impression that the way to save capital is to harvest it as quickly as possible and sell it at whatever you can get for it?, the way our fish for example have been saved... or our forests,... or our farms,... and of course our oil and gas. I don't have a good grasp of economics but if this is what passes for good economic sense than I'm fairly happy I'm not an economist.

[speaker]

All original wealth comes from the ground and there are only four core industries that produce all of the countries original wealth.

Yours is a Marxist receipe for tyranny and poverty.

Marxist, Schmarxist. If you could, would you explain why energy conservation and green energy will lead to tyranny and poverty? LOL.

The four core industries will remain the four core industries. We will be spending less than we would, given conditions, on energy because we are using less. It will mean there is more oil and gas in the ground for later use. There will be less CO2 in the air causing global warming, less pollution generally, really good opportunities for entrepreneurs. why is this a bad thing.

[B. Max]

name='speaker' date='Jul 1 2007, 04:40 PM' post='233712']

Marxist, Schmarxist. If you could, would you explain why energy conservation and green energy will lead to tyranny and poverty? LOL.

Energy is already conserved. It is used when needed. Telling people how they are not going to use energy or how much they can use or when they can use it or telling them they must be jambed into some car that they don't fit into and don't want is tyranny.

The four core industries will remain the four core industries. We will be spending less than we would, given conditions, on energy because we are using less. It will mean there is more oil and gas in the ground for later use. There will be less CO2 in the air causing global warming, less pollution generally, really good opportunities for entrepreneurs. why is this a bad thing.

Simply because it's not true.

[speaker]

Energy is already conserved. It is used when needed. Telling people how they are not going to use energy or how much they can use or when they can use it or telling them they must be jambed into some car that they don't fit into and don't want is tyranny.

Simply because it's not true.

Ah yes, Need is always an interesting point. For example, succesive liberalconservative governments have consistently subsidized big oil developments because they say, that we need them. Without as far as I know ever having done an analysis of how we might alternatively need less. Perhaps the governments have a need for the tax money so that they can subsidize the oil companies.

I don't think there are many Canadians who need to live in poorly insulated and drafty housing, and yet we need to use all kinds of energy to keep warm. There aren't many who can't fit on a bus and yet we need to build 16 lane freeways because we all need to drive alone to work or play or to the grocery store and back. Very few of us are going to be professional race car drivers but surprisingly many of us need 300 hp engines to drag our sorry butts through town.

And the need to get people to realize that their incredible wastefulness is going to make us all poor before our time is tyranny. What do you suppose the ads telling us that we need, need, need, need, is?

[ScottSA]

Energy is already conserved. It is used when needed. Telling people how they are not going to use energy or how much they can use or when they can use it or telling them they must be jambed into some car that they don't fit into and don't want is tyranny.

Simply because it's not true.

Ah yes, Need is always an interesting point. For example, succesive liberalconservative governments have consistently subsidized big oil developments because they say, that we need them. Without as far as I know ever having done an analysis of how we might alternatively need less. Perhaps the governments have a need for the tax money so that they can subsidize the oil companies.

I don't think there are many Canadians who need to live in poorly insulated and drafty housing, and yet we need to use all kinds of energy to keep warm. There aren't many who can't fit on a bus and yet we need to build 16 lane freeways because we all need to drive alone to work or play or to the grocery store and back. Very few of us are going to be professional race car drivers but surprisingly many of us need 300 hp engines to drag our sorry butts through town.

And the need to get people to realize that their incredible wastefulness is going to make us all poor before our time is tyranny. What do you suppose the ads telling us that we need, need, need, need, is?

You don't truly believe these Marxian talking points do you?

[speaker]

Alright already I will come clean... I am a Marxist, Groucho or Chico, I'm not sure which yet. I guess I'm leaning towards a synthesis of the two.

This is a conservative philosophy, I wonder how many people out there can't see the difference. LOL

You want to try to answer the questions your previous post initiated?

[B. Max]

name='speaker' date='Jul 2 2007, 12:01 AM' post='233782']

[ name=B. Max' post='233722' date='Jul 1 2007, 02:42 PM]

Ah yes, Need is always an interesting point. For example, succesive liberalconservative governments have consistently subsidized big oil developments because they say, that we need them. Without as far as I know ever having done an analysis of how we might alternatively need less. Perhaps the governments have a need for the tax money so that they can subsidize the oil companies.

What subsidise. Like any business they right off costs. We need them because they are one of the core industries without which they would be very little else.

I don't think there are many Canadians who need to live in poorly insulated and drafty housing, and yet we need to use all kinds of energy to keep warm. There aren't many who can't fit on a bus and yet we need to build 16 lane freeways because we all need to drive alone to work or play or to the grocery store and back. Very few of us are going to be professional race car drivers but surprisingly many of us need 300 hp engines to drag our sorry butts through town.

Your air tight houses are nothing but germ factories. There aren't many canadians who want to be hauled around by government on their human cattle liners. The majority of people prefer there freedom to the tyranny of being told where and when and how they can go. Nor do they want someone telling them how much horse power they can have.

And the need to get people to realize that their incredible wastefulness is going to make us all poor before our time is tyranny. What do you suppose the ads telling us that we need, need, need, need, is?

I don't see any wast. Except for the non productive. Who produce nothing of any real value that anyone would want and sit around like demi gods and expect everything for nothing while they stick their nose in other peoples business.

[margrace]

The point is that people could give up driving unnecessarily large vehicles, could take the train rather than fly, could live in insulated draft free houses, spend a little less time on recreational vehicles and mowing their lawns with gas powered mowers, take public tranit instead of driving themselves around the bend. The money saved, the energy not spent, the infrastructure costs reduced all add up to enough savings that we could probably maintain healthcare and hire people to put in greener energy systems. That would provide spinoffs in the same way that our current fossil fuel industries do. In fact I heard years ago that the big megaprojects like the tarsands provide fewer jobs than conservation oriented technology and investment.

All original wealth comes from the ground and there are only four core industries that produce all of the countries original wealth.

Yours is a Marxist receipe for tyranny and poverty.

It always amazes me that any plan that levels the playing field eve a little is immediately a Marxist plot. No people who refuse to do without these expensive things really are flaunting their wealth and deliberately helping to kill others less fortunite off.

[margrace]

The point is that people could give up driving unnecessarily large vehicles, could take the train rather than fly, could live in insulated draft free houses, spend a little less time on recreational vehicles and mowing their lawns with gas powered mowers, take public tranit instead of driving themselves around the bend. The money saved, the energy not spent, the infrastructure costs reduced all add up to enough savings that we could probably maintain healthcare and hire people to put in greener energy systems. That would provide spinoffs in the same way that our current fossil fuel industries do. In fact I heard years ago that the big megaprojects like the tarsands provide fewer jobs than conservation oriented technology and investment.

Your grasp of economic principles is not good. One does not "save" capital by gutting demand for a principle market.

No one merely promotes poverty and the I am better than you attitudes. Lets hear it for the almighty dollar.

[margrace]

Energy is already conserved. It is used when needed. Telling people how they are not going to use energy or how much they can use or when they can use it or telling them they must be jambed into some car that they don't fit into and don't want is tyranny.

Simply because it's not true.

Ah yes, Need is always an interesting point. For example, succesive liberalconservative governments have consistently subsidized big oil developments because they say, that we need them. Without as far as I know ever having done an analysis of how we might alternatively need less. Perhaps the governments have a need for the tax money so that they can subsidize the oil companies.

I don't think there are many Canadians who need to live in poorly insulated and drafty housing, and yet we need to use all kinds of energy to keep warm. There aren't many who can't fit on a bus and yet we need to build 16 lane freeways because we all need to drive alone to work or play or to the grocery store and back. Very few of us are going to be professional race car drivers but surprisingly many of us need 300 hp engines to drag our sorry butts through town.

And the need to get people to realize that their incredible wastefulness is going to make us all poor before our time is tyranny. What do you suppose the ads telling us that we need, need, need, need, is?

Speaker there a none so blind as he who will not see. One of the biggest examples of our stupidity is the continuing fight about dumps. Our wonderful way of life is going to ruin our water sources for one thing. If you never go and look at the local dump then it easy to promote this wasteful way of life.

[margrace]

Energy is already conserved. It is used when needed. Telling people how they are not going to use energy or how much they can use or when they can use it or telling them they must be jambed into some car that they don't fit into and don't want is tyranny.

Simply because it's not true.

Ah yes, Need is always an interesting point. For example, succesive liberalconservative governments have consistently subsidized big oil developments because they say, that we need them. Without as far as I know ever having done an analysis of how we might alternatively need less. Perhaps the governments have a need for the tax money so that they can subsidize the oil companies.

I don't think there are many Canadians who need to live in poorly insulated and drafty housing, and yet we need to use all kinds of energy to keep warm. There aren't many who can't fit on a bus and yet we need to build 16 lane freeways because we all need to drive alone to work or play or to the grocery store and back. Very few of us are going to be professional race car drivers but surprisingly many of us need 300 hp engines to drag our sorry butts through town.

And the need to get people to realize that their incredible wastefulness is going to make us all poor before our time is tyranny. What do you suppose the ads telling us that we need, need, need, need, is?

You don't truly believe these Marxian talking points do you?

Of course when the Economic way of life is threatened for a few, as we can see if we read at all, then they start yelling Marxism. Wasn't that what fuelled McCarthy to name one good example.

[margrace]

[

And the need to get people to realize that their incredible wastefulness is going to make us all poor before our time is tyranny. What do you suppose the ads telling us that we need, need, need, need, is?

I don't see any wast. Except for the non productive. Who produce nothing of any real value that anyone would want and sit around like demi gods and expect everything for nothing while they stick their nose in other peoples business.

Your core values are pretty screwed.

[B. Max]

I don't see any wast. Except for the non productive. Who produce nothing of any real value that anyone would want and sit around like demi gods and expect everything for nothing while they stick their nose in other peoples business.

Your core values are pretty screwed.

Yeah well, maybe I'll do a couple of hail Gandhi's for atonement.

[ScottSA]

Your core values are pretty screwed.

It's sad when someone resorts to running around namecalling instead of defending their argument. I loved this one though. I bet you don't even see the howling irony of this post you made:

It always amazes me that any plan that levels the playing field eve a little is immediately a Marxist plot. No people who refuse to do without these expensive things really are flaunting their wealth and deliberately helping to kill others less fortunite off.

Almost straight out of Das Capital or What is to be Done?

[speaker]

Margrace, you are right, anyone who has not seen the waste has not been to our garbage disposal areas. It is also possible that such people just don't get out at all. Sitting shivering under blankets in their drafty homes because to do otherwise would be surrendering to the communist plot of efficiency. As they yell NO!! I will not buy a vehicle that I can actually afford to drive!! that would be Marxian!!! I can see it now as they steer their kids away from any form of public transit because that has the word public in it!

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy,

The green house effect of CO2 is an accepted thing. The greenhouse effect will bring cold to some areas, drought to others, excessive rain and violent storms capable of washing away topsoils or eroding banks under dangerously sited housing developments, increase the range of insects that spread disease or destroy forests because winters aren't cold enough to kill them anymore, heat waves like never before kill hundreds as they have this week in southern Europe. Perhaps some people are so afraid that this will catch up to them that they are in denial....

[ScottSA]

Margrace, you are right, anyone who has not seen the waste has not been to our garbage disposal areas. It is also possible that such people just don't get out at all. Sitting shivering under blankets in their drafty homes because to do otherwise would be surrendering to the communist plot of efficiency. As they yell NO!! I will not buy a vehicle that I can actually afford to drive!! that would be Marxian!!! I can see it now as they steer their kids away from any form of public transit because that has the word public in it!

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy,

The green house effect of CO2 is an accepted thing. The greenhouse effect will bring cold to some areas, drought to others, excessive rain and violent storms capable of washing away topsoils or eroding banks under dangerously sited housing developments, increase the range of insects that spread disease or destroy forests because winters aren't cold enough to kill them anymore, heat waves like never before kill hundreds as they have this week in southern Europe. Perhaps some people are so afraid that this will catch up to them that they are in denial....

...and the heavens will open and Jehovah will bellow through a reverberating tin can "Woe, woe upon thee, children of men!" I will send the twentyseven plagues upon thy doorsteps...

Give me a friggin' break. Even the last IPCC report predicts a 4" rise in sea level over the next 100 years for Christ's sake.

[speaker]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070702/sc_nm/...JgDRJny2qhrAlMA

[speaker]

Feel free to have a look at an IPCC note on sea level rise, If you go to page 15 you will see a prediction of a .6 metre rise in sea levels. This would be about two feet, by 2100.

http://www.ipcc.ch/15_wmo_congress_pdf/nicholls_cg15.pdf

Where did you get your four inch quote from?

[ScottSA]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070702/sc_nm/...JgDRJny2qhrAlMA

Woe Woe upon the children of men! Good greif...look at any science fiction film from the 80s...look at the "ozone layer" problem they were convinced we were going to have. Most of them showed us here in the 2000s covered in blue gunk sunscreen to kep from being irradiated. Guess what? No one does. Look at the sci fi films from the 70s...we were supposed to be living in an ice age. From the 60s...computers and robots were supposed to have taken us over by now.

Every age has its trolls under the bed. This is no diffent at all. If you read the article carefully, it is alarmist panic from one single individual, amplified by the reporter's selective choice of words. Ever stop to wonder why Singapore, perhaps the most concentrated and expanded urban heat island in the world, is singled out as an example of a temperature increase? Even the most rapid enviro-freaks in academia concede that urban heat islands throw off the measurements, but here we have a very selective use of Singapore as representative.

Then of course we have interesting little constructs like this: "Rising global temperatures are melting Himalayan glaciers..." So, we are asked to believe that the European warm periods were all localized events, but melting Himalayan glaciers are obviously indicative of global events? That increases in the arctic shelves are local phenomenon, but decreases in the antarctic are global?

Malaria is a good one. It's been spreading for years and years, and the foremost senior "contributor" to the IPCC has already resigned in disgust over his views being manipulated in the report to draw conclusions radically different from what he said. Here's is what we ought to be doing about malaria: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-25-2004-52181.asp , not fabricating nonsense about global warming.

This article is a showpiece of cynical manipulation.

[B. Max]

'speaker' date='Jul 2 2007, 11:39 AM' post='233859']

The green house effect of CO2 is an accepted thing. The greenhouse effect will bring cold to some areas, drought to others, excessive rain and violent storms capable of washing away topsoils or eroding banks under dangerously sited housing developments, increase the range of insects that spread disease or destroy forests because winters aren't cold enough to kill them anymore, heat waves like never before kill hundreds as they have this week in southern Europe. Perhaps some people are so afraid that this will catch up to them that they are in denial....

All perfectly normal weather the likes of which is not unusual to the planet. I'll do little fear mongering for you my self. They claim the north pole used to be kinda tropical. I expect you'll have lots of warning though, the banana trees will be popping up all over your lawn and then you can go hide under your bed assuming you're not already.

[ScottSA]

the banana trees will be popping up all over your lawn and then you can go hide under your bed assuming you're not already.

[B. Max]

CO2 continues to increase, temperature continues to decrease.

http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2007/04/c...cs-numbers.html

[Moxie]

Oh good grief not global warming again, it's the medias' 21st century propaganda machine.

Now pollution of our air, water and soil that is a REAL issue. We are killing our plantet with decadance and greed our total lack of compassion for those whom we were intrusted to keep it clean for is total arragance. These issue are important to me, globally warming give me a breakkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.

[speaker]

Moxie, A good part of the pollution of our air, water, and soil, is a result of our abusive use of fossil fuels, which coincidentally is also one of the driving forces within the total of anthropogenic global warming. By recognizing the need to change we can have many positive impacts.

ScottSA, an interesting article on the effort by scientists to resolve Malaria. I think you will find that the scientists working on this problem have different educational backgrounds from those working on global warming and that this could be the reason the latter are not working on Malaria from the same point of view.

Another article from the same source, http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-28-2006-97583.asp approaces the need for action now that the science is advanced enough to justify it.

B Max, Do you realize that your little joke means you are probably a Marxist at heart? I'm sure Zeppo would be proud of you, hold on a second I have to twist my arm around to a more comfortable position, oh ah there we go, I'm going to have to get a mattress underneath my bed.

It isn't weather changing that worries me, It really isn't global warming that worries me. If anything it would be the side effects, or as mentioned in this quote from a scientist who has difficulties with the IPCC work ,,

We will adapt to climate change. The question is whether it will be planned or not? How disruptive and how much loss of life will there be because we did not adequately plan for the climate changes that are already occurring? Kevin Trenberth, Climate Analysis Section, NCAR

His concerns about the shortcomings of modelling agm have been widely quoted by deniers as "proof" that the IPCC doesn't know what they are doing. But when he gets down to cases the point he is making is that while we can always use more study and better methodology, that doesn't detract from the very serious threat to our way of life and our economic system from global warming.

[stevoh]

Why is the assumption made that using resources other than non-renewable ones will somehow lead to a global meltdown in the economy?

I mean, certainly, oil and gas companies will scream and whine as their business is whittled away, but isn't that business simply being directed elsewhere?

When we use oil we:

1. Search for the most likely area to contain oil, and test.

2. Set up infastructure to pump, refine and transport it.

3. Deliver it to the customer.

When we use solar energy we:

1. Search for the most likely area to have the strongest most consistent sunlight, and test.

2. Set up the infastracture (solar arrays) to collect and transport it.

3. Deliver it to the customer.

Really, isn't using non-polluting (or less polluting) renewable resources just mean that someone ELSE, besides existing oil companies, still all working people, are getting money? Its not like we don't need power or transportation any more, its just that we will be getting it from different sources.

Why is it that the jobs created by oil and gas are somehow more valuable than the jobs created by utilizing other energy sources?