BBC: What Happened to Global Warming? - Page 45 - 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 03-04-2011, 08:02 PM   #661
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
Interesting news from... Rupert Murdoch. That's right.

News Corp. Is Now Carbon-Neutral, Murdoch Declares
What is your point? We don't need Lisa Jackson if it can be done on their own. If people can save money while reducing emissions because their industry can do that, then great! I'm sure other industries can't be carbon neutral and produce at the same level without fossil fuels.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 08:06 PM   #662
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Notice how the authors acknowledge that Global Warming exists and is a real problem?
The point of posting liberals admitting that there's copious funding for AGW was not to say that they are conservative.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 10:22 PM   #663
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 12:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
If you believe in man-made global warming then Canada should be a perfect place to live.
you're right! i'm sure canada will be positively balmy in less than a decade.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 03-05-2011, 12:42 AM   #664
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
What is your point? We don't need Lisa Jackson if it can be done on their own. If people can save money while reducing emissions because their industry can do that, then great! I'm sure other industries can't be carbon neutral and produce at the same level without fossil fuels.
Maybe his point was posting an article about a company being carbon neutral and nothing more.

Maybe you are the most ultra defensive poster in history.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 03-05-2011, 09:31 AM   #665
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
Maybe his point was posting an article about a company being carbon neutral and nothing more.

Maybe you are the most ultra defensive poster in history.
Maybe if people weren't so offensive (hey lets tax cheap energy like crazy) on the subject there wouldn't be so much defensiveness. BTW there aren't too many posters on my side so I'm answering lots of people at once.

EDIT: If Badyouken isn't using this for his argument then Lisa Jackson certainly is.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 03-05-2011, 10:58 AM   #666
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 02:49 PM
Wasn't there a study a few years ago that showed that conservatives were having more and kinkier sex? Then why are they always so god damned irritable?

I'd say fuck you, but it clearly ain't working.
__________________
Dalton is offline  
Old 03-05-2011, 11:02 AM   #667
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 488
Local Time: 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
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.
I've been very clear about the scale of the problem and the costs. Making the transition to a new energy system will not be cheap, but it is crucial. The far-reaching costs of climate change will also not be cheap.

Energy R&D is crucial (even if a little inefficient) but it is very, very underfunded at the moment -- it will be even more underfunded if the House has its way in the US.

As for taxes, I think we've discussed this enough already and can see our divergence of opinion: 1) these 'other opportunities' are currently heavily subsidized, let's start by eliminating this situation (and you agree on this); 2) the concept of a carbon price (or tax if you prefer) is to reflect the true cost of CO2 emissions, which is and will be borne by the public (and you disagree on this). These "taxes" are not technology specific, but emission specific. Alternative energy sources that emit CO2 would be "taxed", just like coal-based emissions would be taxed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
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.
I'll come back to the "it's not used in real life" in another post (that was the point of the Rupert Murdoch article).

I agree that market uptake will drive change. We simply disagree on how, and especially for what reason, this should happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
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 purpleoscar View Post
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.
And this is the crux of our disagreement. If you "believed" that GHG emissions had an adverse impact on the environment and the economy, you would be taking a different stance. A tax on tobacco is fine, we know the adverse effects. A tax on SO2 emissions is fine, we know the adverse effects. A tax on CO2? Well if you don't believe there are any adverse effects, you won't agree with it, and you won't be inclined to see that our current energy markets are anything but a level playing field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
If you believe in man-made global warming then Canada should be a perfect place to live.
Haha.
__________________
Badyouken is offline  
Old 03-05-2011, 11:13 AM   #668
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 488
Local Time: 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
What is your point? We don't need Lisa Jackson if it can be done on their own. If people can save money while reducing emissions because their industry can do that, then great! I'm sure other industries can't be carbon neutral and produce at the same level without fossil fuels.
Well, I had two reasons to post this.

First, I think it's amusing to see Rupert Murdoch touting the benefits of energy efficiency and carbon neutrality, given what the lovely Fox News says. That said, the guy is just a savvy business man, he knows what pays.

Second, I just wanted to show a recent example of a company that not only reduced its emissions but did so profitably. You seemed to be doubting that this was feasible.

Now, of course Lisa Jackson and the EPA will welcome this. But this is in no way an argument against the EPA's actions. There is a difference between an organization that sees fossil energy use as a cost (e.g. NewsCorp) and an organization that sees fossil energy use as a revenue (e.g. coal-fired power plant). The former has an incentive to reduce its footprint (and that incentive would be even greater if carbon was priced), while the latter has an incentive to increase its footprint. Currently, EPA is trying to act on the latter by establishing performance-based emission limits on some industrial activities (power plants, industrial boilers) - a very mild action in reality.
__________________
Badyouken is offline  
Old 03-05-2011, 12:00 PM   #669
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
If people can save money while reducing emissions because their industry can do that, then great! I'm sure other industries can't be carbon neutral and produce at the same level without fossil fuels.
Why would this be great? If carbon isn't harmful, in fact some of your junk science claims the more the merrier then why would this be great?

Seems like you're not even convince of your own "science".
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-05-2011, 12:25 PM   #670
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 488
Local Time: 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Why would this be great? If carbon isn't harmful, in fact some of your junk science claims the more the merrier then why would this be great?
Great because they saved money.

You don't need to "believe" in climate change to want to reduce your energy / fossil energy use if it saves you money. Given the state of the 'debate' on climate change and the state of the world's economy, I think that the rising price of oil and other commodities will probably make us change our ways as much if not more than international environmental plans...
__________________
Badyouken is offline  
Old 03-05-2011, 12:34 PM   #671
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
Great because they saved money.

You don't need to "believe" in climate change to want to reduce your energy / fossil energy use if it saves you money. Given the state of the 'debate' on climate change and the state of the world's economy, I think that the rising price of oil and other commodities will probably make us change our ways as much if not more than international environmental plans...
But Oscar supposedly believes the more Carbon the better, does he really not believe this or is saving money the bottom line?

If we can save money by killing 12 orphans would that be "great" too?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-05-2011, 12:35 PM   #672
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 488
Local Time: 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
But Oscar supposedly believes the more Carbon the better, does he really not believe this or is saving money the bottom line?

If we can save money by killing 12 orphans would that be "great" too?
Haha ok, I'll let you two debate that one.
__________________
Badyouken is offline  
Old 03-05-2011, 01:19 PM   #673
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
I've been very clear about the scale of the problem and the costs. Making the transition to a new energy system will not be cheap, but it is crucial. The far-reaching costs of climate change will also not be cheap.
"Climate Change" is just Newspeak for man-made climate change. How about allowing developing countries to be rich enough to protect themselves against real natural climate change?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
Energy R&D is crucial (even if a little inefficient) but it is very, very underfunded at the moment -- it will be even more underfunded if the House has its way in the US.
The House better have its way because the obvious debt problems and sluggish economy we discussed earlier. Stagflation is starting and I don't want it to accelerate. I also don't think IPCC is without corruption so taxdollars shouldn't follow it on principle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
And this is the crux of our disagreement. If you "believed" that GHG emissions had an adverse impact on the environment and the economy, you would be taking a different stance. A tax on tobacco is fine, we know the adverse effects. A tax on SO2 emissions is fine, we know the adverse effects. A tax on CO2? Well if you don't believe there are any adverse effects, you won't agree with it, and you won't be inclined to see that our current energy markets are anything but a level playing field.
In the end that's mostly right. I don't believe human CO2 has such a huge role in driving temperatures compared to other natural sources and I feel that much of the "connect the dots" of the AGW theory with every storm is agitation-propaganda. It feels reductive since nature has thrown much more wild stuff our way. To walk around thinking that our existence is ending the planet to me is a mental concept that is neurotic and feels completely unhealthy. To look at a storm, flood, or drought and to feel guilt everytime seems to me like brainwashing from constant propaganda. When I was a kid heat waves and cold snaps were simply that.

BTW keep in mind that doing without tobacco and doing without CO2 are on different galaxies in scale.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Wasn't there a study a few years ago that showed that conservatives were having more and kinkier sex? Then why are they always so god damned irritable?

I'd say fuck you, but it clearly ain't working.
The left tends to that have that effect on us. We look at them as envious people that want to stamp their feet on us like in 1984 and make us miserable and defeated. It tends to irritate us.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 03-05-2011, 01:25 PM   #674
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Why would this be great? If carbon isn't harmful, in fact some of your junk science claims the more the merrier then why would this be great?

Seems like you're not even convince of your own "science".
There are those who say that 1000ppm would be a great benefit for plants and we will probably reach there but plants exist in enough quantities as is and we have enough methods to feed the planet already. We still have to replace fossil fuels with something that either recycles CO2 or we build a whole bunch of thorium reactors. This process will take at least a century if not more.

http://www.iwp.edu/docLib/20110227_Archibald_IWP.pdf
(see slide 21 for CO2 levels).
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 03-05-2011, 03:29 PM   #675
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
The left tends to that have that effect on us. We look at them as envious people that want to stamp their feet on us like in 1984 and make us miserable and defeated. It tends to irritate us.
That's fucking retarded and also explains so much about you.
__________________

__________________
PhilsFan 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 01:49 PM.


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