[Sylvanus]

This thread started in response to the following exchange:

	Originally Posted by Sylvanus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	GW is a lie.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Originally Posted by juchestyle To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Global warming is a lie? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Are you one of those people who doesn't believe that we have been to the moon too? Or that the earth is not older than 6000 years old, or that Dinasaurs are a work of fantasy, or that the earth is flat? You are cracking me up Sylvanus. Nobel peace price, and the fact that every country in the world right now is trying to find ways to address their carbon output. Nasa.gov is an authority on this topic, and there have already been news articles from 60 minutes and Newsweek to name a few that have proven that companies like Ford and Exxon are paying third party entities to TRY to distort the science of Global Warming; that is a fact. And it is a fact that temperatures are rising, actually 5 times faster in the North and South poles, and night time temperatures, that is a fact. It is also a fact that we are contributing to the rise in temperatures through our carbon output, that is a fact. The only thing that is not certain, are how bad the side effects are going to be, and what we can do about it, in what time frame. Sylvanus - provide proof of your accusation. I can back up everything that I have put down here today, can you? The drought that Atlanta is in, is part of a cycle you should get use to. More frequent, more severe, longer lasting droughts. On the flip side, floods will have the same effect, that is because warmer temperatures world wide create erratic weather patterns. Warmer air holds more water vapor, that is the reason there is often dew on the ground in the morning, night time temperatures can't hold as much water, so it falls out of the sky in the evening hours. Are you a bible banger Sylvanus?

Originally Posted by juchestyle To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Amen my brothers and sisters. I think we need to come up with a term for people like that; let's call them "Flatliners." People who refuse to acknowledge the facts even when they are blarringly obvious. The types that probably think the world is still flat. I actually find it harder to believe that a real INTJ wouldn't be able to, or be interested in knowing the facts. I thought that was the basis of who we are! You are right between Nasa.gov, concerned scientists.com, and the IPCC website there is just too much information out there. Not to mention that winters are warmer and warmer every year, in my own experiences I can see GW. Three winters ago in Florida it was cold for 2.5 months. Two winters ago it was cold for four weeks. This last winter it was cold for 6.5 days. I have been keeping track, because I don't like having to run the air conditioner all the time, so the winter months are usually my favorite.

I started this thread in 'Politics' and not 'science' for a reason, because it is a political argument that happens to use science to back it up. There is a great deal of science to disprove GW, but I will begin with the political implications.

To start, I am not a 'young earther', nor do I believe we have never landed on the moon or that the earth is flat. I am a Christian, but I wouldn't call myself a 'Bible-thumper'. I believe that evolution is possible, but improbable. Anyone have a problem with that can take it to another thread. Facts are important, and I generally take a long time to make up my mind on any subject, until I can make an accurate choice and I stick with that choice unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary of that opinion.

I can't recall who said this but it is still very true: "You need to follow the money. If they say it isn't the money: It's the money."

It would be fair to say "Hey, we've noticed some trends in the weather. We should do some studies and see if there are any long term effects that are a direct result of the large human population" Well it turns out this is what happened, and the results are in. However, once they found out the truth they realized they would lose their government funding (
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
). But if they altered the data, it could be turned into a perpetual cash-cow. Of course the politicians have no problems with this. They are here in all their benevolence to ensure we will all make it through this together. More money diverted to 'green energy', more taxes roll in, and we all march further down the road to serfdom.

Nobel Peace Prizes: Appeal to Authority Fallacy. The same people who awarded Gore a Peace Prize are the same ones that gave one to Yassar Arafat, Jimmy Carter and Woodrow Wilson. A worthless honor in my eyes, well, except for the money.

The satirical People's Cube is dangerously close to the truth with their version of
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1: The masses believe in Global Warming and it really exists: we prevent climate change and kill capitalism: our gain is infinite. 2: The masses believe in Global Warming but it doesn't exist: we lose nothing but kill capitalism anyway and claim we saved the planet. 3: The masses don't believe in Global Warming and it doesn't exist: the growth of capitalist prosperity will continue unabated, distracting the masses from the need to fight capitalism. Faith in socialism withers away: our loss is infinite. 4: The masses don't believe in Global Warming, but it exists and arrives to smite the nonbelievers: See #3, plus our beach homes get washed away: our loss is infinite.

A modern-day equivalent of class struggle. Global Warming is an easily understood, historically inevitable concept in Marxist Science designed to help the Party to crush capitalism and fulfill the mankind's utmost desire of appointing Al Gore President For Life and establishing a planned centralized economy world-wide (Global Socialist Revolution). In the absence of classical Marxist preconditions for the Revolution (global crisis of capitalism combined with massive poverty and despair), Global Warming stands out as the most convenient replacement thereof, providing both the means to manipulate the masses and a moral justification for doing so. As such it replaces the previously promising but failed agitprop tools as "Overpopulation," "Ozone Holes," "Global Famine," and "Ice Age 2." Until the time when it gets replaced by another convenient agitprop tool, Global Warming must remain an unquestionable dogma in all political discussions (you will be notified of any change, if any, by NPR and the New York Times.) The importance of Global Warming for the Revolution is too great to leave it in the hands of scientists. The masses must believe that it is beneficial to have faith in Global Warming whether it can be proven or not (see Pascal's Wager). If Global Warming didn't exist it would be necessary to invent it. Global Warming encompasses four dogmas: 1) Global temperatures are rising. 2) This is a bad thing. 3) Rising temperatures (if they exist) are caused by human industries. 4) We must place human industries under centralized control and issue production quotas to stop rising temperatures. Note: if you can't prove Proposition #1 & #3 you must quickly move to #4 by invoking People's Cube Wager. The importance of Global Warming for the Revolution is too great to leave it in the hands of scientists. That was why Al Gore, with a collective of comrades in the Propaganda Directorate, produced a movie called "An Inconvenient Truth." Many people have difficulty with things like driving directions, balancing a checking account, and releasing the "Caps Lock" key. And yet, after watching Al Gore's film, they figured out Global Warming just as easily as they had figured out the Iraq war after watching Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" before that.

[Sylvanus]

And on a more serious note.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Al Gore's Inconvenient Electric Bill Thursday, March 08, 2007 By Steven Milloy The March 1863 Enrollment Act permitted wealthy men to legally dodge the Civil War draft by paying a $300 commutation fee to the U.S. Government. This controversial loophole fueled public perception of a “rich man’s war, but a poor man’s fight.” The sight of well-dressed men during the 1863 New York City draft riots prompted angry crowds to derisively call out, “There goes a $300-man.” It is, therefore, somewhat odd that Al Gore has ventured to become a latter-day $300-man in his crusade against global warming, especially since he touts himself as courageously leading the charge for wide-spread personal sacrifice. At the end of Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” viewers are asked, “Are you ready to change the way you live”? Following this line of thinking, the movie’s web site suggests many ways that you can “reduce your impact at home,” including using less heating and air conditioning, buying expensive fluorescent light bulbs, using less hot water, using a clothesline rather than a dryer, carpooling, flying less and buying cost-inefficient hybrid cars. Given that Gore calls the fight against global warming a “moral imperative” in the movie, you might reasonably think that he practices what his movie’s web site preaches. But you’d be wrong. In the wake of the movie winning an Oscar last month, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research reported that Gore’s Nashville mansion consumed more than 20 times the electricity than the national average. Last August, the Gore mansion burned more than twice the electricity in a single month as the average American family uses in an entire year. Gore’s heated pool house alone uses more than $500 in electricity every month. These latest revelations are reason enough to rent the movie just to see Gore standing before an enormous bar-graph comparison of individual carbon emissions by nationality while sanctimoniously tut-tutting about how the average American’s energy use is greedily off the charts. A Gore spokesman tried to deflect the charges of “do as I say, not as I do” by stating that the Gores “purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero.” Gore himself has been very public about this approach to carbon neutrality, but not only is this claim not exactly true, it’s quite meaningless in terms of global warming. First, Al Gore doesn’t purchase carbon offsets out of his own pocket and the actual economic cost, if any, to him is unknown. The actual offset purchaser is a London-based investment firm, Generation Investment Management (GIM), that Al Gore co-founded with former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood and others in 2004. GIM supposedly purchases carbon offsets for all 23 of its employees to cover their personal energy use, according to a March 7 CNSNews.com report. These offsets, then, would be provided to Gore more as an employee benefit, thus requiring very little sacrifice on his or his family's part. Trading and or purchasing carbon offsets is an emerging business, and CNSNews is also pursuing an investigative story into whether Gore or his company are making money from these offsets. It’s quite possible, for example, that GIM’s offsets actually produce financial benefits for the Gores either through tax deductions or even business profits. A Gore spokesman refused to shed light on the personal net financial impacts to Gore, instead telling CNSNews that Mr. Gore, "as a private citizen, does not release his private income.” Financial matters aside, what are the environmental impacts of Gore’s offsets? I was surprised to find that even a leading advocate of carbon offsets acknowledge that they have no impact on global climate. The Carbon Neutral Company – one of the two vendors that sell offsets to GIM – says that offset purchases “will be unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions… in the short term.” Instead, they merely: (1) demonstrate commitment to taking action on climate change; (2) add an economic component to climate change; (3) help engage and educate the public; and (4) may provide local social and environmental benefits that help to encourage the use of low-carbon technologies. The real design behind offsetting, then, is to impact the public debate, not to avert the dreaded global warming. This purpose is consistent with what I heard Al Gore say about the Kyoto Protocol following a private presentation of his climate slide show I attended at the Americans for Tax Reform offices in January, 2006. “Did we think Kyoto would [reduce global warming] when we signed it [in 1997]?… Hell no!” said Gore. He then explained that the actual point of Kyoto was to demonstrate that international support could be mustered for action on environmental issues. But it’s the carbon offset purchases through which Gore really validates application of the $300-man epithet to him. His company buys the offsets for their employees. There’s no cost to him. He benefits politically – and perhaps financially, as well – from them. He then advocates that the rest of us who cannot so easily offset are carbon production suffer myriad personal sacrifices. While Gore relaxes in his posh pool house and heated pool, you should be taking shorter and colder showers, and hanging your laundry outside to dry. As Gore jets around the world in first-class comfort to hob-nob with society’s elites about his self-declared “moral imperative”, you should travel less and bike to work. You should use less electricity while Al and his wife, Tipper, use 20 times the national average. Now that’s a real carbon offset. “Are you ready to change the way you live?” Gore literally meant you – and only you.

Quotes of Key Hoaxers:

	"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" -- Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.

	“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” -- Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Population, Resources, Environment” (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323)

And of course anyone that doesn't toe the line is subject to smearing because they might actually tell the truth. If the dissenters are in fact wrong as the hoaxers claim they are, then the hoaxers would have nothing to fear. An honest, public debate would certainly bring the truth to light, but they won't let this happen, and the smear campaigns continue.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Global Smearing By Steven Milloy March 27, 2008 By any standard, atmospheric physicist Dr. S. Fred Singer is a remarkably accomplished scientist. But his outspoken questioning of global warming alarmism has just earned him one of the most outrageous mainstream media smear pieces I’ve ever seen. ABC News reporter Dan Harris interviewed Dr. Singer for more than an hour at the recent International Climate Conference. From that interview, Harris produced a 3-minute TV broadcast and website article that was about as fair and objective towards Dr. Singer as I might expect Greenpeace to be. In fact, considering the activist group’s dominant role in Harris’ “report,” it seems that ABC News was merely the production company for a Greenpeace propaganda hit. Harris’ piece starts out, “His fellow scientists call him a fraud, a charlatan, and a showman, but Fred Singer calls himself ‘a realist.’” And just who are these “fellow scientists”? Harris didn’t identify them. But I doubt anyone who knows anything about Dr. Singer could slander him like that in good conscience. Armed with a doctorate from Princeton University, Dr. Singer played a key role in the U.S. Navy’s development of countermeasures for mine warfare during World War II. From there, Dr. Singer went on to achieve fame in space science. Some of his major accomplishments include: using rockets to make the first measurements of cosmic radiation in space along with James A. Van Allen (1947-50); design of the first instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone (1956); developing the capture theory for the origin of the Moon and Martian satellites (1966); calculating the increase in methane emissions due to population growth which is not key to global warming and ozone depletion theories (1971); and discovering orbital debris clouds with satellite instruments (1990). Dr. Singer is exceedingly modest about his career. Although I have personally known him for more than decade, I only inadvertently learned of his earlier achievements last year while reading “Sputnik: The Shock of the Century” (Walker & Company, 2007) which chronicles the development of the U.S. Space Program. The book described Dr. Singer, along with Van Allen, as a “pioneer of space science.” The author also wrote, “America’s journey into space can arguably be traced to a gathering at James Van Allen’s house in Silver Spring, Maryland on April 5, 1950. The guest of honor was the eminent British geophysicist Sydney Chapman… The other guests were S. Fred Singer…” Among his many prominent positions, Dr. Singer was the first director of the National Weather Satellite Center and the first dean of the University of Miami’s School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences. He’s also held many senior administrative positions at federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation and Department of Interior. Despite this illustrious bio, ABC News’ Harris was apparently too busy swallowing the Greenpeace caricature of Dr. Singer to do any research on the actual man. In a letter to ABC News, Dr. Singer complained that “Dan Harris also referred to unnamed scientists from NASA, Princeton and Stanford, who pronounced what I do as ‘fraudulent nonsense’… They are easily identified as the well-known global warming zealots Jim Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer and Steve Schneider. They should be asked by ABC to put their money where their mouth is and have a scientific debate with me. I suspect they’ll chicken out. They surely know that the facts support my position -- so they resort to anonymous slurs.” Perhaps the most comical part of Harris’ hit piece is the Greenpeace contribution. In the eco-activist tradition of willful ignorance and ad hominem attack, Greenpeace’s Kert Davies said of Dr. Singer, “He’s kind of a career skeptic. He believes that environmental problems are all overblown and he’s made a career on being that voice.” Right, Kert. Dr. Singer is just now making his career. And just who is Kert Davies, described by Harris as a “global warming specialist,” and what exactly qualifies him to pass any sort of judgment on Dr. Singer? I e-mailed Kert a request for his resume in order to learn precisely what a “global warming specialist” is. I received no response as of the writing of this column. Dr. Singer’s eminent qualifications and lifetime of accomplishment are readily available on the Internet for all to see. What about Davies’ qualifications and accomplishments? I couldn’t find them on the Greenpeace web site. I couldn’t find them through a Nexis search. Is it possible that their Internet absence is indicative of their general nature? All that I could find out about Davies is that the media has often used quotes from him in the role of a spokesman for various eco-activist groups since the mid-1990s. Worse than Davies is ABC News’ Harris. Although he didn’t need any particular qualifications or expertise to fairly report the interview with Dr. Singer other than perhaps some basic journalistic objectivity, he couldn’t even manage that as he allowed the distinguished Dr. Singer to be smeared by a rather undistinguished blowhard. This column recently reported on another recent mainstream media effort to marginalize those who question global warming alarmism. It’s a fascinating phenomenon given that available scientific evidence on the all-important relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global climate indisputably supports Dr. Singer’s point-of-view rather than the alarmists. Apparently the activists have decided that since they can’t destroy the facts, they’ll instead try to destroy anyone who dares mention them.

[Jon]

Sylvanus, I was going to post without reading all of your gigantic wall of text, but I decided that would be unfair. So, I read it all, and what I was going to say originally remains unchanged.

Your argument relies almost entirely upon appeals to Ethos and Pathos. I can't actually add anything to the discussion because there's not much to discuss beyond "yes, I agree" or "no, I don't."

[Sylvanus]

	Originally Posted by Jon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sylvanus, I was going to post without reading all of your gigantic wall of text, but I decided that would be unfair. So, I read it all, and what I was going to say originally remains unchanged. Your argument relies almost entirely upon appeals to Ethos and Pathos. I can't actually add anything to the discussion because there's not much to discuss beyond "yes, I agree" or "no, I don't."

There will be more. This is just a beginning to discredit the argument:

	Nobel peace price, and the fact that every country in the world right now is trying to find ways to address their carbon output. Nasa.gov is an authority on this topic, and there have already been news articles from 60 minutes and Newsweek to name a few that have proven that companies like Ford and Exxon are paying third party entities to TRY to distort the science of Global Warming;

I've got to get going, but when I have time I will post climate data.

[thod]

I would say he has a point but for the wrong reasons.

Global warming and cooling in natural and occurred in much more extreme versions pre mankind. Even if we are warming the planet we cant conclude it will lead to disaster. In previous phases the world didn't end.

I often see green activists accuse oil majors etc of funding studies debunking GW. What they never say is that vast amounts of public money that is going into proving GW dwarfs this.

You cannot get a research grant for blue sky stuff. Its a standing joke in scientific journals that if you want a grant you add "in the context of global warming" to your proposal. This will ensure your project is funded. If you conclude there is no warming you will gain no further grants.

Simply showing the world is warming proves nothing and implies nothing. There are lion and hippo bones dug up in the UK from when it was tropical. The world could be in natural warming phase. I am minded of vikings living and growing crops in Greenland. Then as temperatures cooled it was abandoned. The bottom came at the little ice age, where the sea around the UK would freeze and we have all those pictures of skating on the river Thames. Now the world is warming back to what it was. But that is not to say that man is doing it or that it is a bad thing.

I see a gravy train for scientists and they have a vested interest in keeping it going.

[schmidt]

	Nobel Peace Prizes: Appeal to Authority Fallacy. The same people who awarded Gore a Peace Prize are the same ones that gave one to Yassar Arafat, Jimmy Carter and Woodrow Wilson. A worthless honor in my eyes, well, except for the money.

Guilt by association, a common rhetorical tool to degrade arguments used.

[xanodel]

I think there's a slight flaw to all this. Many people assume it is a zero sum game to argue against the GW theory-that in itself may not in fact be true. In the process of developing alternative energy, new markets can be created; it does not automatically equate to the zero-sum capitalist vs. socialist chart you placed there. Part of it depends on how green energy and alternative energy markets themselves develop. And quite frankly, that's a natural part of any new industry's developmental process-usually something will get eroded, usually it is the established status quo methodology. That's nothing new.

Whether or not GW is all human or all natural is not of the greatest concern. It could be all natural, it could be all human, or it could be a factor of both. But we can face some other facts: 1) drop in oil reserves, or possible drop in oil; 2) some of the real human damages that are caused by the procurement of oil and normative status quo energy sources such as coal; 3) the drop in naturally agricultural land with a percipitated decrease in global grain production (you can google it yourself, it's a trend); 4) that a diverse environment is not just beneficial to nature, but also to humans; 5) that nature may have an intrinsic value; 6) that having a well balanced nature and earth itself can benefit humans for future generations. The fact that humans do depend tremendously on the well-being of this planet is indisputable; our ability to maintain its well-being affects humans as well. That fact can stand alone as a reason for conservation in general, with or without GW. It is indeed a sad fact that we do at times need more alarmist policies to trigger people to conserve-and as a backlash there are those who use the methodology of driving more SVUs to go against the GW grain.

The truth of the matter is, we are destroying the planet. Whether or not you buy into the GW theory is not a concern for me and we can agree to disagree. Quite frankly mine is until we take out potential human factors we will never know if it is all natural; additionally, there is nothing wrong with conservation, as it helps in the case GW is right, and it helps even if GW isn't right as it increases the overall quality of life-a concrete jungle with no trees is indeed a depressing sight to behold, as well as only seeing wild animals in zoos.

[Sylvanus]

	Originally Posted by schmidt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Guilt by association, a common rhetorical tool to degrade arguments used.

That was not my point. According to Nobel's will the prize should be awarded to "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." If these people are foolish enough to believe that Carter or Arafat have done any of these things, then it is likely they will make similar foolish choices in the future, or in the recent past.

[thegnat]

Originally Posted by xanodel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think there's a slight flaw to all this. Many people assume it is a zero sum game to argue against the GW theory-that in itself may not in fact be true. In the process of developing alternative energy, new markets can be created; it does not automatically equate to the zero-sum capitalist vs. socialist chart you placed there. Part of it depends on how green energy and alternative energy markets themselves develop. And quite frankly, that's a natural part of any new industry's developmental process-usually something will get eroded, usually it is the established status quo methodology. That's nothing new. Whether or not GW is all human or all natural is not of the greatest concern. It could be all natural, it could be all human, or it could be a factor of both. But we can face some other facts: 1) drop in oil reserves, or possible drop in oil; 2) some of the real human damages that are caused by the procurement of oil and normative status quo energy sources such as coal; 3) the drop in naturally agricultural land with a percipitated decrease in global grain production (you can google it yourself, it's a trend); 4) that a diverse environment is not just beneficial to nature, but also to humans; 5) that nature may have an intrinsic value; 6) that having a well balanced nature and earth itself can benefit humans for future generations. The fact that humans do depend tremendously on the well-being of this planet is indisputable; our ability to maintain its well-being affects humans as well. That fact can stand alone as a reason for conservation in general, with or without GW. It is indeed a sad fact that we do at times need more alarmist policies to trigger people to conserve-and as a backlash there are those who use the methodology of driving more SVUs to go against the GW grain. The truth of the matter is, we are destroying the planet. Whether or not you buy into the GW theory is not a concern for me and we can agree to disagree. Quite frankly mine is until we take out potential human factors we will never know if it is all natural; additionally, there is nothing wrong with conservation, as it helps in the case GW is right, and it helps even if GW isn't right as it increases the overall quality of life-a concrete jungle with no trees is indeed a depressing sight to behold, as well as only seeing wild animals in zoos.

*applauds xanodel*

I couldn't have said it any better.

Whether or not global warming is human caused or not or even whether or not it exists or will kill off everything on the planet or not, steps need to be taken to "green" up human lifestyles.

This will lead to a better quality of life for everyone. I love the outdoors. It would be an utter shame to not have that.

And let's face it: We've always known we're rather destructive to our planet and we tend to expedite natural destructive processes.

[1OFMANY]

The planet is getting hotter, humans arent causing it.

We still need to change out obsessive consumer habits IMO.

But the government can fukk off if they think they can tell us how to do it.



The End

[Brutananadilewski]

I fail to see how falsifying the global warming hypothesis includes a socialism/capitalism debate.

On another note, how on earth do you expect people to change their consumer habits on their own? We as a society are by and large ignorant and selfish; good luck having people change the status quo on their own. People won't change if they don't have to, thus, it won't happen without regulation.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Brutananadilewski To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I fail to see how falsifying the global warming hypothesis includes a socialism/capitalism debate...People won't change if they don't have to, thus, it won't happen without regulation.

Ah! I'll give you your answer.
You want more regulation, that is socialism. I think that people will change if the market provides different options for them, that is capitalism.

For example, I think that people don't drive electric cars because there aren't any available. I'm going to make them available so that people start to drive them. I'm going to do it by starting a business that makes a profit off of selling electric cars, not by lobbying the government to force the car manufacturers to build electric cars and sell them at a loss. That is the difference between socialism and capitalism.

The global warming debate is kind of a different topic. I don't think anyone is really perpetuating it to try and overthrow capitalism, that's just smells too much like "conspiracy theory" for me. Never assume malice when incompetence will explain everything. If people just didn't understand how to fix the problem with capitalism, then they would turn to socialism out of ignorance. Incompetence, not malice.

[thod]

For example, I think that people don't drive electric cars because there aren't any available. I'm going to make them available so that people start to drive them. I'm going to do it by starting a business that makes a profit off of selling electric cars, not by lobbying the government to force the car manufacturers to build electric cars and sell them at a loss. That is the difference between socialism and capitalism.

Even if your electric cars were better you cannot produce them at anywhere near the cost the big auto producers can produce with mass production. They have that volume on their side. If, through subsidy, you can get your volume up then the benefits of your cars win out. That subsidy is the motive force in pushing from one stable state to the other, which is better.

[Claptonian]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Even if your electric cars were better you cannot produce them at anywhere near the cost the big auto producers can produce with mass production. They have that volume on their side. If, through subsidy, you can get your volume up then the benefits of your cars win out. That subsidy is the motive force in pushing from one stable state to the other, which is better.

You're wrong. Electric cars may start out as a harder sell due to issues with volume, but it certainly wouldn't be impossible to succeed in such a business. One thing that would make it more difficult is regulations brought on by the lobbyists for the big auto-companies; a good example of how government intervention in the marketplace can hurt the environment and consumers.

Furthermore, there are so many wealthy people who are worried about global warming. They should be willing to invest in an electric car company, thus providing a legitimate "subsidy" rather than putting the bill on the taxpayers. But I suspect they would be more interested in going to Washington, D.C. and trying to convince the government to do it for them.

[thod]

On the one hand you say government acting, through legislation, with the auto makers to prevent the small guy building electric cars is a bad thing.

On the other you say that government subsidy to help the small guy build electric cars is also a bad thing.

Seems to me your issue is not with electric cars but government, whatever they do they are wrong. Libertarians + Ayn Rand supporters discussion is over there.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Even if your electric cars were better you cannot produce them at anywhere near the cost the big auto producers can produce with mass production. They have that volume on their side. If, through subsidy, you can get your volume up then the benefits of your cars win out. That subsidy is the motive force in pushing from one stable state to the other, which is better.

You should really put more trust in the power of the market. I'm not planning on building EVs from scratch, I'm planning on converting used cars to electric. The first thing that breaks is always the engine, the frame, transmission, suspension and interior are all still usable. Certify them, recondition them, throw in an A/C motor and some batteries and you have yourself a commuter vehicle that will last for a decade. They will sell for less than 10,000 dollars (or lease) and should pay for themselves over their lifetime through reduced maintenance and fuel costs.

Once people see that the business model is profitable the idea will spread and an industry will develop. Instead of throwing away old cars they will be converted to electric. As demand spreads that will simultaneously reduce demand for new gasoline cars and increase demand for new EVs. As more EVs run around the suburbs they will incrrease demand for an upgraded electrical grid to support them over longer distances and with quicker recharge times. That will drive demand in the motor and battery industries which will bring down the cost of components and encourage R&D.

After a decade or so people will start to convert the semi-trucks to run on the next generation of motors and batteries and they will be supplied by an upgraded electrical grid. With hundreds of thousands of batteries plugged into the grid at any one time the cost of electricity will come down because the grid won't fluctuate so much and the base load won't be wasted at night. As industrial world converts to electrical power the under-developed nations will follow and the world demand for oil will decrease. As the world converts to electrical power the focus will turn to sources of electricity that can supply power on a global scale like space based solar and fusion.

[Claptonian]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Seems to me your issue is not with electric cars but government, whatever they do they are wrong. Libertarians + Ayn Rand supporters discussion is over there.

God forbid we apply those principles to other subjects.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[xanodel]

The above debates amuse me.

I think hybrids are a move in the direction towards electric cars. Energy efficiency as well as change to alternative energy are attractive factors. Think about auto companies that depend on energy efficient cars (think Toyota, Honda etc) versus the less energy efficient cars such as Ford, GM etc. The US auto-makers are more or less failing (aren't they close to bankruptcy?). I think the overall demand for hybrids do evidence to some degree that energy efficient cars are winning if by marketplace demand alone; it may also be indicative that if we could replace oil with another energy source, it may also be well in demand.

There are also wind and solar companies that are economically doing quite well; the remaining question is that of volume, and whether or not we have to technology to cover all industries with alternative energy sources. Currently we can't cover all corners with alternative energy sources, but at the very least we can move towards that area, and perhaps one day with enough volume replace it. It's again an issue of technological capability and overall market supply volume. But also in some places, wind and solar energy are cheaper than coal based energy.

But let me ask this. If oil/coal companies can lobby for congress to not change rules and regulations (aka protection), why can't alternative energy companies likewise ask for government incentives? Isn't that a double standard? And for people who are that adamant against government regulations, shouldn't we end governmental protection too for the failing automaker companies and let market capitalism do it's chop chop job?

Another advantage I think with alternative energy is it creates new markets. That is usually a plus.

[Claptonian]

	Originally Posted by xanodel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But let me ask this. If oil/coal companies can lobby for congress to not change rules and regulations (aka protection), why can't alternative energy companies likewise ask for government incentives?

Neither side should be able to get incentives. It's absolutely ridiculous that the U.S. government is subsidizing oil companies while they're making record profits.

	And for people who are that adamant against government regulations, shouldn't we end governmental protection too for the failing automaker companies and let market capitalism do it's chop chop job?

Absolutely.

	Another advantage I think with alternative energy is it creates new markets. That is usually a plus.

I couldn't agree more.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think people stress out too much about alternative energy sources and the fear that we're running out of oil. They've been saying we have ten years worth of oil left since the 1920s, but as technology advances and the demand for oil grows, we find new ways to tap previously inaccessable reserves.

The fact is, there's a big market for alternative energy sources which will encourage developers to try to find the next great source. Government regulations and politicians who are in the pocket of the big oil companies will only hinder this.

I like this quote from Bjorn Lomborg: "Of course the oil age is going to come to an end but not for lack of oil, just like the Stone Age came to an end but not for a lack of stone."

[juchestyle]

sylvanus you offer very little in a concrete discussion on GW. A true INTJ wants to learn the truth regardless of how it affects their current view of the world.

Therefore you have either not fully developed your INTJ (or you are just posing as one). Or your religious beliefs have clouded your judgment; which often happens to religious people.

You are arguing with emotions and using faulty logic as pointed out by others. This reminds me of a favorite quote:

Never argue with a fool. Someone watching may not be able to tell the difference. ~Author Unknown

[fasterthanu]

LOL here I am as an INTJ staying neutral but I wouldn't call the guy an idiot or a poser intj because he has a different view I wouldn't call global warming a hoax but I am a skeptic. everyone knows that the earth goes through natural stages I believe the earth could be going through a natural state but humans are just speeding it up and altering it just enough to tilt the scale also... I believe part of the global warming debate is sustainability. No one wants to admit it but alternative energies need to be developed and once developed we have no idea on their life spans. Coal is estimated to have a huge reserve as of right now humans have only use I believe like 30% or so of coal. So if we do switch to electric cars we( the U.S) will just stop using so much gas and use more coal majority of the coal plants in the u.s are coal fired 2% hydro electric 8% nuclear. So coal is estimated to last the human race another 100 years. Then what? I personally think global warming is just the pre-requisite to introducing the masses to sustainability which will ultimately lead down to population control. Do I agree with population control no is it necessary I hope not.

[Claptonian]

	Originally Posted by juchestyle To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	sylvanus you offer very little in a concrete discussion on GW. A true INTJ wants to learn the truth regardless of how it affects their current view of the world.

That may be true, but that doesn't determine what the INTJ will consider to be the truth. If sylvanus genuinely believes what he's saying is the truth, then how does that conflict with your idea of what an INTJ is?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that one must accept global warming to be "a true INTJ," which I find absolutely hilarious.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Sylvanus]

Originally Posted by juchestyle To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

sylvanus you offer very little in a concrete discussion on GW. A true INTJ wants to learn the truth regardless of how it affects their current view of the world. Therefore you have either not fully developed your INTJ (or you are just posing as one). Or your religious beliefs have clouded your judgment; which often happens to religious people. You are arguing with emotions and using faulty logic as pointed out by others. This reminds me of a favorite quote: Never argue with a fool. Someone watching may not be able to tell the difference. ~Author Unknown

I agree that this is not a very thorough debunking. This beginning merely shows that there are people who have a lot to gain and have ulterior motives for denying the truth. There is a lot of data out there that disproves the GW myth. Currently I have some work I need to do, but once that is complete I will scour the internet for the truth, and hopefully post it before my weekend. If that happens it may not be until Monday until I can post it.





Sylvanus added to this post, 15 minutes and 40 seconds later...

Originally Posted by xanodel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think there's a slight flaw to all this. Many people assume it is a zero sum game to argue against the GW theory-that in itself may not in fact be true. In the process of developing alternative energy, new markets can be created; it does not automatically equate to the zero-sum capitalist vs. socialist chart you placed there. Part of it depends on how green energy and alternative energy markets themselves develop. And quite frankly, that's a natural part of any new industry's developmental process-usually something will get eroded, usually it is the established status quo methodology. That's nothing new.

New markets may be created, and may weaken or destroy the old. That is not necessarily a bad thing. However, it is a bad thing if it is at the expense of the taxpayers or if it inhibits economic growth through legislation, especially if it is in the name of a Hoax.

Whether or not GW is all human or all natural is not of the greatest concern. It could be all natural, it could be all human, or it could be a factor of both. But we can face some other facts: 1) drop in oil reserves, or possible drop in oil; 2) some of the real human damages that are caused by the procurement of oil and normative status quo energy sources such as coal; 3) the drop in naturally agricultural land with a percipitated decrease in global grain production (you can google it yourself, it's a trend); 4) that a diverse environment is not just beneficial to nature, but also to humans; 5) that nature may have an intrinsic value; 6) that having a well balanced nature and earth itself can benefit humans for future generations. The fact that humans do depend tremendously on the well-being of this planet is indisputable; our ability to maintain its well-being affects humans as well. That fact can stand alone as a reason for conservation in general, with or without GW. It is indeed a sad fact that we do at times need more alarmist policies to trigger people to conserve-and as a backlash there are those who use the methodology of driving more SVUs to go against the GW grain. The truth of the matter is, we are destroying the planet. Whether or not you buy into the GW theory is not a concern for me and we can agree to disagree. Quite frankly mine is until we take out potential human factors we will never know if it is all natural; additionally, there is nothing wrong with conservation, as it helps in the case GW is right, and it helps even if GW isn't right as it increases the overall quality of life-a concrete jungle with no trees is indeed a depressing sight to behold, as well as only seeing wild animals in zoos.

I agree that some resources are finite, and it is in our long-term best interest to conserve them. The earth is huge, and it takes a lot to impact it, but the effect of a lot of people over a long period of time does take its toll. However, the majority of legislation in the name of GW, has little or nothing to do with conservation. It is about penalizing the producers and robbing Peter to pay Paul, and is a detriment to our freedoms and our standard of living.

[yondyr]

I believe GW is a hoax, a very convenient one. I don't feel all the statistics are yet in for a long enough period of time to accurately judge a warming or a cooling of this planet. Hundreds of years are less impressive than thousands, and millions, more conclusive. And in the latter eras fluctuations are noticeable in the earths strata.
A separate issue is human occupation and its luxurious lifestyle which may be moving to rather a basic existence at the present rate of consumption.
The planet will always exist... man may not.

[sriv]

First, countries stop making problems for themselves. OMG not that hard.
Then, all countries are at relative peace and some have a surplus of resources. YAY.
After, consider the global problems and instead of cutting taxes use surplus on rebuilding environment and reducing large human output.