BBC: What Happened to Global Warming? - Page 24 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-17-2009, 05:58 PM   #346
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,886
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Because they face no real opposition these guys just aren't as well versed in the minced enviro-speak of "environmental justice," "investment in green jobs," "carbon trading," and "global moral imperative." They just say what they mean.
INDY, why bother bringing up bit players like Chavez and Mugabe...


when real economic powers like China are rushing to join the Climate Cartel?
__________________

__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 06:00 PM   #347
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Nothing?

Putting aside the trillions in higher taxes and higher energy and fuel costs we will pay. What about the loss of personal liberties? Say goodbye to driving what you want, where you want, when you want. Gone with that the freedom to travel both domestically and abroad. And already there are calls for central temperature controls via the smart grid, banning of big screen Tvs, banning of incandescent light bulbs, meat rationing and one child per family restrictions.

And can a price even be put on forfeiting our national sovereignty to unaccountable global governing bodies?

Sure, "nothing" if you ignore all that.
So the response, then, is to bury your head in the sand and have a temper tantrum. If you're concerned about higher taxes, then suggest ways as to how government can be more efficient with the taxes it currently has--i.e., for example, cutting other programs to fund new priorities.

As for driving restrictions, those are wholly unnecessary if new technologies like hydrogen fuel cells, as one example, are adopted. The upcoming ban on incandescent light bulbs in the U.S., one must be reminded, happened on Bush's watch; but also had led to more efficiency:

Quote:
Prompted by U.S. legislation mandating increased bulb efficiency by 2012, new "hybrid" incandescent bulbs have been introduced by Philips. The "Halogena Energy Saver" incandescent is 30 percent more efficient than traditional designs, using a special chamber to reflect formerly-wasted heat back to the filament to provide additional lighting power.
Who here is surprised that no company bothered to implement this before the threat of a ban?

In terms of the erosion of personal liberties...well, I'd ask where were you when the Patriot Act was being written, for instance? That aside, these are concerns that can be dealt with by conservatives as constructive criticism. The operative word here is constructive. That means offering alternative plans that can achieve similar conservation goals with fewer sacrifices. Spouting denialist conspiracy theories and other incoherencies with the expressed goal of resisting change of any kind will solely lead to the Left setting the entire agenda, and I would quite firmly argue that there is danger in any ideology--Left or Right--forging policy unchallenged. But that's precisely what you're going to get the longer the Right insists on an essentially 19th century approach for 21st century energy needs.
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 06:09 PM   #348
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:03 AM
As an aside, why the incandescent bulb isn't going away, due to efficiency innovations prompted by legislation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/bu...s.html?_r=2&hp

Quote:
Researchers across the country have been racing to breathe new life into Thomas Edison’s light bulb, a pursuit that accelerated with the new legislation. Amid that footrace, one company is already marketing limited quantities of incandescent bulbs that meet the 2012 standard, and researchers are promising a wave of innovative products in the next few years.

Indeed, the incandescent bulb is turning into a case study of the way government mandates can spur innovation.

“There’s a massive misperception that incandescents are going away quickly,” said Chris Calwell, a researcher with Ecos Consulting who studies the bulb market. “There have been more incandescent innovations in the last three years than in the last two decades.”
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 06:43 PM   #349
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 10:03 AM
it does seem that American Capitalism is the strongest force in the history of the world and can solve any and all problems (health care, for one) ... but a few environmental regulations will kill it dead as a doornail.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 07:11 PM   #350
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Paranoid much?

Where is this one child, can't travel here, must watch small TV bill?

Where INDY, where? I've asked you before, you couldn't answer, so I ask you again...

WHERE?
Ask and ye shall receive.


Quote:
California Proposes Ban on Energy-Hogging HDTVs Starting in 2011
California Proposes Ban on Energy-Hogging HDTVs Starting in 2011 | Gadget Lab | Wired.com

Quote:
China says one-child policy helps protect climate
Reuters AlertNet - China says one-child policy helps protect climate
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 07:27 PM   #351
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 10:03 AM
and what's amazing, is that technologies like LED for HDTVs will get better and better as a result of pending legislation. environmental regulations have a way of spurring along innovation -- they work the magic you think tax cuts do.

as for the one-child policy (and the One World Government) -- that's Black Helicopter stuff.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 07:32 PM   #352
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 09:03 AM
You conservatives have never been any good at nuance. This is not a ban on big screen TVs, this is a control on how much energy one TV can use. You'll still be able to watch your porn on a big screen, don't worry.

Hate to point out the obvious, but I guess this is what it's come down to... China has always tried to control it's population, and we are not China.

I can't even say "nice try"...

Epic fail, paranoia will cause stress and stress will take years off your life. The more you're informed(by real information) the longer you'll live. Give it a try!
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 08:02 PM   #353
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:03 AM
Energy efficient TV's = big savings over the lifetime of the TV
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 08:14 PM   #354
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
environmental regulations have a way of spurring along innovation -- they work the magic you think tax cuts do.
So does free market competition.
Quote:
as for the one-child policy (and the One World Government) -- that's Black Helicopter stuff.
Oh I don't worry 'bout them black helicopters. If anitram is going to ban hummers then I don't expect big fuel-gulping black helicopters to be too far behind.

Limos and private jets for "the elites" will remain of course.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 08:33 PM   #355
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
So the response, then, is to bury your head in the sand and have a temper tantrum. If you're concerned about higher taxes, then suggest ways as to how government can be more efficient with the taxes it currently has--i.e., for example, cutting other programs to fund new priorities.

As for driving restrictions, those are wholly unnecessary if new technologies like hydrogen fuel cells, as one example, are adopted. The upcoming ban on incandescent light bulbs in the U.S., one must be reminded, happened on Bush's watch; but also had led to more efficiency:
There are big issues with hydrogen. The energy density is very low limiting the range of vehicles. The size of the fuel tank to travel 300 miles is enormous.
Plus it takes energy to produce and transport. And, if I remember right causes the emission of water vapor, itself a greenhouse gas.

Quote:
In terms of the erosion of personal liberties...well, I'd ask where were you when the Patriot Act was being written, for instance? That aside, these are concerns that can be dealt with by conservatives as constructive criticism. The operative word here is constructive. That means offering alternative plans that can achieve similar conservation goals with fewer sacrifices. Spouting denialist conspiracy theories and other incoherencies with the expressed goal of resisting change of any kind will solely lead to the Left setting the entire agenda, and I would quite firmly argue that there is danger in any ideology--Left or Right--forging policy unchallenged. But that's precisely what you're going to get the longer the Right insists on an essentially 19th century approach for 21st century energy needs.
I agree to a point but it's hard to get constructive ideas out in today's culture. I suspect that's why Climate Change advocates have resorted to emotional messages involving flooded American cities, dead polar bears and doe-eyed children pleading, "Please save the earth." The dearth of real leadership in both parties regarding all aspects of our energy policy is disheartening to say the least.

And the pop culture and mainstream media is dug in and entrenched in its presentation of the Climate Change debate. Pro-conservative or business they ain't.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-18-2009, 12:28 AM   #356
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
If anitram is going to ban hummers then I don't expect big fuel-gulping black helicopters to be too far behind.
I didn't say I would ban them; I said you'd be priced out of owning one.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 12-18-2009, 01:21 AM   #357
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:03 AM
Quote:
Global Wealth Can Heal the Planet
Jonah Goldberg
Friday, December 18, 2009

As the Copenhagen climate summit comes to close, it seems fair to say that rarely has a gathering of so many doing so little gotten so much attention. But Copenhagen does have its uses. For starters, it reminds us that environmentalism continues to be a cover for uglier agendas.

Bolivian president Evo Morales was interviewed by Al Jazeera television while in Copenhagen. "The principal obstacle to combating climate change is capitalism," he explained. "Until we put an end to capitalism, it will continue to be a big obstacle for life and humanity."

Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe proclaimed in a speech: "When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions, it's we, the lesser mortals of the developing sphere, who gasp and sink and eventually die."

Right. That is, unless Mugabe kills them first.

The big name in the anti-capitalism club was, of course, Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan national-socialist strongman. In a typical stem-winder, he belched: "Capitalism is a destructive model that is eradicating life, that threatens to put a definitive end to the human species."

I don't know how to say "chutzpah" in Spanish, but you've got to hand it to the leader of the world's No. 5 supplier of oil for bemoaning the system that keeps his regime afloat by buying his product.
for Diemen
Quote:
Now, I know that nice, moderate progressive types are rolling their eyes at my cynical effort to associate their noble activism with support for socialism and thugs. Fair enough. Let us concede that many, perhaps even most, proponents of draconian restrictions on carbon emissions have no sympathy for socialist dictators and do not want to chuck capitalism in the dustbin of history. But surely it should trouble these responsible greens that they're in bed with a "Star Wars" cantina of villains and monsters.

Also, if environmentalists want to avoid the "watermelon" charge ("green on the outside, red on the inside"), maybe the delegates and activists in the audience shouldn't have given Chavez such a loud and boisterous round of applause? Perhaps the folks who gave him a standing ovation didn't help either?

The simple truth is that hostility to freedom (i.e., economic liberty and political democracy) and fondness for non-democratic statism suffuses much of the environmental movement.
I will confess to having a minor obsession with the New York Times' Thomas Friedman, who consistently writes of his confessed envy for China's authoritarian regime. But I am trying to wean myself off Friedman-bashing lest he get a restraining order.
For BVS
Quote:
So consider instead Diane Francis, a ballyhooed Canadian pundit. In a recent Financial Post column, Francis wrote that the "'inconvenient truth' overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world." She insists that "the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate" is to implement a "planetary law, such as China's one-child policy."

Population control has always been at the heart of the progressive project, so it's no surprise that it's in fashion once again.

But Francis' proposal is particularly disgusting, not least because Francis has two children. I think the hypocrisy charge is overused in political debate these days, but when you tout a totalitarian police state's population policy of, among other things, forced abortions, you might try harder to practice what you preach. Think globally, act locally and all that.

But Francis' argument is also stunningly stupid, as are virtually all of the complaints about capitalism being the root of the problem.

The historical record is clear: Democratic free-market nations are better at protecting their environments than statist regimes for the simple reason that they can afford to. West Germany's environment was far cleaner than East Germany's. I'd much sooner drink the tap water in South Korea than North Korea.

Mugabe rails against capitalism as if he has a better idea of how to run things. That's almost funny given that Mugabe has destroyed what was once a great cause for hope in Africa, in large part by abandoning capitalism and democracy. Zimbabwe now has the highest inflation rate in the world and one of the lowest life expectancies. Let's hope nobody was taking notes when he was giving out advice.

Moreover, capitalism, and the wealth it creates, is the best means of bending down the population curve. Don't take my word for it. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change acknowledges that "affluence is correlated with long life and small families" and that growing prosperity will cause world population to decline even further.
Sage words for everyone
Quote:
Want to know the best way to heal the planet? Create more rich countries. Want to know the best way to hurt the planet? Throw a wet blanket on economic growth.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-18-2009, 01:27 AM   #358
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 09:03 AM
Still no link to an American proposal on "one child per family" eh?

Wow, I thought that would be so easy...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-18-2009, 10:12 AM   #359
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
So does free market competition.


which falls flat on it's face and dies like an Ewok in the face of even modest environmental regulations, apparently.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-18-2009, 11:49 AM   #360
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Worth re-posting...
So the premise is that higher energy prices = a better world? That fact that a fall back argument for AGW that admits that this could be based on false evidence is pretty desperate to me.

Energy independence:

How about using domestic supplies of carbon based fuel and nuclear power? (At least you like nuclear power). Yet McCain lost the election so no dice. Also Obama said he would be interested in nuclear power but nothing has been decided yet on this.

Preservable rainforests:

This is a problem related to bad economics. People cut down the forest because they can't get other jobs. Then you have a dependency problem of creating welfare societies in other countries. These countries need better economics (trade, private property rights, lower taxes) so they can build wealth and have enough surplus to put people through school. But hey that would mean less sociologists.

Sustainability

I translate this as: those who are in power are more sustainable than those without power. What is it with left-wing buzz words that sound so cold and glib?

Green jobs:

Yeah we'll all work on solar panels and wind farms. The problem is that they are too expensive. There will be net job losses. Until wind doesn't require coal plants and solar creates enough energy to be cheap enough it's still anti-growth or is just a supplement that allows C02 to grow in the atmosphere anyways.

Livable cities:

People live in cities more than ever before so I think they already are livable. That's the kind of thing I might write in an essay when the question requires 9 marks and I can only find 8 marks.

Renewables:

Yeah when? Until that happens we have to enjoy a carbon diet.

Clean water and air:

C02 is not spoiling water and air. Even ocean acidification arguments are shown to be overly catestrophic in new peer reviewed studies.

Healthy children:

Come on guys! People are living longer than before. We know that fossil fuels in Africa would be better than burning wood and would create more healthy children and allow for higher standards of living for those healthier children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
The conservative response should involve ways to enact green technology without sacrificing economic growth. Instead, the response has been roughly equivalent to burying their heads in the sand and having an infantile temper tantrum.
Or maybe it's because they are out of power in the U.S. I think the left is having the temper tantrum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
If conservatives don't wish to substantively contribute to public discourse, don't be surprised then when the rest of the world isn't interested in listening to them.
What the hell have I been posting? Conservatives have to be in power in the U.S.. Until this happens the left is trying to gain power grabs and make money in a fashion that would look more like war profiteers. Bjorn Lomborg by himself has created a list already that would find priorities that would all be better and achieve some of the list in that cartoon more efficiently. Instead of creating cap and trade how about funding research for better technologies until they are ready for primetime instead of giving corrupt dictators our money?

After all these emails leaking, the idea that the left wants to debate is just plain wrong.

Try and debate with these people:

YouTube - Proud Flag-Waving Communists and Socialists March in Copenhagen to Stop Global Warming

YouTube - Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda

Here's a conservative trying to debate with socialists:

YouTube - Climate denier Lord Monckton gets pwned!

Oh here's some more "debate":

YouTube - Don't like someone's POV? Toss fruit at them. Phelim McAleer with Neil Cavuto

As long as the left is in power the only thing stopping the power grab is other countries not playing ball and no treaty is created. As long as idiots like Waxman and Markey are creating bills there won't be any conservative ideas on the table because that's not part of their agenda. If you can't admit that the left has an agenda then that's your problem.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2008 International Conference on Climate Change purpleoscar Free Your Mind 19 04-17-2009 07:56 PM
New York Times: Cool the Hype MaxFisher Free Your Mind Archive 17 03-18-2007 06:09 PM
If You Wear A ONE White Band.... Jamila Free Your Mind Archive 18 05-27-2005 07:46 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com