A Fitting End to the Hottest Year on Record.....

[Lord of Planar]

So, you're wrong about the coup in 1953 - Ike was POTUS. And Article 46 of what? It's a non sequitur in any event if you won't make your point.

T

Come on now LOP, I'm not a partisan and you know it. It was Carter that took the first real aim at the Middle East and its oil attempting to dislodge Soviet influence and power there, and it's been no different since. All presidents have pursued oil interests in the ME, and there's nothing partisan about it. I'm still wondering when you guys will wake up to see that big business and their powerful lobby's are what influence USFP in the ME ( well, everywhere) and that's why presidents come and go but USFP is basically static. I showed you two prominent republicans that declared US Middle East policy is about oil, and both of them said so in such fashion as to demean anybody that doesn't understand so or denies it. Both of their quotes are essentially stated in such a way that you're a dumb ass if you fail to see this.

Post 969:

I'm done with these lies about war for oil in this thread. Start another thread and invite me if you with to continue. This thread is about climate.

And Article 46 of what?

Learn the facts instead of repeating other people's lies.

 

[polgara]

But the deniers have just been told a different story.

Bottom line is there aren't 1/10,000 in the public qualified to make an informed and independent opinion on the science of climate change. So we're ALL taking sides based on what we've been told.

And I know quite a few actual scientists and from what I know of them they are extremely bright, independent and fairly stubborn group of folks. They are I'm sure influenced by peer pressure like we all are, but it seems actually impossible to me that they are as a group peddling a story that they know is false. Doesn't mean the bulk of them are correct - we'll see - but I'm certain that as a group, climate scientists believe based on their research that the earth is warming and humans are a significant cause.

So when faced with a question in a technical field in which I'm not an expert, the ONLY rational position (in my view) is to trust the experts. You are also trusting experts, just a different group that make up a small minority of the total. If you're suggesting that your approach is somehow immune from propaganda, but the liberal approach is not because we accept what experts say, I think you're deluding yourself.

You're absolutely correct about some scientists being "extremely bright, independent, and fairly stubborn." You did not include having the most delightfully wicked sense of humor I've ever read! When they firmly disagree with what they've just heard, instead of arguing or showing anger, they question the other's intelligence with such finesse that most people would applaud such subtlety were their statements made at a cocktail party, as an example! And it's returned in kind! Gotta love them, no matter which side they're on! It's worth the price of admission just to listen as a bystander! :lamo

 

[JasperL]

You're absolutely correct about some scientists being "extremely bright, independent, and fairly stubborn." You did not include having the most delightfully wicked sense of humor I've ever read! When they firmly disagree with what they've just heard, instead of arguing or showing anger, they question the other's intelligence with such finesse that most people would applaud such subtlety were their statements made at a cocktail party, as an example! And it's returned in kind! Gotta love them, no matter which side they're on! It's worth the price of admission just to listen as a bystander! :lamo:

My only points were two:

1) We're both relying on experts, what we hear.
2) The possibility that propaganda affects what we believe is not unique to what side we take. The point is we are BOTH subject to the same influences. I didn't claim to be immune, but I do accept that if I'm subject to being influenced, so are you, because we're all in the same boat - unable to make informed, independent judgments of the facts and so we must, by necessity, trust someone else. You trust one group, I trust another. I didn't allege that who you trust was wrong. In fact, what I said was we don't know if the majority are correct or wrong, "we will see."

 

[JasperL]

Learn the facts instead of repeating other people's lies.

I'm not repeating anyone's lies. But if you didn't know when the coup was, maybe you refrain from impugning the integrity of others until you confirm your own so-called facts.

 

[flogger]

No, we use taxes to affect behavior every damn day, and whether that's a good thing or not depends on what behavior is being encouraged/discouraged. Furthermore, in my view a carbon tax is simply a way to levy a cost to the externalities of fossil fuels that aren't priced into the product itself, as I keep saying. So the tax is just a way to accurately reflect the costs of burning fossil fuels, and to partially level the playing field between fossil fuels and the alternatives.

So when then did you personally decide what the cost of those 'externalities' should be and what is the figure you arrived at ?

 

[JasperL]

So when then did you personally decide what the cost of those 'externalities' should be and what is the figure you arrived at ?

I haven't determined the cost, and have not arrived at a figure.

When did you determine the proper cost is $zero, and how did you determine that?

 

[flogger]

I haven't determined the cost, and have not arrived at a figure.

As long as its the West that pays right ?

 

[flogger]

Despite control over Iraq for the best part of a decade the U.S. neither sought nor secured any oil concessions. That should end any nonsense about a war for oil. Israel is certainly part of our interest -- and an honorable part I think -- but that's in the context of a broader interest in regional stability in a part of the world that has too often given rise to conflicts and terrorism. Our interest in oil is fundamentally an interest in free trade and security for our allies.

Africa? Why do you suppose we established the Africa Command (AFRICOM)?

Israel might once have been an 'honourable part' of your original intent Jack but that was many decades ago. Theres not much thats very 'honourable' about it now

 

[Jack Hays]

Israel might once have been an 'honourable part' of your original intent Jack but that was many decades ago. Theres not much thats very 'honourable' about it now

IMHO, Israel remains among the most honorable causes on Earth.

 

[polgara]

My only points were two:

1) We're both relying on experts, what we hear.
2) The possibility that propaganda affects what we believe is not unique to what side we take. The point is we are BOTH subject to the same influences. I didn't claim to be immune, but I do accept that if I'm subject to being influenced, so are you, because we're all in the same boat - unable to make informed, independent judgments of the facts and so we must, by necessity, trust someone else. You trust one group, I trust another. I didn't allege that who you trust was wrong. In fact, what I said was we don't know if the majority are correct or wrong, "we will see."

:thumbs:

 

[flogger]

IMHO, Israel remains among the most honorable causes on Earth.

Most free thinking people would now beg to differ and I for one would tend agree with them

 

[JasperL]

As long as its the West that pays right ?

No, you missed my point. To the extent we in the West consume energy, our choices ought to reflect the full cost of those choices. It's the only way for us to make informed decisions as consumers. If I can offload a bunch of my costs to you and others by choosing one energy source, I'll do that, it's a subsidy of that choice, and we've been doing that with fossil fuels for generations now.

 

[Soho gator]

IMHO, Israel remains among the most honorable causes on Earth.

Yeah I like to bash Israel every chance I get as they have always been dishonorable but please take this back and forth to the proper sub forum

 

[flogger]

No, you missed my point. To the extent we in the West consume energy, our choices ought to reflect the full cost of those choices. It's the only way for us to make informed decisions as consumers. If I can offload a bunch of my costs to you and others by choosing one energy source, I'll do that, it's a subsidy of that choice, and we've been doing that with fossil fuels for generations now.

But I don't feel guilty for my western existence but you do so why should I be penalised ?

 

[MrT]

But I don't feel guilty for my western existence but you do so why should I be penalised ?

For the same reason that you pay taxes to build clean up a river from which you don't depend. Large environmental problems require collective efforts that are dictated by a central figure of power.

 

[humbolt]

I'm learning from informed sources that it's all that exhalation we've been doing.

CO2 is deadly. Deadly. It's not a joke. Skip every other breath and save a species. No, not yours. Why are you so selfish that you would think your species is transcendent?

 

[humbolt]

No you don't, you only have to accept your contribution to it.

I'm not contributing anything. If the climate is changing, it's not because of anything I've done, and unless and until someone can definitively prove it, I'm not changing how I live. The "science" is lacking. When it can demonstrate what it claims, I'll be a believer. Until then, I remain as I am living as I do.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yeah I like to bash Israel every chance I get as they have always been dishonorable but please take this back and forth to the proper sub forum

The thread was already off-track but I don't intend to continue anyway.

 

[PoS]

You're just doing the equivalent of hand waving there. We have experience with these kinds of taxes, they do work to reduce the taxed activity, there is no significant black market possible because the players are a relative handful of behemoths, and huge amounts of energy usage in domestic markets is impossible to move to China unless you move your house and car offshore. Further, what subsidies and exemptions?



A tax on carbon affects the relative price of fossil fuels versus alternatives including conservation/energy efficiency - that's the only goal. Already those alternatives are either cost competitive (in the case of wind and geothermal) or are getting there quickly (solar), and a carbon tax accelerates that process in a sort of market approach that is indifferent to conservation or the various alternatives to fossil fuels. This market based approach is why just a few years ago carbon taxes were embraced by many in the GOP.

1. Studies have shown that even if somehow you are able to get everyone to buy into that carbon tax nonsense the lowering of temperatures is negligible- not even 1 degrees so its pointless.

2. Alternative energy sources are being developed regardless of whether carbon taxes exist or not.

Nope. Try again.

 

[Threegoofs]

1. Studies have shown that even if somehow you are able to get everyone to buy into that carbon tax nonsense the lowering of temperatures is negligible- not even 1 degrees so its pointless.

2. Alternative energy sources are being developed regardless of whether carbon taxes exist or not.

Nope. Try again.

1) (citation needed)

2) the carbon tax will encourage much more rapid development. That's the point!

I thought you said you read about this before?

 

[JasperL]

But I don't feel guilty for my western existence but you do so why should I be penalised ?

Interesting way to avoid addressing a simple point - create a straw man. Never seen that one before!

 

[JasperL]

1. Studies have shown that even if somehow you are able to get everyone to buy into that carbon tax nonsense the lowering of temperatures is negligible- not even 1 degrees so its pointless.

2. Alternative energy sources are being developed regardless of whether carbon taxes exist or not.

Nope. Try again.

OK, so you're against them, not because they won't do what they're intended to do, you just don't buy into the goals. OK. You should have said that to begin with.

 

[flogger]

For the same reason that you pay taxes to build clean up a river from which you don't depend. Large environmental problems require collective efforts that are dictated by a central figure of power.

So you are a big fan of big government control of our lives then . Thats what ultimately this whole agenda is about because by demonizing CO2 you demonize the very gas we exhale'

If you are worrying about pollution its not us that are todays major polluters its the Chinese as any satellite image of their country will confirm yet they always get a free pass

 

[flogger]

Interesting way to avoid addressing a simple point - create a straw man. Never seen that one before!

The point is my CO2 emissions are no threat to anyone so why should I be penalised simply for existing ?

 

[PoS]

OK, so you're against them, not because they won't do what they're intended to do, you just don't buy into the goals. OK. You should have said that to begin with.

Well like I said, Im on the fence for two big reasons: first, there is no definite conclusion that human beings are the cause of the warming or whether its just part of the natural weather cycle and second, there is no current viable or practical solution in lowering temperature. The fact that the doomsayers and pro carbon tax people make arguments like, "if youre not on our side, youre stupid!" or "you breathed so its all your fault!" clearly proves that they are clueless as much as the naysayers who ignore the data.