Obama Admin - Belive in Climate change, or dont work here.

[fskimospy]

Like dihydrogen monoxide. That stuff can be toxic!

Indeed it can be!

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

 

[werepossum]

CO2 isn't a pollutant. It's a naturally occurring gas that humans / animals exhale and plants take in.

The balance may be out of whack, but in my opinion it's bad to think of it as a pollutant.

Almost everything can be toxic in the right concentrations. Even oxygen, in high enough concentrations for long enough (or at elevated pressures), is toxic - sometimes extremely so at elevated pressures. Other things can be helpful or hurtful - ozone at very high elevations is generally good, ozone at elevations with people is generally bad. Virtually nothing is completely good or completely bad.

The Earth has amazing feedback loops far beyond our current understanding, and it could be that current levels are good for the Earth. But right now they appear bad for the Earth, on balance. I don't think we should play G-d and I don't think we should destroy our economy, but I do think we should be taking all economically feasible steps to lower CO2 output and/or sequester or mitigate it, as well as working to make more radical approaches economically feasible. If we are wrong and our current and projected CO2 concentrations are good for the Earth, then those same amazing feedback loops will adjust for that lowering as well. It's almost always less likely to destabilize a system by imposing slower change than with faster change, so we're unlikely to damage the Earth by lowering levels.

I don't think we're likely to damage the Earth by not lowering levels either, for that matter. But by not acting we may well eliminate some species which would otherwise survive, and that would be a shame.

 

[Juddog]

Almost everything can be toxic in the right concentrations. Even oxygen, in high enough concentrations for long enough (or at elevated pressures), is toxic - sometimes extremely so at elevated pressures. Other things can be helpful or hurtful - ozone at very high elevations is generally good, ozone at elevations with people is generally bad. Virtually nothing is completely good or completely bad.

The Earth has amazing feedback loops far beyond our current understanding, and it could be that current levels are good for the Earth. But right now they appear bad for the Earth, on balance. I don't think we should play G-d and I don't think we should destroy our economy, but I do think we should be taking all economically feasible steps to lower CO2 output and/or sequester or mitigate it, as well as working to make more radical approaches economically feasible. If we are wrong and our current and projected CO2 concentrations are good for the Earth, then those same amazing feedback loops will adjust for that lowering as well. It's almost always less likely to destabilize a system by imposing slower change than with faster change, so we're unlikely to damage the Earth by lowering levels.

I don't think we're likely to damage the Earth by not lowering levels either, for that matter. But by not acting we may well eliminate some species which would otherwise survive, and that would be a shame.

I guess we could argue symantics but clearly excess CO2 from non naturally occuring sources is having a negative impact on our climate. Now this impact may be over dramaticized at times, but long term it could be catastrophic. Venus is a good example of a run away green house effect.

I will compare your polutant argument to that of toxic chemicals. Any naturally occurring substance becomes toxic if consumed in an amount that exceeds a certain threshold.

Fair enough; I'll rescind my statement, in that CO2 can be considered a pollutant by causing unwanted reactions in the environment. I still feel that if humans disappeared off the earth via some catastrophe, that the plant life would recover the excess CO2 and bounce the O2 levels back to the days before humans started producing so much "pollution". In recent studies it appears that wetland areas absorb the excess CO2 better than other dry land areas and that the levels of nitrogen in the soil determine how efficiently the plant life can handle the increased amounts of CO2 (which is further modified by other factors like sunlight available, and weather patterns changed from the greenhouse effect).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Punishing with taxes? How so? When you create CO2 in large quantities you are creating a pollutant. A carbon tax is designed so that you compensate society for the damage you do to the environment. Why would you want to encourage freeloading?

That's nice. Irrelevant to what I asked, but not surprising in the least.

I'll play. Why do you want lower wages and higher unemployment? Ahh, you want to encourage freeloading and increasing dependency.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Well of course the planet would be able to stabalize if man disappeared. It would however be on a scale of 100,000s of years. But that doesn't sound like a solution most would want to tout.

 

[zinfamous]

Theres almost zero risk to the scientist for pushing bad 'science' for decades. They'll ride the gravy train as long as they can. Once/If proven wrong, they'll just jump ship, and support whatever the new theory is. And just tell the public that there's new data that supports the new conclusion.

...so you basically know diddly shit about science and how the field works. Typical. Pretty much all climate change-deniers base all of their ignorance on the belief that researchers are motivated by profit.

LMMFAO--do you even know any scientists? Did you ever ask them if their interests, when they chose to major in a scientific field and eventually seek a PhD were ever aligned to making money? lulz....

 

[fskimospy]

That's nice. Irrelevant to what I asked, but not surprising in the least.

I'll play. Why do you want lower wages and higher unemployment? Ahh, you want to encourage freeloading and increasing dependency.

I want those who emit pollutants to compensate the rest of us for the damage they do to our environment. If this leads to lower wages and higher unemployment that is simply reflecting the true nature of their business when previously they were able to pollute without consequence.

Your argument is bad.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Love that phase, too. "Punishing with taxes." Always cracks me up.

It might, but you are smarter than most here and not someone as I see as a hack.

You might reflect on my post just prior to this. Companies will still function. The CEOs will get paid. They will control costs. Controlling costs will mean labor gets punished. Somehow that doesn't crack me up.

Now come up with and alternative.

 

[BlueWolf47]

It might, but you are smarter than most here and not someone as I see as a hack.

You might reflect on my post just prior to this. Companies will still function. The CEOs will get paid. They will control costs. Controlling costs will mean labor gets punished. Somehow that doesn't crack me up.

Now come up with and alternative.

Offset the tax with a drop in corporate tax rates? Clearly you have a simplistic view of the economy and the only thing your able shit from your mouth is "tax.. bad! ".

 

[woolfe9998]

It might, but you are smarter than most here and not someone as I see as a hack.

You might reflect on my post just prior to this. Companies will still function. The CEOs will get paid. They will control costs. Controlling costs will mean labor gets punished. Somehow that doesn't crack me up.

Now come up with and alternative.

There's going to be an economic cost, whether it affects workers, CEO's, investors, consumers or some combination of all of them. This must be weighed against the cost of warming the planet. Are you looking for a pain free solution that is win-win for everyone?

Some of these things do get shifted around. So if it's more expensive to emit carbon, there is incentive for cleaner alternatives, and jobs can be created in those sectors. But that doesn't mean there is no net cost. It isn't realistic to solve a global problem and expect that no one gets hurt.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Offset the tax with a drop in corporate tax rates? Clearly you have a simplistic view of the economy and the only thing your able shit from your mouth is "tax.. bad! ".

Since you obviously have a superior understanding of our economy and its complexities, please enlighten us as to what you think will happen if we significantly increase corporate taxes? I'm all ears.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I'm just waiting for the people to stand behind their words of reducing CO2 emissions by shutting off their computers unless their computer is powered by a personally owned alternative electrical (wind, solar, or hydro) source.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm just waiting for the people to stand behind their words of reducing CO2 emissions by shutting off their computers unless their computer is powered by a personally owned alternative electrical (wind, solar, or hydro) source.

You realize that's a really bad argument, right?

 

[BlueWolf47]

Since you obviously have a superior understanding of our economy and its complexities, please enlighten us as to what you think will happen if we significantly increase corporate taxes? I'm all ears.

What part of drop in corporate tax rates did you not understand in my post? Never once have i argued for an increase in the corporate tax rate. I understand your despiration in trying to refocus everyones attention in order to avoid your inability to contribute an intellectual conjecture.

 

[BlueWolf47]

I'm just waiting for the people to stand behind their words of reducing CO2 emissions by shutting off their computers unless their computer is powered by a personally owned alternative electrical (wind, solar, or hydro) source.

So now we are hypocrites if we don't break off from the powergrid and create our own power source?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You realize that's a really bad argument, right?

Why? Because there's no such thing as a real green power source that doesn't add CO2 into the atmosphere or require CO2 to be released during it's manufacture?

 

[fskimospy]

So now we are hypocrites if we don't break off from the powergrid and create our own power source?

It's the same tired argument that gets used about taxes too. If you support military action against another nation are you a hypocrite unless you lead a one man invasion, Rambo II style? Of course not.

Arguments for collective action do not equal arguments for individual action.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What part of drop in corporate tax rates did you not understand in my post? Never once have i argued for an increase in the corporate tax rate. I understand your despiration in trying to refocus everyones attention in order to avoid your inability to contribute an intellectual conjecture.

The subject was carbon taxes....not offsetting the carbon tax with a drop in corporate tax rates is a tax increase. Based on your little rant I must assume that you're actually against a corporate carbon tax. Please clarify.

 

[fskimospy]

Why? Because there's no such thing as a real green power source that doesn't add CO2 into the atmosphere or require CO2 to be released during it's manufacture?

No, because advocating for collective action is different than advocating for individual action. Like I said in another post, you aren't a hypocrite if you want higher overall taxes but don't send the treasury a check each month. You also aren't a hypocrite for not personally invading every country you think the US should take military action against.

 

[chucky2]

This really is terrible logic on your part. One can certainly mail in more than what they legally owe if they feel that Gov needs higher tax receipts. One cannot go invade another country. The two are not even remotely comparable.

 

[fskimospy]

This really is terrible logic on your part. One can certainly mail in more than what they legally owe if they feel that Gov needs higher tax receipts. One cannot go invade another country. The two are not even remotely comparable.

No, the logic is perfectly sound. Why can't you go invade another country?

 

[michal1980]

You mean a scientist will change his hypothesis if new information is found and supported that makes the old one untenable?

Here's a pro tip, just for you Michal:

That's how science works.

Science as a whole isn't a dogmatic ideological troll such as yourself. The scientific method filters bullshit and it does it well.

And big business science will go where the money is. Currently thats pumping up global warming.

How much money is their in debunking global warming? vs. How much money is there in continuing fear mongering?

Some how you global warming believers think that scientists are somehow these pure incorruptible individuals, with no personal motives, with no finical motives, they just do it for science.

-They're not.

 

[chucky2]

No, the logic is perfectly sound. Why can't you go invade another country?

Lordy you are actually sticking with it instead of re-thinking it. Ouch.

I'd think it fairly obvious on why going to invade a country you feel should be invaded will, with 100% (not evn 99.99999%) certainty, not contribute in any way to that country being invaded - unless you could consider supplying them with a one off training opportunity as a contribution. On the other hand, if one is so incredibly delusional as to think the Fed gov needs more money (to be sure, to simply blow it, burp, and ask for mo), and thus is advocating for higher taxes, one could actually write a check for more than what they legally owe and actually see their cause advanced.

Lets simplify for you: The person trying to unilaterally invade a country, zero % of their cause realized, and in reality, a negative %. The person wanting the Fed gov to have more money, and thus writing a check for more than they legally owe, cause 100% realized.

I'm not sure how you can't grasp this...

 

[fskimospy]

And big business science will go where the money is. Currently thats pumping up global warming.

How much money is their in debunking global warming? vs. How much money is there in continuing fear mongering?

Some how you global warming believers think that scientists are somehow these pure incorruptible individuals, with no personal motives, with no finical motives, they just do it for science.

-They're not.

Are you kidding? The scientist who disproves global warming will become wealthy and famous almost immediately. In all of climate science there is not a single thing you could accomplish that would make you wealthier than disproving global warming.

 

[fskimospy]

Lordy you are actually sticking with it instead of re-thinking it. Ouch.

I'd think it fairly obvious on why going to invade a country you feel should be invaded will, with 100% (not evn 99.99999%) certainty, not contribute in any way to that country being invaded - unless you could consider supplying them with a one off training opportunity as a contribution. On the other hand, if one is so incredibly delusional as to think the Fed gov needs more money (to be sure, to simply blow it, burp, and ask for mo), and thus is advocating for higher taxes, one could actually write a check for more than what they legally owe and actually see their cause advanced.

Lets simplify for you: The person trying to unilaterally invade a country, zero % of their cause realized, and in reality, a negative %. The person wanting the Fed gov to have more money, and thus writing a check for more than they legally owe, cause 100% realized.

I'm not sure how you can't grasp this...

Oh lordy, you really don't get it?

First, what you said about invasions is by definition false. If someone invades a country they have by definition contributed to its invasion.

Your argument seems to be that personal invasion of a country will be ineffectual, therefore someone is not a hypocrite for not undertaking that action despite advocating for a collective invasion. I want you to think long and hard about how that might relate to an individual writing checks to the federal treasury to pay off the national debt or to reduce the deficit.