|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 26, 2009 18:29:31 GMT
Let's not forget that GLC here is not one of the gloom and doom people. He just expects mild warming. I, myself would not be too surprised by overall warming over the next century or fairly level temps over the cooling period. But since I see such limited warming as harmless to beneficial, I feel it is in my best interest to help bring awareness of how utterly insane it would be to take any costly mitigation steps. I may sit on the fence with respect to CO2 having a significant impact on climate but I sure as heck don't sit on the fence when it comes to a bunch of moronic, chicken littles running around trying to pursue "solutions" that are likely to leave me poor, cold and starving as they utterly destroy the industrial base. Well, I'm already poor but at least I'm not cold (or sweltering in the summer) or starving.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 26, 2009 23:30:37 GMT
Ah but where is the proof that reducing co2 will destroy the world economy? And I don't mean economic "models" which I completely dismiss as junk generated by economists playing video games in their ivory towers. I also dismiss all economic theory and laws or for that matter most of anything economists say or have written. It's all meaningless junk because there remains uncertainty in how the economy works so therefore I conclude that we have no idea whatsoever about the effect reducing emissions will have on the economy.
Our default position should therefore be that reducing emissions will cause negligible or zero harm to the economy. It might even benefit it slightly. Anything else is simply speculative alarmism. Remember we have a rich history in recent decades of failed alarmist predictions about the economy being destroyed.
I used to believe reducing emissions would harm the economy but then I studied the issue in detail and discovered there is absolutely no evidence. I asked around for mathematical proof that reducing global co2 emissions will destroy the industrial base, but all I got was a wall of silence.
What I demand is empirical proof - an experiment that has been performed in the real world where real people live that shows halving global co2 emissions will destroy the economy. That's what true science demands.
So where are the references to this experiment? Until such an experiment is shown the idea that reducing emissions will destroy the economy is pure alarmist speculation.
But lets keep the debate going - I have an open mind. Lets go ahead and reduce emissions and if alarmists can at a later date actually empirically prove reducing emissions will harm the economy with a real world experiment then we can at that point simply unreduce emissions.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Oct 27, 2009 0:24:37 GMT
Ah but where is the proof that reducing co2 will destroy the world economy? And I don't mean economic "models" which I completely dismiss as junk generated by economists playing video games in their ivory towers. I also dismiss all economic theory and laws or for that matter most of anything economists say or have written. It's all meaningless junk because there remains uncertainty in how the economy works so therefore I conclude that we have no idea whatsoever about the effect reducing emissions will have on the economy. Our default position should therefore be that reducing emissions will cause negligible or zero harm to the economy. It might even benefit it slightly. Anything else is simply speculative alarmism. Remember we have a rich history in recent decades of failed alarmist predictions about the economy being destroyed. I used to believe reducing emissions would harm the economy but then I studied the issue in detail and discovered there is absolutely no evidence. I asked around for mathematical proof that reducing global co2 emissions will destroy the industrial base, but all I got was a wall of silence. What I demand is empirical proof - an experiment that has been performed in the real world where real people live that shows halving global co2 emissions will destroy the economy. That's what true science demands. So where are the references to this experiment? Until such an experiment is shown the idea that reducing emissions will destroy the economy is pure alarmist speculation. But lets keep the debate going - I have an open mind. Lets go ahead and reduce emissions and if alarmists can at a later date actually empirically prove reducing emissions will harm the economy with a real world experiment then we can at that point simply unreduce emissions. Socold, do you honestly believe that the United Kingdom's energy needs of the next decade, for instance, are being well addressed by emerging green technologies? Quite clearly, the working classes will be paying substantially higher percentages of their paychecks to put petrol in their automobiles and heat and light their homes. And as they pay what will, for many, be staggering energy expenses, the reliability of their power will diminish. Wind power is an expensive, environmentally negative joke. Solar likewise cannot contribute meaningfully in the UK and Europe, if it can anywhere. You are, presumably, among those who would foist unproven, expensive, non-viable energy "solutions" on the Third World, lest they become as comfortable and worthy of penitence as we. Non-carbon-based energy, other than nuclear, is at least a generation off (probably far more), as I assume you understand.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 27, 2009 1:39:47 GMT
Given what is being observed, would not " AGW realist" be a synonym for " AGW skeptic"? As for myself, I have finished caulking the house and will buy a snow shovel as soon as they are available down here. You will know its bad if I have to get a snow-shovel down here in Florida I read that True Value has loaded their warehouse with snow shovels as they look to be a "hot" seller this winter.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 27, 2009 2:11:58 GMT
"Ah but where is the proof that reducing co2 will destroy the world economy? And I don't mean economic "models" which I completely dismiss as junk generated by economists playing video games in their ivory towers. I also dismiss all economic theory and laws or for that matter most of anything economists say or have written. It's all meaningless junk because there remains uncertainty in how the economy works so therefore I conclude that we have no idea whatsoever about the effect reducing emissions will have on the economy."
Does anyone find any irony at all in the statement above? Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by hiddigeigei on Oct 27, 2009 2:31:21 GMT
Ah but where is the proof that reducing co2 will destroy the world economy? And I don't mean economic "models" which I completely dismiss as junk generated by economists playing video games in their ivory towers. I also dismiss all economic theory and laws or for that matter most of anything economists say or have written. It's all meaningless junk because there remains uncertainty in how the economy works so therefore I conclude that we have no idea whatsoever about the effect reducing emissions will have on the economy. We had a hurricane in Miami some years ago that knocked out power for a number of weeks and it sure hurt the economy. Does that count?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 27, 2009 2:48:56 GMT
"Ah but where is the proof that reducing co2 will destroy the world economy? And I don't mean economic "models" which I completely dismiss as junk generated by economists playing video games in their ivory towers. I also dismiss all economic theory and laws or for that matter most of anything economists say or have written. It's all meaningless junk because there remains uncertainty in how the economy works so therefore I conclude that we have no idea whatsoever about the effect reducing emissions will have on the economy." Does anyone find any irony at all in the statement above? Just curious. Ohhhhhh......might be justtttt a bit of irony in that statement.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 27, 2009 4:53:29 GMT
Ah but where is the proof that reducing co2 will destroy the world economy? And I don't mean economic "models" which I completely dismiss as junk generated by economists playing video games in their ivory towers. I also dismiss all economic theory and laws or for that matter most of anything economists say or have written. It's all meaningless junk because there remains uncertainty in how the economy works so therefore I conclude that we have no idea whatsoever about the effect reducing emissions will have on the economy. I agree with you on that. Quasi-sciences like economics, ecology, climatology are well beyond being reduced to a few equations. Our default position should therefore be that reducing emissions will cause negligible or zero harm to the economy. It might even benefit it slightly. Anything else is simply speculative alarmism. Remember we have a rich history in recent decades of failed alarmist predictions about the economy being destroyed. If you study history its a free people that makes economies go. It endures some regulation but ultimately giving consumers wide choices of products and the freedom to buy them makes for healthy economies. I used to believe reducing emissions would harm the economy but then I studied the issue in detail and discovered there is absolutely no evidence. I asked around for mathematical proof that reducing global co2 emissions will destroy the industrial base, but all I got was a wall of silence. Rest assured its free pocketbooks and the ability for consumers to choose what they want to reduce or increase that drives economies. Soviet 5 year plans and every socialistic approach has failed. If you would just let off the excessive discharging of bad breath around here and reduce your own emissions, now that is good for the economy because it frees up more of your resources to buy other stuff. . . .assuming you can keep your job of course by getting to work. Depending upon that your mileage may vary. What I demand is empirical proof - an experiment that has been performed in the real world where real people live that shows halving global co2 emissions will destroy the economy. That's what true science demands. So where are the references to this experiment? Until such an experiment is shown the idea that reducing emissions will destroy the economy is pure alarmist speculation. But lets keep the debate going - I have an open mind. Lets go ahead and reduce emissions and if alarmists can at a later date actually empirically prove reducing emissions will harm the economy with a real world experiment then we can at that point simply unreduce emissions. Well its not the act of reducing emissions that harms the economy. You need to get that. Its whether you can do that and remain economically viable. So if you think its both important to do so AND you believe you can do it without destroying your income. . . .do it and set the example for others. But keep in mind that adopting the role of a despot, figuring what will work for everybody based upon your personal reference points has all the earmarks of a Soviet 5 year plan. Quite simply they don't work and history has shown that to be essentially a LAW! But you don't seem to get this personal responsibility angle of just doing it and proving the concept. You expect somebody else to solve the difficulties that you see blocking your way to proving the concept for yourself. This is kind of like a kid pulling on his mother's skirts approach to satisfying needs. You need to understand that you are supposed to grow up and be responsible on your own. That freedom is how you get it done and without straining the economy. . . .and the anti-thesis is to not regulate others until harm has manifested itself. As soon as you start regulating based upon black box calculations, freedom no longer exists.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 27, 2009 6:19:05 GMT
Its not a bad idea for a topic socold...but this is not the thread for it
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Oct 27, 2009 18:39:26 GMT
I wonder what is causing the delay in HadCRUT? It is normally out by 20th. of the month We are now over one week late
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 27, 2009 18:58:43 GMT
Let's not forget that GLC here is not one of the gloom and doom people. He just expects mild warming. I, myself would not be too surprised by overall warming over the next century or fairly level temps over the cooling period. But since I see such limited warming as harmless to beneficial, I feel it is in my best interest to help bring awareness of how utterly insane it would be to take any costly mitigation steps. I may sit on the fence with respect to CO2 having a significant impact on climate but I sure as heck don't sit on the fence when it comes to a bunch of moronic, chicken littles running around trying to pursue "solutions" that are likely to leave me poor, cold and starving as they utterly destroy the industrial base. Well, I'm already poor but at least I'm not cold (or sweltering in the summer) or starving. Your position is a lot like Krautheimer's and mine. What would be interesting to know is what percentage of the alarmists are against nuclear power as a bridge to economical alternative energy sources. IMHO, that is a litmus test for whether a person is Watermelon greenie or or a rational environmentalist. So many alarmist who I know personally are basically against any energy source except ones that have no potential for near term economical success. For example, I'd be all for a massive shift to electric cars if there was a practical way to fuel them (the carbon footprint of producing them and the battery problems are another debate altogether, but who would be against them if they were cleaner and economical?).
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 27, 2009 20:38:13 GMT
Socold, do you honestly believe that the United Kingdom's energy needs of the next decade, for instance, are being well addressed by emerging green technologies? Quite clearly, the working classes will be paying substantially higher percentages of their paychecks to put petrol in their automobiles and heat and light their homes. And as they pay what will, for many, be staggering energy expenses, the reliability of their power will diminish. Wind power is an expensive, environmentally negative joke. Solar likewise cannot contribute meaningfully in the UK and Europe, if it can anywhere. You are, presumably, among those who would foist unproven, expensive, non-viable energy "solutions" on the Third World, lest they become as comfortable and worthy of penitence as we. Non-carbon-based energy, other than nuclear, is at least a generation off (probably far more), as I assume you understand. To be honest I haven't looked at what it would take for the UK to significantly reduce carbon emissions. I would be interesting I suppose. Maybe another thread.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Oct 27, 2009 22:07:36 GMT
Socold, do you honestly believe that the United Kingdom's energy needs of the next decade, for instance, are being well addressed by emerging green technologies? Quite clearly, the working classes will be paying substantially higher percentages of their paychecks to put petrol in their automobiles and heat and light their homes. And as they pay what will, for many, be staggering energy expenses, the reliability of their power will diminish. Wind power is an expensive, environmentally negative joke. Solar likewise cannot contribute meaningfully in the UK and Europe, if it can anywhere. You are, presumably, among those who would foist unproven, expensive, non-viable energy "solutions" on the Third World, lest they become as comfortable and worthy of penitence as we. Non-carbon-based energy, other than nuclear, is at least a generation off (probably far more), as I assume you understand. To be honest I haven't looked at what it would take for the UK to significantly reduce carbon emissions. I would be interesting I suppose. Maybe another thread. Ahh, you must have forgotten your suggestion, on this thread, about an experiment on the world's economy, as though this were far off... but the experiments are happening in real time. Spain's embrace of wind is not yielding the economic returns that greens had prophesied. Ditto for Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands. The reasons I focus on the UK are: 1. Global warming dogma has two principal seats: Britain and the U.S. 2. The watermelon greens in Britain are putting their countrymen at risk by stymying conventional power plant production and spending so much money on wind and forcing conversion to biofuel. 3. The results of this experiment should be in very soon, and as I said above they won't favor the warmists/catastrophists who owed their fellow citizens better.
|
|
|
Post by sfbmikey on Oct 29, 2009 13:59:06 GMT
scocold: very funny, equating economics with global climate, to attempt to show a silly argument.
if only economics and global climate had any commonality.
beh.
|
|
troed
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by troed on Oct 29, 2009 20:01:31 GMT
Ah but where is the proof that reducing co2 will destroy the world economy? [---] I don't agree with your position on AGW in the slightest, but I must congratulate you on a very well played post/point of view. (Economy, especially finance, is a game of playing dice and committing fraud. I agree that the similarites are numerous )
|
|