Another Debate: Global Warming/Climate Change

[SpanglerFan316]

Amazing.

[SB Shock]

And, I believe that God's plan, as outlined in Revelations, will come about much to the dismay of modern day scientists. Once you understand that, everything else falls into place. Read 'The book of Revelations - The Smart Guide to the Bible'.

Exactly.

Whether you believe the bible prophecy in Revelation or not, scientifically we know that the earth is doomed. One of several possibilities will occur.

1. The sun will start running out of energy and will grow increasing bigger and bigger (seeking out fuel) and will eventually swallow the earth). Talk about global warming. We'll all be crispy critters.

2. If that doesn't get us, the sun will eventually go super-nova.

3. Simulation have shown that there is the potential for nearby stars to go supernova and their blast wave could rip our atmosphere off.

4. Impact by asteroid and/or comet. We don't even know what we don't know.

These are just a few ways that man could be wiped out, the only question for scientist is which one will occur first.

[SB Shock]

Scientists have pretty much concluded CO2 contributes to warming and its pretty definite we are adding to it. The key question in the warming trend how much of an effect people are making. All answers here are just opinions and nobody knows for certain. As for statements about specific weather events being attributed to global warming - its speculation.

Thats the whole problem, it's really all speculation and there is no just 1 item that some would like to claim. It's clear that the earth has a natural tendency to warming, but looking at historical evidence shows this trend can be disrupted. Why (here is a few hypothesis:

1. Sun influence and output

2. Co2 output - mainly from natural means like volcanoes but man does have some influence (don't know how much though)

3. earth rotation wobble, scientist have hypothesis that there are minor wobbles (like a top), that send the earth in into ice ages (minor/major).

There also has been a couple recent scientific article on global warming lately has scientist predicting GLOBAL COOLING. One was from Russian scientists (they say the period is starting now) and another was from Global Warming advocates warning us that there was going to be a DECADE of at least of global cooling but this was just normal, cyclical variation of the sun and then the earth would again start warming up again from man's action and we should just ignore this decade

What is more interesting is another ice age will be devastating to human life on this planet , while a warming of the earth will actually unlock large expanses of land and resources that are unavailable due to the cold.

[ABC]

Why do they need assistance?

We have 200 million drivers in the US.

Markets work.

Why do you think the 535 members of Congress can figure out what the auto manufacturers should do better than the 200 million drivers?

Didn't those 200 million drivers give their voice when they voted to have those Congressmen represent them?! Last time I checked we were a republic.

Oh, and markets dont always work to the best interest of a country. For example the Bear Stearns investment bank bailout.

Given the exceptional pressures on the global economy and financial system, the damage caused by a default of Bear Stearns could have been severe and extremely difficult to contain,

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan, asserted, "A Bear Stearns bankruptcy could well have touched off a chain reaction at other major financial institutions that would have shaken confidence in the credit markets that already have been battered."

Dimon, while not explaining the degree to which the institutions are connected through the $135 trillion credit and interest-derivative market, knows full well the domino effect a Bear Stearns collapse would have triggered.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60940

Now a free marketer would say let things fall where they may. Heard that on a few radio programs in fact. Do you honestly believe this should be done? If Bear Stearns goes down then so does a whole lot of other institutions and you have a serious risk of financial collapse. What free market will be left? Sorry, nobody wants the deep recession or even depression that would result.

While its still in the future we face an economic collapse due to our dependence on imported oil, weak dollar, massive inflation from tranportation costs, and lack of progress to switch to other sources of fuel.

There are plenty of other folks who believe that such dire things would not have taken place. Look of the definition of "moral hazard" and get back to me.

How in the world can you say markets don't benefit the country when in fact the markets essentially are the decisions of the citizens of the country?

Let me repeat: do you really think the collective wisdom of 535 members of Congress is greater than the collective wisdom of the marketplace? If so, that is called central planning and it didn't work out so well in more than a few places.

Tell me more about how you think govt should intervene in the marketplace of energy. It is fantasy land to think we will not be dependent upon foreign oil. Markets will sort this out far better than a few bureaucrats and politicians.

Please give me an example of govt intervening in the energy marketplace that improved our lives. That example doesn't exist.

[rayc]

ABC:
Please give me an example of govt intervening in the energy marketplace that improved our lives.

Well, I was working at Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) when Carter was elected. The Government in their Devine wisdom decided natural gas was too valuable of a natural resource to use as boiler fuel, so they outlawed its use as such.

HL&P, one of the largest Utilities in the country, was 100% natural gas fired (plus we had several gas wells of our own for fuel). We were required by law to completely rebuild the system using coal and nuclear at a cost in excess of $4,000 per KW (as a point of reference, we had recently finished a gas fired plant at a cost of less than $250 per KW). As a result we went from being one of the cheapest electric utilities to one of the more expensive.

After it was said and done, of course, they decided they were wrong. It was okay to use natural gas, but only if done by a third party with the utility required to purchase the energy (that they did not need) and at a cost to reflect the “avoided cost” of building expensive coal and nuclear plants ( which had already been built and included in the rate base). I could go on and on..

This is a perfect example of government intervening in the energy marketplace that --- oh, oh, you said IMPROVED our lives, my bad --- never mind.


One of my main problems in giving credence to the global warming crowd is that they don’t address the MAJOR greenhouse gas, which is water vapor. With all the hype over CO2 one would think it was THE reason for the greenhouse effect, when in fact it is a very minor component. One only needs to look at a distribution chart of atmospheric long wavelength absorption frequencies to see this is true.

It is rather ironic to hear the environmental crowd warn of the impending disaster of global warming and in the next breath promote the use of alternate fuels like hydrogen whose byproduct, water vapor, is BY FAR the main greenhouse gas. It makes it difficult for me to believe that the agenda they are pushing is really the environment.

[SubGod22]

Another article on lack of warming

[SpanglerFan316]

Markets work.

"Markets" might be interpreted as "laissez-faire" and a desire to prevent regulation by a society/civilization. I certainly think "markets" work everytime I buy gasoline or think about the price of a barrel of oil. ;-) However the question of the long term effectiveness of a laissez-faire policy is an interesting one. Let's consider some examples:

1. The Ogallala Aquifer http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour.../ogallala.html

2. The collapse of the Mayan civilization is interesting; look at the following exercise: http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/activity/mayans/.

3. Easter Island. The market for "religious and ceremonial" prestige worked very well.

The most demanding requirement of all was the need to move the large number of enormously heavy statues to ceremonial sites around the island. The only way this could have been done was by large numbers of people guiding and sliding them along a form of flexible tracking made up of tree trunks spread on the ground between the quarry and the aha. Prodigious quantities of timber would have been required and in increasing amounts as the competition between the clans to erect statues grew. As a result by1600 the island was almost completely deforested and statue erection was brought to a halt leaving many stranded at the quarry.


The Easter Islanders, aware that they were almost completely isolated from the rest of the world, must surely have realised that their very existence depended on the limited resources of a small island. After all it was small enough for them to walk round the entire island in a day or so and see for themselves what was happening to the forests. Yet they were unable to devise a system that allowed them to find the right balance with their environment. Instead vital resources were steadily consumed until finally none were left. Indeed, at the very time when the limitations of the island must have become starkly apparent the competition between the clans for the available timber seems to have intensified as more and more statues were carved and moved across the island in an attempt to secure prestige and status. The fact that so many were left unfinished or stranded near the quarry suggests that no account was taken of how few trees were left on the island.

http://www.primitivism.com/easter-island.htm

4. Crete: The reasons for the decline of Minoan Crete between 1600-1425 B.C. have been widely debated (e.g. invasion, earthquake, environmental degradation, internal conflict). (e.g. http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-...3E2.0.CO%3B2-V).

[Ixiah]

You seem to feel strongely about free trade and I applaud you for your convictions. One part of a debate though is to read and at least make an effort to understand the other side of the argument. You have put words in my mouth a couple of times.

There are plenty of other folks who believe that such dire things would not have taken place.

So your answer is the government should never involve itself because of an ideology. The exception being when after the disaster has occured then we should have done something earlier! Something is wrong with that.

As for the decision itself - well you have to believe that Ben Bernanke thought the need was so dire that he used a depression era law to allow the intervention. He is not some incompetent political appointee but rather an expert, experienced staff, has the most accurate information, and will certianly have to justify his actions. It's safe to say the decision was almost certainly a wise one.

Look of the definition of "moral hazard" and get back to me.

Per Wikipedia:

Moral hazard is the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk. Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not bear the full consequences of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions. For example, an individual with insurance against automobile theft may be less vigilant about locking his car, because the negative consequences of automobile theft are (partially) borne by the insurance company.

There is an old phrase called "cuting off the nose to spite the face" (feel free to look that up) which sounds true here. You would rather have a financial meltdown (or at least the serious risk of one) occur just so that the Bear Sterns suffers for its actions. Yes, there is a need to clean up some one elses mess, but to not do so is both childish and irresponsible.

How in the world can you say markets don't benefit the country when in fact the markets essentially are the decisions of the citizens of the country?

Putting words in my mouth or misinterpreting. I said CERTAIN things the market does not handle very well. Examples are healthcare (nobody wants to insure sick people) and oil (whose export is controlled by a handful of countries).

Let me repeat: do you really think the collective wisdom of 535 members of Congress is greater than the collective wisdom of the marketplace? If so, that is called central planning and it didn't work out so well in more than a few places.

There is a big difference between central planning and government putting in controls for the best interest of this country to the detriment of businesses. What we pay the people in Washington, and their staffs, is to know when they need to regulate (and when not to). As I indicated earlier much of the wisdom in the marketplace is reflected in the actions of the people that represent it.

Tell me more about how you think govt should intervene in the marketplace of energy. It is fantasy land to think we will not be dependent upon foreign oil. Markets will sort this out far better than a few bureaucrats and politicians.

Well I only put forth an effort to work with the car companies to develop an alternative energy source for vehicles so I'm not sure where you got this question from. Essentially I advocated a joint effort to research an inexpensive source of fuel to replace gasoline. In fact, this is already being done (see link below) but I feel more $ should be put into it. Hydrogen fuel cells looks like the most promising but are currently impractical. Also the infrastructure necessary would need government assistance.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfuelcells2.htm

As a side note - I do believe that nuclear, coal, wind, and any other practical forms of energy be developed. Many want to drill in ANWAR but I disagree here. Not because of the ecological concerns but rather because it serves as a kind of U.S. oil piggy bank that we have for the future.

Please give me an example of govt intervening in the energy marketplace that improved our lives. That example doesn't exist.

Well lets see, I could go with Teddy Roosevelt when he forced the coal industry to negotiate with the miners so that people in the northeast didn't freeze during the winter. Hmm, you might say its too old. Okay, how about the fact that without government action only the major cities would have power. It took the rural electrification act to provide power to areas where electricity was not economical.

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

Would have to say that improved a lot of peoples lives. Sounds like your statement is invalid.

Okay, I have answered all your questions. How about you answer mine for a change.

1. For a long time now the consumption of oil has outpaced the finding of new sources. Countries such as India and China are about to run through their domestic supplies, large growing middle classes, and will place increasing demands on the world supply. Oil supplies are going to become increasingly tight (a barrel was a mere $30 just four years ago). Is your solution to really play ostrich and ignore the problem threatening our economy? If not, then please describe your solution.

2. Are you honestly not in favor of the governments not helping businesses in developing infrastructure? Be prepared for that loaded question btw.

[ABC]

I'll see if I can add more when I have some time.

One thing about the Bear Stearns issue is that JP Morgan bought their shares for $10 each; it was hardly a govt bailout.

I'm not sure if you see the problem with the moral hazard created by govt bailouts.

Please provide your source for this: "For a long time now the consumption of oil has outpaced the finding of new sources. "

Markets will sort out price and distribution far better than govt policy. Allowing marketplaces to work is hardly playing ostrich.

I am not in favor of govts helping business. We have an entire industry called Wall Street that makes and losses millions every day picking winners and losers. Why do you think our elected official can do a better job? It is folly to think out elected leaders are better at this than those paid to specifically do this.

One major reason for the increase in oil is our weak dollar which has been partly caused by artificially low interest rates (cheap money.)

Public goods like roads, airports and ports are not the same thing as corporate welfare.

We need a low, broad base tax base which does not favor one business or group of business b/c they can gain politically better than others. Ethanol is a great example.

If you really believe the only way rural areas would have rec'd electrical power is through the REA, then yes, I understand your world view. To say that only cities would have power today in a non-argument. Do you believe that is the case today? Without government would Scott City not have electricity? How about telephone service? If you live in a urban area did you know you are currently subsidizing the telephone service in rural areas?

[Ixiah]

I'll see if I can add more when I have some time.

One thing about the Bear Stearns issue is that JP Morgan bought their shares for $10 each; it was hardly a govt bailout.

Bahahaha ...now that is funny. You know full well what it was. When the government prints up $29 billion, offers it as a low interest loan to buy a troubled firm, and then assumes nearly the full risk $30 billion of the crappy securities its a bailout. Both free traders and protectionists would agree on this.

I'm not sure if you see the problem with the moral hazard created by govt bailouts.

I agree with you completely on this one. Corporate bailouts should be avoided. Had it been a smaller company and less domanoes had fallen with it then I would say let it collapse.

Please provide your source for this: "For a long time now the consumption of oil has outpaced the finding of new sources. "

Certainly 8) Technically I found it on another site but wikipedia will do:

The amount of oil discovered each year also peaked during the 1960's at around 55 Gb/year, and has been falling steadily since (in 2004/2005 it was about 12 Gb/year). Reserves in effect peaked in 1980, when production first surpassed new discoveries, though creative methods of recalculating reserves has made this difficult to establish exactly.[6]

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

Markets will sort out price and distribution far better than govt policy. Allowing marketplaces to work is hardly playing ostrich.

Please elucidate - how will the market and our economy handle say $7/gallon oil (predicted in 4 years) and the massive inflation it will cause.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/gasoline-could-hit-7-oil/story.aspx?guid=%7B824E895C-F649-4526-89F1-50C198A8A0D5%7D

I am not in favor of govts helping business. We have an entire industry called Wall Street that makes and losses millions every day picking winners and losers. Why do you think our elected official can do a better job? It is folly to think out elected leaders are better at this than those paid to specifically do this.

What is Wall Streets purpose? Its to make money the maximum amount of money possible. What is it we want out of our government? In short it is stability. I used a rather famous line by Hoover a while back - "The problem with capitalism is the capitalists, they are too damn greedy". Look at Bear Stearns - it was recording record paper profits. Sometimes a nuetral hand is needed.

One major reason for the increase in oil is our weak dollar which has been partly caused by artificially low interest rates (cheap money.)

No argument here. I might add that it is also causing a rise in food prices. Countries now find our agriculture products less expensive and so they are buying it up causing inflation.

Public goods like roads, airports and ports are not the same thing as corporate welfare.

We need a low, broad base tax base which does not favor one business or group of business b/c they can gain politically better than others. Ethanol is a great example.

Good luck at that, I work with taxes every day and there are credits for everything. Getting business to give up those will be like pulling teeth.

If you really believe the only way rural areas would have rec'd electrical power is through the REA, then yes, I understand your world view. To say that only cities would have power today in a non-argument. Do you believe that is the case today? Without government would Scott City not have electricity? How about telephone service? If you live in a urban area did you know you are currently subsidizing the telephone service in rural areas?

Your question was:

Please give me an example of govt intervening in the energy marketplace that improved our lives. That example doesn't exist.

The above example is one. At the time must of the country was rural so that act did improve the lives of a whole lot of people. Please at least have the dignity to admit your wrong when your argument is untenable. As for which places would get electricity and which wouldn't well I would say it would depend on which is economical. I'm sure some tiny town in Montana and more then a few farms still benefit from it.

Btw - if your still in college - avoid those always, never, etc answers. Nearly always wrong. 8)

As for the subsidizing argument. We just dont get to pick and choose where our money goes to. Here are a few I can think of off the top of my head.

• A person pays taxes to a school district yet has no children.
  
  You pay a tax for 911 service that you may never use.
  
  You pay taxes that go to farms to tell them not to plant crops.

I'll tell you what, since I dont want to hear any complaining I'll even give a more recent example. It is common knowledge that if you fall behind on your utility bill then they can't cut it off during the winter. A free market would cut it off.

[Denny Crane]

Hey Ix,

What have you heard about algae as a feedstock for ethanol?

[Ixiah]

Hey Ix,

What have you heard about algae as a feedstock for ethanol?

Hadn't heard that one. There are a number of ideas that work great in the lab but tend to be impractical. The only problem I see is that while it is a fuel we still use oil for things other then powering the SUV. Everything from plastics to medicine. Still, if it works then great and I'm all for it!

Another odd one - some think that our long term planetary fuel source might be on the moon.

http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276

[ABC]

Ixiah, it appears your answers are untenable. What city today wouldn't have electricity if provided only by the market? that city doesn't exist.

And how do you know the rural town in Montana wouldn't have electricity in the 1940s but for the Fed Govt? My mom grew up in a farm house in central Kansas in the 1940s that was "electrified" by the Rural Electrification Administration and they already had electricity, oddly enough.

What was the Federal program/subsidy that provided telegraph services to every city in the country in the last half of the 1800s? Was the a rural telegraph administration? I don't think so.

Regulated utilities are not the free market; but that is a typical, and expected point of view.

Markets sort out $4,$5 or whatever price of gasoline by causing behavior changes or incentivizing the market to come up with rational and economical alternatives. So far that hasn't happened or solar, ethanol, wind etc wouldn't need so many subsidies.

How is the market sorting about gasoline prices today? I am sure you have some answers there.

Do you really think the govt is the answer to this? I am still waiting for a modern example of govt intervention in the marketplace that makes sense. The best you can come up with are examples from the 1940s? Please.

And you still haven't answered why you think govt is better at picking winners and losers than the marketplace. That is really the crux of our discussion there. Please provide at least something.

Fair attempts, but keep trying.

[Ixiah]

Do you really think the govt is the answer to this? I am still waiting for a modern example of govt intervention in the marketplace that makes sense. The best you can come up with are examples from the 1940s? Please.

Now your adding conditions because the first statement painted with too broad a brush. Sadly, I gave you a more recent example in the prior post had you bothered to read it.

Also you literally cant come with a reasonable answer to how the country will deal with the inflation. Just a 'well it will work out in the end' sort of thing. C'mon you call that an answer? This isn't some little price correction but rather a real severe knee jerker that will effect the country drastically. People are already howling at $3 + gas so what happens at $7?

Don't forget oil is used for more things then just automotive consumption so this will hit all sorts of industries. Common examples are: other forms of transportation, plastics, CD's. packaging, fertilizer, some medicines, carpeting, etc.

Try a bit harder to answer a few or can you only dish it but can't take it?

[ABC]

Do you really think the govt is the answer to this? I am still waiting for a modern example of govt intervention in the marketplace that makes sense. The best you can come up with are examples from the 1940s? Please.

Now your adding conditions because the first statement painted with too broad a brush. Sadly, I gave you a more recent example in the prior post had you bothered to read it.

Also you literally cant come with a reasonable answer to how the country will deal with the inflation. Just a 'well it will work out in the end' sort of thing. C'mon you call that an answer? This isn't some little price correction but rather a real severe knee jerker that will effect the country drastically. People are already howling at $3 + gas so what happens at $7?

Don't forget oil is used for more things then just automotive consumption so this will hit all sorts of industries. Common examples are: other forms of transportation, plastics, CD's. packaging, fertilizer, some medicines, carpeting, etc.

Try a bit harder to answer a few or can you only dish it but can't take it?

I refuted your old world examples and ask you to come up with modern examples, which you haven't done.

Tell me more about your dire inflation predictions and your solutions.

I will take market corrections over govt intervention anyday.

Still waiting for an example of govt intervention in the marketplace that worked. Thanks.