Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study
-
It's a series of illustrative analogies and parables. In that sense I'm kind of like the Jesus. Did you ever hear the one about the marketing expert who did a bunch of research and is now convinced that aspartame causes cancer? They spoke to everyone they could about it, especially on the internet, but dismissed the opinions of people with any semblance of a medical or biochemical background as being "part of the conspiracy" or "just in it for the money."
- F
-
It's a series of illustrative analogies and parables. In that sense I'm kind of like the Jesus. Did you ever hear the one about the marketing expert who did a bunch of research and is now convinced that aspartame causes cancer? They spoke to everyone they could about it, especially on the internet, but dismissed the opinions of people with any semblance of a medical or biochemical background as being "part of the conspiracy" or "just in it for the money."
- F
-
It's a series of illustrative analogies and parables. In that sense I'm kind of like the Jesus. Did you ever hear the one about the marketing expert who did a bunch of research and is now convinced that aspartame causes cancer? They spoke to everyone they could about it, especially on the internet, but dismissed the opinions of people with any semblance of a medical or biochemical background as being "part of the conspiracy" or "just in it for the money."
- F
-
I really don't understand why people go to university to study things anymore, Google is clearly enough.
- F
-
My accountant is just about to tell me which antihypertensive I should put this guy on
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
My accountant is just about to tell me which antihypertensive I should put this guy on
Well, "Them as counts, counts more than them as don't count", as me old pal Ridley used to say.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
This guy who holds an advanced business degree says he's studied evolution extensively and the scientific data doesn't support it so i have to go argue with him for awhile because that's productive too
- F
-
It's a series of illustrative analogies and parables. In that sense I'm kind of like the Jesus. Did you ever hear the one about the marketing expert who did a bunch of research and is now convinced that aspartame causes cancer? They spoke to everyone they could about it, especially on the internet, but dismissed the opinions of people with any semblance of a medical or biochemical background as being "part of the conspiracy" or "just in it for the money."
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's a series of illustrative analogies and parables.
And what would they be, then?
Fisticuffs wrote:
In that sense I'm kind of like the Jesus.
Another analogy! (I Googled.) Be God! The boy's full of 'em.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Did you ever hear the one about the marketing expert who did a bunch of research and is now convinced that aspartame causes cancer? They spoke to everyone they could about it, especially on the internet, but dismissed the opinions of people with any semblance of a medical or biochemical background as being "part of the conspiracy" or "just in it for the money."
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D Post it under JOTD in the Lounge, it's a cracker!
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
It's a series of illustrative analogies and parables. In that sense I'm kind of like the Jesus. Did you ever hear the one about the marketing expert who did a bunch of research and is now convinced that aspartame causes cancer? They spoke to everyone they could about it, especially on the internet, but dismissed the opinions of people with any semblance of a medical or biochemical background as being "part of the conspiracy" or "just in it for the money."
- F
"Did you ever hear the one about the marketing politicised expert who did a bunch of research and is now convinced that aspartame CO2 causes cancer Catastrophic Global Warming? They spoke to everyone they could about it, especially on the internet, but dismissed the opinions of people with any semblance of a medical or biochemical background a different point of virew as being "part of the conspiracy" or "just in it for the money." :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: OK, the planet has warmed in the last century. It also warmed the 150 years before that. But 'Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Climate Disruption' as a message is pure BS, and you know it. Here is the only evidence there is: +40% CO2 and +0.6`C No positive feedbacks = No problem. And thats regardless of whether that warming was caused by CO2 or not.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's a series of illustrative analogies and parables.
And what would they be, then?
Fisticuffs wrote:
In that sense I'm kind of like the Jesus.
Another analogy! (I Googled.) Be God! The boy's full of 'em.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Did you ever hear the one about the marketing expert who did a bunch of research and is now convinced that aspartame causes cancer? They spoke to everyone they could about it, especially on the internet, but dismissed the opinions of people with any semblance of a medical or biochemical background as being "part of the conspiracy" or "just in it for the money."
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D Post it under JOTD in the Lounge, it's a cracker!
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
"Did you ever hear the one about the marketing politicised expert who did a bunch of research and is now convinced that aspartame CO2 causes cancer Catastrophic Global Warming? They spoke to everyone they could about it, especially on the internet, but dismissed the opinions of people with any semblance of a medical or biochemical background a different point of virew as being "part of the conspiracy" or "just in it for the money." :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: OK, the planet has warmed in the last century. It also warmed the 150 years before that. But 'Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Climate Disruption' as a message is pure BS, and you know it. Here is the only evidence there is: +40% CO2 and +0.6`C No positive feedbacks = No problem. And thats regardless of whether that warming was caused by CO2 or not.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
So hurts when you can't argue the facts doesn't it?
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's a lot easier, logistically speaking, to improve a small handful of power plants, as opposed to going out and upgrading every single vehicle (again)
Sounds good in theory. Completely ignores economics though. You have to build the power plants. You have to build the distribution networks. You have to build the distribution points (you didn't think you were going to plug into some strangers outlet for free did you?) You need to build the auto production plants. You need to produce the materials for the cars. etc.... That all costs money. That would all need to occur given that there is no NET difference between a gas and electric to the average consumer. Or worse it costs more to the average consumer for many years to come. The average consumer is not going to pay more for many years without incentive. If you want everyone to use an electric car then you better come up with one that costs substantially less that a gas powered one and which is as easy to use and has all of the features (like power) that the gas ones do. That would drive the market. That would drive the need.
jschell wrote:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's a lot easier, logistically speaking, to improve a small handful of power plants, as opposed to going out and upgrading every single vehicle (again)
Sounds good in theory. Completely ignores economics though. You have to build the power plants. You have to build the distribution networks. You have to build the distribution points (you didn't think you were going to plug into some strangers outlet for free did you?)
How does replacing power plants ignore econmics? More importantly why would you need to build a new dsitribution network? Isn't that the point of using the electrical grid? The network already exists. An electrical grid is supplied by any plant that produces electricity beit a coal plant, wind farm or any thing else. Input who cares, output must be electricity. You have 'somewhat' valid points at the end, but switching power plants has little to do with economics and more to do with politics. If a region is pushing to be green they tend to convert their plants because it looked good for some politician. The reason it looked good mostly stems from a green push in society in that area. Again, nothing to do with economics. As for a consumer choosing one vehicle over the other, it really depends on the consumer. Some consumers will pay more for less power, just because it has a "Green" sticker on it and others will even pay more for less power because it does NOT have a "Green" sticker (yes they exist). These 2 extremes make a range that most rational thought of car purchases falls into. This is where the 'economics' for the most part resides. However, even that is controllable and thus far has proven to work. Up until the last year Hybrid cars have been receiving massive subsidies. i.e. By one and get a huge tax break at the end of year. Basically this pushes taxes dollars into the build up and minituraization of the needed technology. This is now also happening with pure electric cars. Not too long ago there were barely any hybrid cars on the rode because many said econmics wont work for this model. Tax breaks corrected for it and now they are everywhere.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
If you had an ounce of credibility you wouldn't have to be preaching your gospel from the back room, brother Eric
- F
Ahh, yet again, the personal attack. Nice to see the 'can't argue the facts, attck the speaker' mentality is still good and stong in your camp. Good. The more you do it, the more stupid you look. :) The facts are just piling up aren't they? BEST, no warming for 13 years. No positive feedbacks. Extreme weather at a low. Meanwhile forest growth is on the up, deserts are shrinking, crop yields are going up year on year. Just hurts so much when you can't argue the facts eh? ;P Go back to your esoteric, elevated world, and leave reality to those who can look at it honestly.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
jschell wrote:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's a lot easier, logistically speaking, to improve a small handful of power plants, as opposed to going out and upgrading every single vehicle (again)
Sounds good in theory. Completely ignores economics though. You have to build the power plants. You have to build the distribution networks. You have to build the distribution points (you didn't think you were going to plug into some strangers outlet for free did you?)
How does replacing power plants ignore econmics? More importantly why would you need to build a new dsitribution network? Isn't that the point of using the electrical grid? The network already exists. An electrical grid is supplied by any plant that produces electricity beit a coal plant, wind farm or any thing else. Input who cares, output must be electricity. You have 'somewhat' valid points at the end, but switching power plants has little to do with economics and more to do with politics. If a region is pushing to be green they tend to convert their plants because it looked good for some politician. The reason it looked good mostly stems from a green push in society in that area. Again, nothing to do with economics. As for a consumer choosing one vehicle over the other, it really depends on the consumer. Some consumers will pay more for less power, just because it has a "Green" sticker on it and others will even pay more for less power because it does NOT have a "Green" sticker (yes they exist). These 2 extremes make a range that most rational thought of car purchases falls into. This is where the 'economics' for the most part resides. However, even that is controllable and thus far has proven to work. Up until the last year Hybrid cars have been receiving massive subsidies. i.e. By one and get a huge tax break at the end of year. Basically this pushes taxes dollars into the build up and minituraization of the needed technology. This is now also happening with pure electric cars. Not too long ago there were barely any hybrid cars on the rode because many said econmics wont work for this model. Tax breaks corrected for it and now they are everywhere.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
More importantly why would you need to build a new dsitribution network? Isn't that the point of using the electrical grid? The network already exists. An electrical grid is supplied by any plant that produces electricity beit a coal plant, wind farm or any thing else. Input who cares, output must be electricity.
Because, in the the US, the power grid is running at close to max capacity almost everywhere.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You have 'somewhat' valid points at the end, but switching power plants has little to do with economics and more to do with politics. If a region is pushing to be green they tend to convert their plants because it looked good for some politician. The reason it looked good mostly stems from a green push in society in that area. Again, nothing to do with economics.
What? First it is a matter of adding not switching. Adding costs more. Second, and again, if the cars were substantially 'better' then the need would drive politics. They are not 'better' in almost all ways. Thus politics is only relevant in that a solution that isn't better is being pushed.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
As for a consumer choosing one vehicle over the other, it really depends on the consumer. Some consumers will pay more for less power, just because it has a "Green" sticker on it and others will even pay more for less power because it does NOT have a "Green" sticker (yes they exist). These 2 extremes make a range that most rational thought of car purchases falls into. This is where the 'economics' for the most part resides.
Not even close. Most people base their decisions on factors like initial cost, power, brand name, previous experience, recommendations, maintenace costs etc. And for most 'normal' people the first factor, initial cost, is going to be the most significant factor. The fact that some people buy green and some people avoid green is no more satistically relevant than that some people only buy motorcycles.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
However, even that is controllable and thus far has proven to work.
Doesn't prove anything to me. Hybrids are not electric. And the fact that a market exists doesn't prove anything. There is a market for high end performance cars as well. Does
-
No one ever said anything about changing them overnight... People replace their cars anyway, when they break down, or when it becomes too expensive to maintain or operate them. As gas prices go up, non-electric cars become more expensive.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
No one ever said anything about changing them overnight... People replace their cars anyway, when they break down, or when it becomes too expensive to maintain or operate them. As gas prices go up, non-electric cars become more expensive.
That statement means nothing and it certainly doesn't contradict anything I said. If an alternative comes along that is 'better' then the market will drive that conversion. Could be electric, could be hydrogen, could be fusion. Could be a cultural change the removes the need for powered transportation.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Nothing, because the utility companies would do it.
What? Either you are trying to be funny or you really, really need to learn more about economics.
No this is exactly how it works. Utility companies invest in themselves. They're not just churning out a profit and letting their hardware rot away, they maintain & upgrade. Or in the case of water supply, they churn out a bigger profit than allowed by price fixing. But it's crucial that the govt doesn't ask them to upgrade, because that would surely cost tax money.
-
ict558 wrote:
Another analogy! (I Googled.) Be God! The boy's full of 'em.
That would be a simile, actually
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
That would be a simile, actually
Ah, well, you'd be knowing that, sor, what with your edjakation. But ain't similes more, er, pithy? Sort of a short analogy? Even as I'm like Jesus - in the sense that I am a narrator of illustrative analogies and parables , it's no simile. You may have your simile, sor, if you wish, but I will stick with my analogy.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
More importantly why would you need to build a new dsitribution network? Isn't that the point of using the electrical grid? The network already exists. An electrical grid is supplied by any plant that produces electricity beit a coal plant, wind farm or any thing else. Input who cares, output must be electricity.
Because, in the the US, the power grid is running at close to max capacity almost everywhere.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You have 'somewhat' valid points at the end, but switching power plants has little to do with economics and more to do with politics. If a region is pushing to be green they tend to convert their plants because it looked good for some politician. The reason it looked good mostly stems from a green push in society in that area. Again, nothing to do with economics.
What? First it is a matter of adding not switching. Adding costs more. Second, and again, if the cars were substantially 'better' then the need would drive politics. They are not 'better' in almost all ways. Thus politics is only relevant in that a solution that isn't better is being pushed.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
As for a consumer choosing one vehicle over the other, it really depends on the consumer. Some consumers will pay more for less power, just because it has a "Green" sticker on it and others will even pay more for less power because it does NOT have a "Green" sticker (yes they exist). These 2 extremes make a range that most rational thought of car purchases falls into. This is where the 'economics' for the most part resides.
Not even close. Most people base their decisions on factors like initial cost, power, brand name, previous experience, recommendations, maintenace costs etc. And for most 'normal' people the first factor, initial cost, is going to be the most significant factor. The fact that some people buy green and some people avoid green is no more satistically relevant than that some people only buy motorcycles.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
However, even that is controllable and thus far has proven to work.
Doesn't prove anything to me. Hybrids are not electric. And the fact that a market exists doesn't prove anything. There is a market for high end performance cars as well. Does
jschell wrote:
Because, in the the US, the power grid is running at close to max capacity almost everywhere.
That would mean the US does not build a 'new' distribution grid but actually extends it. Which it does so anyways. Arguing against putting something on the electrical grid because it will overload it is like saying we should have 2 different internets because it will help bandwidth.
jschell wrote:
What?
First it is a matter of adding not switching. Adding costs more.
Second, and again, if the cars were substantially 'better' then the need would drive politics. They are not 'better' in almost all ways. Thus politics is only relevant in that a solution that isn't better is being pushed.'Better'. Now thats an interesting word. Better by what? Better because it produces more power? Nope that dont' matter. Better because it is cleaner? Nope... Hmmm so what gets a new power plant up and running. Some Politician says its 'better' to his followers and it is voted in because of that. Then pushes the agenda through. If that politician claims that sacrificing chickens to the Thunder god Thor is a better means to produce electricity, and his voters buy into it, we will soon have thousands of chicken sacrificing power plants. Wether they produce electricity or not... Well that is actually irelevant. The point is politics alone gets the prize here.
jschell wrote:
Not even close.
Not even close. Most people base their decisions on factors like initial cost, power, brand name, previous experience, recommendations, maintenace costs etc. And for most 'normal' people the first factor, initial cost, is going to be the most significant factor.
The fact that some people buy green and some people avoid green is no more satistically relevant than that some people only buy motorcycles.Did you read what I wrote? Because you just re-itterated it with out my 'outliers' remark. The range of people we are talking about is the extremes (the outliers). All those imbetween care about other markers, of which the most important is cost. Which as I pointed out is why the tax subsidies work. I may be out 8K this year, but if I get it back in April and my car costs $200 less to drive a month its a no brainer (that is why Hyrbid took the market share they did.. Full e