What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
You actually bring up an excellent example.
One of the major crises of the past (that is somewhat similar to climate change) was the holes in the ozone layer. It was a global problem. And how was it solved? Not by the actions of individuals, but through global government action.
That is a direct counterexample to the model proposed above. And note that no tyrants suddenly appeared as we repaired our own atmosphere.
Now I'm not saying that government should be the only factor in addressing climate change. But they surely have a major role to play.
I understand. And what I'm saying is, so that I'm being "crystal clear" is that loudest AGW alarmists sound very much like their advocacy is about making them feel better about themselves.
If AGW is such a serious threat, then why don't those who are the shrillest about it start by doing something themselves?
I've been doing these debates for 23 years now.
They go something like this:
Bob: Global warming is going to kill us all! We need to do something! We're destroying the planet!
Brad: Ok. What do you think we should do?
Bob: We need to switch to renewables right now!
Brad: That's not really practical though.
Bob: Yes it is! It's affordable now!
Brad: Have you switched to renewables?
Bob: What? No! I can't afford it!
Brad: But you just said it's affordable!
Bob: Well yea, the government just needs to subsidize it!
Brad: Oh, so you mean you want *me* to pay for your renewables!
Bob: We're all in this together!
Brad: So it's just a coincidence that your belief happens to go well with your other beliefs that involve in the government redistributing wealth.
Bob: You're just paranoid!
I think I used the CFCs example earlier as an example of WHEN it's good to have government intervention. It demonstrates that people of all ideologies will come together when the science is really there. We didn't need a "consensus" on CFCs. It was a demonstrable fact.
I've linked to a government scientist who won a Nobel Prize for his work in drought resistant crops and is generally credited with saving a billion lives through his work. I'd say thats significant by any definition. And thats ONE GUY off the top of my head.
You can come up with whatever pretend model of science and development you want, but if you actually want to apply it to the real world, you have to let facts enter the picture. And in the real world, we have major, federal departments that spend billions of federal dollars on government scientists who do federal research on this kind of stuff. To pretend that this stuff doesn't exist because it would better fit your ideology is just silly.
I mean, you are pretending that the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation don't exist because they are inconvenient to your argument.
Come on now. We all know that private companies are the ones who do lots of applied research and bring products to market more, but to deny that the government plays a huge role in basic, fundamental research is simply ignorant.
You have to get be a GS11 before you even need a Ph.D., GS12 if you're in a research position. If you work for a year at the preceding level, you'd only need a masters to get that job without one. So no, government scientists do not generally have doctorates. Some of them have doctorates.
Except it was really controversial at the time. Read the controversy section here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole
If anything, I'd say that the scientific consensus on climate change is actually stronger than the ozone hole stuff was at the time.
You are seeing it from the wrong side. Why are you listening to the scientists and POLITICANS (what the hell have they ever known) who have a strong motive for telling you what you want to hear? I bet they are more qualified than the idealists and the "well paid" slackers right?
If you've been doing these debates for 23 years now, it's surprising that you characterize "what should we do?" only as renewables that require government subsidies that *you* would have to pay for.
Currently we, or the goverment on our behalf, are already using tax dollars to massively subsidize oil and gas companies. That's why it is so cheap and affordable. Global fossil fuel subsidies were $523 billion in 2011 while renewables were $88 billion. In Canada, where I am, the government gives enormous tax breaks and subsidies to the fossil fuel industry to assist them.
Secondly, "switching to renewables" is a gross oversimplification of what is proposed to deal with AGW. Look up proposed mitigation and adaptation methods and you'll see it is much more than that. I don't think you've looked at this in much depth for these 23 years.
Oil and gas aren't that cheap due to subsidies. If you add up all the right-offs big oil gets to do, it comes out to a pretty trivial amount per gallon. The main reason it's so cheap here is because 1) We supply a lot of our own energy and 2) We don't tax it much.
Also, please don't put words in my mouth -- especially when I'm in the process of putting words into the mouth of my straw man.
I pointed out what people debating AGW typically argue. You can read through the dozen plus pages of this thread and see that mitigation and adaption methods weren't brought up by the AGW alarmists. It's always pounding on carbon taxes and renewables.
Global subsidies on fossil fuels...
Many countries fund the oil and gas development directly, and collect the profits from it. That isn't a subsidy, that's state industry.
In the US, our oil and gas subsidies are no such thing. They're supposed tax breaks, but they're tax breaks on extra taxes over what other industries have to pay that they'd still not pay in the end. When someone buys things they need for their business, they get a write off. When they buy certain kinds of things, they get told they have to depreciate it instead, and write it off over years. The oil companies are in the rare situation of having depreciation schedules longer than the operation life times of the wells they've built the rigs on.
It's a great joke, calling accelerated depreciation schedules a subsidy.
As has been said previously, the argument isn't purely affordability (it probably was 20 years ago though...).
The problem is variability. I think that its pretty much indisputable that in the vast majority of cases, renewable energy sources are much more variable in their energy production than other energy sources. Thus, they are impractical for individuals because people are generally not tolerant of blackouts nowadays.
HOWEVER, on macroscopic scales you can average out the variability, and then the renewables become practical. But, this requires something more than what individuals can do because it requires a way to distribute a lot of power over very long distances (which we can't do with our current power grid).
Listen, I understand that you really really want your individualistic model to work. Every man is an island and all that. I get it. But some global problems require larger groups, and some of these global problems actual require governments to get involved. Its happened in the past, and government intervention actually worked. I showed this conclusively above. This is another one of those cases.
I don't think every man is an island. I am, however, saying that those who cry loudest about AGW might get more traction if they actually behaved if they believed it.
It's sort of like someone claiming that we need to become vegans while they're chowing down on a steak.
In the long-run, we're going to have nearly infinite energy when our building materials themselves start producing solar energy. No government meddling needed.
Congratulations. You win this link: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
Seriously though, I have no doubt you can come up with examples of where a government research project has netted some good. However, that has very little to do with the macroscopic issue at hand.
I'm not pretending any such thing. We also have a commerce department. That doesn't mean the government is responsible for commerce.
lol. Really? Do you want to play the "you're ignorant" game? Feel free to put up your credentials up against mine. What's your LinkedIn Page? Otherwise, stick to facts. If you want to just agree to disagree on the government's role in food and energy production then I'm fine with that. But I feel quite confident that I know a lot more on this topic than you do.
Are you suggesting that gas stations around the country sprang up due to the government?
The reason electric cars aren't that popular yet is because there is a hefty up front cost involved. I've never used an electric "fueling station" with my car. And even if I did, there's already plenty around to use within range.
You quote a fallacy and respond with another one. Great. (do not use links unless they are to a source) calling someone an idiot in fancy words is not disproving them.
... Are you reading what you are writing? Well, that is American politics for you, nobody is responsible, and if someone is it must be the other party.
How is LinkedIn more valuable than a nobel prize winner? Afaik. a nobel price winner pretty much invented the whole vitamin craze without proof, and people are still using it. Linkedin can't be more useful as a proof than a nobel price winner source surely right?. Either is irrelevant. Sources are to be determined on their own, not past accomplishment, or LinkedIn achievements.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling and that is just Wikipedia. (TL:DR Vitamin C cures cancer according to Nobel price winner)
Sure. How about the ban on DDT? That's resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths. How about price controls on gas in the 70s which resulted in gas shortages and rationing. How about wage controls during World War II except for health insurance which resulted in the health care mess we have today. How about the tariffs on sugar cain sugar to protect home grown sugar which gave rise to high fructose corn syrup. How about early regulation against noise pollution on "engine knock" which led to lead being put in our gasoline which resulted in generations of high lead in our atmosphere that even today are higher than they were than when the regulations got enacted. How about the whole Ethanol project which is resulting in higher food prices.
Or let's talk about organic farming. If we passed laws requiring organic farming it would vastly increase the cost of food. How about the anti GMO movement that would result in the starvation of millions if it got passed due to the fact that the only reason we can feed so many people is because of our modern agicultural techniques (incidentally, I buy organic foods mostly because they taste good but they cost a lot more).
I agree. People won't voluntarily vote for something that costs them money for not tangible benefit. People are pretty rational creatures when it comes down to it.
The problem with AGW is that even if it is proven to be true, it is not proven that we can do anything about it and it is not proven that it is really going to have a severe enough impact to upend our lives about.
Heck, if AGW from CO2 is such a big deal, where are the proposals and support for building atmospheric CO2 scrubbers? They exist. But for some reason, most AGW people tend to want the solution to somehow involve taking money from other people (but not themselves of course).
And Democrats, the main grabbers of other people's earnings, seem to have no interest in solving their AGW dilema through means that doesn't involve confiscating money from other people.
How often do you hear about proposals to build CO2 scrubbers? Or if global warming is the problem, why not solutions that involve releasing something else into the atmosphere to counter it? Where are those proposals from the AGW alarmists? Why does every problem - EVERY - problem always have the same solution - taking more money from other people to give to themselves?
Um, what.
I'm using disproof by counterexample. You claim that that the government has made no significant contribution to food production. I provide a counter example of a government scientist who is credited with saving a billion lives with increased food production.
What the HELL does this have to do with appeal to authority? Thats a fallacy where I try and prove something is true by showing that a higher authority claims it is true. I am showing that your claim is not true (its a counter example). I'm also providing evidence that my claim is true.
If you want to claim that providing an example of my claim is a logical fallacy...wow...just wow. If you really think that using examples in an argument is a fallacy, well, that is just an example of everything that is wrong with having a discussion on the internet.
But really, the burden of proof lies on you now. I've listed cabinet level posts. I've listed a guy who has saved a billion lives. You have provided nothing to back up your claims. I have repeatedly and consistently provided evidence to show that you wrong on this one. You have provided nothing to back up your claim.
And now, this link becomes appropriate: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
Attempting to debate something on the supposed authority of the debaters rather than the facts of the matter or evidence IS a logical fallacy.
For what its worth, I would actually be willing to do credentials vs credentials on you here since I have quite a bit of experience with federal funding agencies and private science funding, but its stupid to do over the internet, as you should be aware. Its also silly because its fallacious - if you are so much more authoritative, fine, good for you. But, you should be able to debate on the merits, rather than just saying "NUH UH" over and over.
I just wanted to quote this because it puts it so much more elegantly than I could.
Some of that would be resolved if Tesla [in particular] shied away from the BMW-beater focus of their 'S' and left all the tricky bits off [the options in the touch screen are a wee bit generous/overly extensive] pop out door handles etc....and marketed the Willys Jeep equivalent ...or God forbid 'Der People's Kar'
Dropping the price-point to a wider acceptability and I'm sure they'd be a lot more popular overnight - and that in itself would entice customers to 'upgrade' to the fancier version/s.
Their physical design is brilliant...but the electronics of media, etc is somewhere between twee and overkill...
Your argument can be boiled down to:
The government is a "HUGE" helper in increasing our rate of energy and food production. I have provided proof in the form of named government positions that claim to have helped the government and a nobel prize winner who was funded by the government. How can you seriously suggest that this is somehow proof of anything?
Hell, we haven't even made it far enough to define what "HUGE" is. I don't know what "HUGE" is. What I do know is that the idea that the government has somehow had a significant (i.e. measurable to the point that the average person would know the difference) impact on the trajectory of food and energy production is absurd.
One doesn't even need to be an expert on the history of the petroleum industry or agriculture to realize that the government's contribution to this has been negligible. And when you list cabinet posts claiming authority over these sectors of the government it makes me think of Saruman, hanging out in the Shire, referring to his looters as "gatherers". Those departments aren't helping. They're hurting. It's just so appalling to see government looters being seen as being some sort of force for good.
Lastly, I brought up the credentials because you ended your last argument with "To disagree with me is to be ignorant" (paraphrasing).
I never said gas stations were funded by the gov't. Not sure how you read into that.
Yes, I realize there's a hefty upfront cost. That's the issue I was referring to. Until the upfront cost decreases, manufacturers won't be able to sell the volume needed to reduce unit cost. That's the major reason (other than the mileage on a single charge issue) why electric cars aren't being widely adopted.
Also read my second post in this thread for more of my perspective on costs.
It's a catch 22. Without sufficient volume, prices (upfront cost) can't be reduced, but demand for electric cars won't increase until the price goes down.
So, if we believe as a society that electric cars are necessary, then the production and/or purchase price of electric cars should be subsidized in some way by the gov't. And if we don't, then we won't.
I haven't seen any charging stations in my area. If they're all over the place, they must be well hidden.
They can't. Do you know what the base cost of batteries that can hold 85 KWh?
Here is a link where you can buy a single Lithium Ion battery that has 16ah (12v).
http://www.apexbattery.com/braille-ml20c-battery--compatible-to-yuasa-ytx15l-bs.html?utm_source=googlepepla&utm_medium=adwords&id=18283950120&utm_content=pla&gclid=CJ-NrI2Bi7oCFYxcMgodIi0ABg
That's $1,500 just for one battery. You'd need a bunch of those. The cost is in the battery.
The cost is in the battery. They add the other gadgets to try to make people feel better about spending tens of thousands of dollars on what's roughly 450ah of battery.
That society is known as communism. Seriously. You just defined communism. That is, society decides what is needed and therefore wealth is taken from those based on their ability to those based on their need.
There's another way we, as a society, can demonstrate that electric cars are necessary: We can buy them.
So...
Is this a good time to point out that Norman Borlaug wasn't a government employee?
His work, that he sought higher education specifically to do, was started at DuPont, where his laboratory was retasked to DOD war research for the war effort, temporarily ending his dreams of revolutionizing the agricultural industry. Then he left DuPont(they tried to double his salary to keep him there) after the war to join a philanthropic effort funded in large part by the Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation. The two foundations established numerous other similar efforts around the globe, some of which he participated in.
You should save this quote so that in 25 years or so when carbon nanotubes can be produced for pennies in massive sheets that are integrated into everything from bricks to shingles to paint resulting in nearly free solar energy you can look back at this quote.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
