I think most religious conservatives are nuts... I couldn't be further from them when it comes to what I believe... their idea of "right and wrong" is based entirely on what they think their invisible man in the sky says is morally right and wrong, and they want to apply that to everyone.
And yet I don't agree with everything the scientists are saying on global warming. There is a huge cloud of darkness over the whole thing, many scientists are afraid to speak up, for fear of losing funding and their jobs. The money and media support is clearly on the side of global warming and it is dangerous to oppose it.
You of course missed the whole point, which is that you might well end up being "right" about global warming, but that doesn't help you if you're dead.
Pound that drumbeat hard enough and you'll get pushback, the harder you beat, the harder the pushback.
If someone like me, who totally believes in science and evolution and the big bang and everything else scientific about our world, doubts global warming, then you have a problem.
Global warming has become a political thing, it is about money and power now, not science.
No, who am I kidding, it wouldn't take a week, if we actually invaded properly, their presence would probably make exactly zero difference to our forward speed, they could stand there and watch, or fight, it would likely make no difference.
Mexico doesn't really have tanks, they have these things...
I makes no difference whatsoever whether you accept the consensus or not. It is the the most informed scientific position there is, and it's the position that politicians should be, and increasingly are, acting on.
Is it? Once, the most informed scientific position was that the Earth was flat and anyone who said otherwise was put on trial for heresy...
The drumbeat today sounds much like that, if you dare deny "The Truth" then you're just a denier and should be rolled over.
You think my opinion is irrelevant. To you it is, to me it is not. To imply that my opinion doesn't matter points out exactly the problem, a lack of respect.
I think the creationists who think the Earth is only 6,000 years old are nuts, but they are entitled to their opinions and views and I would never wish to crush that. They have their views, I have mine, we can coexist.
You don't want to coexist, you want to change my way of life without my permission.
The cartels are armed with much better weapons than AK-47s...
And the Mexican Army lacks much in the way of a modern tank force, nor would tanks do that much good in cities anyway. They are useful, but not as much as you'd think...
What might be more helpful would be a US Army invasion, but that is another matter...:)
We come back to the point where we do not yet agree on the scope of the problem.
There are assumptions in your statement, that if we don't change, we won't have a place to live.
Maybe you're right and I'm wrong about that, but you have not yet convinced me of that, and calling me names isn't going to change my mind.
I'm actually open to the idea of man made climate change, just look at LA in the 60s, the air was so bad you couldn't breath, the laws to clean up cars did have a noticeable effect and we're all better off for it.
I do support the reduction of "bad things" going into our environment, but at a measured pace, not wholesale and overnight. The cost has to be measured against the benefit and the harm to the economy.
The primary reason you get people like me is because we feel the climate change promoters are taking it too far, they want wholesale change overnight at any price and want the rich to pay for it all.
Yea, I don't think we need to do that, a slow and steady approach is just fine.
Power plants have long lives, companies make decisions over many years. Yes, profits are looked at quarter by quarter, but some decisions are capital in nature and look out many years, if not decades.
What if... we started off with a 1% tax on fossile fuels tomorrow, raising it by 1% per year for the next 100 years, slowly getting to a 100% tax (so instead of 35 cents a gallon of gas in tax, it would be whatever the current price is, just double it.
You can't do that overnight, you'd start a war (or a bunch of wars) if you tried.
But you could do it over time, and that gives companies time to come up with solutions.
Maybe 2% per year for 50 years makes more sense, provide a carrot and a stick to move the whole economy in the direction you want, but do it in a timeframe that doesn't shock the system and gives everyone a chance to move with it.
That also gives companies an incentive to develop clean energy, because over time the "value" of that energy actually goes up due to the taxes on "dirty energy".
Just an example of a reasonable, middle of the road solution that you could get someone like me on board for.
That is an interesting question, and one worth debating...
I can see your point, and it is a fair one to make...
Question... Should "child allowances" be tradeable the way carbon credits are in some countries? Maybe a poor person can sell their child allowance and rich people can buy them?
So maybe X number of babies can be born in a given year, handed out as "credits" and there could be a market where those are bought and sold?
------
Ok, moving away from that, lets say we don't like that and it is like China does it, 1 child per family... what about the millions of people who can't even take care of one child? There are a lot of people having kids today who really shouldn't. Not because they shouldn't have any right to, but because they lack the means to take care of the child properly.
There are issues here beyond just population control, such as, "should the government get into the business of deciding who can have kids or not?"
That is a slippery slope, I can see a minefield of dangers...
That being said, population growth will either slow on its own, slow due to government policy, or slow due to war and disease, we can take our pick.:) But what are are unlikely to have is 1 trillion people on the Earth and having it look anything like it does today...
That is why I suggested a tax bill rather than a tax credit for each child, let people have as many kids as they want, but they have to pay society for them since they are a burden to everyone due to a rising population.
The Earth is billions of years old, 30 years isn't even on the radar of the planet.
You have to stop thinking in Human time scales and think in geologic time scales.
Go ask a geologist if he/she thinks 30 years is significant to the planet Earth.
I'll help you out, it isn't... Even my number of 1,000 years was being generous, longer periods of time are more useful to look at Earth's history.
Go back 65 million years ago to the Dinos... Picking out any 30 year period back then is just silly, time scales for looking at the climate back then are much, much larger than 30 years, other than perhaps the specific 30 years after the asteroid impact that killed all the dinos.
But that is only clear after a long period of time.
If you're referring to population growth having to level off, then yes, you're correct. It can happen because we put some system into place, or it can happen from war and disease. The choice is ours.
The problem is, we're all created equal, but some of us are more equal than others.
Angelina Jolie has been critized for having multiple kids then adopting more, but that's stupid, she can clearly afford it, she could have 50 kids and she could afford to properly take care of them all.
The real issue is people having kids who can't afford to take care of them.
So the question is, are we willing to control population based on a person's ability to afford kids? Instead of a child tax credit, what if we had a child tax bill? Every child you have costs you $1,000 more in taxes a year?
There is no longer any scientific debate about whether AGW is happening. It is.
Ahh, but I disagree with you and you have not convinced me that you're correct.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it is your job to convince me of that, not to tell me that I'm simply wrong.
By speaking down to me, you lose me in the process, along with everyone else like me, and many of us have a lot of money and a lot of influence.
Banging the drums and calling me stupid and a denier is not going to win me over. Do it hard and loud enough and people like me might decide that people like you need to... go away...
I was not kidding about the war comment, sooner or later, I expect your side to try and force the issue, if you don't make a reasonable attempt to actually treat my side as equals, we'll simply use force to crush you.
So do you want violence to resolve this issue, or do you want civilized debate to resolve it? The choice is yours.
The irony is that I am not denying climate change, I'm simply not convinced that mankind has moved the needle as far as some suggest.
The issue is that listening to the climate change doomsayers sounds a whole like listening to religious people.
Those who believe in mankind caused climate change don't seem to me to be much interested in a debate, they simply want everyone to accept their point of view without question.
Well, I question it, but they just keep calling me a denier...
I would have far less of an issue with it if so much money weren't involved.
You can keep thinking that the "deniers" are all like that...
But you are ignoring the poster to whom you replied, and that is a mistake...
For there are many like him, and they'll go to war to stop you due to your "holier than thou" attitude...
The other side is actually trying to have a discussion about it, I know I am, but the "sky is falling" crowd is so hell bent on pushing that they are getting pushed back.
At some point it may well go from debates on the Internet to war.
if you did your bit and everyone else did their bit to reduce carbon use then it would happen quicker but there are too many selfish, lazy people with the "fuck it" attitude.
That is a nice idea, but not all problems have such a middle ground.
Think of an airplane flying from New York to Paris... it either has the fuel to make it or it doesn't. There is really no "well, if we put in just a bit more we'll almost make it a bit more".
No, either you make it or you don't. Some problems are indeed binary...
A few small changes here and there, a few more windmills, a few solar panels, aren't going to change the outcome...
Even if the percentage of power tripled over night to renewables, it wouldn't help or make any difference, because the total number keeps growing.
75% of a number twice as big is still a lot more than 90% of a number half the size. Figure that one out and you'll understand why small changes are meaningless.
Yea, but this is the problem, you have pie in the sky thinking...
Personally, if we can get over the nationalistic and personal competitiveness and lust to control as much as "humanly" possible, I think there's a chance for a soft landing
That is NOT going to happen, so just move on from such fantasy thinking...
That sort of "why can't we all just get along" thinking is what caused the west to be so shocked at Putin and recent events.
Slashdot Mirror
So are you, but there are powerful people in this world who don't like what you have to say.
How many times on here have you read about people complaining about tax breaks for the oil companies.
I think if you went down the street and randomly asked 100 people if the oil companies should keep tax breaks, you'd get 90% "no" answers.
Yet they still keep them...
Why?
Answer that and you'll have learned something about power and "fairness" and "rightness".
I can't think of anything practical to complain about.
The price...
I would hope that an editor for a NEWS SERVICE would have more sense than that.
Uh... are you new here?
The mainstream news media is generally clueless about most things and frankly you should take everything you read with a huge grain of salt.
Being a professional pilot, I am never disappointed in how poorly the news media writes about aviation.
If they can't get that right, when experts are EVERYWHERE to vet their work, why would they get anything else right?
The Tesla S isn't a luxury sedan, please don't compare it to a Mercedes S-class, which is about the same price when both are nicely equipped.
The supercharger network doesn't make up for the fact that you can refuel that S-class in 5 minutes and drive it 500 miles on that 5 minute "charge".
It is more than religious conservatives...
I think most religious conservatives are nuts... I couldn't be further from them when it comes to what I believe... their idea of "right and wrong" is based entirely on what they think their invisible man in the sky says is morally right and wrong, and they want to apply that to everyone.
And yet I don't agree with everything the scientists are saying on global warming. There is a huge cloud of darkness over the whole thing, many scientists are afraid to speak up, for fear of losing funding and their jobs. The money and media support is clearly on the side of global warming and it is dangerous to oppose it.
You of course missed the whole point, which is that you might well end up being "right" about global warming, but that doesn't help you if you're dead.
Pound that drumbeat hard enough and you'll get pushback, the harder you beat, the harder the pushback.
If someone like me, who totally believes in science and evolution and the big bang and everything else scientific about our world, doubts global warming, then you have a problem.
Global warming has become a political thing, it is about money and power now, not science.
Do your worst. You're not scary.
Now who is the denier?
You keep on your drumbeat, but keep in mind that being "right" won't help you if the powers that be decide to step on you.
I think you misunderstand...
The mirrors are legally required, they can already do cameras, but they can't remove the mirrors legally.
What they are asking for is the ability to do so.
You can still put mirrors on and I can see some cars like the Wrangler still having them for just the reason you offer.
But most cars don't need them, cameras make more sense.
They could resist all they like... For maybe a week... :)
This is the Mexican Army and the United States Army we're talking about here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
No, who am I kidding, it wouldn't take a week, if we actually invaded properly, their presence would probably make exactly zero difference to our forward speed, they could stand there and watch, or fight, it would likely make no difference.
Mexico doesn't really have tanks, they have these things...
http://static2.demotix.com/sit...
Really, it isn't a contest, they simply have faith that we'd never do it.
I makes no difference whatsoever whether you accept the consensus or not. It is the the most informed scientific position there is, and it's the position that politicians should be, and increasingly are, acting on.
Is it? Once, the most informed scientific position was that the Earth was flat and anyone who said otherwise was put on trial for heresy...
The drumbeat today sounds much like that, if you dare deny "The Truth" then you're just a denier and should be rolled over.
You think my opinion is irrelevant. To you it is, to me it is not. To imply that my opinion doesn't matter points out exactly the problem, a lack of respect.
I think the creationists who think the Earth is only 6,000 years old are nuts, but they are entitled to their opinions and views and I would never wish to crush that. They have their views, I have mine, we can coexist.
You don't want to coexist, you want to change my way of life without my permission.
That is how you start a war.
Keep that in mind while you're on your crusade...
That's quite a big ego you have there. You grossly overestimate your importance. What you believe has no bearing on the science.
Maybe... Maybe not...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
It turns out that Galileo was right, but they crushed him regardless.
You might well be right, but you will have a painful process of getting there if you don't take a softer approach.
The cartels are armed with much better weapons than AK-47s...
And the Mexican Army lacks much in the way of a modern tank force, nor would tanks do that much good in cities anyway. They are useful, but not as much as you'd think...
What might be more helpful would be a US Army invasion, but that is another matter... :)
We come back to the point where we do not yet agree on the scope of the problem.
There are assumptions in your statement, that if we don't change, we won't have a place to live.
Maybe you're right and I'm wrong about that, but you have not yet convinced me of that, and calling me names isn't going to change my mind.
I'm actually open to the idea of man made climate change, just look at LA in the 60s, the air was so bad you couldn't breath, the laws to clean up cars did have a noticeable effect and we're all better off for it.
I do support the reduction of "bad things" going into our environment, but at a measured pace, not wholesale and overnight. The cost has to be measured against the benefit and the harm to the economy.
The primary reason you get people like me is because we feel the climate change promoters are taking it too far, they want wholesale change overnight at any price and want the rich to pay for it all.
Yea, I don't think we need to do that, a slow and steady approach is just fine.
Power plants have long lives, companies make decisions over many years. Yes, profits are looked at quarter by quarter, but some decisions are capital in nature and look out many years, if not decades.
What if... we started off with a 1% tax on fossile fuels tomorrow, raising it by 1% per year for the next 100 years, slowly getting to a 100% tax (so instead of 35 cents a gallon of gas in tax, it would be whatever the current price is, just double it.
You can't do that overnight, you'd start a war (or a bunch of wars) if you tried.
But you could do it over time, and that gives companies time to come up with solutions.
Maybe 2% per year for 50 years makes more sense, provide a carrot and a stick to move the whole economy in the direction you want, but do it in a timeframe that doesn't shock the system and gives everyone a chance to move with it.
That also gives companies an incentive to develop clean energy, because over time the "value" of that energy actually goes up due to the taxes on "dirty energy".
Just an example of a reasonable, middle of the road solution that you could get someone like me on board for.
That is an interesting question, and one worth debating...
I can see your point, and it is a fair one to make...
Question... Should "child allowances" be tradeable the way carbon credits are in some countries? Maybe a poor person can sell their child allowance and rich people can buy them?
So maybe X number of babies can be born in a given year, handed out as "credits" and there could be a market where those are bought and sold?
------
Ok, moving away from that, lets say we don't like that and it is like China does it, 1 child per family... what about the millions of people who can't even take care of one child? There are a lot of people having kids today who really shouldn't. Not because they shouldn't have any right to, but because they lack the means to take care of the child properly.
There are issues here beyond just population control, such as, "should the government get into the business of deciding who can have kids or not?"
That is a slippery slope, I can see a minefield of dangers...
That being said, population growth will either slow on its own, slow due to government policy, or slow due to war and disease, we can take our pick. :) But what are are unlikely to have is 1 trillion people on the Earth and having it look anything like it does today...
That is why I suggested a tax bill rather than a tax credit for each child, let people have as many kids as they want, but they have to pay society for them since they are a burden to everyone due to a rising population.
Some of it comes down to "how do you value people?" Is Angelina Jolie "worth more" than my wife because she has enough money to support 50 kids?
No, she isn't "worth more" as a person... but she CAN afford more children than your wife can...
Your wife can love your children just as much as Angelina Jolie can love hers, but she can afford 50 of them, you likely cannot...
The Earth is billions of years old, 30 years isn't even on the radar of the planet.
You have to stop thinking in Human time scales and think in geologic time scales.
Go ask a geologist if he/she thinks 30 years is significant to the planet Earth.
I'll help you out, it isn't... Even my number of 1,000 years was being generous, longer periods of time are more useful to look at Earth's history.
Go back 65 million years ago to the Dinos... Picking out any 30 year period back then is just silly, time scales for looking at the climate back then are much, much larger than 30 years, other than perhaps the specific 30 years after the asteroid impact that killed all the dinos.
But that is only clear after a long period of time.
If you're referring to population growth having to level off, then yes, you're correct. It can happen because we put some system into place, or it can happen from war and disease. The choice is ours.
The problem is, we're all created equal, but some of us are more equal than others.
Angelina Jolie has been critized for having multiple kids then adopting more, but that's stupid, she can clearly afford it, she could have 50 kids and she could afford to properly take care of them all.
The real issue is people having kids who can't afford to take care of them.
So the question is, are we willing to control population based on a person's ability to afford kids? Instead of a child tax credit, what if we had a child tax bill? Every child you have costs you $1,000 more in taxes a year?
Yea, that won't pass today, but maybe it should.
There is no longer any scientific debate about whether AGW is happening. It is.
Ahh, but I disagree with you and you have not convinced me that you're correct.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it is your job to convince me of that, not to tell me that I'm simply wrong.
By speaking down to me, you lose me in the process, along with everyone else like me, and many of us have a lot of money and a lot of influence.
Banging the drums and calling me stupid and a denier is not going to win me over. Do it hard and loud enough and people like me might decide that people like you need to... go away...
I was not kidding about the war comment, sooner or later, I expect your side to try and force the issue, if you don't make a reasonable attempt to actually treat my side as equals, we'll simply use force to crush you.
So do you want violence to resolve this issue, or do you want civilized debate to resolve it? The choice is yours.
The irony is that I am not denying climate change, I'm simply not convinced that mankind has moved the needle as far as some suggest.
The issue is that listening to the climate change doomsayers sounds a whole like listening to religious people.
Those who believe in mankind caused climate change don't seem to me to be much interested in a debate, they simply want everyone to accept their point of view without question.
Well, I question it, but they just keep calling me a denier...
I would have far less of an issue with it if so much money weren't involved.
Stop coal mining. Make coal mining & burning a global death-penalty offense.
That is a nice idea, do you have any idea of what that would take? We don't have a world government, in case you've missed it...
What you suggest would simply start WWIII.
You can keep thinking that the "deniers" are all like that...
But you are ignoring the poster to whom you replied, and that is a mistake...
For there are many like him, and they'll go to war to stop you due to your "holier than thou" attitude...
The other side is actually trying to have a discussion about it, I know I am, but the "sky is falling" crowd is so hell bent on pushing that they are getting pushed back.
At some point it may well go from debates on the Internet to war.
Don't say I didn't warn you.
if you did your bit and everyone else did their bit to reduce carbon use then it would happen quicker but there are too many selfish, lazy people with the "fuck it" attitude.
That is a nice idea, but not all problems have such a middle ground.
Think of an airplane flying from New York to Paris... it either has the fuel to make it or it doesn't. There is really no "well, if we put in just a bit more we'll almost make it a bit more".
No, either you make it or you don't. Some problems are indeed binary...
A few small changes here and there, a few more windmills, a few solar panels, aren't going to change the outcome...
Even if the percentage of power tripled over night to renewables, it wouldn't help or make any difference, because the total number keeps growing.
75% of a number twice as big is still a lot more than 90% of a number half the size. Figure that one out and you'll understand why small changes are meaningless.
Yea, but this is the problem, you have pie in the sky thinking...
Personally, if we can get over the nationalistic and personal competitiveness and lust to control as much as "humanly" possible, I think there's a chance for a soft landing
That is NOT going to happen, so just move on from such fantasy thinking...
That sort of "why can't we all just get along" thinking is what caused the west to be so shocked at Putin and recent events.
Ahh, but voting for them doesn't help if they don't get elected...
And regardless of anything else, if you power CURRENTLY comes from coal, oil, natural gas... then turn it all off, cause you're part of the problem!
Please, go live in a cave if you think that is the solution...
Really, the idea that we'll all just cut 10% of our carbon output and all will be fine is pie in the sky thinking.
This is a money grab, a desire to transfer wealth from the haves to the have nots.
Since I'm one of the haves, you can get stuffed.
15 years, or even 75 years, isn't climate... that is weather...
1,000 years is climate, and we simply don't have enough accurate information going back that far to have any kind of useful model...
To have one, you'd also need 5,000 years and 10,000 years worth of data to check it against...
We have sort of accurate data going back 100+ years, and actually reasonably accurate data going back 50 years.
That isn't climate, that's just weather.
The models and arguments are lost on me because I simply don't believe the data set is good enough to make any kind of prediction.
And I don't care what you do, so long as you don't screw up the world economy chasing something that is still up for debate.
The problem with your attitude is that you're assuming that you're right, but what about those of us who don't think so?
Shall we just roll over and say, "oh sorry, you're King now, we'll all bow to you?".
Or perhaps we need a war to resolve this, that sure won't consume fossil fuels! :)