Obama Wants To Raise Your Electric Bill

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Speedo Bandit, Jul 2, 2009.

Page 13 of 16
  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Well, Duhhhhh!

    That's what we do here. You are the one who proclaims his mind can't ever be changed. If I say the sky is blue, your response will be to disagree.
     
    red55, Jul 14, 2009
    #121
  2. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    You did nothing to challenge jibboo's documented shredding of your previous attempts to try and convince us that man made global warming is a viable threat. Where are your graphs and charts and unreadable dissertations purporting to prove that man will cease to exist if things don't change?
     
    SabanFan, Jul 14, 2009
    #122
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    I responded to every point. You didn't even read it did you? Still smarting?

    Jiboo is a welcome relief from the usual ideological rants around here and he makes arguable points in a civil manner which have been responded to. He also makes some questionable points and those have been pointed out, as well. He made a few erroneous assumptions, but we all do.

    It started with a chart I provided. Just because you find his response unintelligible doesn't make it authoritative. How amusing.

    Look, What he says about water vapor is true, its just not the whole issue. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas and mostly not a result of human activity. But human produced CO2 raises temperatures which allows more water to be held as vapor increasing temperature even more. It's a multiplier.

    It's also true that natural systems seek equilibrium and trends do not go on forever. But the IPCC experts have determined that there is significant human addition to global warming. This is influencing the natural cycles as nature attempts to achieve equilibrium.

    As far as the politics, here is where I stand. I think we can neither ignore the issue and maintain that it doesn't exist, nor can we panic about the issue and cry that the world is coming to an end.

    We cannot control nature, but we can control our own pollution that affects natural systems in our time. That's all that needs to be done here, not attempt to eliminate glacial/interglacial climatic cycles. Just reduce what we add to the problem. Sea-level rise, deforestation, and changing drought/agricultural patterns will affect humans and we can do something about it.

    What to do? Again, the answers lie between doing nothing and trying to do everything. We don't need to bankrupt the country or cripple industry, why would we do that? Those are scare stories. But there are things that we can do, incrementally and affordably, over time to reduce our impact on nature and save us troubles down the road. Not all of them, but enough to reduce the impacts from nature that we must otherwise endure.

    That's why I don't support Kyoto nor the entire agenda of Al Gore. Some things can be carried to extremes in order to get peoples attention. It doesn't mean we have to overreact. But neither can we go to the other extreme and ignore the climatologists research, dismiss it as fantasy, and fail to do the things that can be done to address the issue.
     
    red55, Jul 15, 2009
    #123
  4. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Fine. Just leave me out of it. As O'Reilly and Rolling Stone Magazine assert, it's all a big con.
     
    SabanFan, Jul 15, 2009
    #124
  5. lsu-i-like

    lsu-i-like Playoff advocate

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17,958
    Likes Received:
    8,799
    Re: Fun with Photoshop

    That is where the educated guess comes into play. Also integrity and a multitude of models that show similar results despite different methods. I would be surprised to find that the majority of scientists who are concerned with global warming are simply fudging the numbers to push an agenda.

    That may be the case, but I'm not sure it eliminates the additional effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The correlation between CO2 levels and the industrial revolution seems too strong to be coincidence; it also seems like something that should be taken seriously. CO2 levels also effect the chemistry of seawater, which has an affect on the food chain.

    I think most political solutions are flawed, but because Red has said cap and trade has worked well before, I'd at least research it more.

    In a mostly unrelated note, I was watching Glenn Beck a little last night and he was talking about how Goldman Sachs appears to have played the government and made a tidy profit off of it. Another disturbing governmental solution that doesn't seem to have worked the way it was intended.
     
    lsu-i-like, Jul 16, 2009
    #125
  6. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Re: Fun with Photoshop


    That is going to get ugly.
     
    SabanFan, Jul 16, 2009
    #126
  7. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    Re: Fun with Photoshop

    yeah, this is the same government that you think might be able to manage cap and trade fairly and effectively, with positive results. the potential for corruption is almost limitless.
     
    martin, Jul 16, 2009
    #127
  8. lsu-i-like

    lsu-i-like Playoff advocate

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17,958
    Likes Received:
    8,799
    Re: Fun with Photoshop

    Continuing with the status quo, cap and trade might be a good solution. Even if we were able to start over, private corporations don't consider what is best for society first and need to be regulated in some way. Maybe some sort of private regulation could take place. I do think smarter, less micro-managing regulation is called for, but I don't think it can be eliminated.

    If company A is dumping toxins into a river, what is the solution? Laissez-faire?
     
    lsu-i-like, Jul 16, 2009
    #128
  9. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Re: Fun with Photoshop


    Cap and Tax has nothing to do with that sort of pollution. If anyone, regardless of political leanings, did a simple cost/benefit analysis of BO's Cap and Trade proposal, they would be against it. And unlike the Health Care issue, doing nothing is an extremely viable option.
     
    SabanFan, Jul 16, 2009
    #129
  10. lsu-i-like

    lsu-i-like Playoff advocate

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17,958
    Likes Received:
    8,799
    Re: Fun with Photoshop

    I just meant to use this as a palpable example. Being concerned about global warming type pollution is similar. But even Red says that doing too much may be uncalled for at this time, and I agree with that line of thinking.

    What I am unsure of, considering the status quo, is if the cap and trade proposal is too much. A lot of people I agree with generally seem to think it is, so I assume it probably is. But a lot of people I agree with seem to think private industry will simply take care of society of their own accord.

    I don't think you and I or even martin and I disagree as much as we disagree. Our main disagreement, I think, is the approach we take in disagreeing and perhaps how willing we are to consider the other side of the argument.
     
    lsu-i-like, Jul 16, 2009
    #130
Page 13 of 16

Share This Page