Printable View
You presume I believe in such a thing as, "deserved power", though that begs the question of who people who make money are "undeserving".Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Actual price fixing is done by regulation, collusion is arguably less dangerous because most businesses tend to react when people become too poor/the black market takes over. The government blithly ignores such problems.
Larger territory with it being impractical to build a large train network and more extreme climates come to mind. Therefore on heating, cooling, and transport alone those groups need to spend more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Canada, Oz and the US emit triple the amount of CO2 of Sweden, which is fairly cold and large too. Triple the amount of very environmentally conscious New Zealand too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Double that of icy and empty Norway too, where oil flows free of charge from the tap.
Political will is the overriding reason.
Edit: My oh my, look at this list of Co2 emission per capita by US state:
Texas 28.38
California 11.07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions
Not size, climate or transport are decisive. The political will is decisive. Blue states are on a European / New Zealand level. The more red a state, the more greenhouse gases. Reaching a level of emissions resembling erm...well nothing comparable to anything on this planet actually. Maybe Venus. Where it is 600 degrees owing to runaway greenhouse effects.
And the amount of CO2 compared by GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions
The US and Australia are somewhere down below in between Malawi and the People's Democratic Republic of Laos.
Considering the effects of pollution are felt globally, with financial consequences too, in effect the world is subsidising American products.
Note where Japan, Germany, Britain and all the other economical powerhouses of this world are. Somewhere near the top, together with the rest of the industrialised world. So there is no economical penalty for being energy efficient. It will not ruin your economy.
More BS. Idaho has a lower per capita than California. And venus is hot BECAUSE ITS CLOSER TO THE SUN. :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I don't want to pay more for anything to reduce CO2 emissions. The US has more emissions because it's larger, has more people spread out over a much bigger area, and we're not about to idiotically cripple our industry to stop CO2 from being emitted.
I guess that shows who the smart ones are. :laugh4:Quote:
Considering the effects of pollution are felt globally, with financial consequences too, in effect the world is subsidising American products.
CR
Venus is hotter than Mercury. :book:Quote:
And venus is hot BECAUSE ITS CLOSER TO THE SUN.
Azatoth is right. This is due to the immense amounts of CO2 in its atmosphere.Quote:
And venus is hot BECAUSE ITS CLOSER TO THE SUN.
The clincher as to why that is the case, is amusing in this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azathoth
Really? Because mercury has no atmosphere, the direct opposite of venus?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Also, Louis said a "runaway greenhouse effect" - could any of you point out where the runaway part is? Is venus' temperature increasing? Or is it at equilibrium now?
Yes, lots of CO2 - and other gases.Quote:
This is due to the immense amounts of CO2 in its atmosphere.
CR
If it is at equilibrium, it's probably because massive cloud of gas blocks out the sunlight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I don't think venus is a telling example for either side of the argument, and louis didn't really intend it as such.
while an amusing little aside, that overly simplifies the issue, as venus lacks the single largest carbon control mechanism available to a planet; plate tectonics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Sure. See links below. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Only greenhouse effects on planet earth are controversial. All of the other planets lack an oil industry so the study of their greenhouse effects can be studied objectively.
NASA would be a good place to start. There are such scientific endeavors as planetology and astrobiology, where it is commonly understood that greenhouse effects are an important constituency of a planet's climate. These greenhouse effects are studied and commonly accepted. No 'lack of complete models', no fake or bought science, no vested interests trying to create 'controversy'.
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/new...ws.cfm?id=1386
Or Wikipedia:
Quote:
It is currently thought that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface. The runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other greenhouse gases.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
"The runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other"Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
those two words, and the specific placement, seem important for some reason.
and again, no plate tectonics.
The exact differences between Venus and Earth are not the point. The point is that it is commonly understood that - all else being equal - the emission of greenhouse gasses causes a...greenhouse effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Except, apparantly, on earth. Where this very basic, two centuries old scientificfactjust a theory is 'controversial'.
Is the level of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere rising?
Is CO2 a greenhouse effect?
If yes, then all else being equal there will be an increase in greenhouse effect.
Plate tectonics work in a timeframe irrelevant to the human experience. I don't care about the climate a million years from now.
and yet you quote back at me the geologicial history of venus, as if it has some consequent relevance as a comparison to the earth right now...........Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Louis,
i have NEVER argued that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, i merely have doubts that our climate change is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2 as per the IPCC consensus.
my point about plate tectonics was made to create an awareness within a layman that this is a complex system that is poorly understood, and that the assumptions that underpin climate models may have no basis in reality, thus the IPCC diagnosis may be wildly wrong, thus their recommended prescription totally irrelevant, and their prognosis of no consequence.
I like how we do the same posts over 3 different threads and they will never end due to either side unwilling to give ground amongst those who are completely unreasonable posting in between who call everything a grand socialist dictatorship in the making.
nearly as daft as those who brand skepticism as "deniers", and merely useful idiots* for Big-Oil/US-multinationals/MIC/Neo-Cons/etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
* well, you guys would recognise that one most readily!
Well, I already gave my position on Global Warming some where, and if I remember correctly, you agreed with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
So I know you are not on about me. :beam:
edit: Though much of the skepticism argument is funded and backed up by Big-Oil/US-Multinationals/etc, it is just one of those amusing facts.
and i know mine has been bandied about, is it so extreme?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
If I remember correctly, you just stated about large economic costs, amongst other things. You haven't outright denied climate change/global warming, you probably believe there are alternative methods and the threat might not be as serious as some claim which would call for such urgent very high costs and really inefficient methods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I commented my personal opinion that there are many things that should be done anyway (such as a need for increased energy efficiency, decrease reliance on fossil fuels, etc), which as a secondary benefit (as in, not the aim of the changes) would lower CO2 emissions anyway, as I don't care/mind if those things are done. Though, I would agree that some of the suggested ideas and plans, and some of the more expensive ones are a total waste.
* I am as yet skeptical of the IPCC consensus that catastrophic climate change is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
This is a fairly nuanced opinion, and yet even people who are not eco-activists by any means, somehow sum this up with the statement; "but you don't believe in climate change, do you!"
I am by training a geologist, of course i believe in climate change, i spent three years studying it on and off.
I also know, from study, that it has frequently in the past been catastrophic in impact to the flora and fauna of the time.
I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and accept that it is within the realms of possibility that it is the driving factor of recent recorded climate change.
I am also fully aware that there are a multitude of other anthropogenic sources of green house gas, and that their action in combination can bring about feedback mechanisms that amplify the individual effects.
And yet this nuance is written off by; "but you don't believe in climate change, do you!" This to me is the real poison of the consensus as advocated through politics and eco-preaching, it is removing the responsibility of critical analysis from people, and replacing it with xenophobic faith.
My skepticism is not immovable, as that would not be a scientific position to hold, but it will require a great weight more evidence alongside a great deal more confidence in simulated climate models before I am convinced that spending trillions worrying about anthropogenic CO2 is a sane policy.
Because if this bout isn't anthropogenic, or; is anthropogenic but not catastrophic, or; is catastrophic but not CO2 induced, then our current direction in spending trillions in future wealth growth may be as futile and pointless as Canute with his tides.
Indeed. And almost all of the alarmist argument is funded by people who are making a ton of money on it (Al Gore) or by governments. The truth is that everybody will back the result they prefer, and neither side should be vilified simply for who backs them, since both sides are backed by groups which are equally distasteful in some eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Reminds me of a comedy sketch, I think it was South Park though...Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Anyway, no one would vote on the same side as the racists/facists, and they kept voting for the person they wanted and they would obviously get elected. So some one came up for the bright idea of them voting for the otherside, and what happened was, people shifted to vote for the choice they wanted.
That admittedly, tickled me.
Yes, there are new green economics which want to take advantage, even businesses. But the thing is, the worst offenders voting against something is a bad sign. They could do alternative things to make themselves and that position look far better.
Perhaps so, but they are not funding the majority of the skeptic movement. On the other hand, government and people such as Al Gore and pro-green businesses are funding the global warming side, because they all have a lot to lose if it fails. Therefore, who funds what doesn't matter, because both sides have a vested interest in seeing their side prevail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Now that is an interesting chart, and you're quite right, the per capita emissions are the correct way to read it. Totals are much less instructuve. For instance, what the heck is wrong with Indiana at 36.43? Wyoming and Montana I'm willing to give a pass, and West Virginia makes sense, what with them being the coal capitol of the world. But what the heck is Indiana's excuse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I think indiana has coal. And lots of manufacturing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
CO2 emission by State reflects the distribution of energy sources available, the existence of energy production, and manufacturing activities. So I'll give Louisiana and Alaska a pass. Oil refinery and oil exploitation create a lot of CO2 emission.
But the story does not stop there. Compare for example:
New Mexico 29.81
Arizona 15.98
The leftist West Coast is simply at European / Japanese levels:
Washington State 12.80
Oregon 12.35
California 11.07
Half that of their neighbours in the Rockies. Yet these three states are not economically ruined by clamping down on pollution. Far from it. Neither is Sweden or Denmark or Japan. Wastefulness is not a succesful business model. Except for those who exploit and sell the resource.
In the case of Cali, the economic effects of low-C02 usage may be lost in the general collapse. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
In the case of states in the Rockies, you have mining, agriculture, lower population density, higher heating costs, and a dearth of 4WD vehicles that are actually being used for their intended purpose.
I think you mean "plethora," not "dearth," but yeah. I never mind seeing AWD vehicles in the country, but a Hummer in Manhattan is deeply offensive. Best bumper-sticker I ever saw on a civilian Humvee: "I'm changing the environment; ask me how!" Obviously not put there by the owner.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Gah! Fancy word attempt fails! Even missed out on using my fav, plethora. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur