# Hypothetical National Global Warming Initiative



## iForgeDesigns (May 15, 2013)

You know today I was listening to NPR and listening to a report about a republican trying to convince his fellow republicans that maybe they got the whole global warming issue wrong. I was intrigued, but disregarding who got what wrong; I began to think.

I respect all the people who are trying to change the us for the go green cause but there is only one way to even begin to make an effect quickly.

HYPOTHETICAL SOLUTION

The only way to make a big enough change to the go green initiative, would be to some how kidnap the CEOs of every major oil company in the us. I know, I know. You're probably like, "What?!?"

But my reasoning behind it all was the fact that they earn money from oil, and the only thing people love more than their money is their lives. And I know most of these people usually are insured for a kidnapping. 

A lot of hypotheticals here.

Kidnapped all the CEOs of every major oil company in the us and -->

Forced them to donate a massive amount of money to a bunch of go green non profits. 

forced them to implement some kind of contractual change that could overridden by someone not benefitting from their company or a go green supporter. If that's even possible.

Forced them to shut down the company - last resort. Because would result in national panic and chaos.

That's what I was thinking, but again all hypothetical.... Oh when you wish upon a star...


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

Or just continue as we are and hope for a break-thru in "green" technology that would actually make sense. Or just continue as we are and when the economic collapse (or SHTF) happens most of the "bad" oil uses will stop or at least be drastically reduced.


----------



## Sybil6 (Jan 28, 2013)

The only method I know is to raise awareness. I spend countless hours planting trees, flowers, food (for preparations and to produce more filters for the overwhelming CO2 in our atmosphere). I help friends find "green" alternatives for things they use everyday. I was actually pondering ways to produce electricity without pollutants (hydro, solar, etc..) and if you can think of new ways, you yourself and your friends can make a big impact. We all know hundreds of people. If we make it a point, we can make a big difference with a little effort.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

The concept of manmade global warming is a complete and total fraud. The "scientists" use lies, half-truths and hysteria to try to get people to make radical changes in the way we live and work. Michael Crichton covers this in his novel, "State of Fear".

It was global cooling in the 70s. We were supposed to be worried about pollutants reflecting the sun's heat into space and triggering a new ice age. Then when we stopped having really cold winters, it became global warming. Now instead of REFLECTING the sun's heat, "greenhouse gases" ABSORBED the sun's heat. " WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!" became the new rallying cry. Now that we know that no warming has occurred since 1998, the new description is climate change. Whenever there's a hot day or a cold day there's speculation in the lamestream media about climate change. But when the weather is normal nobody publicly admits that it's a total crock. The story of "climate science"--what an oxymoron--is a story of fraudulent research that can't be replicated. Making stuff up, pretending it's a fact, and then letting the lamestream media report it as such. Is all of Antarctica melting? No, just one small peninsula while Antarctica as a whole is getting COLDER but facts don't matter. Same thing with the lies about drowning polar bears on melting ice. That's talked about here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/al-gores-drowned-polar-bear-ait-source-under-investigation/

It's all part of the UN's Agenda 21 to depopulate the earth. You see, all the extreme weather is because GAIA is unhappy that there are too many people on the planet. The only way to make GAIA happy is to eliminate 90% of the earth's surplus human population. And of course, that all fits in with Satan's plan for the Great Tribulation which should be starting in just a few short years.

There's some good info here on tracking climate science fraud:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/


----------



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

scientists have learned that global warming may have more to do with stopping grazing animals natural herd actions than oil use anyway, but that would knock the wheels off of a few BS carts. Somebody posted a video 




 about this on this forum in the last couple of months. if you want to learn about how laughable most "Go green" programs are really look into Bio diesel and learn that the foot print is actually bigger than Dino diesels.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

iForgeDesigns said:


> A lot of hypotheticals here.
> 
> Kidnapped all the CEOs of every major oil company in the us and -->
> 
> ...


I'm intrigued by this model of yours. Why restrict it to just kidnapping oil company CEOs? Why not broaden the kidnapping base?

Why not have environmentalist goons kidnap all women and threaten to sell them into sexual slavery unless their fathers, husbands, and brothers paid a ransom to get them back?

Why not kidnap all children and threat to sell them into child bondage in the Middle East unless all parents paid a ransom for their return?

What would be wrong about doing that?

You do realize that the owners of oil companies are mostly mutual funds and pension funds, so when you confiscate their money you're depriving some teacher in Iowa of a good chunk of her retirement savings and retirement income?

Here is the data for Chevron.

The largest individual shareholder is John Watson with 76,794 shares.

Now compare to the institutional shareholders:

State Street Corporation	103,250,898	
Vanguard Group, Inc. (The)	98,040,555

And the largest Mutual Fund shareholders:

Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund 26,247,701	
Washington Mutual Investors Fund 26,140,000	
Vanguard 500 Index Fund	18,175,001
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust	18,150,076	
Vanguard Institutional Index Fund-Institutional Index Fund	17,932,324	
American Balanced Fund	13,937,000	
Income Fund of America Inc	9,734,800	
Select Sector SPDR Fund-Energy Select	9,629,860	
Spartan 500 Index Fund 7,638,211	
College Retirement Equities Fund-Stock Account	7,633,759

This guy doesn't symbolize the ownership class of Corporate America. Corporate America is mostly owned by people who have pensions, are owed pensions, and have mutual funds.


----------



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

Easyyy there Bobbb you know you can't use facts to argue with activists


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Tirediron said:


> Easyyy there Bobbb you know you can't use facts to argue with activists


Sorry, I got a bit excited there for a moment and forgot that golden rule. I'll try and keep my head about me next time.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Believe what you want but the fact that carbon is increasing is not in question. http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...nitoring-Carbon-Dioxide-Worldwide-Atmospheric

Of course carbon isn't the only gas that can affect how the atmosphere works. Methane is another one.

The blame of cows "farting" is BS. We had millions of buffalo on the plains and didn't have an increase in green house "gases", but now with millions of cows instead of buffalos we suddenly have an measurable increase. Why? Could it have anything to do with the grain fed corn diet used to feed and fatten them up? A diet that messes with their disgestive system in a bad way and increases their production of these gases? Let the cows eat grass, as they should, for their entire live and the cow farts are on longer a contributing factor.

Figure out a way to produce power, reliably, via some method other than though the burning of fossil fuels. Another contributing factor removed.

Get cars that go a long way without fossil fuels. Another contributing factor removed.

However, the increase in green house gases is like a fast moving freight train. Even if you completely turned off the engine, it's going to take a long time to come to a stop. Best estimates say that if we were top stop all inputs of gasses right now, you'd still have a hundred plus years of momentum before the gasses in the atmosphere start dropping again.

Given our (society's) reliance on these fuels, methods and the industries intertwined along with the usual cry of "it'll affect the economy if we change" I personally hold no hope for the future in this regard.

The final straw that leads me to believe we have no hope is what a legislator in Kansas just tried to introduce.

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2366_00_0000.pdf

Specific sections in bold are with my emphasis.



> HOUSE BILL No. 2366
> By Committee on Energy and Environment
> 2-15
> AN ACT concerning the use of public funds to promote or implement
> ...


So, basically someone in Kansas wants to enact a law that says/promotes take it all now and use it now and screw the kids and grandkids by leaving nothing for them.

I fear for my grandkids future.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

BillS said:


> The concept of manmade global warming is a complete and total fraud. The "scientists" use lies, half-truths and hysteria to try to get people to make radical changes in the way we live and work. Michael Crichton covers this in his novel, "State of Fear"....


Bill, you didn't just quote a work of fiction as a scientific source there... did you?


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

CulexPipiens said:


> Believe what you want but the fact that carbon is increasing is not in question.


Who is contesting the measurement? What I see is questioning of the effects predicted by computer models.



> Of course carbon isn't the only gas that can affect how the atmosphere works. Methane is another one.


Indeed. There is many a slip betwixt cup and lip. The effects isolated in a laboratory model seem to not work as predicted in the complex system known as climate.



> Figure out a way to produce power, reliably, via some method other than though the burning of fossil fuels. Another contributing factor removed.


Invoking magic doesn't help us.



> Get cars that go a long way without fossil fuels. Another contributing factor removed.


Again, invoking magic. Look there are trade-offs in play.

Battery cars = increased mining and refining of material needed for batteries, the waste streams of disposing of batteries, and the creation of power plants which can generate the electricity needed to charge the batteries.

Hydrogen cars = problems with the natural gas sourcing of hydrogen, the embrittlement of pipelines, the worldwide transportation of hydrogen, the engineering challenges of insuring cryogenic hydrogen tanks on automobiles don't rupture during an accident and so on.

Fuel Cells - scarcity of catalysts and scaling problems.

Vanadium Redox - low energy density.

Flintstone Foot Power - the soles of people's feet aren't thick enough for braking.



> Given our (society's) reliance on these fuels, methods and the industries intertwined along with the usual cry of "it'll affect the economy if we change" I personally hold no hope for the future in this regard.


If the world better off with preventing an increase of GHG levels in the atmosphere or better off with dealing with the effects? Is the world better off beggaring ourselves today for the benefit of a future generation or better off making the future generation richer and leaving them to address the problems that may develop by using their enhanced wealth?



> The final straw that leads me to believe we have no hope is what a legislator in Kansas just tried to introduce.


Good for him. That's sensible legislation in that it removes government bureaucrats and rent-seekers from using the public purse to fund schemes that no one else believes in.


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

Bobbb said:


> I'm intrigued by this model of yours. Why restrict it to just kidnapping oil company CEOs? Why not broaden the kidnapping base?
> 
> Why not have environmentalist goons kidnap all women and threaten to sell them into sexual slavery unless their fathers, husbands, and brothers paid a ransom to get them back?
> 
> ...


Pretty much bullchit. Not counting home ownership the top 1% own about 42% of the wealth in America. The top 20% own 95%.


----------



## iForgeDesigns (May 15, 2013)

Sorry bobbb this was really kind of a spur of the moment post. Just random thinking, also I have aspergers so I have a tendency to not think it through all the way, down side of the syndrome. So I apologize for sounding ignorant. And by the way I'm not really an activist per say


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

CulexPipiens said:


> Bill, you didn't just quote a work of fiction as a scientific source there... did you?


He did! Its a great book. In that book, Crichton has an afterward that talks alot global warming and the debate. He doesn't take as much a stand on arguing the science of global warming as he does arguing that the media has suddenly made natural diasters much more apparent (although they are not) since the fall of communism. The idea is that media turned to nature as the destructive force and the boogeyman after the USSR crumbled. Now they use the fear of depression, recession and economic collapse; loss of civil liberties, ect... There is always something. Media is much more polarized than it used to be.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

swjohnsey said:


> Pretty much bullchit. Not counting home ownership the top 1% own about 42% of the wealth in America. The top 20% own 95%.


It's not that simple. Pensions owed to working people are not, in many cases, theirs to cash out as they please. Same with income streams like Social Security. If someone has an income stream guaranteed to them via pension contract then they command a block of wealth that is used to generate that income.

Secondly, a lot of this is of the people's own doing. In a financial universe where wealth is created and apportioned between capital and labor, people would have to be nuts to support the growth of labor supply and thereby increasing the bargaining power of capital by allowing capital to bid down labor costs by accessing an oversupplied labor market and yet that's what many people actually favor. Look at all of the liberals who are gaga about immigration, same with Christians who want to do good for foreigners, same with misguided conservatives who have adopted some romantic myth about America being a land of immigrants. The point is if people support immigration then they are willfully choosing to give capital an upper hand and willingly choosing to handicap their own wealth accumulation process by depressing their ability to charge more for their labor in the labor market.

Thirdly, the wealth that is created and how it's allocated is the result of a mostly fair process (exempting wealth which is created by corruption of government and the seeking of rents created by that process). Steve Jobs didn't force people to buy Apple products, people decided that they were better off with the iPhone in their hands than they were with the money that it cost which they could have invested.

So, the point is, that to understand the issue we can't simply just look at wealth held in financial instruments. A man with a million dollars in investments can earn $50,000 per year off of that wealth and a penniless retired teamster with a pension that pays $50,000 per year is going to have the same income stream generated from a million dollars in capital which is working to his benefit. There is a huge wealth disparity between these two people but their lifestyles don't differ in terms of what their income can buy them and this significantly diminishes the importance of the wealth gap.


----------



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

iForgeDesigns said:


> Sorry bobbb this was really kind of a spur of the moment post. Just random thinking, also I have aspergers so I have a tendency to not think it through all the way, down side of the syndrome. So I apologize for sounding ignorant. And by the way I'm not really an activist per say


You got people thinking and discussing, that is what forums are all about :congrat:


----------



## Viking (Mar 16, 2009)

I tell people that think carbon dioxide is a problem to send it here in Oregon, it's what our young trees need to grow healthy, big and strong. Timber is needed for lumber for the homes the environmentalist stand in front of while talking to the TV news people about why we shouldn't be logging trees.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

The main thing is to stop confuseing political science with real science.

I love fossel fuels. We should be drilling for all we are worth.

People who support the Serria Club , (George Sorros) and other enviornmental groups, have their own vested intrest at heart.

For instance did you know why money is being donated from George Sorros to stop the Keystone pipeline ?

George Sorros owns the worlds largest fleet of super tankers in the world. He makes money shiping oil on the high seas. 

Which is the most danger to the enviornment , shiping oil on the high seas or pumping it through a pipeling over ground?

You can always follow the money !

As for the bovine flatulance theory creating CO2 gasses and polluting the atmosphere, why was this not a problem when tens of millions of Buffalo roamed from one end of the conentinant to the other?

Recon they just neglected to fart?


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

You are a dangerous person, you are thinking.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

drfacefixer said:


> He did! Its a great book. In that book, Crichton has an afterward that talks alot global warming and the debate. He doesn't take as much a stand on arguing the science of global warming as he does arguing that the media has suddenly made natural diasters much more apparent (although they are not) since the fall of communism. The idea is that media turned to nature as the destructive force and the boogeyman after the USSR crumbled. Now they use the fear of depression, recession and economic collapse; loss of civil liberties, ect... There is always something. Media is much more polarized than it used to be.


It was a great book. I did read it along with many of his other books. But, at the end, it is a fictional book and, in my opinion, should not be cited as a source to prove a point.

You won't get any arguement from me as to the media jumping on whatever they can to distract us or perhaps even control us. Whether this is purely money driven or whether you want to go tin foil and put some entity or group behind the media reporting this way... well that's another long forum topic for a different posting.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Bobbb said:


> Invoking magic doesn't help us.


Agreed. You want to stop the fossil fuel emissions then one portion is caused by car emmissions and at this point in time you're going to need some magic to suddenly make them go away. Peak oil is real. I don't have a timeframe to cite but I can't believe anyone
believes there is an infinte quantity in the earth. At some point it will run out. I don't have the answer... if I did I wouldn't need to know about prepping... I'd be able to pay someone to do it for me! 



Bobbb said:


> Again, invoking magic. Look there are trade-offs in play.


Essentially ditto response.



Bobbb said:


> If the world better off with preventing an increase of GHG levels in the atmosphere or better off with dealing with the effects? Is the world better off beggaring ourselves today for the benefit of a future generation or better off making the future generation richer and leaving them to address the problems that may develop by using their enhanced wealth?


Agreed. That is the question. But I will debate the richer aspect. Just because I make more than my parents and they made more than my grandparents doesn't mean I have any more spending power. Given our (and most other countries) financial situation I don't beleive "buying" our way out of it will.



Bobbb said:


> Good for him. That's sensible legislation in that it removes government bureaucrats and rent-seekers from using the public purse to fund schemes that no one else believes in.


Again I have to disagree. Destroying the land today to maximize crop yields leaves you with useless land tomorrow. If you're 70, then it's probably not a concern for you. But how about for your kids? Grandkids? We work, save and leave an inheritence to help them out. Is it wrong to have the same approach with the environment? To treat the land today with respect so it'll be able to continue producing for them 50 years from now?

A :2thumb: to the OP and the ongoing discussion. It's an interesting debate.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

CulexPipiens said:


> Agreed. You want to stop the fossil fuel emissions then one portion is caused by car emmissions and at this point in time you're going to need some magic to suddenly make them go away.


Well, we don't have the magic yet. Wishing for it won't make it materialize. The liberal approach of throwing taxpayer money at technologies which anyone who understands physics could tell you cannot replace fossil fuel technology also doesn't work as we see with the billions of cash flushed away and the increasing bankruptcies.



> Peak oil is real.


Everything in the universe has a peak. People reach a peak in their lives. The sun too has a midpoint peak. The universe itself can only expand for so long.

There is no magic available to make you live forever, so what is your strategy to live forever? There is no technology which can replace fossil fuels at the present, so what exactly should we do about our use of a non-infinite resource?



> I don't have a timeframe to cite but I can't believe anyone
> believes there is an infinte quantity in the earth.


We'll never, ever run out of fossil fuels. That's not how the universe functions. This doesn't mean that there are infinite supplies it just means that we'll never run out of fossil fuels.

If fossil fuels become scarce but they are still desired, but I can't imagine that this would ever arise, then the building blocks of fossil fuels are found in abundance in space, so we don't have to simply focus on what can be found in the earth, which should tide humanity over for many more centuries if need be before magic becomes feasible technology.



> At some point it will run out.


Nope, that'll never happen. We'll never run out of fossil fuel.



> Just because I make more than my parents and they made more than my grandparents doesn't mean I have any more spending power. Given our (and most other countries) financial situation I don't beleive "buying" our way out of it will.


You're focusing on wealth distribution, not societal wealth.

Back at the time of the founding of the US, the per capita wealth of a US citizen was equal to the per capita wealth of a Mexican citizen. Over the ensuing centuries the US economy grew just a tad faster than the Mexican economy and look at the result today. Which is a wealthier society, the US or Mexico?

Compound growth is a marvelous thing to behold.

If the US grows at an annualized rate of 2% per year for 100 years, a $30,000 income today would amount to $217,340 a 100 years hence.

If the US grows at an annualized rate of 3% per year for 100 years, a $30,000 income today would amount to $576,560 a 100 years hence.

Now, if liberals institute their wacko anti-growth policies and reduce annual economic growth to 1/4 of 1% per year for the next 100 years, a $30,000 income today would amount to $38,508 a 100 years hence.

Which future society has more wealth to direct to environmental remediation efforts a century in the future, the one which inherited an economy that has barely grown over a century because the decision was made to kill economic growth in order to not put MORE GHG into the atmosphere or the economy which grew at moderate rates and resulted in a lot of wealth being accessible to pay for dealing with the environmental consequences which MAY have developed over the course of the century.

Keep in mind that if we had implemented the recommendations of the Stern Report the miserable economy we're suffering through right now would look like a ray of sunshine and that the environmental doomsday predictions made by climate "scientists" have not arrived. In other words, we'd have purposely sacrificed to avert an outcome which wouldn't have arrived even if we had chosen to avoid the sacrifice.

The science of climate modeling is nowhere close to advanced enough that we can be assured by its predictions.



> Again I have to disagree. Destroying the land today to maximize crop yields leaves you with useless land tomorrow. If you're 70, then it's probably not a concern for you. But how about for your kids? Grandkids?


This is just a rehash of the Simon-Erhlich bet. Technology and substitution effects, in conjunction with scarcity, take a lot of pressure off of these doomsday outcome scenarios.



> We work, save and leave an inheritence to help them out. Is it wrong to have the same approach with the environment?


Probably. Today automobiles have catalytic converters, engines are more fuel efficient, they gasoline burned burns cleaner than the leaded gasoline of earlier eras.

If we had mandated that the standards of today were to be implemented in 1905, then the US would be a much poorer place, with much more suffering, more needless deaths, shorter lifespans, etc because technology development would have ground to a halt in its pursuit of a holy grail.

Keep in mind that spending takes two forms - consumption and investment. If resources are expended in a manner which yields beneficial outcomes, then you're better off having spent the money than not having spent it. For instance, if people couldn't borrow mortgage money and had to save every penny that a house cost, then far fewer people would be home owners and their net worth would be far less. By being able to borrow and buy a house, the home owner now benefits from an appreciating asset and his wealth increase as the decades pass. The same reasoning applies to your environment example. Would life for people in LA be better today if they had never gone through the smog-era of the mid century? Los Angelinos got wealthier and could afford the smog controlling restrictions and measures put in place to deal with the problem. The wealth that was used for this purpose was created through processes which created the pollution.

If environmentalists can find ways to achieve their goals without destroying wealth and economic growth, then the calculus changes, but as it stands now, environmentalists are basically watermelons, they're green on the outside for show, but deep inside all of their solutions are deeply red, deeply communist, and with communism comes all sorts of human rights violations and deplorable economic growth.



> To treat the land today with respect so it'll be able to continue producing for them 50 years from now?


Wealth that can be earned today is worth more than the same worth that can be earned a century hence, heck, even wealth that can be earned next year. Rather than allowing your land to lie fallow, use it, earn some wealth, and then when your land needs to recuperate you can grow your crops in the hothouse you built with the profits from using your land over the last while or you can grow your crops hydroponically as your land recuperates. In most cases you will be better off by having the wealth that you can use to develop your hothouse or hydroponic operation than not having the wealth and being a subsistence farmer just eking out enough produce from your land to sustain yourself and to keep the land healthy enough, without benefit of technology, for your children and their children to do the same.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

CulexPipiens said:


> Bill, you didn't just quote a work of fiction as a scientific source there... did you?


Actually no but Crichton debunks the standard global warming lies such as the fact that Antarctica isn't warming up and the sea levels are unchanged.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

CulexPipiens said:


> Again I have to disagree. Destroying the land today to maximize crop yields leaves you with useless land tomorrow. If you're 70, then it's probably not a concern for you. But how about for your kids? Grandkids? We work, save and leave an inheritence to help them out. Is it wrong to have the same approach with the environment? To treat the land today with respect so it'll be able to continue producing for them 50 years from now?


There's more cropland today than there was 100 years ago. Crop yields have increased so much that a lot of land is no longer in production. Not only that, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has led to higher crop yields.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1781024/posts

There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas - parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/1975-tornado-outbreaks-blamed-on-global-cooling/

Once you read this and you realize how often the global cooling hoax facts have been changed you have to wonder how gullible somebody has to be to believe in it.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

It seems like every story we see debunks the standard assumptions of global warming. Weren't tornadoes and hurricanes supposed to get worse? We're we supposed to get more of them? Then how about this:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/05/09/quiet-tornado-season/2148075/

The USA in the past 12 months has seen the fewest number of tornadoes since at least 1954, and the death tolls from the dangerous storms have dropped dramatically since 2011.

Just two years after a ferocious series of tornado outbreaks killed hundreds of Americans, the USA so far this year is enjoying one of the calmest years on record for twisters. Through Thursday, tornadoes have killed only three Americans in 2013; by the end of May 2011, 543 Americans had died.

The seven people killed from May 2012 to April 2013 is the fewest in a 12-month period since five people died in September 1899-August 1900, according to Harold Brooks, research meteorologist with the National Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, Okla.

The year-to-date count of tornadoes is probably approaching the lower 10% of all years on record, said Greg Carbin, warning coordination meteorologist with the Storm Prediction Center in Norman.

The reason: An unusually cool weather pattern from the Rockies to the East Coast. "Generally, the lower the temperature and/or the drier the air, the lower the number of thunderstorms," said AccuWeather meteorologist Alex Sosnowski.

Severe thunderstorms produce tornadoes, along with large hail and high winds.

So far in May - usually the USA's most active month - only three tornadoes have formed. All have been rated EF-0 on the Fujita scale of tornado intensity. EF-0 is the weakest rating for tornadoes, with wind speeds of about 65-85 mph.

The EF-5 tornado that ravaged Joplin, Mo., two years ago, had estimated wind speeds as high as 250 mph and killed 158 people.

The record low in tornadoes comes less than two years after a record high from 2010 to 2011, Weather Underground meteorologist Jeff Masters said. "The extraordinary contrast underscores the crazy fluctuations we've seen in Northern Hemisphere jet stream patterns during the past three years," he said. "Call it 'weather whiplash' of the tornado variety."

Current weather patterns are expected to continue into the first part of summer, likely keeping 2013 well behind the curve for violent thunderstorms and tornadoes, AccuWeather reports.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

This article just came out:

http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html

Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere

NaturalNews) Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.

As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's lower atmosphere.

The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth's upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.

"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."

Almost all 'heating' radiation generated by sun is blocked from entering lower atmosphere by CO2

According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere. Without these necessary elements, in other words, the earth would be capable of absorbing potentially devastating amounts of solar energy that would truly melt the polar ice caps and destroy the planet.

"The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet," write H. Schreuder and J. O'Sullivan for PSI. "[T]his compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr. James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS."

Dr. Hansen, of course, is an outspoken global warming activist who helped spark man-made climate change hysteria in the U.S. back in 1988. Just after the release of the new SABER study, however, Dr. Hansen conveniently retired from his career as a climatologist at NASA, and reportedly now plans to spend his time "on science," and on "drawing attention to [its] implications for young people."

You can read more details of the new NASA SABER study by visiting:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

You can also check out a informative, four-minute video report on the solar storm here:





Sources for this article include:

http://principia-scientific.org

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/


----------



## Sybil6 (Jan 28, 2013)

Global warming or not, I still don't see why we should do things that injure other species around us... Things die from pollution, not just gas pollution, but plastics and things that go not decompose. Despite global warming, we ARE killing our only home.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Sybil6 said:


> Global warming or not, I still don't see why we should do things that injure other species around us... Things die from pollution, not just gas pollution, but plastics and things that go not decompose. Despite global warming, we ARE killing our only home.


There is no snark or ill-intent in the comment that is directed at you, so I hope you don't take offense.

Considering the thrust of your question, why are you using a computer and using the internet? Don't you know how many toxic substances and toxic processes were involved in manufacturing the equipment that you use and how about the pollution that is caused by the electricity generation needed to power your use of your computer and the internet infrastructure that enables you to post a message on this board? You're doing exactly what you counsel we shouldn't be doing.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Where do I start? Of course we can go back and forth and I don't believe either of us are going to change our minds... but I'll put forth my opinion once more.



Bobbb said:


> Well, we don't have the magic yet. Wishing for it won't make it materialize. The liberal approach of throwing taxpayer money at technologies which anyone who understands physics could tell you cannot replace fossil fuel technology also doesn't work as we see with the billions of cash flushed away and the increasing bankruptcies.


No, but you have to start somewhere. Certainly "investing" in smoke and mirros isn't the answer but ignoring a problem isn't an answer either.



Bobbb said:


> There is no magic available to make you live forever, so what is your strategy to live forever? There is no technology which can replace fossil fuels at the present, so what exactly should we do about our use of a non-infinite resource?


Use it wisely while figuring out an alternative.



Bobbb said:


> We'll never, ever run out of fossil fuels. That's not how the universe functions. This doesn't mean that there are infinite supplies it just means that we'll never run out of fossil fuels.


You make this claim based on what?



Bobbb said:


> If fossil fuels become scarce but they are still desired, but I can't imagine that this would ever arise, then the building blocks of fossil fuels are found in abundance in space, so we don't have to simply focus on what can be found in the earth, which should tide humanity over for many more centuries if need be before magic becomes feasible technology.


So we're not good enough to come up with alternatives but somehow we're going to be good enough to go into space and drag home more fossil fuels????? :scratch



Bobbb said:


> Back at the time of the founding of the US, the per capita wealth of a US citizen was equal to the per capita wealth of a Mexican citizen. Over the ensuing centuries the US economy grew just a tad faster than the Mexican economy and look at the result today. Which is a wealthier society, the US or Mexico?


Which society is in more debt? Which country is approaching a bigger financial collapse?



Bobbb said:


> Compound growth is a marvelous thing to behold.


So is hyperinflation... although "marvelous" might not be the word to use here. I do understand compounding and finances however when COL is outpacing the growth you've still made no headway.



Bobbb said:


> Which future society has more wealth to direct to environmental remediation efforts a century in the future, the one which inherited an economy that has barely grown over a century because the decision was made to kill economic growth in order to not put MORE GHG into the atmosphere or the economy which grew at moderate rates and resulted in a lot of wealth being accessible to pay for dealing with the environmental consequences which MAY have developed over the course of the century.


Again, we're not good enough to do something about the problem but suddenly we can just throw money at it and end up with a solution? Oh wait, isn't that what the government has been doing? Throw money at possible solutions? But wait, you said that's bad. But in a century it'll be good?

But ignoring the whole money issue... Let me try a different example. I buy a house. Should I ignore upkeep on it for 40 years and then throw a lot of money at it and hope maybe everything wrong and broken can be fixed and somehow salvaged or should I take care of it over the years so when it's 30 it's still in good shape? If you don't believe in climate change, then in 100 years nothing will need to be done. However if it is legitimate, in 100 years it may be so screwed up then there is nothing that can be done.



Bobbb said:


> Keep in mind that if we had implemented the recommendations of the Stern Report the miserable economy we're suffering through right now would look like a ray of sunshine and that the environmental doomsday predictions made by climate "scientists" have not arrived. ...
> The science of climate modeling is nowhere close to advanced enough that we can be assured by its predictions.


More frequent storms? Strong storms? More drought? More heat waves? Artic ice opening more and more each year? All are documented to be occuring and all are predictions of climate models. Sure any one or two taken out of context is not proof but the totality strongly supports that a change is happening.



Bobbb said:


> If we had mandated that the standards of today were to be implemented in 1905, then the US would be a much poorer place, with much more suffering, more needless deaths, shorter lifespans, etc because technology development would have ground to a halt in its pursuit of a holy grail.


There is no proof of this one way or the other.



Bobbb said:


> Keep in mind that spending takes two forms - consumption and investment. If resources are expended in a manner which yields beneficial outcomes, then you're better off having spent the money than not having spent it. For instance, if people couldn't borrow mortgage money and had to save every penny that a house cost, then far fewer people would be home owners and their net worth would be far less. By being able to borrow and buy a house, the home owner now benefits from an appreciating asset and his wealth increase as the decades pass. The same reasoning applies to your environment example. Would life for people in LA be better today if they had never gone through the smog-era of the mid century? Los Angelinos got wealthier and could afford the smog controlling restrictions and measures put in place to deal with the problem. The wealth that was used for this purpose was created through processes which created the pollution.


So we're better off with the government borrowing money instead of only spending what they have?

What do you mean gone through? I flew through LA a few years ago and the brown bubble we flew into (and soon away from) was utterly disguting. The smog problem has not gone away. Perhaps lessened a bit since I have nothing to compare my "experience" to but it certainly wasn't fixed.



Bobbb said:


> Wealth that can be earned today is worth more than the same worth that can be earned a century hence, heck, even wealth that can be earned next year. Rather than allowing your land to lie fallow, use it, earn some wealth, and then when your land needs to recuperate you can grow your crops in the hothouse you built with the profits from using your land over the last while or you can grow your crops hydroponically as your land recuperates. In most cases you will be better off by having the wealth that you can use to develop your hothouse or hydroponic operation than not having the wealth and being a subsistence farmer just eking out enough produce from your land to sustain yourself and to keep the land healthy enough, without benefit of technology, for your children and their children to do the same.


Take a look at the results of various "industries" and how the land, decades later is still dead. I for one do not believe in destroying it and then hoping it recovers. Then again hothouses and hydroponics is such good proven technology that all farming is now done that.... oh wait most farming is still done in the ground.

I view the promotion of short term gain of wealth over a sustainable practice to be a poor practice.

Looks we're just going to have to agree that we're not going to agree on much in this topic.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

BillS said:


> Actually no but Crichton debunks the standard global warming lies such as the fact that Antarctica isn't warming up and the sea levels are unchanged.


The arctic is warming (lots more open sea for longer periods each year) and sea levels have changed.http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/ Models do not predict a consist change everywhere but both warming and cooling occurring in different areas.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

CulexPipiens said:


> No, but you have to start somewhere. Certainly "investing" in smoke and mirros isn't the answer but ignoring a problem isn't an answer either.


No one is ignoring the problem. There just haven't been any viable solutions proposed yet. Rushing forth with nutty environmentalist favored "solutions" which have to be bankrolled by the government clearly isn't working.



> Use it wisely while figuring out an alternative.


I'm not getting this. This sounds like leftist thinking to me, where "Use it wisely" translates into "Do what CulexPipens thinks is wise." Am I off the mark here?



> You make this claim based on what?


On how the universe works. Look at the gold market. What happens to the price of gold as supply restricts? The price goes up. What happens to demand as the price goes up? It falls.

As the supply of fossil fuels decreases, the price will go up. As the price goes up people either pay the higher price, migrate to substitutes or do without. As the price continues to increase, fewer and fewer people are willing to pay the price because the utility they reap from using the fossil fuel is no longer worth what they have to pay. As the price continues to rise due to scarcity, the demand will continue to fall.

What do we use fossil fuels for? Most of the supply goes to making plastics, producing energy and powering transportation. When the Earth is down to the last 1,000,000 tons of fossil fuels it will become very uneconomic to pay $1,000,000 per gallon for your gasoline when you could just walk or ride your horse or ride your bike or use your fusion-powered Delorean. The buyers who are willing to pay the $1,000,000 per gallon for gasoline or it's equivalent in crude oil form or in coal form, will have a use for such an expensive supply input and there are very few processes which can justify using coal/oil/gas at a $1,000,000 per gallon price level so the demand for gasoline will be very small, meaning that the last 1,000,000 tons of fossil fuels is going to last a long time.

Now fast forward in time and the Earth is down to it's last 1,000 tons of fossil fuels. The demand is going to be miniscule and the price is going to be astronomically high, meaning that the 1,000 tons of fossil fuels that remain on the Earth are going to be there for a very long time.

Now fast forward in time again and we're down to the last 10 tons of fossil fuels on the Earth. Let's say that it's now the year 4,788,943 AD. That 10 tons of coal is likely going to be stuck in a nature preserve or allocated to all of the museums in the world because it's near priceless.

We'll never run out of fossil fuels because as supply diminishes the price will approach infinity.



> So we're not good enough to come up with alternatives but somehow we're going to be good enough to go into space and drag home more fossil fuels????? :scratch


If push comes to shove and we need fossil fuels so badly, then we have the technology today to do this. The problem is that we have no orbital infrastructure in place so the upfront costs are huge. The actual retrieval of material and the delivery to the Earth's surface are very simple engineering problems. This is a grossly uneconomic process but the supply of material in the Solar System could provide for current levels of fossil fuel usage for millions of years. Now that would pose a problem for the environment - the introduction of extraterrestrial supplies of greenhouse gases.



> Which society is in more debt? Which country is approaching a bigger financial collapse?


National Debt simply reflects what we owe, it says nothing about what we own. The American economy is wealthier, the assets of American society are larger, and this means that we don't have to sacrifice as much as a poorer society in order to fund any given activity.

Who is better able to afford to buy a bottle of Lipton Iced-Tea, an American or a Somali? The richer person, the richer society, has more slack available with which to buy luxuries or to fund necessities.



> I do understand compounding and finances however when COL is outpacing the growth you've still made no headway.


This is mostly an allocation problem.



> Again, we're not good enough to do something about the problem but suddenly we can just throw money at it and end up with a solution?


There's nothing that we can do today which is viable as a replacement strategy and which doesn't slow our economic growth. What we can do is CHOOSE to put ourselves into permanent depression and as a result curtail our use of fossil fuels. The data show this clearly. When millions of people are out of work they don't need to drive their cars, they economize on how they heat their houses, they buy fewer consumer goods, meaning that those goods don't need to use energy for production, don't need to use fuel for transport, don't need workers in these ancillary capacities and thus their energy use also decreases.

People are making choices - they value eating and sleeping in a warm house more than they value reducing GHG emissions for the benefit of people living a century in the future.

At some future time, when new technology is developed and it becomes cheap enough to implement, the calculus between sleeping in a warm house, having a job, having food to feed your children versus reducing GHG emissions will change and people will choose to fund efforts to reduce GHG levels because the costs of doing so will be manageable. This is exactly what the US has done with water pollution, with smokestack emissions, with acid rain. Lowering levels of acid rain in 1905 would have been very expensive because the technology for doing so didn't exist and so to accomplish that goal would have entailed deindustrializing America and the consequent impoverishment of millions.



> If you don't believe in climate change, then in 100 years nothing will need to be done. However if it is legitimate, in 100 years it may be so screwed up then there is nothing that can be done.


But we don't actually live in a universe where a decision has to be made now or 100 years in the future and at no point in-between. We live in a universe where decisions can be reached at every hour of every day of every year in this 100 year time span. This means that a decision should be made when the conditions warrant such a decision. People clearly are not enthused about $15/gallon gasoline, electricity prices being increased by 600%, living in an economy mired in a depression like we've not yet experienced. The consequences for the far-off future are mostly immaterial to the people of today and the consequences of climate change today are judged not as important as having a job, having a heated home, having some electricity which is affordable.



> More frequent storms? Strong storms? More drought? More heat waves? Artic ice opening more and more each year? All are documented to be occuring and all are predictions of climate models.


To document these occurrences is quite easy - all that needs happen is some loudmouth says "This happens because of climate change" and then this is reported in the press and thus meets your condition of being documented. Such documentation is worthless in terms of scientific study and public policy formulation. It's so worthless that there are more counterclaims to all of your points.



> Sure any one or two taken out of context is not proof but the totality strongly supports that a change is happening.


Complex systems are rarely stable. Change happening is wired into the fabric of climate. Jumping from the observation of change occurring to the conclusion that you know precisely what is causing the change, the power of its effect and the remedy to prevent the change is an unsupportable position to take, one akin to a religious viewpoint.



> There is no proof of this one way or the other.


Of course there is proof. We have the historical and technological record. We know when certain technologies dealing with pollution remediation were invented, we know the cost curves associated with those technologies, and because we know this we can say that rolling out expensive, unrefined, early technology to the same scale as seen in the the gradual implementation of more refined, and lower cost, technology to deal with pollution issues would have been tremendously expensive. We also have the historical record on industrial products and the historical profitability of varied industries and we can match the data. Were early industrial processes profitable enough to fund hugely expensive early technology designed to reduce pollution and were they profitable enough to fund the even more expensive cutting edge tech that became mainstream and common after long product development cycles? We see this with computer chips and hard drives. People today can buy a multi-gigabyte thumb drive for a few bucks when the cost of a multi-gigabyte drive in 1968 would have cost millions of dollars. Telling the people of 1968 that they have to, by order of government, EACH buy a multi-gigabyte drive would have bankrupted the nation.



> So we're better off with the government borrowing money instead of only spending what they have?


If you're a machinist are you better off borrowing money to buy a CNC milling machine which can be used to earn a good income for you and to pay the loan or are you better off foregoing the borrowing, doing without the machine, and working as a fry cook at McDonald's?

The problem the US faces isn't borrowing too much, it's spending too much on non-productive uses.



> The smog problem has not gone away. Perhaps lessened a bit since I have nothing to compare my "experience" to but it certainly wasn't fixed.


Here is the historical record charting the air quality in the LA Basin back to the mid-70s.

Number of Basin-Days Exceeding Health Standard Levels
Old Federal Standard (1-hour average > 0.12 ppm)

1977 - 208 days.
2012 - 12 days.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Bobbb said:


> I'm not getting this. This sounds like leftist thinking to me, where "Use it wisely" translates into "Do what CulexPipens thinks is wise." Am I off the mark here?


Yes, only if I can claim that your side is "Do what Bobb thinks is best." To me, use it wisely is to do just that. You have a finite amout of something that could be causing a problem. Do we say "who cares" and do what we want? or do we look beyond our noses and consider that our actions could very well affect others. Once more, I consider what kind of place and what kinds of problems my kid and grand kids are going to be left with. That does not mean I got rid of my car and walk everywhere either. At no point do I claim to have the solution. And no, not leftist, but critical look at the facts, think and then draw my own conclusions.



Bobbb said:


> As the supply of fossil fuels decreases, the price will go up. As the price goes up people either pay the higher price, migrate to substitutes or do without. As the price continues to increase, fewer and fewer people are willing to pay the price because the utility they reap from using the fossil fuel is no longer worth what they have to pay. As the price continues to rise due to scarcity, the demand will continue to fall.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Mincing words. If no one can reasonablly get any then for all pracitcal purposes it is gone and we are out of it.



Bobbb said:


> If push comes to shove and we need fossil fuels so badly, then we have the technology today to do this. The problem is that we have no orbital infrastructure in place so the upfront costs are huge.


Really? We have technology to go into space, create a vast swamp, collapse it, wait for it to decompose, wait for it to turn into oil or coal and then mine/pump it and bring it back? At this point the best we could hope for is to lasso an asteroid and hope it has something useful in it and then somehow get it into orbit and mine it without having it slip and plummet to earth.



Bobbb said:


> National Debt simply reflects what we owe, it says nothing about what we own. The American economy is wealthier, the assets of American society are larger, and this means that we don't have to sacrifice as much as a poorer society in order to fund any given activity.


I "own" a house so am I wealthy? Oh wait, I owe on a large mortgage and don't actually own anything, the bank does and they fictiously create money. So, no, I don't believe we have a richer society. Perhaps a more delusional one for the majority out there but not richer. We have higher income than most of the planet. We also have higher costs to our goods than most of the planet.



Bobbb said:


> ...Lowering levels of acid rain in 1905 would have been very expensive because the technology for doing so didn't exist and so to accomplish that goal would have entailed deindustrializing America and the consequent impoverishment of millions.


In every one of these examples you keep assuming things would have happend a specific way with a specific outcome without any proof, not that hypothetical discussion of the past could be discussed any other way. I look at it as do it twice or do it right the first time which ultimately, I find, ends up being cheaper.



Bobbb said:


> This means that a decision should be made when the conditions warrant such a decision. People clearly are not enthused about $15/gallon gasoline, electricity prices being increased by 600%, living in an economy mired in a depression like we've not yet experienced. The consequences for the far-off future are mostly immaterial to the people of today and the consequences of climate change today are judged not as important as having a job, having a heated home, having some electricity which is affordable.


So Bobb says "Now is not the time to make the decision!" and so we should all accept this? Just when is the time to make it? What are the conditions? Who gets to decide these are in fact the conditions?



Bobbb said:


> To document these occurrences is quite easy - all that needs happen is some loudmouth says "This happens because of climate change" and then this is reported in the press and thus meets your condition of being documented. Such documentation is worthless in terms of scientific study and public policy formulation. It's so worthless that there are more counterclaims to all of your points.


So... some loudmouth says "That science stuff is all a bunch of hooey!" and so we should ignore it instead? Of course if the press publishing it makes it worthless then all the claims that there is no climate change are thus just as invalid. At some point you have to review the actual studies themselves and decide for yourself what you believe and what you don't.



Bobbb said:


> If you're a machinist are you better off borrowing money to buy a CNC milling machine which can be used to earn a good income for you and to pay the loan or are you better off foregoing the borrowing, doing without the machine, and working as a fry cook at McDonald's?


Or option 3, work as a machinist, build up my experience and save so at some point I can open my own shop, buy the machine and not have to go into debt for it. Or option 4... or option 5 or...



Bobbb said:


> Here is the historical record charting the air quality in the LA Basin back to the mid-70s.


Sorry, that's some pseudo scientific hooey. I can't believe a historical record anything scientific or otherwise that was published especially when it has historical temperature records, other numbers, offers summaries or draws conclusions.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

CulexPipiens said:


> Yes, only if I can claim that your side is "Do what Bobb thinks is best."


Your comeback fails. I'm not telling anyone to do what I think is best. I let people make their own economic and environmental decisions because they know what is in their best interest. Your position is that the CulexPipens way is best for everyone. You see the difference?



> To me, use it wisely is to do just that.


Wisely by what universal standard? There is no universal standard. Same criticism as above.



> Once more, I consider what kind of place and what kinds of problems my kid and grand kids are going to be left with.


Fine, do as you please. My objection mostly focuses on environmentalists like you cramming your vision down my throat and same too with your favored solutions.



> Really? We have technology to go into space, *create a vast swamp, collapse it, wait for it to decompose, wait for it to turn into oil or coal and then mine/pump it and bring it back?*


Sweet Jaysus Almighty. If you're going to get snarky then do everyone a favor and know what you're talking about. People can tolerate a level of snark from someone who has a command of facts, but snark and ignorance combined together is a noxious brew.

Spectroscopic analysis of asteroidal bodies reveals:

Spectroscopic studies suggest, and 'ground-truth' chemical assays of meteorites *confirm*, that a wide range of resources are present in asteroids and comets, including nickel-iron metal, silicate minerals, semiconductor and platinum group metals, water, *bituminous hydrocarbons*, and trapped or frozen gases including carbon dioxide and ammonia.​


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

CulexPipiens said:


> To me, use it wisely is to do just that.


I'm going to expand my response to this environmentalist nonsense which takes the form of Marxist central planning.

Right now, building codes mandate new home construction include energy efficient windows and the standards for these windows increase with every revision to the codes.

The rationale for this requirement is that such windows reduce energy use in the home. The problem with this Marxist approach of central planning is that the cost of the energy used falls on the homeowner. If they want to spend more on energy and choose to save money by putting in recycled windows, they're denied the choice. There is no consideration given to the embodied energy of recycled windows and how that offset their lowered efficiency. There is no consideration given to the fact that all of these Marxist dictates in the building code increase the cost of housing and thus, at the margin, it drives people further away from where they choose to live in order to find housing of lower prices, thereby increasing their commuting distances and resulting in a substitution of greater energy used in commuting versus lesser amounts of energy used in heating/cooling a home. It doesn't account for a homeowner who uses recycled windows possibly riding his bike to work versus another owner who uses top of the line energy efficient windows in his home and then drives a Hummer to work.

What you think of as "wise" decisions are highly context dependent and so environmentalists like you who rely on the Marxist Central Planning vision of your ways being wise and other people's choices being unwise create vast inefficiencies and inconveniences and hardships for countless millions of people and you accomplish very little movement towards your goals because you can't account for the unintended consequences which arise from implementing your totalitarian impulses.

Take this simple example of energy efficient window mandates for new construction and multiply this a billion fold across the economy and it should become clear that what is a wise choice to you doesn't necessarily translate into a wise choice for the billions of situations where your commands have to be implemented.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Bobbb said:


> ...What you think of as "wise" decisions are highly context dependent and so environmentalists like you who rely on the Marxist Central Planning vision of your ways being wise and other people's choices being unwise create vast inefficiencies and inconveniences and hardships for countless millions of people and you accomplish very little movement towards your goals because you can't account for the unintended consequences which arise from implementing your totalitarian impulses.
> 
> Take this simple example of energy efficient window mandates for new construction and multiply this a billion fold across the economy and it should become clear that what is a wise choice to you doesn't necessarily translate into a wise choice for the billions of situations where your commands have to be implemented.


Bobbb, I believe in trying to live within reasonable means and limits that respect those around me and those that come after me, if you consider that so bad, then fine that's your opinion.

If you want to talk about Marxist Central Planning, then nearly EVERYTHING in building codes, laws, rules and regulations and government manadated policies and directions would fall into your model. So, complete anarchy is your preferred approach with everyone doing absolutely anything they want with no regard for anyone or anything else?

You want to talk about hardships being created for millions? Heck anything being done that I don't believe in I consider a hardship (as apparently you do to) since I, through taxes or being forced to buy/use something I don't want, end up spending money that I don't want to.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Bobbb said:


> Your comeback fails. I'm not telling anyone to do what I think is best.


Yes you are. You're telling me that what I believe is wrong (according to your beliefs) so I shouldn't be promoting what I believe in.



Bobbb said:


> I let people make their own economic and environmental decisions because they know what is in their best interest. Your position is that the CulexPipens way is best for everyone. You see the difference?


Honestly? No. We're discussing two diametricaly opposed view points on an issue in which we both feel our approach is better based on our own beliefs and opinions.



Bobbb said:


> Fine, do as you please. My objection mostly focuses on environmentalists like you cramming your vision down my throat and same too with your favored solutions.


I will as will you since I have the same objection in "Takers" cramming their "use it up, who cares" vision down my throat.



Bobbb said:


> Sweet Jaysus Almighty. If you're going to get snarky then do everyone a favor and know what you're talking about. People can tolerate a level of snark from someone who has a command of facts, but snark and ignorance combined together is a noxious brew.


At this point I am done with this discussion. Say what else you want about me, but we're both banging our heads against a wall that isn't going to budge and since it's degraded into name calling it's now a waste of my time. No hard feelings.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

CulexPipiens said:


> Yes you are. You're telling me that what I believe is wrong (according to your beliefs) so I shouldn't be promoting what I believe in.


Are you seriously not understanding the difference here? You've stated that your belief is that All Of Us Should Do As You Believe. My belief is that each of us knows what is in our own best interest. If we adopt my belief set you are still free to do what you think is best for yourself. If we adopt your belief set then I am forced to do something I disagree with but which pleases you.



> I will as will you since I have the same objection in "Takers" cramming their "use it up, who cares" vision down my throat.


If you don't want to use gasoline, you're free to not use gasoline. If you don't want to use natural gas, you're free not to use natural gas. No one is cramming anything down your throat. You Marxist environmentalists though are cramming your visions onto other people, forcing them to do things, pay for things, that they don't have an interest in using or paying for.



> No hard feelings.


No hard feelings on my part either.


----------

