|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mises wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| The same reason we're talking about public options with triggers or state opt outs instead of going to single payer in the face of our health care catastrophe: because every time we have a problem, conservatives talk about how if any solution is enacted at all it will be the end of the world, demand compromise, and after the compromise is proposed they treat the compromise as if it were the starting point and demand more compromise. They algorythmically neuter solutions, it's what they do. |
Oh come on. The Dems control everything right now. If they wanted single payer, you'd get it. But they don't. What they really want is money from insurance firms that they will use to finance elections. The Republicans are non-actors in the health debate this time around.
|
Mises has hit the real reasons behind the Democrats' push for "health care reform" ... it's a political shakedown. The Dems are making demands on the health insurance industry to obtain massive political campaign contributions.
It's a threat - "Donate to the Kleptocratic party to help insure that we stay in power or we'll pass legislation to hurt you bad. But, play along, give us more in donations, and we'll use this legislation to steer more money your way by requiring that Americans buy insurance or pay draconian tax penalties, and we'll even take the high risk and high cost cases off your hands with a socialist high risk pool that will be paid for by taxpayers.
It's the Democrats standard operating proceedure: screw the taxpayers, pay off their wealthy political allies, threaten and shake-down their enemies.
Socialism = theft, greed, corruption, extortion, plus pelf and power for the politically powerful elite class of socialist thugs.
As always, the people lose under socialism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| doc_ido wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Someone please show me which models predicted the last decade of cooling. |
The reason nobody has bothered to address you on this is because your stance on climate change is clearly ideological and not evidence-based. If you were actually interested in the evidence, i) you'd know that the climate record and basic physics, not models, are more important and ii) you'd have looked the information up already. After a two-minute search, here (PDF) is a paper from Nature back 1999 talking about including El Nino in climate models. Note figure 3, and the predicted cooling from about 2000-2010. |
Good post. He's just parroting what he's read from rightwing skeptic blogs. I don't know how you can argue with him, because he's just looking for 'data' that fits with his ideological stance and selecting out the bigger parts of the puzzle. I've already tried to present articles that counter some of his claims, but it's a futile exercise.
Anyway, I've got an exam in a couple of days, so I shall keep out of the 'debate' for now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh excellent argument.
Ok, so the science is settled, though we don't know which science is settled (and we assume the thousands of scientists who disagree are on Big Oil's payroll) but we're sure 1) it's hysterically bad 2) will demand intervention into "every aspect of our life" (according to Tim Flannery) and 3) anybody who disagrees is i) doing so out of ideological spite or ii) probably stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The right-wing, internet warrior conspiracy-theorists on this site are sounding more and more like dinosaurs everyday. They think they are fighting this great war on behalf of corporations against environmentalists but don't realize that many in the business community have already switched sides on them.
The truth is even if the connection between global warming and humans activities is a massive fraud concocted by the majority of climate scientists in the world for whatever reason (a ridiculous proposition in itself), there are many other compelling reasons for embracing fuel-efficiency and weening western economies off of fossil fuel dependence.
The fact is what many in the business community are learning is that efficiency saves them money in the long-term. What from a capitalist standpoint is bad about that? Jesus, even Coca-cola is upgrading their fleet to hybrids and Wal-mart are making their buildings more energy-efficient. They're not doing this because they are hippies who hate profit but because efficiency just makes sense, something all the dinosaurs in this thread just don't get. This idea that increasing energy-efficiency will cost trillions of dollars and cause untold suffering is absurd.
The other main point is that fossil fuels are not unlimited and (the current recession notwithstanding) increasing demand around the world is going to cause increasing upward pressure on the price of oil. We simply cannot afford to not do something about this dependence if industry is to survive. This is not to mention the problems of security of supply that being dependent on foreign oil causes. Switching to an electric car/nuclear/solar/wind/other renewables economy would save the USA and other western countries billions of dollars in importing oil and greatly reduce the economic sway of countries like Iran. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| doc_ido wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Someone please show me which models predicted the last decade of cooling. |
The reason nobody has bothered to address you on this is because your stance on climate change is clearly ideological and not evidence-based. If you were actually interested in the evidence, i) you'd know that the climate record and basic physics, not models, are more important and ii) you'd have looked the information up already. After a two-minute search, here (PDF) is a paper from Nature back 1999 talking about including El Nino in climate models. Note figure 3, and the predicted cooling from about 2000-2010. |
Good post. He's just parroting what he's read from rightwing skeptic blogs. I don't know how you can argue with him, because he's just looking for 'data' that fits with his ideological stance and selecting out the bigger parts of the puzzle. I've already tried to present articles that counter some of his claims, but it's a futile exercise.
Anyway, I've got an exam in a couple of days, so I shall keep out of the 'debate' for now. |
What a pitiful excuse for a rebuttal. Ad hominem much? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| The right-wing, internet warrior conspiracy-theorists on this site are sounding more and more like dinosaurs everyday. They think they are fighting this great war on behalf of corporations against environmentalists but don't realize that many in the business community have already switched sides on them. |
Right wing? Who's right wing? And to whom are you preaching exactly?
| Quote: |
The truth is even if the connection between global warming and humans activities is a massive fraud concocted by the majority of climate scientists in the world for whatever reason (a ridiculous proposition in itself), there are many other compelling reasons for embracing fuel-efficiency and weening western economies off of fossil fuel dependence.
The fact is what many in the business community are learning is that efficiency saves them money in the long-term. What from a capitalist standpoint is bad about that? Jesus, even Coca-cola is upgrading their fleet to hybrids and Wal-mart are making their buildings more energy-efficient. They're not doing this because they are hippies who hate profit but because efficiency just makes sense, something all the dinosaurs in this thread just don't get. This idea that increasing energy-efficiency will cost trillions of dollars and cause untold suffering is absurd.
The other main point is that fossil fuels are not unlimited and (the current recession notwithstanding) increasing demand around the world is going to cause increasing upward pressure on the price of oil. We simply cannot afford to not do something about this dependence if industry is to survive. This is not to mention the problems of security of supply that being dependent on foreign oil causes. Switching to an electric car/nuclear/solar/wind/other renewables economy would save the USA and other western countries billions of dollars in importing oil and greatly reduce the economic sway of countries like Iran. |
You've just spouted off a great big strawman. Nobody is arguing against fuel efficiency or alternative energy sources. I've never seen anyone on here who's against that.
What we're objecting to is carbon taxes put in place that would basically make us all criminals (since we're all "guilty" of having a carbon footprint), ruin our economy, and make Al Gore into a big fat stinking billionaire. We're also objecting to the notion that "climate change denial" is something akin to holocaust denial - as if by even trying to question it we are somehow committing a sin.
I don't think many people doubt that climate change is real - but placing the blame on humanity, when the science is NOT perfectly sound, and then setting up a carbon tax grid and basically de-industrializing the Western world (which is what many of the globalists are proposing - people like Maurice Strong), is nothing short of madness... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWWZvFYNaFo
Here's the real reason for all the Climate Change BS.
Check out points three and four. De Boer wants developed countries leaders to promise within the next couple of weeks how much cash they will hand over, and how. De Boer also goes on to explain the need for an �architecture� - a new UN body to take the cash, and fine countries which don�t pay up or don�t cut their gases.
Kching, kching, kching $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why is he so afraid of debate on this subject.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmVjNDEyYWRlN2ZlMmY5Mzc2NjBlMGE5MzBlM2JlNDI
"Last month, President Obama gave a somewhat chilling, if somewhat ignored, speech on climate change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He stated that any scientific debate about the magnitude of global warming is unscrupulous, decrying �those who . . . make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary.�
Then, the president talked tough, saying, �We�ll just have to deal with those people,� language familiar to anyone who knows the vagaries of Chicago politics.
This surely isn�t the first time in world history that some president, premier, or pope has attempted to define science and threaten those who disagree. But the truth of the matter is that disagreement, one way or another, is a given. One can selectively cite recent climate data in support of pretty much any point of view, from the rejection of any influence by humankind at all to the wild notion that the world is about to come to an end."
Writer of the article Patrick Micheals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels
"Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology, (born February 15, 1950) is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a retired Research Professor of Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia. He is a former state climatologist for Virginia, a position he was appointed to in 1980 and resigned from in 2007 amid uncertainty over whether he still officially retained the position. In interviews Michaels has said that he does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that global mean temperature has increased in recent decades, though he is widely regarded in the media as a global warming skeptic who contends that the changes will be minor, not catastrophic, and even beneficial in many cases. He has written extensive editorials on this topic for the mass media, and for think tanks and their publications such as Regulation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Axiom wrote: |
| Why is he so afraid of debate on this subject. |
He's not afraid of debate on the subject. Rather, he pretty clearly understands that many of the people who claim to want debate really just have the goal of muddying the intellectual waters as much as possible in hopes of confusing the issue, which will result in a default victory for their "do nothing" approach.
Outside of a few scientists, no serious debate is actually occuring. The politicians, businessmen, and members of the general public who deny climate change do so for the most part because the things required to combat it conflict with their interests or ideology, not because of any data. No amount of data would cause most of them to change their minds.
To be certain whether or not anthropogenic climate change is occuring will take decades or longer. Gambling with the existence of our species by waiting until we're certain to start taking appropriate countermeasures is nothing short of selfish, short-sighted stupidity. Let's stop pretending an actual debate is taking place among the general public, in business circles, or in political circles. Just as with health care reform, the people who are against it are against it for reasons of personal interest or unrealist ideology, not because of any facts or data. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="visitorq"]
| asylum seeker wrote: |
What we're objecting to is carbon taxes put in place that would basically make us all criminals (since we're all "guilty" of having a carbon footprint), ruin our economy, and make Al Gore into a big fat stinking billionaire. |
This is a very extreme and negative way of looking at the carbon tax system. The benefits of carbon taxes is that they can help speed up the adoption of energy-efficiency and alternative energies. Of course, the correct implementation of them will be difficult.
Even auto-industry executives are now saying the best way to increase energy-efficiency is to raise fuel taxes:
| Quote: |
| Gas at $4 or even $5 a gallon would do more to spur demand for so-called next-generation vehicles like the Chevrolet Volt than any policy initiatives, the execs said. �Unless gas is $3.50 or $4 a gallon, consumers are not going to want to buy those cars,� said Jerry York, a former GM board member and an adviser to billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian. |
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/11/gas-tax/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's mostly NOT CO2!
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| What we're objecting to is carbon taxes put in place that would basically make us all criminals (since we're all "guilty" of having a carbon footprint), ruin our economy, and make Al Gore into a big fat stinking billionaire. |
Gore clears carbon dioxide of most blame
| Quote: |
Those conversations led Gore to politically inconvenient conclusions in this new book. In his conversations with Schmidt and other colleagues at the beginning of the year, Gore explored new studies � published only last week � that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide � while the focus of the politics of climate change � produces around 40% of the actual warming.
Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Axiom wrote: |
| Why is he so afraid of debate on this subject. |
He's not afraid of debate on the subject. Rather, he pretty clearly understands that many of the people who claim to want debate really just have the goal of muddying the intellectual waters as much as possible in hopes of confusing the issue, which will result in a default victory for their "do nothing" approach.
Outside of a few scientists, no serious debate is actually occuring. The politicians, businessmen, and members of the general public who deny climate change do so for the most part because the things required to combat it conflict with their interests or ideology, not because of any data. No amount of data would cause most of them to change their minds.
To be certain whether or not anthropogenic climate change is occuring will take decades or longer. Gambling with the existence of our species by waiting until we're certain to start taking appropriate countermeasures is nothing short of selfish, short-sighted stupidity. Let's stop pretending an actual debate is taking place among the general public, in business circles, or in political circles. Just as with health care reform, the people who are against it are against it for reasons of personal interest or unrealist ideology, not because of any facts or data. |
Hmm, a few scientists.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-views
To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.
Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.
A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 � more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.
Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.
More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.
The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.
In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.
The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world's best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.
Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.
Respectfully yours,
Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE
Diplom-Geologe
Universit�t. - GH - Paderborn, Abt. H�xter (ret.)
#
Dr. Holger Thu�
EIKE President
European Institute for Climate and Energy
Names edited - use the link
Last edited by Axiom on Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Triban
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Location: Suwon Station
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why are people so f*cking STUPID? Global warming is just an idiotic ploy, and we are taking the bait, yet again, just like with the previous bailouts, Iraq War, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Axiom wrote: |
| Hmm, a few scientists. |
Right, a few scientists.
As I said, a few scientists. That's a decidedly small crowd of people. Certainly not enough to risk the future of our species on the word of.
Mind you, I'm not even saying they're wrong. I've made it clear that I don't believe the science is absolutely proven. I just don't think it's been disproven by any means, so throwing caution to the wind as these people seem to be advising would be lunacy.
| Axiom wrote: |
| History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. |
Agreed, which is exactly why I'm wary of taking the advice of potential incompetent ideologues who insist anthropogenic climate change isn't occuring despite a lack of sufficient data to disprove it. Because we have enough evidence to consider it at least a strong possibility, the intelligent course is caution, particularly when the changes dictated by caution have benefits even if anthropogenic climate change turns out to be false. Even if we make all these changes and it turns out anthropogenic climate change isn't happening, we'll still be better off. Who would be against that? An incompetent ideologue, perhaps?
| Axiom wrote: |
| A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 � more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. |
Anyone focusing on the last 10 years -- and even moreso, merely since 2003 -- is pushing an agenda, period. People who are against the idea of anthropogenic climate change like to talk about natural warming and cooling cycles. What they neglect to mention is that natural warming and cooling cycles and anthropogenic global warming are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, even if anthropogenic global warming is occuring, one would not expect the temperature to merely rocket upwards, precisely because cooling cycles occur at times. What matters is the overall trend over many decades, not merely what's happened in the last 10 years.
| Axiom wrote: |
| More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree. |
Fortunately, there are other very good reasons to move away from a fossil fuel energy economy, so even if this is true, we still have reason to stop overusing fossil fuels. However, if they're wrong, we have even more reason to stop overusing fossil fuels. If they were simply trying to make an academic point, that would be one thing, but they're actively trying to involve themselves in policy making with this letter, and they're doing so in a dangerous fashion.
| Axiom wrote: |
| The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum. |
This letter lost scientific credibility when it talked about cooling over the last few years as if it somehow disproved that global warming could be occuring overall.
| Axiom wrote: |
| In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. |
Maybe among some, but there are plenty of people -- such as myself -- who feel that it's better to play be cautious in the face of a potentially great threat to our way of life, especially when caution involves doing things we should probably be doing anyway.
I'm really disappointed in this letter, and I'm very suspicious of any scientist who would sign their name on such a thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm really disappointed in this letter, and I'm very suspicious of any scientist who would sign their name on such a thing.[/quote]
I will find many more over time, but right now I have to finish some assignments for my Masters. So I will post this link to Lord Monkton explaining the Copenhagen BS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNuY1HLFUM&feature=related
I think this is much scarier than any preceived heating of the planet.
Last edited by Axiom on Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:00 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
