Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (7589)	4/25/2009 2:16:58 PM
From: koan	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

OK, I will address each one of your issues: >> Let's get the non believer side of the GW warming issue on the table: 1. No science can model the system. Wild claims have been repeatedly proven to be false. The alarmists have no credibility. Why are the wild claims made? koan: "BCB, you are not qualified to know what the atmospheric scientists, do or do not know, any more than you know how to build an atomic bomb." 2. Climate change is a historical fact. It has happened before long before the industrial age - why is the cause different now? koan: That is the fallacy often referred to in economics as "post hoc ergo proptor hoc" that is therefore because of this. You are saying two things are connected, but they may not be. 3. GW alarmists viscously try to silent critics. Why? koan: "Viscously is a rather strong word. Inhoff calling global warming the greatest fraud ever prepetrated on mankind is viscous. But the reason many are alarmed is that global warming could end up killing and displacing millions or billions of people. Like during the permian age." In fact an equation recently published in Newsweek showed it is already to late to stop GW. 4. The only meaningful technology that would make a difference - nuclear power - is resisted by GW alarmists. Why? (Solar farms also meet wacko environmentalist resistance.) koan: "if every power plant on earth were nuclear, there is not enough uranium on earth to fuel them all. Secondly, based on the same equation I recently saw in Newsweek, if one nuclear power plant were built each week it would not be enough. 5. EPA regulations require Best Available Control Technology - none exists. How will that be implemented? koan: We probably need a Manhatten project to solve the GW crises. 6. Any thing we do on a "maybe" will not matter as China and India etc. do not give a flip. Since the tipping point is near - hey - we are going to tip - why commit economic suicide if it does not matter. If we should not be concerned about a near term tipping point - then it is all just a continued lie! koan: China and India are very concerned as they are dying of their own pollution. If you noticed recently copper prices are rising even though copper demand is falling. The reason some speculate, is because China is stockpiling copper for an electrical future. 5. GW alarmists are profiteers. I do not need to ask why? koan: GW alarmists are profiteers? But you don't think the oil or coal companies have a vested interet in this debate?? And not trying to bend the politics their way? Or are they just as pure as a newly driven snow? Unlike scientists. BCB: "Ultimately I believe GW alarmism is a vehicle to implement industrial policy - or some other agenda that I have not yet figured out - perhaps hatred of free market capitalism. The real problem is that those the left claims to care about the most will be hurt the most. However, by impoverishing millions they will justify being reelected to provide compassion. koan: That is a pure flight of fancy. Like you said, you have not figured it out. That thinking is so illogical as to leave me breathless.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (7589)	4/27/2009 8:12:37 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

1. No science can model the system. Wild claims have been repeatedly proven to be false. The alarmists have no credibility. Why are the wild claims made? Bob, again, this is alarmingly ignorant of statistics. Please go read up on statistics so that you can contribute intelligent posts to this thread. You don't need to model an entire system perfectly to form conclusions about variables in that system. Science is able to model parts of systems, which gives us excellent information to work off of. They do it all the time. Sometimes your posts are breathtakingly ignorant. 2. Climate change is a historical fact. It has happened before long before the industrial age - why is the cause different now? Climate change is a fact. Global warming and cooling cycles are also a fact of Earth history. What's different is that we happen to be orders of magnitude more technologically advanced than we have ever been in human history. With new technology comes new ways to measure cause and effect. What we're learning about global warming is increasingly alarming climatologists. That's what is different. 3. GW alarmists viscously try to silent critics. Why? Really? I saw more evidence of Cheney and Bush silencing real scientists than I do of any AGW apologists silencing critics. In fact, the critics are a very loud and vocal minority with alot of financial clout. So they are far from silenced. They are simply being ridiculed among those with advanced degrees. Knowledge is the prime difference. Those with more knowledge dissent less on this topic. 4. The only meaningful technology that would make a difference - nuclear power - is resisted by GW alarmists. Why? (Solar farms also meet wacko environmentalist resistance.) Nuclear power is resisted not just by GW apologists, but by Americans in general. Fear of the unknown is my guess. People need to get over their fee of nuclear power. The tech has improved quite a bit since 3-mile island. 5. EPA regulations require Best Available Control Technology - none exists. How will that be implemented? Why do you say none exists? This sounds vaguely worded to me. 6. Any thing we do on a "maybe" will not matter as China and India etc. do not give a flip. Since the tipping point is near - hey - we are going to tip - why commit economic suicide if it does not matter. If we should not be concerned about a near term tipping point - then it is all just a continued lie! I would argue that there are benefits to diversifying our energy supply besides addressing global warming...benefits like decoupling the economy from the volatile oil price cycle and potential future oil price spikes from peak oil...benefits like unshackling our foreign policy from the drive to secure our oil supplies. 5. GW alarmists are profiteers. I do not need to ask why? Not exactly true. 97% of climatologists believe warming is real and humans are a major driver of it. Climatologists are the scientists most qualified to form conclusions on climate change. Most are academics. The true profiteers are companies like First Solar and SunPower, and others. And I wouldn't have it any other way. I want renewable energies to be motivated by the profit principle. That's the way market economies work best to find viable, effective solutions. You cry socialism all the time and then you now don't like the fact that profit is what makes the market tick? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.