The sulfuric acid example wasn't completely accurate as that one is very easily testable, and climate science is not, sure.
Eh, what are you trying to say here? That I am equating your line of reasoning to one of religion by the comparison you made, then you admit that climate science isn't as straightforward as testing sulfuric acid...
But that's not what the analogy was about: it was about the gains/losses analysis of keeping up the pollution (in general, so not restricted to AGW) and ceasing it. If you look there, while still not just as easily testable, the issue is much more comparable. If you keep up the pollution, the gains will continue dropping (this is scientific fact). You face inevitable collapse, as you are irreversibly damaging what is essential to your society surviving.
Oh, so that's what its about. HUH?
So you're saying that the 2nd derivative of economic progress will decay through time without changes to the "negative externalities" of progress?
I hope you also realize that, under this mindset, anything that would have your society collapse will never be anticipated. It's literally like going at 200mph with your eyes closed.
Well, the opposite is true as well. We'll miss a lot of oppotunities.
Why must economic progress and ending global warming be mutually exclusive?
Conceptually, the aim behind GW supporters is to monetize costs which are supposed to be "negative externalities." I don't see how this can be anything other than anti econmic progress. Charging people for things that were once free doesn't make too many people better off, especially if the entity is the most inefficient allocater of resources, the government.
What else should I respond to what you said "You'll never change my mind on this"? Imagine someone claimed here concentrated sulfuric acid wasn't corrosive and nothing you said would convince him otherwise.
I'd agree with you in calling them out. HOWEVER, this issue isn't quite as cut and dry as you lead on. If you'd replace your "concentrated sulfuric acid wasn't corrosive " with "Jesus wasn't Lord and Savior" and I think we'd be in the ballpark of where the evidence for your claims actually lie. There's some evidence that Jesus is the "correct" diety to worship, but there is doubt too, and it really comes down to faith.
On the issue of global warming, I'd prefer to wait a bit longer before we start making rash decisions about halting the economic progress that has contributed to the improvement of many lives. See, I have evidence that economic progress has made things better. The same doesn't exist with GW. Its more like, well, we've eliminated all these other things we can think of that might be causing a change in climate, so it must be man's activities. That doesn't convince me.
Northern and Western Europe are actually both warmer than they "should" be, according to how far north they are etc, because the Gulf Stream brings warm water. There's this big hoopla about Scandinavia being grim and frostbitten but that really only applies in the winter and much more so in the north than the south. The rest of the year is temperate and nice.
I think Alaska is fairly flat so there'll be differences anyway but disrupting the Gulf Stream can't be a remotely good idea. I've already lived up north with half a year of winter and I don't really mind that as such but I don't think the local flora and fauna are going to agree. Agriculture would also be a bit let down.
I'd love to reverse the Gulf Stream. I'm tired of the cold air from Canada making winter even colder/snowier than it already is. Seems like that's where all the storms and cold fronts come from.
See, its smug comments like this that push me over the edge and make me completely disinterested in everything you have to say. You are 100% convinced you are correct and any opposition opinion is wrong. That's just not the case, and furthermore, even if we are "harming" the environment, maybe its not really that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.
i wouldnt be so sure about that. that's the scary thing, people think that the consequences of climate change are 100-200 years away, but they're not. They're much closer than that.
And unfortunately by the time people finally concede the notion of our destruction, it'll be too late to do anything about it.
But whatever, you cant convince everybody.
Kinda like Jesus wasn't able to convince everybody?
Well, us in the rich world are going to be reasonably safe but droughts, floods and general changes in climate is going to mess with a lot of people over the world and once a lot of environments start to change there's really no telling how it would go. All the people moving and the possible collapse of resources in some areas is going to make for a bit of political instability as well.
And anyway, if the Gulf Stream goes away I'm basically going to have to face the risk of living in the equivalent of Alaska. That would be sad.
Wait a minute. Doesn't this have something to do with "white guilt?"
This statement actually makes some sense and isn't inflamatory. What's going on here, where's Tuss.
"Hey, PapaBoyer, go help pumping man, the ship's sinking."
"I'm all for the ship not sinking, but you do the pumping instead, and I'll live. Are you as enthousiastic about it now?"
"..."
I have a private lifeboat. See you on the other side.
And what Blatch said.
We're getting a bit off topic though.
This boils down to you being convinced, due to lack of convincing proof otherwise, that man is harming the earth by 'industrialization' and should stop it. If we are harming the earth, the damage being done is minimal enough to compensate for the benifits of industrialization (in my opinion). You'll never change my mind on this, much as I guess I'll never change yours.
So go on mocking people and continue to claim the sky is falling. When it doesn't I'll be sure not to laugh at you.
But even so, the entire argument is moot. There is no way to determine how much of those who signed actually know what the entire issue was about, what nuances they intended in their words... Things like this only mean something when it is highly improbable that all contributers were bribed/are wrong/were misquoted.
Perhaps, but its equally as murky what the motivations of those environmental science folks are, or global warming believers, if you will.
I'd like to point out that many of you are impugning scientists without the "global warming is the bee's knees" degree as though they know nothing of field. That's kind of like saying anyone besides a Catholic isn't qualified to decide if Catholicism is the "right" religion. We obvioulsy know what the answer to that inquiry would be.
In order for there to be a reasonable debate on the topic, we can't just have a bunch of people who've been taught that global warming is a fact being the ones who are supposedly the independent validator of it.
He doesn't necessarily have an "obligation," but keeping most of the available wealth in circulation rather than tied up in investment is a good way to keep the market thriving and production increasing.
I'm not advocating hiding the money under your mattress.
Keeping the money in circulation is not equal to giving it away. I'm sure you already know this though.
For my part, I'm for laws that prevent monopolies from arising. Without that kind of regulation, a free market will tend towards monopoly or oligopoly.
For the most part monopolies are bad (unless of course I'm running one, muhhhaaa).
I'm not quite sure where this would fall on the spectrum of "regulation" though.
Are you pointing out this as an example of the maximum interference you'd like to see government have?
How does "needs being met" equate to "fewer workers"? Also, labor hours are not the be-all, end-all of productivity. You can be more productive and still work fewer hours.
My premise is that with their basic needs met, few people have a "burning desire" to work. If all it does is satisfy their wants and not needs, they don't have as much of an obligation.
I think I fall somewhere between Ayn Rand PapaBoyer and bLatch and Nis and Tuss (that is, all of you) on this... while I can't agree with the premise that "the government should never tax the rich more heavily," I also can't agree with many "wealth redistribution" programs since they always seem to ignore the real causes and effects of the problems they purport to solve.
Just a point of interest- France has the highest productivity rate in the western world. You may think that people need to fear for their lives in order to be motivated to work, but statistics contradict you on that one.
Go ahead and give me a source becuase I'm pretty sure this is going to be a case of intrepreting the numbers to suit your purpose. For example, if productivity is measured in as a function GDP/ number of hours worked. France works less hours than the US, so absolute GDP, or GDP per person, or GDP per??? would be higher.
I'll bet there's at least a few statistics out there that agree with my premise, so there's really no point in arguing about it.
Yup. Basic things like food, clothing, shelter, and health care should be provided in a really simple form. Nothing extravagant for any of these so it would be much like what prisoners or soldiers receive (note, I'm not equating prisoners with soldiers). Three hots and cot along with sturdy work clothes, yearly physicals, and biannual dental cleanings (and associated dental hygiene requirements like toothbrush and toothpaste). Other medical needs would be served on a case by case basis. If you want more then you work and subsequently pay for it. I'm not advocating we give everybody a big chunk of cash.
Do you really think that if people's "needs" are satisfied that overall US GDP / productivity would increase? I find this hard to believe.
With less people working, an increasing percentage of income needs to be taxed from those working, etc...I envision a nasty cycle.
I'd rather the government keep their hands out of it as well but it has reached the point where something has to be done. The costs are going to keep skyrocketing unless some level of authority steps in to shake things up.
There isn't anything else that can "shake it up" besides the government?
You might have an axe and think it makes a great hammer but I'd be right if I told you it cut down trees better.
Right, but the "proper" use for money is not so crystal clear. It certainly changes based upon the person, lifestyle, and the position that dollar falls on the spectrum of income someone earns. An interesting analogy, but its still my axe to do with as I wish, regardless of whether or not its better at cutting or hammering.
I used to hold this belief as well. I've always found people enjoy working just to work. For most people sitting around doing nothing gets boring really fast. If everyone had their needs provided for we probably wouldn't have many janitors, but I don't think everyone would be watching Jerry Springer. Also remember that there is a difference between needs and wants. If I have my food, shelter, and health care provided for me I still need to work for that nice television or car.
So you are proposing people would only work for wants, and not needs?
Just to speed things up, I am not in favor of that.
Unless you don't plan on retiring until you make millions of dollars a year I don't see how our discussion pertains to you. I'm talking about the super rich, not the merely rich.
Nope. My issue comes from sitting on excessive wealth that could be better used for any number of things. Most organizations are focused on helping a certain group of people. While some of those people might be just as well off as you others in that group aren't.
Interesting. Though I suppose just to be obstinent I should point out that I have a problem with your "could be better used" comment. I just don't think that your opinion of what someone should do with their money is any better than theirs. It's certainly less justified considering they are the ones holding it.
Eh, what are you trying to say here? That I am equating your line of reasoning to one of religion by the comparison you made, then you admit that climate science isn't as straightforward as testing sulfuric acid...
Seems like a decent comparison to me.
Oh, so that's what its about. HUH?
So you're saying that the 2nd derivative of economic progress will decay through time without changes to the "negative externalities" of progress?
In general that seems reasonable.
What is it then? Sure seems like that to me.
Well, the opposite is true as well. We'll miss a lot of oppotunities.
Conceptually, the aim behind GW supporters is to monetize costs which are supposed to be "negative externalities." I don't see how this can be anything other than anti econmic progress. Charging people for things that were once free doesn't make too many people better off, especially if the entity is the most inefficient allocater of resources, the government.
I'd agree with you in calling them out. HOWEVER, this issue isn't quite as cut and dry as you lead on. If you'd replace your "concentrated sulfuric acid wasn't corrosive " with "Jesus wasn't Lord and Savior" and I think we'd be in the ballpark of where the evidence for your claims actually lie. There's some evidence that Jesus is the "correct" diety to worship, but there is doubt too, and it really comes down to faith.
On the issue of global warming, I'd prefer to wait a bit longer before we start making rash decisions about halting the economic progress that has contributed to the improvement of many lives. See, I have evidence that economic progress has made things better. The same doesn't exist with GW. Its more like, well, we've eliminated all these other things we can think of that might be causing a change in climate, so it must be man's activities. That doesn't convince me.
I'd love to reverse the Gulf Stream. I'm tired of the cold air from Canada making winter even colder/snowier than it already is. Seems like that's where all the storms and cold fronts come from.
I'll let all the non-global warming supporters on board. That shouldn't be many people, right?
See, its smug comments like this that push me over the edge and make me completely disinterested in everything you have to say. You are 100% convinced you are correct and any opposition opinion is wrong. That's just not the case, and furthermore, even if we are "harming" the environment, maybe its not really that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.
Kinda like Jesus wasn't able to convince everybody?
Wait a minute. Doesn't this have something to do with "white guilt?"
This statement actually makes some sense and isn't inflamatory. What's going on here, where's Tuss.
Don't you live in a climate like Alaska now?
I have a private lifeboat. See you on the other side.
And what Blatch said.
We're getting a bit off topic though.
This boils down to you being convinced, due to lack of convincing proof otherwise, that man is harming the earth by 'industrialization' and should stop it. If we are harming the earth, the damage being done is minimal enough to compensate for the benifits of industrialization (in my opinion). You'll never change my mind on this, much as I guess I'll never change yours.
So go on mocking people and continue to claim the sky is falling. When it doesn't I'll be sure not to laugh at you.
I'm all for this, but you get to pay for it, and I get to reap the clean air. Are you as enthusiastic about it now?
Perhaps, but its equally as murky what the motivations of those environmental science folks are, or global warming believers, if you will.
In order for there to be a reasonable debate on the topic, we can't just have a bunch of people who've been taught that global warming is a fact being the ones who are supposedly the independent validator of it.
I'm not advocating hiding the money under your mattress.
Keeping the money in circulation is not equal to giving it away. I'm sure you already know this though.
For the most part monopolies are bad (unless of course I'm running one, muhhhaaa).
I'm not quite sure where this would fall on the spectrum of "regulation" though.
Are you pointing out this as an example of the maximum interference you'd like to see government have?
Relatively few mathematical formulas work as elegantly in life as they do on a chalkboard either. That doesn't mean we should discard them.
My premise is that with their basic needs met, few people have a "burning desire" to work. If all it does is satisfy their wants and not needs, they don't have as much of an obligation.
Are you calling me a girl!?!?
Go ahead and give me a source becuase I'm pretty sure this is going to be a case of intrepreting the numbers to suit your purpose. For example, if productivity is measured in as a function GDP/ number of hours worked. France works less hours than the US, so absolute GDP, or GDP per person, or GDP per??? would be higher.
I'll bet there's at least a few statistics out there that agree with my premise, so there's really no point in arguing about it.
Do you really think that if people's "needs" are satisfied that overall US GDP / productivity would increase? I find this hard to believe.
With less people working, an increasing percentage of income needs to be taxed from those working, etc...I envision a nasty cycle.
There isn't anything else that can "shake it up" besides the government?
Right, but the "proper" use for money is not so crystal clear. It certainly changes based upon the person, lifestyle, and the position that dollar falls on the spectrum of income someone earns. An interesting analogy, but its still my axe to do with as I wish, regardless of whether or not its better at cutting or hammering.
So you are proposing people would only work for wants, and not needs?
Just to speed things up, I am not in favor of that.
Several million is my goal.
I don't disagree that there are some problems with the health care industry, but I do think think having the government run it isn't the solution.
Interesting. Though I suppose just to be obstinent I should point out that I have a problem with your "could be better used" comment. I just don't think that your opinion of what someone should do with their money is any better than theirs. It's certainly less justified considering they are the ones holding it.