NASA: Al Gore, It's The Sun Stupid!

[Tresor]

Thunderdog,

These are speculations / conspiracy theories that may or may not be confirmed in the future. I do not care for them much. I base my opinions on knowledge. And my knowledge is:

Humans have nothing to do with climate change. Claiming so is either megalomania or desire to tax us.

Look at the language of climate pseudo scientists (sponsored from your money): ''we believe that...'' They never say ''we know that...''

The outcome is the politicians used these beliefs to tax us and the majority of us is happy.


Similarily Bush administration used to say ''we believe that Saddam Hussain has weapons of mass destruction'', we believe, we believe, we believe. In the end Sadsam had no weapons of mass destruction. 1.2 million Iraqi civilians killed from ''unnatural causes'' since the US invasion in 2003. What for? For beliefs.

I hope you discovered the ''we believe pattern''. 80% of Amercians believe in miracles, 50% of americans believe that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago as Bible says and that scientists put fake dinosaur fossils in the ground for the purpose of misleading religious people. Rejecting knowledge / science in the name of religious beliefs is called religious fanatism / fundamentalism.

How would you call rejecting knowledge in the name of politicians' beliefs?

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from Tresor:

Thunderdog,

These are speculations / conspiracy theories that may or may not be confirmed in the future...

These are not speculations or conspiracy theories. These are the findings of government investigations:

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1653

As for your other reference, Bush tried to put his slant on science just as he tried to put his slant on Saddam's supposed involvement in 9/11. There is indeed a smell. But it is not coming from where you think. Bush tried to impose the same milky-white transparency on climate change science as he did on Middle East intelligence reports. And look where the latter got him, and everyone else.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

It is a shame this issue has become so politicized, because it is very interesting. I would posit the following:

1. Mankind-caused global warming is an interesting theory that has not been confirmed.

2. The economic costs of trying to "stop" global warming are enormous, and it is by no means certain such efforts would have the slightest effect.

3. Any rise in sea levels would be very gradual, giving us plenty of time to react. Countermeasures would be far cheaper than the costs likely to be imposed by carbon limiting schemes under consideration.

4. For a number of reasons, ever increasing use of carbon-based energy sources is probably not a good idea. At some point they will run out, their extraction and use create pollution and they tend to be found in politically unstable areas.

5. Our reasonable objectives to reduce use of carbon-based energy can be achieved by a gradual program of conversion and incentives. Initially, we should concentrate on low-hanging fruit, such as converting long haul trucking, taxi fleets and municipal vehicles to natural gas. Gradually increasing taxes on motor fuels could be used to preserve consumer freedom but provide incentives for more efficient vehicles. We need to recognize that widespread use of plug-in electric vehicles will require an upgrade in utility generation and transmission facilities. We need a crash program to certify and build standardized design nuclear generating plants. We should also enact zoning requirements and tax incentives to encourage all new homes to incorporate solar power where feasible.

Are you kidding me?

Brutal honesty and cold hard facts are not allowed in this forum, let alone the current administration.

 

[Tresor]

Quote from Thunderdog:

As for your other reference, Bush tried to put his slant on science just as he tried to put his slant on Saddam's supposed involvement in 9/11. There is indeed a smell. But it is not coming from where you think. Bush tried to impose the same milky-white transparency on climate change science as he did on Middle East intelligence reports. And look where it got him, and everyone else.

Over the course of history people trained their brains to tell them what to think.

Now-a-days people have mainstream media and public schools that have been substituting the very basic functions of the brain. Unfortunately.

If we were made to believe that CO2 (a natural gas) is of any threat to the the world, I can only fear what comes next.

Regards

 

[Tresor]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

We should also enact zoning requirements and tax incentives to encourage all new homes to incorporate solar power where feasible.

A bad, socialist idea of giving incentives. Let the free market decide what type of energy is better, not incentives. Let the free market decide whether people shuld be employed in the carbon or wind or nuclear or solar energy sector.

 

[Dr. Zhivodka]

Don't worry Lucum.

You'll be long dead and Chattanooga will be underwater.

Quote from Lucrum:

Are you kidding me?

Brutal honesty and cold hard facts are not allowed in this forum, let alone the current administration.

 

[Dr. Zhivodka]

Master of the obvious...as usual.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

It is a shame this issue has become so politicized, because it is very interesting. I would posit the following:

1. Mankind-caused global warming is an interesting theory that has not been confirmed.

2. The economic costs of trying to "stop" global warming are enormous, and it is by no means certain such efforts would have the slightest effect.

3. Any rise in sea levels would be very gradual, giving us plenty of time to react. Countermeasures would be far cheaper than the costs likely to be imposed by carbon limiting schemes under consideration.

4. For a number of reasons, ever increasing use of carbon-based energy sources is probably not a good idea. At some point they will run out, their extraction and use create pollution and they tend to be found in politically unstable areas.

5. Our reasonable objectives to reduce use of carbon-based energy can be achieved by a gradual program of conversion and incentives. Initially, we should concentrate on low-hanging fruit, such as converting long haul trucking, taxi fleets and municipal vehicles to natural gas. Gradually increasing taxes on motor fuels could be used to preserve consumer freedom but provide incentives for more efficient vehicles. We need to recognize that widespread use of plug-in electric vehicles will require an upgrade in utility generation and transmission facilities. We need a crash program to certify and build standardized design nuclear generating plants. We should also enact zoning requirements and tax incentives to encourage all new homes to incorporate solar power where feasible.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Tresor:

A bad, socialist idea of giving incentives. Let the free market decide what type of energy is better, not incentives. Let the free market decide whether people shuld be employed in the carbon or wind or nuclear or solar energy sector.

In a rational world I would agree with you. Actually I do agree with you without qualification, however I have to recognize that we live in a world where our leaders appear determined to adopt the worst possible energy policy. I therefore propose something that should be attractive to them without being totally idiotic. There are so many market dislocations in home construction already that I don't think one more aimed at easing the load on the power grid is unreasonable.

In addition, I view a solar mandate as a test of the global warming crowd's sincerety, much as I view support for nuclear power. Are they more interested in reducing carbon emissions or are they actually more interested in gaining even more control over the economy?

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Tresor:

If we were made to believe that CO2 (a natural gas) is of any threat to the the world, I can only fear what comes next.

Regards

You're hitting each logical fallacy. This is the "naturalistic fallacy" where if something is "natural" it can't be harmful.

 

[Tresor]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

In a rational world I would agree with you. Actually I do agree with you without qualification, however I have to recognize that we live in a world where our leaders appear determined to adopt the worst possible energy policy. I therefore propose something that should be attractive to them without being totally idiotic. There are so many market dislocations in home construction already that I don't think one more aimed at easing the load on the power grid is unreasonable.

Hi,

I have always advocated the claim ''the less government in economy the better''. You see, any government that says ''we are giving incentives for business A'' at the same time says ''we are artificially creating the market for product A at the expense of other markets''. This is a hidden form of central planning (this is pure communism).

Giving incentives is in fact giving away public money. Giving away public money always attracts dishonest people. Home owners will be cheating on the number of solar devices installed. Then the government will need to hire the additional staff to investigate frauds. Then the government will need to hire the staff to control the staff they had previously hired, etc. As a result product A will become 2 x times more expensive than it was originally intended.

Any government that says ''we are giving incentives for product A'' misleads businessmen to allocate their resources (time, people, capital) to business A. This will cause a bubble in business A and this will cause businesses B / C / D to collapse.

Does even the most enlightened government have the right to decide which business has better development opportunities? Mao Tse Tung (China) thought this way once. Several tens of people died of hunger when he devoted human resources to industrialization of his country at the expense of the rural areas.

The best way to rationalize the world is not to give any incentives to anyone and not to propose any incentives. Let the market decide

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
In addition, I view a solar mandate as a test of the global warming crowd's sincerety, much as I view support for nuclear power. Are they more interested in reducing carbon emissions or are they actually more interested in gaining even more control over the economy?

I am afraid the crowd has already voted My country will pay several billions Euro yearly for CO2 emission rights and people did not riot. Fucking European Union.