1. Carbon taxes are a great way to implement a market friendly solution to curbing carbon emissions. They are modeled off the extremely successful sulfur dioxide regulations implemented by GHWB, a Republican, no less!
Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who made a pre-election "pledge in blood" to voters and business to prioritize growth above climate shift, delivered on his promise after independent senators with deciding votes in the upper house sided with his conservatives, following a power shift this month that ended years of domination by the pro-environment Greens party.
1. Carbon taxes are a great way to implement a market friendly solution to curbing carbon emissions. They are modeled off the extremely successful sulfur dioxide regulations implemented by GHWB, a Republican, no less!
That's bullshit and you know it. Companies are still going to emit carbon it's just now they have to pay the government for it. They in turn just pass those costs on to us.
It is plausible that man's addition to global warming is so minute compared to other factors that it could be ignored. No way to know for sure, at least today.
No, you don't want people to follow science. You want people to jump to conclusions loosely based on science. Figure it out. There is nothing scientific about concluding a hypothesis is true when you have conflicting evidence. And a consensus isn't scientific proof either, even if there was one.
Learn from Galileo.
orignally posted by: xbiffx
Wong, wrong, and yep wrong.
No one is trying to feed anyone (person) with GMO. Nowhere in the world is this happening, try again. Sure animals eat it. But that doesn't mean you are when you eat the animal. Animals eat their own shit too.
We have plenty of research to prove it. It all has to go through regulatory of the FDA and USDA in order to be used. Do a little research before making a blanket statement like that. This is one area that I think the government does a good job with its regulations, and where they are definitely needed.
The world population is set to double in the next 20-30 years. That means 12 billion people. The land that can be cultivated is set to double when? Oh right, they stopped making land a long time ago. Without technology such as GMO, we cannot possible feed the world using organic, non engineered products. Simply isn't possible.
I am saying overall warming is caused by CO2, and other greenhouse gasses.
Short term warming and cooling is caused by ocean cycles.
You would get a graph similar to Sin(x) + x, where the sin would be the changing ocean cycles, x being the increase from CO2. and no don't read anything into that analogy, it's simply showing the overlap of short term trend over long term trend.
Yes yes learn from Galileo. It's impossible to know everything. Why it's just the height of hubris to state we know anything.
Except for GMOs. There's so much research we know the shit out them:
Oh ya and the projected world population. We know that's going to be a problem now. That shit is tight.
But this other problem. This global warming all that research is shit. Galilleo says we can't know that. Also that whole population problem thing. No way to know if that's a problem. So it's not.
Any other massively researched scientific issue with virtually total consensus that Galileo says we can't know. Oh prophet of his Galilieaness
So what you're saying is in a capitalist marketplace competition doesn't actually drive down the cost as it can be passed on to the consumer.
I'm not sure I fundamentally agree with that. :hmm:
In Texas we have deregulated power. Every year we pick the lowest cost provider. We also have access to green power only providers. If a carbon tax was levied the green power providers would have a market advantage and more marketplace dollars would flow to them. The extra dollars would allow for low carbon power expansion. Competitors would have to lower prices or lower carbon emissions to compete.
Historically, I don't think you can say that. CO2 levels have been much higher in the geologic past while temperatures have not been correspondingly higher. So it seems the rather simplistic model of CO2 increasing directly causing increases in temperature cannot be completely accurate. There has to be other more significant factors at work that can explain the geologic record.
NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed:
The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.
------------
That lends itself to my argument regarding the error margins of Argo.
What the hell are you going on about now? You really think that the population of the world going to say 12 billion by 2050 isn't going to be a problem? Are you stupid or something?
It's funny you bring it up though because for people who don't like GMO's and think man is the sole cause of global warming, well, the answers to both are the exact same: stop having children. But of course, no one wants to talk about that. It's everyone's "right" to procreate and pop out kids as fast as they'd like. Wouldn't want to deprive anyone now would we.
Also, what in the hell does Galileo, or more specifically his assertion, have to do with what's going on with GMO's?
I don't see how the Texas power market would be changed that much. Even though they're deregulated there are still regulations that have to be followed to join the market. One more shouldn't fundamentally change it.How is that capitalism if the government is artificially making one more expensive than the other?
Wow you puss out a lot don't you.
Well let's see.
In the GMO thread you a self proclaimed holder of a scientific background, take on a bunch of idiot liberal hippies who think GMO's are dangerous. You reference overwhelming research and consensus of scientists both public and private in the safety of GMO's and the threat of hunger due to the global population boom to make your argument.
In this thread you a self proclaimed holder of a scientific background, side with conservative idiots who think that no way is the Earth warming that much if at all and can't be shown to be cause by man at all. You deny overwhelming research and scientific consensus both public and private in the scope and risk of MMGW. Even though the situation will worsen due tonthe population boom. You then appeal to the authority of Gallileo and claim that anyone who claims to know anything about climate change is claiming to know everything, and who should claim to know everything about science. Right?
Well I have a hypothesis. It's that you actually only use science when it supports conservative view points that you hold and chuck it when it objectively supports causes you deem liberal.
Also, I post about reducing population to improve climate change. The only way proven to work long term and be ethically compatible with human rights is to raise the developing world up to 1st world standards. Birth rates drop off when that happens. The trick is to do it in such away that the 3rd world doesn't have to look like 1900 London, 1950 Pittsburgh, or 2010 Beijing. We might even be able to make some money providing the nuclear reactors, solar panels, natural gas, wind and gas turbines to make this work.
For that to work we might have to claim to know something about how the climate works however.
I'm not surprised you fail to see the science behind trying to ascertain the extent to which man has added to global warming. Nor am I surprised that you don't see the science behind the reasoning that current GMO's are safe.
The fact that you are trying to equate the topic of GMO's and global warming shows how out of touch you are with the science surrounding both. One really has nothing to do with the other. The "skeptics" from the global warming topic are using science and reasoning to try and determine why there is conflicting data on the topic. They are using the scientific approach here in that a hypothesis has been developed but there is evidence that it is suspect and likely needs revision. Why predictions made to date have not turned out to be true. While on the GMO side, skeptics have been using nothing but supposition and falsified data to support their counter to GMO's. There has been no plausible hypothesis that brings into question the safety of GMO's.
And no sorry, socialism and wealth redistribution isn't going to win the day on either front. You can't just artificially prop up the third world and expect them to all of a sudden not be a population problem. For one, there are far too many people already. Either way, injecting money into third world economies isn't going to be a lasting solution, and it certainly isn't going to put much of a dent on things before 2050 when the population of the world is on par for around 12 billion.
Prove it.
Come on, you could at lest cherry pick some data, reference a right wing blog, or quote Judith Curry.
Lot of opinion from you as usual.
As for socialism and wealth redistribution that wasn't what I was going for. But since that's what you jumped to I understand why you are skeptic and it ain't because of the science.
The fact that you think there's something different between the process of research both GMO and MMGW went through shows how out of touch you are.
Read the thread. There has been plenty of evidence to counter arguments on the extent and cause for global warming. CO2 doesn't look like its as big a factor as its been made out to be.
Aside from how this argument turns out, we should all be onboard for developing energy. From natural gas, to Thorium reactors, to solar, and fusion R&D. These things hold promise that we should spend the next century fulfilling.
I think waiting to see how this pans out is reasonable. Say... by 2020, after both the pause and OHC readings have more time to mature. If all readings indicate a buildup of energy, how are we to argue against that?
ROFL @ Paratus reporting my post.
Grow up, kid.
LOL. Jump to conclusions much. Oh wait :hmm:
But don't flatter yourself. You'd have to do more than post a mildly NSFW picture before I'd report you.
However why don't you specifically provide us with an example of conflicting data from this thread. Bonus points if I already haven't addressed it.