Alex Jones Playing Martyr Again

[Calcas]

Well first of all, Alex Jones is indeed an idiot.

But, there are many (sane) people who believe that global warming may not be caused by what many believe.

Nobody disputes that global warming is real and that the ice caps are melting. But, the question is whether global warming is mostly a natural phenomena which is cyclical over the life of the earth or is it mostly due to greenhous gasses and other areas of human intervention with the environment.

BTW, I'm not a "Global Warming is a Fallacy" guy. I'm just curious about looking behind the curtain, as a lot of other people are starting to do.

There are HUGE trade offs from an energy standpoint. Read the link to the Newsweek article. Here's an excerpt:

"Our largest foreign source of oil is turbulent Canada. Our second largest is Mexico, which is experiencing turbulence because of the soaring cost of tortillas. They are made from corn, which is ... well, read on.

Ethanol produces just slightly more energy than it takes to manufacture it. But now that the government is rigging energy markets with mandates, tariffs and subsidies, ethanol production might consume half of next year's corn crop. The price of corn already has doubled in a year. Hence the tortilla turbulence south of the border. Forests will be felled (will fewer trees mean more global warming?) to clear land for growing corn, which requires fertilizer, the manufacture of which requires energy. Oh, my."

It's complicated...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960409/site/newsweek/

Also, I read Michael Creighton's novel "State of Fear" and he made a pretty good case for this as well. His argument was that environmental organizations are formenting false fears in order to promote agendas and raise money. Everyone agrees the Earth is getting warmer. But he says there is little to worry about because the climate is always changing and there is no evidence to determine if the changes are manmade or natural. In fact he says, climate scientists admit they can't predict what temperatures will be in 100 years.

 

[Belz...]

I thought it was from all the hot air he's releasing.

HA!

 

[R.Mackey]

The Sun

I don't know of anyone proposing an expanding sun, per se, for the changes in solar radition. The incidences of solar flares, though, is what some attribute it to.

For what it's worth, the Sun is a variable star, and this does have a significant impact on climate models. Over the last few billion years, the Sun has been thought to be as much as 6% variable. In more recent times, the variation is around 0.1% per sunspot cycle, and about 0.6% within recorded human history.

This is not news, and the best climate models include this factor. It's actually far easier to account for than variation in atmospheric absorption, how clouds form and change the planet's emissivity, etc. I am not a climatologist, it's a difficult science.

That's not quite true (if we're going to nitpick). The speed of light is dependent on the media through which it travels - it actually goes slower through our atmosphere than through the the vacuum of space.

Correct, with some additional detail. The Speed of Light in any medium is The Speed of Light. The Speed of Light c is rigorously defined as c = 1 / (epsilon mu)^1/2, where epsilon is the electric permeability of the medium, and mu is the magnetic permittivity of the medium. Vacuum is understood to have the lowest values of both, thus Speed of Light in a vacuum is understood to be higher than in anything else.

However, there is still nothing faster than The Speed of Light, regardless of what that speed actually happens to be. If you need to get a message through solid rutile, it's going to take a little bit longer. That's just the way it oes.

 

[Without Rights]

Al Gore is up for a Nobel Prize, but you think he's an idiot.

You wouldn't be a conspiracy guy, would you?

Ooohh nice work. I guess it's Gore 2008 and if you don't vote for him you are a "conspiracy guy".

Anyway, he is nominated for bringing the global warming issue to the people on a massive scale not for his solution of taxing the average American driver who depends on thier vehicles for their livelihood.

Do "conspiracy guys" believe the answer is in higher industrial standards and alternative low emulsive fuels? If so I guess I Am a "conspiracy guy".

 

[Without Rights]

If it is so obvious, why did you say "always", which is incorrect?

I told you I was quoting Einstein, directly. Talk about nitpicking. I fiqured it was obvious by the context of the argument. You know;

"The speed of light does not increase as heat increases. "light always travels at a speed of 299,792,458 meters per second", according to einstein."

Obvious, right?

 

[PerryLogan]

Do "conspiracy guys" believe the answer is in higher industrial standards and alternative low emulsive fuels? If so I guess I Am a "conspiracy guy".

Calling a Nobel Prize nominee an idiot is callow and egotistical. So naturally I took you for a conspiracy guy.

 

[boloboffin]

Would anyone here call either Kissinger or Arafat idiots?

 

[PerryLogan]

Just so my point doesn't get completely lost: conspiracy guys often talk about distinguished people as if they were dogs, betokening a combination of ignorance and egotism. Neocons do this, too, which may be why James chimed in.

 

[brodski]

Global warming may be a big problem, but the talking heads in government want to fix it by implementing a tax. If they tax us, how will this do anything but cost us more $$$?

because if it costs people more to do something they will (except in very social cases) do less of it, the ration between the cost increase and the demand decreases is the elasticity of demand, and whilst energy usage is relatively inelastic, it is not totally inelastic. Basic economics.

Al Gore is an idiot because his plan is not viable.

It's not viable because there is not the political will to implement it, and people perceive the cost as too high, ore is trying to work on both of those issues.

If we want to reduce emissions we can do it by preservation not taxation.

We will need to use both.

Increasing standards of industry will defiantly reduce pollution.

Which will also cost you money, if industry has to use more expensive methods of production, the prices will rise- it is essentially taxation by another means.

Start using alternate energies, instead of repressing them.

Which alternative energies are being repressed, and by whom?

Phase out gasoline engines. Stop selling pork n beans .

And what would you replaced petrol powered engines with?
as to your "pork and beans" quote, there has been some research into trying to reduce th flatulence of cows, as that is a significant producer of methane in the atmosphere.

 

[Without Rights]

New mandate declared by Perry, if a man gets a nomination for nobel prize it becomes ignorant to call him an idiot. Really?

So we can now only show Gore in a good light and praise him because he got nominated. Everyone got that.

If you disagree with an increased tax you are ignorant because Gore did a documentary and got nominated for a nobel prize.

All hail Gore!

 

[Without Rights]

Just so my point doesn't get completely lost: conspiracy guys often talk about distinguished people as if they were dogs, betokening a combination of ignorance and egotism. Neocons do this, too, which may be why James chimed in.

So disagreeing with a distinguished person is ignorant and egotistical?

How about if two distiguished people oppose eachother, then what?

 

[Without Rights]

because if it costs people more to do something they will (except in very social cases) do less of it, the ration between the cost increase and the demand decreases is the elasticity of demand, and whilst energy usage is relatively inelastic, it is not totally inelastic. Basic economics.

When the price went up from $1.70 to nearly $3.00 a gallon I didn't drive less I only spent more, the only people who would drive less are the poor, people who have money would not just sit home because of a tax.

It's not viable because there is not the political will to implement it, and people perceive the cost as too high, Gore is trying to work on both of those issues.

No, it is not viable because it only inconveinences the majority of Americans who are nearly defined by the freedom of movement a car grants them. The Average American makes enough money to pay the increase but once again the poor will suffer.

We will need to use both.

Which will also cost you money, if industry has to use more expensive methods of production, the prices will rise- it is essentially taxation by another means.

So if we do both like you suggest we will essentially be taxed twice, one direct and one indirect. Why not throw a third tax in their, make you really happy.

Which alternative energies are being repressed, and by whom?

Research it.

as to your "pork and beans" quote, there has been some research into trying to reduce th flatulence of cows, as that is a significant producer of methane in the atmosphere.

I was actually kidding.

 

[burnvictim77]

Al Gore is up for a Nobel Prize, but you think he's an idiot.

Yeah, nominated for using a flimsy propaganda film to bring a potentially serious issue public awareness. Nominations aren't necessarily based on the person's intelligence, but how much impact they have on the world.

 

[brodski]

When the price went up from $1.70 to nearly $3.00 a gallon I didn't drive less I only spent more, the only people who would drive less are the poor, people who have money would not just sit home because of a tax.

the price increase was a temporary occurrence, changes take time to embed, if it had gone up to, say around $7 a gallon, permanently (which is the kind of price I pay) changes would have been embedded, change is painfully, but people soon adapt. And the pain of changing now is going to be a lot less that the pain of a forced change later.

No, it is not viable because it only inconveinences the majority of Americans who are nearly defined by the freedom of movement a car grants them. The Average American makes enough money to pay the increase but once again the poor will suffer.

people are remarkably adaptable, an increase in the price of fuel makes other systems more affordable (relatively speaking) and much more desirable, don't assume that one model of economics or society will last forever.

So if we do both like you suggest we will essentially be taxed twice, one direct and one indirect. Why not throw a third tax in their, make you really happy.

the number of taxes is irrelevant, what is relevant is the bottom line, how much extra people will have to pay in total. By "hiding" the costs through indirect measures, it is possible that you will force people to pay more, for less reduction in demand, than you would through direct taxation of energy usage- people are much less willing to pay a price which they can easily see.

Research it.

I have bone plenty of research, none of which agrees with you- now you made the claim, before I write you of as annother paranoid little CT tosser, convinced the world is out to get him, why don't you try substantiating your claims for one?

I was actually kidding.

I know, the ideas you take seriously (people "suppressing" alternative fuel sources rather than spending vast sums of money researching them) are a joke, and the things which you regard as a joke are actually serious.

 

[burnvictim77]

When the price went up from $1.70 to nearly $3.00 a gallon I didn't drive less I only spent more, the only people who would drive less are the poor, people who have money would not just sit home because of a tax.

I think cigarette taxes may be the best example of this. Less smokers now? There numbers have not significantly declined since the price of cigarettes has astronomically soared. I would say that, likewise, the average American is addicted to their car. Obviously not a physical addiction, but something that people really can't deal going without for long periods of time.

 

[burnvictim77]

For what it's worth, the Sun is a variable star, and this does have a significant impact on climate models. Over the last few billion years, the Sun has been thought to be as much as 6% variable. In more recent times, the variation is around 0.1% per sunspot cycle, and about 0.6% within recorded human history.

This is not news, and the best climate models include this factor. It's actually far easier to account for than variation in atmospheric absorption, how clouds form and change the planet's emissivity, etc. I am not a climatologist, it's a difficult science.

What I'm wondering is this: does the ICPP 4th report deal with this at all? I looked at their summary and it appears to leave out many of the questions I have about the completeness of the science.

 

[burnvictim77]

the price increase was a temporary occurrence, changes take time to embed, if it had gone up to, say around $7 a gallon, permanently (which is the kind of price I pay) changes would have been embedded, change is painfully, but people soon adapt. And the pain of changing now is going to be a lot less that the pain of a forced change later.


people are remarkably adaptable, an increase in the price of fuel makes other systems more affordable (relatively speaking) and much more desirable, don't assume that one model of economics or society will last forever.


the number of taxes is irrelevant, what is relevant is the bottom line, how much extra people will have to pay in total. By "hiding" the costs through indirect measures, it is possible that you will force people to pay more, for less reduction in demand, than you would through direct taxation of energy usage- people are much less willing to pay a price which they can easily see.


I have bone plenty of research, none of which agrees with you- now you made the claim, before I write you of as annother paranoid little CT tosser, convinced the world is out to get him, why don't you try substantiating your claims for one?



I know, the ideas you take seriously (people "suppressing" alternative fuel sources rather than spending vast sums of money researching them) are a joke, and the things which you regard as a joke are actually serious.

I am skeptical that Gov't intervention in the market can and will present a real solution to this problem. But perhaps there is a first time for everything.

 

[PerryLogan]

I think cigarette taxes may be the best example of this. Less smokers now? There numbers have not significantly declined since the price of cigarettes has astronomically soared.

Maybe not the best example:

Substantial scientific evidence shows that higher cigarette prices result in lower overall cigarette consumption. Most studies indicate that a 10% increase in price will reduce overall cigarette consumption by 3% to 5%. Youth, minorities, and low-income smokers are two to three times more likely to quit or smoke less than other smokers in response to price increases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking

 

[Without Rights]

O.K. you support $7.00 a gallon gas I don't, let's move on

I have bone plenty of research, none of which agrees with you- now you made the claim, before I write you of as annother paranoid little CT tosser, convinced the world is out to get him, why don't you try substantiating your claims for one?

I really don't care what you write me off as anyway, that seems to be the standard here, everybody that disagrees is a conspiracy theorist. So o.k. how about natural gas, 5 million cars worldwide run on natural gas. Ethanol, hydrogen, biodiesel.

What about the movie Tucker: A man and his dreams, The oil industry suppressed his technology successfully. Oh, is that a conspiracy? No it's fact. How naive of you to assume the most lucrative market in America would do nothing to make sure they remained that way.

I know, the ideas you take seriously (people "suppressing" alternative fuel sources rather than spending vast sums of money researching them) are a joke, and the things which you regard as a joke are actually serious.

Ad hominem attack disregarded. You were looking pretty hard far anything that you could use to class me with your CT's. I think you actually love CT's. You depend on them alot in your arguments.

 

[brodski]

I am skeptical that Gov't intervention in the market can and will present a real solution to this problem. But perhaps there is a first time for everything.

i would much rather pout my faith in government regulation of this issue than the free market. Whilst it may be unlikely that Ethe government can solve this issue, it is an absolute certainly that the free market cannot.