Quote :

"its clear that you still have no legitimate response to my point"

course you only come in this thread in the first place to make sarcastic remarks of your own when somebody else dares to post something that questions the 100% certainty of catastrophic manmade global warming

11/2/2007 1:09:06 PM

I'm still trying to figure out why your post was made in the first place.

Once I've achieved this, I promise to have a direct response.

11/2/2007 1:11:55 PM

i'm sure you'll come with another of your well thought out and informed responses like "Oh wow, some authors talking about politics"

11/2/2007 1:12:38 PM

^^^^ Posts one of the all-time cheap shot leaders.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 1:13 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 1:13:29 PM

::reads last 10 posts::



C'mon kids play nice...

Quote :

"I remember when climate change killed 3,000+ American citizens.. unrelated? you compare two things using multiple criteria...but when i compare THE SAME TWO THINGS with a different criterion its apparently not relevant..."

So, what is this "new criterion" with which you compared GW and 9/11? After reading your post I have to assume it's the fact that terrorism on 9/11 killed 3,000 people, whereas no deaths have been attributed directly to GW. I'll agree that terrorism is a universally accepted threat, whereas the threat posed by GW is more controversial. I believe this was the point you were trying to make.

Good point. Try not to be such a fucking douchebag about it next time

9/11, and more generally the fear of terrorism, has led the US to adopt policies that accept torture, illegal searches and seizures, unregulated domestic spying, and the suspension of habeous corpus. GW, and the fear of catastrophic climate change, has led people to push renewable energy takling points and justify severe cutbacks in coal and oil. It's also provided good talking points related to pulling out of the Middle East, which we've meddled in primarily to GET said oil.

Both the right-wing and left-wing have seized on these issues to justify radical and impractical policy changes.

See? Isn't that a much better discussion topic than "9/11 - 3000, GW - 0... 9/11 wins!!!"

11/2/2007 5:24:05 PM

I am replying to Erios back on page 35.

Quote :

"First, saying we have cleaner coal plants than China is like saying NC State is better in football than NCCU."

So in other words you agree with me that we are doing a better job than our main global competitor. Good. The whole environmentalist debate is one of where to draw the line. The easiest way to reduce
all emissions from coal fired plants would be to simply eliminate them. On the other side of things we could deregulate them to make electricity cheaper. More controls, more cost.

Quote :

"That's a big fat negative Houston. It's true that current regulations have high pollution standards, but it wasn't until recently that major grandfather loopholes were shut to force current coal-fired plants from evading those standards:"

Actually this whole story goes to point out something that LoneSnark has done an excellent job of articulating in numerous debates. Environmental controls are primarily a tool for current existing industries to gain an edge over new competition. Grandfather clauses give a big advantage for the existing plants because they do not have deal with the costs associated to the new environmental controls. Logically the problem is not with industry, the problem is with a ill-conceived environmentalist legislation which inadvertently encouraged pollution. The article
linked below makes this argument in more depth than I wish to here.

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2002/stavins_new_source_review_globe_012602.htm

In short, the best thing to do would be to scrap the bad law and instead enforce a uniform standard. This is more a problem of congress than industry. They encouraged the pollution through their poor policy.

I want the air to be clean too. I just want electricity to stay at its current cost or better yet get cheaper.

Quote :

"This is an excellent example how industry is NOT always self-regulating. As I said, pollution costs typically don't show up on a stat sheet. Industry saves money by not upgrading their facilities, but it's the public that pays the true costs via respiratory problems. I don't consider this fact to be "slander" to coal power plants. To be fair, I'm not playing the "evil industry card." I am saying that what is inexpensive is not always right. You can't ask the locals to accept more asthma attacks simply because it "costs more.""

See this is where we disagree partially and here is why I must insist there is a big difference between pollution controls and efficiency.

1.) efficiency increasing means that it takes less coal to make the same energy. This should
reduce costs for the plant in many cases.

2.) pollution controls are more or less glorified filters (scrubbers) placed on the smokestacks of the plants. The sole purpose of these devices is to remove pollutants. This does not make any power, although it may save the power company $$ in some future law suit by the asthma lobby. But, I view such costs as a random act of stupidity encouraged by our reckless legal system.

I'm not against all regulation, I just think that the regulation should be fair to all the power producers, not just the big plants that currently are in operation. I wonder how much of our current problems with the electrical grid is due to these bad environmental laws stifling the natural expansion of the power industry. It is in the interest of the existing plants to fix the supply as the demand increases, they stand to profit greatly and they can do it all under the auspices of being green.

Notice I said the efficiency is in the interest of industry. I did not say pollution controls were in the interest of industry.

Quote :

"You're kidding right?"

sometimes, but not here. See my comments above.

Quote :

"Look mathman, I see where you are coming from. I respect the time and diligence you spent responding to my post(s). I'm more than happy to continue this lively debate. But 50 years? This is the biggest piece of bullshit I've seen in a while. Pwnt "

Based on just Alaska perhaps it would be BS. However, if you throw in all the other off-shore sources
it would be much more oil. Moreover, we will not really know how much oil is up there until we drill
more test wells. Anyway, you are all for solar power or whatever else making up a small portion of the
net energy demand of the US. By that logic you should also be for ANWR even if it only serves to reduce the percentage of our dependence on foreign oil. Or maybe you just don't like oil at all, I don't know. These folks know more about it than I do,

http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/potent.html

Quote :

"Don't insinuate that NIMBY folk, Democrats, and radical environmentalists are responsible for our energy dependence on foreign oil."

They are least partly to blame with the oil. They are MUCH MUCH more to blame when it comes to
out continued reliance on coal fired (evil CO2 producing polar bear killing) plants. As I have said many many times we need to pursue nuclear energy. It already takes care of many of the real or imagined dangers of anthropomorphic global warming. But hey, what's the political gain in championing nuclear power?

11/8/2007 1:17:46 AM

Quote :

"So in other words you agree with me that we are doing a better job than our main global competitor. "

Oh absolutely. The US has some of, if not the, most strict air pollution standards in the world.

Quote :

"The easiest way to reduce all emissions from coal fired plants would be to simply eliminate them. "

Which we can't, and we both agree on that.

Quote :

"On the other side of things we could deregulate them to make electricity cheaper. More controls, more cost."

I understand that regulations increase cost. That's why you avoid bad/pointless regulations. The regulations you're refering to on the coal industry however are designed to help meet air quality standards. You're advocating cheaper energy at the expense of human health. I disagree with that position. Cheaper =/= better.

Quote :

"Actually this whole story goes to point out something that LoneSnark has done an excellent job of articulating in numerous debates. Environmental controls are primarily a tool for current existing industries to gain an edge over new competition. Grandfather clauses give a big advantage for the existing plants because they do not have deal with the costs associated to the new environmental controls. Logically the problem is not with industry, the problem is with a ill-conceived environmentalist legislation which inadvertently encouraged pollution. The article linked below makes this argument in more depth than I wish to here."

Not surprisingly, we're arguing in favor of the same position from two different perspectives.

Environmental controls are in theory designed to prevent industry from forcing unhealthy conditions on the public. I concur with your posted article that the old controls were ineffective and may very well have done more harm than good. Industry used loopholes in the legislation to avoid dealing with expensive upgrades in order to comply with the new standards.

From your perspective, big industry was forced to use these loopholes b/c the alternative was too expensive. From my perspective, big industry used its influence to create the loopholes for their own greedy financial purposes at the expense of the public good. So essentially, the controls suck, and the disgreement is over who's to blame.

Quote :

"Based on just Alaska perhaps it would be BS. However, if you throw in all the other off-shore sources it would be much more oil."

If that's your argument, then make it. If you'd like to argue that green uproar is overblown, that's fine too. But you cannot make the assertion that Alaskan oil will make us "energy independent." That amount of oil is multiple orders of magnitude higher than even the most ambitious estimates.


This is the real key to the discussion, so I left it for last:

Quote :

"pollution controls are more or less glorified filters (scrubbers) placed on the smokestacks of the plants. The sole purpose of these devices is to remove pollutants. This does not make any power, although it may save the power company $$ in some future law suit by the asthma lobby. But, I view such costs as a random act of stupidity encouraged by our reckless legal system."

Trying to prevent human health hazards is a "random act of stupity"? If you're arguing that previous/current legislation is ineffective, or doing more harm than good, then that's fine. That doesn't mean the concept is bad. It means the law has to be written more effectively.

In normal business practices, when you make a bad product, nobody buys it. You go out of business. Or you redesign the product, having received the poor feedback, and create a better product that people will buy. Sounds good. Now apply this example to the coal industry. If a coal plant operates inefficiently, it earns less revenue and is eventually forced out by better competition. Or, the coal plant can continually improve efficiency to earn more money and, as a result, pollute less.

Sounds great, but here's the problem - Let's say that people living near said coal plant start coming down with abnormally high rates of asthma. Now, using the same theory, the coal plant will either have to improve its pollution controls or face the prospect of being forced out of business. However, what's to stop the plant from disputing its liability? "You're blaming us? Prove it." Legislation ensues and lasts for years. Meanwhile asthma problems persist and actually get worse. Ultimately a judgment comes back as compensation for the victims.

Several problems with this:

1) No actions to fix the problem are justified until the judgment is passed.
2) The company may go bankrupt, thus leaving the victims out of luck.
3) Even if the judgment is in the public's favor, how strict do the standards have to be? Who should set them? The debate would continue on frivilously at the expense of the original victims.


There's an underlying assumption in conservative philosophy that private, deregulated business is ultimately self-correcting. It's true that the coal industry could ultimately self correct itself in time given enough lawsuits and public outrage, but is this truly fair? Why should the public have to endure poor health standards while the industry takes the time to sort itself out? The common good is clearly violated in this case. Environmental standards are not only practical, they are necessary in establishing what constitutes "safe" levels of pollution.

This of course only takes into consideration the human-related impacts of pollution. What if the pollution start affecting local wildlife? Now you're facing lawsuits from local hunters with no ducks to hunt. How about water pollution? Now you're facing lawsuits over fish kills, thus putting local fisherman out of work. Soon lawsuits from every conceivable angle are hitting you daily. All of the sudden environmental controls make a lot more sense.

Obviously it is impossible to entirely eliminate risk in pollution. That's part of the price we pay for energy. We can however regulate it in order to avoid the lion-share of the harm while still reaping the benefits. We also have to write effective legistlation that actually works. Modern politics will always make this a challenge. It's the price we pay for our system of government. By allowing everyone a voice, you have to allow all the stupid voices to be heard.


Instead of demonizing environmental controls, you ought to be thanking us liberals for them. They are in fact the only thing that helps you avoid going out of business due to the previously unforeseen consequences of your product.

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 8:09 PM. Reason : Having reread this, this may be my greatest post... ever ]

11/8/2007 8:05:15 PM

Weather Channel Founder Calls Global Warming A 'Scam'

Quote :

"When John Coleman founded The Weather Channel in the early 1980's, he probably never could have guessed that TWC would be promoting the theory of global warming in the 2000's. That's because Coleman doesn't believe in global warming, or so-called climate change. In a November 7 blog entry on icecap.us, Coleman makes it clear that he does not oppose environmentalism, but he says that global warming is a 'non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam.' 'I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct,' Coleman wrote. 'The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril.' Coleman believes that in time, the global warming theory will be proven to be a scam when none of the predicted catastrophic events, such as coastal flooding and super storms, actually materialize. Coleman also criticized CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic party, and even California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, calling them 'well informed, but very gullible.' Coleman now works as a broadcast meteorologist at San Diego's KUSI-TV. The Weather Channel has no comment about Coleman, other than to say that he left the network in 1983."

http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/national/11114421.html

Indeed.

11/9/2007 12:56:09 PM

Last week, a bunch of authors.

This week, a weather reader.

11/9/2007 1:06:04 PM

Does he actually address any particular position, or does he just say "I know it's wrong." What's the reasoning behind it?

11/9/2007 1:10:16 PM

Quote :

"Does he actually address any particular position"

No.

Quote :

", or does he just say "I know it's wrong.""

Yes.

Quote :

"What's the reasoning behind it?"

I don't know.

11/9/2007 1:11:46 PM

Quote :

"'I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct,' Coleman wrote."

If Coleman were supporting global warming alarmism, you would be attacking anyone that questioned his motives, credentials, and conclusions. In addition, his opinion would be all over the mainstream media--and you know it. Your reactions and the media's lack of attention to Coleman's anti-hysteria postion are all quite disingenuous, I must say.

11/9/2007 1:20:32 PM

Once again: what is his specific issue? It takes more than somebody just saying that they agree or disagree. THIS IS SCIENCE. You have to back your positions.

11/9/2007 1:24:58 PM

salisburyboy was pretty convinced the mainstream media actively failed to report suppressed a lot of things, too.

11/9/2007 1:25:23 PM

^^his views are probably the same points discussed over and over again earlier in this thread. Back around the first 10-15 pages.

11/9/2007 1:39:54 PM

i think the issue is too complicated for a definitive cause-effect relation to be created; i do think it is ignorant to blindly assume that humans could not perceivably effect the climate of the earth to any degree.

11/9/2007 2:05:47 PM

Hahahaha The Weather Channel. Now there is a scam.

11/9/2007 2:11:34 PM

Clinton campaign admits planting questions

Quote :

"Hillary Clinton stopped at a biodiesel plant in Newton, Iowa, last week to see alternative fuels in the making and to drive home the week's campaign theme of her energy plan. After a tour, the candidate took questions from the crowd. She called on a young woman. 'As a young person,' said the well-spoken Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, 'I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change? 'Well, you should be worried,' Clinton replied. 'You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it's usually young people that ask me about global warming.' There's a good reason for that, too. The question was a plant, totally rigged in advance, like a late-night infomercial. Just before the public forum a Clinton staffer had chosen the young woman, a student at Grinnell College, and asked her to ask that specific question. Trouble is, the young woman told others, and her account showed up on the Grinnell website, including mention that the staffer signaled Clinton whom to call on [emphasis added]. As other campaigns chuckled and hypocritically spread the news far and wide ('That's what George Bush does,' intoned John Edwards at the Iowa Farmers Union), a Clinton campaign spokesman sheepishly admitted the plant. 'On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Sen. Clinton's energy plan at a forum. However, Sen. Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated' [emphasis added]."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-ticket11nov11,1,724688.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&track=crosspromo

Yeah, "global warming" is so alarming that the left-wing moonbats have to plant questions about it at public forums. GG!

11/12/2007 4:01:31 PM

Yea, it's alarming, thats why the question was planted

11/12/2007 4:15:44 PM

Quote :

"Yea, it's alarming alarmist, thats why the question was planted"

Fixed.

11/12/2007 4:22:27 PM

Quote :

"'That's what George Bush does,'"

I wonder why hooksaw doesn't get upset when this practice happens elsewhere.

11/12/2007 4:22:31 PM

It's not alarmist either

11/12/2007 4:23:18 PM

^^

Quote :

"That's what George Bush Hillary Clinton does,"

I wonder why hooksaw A Tanzarian doesn't get upset when this practice happens elsewhere in a liberal camp.

Fixed.

In case you haven't noticed, Bush is a lame duck--although he's still kicking the shit out of the Democrat-led Congress most days. It's time to get over your Bush derangement syndrome, focus on the future, and stop living in the past, okay?

^ Keep telling yourself that, troll.

[Edited on November 12, 2007 at 4:29 PM. Reason : .]

11/12/2007 4:28:50 PM

Who said I'm not upset by this? I certainly didn't.

Upset is probably a strong word, but it's certainly disingenuous, to say the least.

Anyways, nice try putting words in my mouth.

11/12/2007 4:33:42 PM

I'm not trolling you retard. I can't help you try to invent stuff that you think we should get pissed or upset about, then completely miss our arguments despite them smacking you in the face like a 7 year old that just acted out of line.

What else can I do? Arguments are in one eye out the other with you, bypassing your brain.

11/12/2007 4:42:19 PM

^ Try addressing this, troll:

Clinton campaign admits planting questions

11/12/2007 4:52:40 PM

I agree with what Tanzarian said. But it's nothing to get all jacked up about, no matter how much bold, italics, and rolleyes you use.

11/12/2007 5:04:12 PM

Who the fuck cares? Did this change anyone's mind on climate change? I doubt it.

Quote :

"And this has been another Sand in the Vagina moment brought to you by hooksaw"

11/12/2007 7:26:47 PM

Quote :

"^ Try addressing this, troll: Clinton campaign admits planting questions"

How about sticking to the point of the thread, which incidently is NOT about Hillary bashing

11/14/2007 7:31:41 AM

the movie has more wrong than right in it

11/15/2007 11:48:12 AM

Were fucked

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/16/spain.climate.ap/index.html

Quote :

"The report also predicts a rise in global warming of around 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade."

11/17/2007 9:30:36 AM

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-flipping-point&upsid=613842048646

11/20/2007 11:13:52 AM

^^ OMG A RISE IN GLOBAL WARMING!!! OMFG!!!

^ nice. Guy says exactly what is wrong with the current global fearmongering movement and then proceeds to ignore it, because the "data" (which ignores plenty of other data to the contrary and other data which better explains the current phenomena) says it's different now. He even cites CO2 levels as being "just right" or "too little." What an ignorant fool.

I'm willing to bet he just ignores the FACT that CO2 levels increase AFTER temperature increases, according to the "data," too.

11/20/2007 5:46:06 PM

BE ALARMED DAMNIT!!!

11/20/2007 5:51:09 PM

Quote :

"John Coleman founded The Weather Channel in the early 1980's"

Quote :

"Coleman now works as a broadcast meteorologist at San Diego's KUSI-TV."

There's a man who obviously makes wise decisions and I should listen to

11/20/2007 6:02:56 PM

theeeeeeeere we go. Ignore the man's words and attack the man instead. Makes perfect sense. Clearly this is how science should operate, after all.

11/20/2007 6:17:50 PM

I already read his words. I trust climate scientists from NASA over some kook who couldn't even a job at the company he created.

It's called validity. Whose opinion and experience is more valid in the public perception. You all seemed to have tag him as the end-all be-all source on everything climate change. I say that he doesn't have the credentials to make such a determination.

11/20/2007 6:26:35 PM

I'll trust some "kook" before I'll trust some "scientist" at NASA who was WRONG BEFORE with his global climate fearmongering and whose methods for his current global climate fearmongering have been kept secret for years. Moreover, I'll trust this "scientist" even less when it turns out that his current methods are complete and total shams.

11/20/2007 6:28:52 PM

Everyone knows that the academic community is the most valid forum for assessing scientific validity. The methodology can be challenged, as can the model, the data and the researcher bias. I would like to see what this kook read that swayed him to his position. Otherwise, the rest of the world seems to be addressing the issue, if not for climate change then for energy independence, economic stability and national security. We can justify a change in our system based on those alone, without even considering the environmental impacts. But we won't....and that's what we get for letting the Git R' Duns in the White House.



[Edited on November 20, 2007 at 6:36 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2007 6:34:34 PM

otherwise, the rest of the world seems to believe in this alleged issue. How about we actually have a scientific discussion on this? You know, something we have failed EVER to have. And I am talking actual science, NOT speculation, and NOT politics (IPCC). I'm talking about the kind of science that actually seeks to VALIDATE its results before saying "I WAS RIGHT!! WOOOOOOOOO!"

11/20/2007 6:38:55 PM

Quote :

"'m talking about the kind of science that actually seeks to VALIDATE its results"

Um, isn't the entire point not to validate the expected result?

Let's wait until we have created a crisis so we can prove we were right that we would cause a crisis! brilliant!

11/20/2007 7:47:15 PM

ummm no. The point is to act on validated results. If the only way you are saying that we can "validate" the results is to sit and wait, then what, really, is that saying about your "science?" It says that you don't know SHIT and are trying to push public policy based on knowing NOTHING. [/thread][/fearmongering debate]

11/20/2007 9:33:08 PM

^^ Can you honestly tell me that had Coleman supported Gore-style global warming alarmism, he would not be touted as part of "the movement" and his statements frequently quoted? The answer is self-evident.

11/21/2007 12:02:29 AM

Thank God there are some voices of reason in this thread now.

Personally I'm done arguing about this ridiculous topic. I'm just gonna wait for the next cold trend in our climate and then throw it back in yo' face!

11/21/2007 12:06:38 AM

^ The loons will just say the "cold trend" is global warming, too.

11/21/2007 12:32:44 AM

We in America don't respond until the worst possible thing occurs. The fact that we didn't confront airline security and terrorism until after 9/11 is an example of this. Policymakers are risk averse (nobody wants to be the risk-taker, especially when it effects economic development). We are not proactive in the least. The same European people most of us derive our heritage from are united on this issue; and to deride them as intellectually inferior is to deride ourselves.


[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 12:48 AM. Reason : .]

11/21/2007 12:46:51 AM

^ It's overwhelmingly those on the left that "deride" anyone that doesn't agree with them as "intellectually inferior" or worse. If you're a global warming alarmist, I don't think that you're inferior--I simply think that you're wrong.

11/21/2007 1:21:10 AM

I wonder what kind of person that accepts the idea of global climate change isn't viewed as an 'alarmist' by hooksaw. Or perhaps it's okay to simply say that yeah the earth is getting warmer just as long as your head remains firmly in the sand (or up your ass) just enough to not give a damn.

11/21/2007 3:19:05 AM

Quote :

" "The Scientists Speak," reads the headline of the New York Times editorial, which informs us that there is no question the New York Times editorialists are right: The world's scientists have done their job. Now it's time for world leaders, starting with President Bush, to do theirs. That is the urgent message at the core of the latest--and the most powerful--report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 2,500 scientists who collectively constitute the world's most authoritative voice on global warming. Released in Spain over the weekend, the report leaves no doubt that man-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels (and, to a lesser extent, deforestation) have been responsible for the steady rise in atmospheric temperatures. There is no doubt! These are scientists, after all, and they're working for the U.N. They don't make mistakes! Or do they? Here's a news story that also appears in the Times today: The United Nations' AIDS-fighting agency plans to issue a report today acknowledging that it overestimated the size of the epidemic and that new infections with the deadly virus have been dropping each year since they peaked in the late 1990s. We're so confused. Didn't the scientists speak? How could they have gotten it so wrong? After all, they're scientists! Here's a quote from the Washington Post that may shed some light on the matter: "There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda," said Helen Epstein, author of "The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS." "I hope these new numbers will help refocus the response in a more pragmatic way." Could it be that we are watching the same phenomenon with the whole global-warmist hysteria? Our bet would be yes."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010887

11/21/2007 9:09:19 AM

Could it be that "alarmism" or risk aversion is the only way to advance the issue? Economic interests have so intensively lobbied to suppress and stymie any action on global warming (for decades), its ridiculous to decry the methods that are used to promote the issue in the popular consciousness without decrying the methods that have been used to silence any meaningful discussion.

11/21/2007 11:15:11 AM