Conservatives and climate change

[mhaze]

I would disagree that we are anywhere near the limits of food that can be produced, perhaps this is true using the levels of technology and energy affordable and commonly utilized around the planet today, but that, is only an issue if you are willing to let billions of people die because they can't afford to feed themselves.....

Given that lives could be saved TODAY, in Africa, at estimated costs of $200 each, that's 5M people per billion dollars.....

It's hard to take seriously your assertions that present realities should be simply ignored in favor of your future fantasies.

And you really have ignored present realities. So please don't backtrack and say..."oh, we need to do that TOO!"...

 

[Furcifer]

You didn't understand it, yet you have a theory about it. I'm not surprised. It's like your take on the whole subject of global warming.

A scathing unsubstantiated indictment. This is why I stay out of Politics.

Have you something to contribute about this thread's subject?

Remember the mirror?

You don't need to understand to vote and participate in political processes. So, have you something to contribute about "conservatives and global warming"? I would like to know the take of would-be presidents and the differences between those closer to the tea party and those moderate ones that can still be considered conservatives.

I did contribute, I showed the deceit that is ever present and the preference for personal attacks in lieu of actual facts.

 

[stokes234]

Well, yes, it's a policy suggestion for YOU. Based on the paragraph that you quoted a part of Hayek's thought, and based on his thought.

So you think Hayek would have supported the concept that one country should tax energy in order to regulate emissions, knowing that the effect of this would be to cause industry to move to another country, with the same or higher emissions resulting?

That only increases taxes, without effecting the alleged goal of reduction of emissions, while harming the first country economically by removing industry and jobs, and benefiting the second country by giving it industries and jobs.

This is quite obvious, so there is no way that a reasonable person can argue that a brilliant man like Hayek would have argued for it.

I imagine he would have supported both countries taxing emissions, since he clearly thought pollution should be taxed. In his time, competition between countries was not the same issue as it is today, because companies couldn't just up and leave at a moments notice in search of a better deal. In my opinion, the best solution is for all major economies to agree to enforce an emissions tax and not to trade with countries that don't adopt it.

 

[uke2se]

Your sarcasm is not an argument. Penn State said, in effect, "because he brings in a lot of money, we see nothing wrong with his actions".

That's not what the text you quoted said. Please don't misrepresent Penn State.

Your "argument" demonstrates a clear and catastrophic ignorance of how research grants work.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

What sort of a whistleblower hacks into a server to release the supposedly "leaked" documents? Most whistleblowers go to a goivernment agency, or the media, they don't try to hack a blog and upload them. That's the sort of theatrics you'd expect from Lulz Sec or Anonymous, not a whistleblower.

There's no evidence that the UEA server was "hacked", either.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That's not what the text you quoted said. Please don't misrepresent Penn State. Your "argument" demonstrates a clear and catastrophic ignorance of how research grants work.

Your argument demonstrates how AGW theory proponents argue. Thanks. I said nothing about how grants work. What is the relevance to Mann's status to the accusations that he withheld data from critics, conspired to delete emails among his allies and so shield them from FOI requests, and, with his friends, contorted the peer review process? The only relevance Mann's status could have to the matter is the extent to which that status enabled this behavior.

 

[mhaze]

I imagine he would have supported both countries taxing emissions, since he clearly thought pollution should be taxed. In his time, competition between countries was not the same issue as it is today, because companies couldn't just up and leave at a moments notice in search of a better deal. In my opinion, the best solution is for all major economies to agree to enforce an emissions tax and not to trade with countries that don't adopt it.

In his time? He died just in 1992. As for your speculations that he would have supported both countries taxing, he would have laughed at that and quipped "and then there was this third country...pass the beer".

So you see, economic activity will move where it is welcome and where it prospers. To a third country, or a fourth, or a fifth. Regarding your stated opinion as to (essentially) a NWO, to me that's irrelevant because it doesn't exist.

What does exist is what I'll comment on.

And when you or Trakar, or whomever, attempt to create carbon tax or fuel industry suppression in one country in the absence of your fantasized NWO, you harm that country directly. And that's what green lobbies across the world are actually doing - their are working against their own country's self interest, and to the benefit economically of places such as Middle East oil sheiks, China and India.

That's the real world.

By the way - do you even have the right Hayek? F.? Not this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc_HZb33ZUs&feature=related

 

[DC]

In his time? He died just in 1992. As for your speculations that he would have supported both countries taxing, he would have laughed at that and quipped "and then there was this third country...pass the beer".

So you see, economic activity will move where it is welcome and where it prospers. To a third country, or a fourth, or a fifth. Regarding your stated opinion as to (essentially) a NWO, to me that's irrelevant because it doesn't exist.

What does exist is what I'll comment on.

And when you or Trakar, or whomever, attempt to create carbon tax or fuel industry suppression in one country in the absence of your fantasized NWO, you harm that country directly. And that's what green lobbies across the world are actually doing - their are working against their own country's self interest, and to the benefit economically of places such as Middle East oil sheiks, China and India.

That's the real world.

yeah another buzzword. you think it makes your opponents look stupid, but no, not your opponent.

 

[Trakar]

Misplaced trust, and money.Someone evidently did, and leaked the emails.

And yet despite your conspiracy theory delusions and general reality denial, the criminal investigations continue (note they are still looking for hackers not leakers). By by the UK and the US Dept. of Justice.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/15/hacked-climate-emails-police-west-yorkshire

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And yet despite your conspiracy theory delusions and general reality denial...

Thanks again for the demonstration of the AGW theory proponent's style. Keep it up. When you're ready to discuss issues, instead of personalities, we can continue the exchange.

 

[lomiller]

Are you saying that all gasses are greenhouse gasses? I'm not carping, here; I'm curious.?

A greenhouse gas is a gas with an absorption band in a significant part of the blackbody spectrum for the planet. Hotter planets emit more energy in higher frequencies so they could potentially run into different absorption bands, but in practice the key gasses don’t change much.

How long lived a greenhouse gas is also extremely important. H2O is a strong greenhouse gas but it has a very short lifespan in the atmosphere, so even if you release a lot of it it’s all gone within a couple days and temperatures are back to normal.

. Take a 100 cold bodies from interstellar space and install them in nearly circular orbits of different radii around a star with a given radiant output. They all dump heat to a heat sink (the universe) of the same temperature. Without any atmosphere, each will attain an equilibrium temperature that is a function of the radius of its orbit alone. Even albedo will have no role, aside from how quickly the body attains its equilibrium temperature, in the equilibrium temperature. Right?

No, planets do not lose heat by conduction; they lose heat via blackbody radiation. For bodies with no atmosphere surface temperature is going to be the point where blackbody radiation equals incoming absorbed solar energy. Change the albedo and you change this temperature because you change the amount of energy that needs to be emitted as IR via blackbody radiation. (This is an approximation because planets only approximate a blackbody).

 

[mhaze]

yeah another buzzword. you think it makes your opponents look stupid, but no, not your opponent.

Your meaning is not clear. Somewhere there is a buzzword. And you have something to say about that buzzword.

That's up to about 12, the number of derails or attempted derails on this thread as to the definition of some word.

Wow!

These guys seem unable to take the substantive argument, and tackle it head on.

Your argument demonstrates how AGW theory proponents argue. Thanks. I said nothing about how grants work. ...

What? You have a problem with a derail into an irrelevant subject? What's your problem?

Sure is peculiar how people that can't even stick to the substantive argument and tackle it ... seen that somewhere before...where was it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP_WhG4fe-w&feature=related

 

[mhaze]

....H2O is a strong greenhouse gas but it has a very short lifespan in the atmosphere...

typical typical typical...

Emphasize CARBON CYCLE, ignore WATER CYCLE.

<<drumroll of High Priests of Warming>>

 

[lomiller]

typical typical typical...

Emphasize CARBON CYCLE, ignore WATER CYCLE.

WTF are you talking about? H20 has a short lifespan in the atmosphere because of the water cycle.

 

[DC]

Your meaning is not clear. Somewhere there is a buzzword. And you have something to say about that buzzword.

That's up to about 12, the number of derails or attempted derails on this thread as to the definition of some word.

Wow!

These guys seem unable to take the substantive argument, and tackle it head on.

What? You have a problem with a derail into an irrelevant subject? What's your problem?

Sure is peculiar how people that can't even stick to the substantive argument and tackle it ... seen that somewhere before...where was it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP_WhG4fe-w&feature=related

yeah you reality deniers just keep making up buzzwords as you go along, and funnely enough the only one to ever use those words here is actually you. since several pages you are fighting strawmen. and as can be seen just a few posts ago, when someone uses some buzzwords against a reality denier , the reality denier start to cry about posting style, while the same cry baby never jumped on your collection of strawmen and buzzwords.

you are actually the best thing that can happen to us. you make such wicked claims and post nonsense that almost nobody that is skeptical of AGW wants to post in a thread you are posting. because they fear to be associated with our lunitc rants.
thanks

 

[DC]

Thanks again for the demonstration of the AGW theory proponent's style. Keep it up. When you're ready to discuss issues, instead of personalities, we can continue the exchange.

intersting that you did not whine when mhaze uses words like Ecofascist and other nonsense.

 

[DC]

typical typical typical...

Emphasize CARBON CYCLE, ignore WATER CYCLE.

<<drumroll of High Priests of Warming>>

Thanks again for the demonstration of the AGW deniers's style. Keep it up.

 

[BenBurch]

typical typical typical...

Emphasize CARBON CYCLE, ignore WATER CYCLE.

<<drumroll of High Priests of Warming>>

Oh, now that was so far from correct that the light from correct will take 100 years to get there.

Significant water vapor only exists in the atmosphere because of CO2.

If you remove all the CO2, the water precipitates out and the planet becomes an iceball. We believe this happened a couple times in Earth's remote past.

Water is therefore a negative feedback. If the planet warms up, water vapor increases and warms it up some more but there are limits. If the planet cools down, water vapor decreases, and the planet cools down faster.

It merely follows the trend in the temperature.

The two primary natural GHGs are CO2 and Methane. Both can be produced either biologically or geochemically. Because Methane oxidizes in the atmosphere, it has a very short life once emitted. CO2 has a much longer life, especially where biological activity is low, so it is thought that the initial greenhouse was dominated by CO2.

Either of these can keep the planet warm all by themselves without the help of water vapor, but of course water vapor always follows the trend.

Water once in vapor form spends about a month in the atmosphere before falling out as rain, so if the primary GHGs were to disappear immediately, it would not be much time before the snowball started.

That's how it works. Astronomers have known this for decades.

"Facts are stubborn things."

 

[stokes234]

In his time? He died just in 1992. As for your speculations that he would have supported both countries taxing, he would have laughed at that and quipped "and then there was this third country...pass the beer".

So you see, economic activity will move where it is welcome and where it prospers. To a third country, or a fourth, or a fifth. Regarding your stated opinion as to (essentially) a NWO, to me that's irrelevant because it doesn't exist.

He wrote that book in the early 40s. But frankly with your dismissal of a diplomatic agreement on carbon taxes as a "new world order", you've jumped the shark. I'm not debating you anymore, even putting aside your glaring factual errors your arguments are ridiculous.

 

[Furcifer]

And yet despite your conspiracy theory delusions and general reality denial, the criminal investigations continue (note they are still looking for hackers not leakers). By by the UK and the US Dept. of Justice.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/15/hacked-climate-emails-police-west-yorkshire

It's not a conspiracy though, they're still investigating Mann for fraud.