BBC: What Happened to Global Warming? - Page 44 - 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 02-24-2011, 11:06 PM   #646
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,600
Local Time: 04:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
Well, New Zealand is also pretty progressive on this issue, so you're doing just fine it seems!
true, but i do miss north america a lot.
__________________

__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 02-26-2011, 11:27 AM   #647
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 05:35 AM
Snow in San Francisco and maybe even LA. That was the forecast yesterday, don't know if it happened.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-26-2011, 12:46 PM   #648
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 03:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
He makes a lot of noise, but I think he still needs to refine his position.
He's just trying to find a halfway argument but when a premise is exagerrated it's best stick to your guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
You seem to perceive a carbon tax, or any price on carbon, as the same as a sales tax: an unavoidable expense. Yes, a carbon tax will be passed on to the consumer, but it does not necessarily lead to greater expenses across the board in the long term. Consumers will react to this new price signal by either going for less carbon-intensive products (creating a greater demand for this market) or managing their demand (recycling, efficiency, conservation). Some carbon tax schemes can also be devised to return the proceeds in tax breaks.
I just pointed out that Denmark has massively higher rates of taxes and energy. If you like a nanny state then go move there. Most people in North America don't want high energy prices and higher taxation. Since there are no replacements for fossil fuels and won't be for many decades all it will mean is "conservation" or I prefer the term rationing. This would also coincide with a stagflation economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
The higher taxes on gasoline in Europe are an interesting example where a clear price signal led to change: more efficient cars, fewer cars per person, better public transit, etc.
Exactly a lower standard of living while the bureaucrats and rich people can further increase their status regardless. You underestimate the narcissism and hypocrisy of leaders and the envy of the general public. It's like listening to Prince Charles talking about how everyone should take only 5 minute showers. I think the BO pollution would be enough reason to extend those showers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
No doubt. Here again, prices (as a result of carbon policy or simply market fundamentals) will be crucial.
This isn't market fundamentals. In a real market they would come up with their own solution when a breakthrough appears. BTW even oil companies spend money on R & D on green technology and not just in their own technology. Also there are good technologies to reduce general pollution already and are being implemented (because they are cheap enough to do).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
Yes, but coal still remains much cheaper for base load power generation, despite its enormous externalities.

Natural gas can only hardly compete with coal if carbon is not priced. Nuclear has its own major issues (large upfront capital, slow construction and, quite importantly still, image) - it would definitely benefit from a price on carbon.
Well then we should follow the "no cost" map you posted then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
As for Scandinavia, overall they're doing just fine.
I know. They tolerate more than they should.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
The scale of changes that a CO2 policy would bring is enormous, much larger than most environmental regulations. Investors are not willing to put money in assets that might end up stranded in the long term.
That's because green technology is faraway from replacing fossil fuels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
That's a valid point, and we're seeing some of these issues pop up in the current trade negotiations between Canada (no price on carbon at the federal level) and Europe (price on carbon). That said, several jurisdictions have put a price on carbon in one way or another, with (so far) limited effects on trade. Scale will be important.
That's because the taxes aren't enough to stop trade completely but they do have an effect. Ultimately it undermines premise #1. It needs to be draconian to stop CO2 levels from increasing. Make no mistake our CO2 will double even with cap and trade. New Zealand does it and it doesn't have much emissions anyways so it's not going to stop CO2 from increasing worldwide. Whatever they say about green technology in China they are still using far more coal and will continue to do so. Because of deficits, governments like energy taxes and don't care how they get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
Exactly what I was saying earlier - awareness and openness (response to change) are key here, and somehow still elusive for many businesses.
Yeah but propaganda about no cost alternatives will be and are being ignored for the fantasy that it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
The EPA is not in this position right now, clearly. But in any case, "it will cost $400B" would need to be detailed: it will cost money to whom, over how long, what are the benefits, etc. A more detailed account would be needed, then we'll see.
I think the EPA basing their endangerment finding on the 2007 IPCC report shows it's left-wing bias and they will regulate without the consent of the people just to get their foot in the door. It has more to do with political control than actual results (which Lisa Jackson admitted will do little for temperatures).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
I'd argue that science is clearer than ever, but again I said we'd agree to disagree on this....
I think we definitely disagree on this. The science is showing to be hidden from audit and what we do find is algorithms in climate models that spread warm data over non-data stations (like in Antartica) and cold data stations were removed in the late 80's conciding with urban island heat effects on the warm stations to produce a greater warming effect statistically than reality. Even saying the 2010 El Nino (which isn't warmer than the 1998 El Nino) as the warmest year "ever" is more propaganda. "Ever" as in since satellite data in 1979 (starting at the end of the 20-30 year cooldown)? What about the 1930s? Natural variation in geological history has done more. Basically if it warms naturally we can expect we will be blamed by the green bureaucrats and told to be asking for more taxes much like indulgences to the clergy in the middle ages.

As Anthony Watt says the debate over 2010 isn't over by a long shot. When a political movement abuses science to achieve a political and economic agenda it will create suspicion to say the least. This will have to investigated because if the science is truely good it can be replicated and stand up to criticism. I would never invest my money in unaudited public companies so why should the taxpayer blow trillions worldwide without a real audit of the methods and data collection?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
I'm not convinced that removing oil subsidies would then lead to lower taxes; they'd likely keep the tax income and spend it elsewhere, preferably in clean energy projects.
Of course it would if they don't spend the money somewhere else. The point I was making was that competition goes both ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes View Post
this is all further proof why i should live in canada. if only it didn't get so cold there.


Quote:
The survey suggests that 56 per cent of Canadians are willing to pay $50 a month in a carbon tax versus 15 per cent of Americans.
It'll cost more than $50/month and it will cost jobs as well. Also for some people (those on a fixed income) $50/month increase puts them into hardship.

I think Americans are less sheepish than Canadians but this was done by:

Quote:
Public Policy Forum and Sustainable Prosperity.
The reality is that it's just a way for governments to raise revenues. I guess that could be premise #3.

#1 "We are past the point of no return, please give us money!" (Skeptics don't agree)
#2 "Fossil fuels won't last forever" (But they will last a long time still so there is room for more R & D spending in the meantime)
#3 "We're in debt from all this stimulus and the public is hypocritical so we will find any other excuse to get the public to give us more. (The public will have to make a decision and face there is no free lunch).
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 02-26-2011, 08:47 PM   #649
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:35 PM
In summary: it doesn't matter anyway because it's not a problem and even if it was a problem there's no point doing anything because nothing will work.

It's just a stall tactic to sell the product for as long as possible without being accountable for external costs. It isn't a coincidence that Purpleoscar will cite "research" from industry funded think-tanks to justify his conspiratorial claims about the entire discipline of climatology.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-26-2011, 09:16 PM   #650
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:35 PM
A cool video.

YouTube - What the Ice Cores Tell Us, and How Deniers Distort it
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-27-2011, 06:04 AM   #651
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,600
Local Time: 04:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 02-27-2011, 11:02 AM   #652
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 487
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I just pointed out that Denmark has massively higher rates of taxes and energy. If you like a nanny state then go move there. Most people in North America don't want high energy prices and higher taxation. Since there are no replacements for fossil fuels and won't be for many decades all it will mean is "conservation" or I prefer the term rationing. This would also coincide with a stagflation economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Exactly a lower standard of living while the bureaucrats and rich people can further increase their status regardless. You underestimate the narcissism and hypocrisy of leaders and the envy of the general public. It's like listening to Prince Charles talking about how everyone should take only 5 minute showers. I think the BO pollution would be enough reason to extend those showers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I know. They tolerate more than they should.
1) You need to travel more. The standard of living is very high in northern Europe. 2) Who is the alarmist here? You seem incapable of nuance in this. It's either full blown conservation or inaction...

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
This isn't market fundamentals. In a real market they would come up with their own solution when a breakthrough appears. BTW even oil companies spend money on R & D on green technology and not just in their own technology. Also there are good technologies to reduce general pollution already and are being implemented (because they are cheap enough to do).
You're running out of arguments. R&D spending by conventional energy companies is limited, as I discussed earlier, especially in alternatives. This is slowly changing as they now accept the science and foresee tremendous opportunity in alternative energy markets. That said, it's quite naive to believe that oil companies are rooting for a breakthrough in alternative energy right away - there is still too much money to be made from oil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Well then we should follow the "no cost" map you posted then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Yeah but propaganda about no cost alternatives will be and are being ignored for the fantasy that it is.
Have you forgotten our discussion about natural gas, nuclear, and the future use of fossil fuels that we had before? The figure I showed was to illustrate the concept of energy efficiency and how, in some cases, some solutions are cheaper than buying the fuel they displace. Energy efficiency is only a tiny part of the solution.

You know all this, yet you voluntarily ignore any nuance to make your point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
That's because green technology is faraway from replacing fossil fuels.
So let's do nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
That's because the taxes aren't enough to stop trade completely but they do have an effect. Ultimately it undermines premise #1. It needs to be draconian to stop CO2 levels from increasing. Make no mistake our CO2 will double even with cap and trade. New Zealand does it and it doesn't have much emissions anyways so it's not going to stop CO2 from increasing worldwide. Whatever they say about green technology in China they are still using far more coal and will continue to do so. Because of deficits, governments like energy taxes and don't care how they get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
The reality is that it's just a way for governments to raise revenues.
This is getting weak - "it's all a money grab".

NZ is small but doing fine with its cap-and-trade. Let's look at something bigger then: Germany is the second largest exporter in the world, and third largest importer - they also have a price on carbon.

Yes our emissions will likely keep growing (especially if we take your do-nothing approach), but energy and environmental policies are aimed at softening this growth and helping us develop this "breakthrough technology" that you keep talking about. China has some very aggressive policies, and it is likely that some of their alternative energy industries will become leaders in the coming decade or two, while the US is still arguing about whether they should even fund the IPCC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I think the EPA basing their endangerment finding on the 2007 IPCC report shows it's left-wing bias and they will regulate without the consent of the people just to get their foot in the door. It has more to do with political control than actual results (which Lisa Jackson admitted will do little for temperatures).
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
As Anthony Watt says the debate over 2010 isn't over by a long shot.
IPCC bad, Anthony Watts good?

You're looking for validation. You think that a price on carbon is bad (all "taxes" are evil) and a money grab (despite the fact that government sees little of this money in many schemes), so you must find someone who disproves the science. Bjorn Lomborg first; now he changed his mind and accepts the science so he's no good anymore, let's look at Anthony Watts! Beautiful.
__________________
Badyouken is offline  
Old 02-27-2011, 11:04 AM   #653
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 487
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
In summary: it doesn't matter anyway because it's not a problem and even if it was a problem there's no point doing anything because nothing will work.

It's just a stall tactic to sell the product for as long as possible without being accountable for external costs. It isn't a coincidence that Purpleoscar will cite "research" from industry funded think-tanks to justify his conspiratorial claims about the entire discipline of climatology.
A stall tactic indeed.

Interesting video, too.
__________________
Badyouken is offline  
Old 02-27-2011, 08:26 PM   #654
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 487
Local Time: 10:35 AM
The reaction to this movie should be interesting:

Carbon Nation
__________________
Badyouken is offline  
Old 02-27-2011, 08:30 PM   #655
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 487
Local Time: 10:35 AM
.
__________________
Badyouken is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 06:16 PM   #656
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 487
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Interesting news from... Rupert Murdoch. That's right.

News Corp. Is Now Carbon-Neutral, Murdoch Declares

Quote:
The News Corporation, the media conglomerate and parent company of Fox News Channel, has gone carbon-neutral, fulfilling a goal set four years ago, Rupert Murdoch, the company’s chairman, announced this week in a company-wide memo.

“We have become carbon-neutral across all of our global operations, and we are the first company of our kind to do so,” Mr. Murdoch wrote. “We made a bold commitment in 2007 to embed the values of energy efficiency and environmental sustainability into all of our businesses — for the benefit of our communities and our bottom line.”

Mr. Murdoch added that improving the energy efficiency of the company’s day-to-day operations had not only curbed emissions but also “saved millions of dollars.”

“Our efficiency projects pay for themselves in less than two years, on average, and span from simple solutions like lighting retrofits and automatic PC shut-down to systemic changes like installing telepresence and videoconferencing technology to reduce the need for air travel,” he wrote.


According to the memo, the News Corporation’s businesses in Britain now obtain 100 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. Dow Jones, the parent company of The Wall Street Journal, which the News Corporation acquired in 2007, is nearing completion of a 4.1-megawatt solar power system on its corporate campus in New Jersey that would provide nearly half of the facility’s electrical needs at peak capacity.

The company’s achievement was praised by Lisa P. Jackson, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, as she testified on Thursday at a budget hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Ms. Jackson noted that while many Republicans — and such Fox News Channel commentators as Sarah Palin — argue that mandated reductions in carbon dioxide emissions would be fatal to the economy, the News Corporation had cut its emissions and reaped financial benefits.

“I do believe that this is good for business, good for our future,” she said.

Republicans in the House and Senate formally introduced legislation this week that would permanently strip the E.P.A.’s power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. The legislation’s backers, Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, and Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan, explicitly argue that carbon controls would function as a hidden tax on businesses and hobble economic growth.
__________________
Badyouken is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 06:26 PM   #657
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 03:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
In summary: it doesn't matter anyway because it's not a problem and even if it was a problem there's no point doing anything because nothing will work.

It's just a stall tactic to sell the product for as long as possible without being accountable for external costs. It isn't a coincidence that Purpleoscar will cite "research" from industry funded think-tanks to justify his conspiratorial claims about the entire discipline of climatology.
The Breakthrough Institute: The Long Death of Environmentalism

I'm on to you

Quote:
In the wake of the crash, environmentalists pointed their finger at the usual bogeymen. They claimed that the problem has been that fossil fuel interests have massively outspent underdog environmental groups, funding skeptics to mislead the public and duping the media into giving too much credence to skeptical views about climate change.
In reality, the environmental lobby massively outspent its opponents. In just the last two years, by our rough estimate environmental organizations and philanthropies spent somewhere north of $1 billion dollars advocating for climate action. In contrast, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Exxon-Mobil, the Koch Brothers, Big Coal, and the various other well publicized opponents of environmental action might have spent, when all was said and done, a small fraction of that. Indeed, much of the U.S. energy industry, including the largest utilities, helped write and lobbied for U.S. climate legislation.

Nonetheless, and despite the enormous resources spent on public communications about climate, some continue to accuse the media of "false balance" - by which they mean giving equal coverage to skeptical views about climate change. But the phenomenon of "false balance," according to the best academic studies of the phenomena, disappeared after 2005. And even the very notion completely undermines the idea that media coverage has been biased against climate action. The complaint, after all, is that the media has reported the views of skeptics or opponents of climate action at all.

The truth is that the disparate crew of academics and bloggers who make up the skeptic community have toiled in relative obscurity and have been largely ignored by the mainstream media. That skeptics have nonetheless succeeded in raising substantial doubt among many Americans about the reality of global warming suggests, at the very least, that the environmental community has profoundly misframed the issue.
The propensity to blame skeptics and fossil fuel companies for the serial political failures of the environmental movement should be understood as a tribal defense of the collective green ego, not the logical conclusion of a dispassionate analysis.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 07:05 PM   #658
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 04:35 AM
Notice how the authors acknowledge that Global Warming exists and is a real problem?
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 07:15 PM   #659
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 03:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
This video is another Peter Sinclair hack job where they say "maybe" and use vague terms to insinuate that the medieval warming period didn't happen in the southern hemisphere but of course they don't have evidence that it didn't happen. It doesn't even add to the arguments at all. Even Alley in his testimony just says "we can't account for the warming" therefore we should conclude that it's man's fault. Of course wouldn't it be important to understand more about the sun, cosmic rays and ocean patterns so that computer models can accurately predict future weather? We know there's a historical warming period and no bad science is going to eliminate it.



BTW here's the Anthony Watt website Sinclair refers to:

Hockey stick observed in NOAA ice core data | Watts Up With That?

Quote:
the broader lesson is, climate doesn’t stand still. It doesn’t even stay on the relatively constrained range of the last 10,000 years for more than about 10,000 years at a time.

Does this mean that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas? No.

Does it mean that it isn’t warming? No.

Does it mean that we shouldn’t develop clean, efficient technology that gets its energy elsewhere than burning fossil fuels? Of course not. We should do all those things for many reasons — but there’s plenty of time to do them the right way, by developing nanotech. (There’s plenty of money, too, but it’s all going to climate science at the moment. ) And that will be a very good thing to have done if we do fall back into an ice age, believe me.

For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock.
That's the point he's trying to make. Even your video on 5:55 Alley points out large natural changes in a short period of time.

If you don't remember the hockey stick looks like this:



What is the point?!

Quote:
I’m looking at the temperature record as read from this central Greenland ice core. It gives us about as close as we can come to a direct, experimental measurement of temperature at that one spot for the past 50,000 years.
He's not treating it as the world temperature but showing the existence of the medieval warming period and the panic that people get over the small changes we've seen over the decades are exagerrated.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 07:52 PM   #660
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 03:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
1) You need to travel more. The standard of living is very high in northern Europe. 2) Who is the alarmist here? You seem incapable of nuance in this. It's either full blown conservation or inaction...
1) Then go live their with their high taxes. It sounds like paradise. 2) Actually I'm the one who's arguing against the alarmists, thank you!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
You're running out of arguments. R&D spending by conventional energy companies is limited, as I discussed earlier, especially in alternatives. This is slowly changing as they now accept the science and foresee tremendous opportunity in alternative energy markets. That said, it's quite naive to believe that oil companies are rooting for a breakthrough in alternative energy right away - there is still too much money to be made from oil.
I'm not running out of arguments. You keep the same drum beat of asking for more taxes but are vague and or apologetic about the costs. All R & D spending will be limited and we've already gone over this. I'm sure some companies see "tremendous opportunities", except it's a shame that other opportunities have to be heavily taxed because without the tax apparently those opportunites aren't so good.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
Have you forgotten our discussion about natural gas, nuclear, and the future use of fossil fuels that we had before? The figure I showed was to illustrate the concept of energy efficiency and how, in some cases, some solutions are cheaper than buying the fuel they displace. Energy efficiency is only a tiny part of the solution.

You know all this, yet you voluntarily ignore any nuance to make your point.
It doesn't make any sense? That's why it is not used in real life. It's "no cost" but we need to increase taxes (AKA "costs") to help feeble solutions (solar/wind) that don't even compete with nuclear power. Once a breakthrough occurs in R & D I can assure you that profit seekers will be seeking it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
So let's do nothing.
How is it nothing to allow options to compete against each other? How is it nothing to support R & D on new technologies? How about tax credits for research and development. It doesn't have to go live on a large scale with the general public as a guinea pig.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
This is getting weak - "it's all a money grab".
I think the sentiment is getting stronger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
NZ is small but doing fine with its cap-and-trade. Let's look at something bigger then: Germany is the second largest exporter in the world, and third largest importer - they also have a pricetax on carbon.

Yes our emissions will likely keep growing (especially if we take your do-nothing approach), but energy and environmental policies are aimed at softening this growth and helping us develop this "breakthrough technology" that you keep talking about. China has some very aggressive policies, and it is likely that some of their alternative energy industries will become leaders in the coming decade or two, while the US is still arguing about whether they should even fund the IPCC.
Yeah I particularly like China's massive production of coal plants. Now all kidding aside I'm okay with Thorium nuclear reactors based on what I read here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
IPCC bad, Anthony Watts good?

You're looking for validation. You think that a price on carbon is bad (all "taxes" are evil) and a money grab (despite the fact that government sees little of this money in many schemes), so you must find someone who disproves the science. Bjorn Lomborg first; now he changed his mind and accepts the science so he's no good anymore, let's look at Anthony Watts! Beautiful.
You're twisting my words. Lomborg puts a whole bunch of other projects ahead of it (he didn't eliminate it) because there is little we can do about it. His carbon tax....

Amazon.com: Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming (Vintage) (9780307386526): Bjorn Lomborg: Books

Quote:
proposing a tax on CO2 "at the economically correct level of about two dollars per ton, or maximally fourteen dollars per ton" and that "all nations should commit themselves to spending 0.05 percent of GDP in R&D of noncarbon-emitting energy technologies."
... is not going to change the climate at all. I'm for R & D spending but a worldwide cap and trade system would be more costly and involve more political problems as we discussed before. I wasn't saying Lomborg and Watt are the same in points of view. I was responding to our differences of opinion on the science which is kind of important since basing a premise on what people like me find a false science has an effect on how drastic carbon taxes would be applied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes View Post
If you believe in man-made global warming then Canada should be a perfect place to live.
__________________

__________________
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 05:35 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