The Truth, Still Inconvenient - Page 34 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-29-2013, 10:27 AM   #496
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 488
Local Time: 09:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I would agree if there were a cheaper alternative right now. But there isn't so it would lower our standard of living, destroy the economy, restrict free enterprise and the U.N. said they would redistribute wealth.
This language is telling and consistent with what I hear from other conservative people in general. They don't like the solution - or rather, what they perceive the solution to entail - and, in response, attack or deny the problem itself. They can't or won't think of the problem in isolation from its solution. I could respect someone arguing for adaptation over mitigation on an economic basis, but denying the problem altogether is simply untenable in light of what we know.

We've seen this several times in the past, at a smaller scale, in the lead-up to government action on man-made acid rain, man-made smog, and man-made ozone depletion. Of course, now we don't hear much talk of 'government overreach' when it comes to the man-made solutions that we enacted to solve these problems (regulations and even cap-and-trade), for a simple reason: they worked.

What I can't fully come to grasp with is how self-defined conservatives have so little faith in markets on this issue. As if, once a carbon price of some sort is put in place, the private sector will simply throw its hands up in despair and collapse, instead of innovating its way out of it.

It is because we believe in markets, because we believe in private sector innovation, because we are generally pro-business that we believe that climate change can be addressed. Not the other way around.
__________________

__________________
Badyouken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 11:55 AM   #497
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 03:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
This language is telling and consistent with what I hear from other conservative people in general. They don't like the solution - or rather, what they perceive the solution to entail - and, in response, attack or deny the problem itself.
BINGO!

It's what I tell him all the time

It's why he and so many others fall for junk science, it's because they are working backwards. They don't like that energy may cost more for awhile, that it might effect their status quo, it might effect their portfolio, or sometimes it's just that they have to oppose the other side. So they first started just denying climate change, but then people started asking them why so they had to pretend to like science. So they're all throwing different junk science to see what sticks.

This person says the world is actually cooling, the other says more CO2 is actually good for humanity and the earth, and others just bury their head completely don't bother with science and say it's a hoax. But at the end of the day, their approach and the fact that they got where they are backwards is very transparent.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 12:02 PM   #498
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post

What I can't fully come to grasp with is how self-defined conservatives have so little faith in markets on this issue. As if, once a carbon price of some sort is put in place, the private sector will simply throw its hands up in despair and collapse, instead of innovating its way out of it.
It's not just this issue - the reaction is essentially identical whenever anyone proposes an increase in taxes. Businesses will close down, the sky will fall, people would rather not work than pay more taxes, etc, etc.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 06:00 PM   #499
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post

This language is telling and consistent with what I hear from other conservative people in general. They don't like the solution - or rather, what they perceive the solution to entail - and, in response, attack or deny the problem itself. They can't or won't think of the problem in isolation from its solution. I could respect someone arguing for adaptation over mitigation on an economic basis, but denying the problem altogether is simply untenable in light of what we know.

We've seen this several times in the past, at a smaller scale, in the lead-up to government action on man-made acid rain, man-made smog, and man-made ozone depletion. Of course, now we don't hear much talk of 'government overreach' when it comes to the man-made solutions that we enacted to solve these problems (regulations and even cap-and-trade), for a simple reason: they worked.

What I can't fully come to grasp with is how self-defined conservatives have so little faith in markets on this issue. As if, once a carbon price of some sort is put in place, the private sector will simply throw its hands up in despair and collapse, instead of innovating its way out of it.

It is because we believe in markets, because we believe in private sector innovation, because we are generally pro-business that we believe that climate change can be addressed. Not the other way around.
I don't agree with your premise that phasing out fossil fuels is the same as reducing acid rain or CFCs. The scale is not even close. The only hope we have of replacing fossil fuels is nuclear fusion which is decades away. Again I don't agree that CO2 is causing this damage because as we have seen, it hasn't. Unless the premise is proven the panic and hugely expensive measures shouldn't follow. Don't even use the loaded terminology of "climate change" when projections are for warming not just change.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 06:18 PM   #500
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post

BINGO!

It's what I tell him all the time

It's why he and so many others fall for junk science, it's because they are working backwards. They don't like that energy may cost more for awhile, that it might effect their status quo, it might effect their portfolio, or sometimes it's just that they have to oppose the other side. So they first started just denying climate change, but then people started asking them why so they had to pretend to like science. So they're all throwing different junk science to see what sticks.

This person says the world is actually cooling, the other says more CO2 is actually good for humanity and the earth, and others just bury their head completely don't bother with science and say it's a hoax. But at the end of the day, their approach and the fact that they got where they are backwards is very transparent.
God is that all you have? Skeptics are simply showing the different possible alternatives that warmists don't pursue. Some skeptics predict massive cooling. Some predict beneficial warming, and others small cooling. This is because nobody knows what nature will throw at us because it's so complicated. Your side predicts accelerated warming (which isn't happening), and then moves to climate change to brainwash the public into thinking that all change is our fault. If it gets colder it's our fault, but the projections are for warmer temperatures. Go figure. Then you guys vacillate over how much the taxes are because to lower the CO2 level in the entire planet would require draconian methods so you don't really fear increased CO2 because if you get some tax increases it will create jobs for environmental cronies like Lagarde hopes. Enough time has passed that we can see the mathematical projections are faulty and reductive and they have go back to the drawing board and add more OBSERVATIONS to improve their predictions.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 06:35 PM   #501
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 03:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
God is that all you have? Skeptics are simply showing the different possible alternatives that warmists don't pursue.
That is simply the problem, you are in pursuit of the science. This is exactly what everyone is telling you, you're doing it backwards. You make up your mind on the stance and THEN you pursue the "science" that backs it up.

Thanks for being honest.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 06:57 PM   #502
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
That is simply the problem, you are in pursuit of the science. This is exactly what everyone is telling you, you're doing it backwards. You make up your mind on the stance and THEN you pursue the "science" that backs it up.

Thanks for being honest.
You're the one who isn't honest. Your just a troll that ignores my posts over and over again and then tries to paint my posts as not answering your questions. Are you okay? Then you are now trying to ignore the fact that temperatures are not going the way of warmist predictions which damages your premise in the first place. You can ignore all you want but skeptics require logic and accurate predictions to believe the premise that man is going to destroy the planet in the next few decades. We are also practicing science and statistics to correct bullshit as well.

CRU Abandons Yamal Superstick � Climate Audit
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 07:25 PM   #503
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 03:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
You're the one who isn't honest. Your just a troll that ignores my posts over and over again and then tries to paint my posts as not answering your questions.
Now it's your time to live up to that honesty you claim. Am I the only one that's called you out for not answering their posts? Let's remember, everything is archived.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Are you okay?
I'm great, and you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
You can ignore all you want but skeptics require logic and accurate predictions to believe the premise that man is going to destroy the planet in the next few decades.
If the skeptic looked at all the available science and then made up their mind, then I can respect that. I've met people who respect science and are skeptics or on the the fence. But the truth is, most of them admit that change is occurring they're just not convinced it's man's doing. None of these folks are ignorant enough to think it's a hoax or that more CO2 the better. Skeptics that are skeptics first and then pursue the science I cannot respect, it's not honest.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 09:38 PM   #504
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,014
Local Time: 07:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Yeah but China/North Korea/USSR were and are REAL.
NK, for one, was never born of a proletarian revolution. So its rule has really nothing to do with the working class who don’t wield any power whatsoever. The USSR, bar its first few years, maybe, cannot be considered a product of workers’ rule. I’m a bit iffy on China given that my knowledge isn’t relatively extensive, but I do understand that in no point did the proletarians have control over the means of production.In any discussion on communism these three states become near irrelevant.

Quote:
Well explain to me how the dictatorship of the proletariat will give back power and share it equally? Because this question has never been answered. The reason communism failed is precisely because they don't share power and they feather their nests because these leaders are human and get corrupted by power (assuming they didn't already have this in mind before taking power). This is why conservatives don't believe there is a communism that can happen in reality. Only in theory with theoretical people that don't resemble emotionally complex human beings.

Human beings have desire and that desire is more powerful than the envy people feel for those they perceive are happier. How are you going to regulate desire in people to express themselves in ways that are unequal? Some expressions are of a higher quality than others and that might lead to some having some envy. The biggest question comes after this. How do you regulate the people who enact these laws who also have desires? Communists in reality concentrated more economic power in a few hands than the capitalists they criticized.
Whether you’ve worded this incorrectly or not, I don’t know, but it seems like you’ve defined the dictatorship of the proletariat incorrectly. It’s the rule of the working classes, not necessarily a single party. Communism ‘failed,’ (I’d much rather go with just ‘communist movement’ since communism hasn’t achieved let alone to the point where we would decide if it would succeed or fail) at least in the early days of the USSR because the Russian revolution was reliant (being a semi-feudal society) on the German revolution to succeed. That revolution was unfortunately quashed, the early USSR needed the more developed Germany to support it. Workers’ power didn’t exist for too long and the nation was essentially heading towards a form of capitalism with the bureaucratic class controlling the means of production. Stalin abandoned internationalism for some ridiculous ‘Socialism in One Country’ rubbish, which did not at all have the proletariat in power.

Anyway, I don’t buy the ‘human nature’ argument, I believe that conditions determine consciousness, that the nature of the person’s environment will determine their behaviour/approach towards it.

Quote:
Now in this thread it's about fossil fuels and the environment. So are you a communist that doesn't like industry or one that would include fossil fuels? I hope you would include them because I can't imagine what medical care would be like without modern equipment. If you do like fossil fuels how would a communist of your type change the energy system without creating another "Great Leap Forward"?
I just don’t see any need for a Great Leap Forward, really. So that’s all I can answer on that one. We can produce enough energy through solar energy and wind power. (And a supposed need for the Great Leap Forward would imply that I was ever an admirer of Mao, which I never have been and probably never will.

Quote:
I don't expect you to answer these questions satisfactorily because if you could you would be one hell of a genius.
It seems that you had already made up your mind when you wrote this.

(Excuse me for the varying mess of font colours etc)
__________________
Vlad n U 2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 12:40 AM   #505
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 488
Local Time: 09:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I don't agree with your premise that phasing out fossil fuels is the same as reducing acid rain or CFCs. The scale is not even close. The only hope we have of replacing fossil fuels is nuclear fusion which is decades away. Again I don't agree that CO2 is causing this damage because as we have seen, it hasn't. Unless the premise is proven the panic and hugely expensive measures shouldn't follow. Don't even use the loaded terminology of "climate change" when projections are for warming not just change.
Of course it's not remotely on the same scale, but the denier behaviour is very similar. Deny that the problem exist, refuse to accept the science, seek bogus science. I won't convince you that GHGs cause global warming / climate change, and that's fine with me.
__________________
Badyouken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 12:41 AM   #506
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Vlad, I hope you stick around. You offer a perspective we never get in here. That was interesting reading.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 12:53 AM   #507
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 488
Local Time: 09:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2 View Post
I just don’t see any need for a Great Leap Forward, really. So that’s all I can answer on that one. We can produce enough energy through solar energy and wind power.
If you are putting all your eggs in the solar/wind basket, then you do need a great 'technological' leap forward in the form of high-performance energy storage, which we haven't achieved just yet. We are getting close, though.
__________________
Badyouken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 12:59 AM   #508
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,014
Local Time: 07:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Vlad, I hope you stick around. You offer a perspective we never get in here. That was interesting reading.
I'll try.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
If you are putting all your eggs in the solar/wind basket, then you do need a great leap forward in the form of high-performance energy storage, which we haven't achieved just yet.

We do need significant technological breakthroughs (nuclear, CCS, energy storage, synthetic fuels/biofuels, high performance PV, etc.), just as we need a pricing structure that internalizes environmental costs.
The solar/wind bit I mentioned was merely a basic example, so of course I recognise that there is so much more out there.
__________________
Vlad n U 2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 01:03 AM   #509
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 488
Local Time: 09:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2 View Post
The solar/wind bit I mentioned was merely a basic example, so of course I recognise that there is so much more out there.
Of course. Thanks for the discussion.
__________________
Badyouken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 09:24 AM   #510
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Now it's your time to live up to that honesty you claim. Am I the only one that's called you out for not answering their posts? Let's remember, everything is archived.

I'm great, and you?

If the skeptic looked at all the available science and then made up their mind, then I can respect that. I've met people who respect science and are skeptics or on the the fence. But the truth is, most of them admit that change is occurring they're just not convinced it's man's doing. None of these folks are ignorant enough to think it's a hoax or that more CO2 the better. Skeptics that are skeptics first and then pursue the science I cannot respect, it's not honest.
If you're a scientist, being skeptical first is hardly a problem. What matters is following the actual worldwide temperatures. If you gave up looking at studies then that would be bad. I'm hardly someone who doesn't know what AGW proponents believe. After seeing the U.N.'s involvement and self interest people should be more skeptical. The summary for policy alternatives is always more alarmist than the actual science supports. That's why the temperature predictions are now being downplayed & the more alarmist ones of 6 degree temperature increases with a doubling of CO2 is wrong.

BTW it shouldn't be so controversial to see benefits to crops when CO2 is increased in the atmosphere. Photosynthesis is important to say the least and crops do grow better when they are given more CO2. Even believers in AGW understand this.

I've answered your posts and then some. I'm not even sure if everything is archived as I remember trying to find earlier threads and they aren't there. I posted tons of science in response to people's claims. That's why I asked if you were okay and it appears not. I think you just get people to post lots and then you dismiss it as not science and move on. You just don't like the responses so act as if they aren't responses.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:20 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