BBC: What Happened to Global Warming? - Page 9 - 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 11-05-2009, 09:24 PM   #121
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
$147/bbl oil had more to do with futures traders (I know some who day traded as a job) and low interest rates for easy borrowing allowed the price to increase too high. Not all oil purchases are for usage. That's why regulation to prevent stupid day traders from gambling with cheap debt on the market would make the market much more efficient. Also because of an oil cartel we won't have a free market with oil until a replacement comes along. The prices are heavily manipulated.
Desirable or not, there's a substantial free market argument in favour of speculative oil trading in that it acts to prevent actual shortage long before it is anticipated to occur--hence, why they're "oil futures." I've debated the merits of futures versus regulation prohibiting them, and I almost think that futures that make oil more expensive, thus stimulating investment in alternatives is likely preferable to a repeat of the actual shortages of the late 1970s.

Quote:
C02 hasn't been proven to be "filthy". Yet government bureaucrats are saying it is. Nobody wants to live in a poor world and we are not close to solving the difference between Locke and Rousseau. The only technology I've seen that consumes C02 and creates octane is only in the lab and Craig Venter hasn't been able to take this bacteria to a level that can produce enough octane commercially. Cap and trade has been abandoned elsewhere because higher energy prices slows growth which is needed for new generations to get jobs. If you want to see change we will need further research into renewable energy which exists without cap and trade. Even government funding in research would be less costly than putting coal workers out of work and then giving them a tax credit.
Personally, I'm supportive of nuclear power as the backbone of any energy strategy, with continued research into alternatives like wind, solar, and ocean power continuing to develop. I tend to have a lot of optimism for solar in the future, because I'm sure we can sharply increase their efficiency, considering that current solar cells only capture a small fraction of the solar radiation that hits them. I'm more pessimistic about wind power, because I consider it an eyesore that doesn't offer enough efficiency, and I question the impact on sea life for underwater power plants. Now, granted, there is the issue of nuclear waste, but the vast majority of it is because of wastefulness in North America. Europe reprocesses its nuclear waste, which is something I think should strongly resume over here. It is irresponsibly wasteful to consider burying it underneath a mountain instead of recycling it for further use!

As for coal, I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for the industry. Considering the bright orange haze in the sky from coal plants back where I'm from, nobody can remotely try to claim that it's "clean." And considering the timeline for when coal would become obsolete, perhaps the youth of today should take a cue and plan to work in a different industry. It's a lesson I learned at an early age, considering that the downfall of the Michigan auto industry was painfully apparent even 25 years ago, and so it had been inculcated in me from an early age to not even think that I could expect a job in it. Unfortunately, it appears that a lot of other people didn't take a similar cue.

Quote:
It's fun for tenured and pensioned intellectuals to play God with the economy and come up with unrealistic overly abstract ideas that hurt people. But wait isn't the history of distant bureaucrats hurting people for a great abstract cause typical in the 20th century? It's easy to hurt people when you are far away from them. I can't say it better than this guy:

YouTube - Feel-Good Fantasies of Fighting Global Warming

All these "green" projects look like religious rituals to me. They are just there to make people feel less guilty and some people actually get so egotistical (especially indoctrinated school kids) they think after screwing in a light bulb that they can be Hitler youth telling adults what to do even if they haven't paid a bill in their lives.
I can't excuse stupid leftists anymore than one can excuse stupid right-wingers. The fact is that there are a lot of stupid people in this world, but that doesn't excuse the fact that there are facts that exist amongst all the rhetoric and that there are solutions all the same.

And allow me to state that I am the furthest from "neo-Luddite." I have no real romantic fantasy for some "simpler time" long past, even though I read history books like nothing nowadays; but I should also point out that I'm under no illusion that we're living at "the end of history" or similar nonsense. Quite frankly, I think we're still primitive, in spite of all our shiny toys, and I'd like to see us progress to the next stage. And, for me, that means taking the unprecedented step of merging Lockean progress with Rousseauian appreciation for the environment. I quite firmly believe that we are at the first moment in history where we can achieve such progress without rampant environmental destruction.

Of course, I'm also aware that true opposition to what I propose, ultimately, has little to do with feasibility. It's perfectly feasible with an actual long term strategy, and France has been living proof of how you can primarily power a nation with nuclear power, while reprocessing spent fuel. It pretty much has everything to do with oligarchy, and how our titans of industry would rather continue to make money off of present technology, rather than spending money on investment into new--or, even worse to them, actually be surpassed by new, more efficient corporations. Decades ago, as it was apparent that the telephone was about to kill the telegraph once and for all, we let that dinosaur die and pass into history. Nowadays, not only would we probably let the telegraph companies own the telephones too, we'd also let them degrade the telephone to protect the telegraph market, and we'd also give them massive government subsidies to stay afloat. Can we not see how transparently awful such an approach is to progress?
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-05-2009, 09:33 PM   #122
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleOscar
$147/bbl oil had more to do with futures traders
Yes

Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleOscar
(I know some who day traded as a job) and low interest rates for easy borrowing allowed the price to increase too high.
I think it's important to distinguish between day traders/spread betters and larger players. I would doubt if your day trader friend, or 1,000 of his ilk, had any significant impact on the price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Oscar
Not all oil purchases are for usage. That's why regulation to prevent stupid day traders from gambling with cheap debt on the market would make the market much more efficient.
Frankly, I think this is a completely wrongheaded position for a free marketer to adopt. If anything, from a pro-free market perspective, it should be made easier, not more difficult, for retail investors to play the market, provided there are appropriate suitability and creditworthiness checks in place. Day traders help to make the market more efficient. The problem as I see it is there are too few, not too many, market players, e.g., oligopolistic speculation as practised by the likes of Goldman.

Bottom line, retail day traders by and large don't move markets.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 11-05-2009, 09:47 PM   #123
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:20 PM
As for the science, I have no idea and I'm not sure that I give a bollix. Ireland is completely bankrupt, about the only I think that will save us at this stage is if all these things the global warming people are saying come true, and we become one of the few inhabitable places left on earth, hence our property bubble will re-ignite as all the immigrants from warmer climes will flock here.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 11-05-2009, 10:34 PM   #124
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
As for the science, I have no idea and I'm not sure that I give a bollix. Ireland is completely bankrupt, about the only I think that will save us at this stage is if all these things the global warming people are saying come true, and we become one of the few inhabitable places left on earth, hence our property bubble will re-ignite as all the immigrants from warmer climes will flock here.
What's your elevation? Some of the worst catastrophic predictions of the Prophet Gore may actually put your island under water. Even American sub-prime bankers might hesitate to inflate that property bubble.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 11-09-2009, 02:51 PM   #125
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Desirable or not, there's a substantial free market argument in favour of speculative oil trading in that it acts to prevent actual shortage long before it is anticipated to occur--hence, why they're "oil futures." I've debated the merits of futures versus regulation prohibiting them, and I almost think that futures that make oil more expensive, thus stimulating investment in alternatives is likely preferable to a repeat of the actual shortages of the late 1970s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Frankly, I think this is a completely wrongheaded position for a free marketer to adopt. If anything, from a pro-free market perspective, it should be made easier, not more difficult, for retail investors to play the market, provided there are appropriate suitability and creditworthiness checks in place. Day traders help to make the market more efficient. The problem as I see it is there are too few, not too many, market players, e.g., oligopolistic speculation as practised by the likes of Goldman.
I'm okay for not adopting regulation on futures as long as when there is a crash that the politicians and Neo-keynesian economists start yelling 'GREAT DEPRESSION SEQUEL!!!!!!' everyone ignores them . Selling short got to the point that the panic feeds on itself underappreciating the economy just as gambling on prices going higher and inflationary monetary policies (and stupid 'affordable housing' policies) overvalue securities and derivatives. Otherwise there will definately be a need for regulations. I still remember my Marxist Sociology professor state "the economy goes up like this and goes down like that. When it goes down like that this is where we come in." The funny thing was Naomi Klein said that about Milton Friedman and capitalists showing that she was misunderstanding the economy and how it rebounds better than before and this also shows mental projections of what leftists think transposed on rightists as if the tactics are the same.

When the economy collapses we hear all kinds of doom and gloom and as Rahm the man said "never let a serious crisis go to waste". We can't be as rightists too focussed on economics without understanding the political opportunism that derails us (sometimes for a couple of decades). That's the problem I have with libertarians is that they are good at economics and even understand the political difficulties but they don't design strategies to combat the ignorance of the public to credit and debt and strategies to create political leadership that.....leads. I hope there isn't a third party in the U.S. because it will prove exactly the point I'm making that we ignore "Political Economy" for "Economy" at our peril.

Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Bottom line, retail day traders by and large don't move markets.
No you're right. Financial companies were starting to gamble and that pushed it farther beyond day traders. Though the zero sum game of it and day traders leaving productive jobs for fake ones bothers me a lot. My friend is back to work but he's in the dog house with his wife and kids. "Hey honey I'm rich!"......."Hey honey we're poor". I can't imagine the domestic disputes he's going through now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Personally, I'm supportive of nuclear power as the backbone of any energy strategy, with continued research into alternatives like wind, solar, and ocean power continuing to develop. I tend to have a lot of optimism for solar in the future, because I'm sure we can sharply increase their efficiency, considering that current solar cells only capture a small fraction of the solar radiation that hits them. I'm more pessimistic about wind power, because I consider it an eyesore that doesn't offer enough efficiency, and I question the impact on sea life for underwater power plants. Now, granted, there is the issue of nuclear waste, but the vast majority of it is because of wastefulness in North America. Europe reprocesses its nuclear waste, which is something I think should strongly resume over here. It is irresponsibly wasteful to consider burying it underneath a mountain instead of recycling it for further use!
I agree with this. Wind power requires coal plants to even out the power because there is no viable storage system for it. There is one I heard of that requires using part of the landscape to use excess wind energy to push water up the landscape and then store it. When wind energy gets lax then the water can be released to create hydropower. Though environmentalists don't like it either because of the land use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
As for coal, I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for the industry. Considering the bright orange haze in the sky from coal plants back where I'm from, nobody can remotely try to claim that it's "clean." And considering the timeline for when coal would become obsolete, perhaps the youth of today should take a cue and plan to work in a different industry. It's a lesson I learned at an early age, considering that the downfall of the Michigan auto industry was painfully apparent even 25 years ago, and so it had been inculcated in me from an early age to not even think that I could expect a job in it. Unfortunately, it appears that a lot of other people didn't take a similar cue.
We need growth in the economy and the new technologies that you want funded need a tax base to invest in research. I don't see how in a time when even the Obama administration is thinking of the lack of usefulness of NASA we should consider piling on the taxpayer to subsidize industries we know can't make a profit at this moment will do anything but slow things down both for new technology investments and reduce our Purchase Power Parity. The U.S. is in a serious crisis. When the economy eventually recovers there will be a huge debt that has to be dealt with and cuts to government or large tax increases will be in the works.

Though your farsightedness on the car industry is much like my decision to avoid oil companies, not because we don't have enough oil for multiple lifetimes, but because regulation will increase on them and not decrease.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
I can't excuse stupid leftists anymore than one can excuse stupid right-wingers. The fact is that there are a lot of stupid people in this world, but that doesn't excuse the fact that there are facts that exist amongst all the rhetoric and that there are solutions all the same.

And allow me to state that I am the furthest from "neo-Luddite." I have no real romantic fantasy for some "simpler time" long past, even though I read history books like nothing nowadays; but I should also point out that I'm under no illusion that we're living at "the end of history" or similar nonsense. Quite frankly, I think we're still primitive, in spite of all our shiny toys, and I'd like to see us progress to the next stage. And, for me, that means taking the unprecedented step of merging Lockean progress with Rousseauian appreciation for the environment. I quite firmly believe that we are at the first moment in history where we can achieve such progress without rampant environmental destruction.

Of course, I'm also aware that true opposition to what I propose, ultimately, has little to do with feasibility. It's perfectly feasible with an actual long term strategy, and France has been living proof of how you can primarily power a nation with nuclear power, while reprocessing spent fuel. It pretty much has everything to do with oligarchy, and how our titans of industry would rather continue to make money off of present technology, rather than spending money on investment into new--or, even worse to them, actually be surpassed by new, more efficient corporations. Decades ago, as it was apparent that the telephone was about to kill the telegraph once and for all, we let that dinosaur die and pass into history. Nowadays, not only would we probably let the telegraph companies own the telephones too, we'd also let them degrade the telephone to protect the telegraph market, and we'd also give them massive government subsidies to stay afloat. Can we not see how transparently awful such an approach is to progress?
Again with the nuclear I would agree but you would have had to vote for McCain to see that option. Obama has made some recent remarks that hinted a renewed interest in what France and Japan have been doing with nuclear but until I see them doing something about that it's just talk. Politics is about priorities and all administrations leave things on the backburner. Obama is obsessed with health reform and he can't decide in Afghanistan. Bush was obssessed about "compassionate conservativism" but put social security reform on the back burner. You can't always get what you want. I would love to live in a Star Trek world but that's still a mental projection. All the advances we've made had to have capital to invest in and capital is exactly what is leeching from the west and going east. When people don't have a job they prioritize jobs over environment. When the economy is humming then they start complaining about the environment. I'm okay with developing technologies but I'm also aware that it most likely will take decades before we see coal being only a supplement or not used at all. If the U.S. isn't careful they could have a dollar collapse which would take the emphasis away from the environment in a jiffy.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 11-09-2009, 03:07 PM   #126
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:20 PM
gonna take a whole lot of socialism to build a $10bn nuclear power plant.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-09-2009, 03:26 PM   #127
Breakdancing Soul Pilgrim
 
UberBeaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: the most serious...douch hammer ever
Posts: 20,318
Local Time: 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
As for the science, I have no idea and I'm not sure that I give a bollix. Ireland is completely bankrupt, about the only I think that will save us at this stage is if all these things the global warming people are saying come true, and we become one of the few inhabitable places left on earth, hence our property bubble will re-ignite as all the immigrants from warmer climes will flock here.
That's why they call you Financeguy! Nice thinking.

I'gonna get me an acre in Cork, two in Kerry, and shit, I'll even get some in Derry - why not! I'M A BE RICH!!! w00t!!!!
__________________
UberBeaver is offline  
Old 11-12-2009, 07:11 PM   #128
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 12:20 PM
Climate change 'sceptic' Ian Plimer argues CO2 is not causing global warming - Telegraph
__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 09:06 PM   #129
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 12:20 PM
More 'Global Warming' Nonsense?

Everyone in Britain could be given a personal 'carbon allowance' - Telegraph
__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 09:18 PM   #130
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,882
Local Time: 12:20 PM
LOL

Politicians first !
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 10:38 PM   #131
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 11:20 AM
Interesting concept. I'm not sure exactly executing the idea will work.

But the concept could really get some people thinking and acting differently.

Quote:
Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit.


My only problem is how would work for those who have to drive for their work, I guess that footprint is paid for by the company?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 10:40 PM   #132
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 12:20 PM
it is an interesting concept, but frankly, i wouldn't want my spending habits and whereabouts collected in some giant database any more so than they already are.
__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 12:12 AM   #133
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Se7en View Post
it is an interesting concept, but frankly, i wouldn't want my spending habits and whereabouts collected in some giant database any more so than they already are.
That's the thing, they already are...

Actually tracking down your consumption of energy would be much less intrusive.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 03:59 AM   #134
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 11:20 AM
One global warming thread is enough for now.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-18-2009, 11:37 AM   #135
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
gonna take a whole lot of socialism to build a $10bn nuclear power plant.
Cheaper than what is being proposed. Also removing government barriers to building them would also be necessary. Again I'm not for closing down coal plants because all the green technologies need oil, natural gas, coal etc. These green technologies can only be a supplement. If some guy can invent a solar panel that can absorb more energy and pay for itself the market would snap it up ASAP.

Here's a good documentary on McIntyre and Lindzen and the Iris effect. It also includes some who are still worried about C02 but very concerned about what the public is seeing compared to raw data.

Climate Catastrophe Canceled - 2 Translation(s) | dotSUB

(Finnish documentary subtitled)

The idea that people wanted to deliberately get rid of the medieval warming period is just plain disturbing. If the Cambrian period had 20 times the C02 but only 7 degrees increase then what we produce at our level will hardly move the temperature anywhere near that height. But as Al 'Baby' Gore said C02 is only 40% of the observed warming.
__________________

__________________
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 12:20 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