Global Warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Page 2 of 6 First 1234 ... Last

  1. undermine the foundation of society??? Why i think that is a stretch there.. okay let me try and re-explain my view on this..

    there is articles and graphs posted above(which I didnt read cuz im lazy ) and they show that global warming is real and is coming and we can stop it, true?

    they also show that this has been occuring forever now and isnt man made, true?

    okay both those facts are cool with me, I didnt kno that before, but how does that negate the fact that our pollution is contributing to this effect?? Are there studies that carbon pollution has 0 effect on our enviroment? the carbon emmisions has 0 effect on our bodies?

    why is it bad to reduce something that is harmful? the examples you say above about the diet and children are way off.. that is our govnt specalating, I dont think it is a guess that carbon gasses are effecting our world and bodies so why not try and reduce it?

    *side not* I did learn that we werent actually causing it from this thread as I was always under the belief that this was our fault guess not
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates


  2. Quote Originally Posted by raginfcktard View Post
    oh christ here we go...

    graph of CO2 in ice cores over 650,000 years of greenhouse gasses...see the trend



    ...another of glacial cycle

    Glacial cycles (sry wouldn't embed the image)

    earth has tendency of repeating itself...humans have little impact on earth as a whole but have caused localized problematic areas. nothing we can to do stop it! we need to focus on living in the future rather than trying to fix the present!
    I agree with you, but, how does a scientists really know the actual climate that was over 650,000 years ago? In my opinion, I dont think the trends we see can really be observed to that extent of time. Furthermore, I think that a "fact" like that is probably based off the same tools global warming alarmists use in their studies... computer models based of speculation of current trends...

    I could be wrong, just a thought though =]
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    ... I dont think it is a guess that carbon gasses are effecting our world and bodies so why not try and reduce it?
    You're right. It certainly doesn't hurt anything to try and reduce it. Who knows, it might even help. If the government says it's important to reduce carbon emissions, then citizens have no choice but to trust it's somehow for the best.

    Nobody listens or cares anyway, and at this point that's probably for the best. Henceforth, I officially giving up on politics Josh.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    You're right. It certainly doesn't hurt anything to try and reduce it. Who knows, it might even help. If the government says it's important to reduce carbon emissions, then citizens have no choice but to trust it's somehow for the best.

    Nobody listens or cares anyway, and at this point that's probably for the best. Henceforth, I officially giving up on politics Josh.
    But it does hurt to reduce emissions. Government is trying to enact a cap and trade system. Who do you think is going to regulate how many emissions businesses are going to be able to emit? The Government. Energy fuels the economy, but if government puts regulations on energy, who controls the economy now? Good bye capitalism. Hello Socialism!

    It WILL cost the US to reduce emissions, that's not exactly where we need to be spending our money with trillions in IOU's! =[

  5. Quote Originally Posted by AJC408 View Post
    But it does hurt to reduce emissions. Government is trying to enact a cap and trade system. Who do you think is going to regulate how many emissions businesses are going to be able to emit? The Government. Energy fuels the economy, but if government puts regulations on energy, who controls the economy now? Good bye capitalism. Hello Socialism!

    It WILL cost the US to reduce emissions, that's not exactly where we need to be spending our money with trillions in IOU's! =[

    socialism??? wow that is a stretch there.. how did you get it there, im interested in ur reasoning for that?''

    Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    You're right. It certainly doesn't hurt anything to try and reduce it. Who knows, it might even help. If the government says it's important to reduce carbon emissions, then citizens have no choice but to trust it's somehow for the best.

    Nobody listens or cares anyway, and at this point that's probably for the best. Henceforth, I officially giving up on politics Josh.
    and i;m not saying that its bad just cuz the govt says so, its far from that especialy cuz i dont believe nor trust the govt for jack **** especially even more since 9/11 i subscribe to the theories of loose change so I am definetely not saying to trust them that its bad cuz they say so... i am saying it is bad.... because it is bad
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    undermine the foundation of society??? Why i think that is a stretch there.. okay let me try and re-explain my view on this..
    No, its not a stretch at all. Imagine the locomotive never being invented because it caused pollutants and they couldn't afford the taxes on it. Imagine the assembly line and automobile never be made because it caused pollutants and they couldn't afford the taxes on it.

    This is central planning by government for the economy. Sounds a little like Soviet Russia to me.

    there is articles and graphs posted above(which I didnt read cuz im lazy ) and they show that global warming is real and is coming and we can stop it, true?
    No, it shows that we're in the middle of an ice age and its about ready to get a lot colder rather than hotter unless there's a hell of a lot more CO2 emissions.

    they also show that this has been occuring forever now and isnt man made, true?
    Yes, hence the dinosaur and woolly mammoths.

    okay both those facts are cool with me, I didnt kno that before, but how does that negate the fact that our pollution is contributing to this effect?? Are there studies that carbon pollution has 0 effect on our enviroment? the carbon emmisions has 0 effect on our bodies?
    If we are in the middle of an ice age, we want as much global warming as possible so Chicago and London aren't under a sheet of ice again.

    why is it bad to reduce something that is harmful? the examples you say above about the diet and children are way off.. that is our govnt specalating, I dont think it is a guess that carbon gasses are effecting our world and bodies so why not try and reduce it?
    It isn't *bad* to reduce CO2 emissions, what is bad is government central planning a countries economy. Its been shown to not be as effective as a free market economy. Hence China's rise to prosperity in the last 20 years.

    *side not* I did learn that we werent actually causing it from this thread as I was always under the belief that this was our fault guess not
    Yeah, that's what I was taught my whole life as well. There's very few legitimate sources of information the average person will ever hear on non-PC viewpoints in general. This is just one example.

  7. don`t be afraid, we are doing just fine!

  8. I`m worried about our children and future generations

  9. Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post

    why is it bad to reduce something that is harmful?
    Human flatulence contains Methanol, a known green house gas. Guess you won't mind if the government institutes a "Fart Tax" on you, based on the "maybe" tenuous evidence?

    By extension, how much more would you like to have to pay for your essential goods (food, clothing, shelter, etc.) because the increased regulations (again, a tenuous connection) are instituted "just in case". Can you afford another, say $200 a month? $300?

    I guarantee you one thing....eventually all cost increases are passed directly to the consumer, one way or another.
    Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
    Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless

  10. I read an article that I cant find now that was saying Australians are going to need to pay money to have more than one child.

    I mean after all, children exhale carbon dioxide which is a green house gas! haha ridiculous! (if someone can find this post, post it!) =]

  11. I just opened a diet pepsi...yep CARBONATED!!!!!

    /evil...EVIL!!!!
    Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
    Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless

  12. Quote Originally Posted by dsade View Post
    I just opened a diet pepsi...yep CARBONATED!!!!!

    /evil...EVIL!!!!
    You always wanna be something noble when you grow up... a doctor or a preacher, or something like that. But now I see, I should have been a lawyer or a tax collector!!

  13. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas. Are they going to try and reduce that, too?

  14. Quote Originally Posted by HardTrainer View Post
    Big energy companies have a lot to gain from arguing that there is no global warming.
    Actually it's big oil and energy companies that have the majority of investments in alternative energy develpment, so they stand the most to gain financially should restrictions raise fossil fuel prices and pour government development money into alternatives.

    What exactly do 'hippies' have to gain from arguing that it does exist?
    Millions in research grants, endowed chairs, trips to Brazil and other tropical locations for Earth Summit day and what not, appointed government positions, not to mention an excuse to advance every hair brained moronic leftist economic agenda they want.

    It may not be as certain a scientific fact as gravity, death or taxes. But when organisations like the American National Academy of Sciences are supporting it, and nobel prizes are being given out for climatology work, you have to admit it's slightly more than speculation and wishful thinking. No?
    No. Because what is not publicized is the rather large and growing portion of scientists who are finally fed up with all the "the debate is over" BS and who are signing off the alarmist sheet and moving to skeptic. Nor can you look to political organizations like the NAS or the IPCC for true science. There are already IPCC reviewers coming out and saying their views were distorted or misrepresented in the released summaries and reports. Many of the 'scientists' involved in climate research, especially those involved in determing past temperatures, are less that open when it comes to their methods and raw data, actively denying to share it with anyone who might be critical. The reasons why are clear; whenever they do or someone finds out and gets the infor public, it's loaded with errors. Michael Mann's hockey stick is one example.

    You should also check out Anthony Watt's work on documenting surface temperature sites. The org that maintains the network, the acronym escapes me, refused to do a review of sites, so Watt did it on his own. He's been finding temperature sensors next to AC condensors, in the middle of blacktop parking lots, mere feet away from car engines, and even hanging above BBQ grills for God's sake. You should also check a recent book on the subject, Red Hot Lies by Christopher Horner. The 'environmentalists' in the NAS panel weren't elected, they snuck in through a technicality and proceeded to dominate NAS panels and appoint like minded people to positions, quashing any and all skeptics they could. It shows how skeptical one must be when 'science' and politics are mixed.

    Point being, until a world wide audit is done on surface stations to ensure they conform to standards or accurate measurement, and then that data is squared with the satelite record, and until all data and methods are released regarding past temperature records for review and replication, and until all computer code is released so people can examine those methods, this 'science' is worth ****. Perhaps NASA can explain why their 'correction' method for UHI almost always seems to lower past temperature and keep constant or even raise current temperatures? Perhaps the dendro climatology community can explain why it continues to use problematic tree ring chronologies after being advised not to? Perhaps Ken Briffa can explain what this anthropomorphic forcing is that allows him to use tree rings as past temperature proxies while completely ignoring their divergence from satelite and surface readings in the present? It's questions like those, to which there may be reasonable answers but which remain unanswered, that properly lead to skepticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by futurepilot View Post
    (Option A)

    Lets say that global warming is real, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something useful, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.

    Lets says its real, we do nothing to stop it, end result: The world falls into utter chaos, due to mass starvation, floods, governmental collapse.

    (Option B)

    Fake, do nothing about it: The world continues to pollute itself, making more and more land/water uninhabitable.

    Fake, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something usefull, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.

    How can we lose by believeing in it?
    Because option A leaves out the several trillion in opportunity costs that go along with believing and 'doing something!' about it. The way you phrase the option entirely begs the question. A more sustainable lifestyle? If it's not true our lifestyle is sustainable as it is. And where does that R&D money come from? Is the government going to just print it or take it directly in taxes? What does that do to the pool of loanable funds backing capital accumulation and increased productivity and wealth for the private sector? You do realize 'doing everything we can to stop it' means ditching your modern lifestyle and wearing a loin cloth and living in a cave, correct? Unless of course the greenies are becoming more friendly with nuclear power and continuing fossil fuel use, because both are necessary to fuel our economy if we are to bring solar, wind, and other alternatives into play. That doesn't just happen over night, and it doesn't happen period if we cripple our current structure of production which is exactly what nitwits like Al Gore are suggesting. Many times its not the global warming hysteria that's the problem. Assume it's true for a moment. That still leaves the plans to 'do something!' about it for review, most of which read like they were pulled directly out of the Communist manifesto, or at the very least as if they are being proposed by people who never got past high school economics class, and didn't do to good in that one to boot.

    Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    undermine the foundation of society??? Why i think that is a stretch there.. okay let me try and re-explain my view on this..
    It's not a stretch, it's reality. It's very much the way the PATRIOT Act passed here in the US. Interest groups like the cops and FBI and what not who were begging for expanded powers for years capitalized on the panic of 9/11 and got an abomination passed. Similarly radical lefties like Paul Ehrlic who have been predicting one disaster after another for the last forty years and, despite being constantly proven wrong, using those dire predictions to try and push through the same tired old socialist policies that they've always wanted in place are now using global warming, the ultimate buggaboo, to try and push their same old agenda.

    okay both those facts are cool with me, I didnt kno that before, but how does that negate the fact that our pollution is contributing to this effect?? Are there studies that carbon pollution has 0 effect on our enviroment? the carbon emmisions has 0 effect on our bodies?
    Bodies I don't know about. Environment yeah. If you parse through the bull**** in the IPCC reports all the dire predictions are based on positive feedback mechanisms existing and dominating the climate, with actual contribution of CO2 being relatively negligible. The problem is assuming a long term stable system like the climate is dominated by positive feedback mechanisms is, in a word, stupid, because such a system does not lend itself to stability. A system dominated by negative feedbacks does. So what they are essentially arguing is that a system dominated by positive feedback mechanisms has just barely managed to stay stable for Christ knows how many millions of years, and it's our miniscule contribution to CO2 and other GHGs which is barely noticable next to the naturally occurring amounts, that's going to finally engage those positive feedbacks to the tipping point and send our climate spiralling out of control. Or, if you would, imagine a cat sleeping in the center of a room filled with set mouse traps. What they are saying is that even though nature has trotted elephants through the place and not woken up the cat, one little human fart is going to send kitty sky high and when he comes down all hell is going to break loose.

    why is it bad to reduce something that is harmful?
    Because harm can only be judged in comparrison to gain, and can only be eliminated at a cost which might not be worth it in the end.

    socialism??? wow that is a stretch there.. how did you get it there, im interested in ur reasoning for that?'
    Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. The ultimate means of production is energy. Cap and trade policies are basically government rationing of energy resources. Hence: socialism, more along the Nazi model than outright direct nationalization of the businesses. It's also doomed to fail because of the Prisoner's Dilema. The scheme only works if everyone plays by the rules, but the incentive is to inflate the number of pollution permits and this will happen until, as it has every time it's been tried, the market for permits simply collapses because they have no real value anymore.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    I will pimpsmack you hippies!
    Rock on CDB!

  16. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    You do realize 'doing everything we can to stop it' means ditching your modern lifestyle and wearing a loin cloth and living in a cave, correct?
    "Resident Paranoid Extremist"

  17. CDB thanks for the post... so i didnt have to do it

  18. most of the worlds climatologists agree that we have a detrimental effect on temperature...and even if we didnt, error on the side of caution. i cant think of a single reason to NOT act, even if it isnt a true phenomenon. the only things that would come from changing how we power the world, would all be positive. the only people who would have a problem are christian nut jobs who love oil (for some wierd reason, i still cant figure out)

  19. Quote Originally Posted by DT5 View Post
    most of the worlds climatologists agree that we have a detrimental effect on temperature...and even if we didnt, error on the side of caution. i cant think of a single reason to NOT act, even if it isnt a true phenomenon. the only things that would come from changing how we power the world, would all be positive. the only people who would have a problem are christian nut jobs who love oil (for some wierd reason, i still cant figure out)
    You should start from the beginning of this thread and read what's been said. It's clear that reacting is going to be detrimental to the economy and could even take a hold of our freedom.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by DT5 View Post
    most of the worlds climatologists agree that we have a detrimental effect on temperature...
    Really? According to who? From Red Hot Lies, "Professor Dennis Bray of Germany and Hans von Storch polled climate scientists to rate the statement, 'To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?' They received responses from 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, of whom 44 percent were either neutral or disagreed with the statement..."

    And according to a recently released report, article and original report are linked here, over 650 scientists, ranging from climatologists to astro physicists, disagree with or are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

    So where is this consensus? Unless of course by 'most scientists' you only mean the ones who agree with the theory, conveniently dismissing the many who don't. Which has basically been the approach to this consensus all along on this subject: except for everyone who disagrees, we all agree...

    and even if we didnt, error on the side of caution. i cant think of a single reason to NOT act, even if it isnt a true phenomenon.
    Then you are economically illiterate and should go back to school. All the 'actions' proposed will do nothing but cripple our productive capacity, consign massive portions of the third world and some of the first to abject and possibly perpetual poverty, and in the end do nothing to halt the process of warming while doing everything to make sure resources are misallocated and wasted throughout the global economy so they can't be used efficiently to fight the problem if it does exist.

    The base claim of the Do Something! crowd is that by giving the government mass control over energy resources and industry planning we can somehow achieve greater efficiency. Unfortunately we have ****loads of real world data to suggest that this approach, otherwise known as socialism, doesn't work even under normal circumstances and will work even worse under stressful ones. So if you want economic collapse and environmentalism of the type that lead to the poisoned triangle in the old USSR by all means keep backing the idea of Doing Something! at all costs.

    Fortunately the world is full of scientists and especially economists who aren't so thick, and who understand that resources allocated to one sector mean shortfalls in others; otherwise known as opportunity cost. Which is why the people with some sense on this issue say something along the lines of, "We need to know what specifically about it is true, and then we can go over the most cost effective ways of making a difference in the most critical areas." But a scattershot let's assume it's all true and through as much **** at the wall to see what works approach is sure to destroy a massive amount of wealth, and I for one don't feel like going back to living in a cave and possibly being eaten by some predator.

    the only things that would come from changing how we power the world, would all be positive.
    This is, to be blunt, complete bull****. The oportunity cost alone of using the governments of the world to reallocate the necessary resources to fight this issue, especially with the current 'at all costs' attitude, would cripple the world economy.

    the only people who would have a problem are christian nut jobs who love oil (for some wierd reason, i still cant figure out)
    I'm agnostic and I drive a Honda Fit, so once more, you are flat out wrong. Put bluntly, you should do more than listen to an Al Gore speech on the subject if you truly want to learn about it and what, if it's true and if anything, we can do about it.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    I for one don't feel like going back to living in a cave and possibly being eaten by some predator.
    I've heard more rational statements from people coming down off an 8-ball.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by futurepilot View Post
    I've heard more rational statements from people coming down off an 8-ball.
    I've heard better arguments from a rusty Ford. Do you have anything but nonsense to add to the discussion?

    Fact: economic activity is, at base, the rearrangement of the material world into combinations more beneficial to mankind than raw resources. The only way for man to stop having an impact on the environment is to totally stop almost all economic activity. I dare to ask a question of one so intelligent, but you are of course aware that everything man does from the fuels we burn to provide energy for our current standard of living to the way we zone and use land will affect the environment, right? And the only way to truly minimize our impact on that environment is to stop the recombination of resources except at the most basic levels.

    More specifically, this means greenies want us to give up our very capital structure which is based on fossil fuel before we can utilize it to build and perfect more efficient/less impacting power sources such as solar and wind. As of right now our whole way of life is based largely on burning fossil fuel and we cannot advance beyond that capital structure while crippling it at the same time, or to put it another way, 'conserving' without first making gains in efficiency to offset the loss of resources. Which leads to higher prices, increased costs of living, and in extreme cases rationing of goods and services.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    As of right now our whole way of life is based largely on burning fossil fuel and we cannot advance beyond that capital structure while crippling it at the same time, or to put it another way, 'conserving' without first making gains in efficiency to offset the loss of resources. Which leads to higher prices, increased costs of living, and in extreme cases rationing of goods and services.

    The 2 are not mutually exclusive. We can have both a fuel based economy, and a budget surplus. The issue is merely what the fuel is, and how we choose to structure our economy.

    See iceland, see denmark, see france, see greece. Little things like having roof mounted water heaters to take advantage of warm weather would drastically reduce costs/emissions.

    I dont think anyone is under the illusion that we can go back to the 1500's and live off the land entirely, but small steps can be made that add up to big change.

    It doesnt matter whether you believe in global warming, global cooling, or global free blowjobs and beer. The fact of the matter is, we are destroying our forrests and oceans at a rate that will affect us in our lifetime.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by futurepilot View Post
    The 2 are not mutually exclusive. We can have both a fuel based economy, and a budget surplus. The issue is merely what the fuel is, and how we choose to structure our economy.
    Incorrect. Errors are the following: how the economy is structured is not a choice. It is a spontaneous order that arises over time based on demand, individual trades, and capital accumulation. We also can not have a budget surplus so long as the government spends more than it takes in, unless of course it doesn't count debt and inflation in its book keeping. Also, the fuel of choice isn't arrived at randomly or through a committee, it is chosen on a marginal basis. And the plain fact of the matter is no fuel source existing right now can compete on a marginal basis with oil/gas and won't until people are forced to economize and voluntarily choose alternatives.

    See iceland, see denmark, see france, see greece. Little things like having roof mounted water heaters to take advantage of warm weather would drastically reduce costs/emissions.
    Some of which are practical, other measures of which are government sibsidized and thus require a loss be taken elsewhere. As a hypothetical example take the rooftop water heaters. They may be practical in some locations and not in others for various reasons. Mandating their use in an area for which they are unfit means people will end up losing wealth, not gaining it as they would in a mutually beneficial and agreed upon exhchange. The only true way to know what is beneficial for one person vs another in any given situation is to let them choose among various solutions, not to force government mandates down their throats. I'm not saying the options you see in other countries are not workable here, but which ones would serve whose interests best is not a choice to be made centrally by some bureacracy totally removed from the situation.

    I dont think anyone is under the illusion that we can go back to the 1500's and live off the land entirely, but small steps can be made that add up to big change.
    As a point of fact we never stopped living off the land, we just got a hell of a lot better at doing it through specialization and the division of labor. The economy you see around you is not something we inherret without any strings attach, it is due to years of advancement in specialization, division of labor, and capital accumulation over time.

    It doesnt matter whether you believe in global warming, global cooling, or global free blowjobs and beer. The fact of the matter is, we are destroying our forrests and oceans at a rate that will affect us in our lifetime.
    And even taken at face value we are not doing so gratuitously, we are doing so for a reason, or in other words the changes we are causing there are because of other beneficial changes we are getting elsewhere. Now let us trust the government to change things. Except, in point of fact, the government is the problem and is generally causing these issues. You don't see over logging in private forrests, you do see it in government controlled forrests where logging rights are leased but no one owns the forrest. You don't see dumping in private waterways but you do see it in government waterways and in the commons, the ocean, where no one is allowed to stake out property and demand payment for use or to exclude users.

    Put simply you only see overuse and dumping in areas where for various reasons, usually involving heavy government intervention, property rights have not been allowed to work and in fact have been actively stifled. This is where an economics education comes in handy, because resources that are owned and this rationally priced on the market do not become over used. The commons do become over used because they are perpetually under priced.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    wow.. never heard that before.. I take it your a loose change fan?

    and as far as global warning I think presidential canidate sarah palin said it best "I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate because the world's weather patterns are cyclical, and over history we have seen changes there. But it kinda doesn't matter at this point in the debate what caused it. The point is it's real; we need to do something about it."

    it doesnt matter what caused it as long as we get rid of it and pray it doesnt come back ...

    Nah Global Warming is bullsheet, at least in the sense its been portrayed recently, the world will continue to vary in temperature for all time and nothing that is done will affect it either way. It is what it is, literally. The world has been around for awhile and we havnt burned to death or frozen over yet that and there hasnt been factual scientific proof that the world will either go into a new ice age or just burn up.

  26. And we already have a fuel source better than solar or wind which is mostly a waste of time....Nuclear energy.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by Mjolnir View Post
    And we already have a fuel source better than solar or wind which is mostly a waste of time....Nuclear energy.
    Indeed, but if you look at the general greenie agenda they are mostly opposed to nuclear. They are, at base, opposed to human advancement and even existence in some cases. For them the world has inherrent value separate from what use it can be to us. Of course that they can only ponder that 'inherrent value' thanks to centuries if not millenia of economic advancement that has lead to us having so much leisure time usually escapes them.

    Now, to build more nuclear plants we'd need to... burn more oil and coal to get the energy and materials to build them. As they came online they could take over and enhance our energy infrastructure and available supply, eventually to the point where the fossil fuel gets allocated to serving a smaller and smaller, more increasingly specialized segment of the market. But that we have to continue to burn those fuels and indeed increase our use of them to make this possible is what gets greenies right where they live.

    People who are born into a world of market provided plenty often don't see or understand the lattice work of production pipelines that have been cultivated and directed over time to producing all this plenty they're used to. They think it's a matter nature or default that they have ipods and laptops and heated homes. It doesn't occur to them that artificially redirecting a significant portion of that capital, for any reason, seriously alters the structure of production and ends up with a lot of wasted resources and lost wealth on the part of the people.

  28. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    It is a spontaneous order that arises over time based on demand, individual trades, and capital accumulation.

    They may be practical in some locations and not in others for various reasons.
    Our economy has been groomed by leaders/businessmen to become what it is, its not some sort of big bang theory.

    Of course a place like seattle would not be suitable for rooftop heaters, while it would be good for using rainwater purification centers too offset using mountain runoff. While nevada is more dependant on aquifers, but would be an ideal candidate for heaters.

    Basically, that second statement is correct, but thats not an arguement against trying these things, its merely a fact.

  29. Quote Originally Posted by futurepilot View Post
    Our economy has been groomed by leaders/businessmen to become what it is, its not some sort of big bang theory.
    Actually, it is, and the fact that you don't know that shows how much you have to learn about it. The economy is an example of a bottom up spontaneous order, similar to other systems such as language. That governments in collusion with some business leaders attempt to impose order from the top down doesn't change this. In fact, it is those attempts to interfere with and direct the market that usually end up leading to recessions and/or wars.

    Of course a place like seattle would not be suitable for rooftop heaters, while it would be good for using rainwater purification centers too offset using mountain runoff. While nevada is more dependant on aquifers, but would be an ideal candidate for heaters.
    The problem is if you leave the decision up to the government the result will be political, not marginal. Hence if a congressman from Seattle has a brother in law who makes such rooftop heaters, you can bet your ass that all of a sudden they'll become ideally suited for homes in Seattle.

    Basically, that second statement is correct, but thats not an arguement against trying these things, its merely a fact.
    It is an argument agains the government trying these things, because the government is not subject to a profit loss test. Hence anything they do gets paid for through tax funds, there is no chance to find out if it was really desired, works well, or works better than alternatives.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Is global warming true?
    By mrcoolboy15 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 02-16-2007, 11:10 PM
  2. Global Warming
    By CHAPS in forum General Chat
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 08-22-2006, 10:02 PM
  3. Global Warming Causes Stronger Hurricanests
    By QUICKRYDE in forum Politics
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 10-10-2005, 09:49 AM
  4. Debate on the existance of Global Warming
    By kwyckemynd00 in forum Politics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-06-2005, 07:49 PM
Log in
Log in