skierinvermont Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I however have read both sides, you have not. Well I can't speak for valkhorn but I have read both sides. As a former 'skeptic' I have have spent 100s if not 1000s of hours reading skeptic material and in the end I have been persuaded it is lacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 And he advocates a 150++ Billion dollar per year carbon tax: http://www.guardian....e-change-u-turn global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront" Once again, instead of cherry picking single statements, let's take Lomborg's own word for it. I believe if you read this article, you will agree that my assessment of Lomborg is at least as valid. I admit I did not know he wanted a carbon tax. Isn't that odd? Humilty and admitting when one is wrong? Try it on some time...Anyhow, he still is much of a lesser evil than the various sources I have seen posted here and what they call for. Read the article and make up your mind. Thanks Bjorn Lomborg: This is where a lot of policymakers get it wrong. Governments talk far too much about setting a relatively high carbon tax on emissions, while focusing far too little on ensuring a meaningful increase in research and development to bring about necessary breakthroughs. Limiting access to the ‘wrong’ light bulbs or patio heaters, ultimately, is not the right path. We will only solve global warming by ensuring that alternative technologies are better than our current options. Then, people the world over will choose to use them. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 That's my point. If you're not sure how you could be shown to be wrong, then your initial position isn't very strong and probably shouldn't be used to argue against those who have stronger points. Meaning, if you don't know how you could be shown to be wrong, and someone does, then how will you ever learn or change your opinion? First, how can I be "wrong" if I don't have a stance of a denier or warmer?? (wrt CAGW) If you can't see the middle ground there (people having questions and testing the hypothesis, thus not convinced either way) then no wonder the alarmist tactics are driving the "middle" away.....you don't even recognize them....Luckily for me, the warmist ilk, nor the denier ilk influence my own personal perception of the overall method of science being conducted, wrt AGW. When I feel a conclusion can be drawn, it will be because of the science I've learned....not the vitriolic stench that consumes this board many times. The onus is on the hypothesis creators to change the default opinion....that of natural variability, not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Once again, instead of cherry picking single statements, let's take Lomborg's own word for it. I believe if you read this article, you will agree that my assessment of Lomborg is at least as valid. I admit I did not know he wanted a carbon tax. Isn't that odd? Humilty and admitting when one is wrong? Try it on some time...Anyhow, he still is much of a lesser evil than the various sources I have seen posted here and what they call for. Read the article and make up your mind. Thanks Bjorn Lomborg: Source He's actually contradicting himself a little bit between the two articles regarding the carbon tax. We might have to read his latest book to find out what he really thinks. Regarding large government spending (which you seem to oppose) he is very clear. 50-100 billion per year. The benefits of government spending and subsidies as opposed to a carbon tax is something I have long been a proponent of for years on this forum, and it is good to see Lomborg come around to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 The benefits of government spending and subsidies as opposed to a carbon tax is something I have long been a proponent of for years on this forum, and it is good to see Lomborg come around to this. The problem for me isn't necessarily that goverment spending or subsidies for alternative energies is wrong. If anything, losing our dependency on energy produced by some of the world's most despicable states (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, et al) is a goal. The problem is that cronyism inevitably arises and government will start picking winners and losers, as well as bailing them out when they should be allowed to lose. If government were run by competent, free-market thinkers, then I would be more open to spending. Solyndra serves as a perfect example when worrying about government involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkhorn Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 The problem for me isn't necessarily that goverment spending or subsidies for alternative energies is wrong. If anything, losing our dependency on energy produced by some of the world's most despicable states (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, et al) is a goal. The problem is that cronyism inevitably arises and government will start picking winners and losers, as well as bailing them out when they should be allowed to lose. If government were run by competent, free-market thinkers, then I would be more open to spending. Solyndra serves as a perfect example when worrying about government involvement. I'd hate to tell you this but we're in a global market. The US consumes more than it can actually make. The US doesn't have enough natural resources to match its consumption. Also, we get most of our oil from Canada. Also, I find 'free market' is usually another word for 'magic' or 'voodoo' - because whenever it's uttered nobody can actually show the mechanism by which it would actually work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I'd hate to tell you this but we're in a global market. The US consumes more than it can actually make. The US doesn't have enough natural resources to match its consumption. Also, we get most of our oil from Canada. Also, I find 'free market' is usually another word for 'magic' or 'voodoo' - because whenever it's uttered nobody can actually show the mechanism by which it would actually work. Sorry but this is still mostly off topic. If you would like to learn more about the free market, I advise you read the works of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman (to name a couple) Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkhorn Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Sorry but this is still mostly off topic. If you would like to learn more about the free market, I advise you read the works of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman (to name a couple) Cheers. Already have and it doesn't solve everything. There are ample problems in free-market only societies that only government intervention can actually solve simply because some problems free-markets have no solutions for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Already have and it doesn't solve everything. There are ample problems in free-market only societies that only government intervention can actually solve simply because some problems free-markets have no solutions for. Ah! Well that settles it! Let's just agree to disagree here because it is still off topic. Anyhow, back on topic. Time to discuss what I just read, below. Although the article writer agrees with the dangers of AGW, I am more interested in how so called experts, or the peer-review process, should be trusted with no questions asked when they continue to make pretty embarrassing gaffes. http://www.guardian....ntists-mobilise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 The problem for me isn't necessarily that goverment spending or subsidies for alternative energies is wrong. If anything, losing our dependency on energy produced by some of the world's most despicable states (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, et al) is a goal. The problem is that cronyism inevitably arises and government will start picking winners and losers, as well as bailing them out when they should be allowed to lose. If government were run by competent, free-market thinkers, then I would be more open to spending. Solyndra serves as a perfect example when worrying about government involvement. There are numerous success stories of government funding and/or subsidizing nascent industries and those industries subsequently growing and becoming profitable. -early development of computer technology was largely funded by government -development of modern agriculture by Earl Butts in the 70s -China has a successful profitable solar industry thanks to their efforts the last 5 years -countless others There are ways to do it that are as consistent with free-market principles as possible. For example, you offer X $ per Watt of alt energy. Private companies will then compete to produce at the lowest cost.. whoever is lowest cost will be the most profitable and will gain market share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 There are numerous success stories of government funding and/or subsidizing nascent industries and those industries subsequently growing and becoming profitable. -early development of computer technology was largely funded by government -development of modern agriculture by Earl Butts in the 70s -China has a successful profitable solar industry thanks to their efforts the last 5 years -countless others There are ways to do it that are as consistent with free-market principles as possible. For example, you offer X $ per Watt of alt energy. Private companies will then compete to produce at the lowest cost.. whoever is lowest cost will be the most profitable and will gain market share. I would be highly skeptical of reports regarding the health of any industry in China, as most of what you read could be edited first by their government. Anyhow, I have heard good things about their investment in solar heaters. As for solar panels, I have read that they produce them in China, do not depend on them or use them in the mainland for the most part, and sell them to other countries because they know how inefficient, yet exspensive these technolgoies are. China is still far worse for the environment and a much greater threat than the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkhorn Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I would be highly skeptical of reports regarding the health of any industry in China, as most of what you read could be edited first by their government. Anyhow, I have heard good things about their investment in solar heaters. As for solar panels, I have read that they produce them in China, do not depend on them or use them in the mainland for the most part, and sell them to other countries because they know how inefficient, yet exspensive these technolgoies are. China is still far worse for the environment and a much greater threat than the US. Because reports by US Corporations are never edited... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Ok folks lets clear up a few facts. What is the AMO? The AMO is an ongoing series of <a href="http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_fig.php">long-duration changes in the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean, with cool and warm phases that may last for 20-40 years at a time and a difference of about 1°F between extremes. These changes are natural and have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years. So let me get this straight the AMO has a difference of 1F in SSTs between extremes? In other words a difference of .045C or so between extremes. If I stop here the next thing I will hear is, well that is just water Friv, what about Global Temperatures. What about them? Since the Ice controls the Arctic temps the AMO would have a much less effect on them. On top of that. Very little melt is from Air Temperatures. We now know winds do not play as large as a role in the melt the last 12 years as we thought either and that the main driver is the sun and the SSTs. Of course the Pacific side is effected bye the water. But a variance of .45C is nothing and is the difference between a week of a warm air being over the Bearing from a large HP or cold air from a large SLP in May. Next: How much of the Atlantic are we talking about? Most of the Atlantic between the equator and Greenland changes in unison. Some area of the North Pacific also seem to be affected. The arctic drives North Atlantic SSTs. On top of that the SST difference would be negligible. We also have seen average 2m temps the last two summers. To be technical about .5-1C above normal over the arctic basin. This is with a lot of warm open water. Which means the actual weather pattern was one of great divergence this summer. blowing cold air off the ice to help moderate surface temps. In the face of this the arctic waters warmed dramatically. And sea ice was left thin and crippled. The AMO is not driving arctic sea ice. There is nothing to substantiate this. On top of that the physics of it do not add up at all. Even in the late 70s and early 80s the pacific and atlantic sides melted out. If this has any affect on sea ice it will be negligible in restoring the amount of volume and MY ice already lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Ah! Well that settles it! Let's just agree to disagree here because it is still off topic. Anyhow, back on topic. Time to discuss what I just read, below. Although the article writer agrees with the dangers of AGW, I am more interested in how so called experts, or the peer-review process, should be trusted with no questions asked when they continue to make pretty embarrassing gaffes. http://www.guardian....ntists-mobilise How do you see the atlas publisher's mistake as a failure of peer-review? Harper Collins, the publisher, defends the new edition by saying that they arbitrarily decided all of Greenland with less than 500 meters of ice would be considered 'ice-free'. Here's the quote the The Mail: I spoke to Sheena Barclay, MD of Collins Bartholomew, the Atlas’s publisher. She defended the map, saying that the 15% shrinkage in ice-cover is real and refers to a comparison between the map shown in the current edition and that in the last edition, published in 1999. The first problem is those words ‘green’ and ‘ice free’. According to Ms Barclay, ‘ice free’ refers to ground covered with less than 500 metres thick. So ‘green, ice-free land’ could refer to land covered with nearly third of a mile thickness of ice – thicker than the Empire State Building is high! I put it to Ms Barclay that this isn’t what most people would think of as ‘ice free’. “Yes, I can see why you would see that as misleading” she admitted, after a very long pause. And ‘green’? To me (and I would guess everyone else) I think of bleak Greenlandic hillsides covered with grass or at least moss, perhaps a few grazing sheep. It turns out ‘green’ refers just to the printing colour chosen by the cartographers to indicate low-altitude land, and not its colour at all. Which is, er, white. When I found out that Harper Collins is owned by Arch-skeptic Rupert Murdoch, I confess the cynical side of me felt that there had to be a connection. But no sinister connection has turn up that I'm aware of, just human incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 First, how can I be "wrong" if I don't have a stance of a denier or warmer?? (wrt CAGW) If you can't see the middle ground there (people having questions and testing the hypothesis, thus not convinced either way) then no wonder the alarmist tactics are driving the "middle" away.....you don't even recognize them....Luckily for me, the warmist ilk, nor the denier ilk influence my own personal perception of the overall method of science being conducted, wrt AGW. When I feel a conclusion can be drawn, it will be because of the science I've learned....not the vitriolic stench that consumes this board many times. The onus is on the hypothesis creators to change the default opinion....that of natural variability, not the other way around. How is natural variability going to explain 3C-6C of warming over the next century or two? How about if it's only 2C? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I would be highly skeptical of reports regarding the health of any industry in China, as most of what you read could be edited first by their government. Anyhow, I have heard good things about their investment in solar heaters. As for solar panels, I have read that they produce them in China, do not depend on them or use them in the mainland for the most part, and sell them to other countries because they know how inefficient, yet exspensive these technolgoies are. China is still far worse for the environment and a much greater threat than the US. The Chinese firms such as Trina, Suntech, and Yingli are publicly traded firms on the New York Stock Exchange, file their SEC forms, and are reviewed by U.S. rating agencies. They have the full confidence of U.S. investors and have annual revenue in the billions of dollars. China does have significant solar installations already and plan to install 50GW by 2020, more than all cumulative global installations to present. Your post is factually incorrect on both counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 The Chinese firms such as Trina, Suntech, and Yingli are publicly traded firms on the New York Stock Exchange, file their SEC forms, and are reviewed by U.S. rating agencies. They have the full confidence of U.S. investors and have annual revenue in the billions of dollars. China does have significant solar installations already and plan to install 50GW by 2020, more than all cumulative global installations to present. Your post is factually incorrect on both counts. The Chinese understand that they require as many sources of energy as they can muster, both old and new. They subsidize the development of new technologies while we subsidize century old technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 So no one wants to talk about the AMO?? There has to be tons of Peer Reviewed Papers on the AMO out there showing it's affects on Arctic Sea Ice loss. Please link me to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 The Chinese firms such as Trina, Suntech, and Yingli are publicly traded firms on the New York Stock Exchange, file their SEC forms, and are reviewed by U.S. rating agencies. They have the full confidence of U.S. investors and have annual revenue in the billions of dollars. China does have significant solar installations already and plan to install 50GW by 2020, more than all cumulative global installations to present. Your post is factually incorrect on both counts. You have zero ability to come off as anything other than a total jerk. Also, to trust credit agencies that fell asleep at the wheel as our government and financial institutions guaranteed, re-packaged, and sold toxic assets is laughable. It shows that you have a lot more learning to do here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 You have zero ability to come off as anything other than a total jerk. Personal attack! Personal attack! I thought you were the one lecturing people on personal attacks? You can't debate the substance so you attack me. Classy. Your streak of content free posting continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkhorn Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 The Chinese understand that they require as many sources of energy as they can muster, both old and new. They subsidize the development of new technologies while we subsidize century old technology. Their GDP is projected to be around 50 Trillion by 2020. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Their GDP is projected to be around 50 Trillion by 2020. No it's not.. more like 20 Trillion (nominal) and 30T (PPP). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Personal attack! Personal attack! I thought you were the one lecturing people on personal attacks? You can't debate the substance so you attack me. Classy. Your streak of content free posting continues. Haha, I believe I did address my point regarding credit agencies. Maybe you are just not willing to acknowledge it? Best we stick with the personal attack, which in this case was warranted. I can copy and show you every post you have in response to me or anyone else you disagree with, but it seems that you find a way to completely brush aside the arguments by saying we are lying or not stating the truth (even if we state opinions, you still seem to like to call them factually incorrect). You have no shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Their GDP is projected to be around 50 Trillion by 2020. GDP by itself is not what you should be focusing on. Any schooled economist would simply laugh you off the stage. It is better for you to read up and learn about GDP per capita. Compare ours with China's, along with their projected GDP per capita and thus you will learn more about economic health Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Haha, I believe I did address my point regarding credit agencies. Maybe you are just not willing to acknowledge it? Best we stick with the personal attack, which in this case was warranted. I can copy and show you every post you have in response to me or anyone else you disagree with, but it seems that you find a way to completely brush aside the arguments by saying we are lying or not stating the truth (even if we state opinions, you still seem to like to call them factually incorrect). You have no shame. Perhaps you should explain your fabricated financial statement theory to all the U.S. investors who have sent the stock price through the roof. The companies have had huge sales and revenue growth, and have strong balance sheets. I guess all the solar plants that they have built are fakes too? And their customers are only pretending to buy and install chinese solar panels. Even google earth is in on the scam.. the solar plants that you can see from space are just photoshopped in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 GDP by itself is not what you should be focusing on. Any schooled economist would simply laugh you off the stage. It is better for you to read up and learn about GDP per capita. Compare ours with China's, along with their projected GDP per capita and thus you will learn more about economic health I don't believe he was saying China is wealthier than the U.S. or will be any time soon. But they will soon be the largest economy in the world, and with that comes significant power (and demand for energy). Of course, his 50T number is incorrect. More like 20T nominal and 30T PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Perhaps you should explain your fabricated financial statement theory to all the U.S. investors who have sent the stock price through the roof. The companies have had huge sales and revenue growth, and have strong balance sheets. I guess all the solar plants that they have built are fakes too? And their customers are only pretending to buy and install chinese solar panels. Even google earth is in on the scam.. the solar plants that you can see from space are just photoshopped in. Do you think throwing those words together make you sound smart? This doesn't even make sense. I mean, you do know what I stated before was true and already proven by numerous independent and congressional inquiries. You are just hard-wired to find a need to debate everything you see from somebody you disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I don't believe he was saying China is wealthier than the U.S. or will be any time soon. But they will soon be the largest economy in the world, and with that comes significant power (and demand for energy). Of course, his 50T number is incorrect. More like 20T nominal and 30T PPP. China is already a significant power. It is because of their military. As for their economy, if you really wish to believe that their currency manipulation, real estate bubbles, and outrageous pay disparities b/w upper and lower income levels are signs that will point to increased power, think again. China will crash hard unless these issues are all addressed. To make this on topic, I will simply state that they are still the world's largest polluter and not just with CO2. You are defending a country which is doing a good job of polluting its beautiful countryside and endangering the health of its own people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 Do you think throwing those words together make you sound smart? This doesn't even make sense. I mean, you do know what I stated before was true and already proven by numerous independent and congressional inquiries. You are just hard-wired to find a need to debate everything you see from somebody you disagree with. That's skier for you. He's the B team. WeatherRusty is the A team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 How is natural variability going to explain 3C-6C of warming over the next century or two? How about if it's only 2C? What if it's 0C? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.