Another Debate: Global Warming/Climate Change

[Ixiah]

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

Better look up the word 'refute' in the dictionary sometime. It requires proof through evidence or argument. Just simply asking a question and requesting me to 'prove it' doen't cut it. Thats a good way to bend the meaning though. Anyway, I'll be nice and provide some detail:

The Rural Electrification Administration is a dull phrase for a program that revolutionized farm life. How this groundbreaking program was pushed through the political process is a story that involved the new president and an independent U.S. Senator from Nebraska.

In the 1930s, there was a huge gap between people in town and people on the farms. Only about 10 percent of U.S. farm families had central station electricity in the mid-30s. Nebraska's average in 1929 was even lower – only 5.9 percent of farmers had electricity. Almost all urban people had power

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In less than 15 years after the passage of the Rural Electrification Act (REA), the authors claimed that 91 percent of "our farms" had electric service available. But, some farmers in Nebraska and other sparsely populated areas point out they didn't get service until well into the 50s.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe40s/machines_09.html

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/money_19.html

Now considering that supplying electricity to rural areas was ecomically impractical (see the wikipedia article) its clearly evident that a law, interfering with the normal market, resulted in the improvement of a significant amount of peoples lives in Nebraska.

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

I asked you first - how is the populace going to deal with rising gasoline prices. I have presented documentation showing its predicted increase. Even if you follow historical trends it is going to go up significantly.

I will take market corrections over govt intervention anyday.

That is a statement of opinion.

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

Already provided. Please read the bottom of the entry two posts back.

Btw...No hard feelings but I am trying to get you to justify your positions with some sort of evidence. If you get upset or anything we can do the old 'agree to disagree' sort of thing. We also have strayed quite afar from the original topic but hey, I can keep this all day. Cheers.

[engrshock]

I am posting mainly to try and bring this back to the original subject.

It is my understanding that the data indicates that it is a fact that global temperatures have generally risen over the last century.

It is a fact that temperatures have went up and down historically and that at times the earth was much warmer and mush colder than it is today. Some in the evolution debate would probably question this fact since it is based upon faulty or unreliable sciences.

It is a fact that man is drawing and burning fossil fuels which places carbon back into the environment that was stored in the ground millions of years ago when the earth was warmer.

It is a fact that the warmer the earth is globally the more water vapor there is in the atmosphere. Water vapor is the predominant green house gas. Much of what mankind does increases water vapor in the air such as irrigation, dam building and farming. I do not see many questioning the use of irrigation for increasing food production.

Still, the major questions are:

What is the long term effects of a rise in global temperatures? Many have predicted flooding of coastal areas, droughts, floods, etc. but how mush of this is really going to happen? Could rising global temperatures actually prevent an ice age which would also be a bad thing? Is man causing the rise in global temperatures? Can anything be done about rising global temperatures? Should anything be done?

[ABC]

I provided plenty of justification and I did refute. You provided no evidence that the electrification would not have happened but for the REA. How do you know that rural areas of Nebraska and other places wouldn't have rec'd electrical service quicker if the marketplace, even that of a regulated utility, didn't have the interference of the REA?

The best you can do is the REA, really? No hard feelings, but can you provide a modern example? Can you reach close than 80 years ago to justify your believe in govt intervention in the marketplace?

I gave you a crystal clear answer re inflation. Markets work. How have we responded to inflation in the past? Did Nixon's price and wage controls work? No, facts are that markets do sort things out much better than the govt. The Fed Reserve has some ability to affect inflation with the money supply; otherwise govt intervention makes it worse. Are you old enough to remember the long gas lines during the Carter administration?

He instituted price controls and the supplies dropped. Thus, govt intervention made things worse, not better. This is a classic example that more than proves my point.

I am still waiting for your govt solution to inflation, prices and energy supplies.

I am sure you probably took Econ 101. Prices go up and demand goes down. We are already experiencing that with current gasoline prices.

You believe that larger govt is better than the market. I don't and I think the economic growth in the West and the US justifies my position.

To make is simple, just look at the differences b/t North and South Korea; East and West Germany; East Berlin, West Berlin. Chile and the rest of South America. The more economically free countries are, the better econonic growth and better health, life expectantcy, cleaner environment etc. Do you agree wtih that statement or not?

[SubGod22]

Global Warming is Cool

[Ixiah]

I provided plenty of justification and I did refute. You provided no evidence that the electrification would not have happened but for the REA. How do you know that rural areas of Nebraska and other places wouldn't have rec'd electrical service quicker if the marketplace, even that of a regulated utility, didn't have the interference of the REA?

I understand your desire to prove your point but take off the sunglasses. Your proof that I am 'wrong' is that rural areas would have gotten electricity without government assistance - i.e. the market would have done it.

I love your theory on how I am wrong. Electricity had been available for years in urban areas and only 10% of rural americans had electricity. Corporations even argued that providing electricity to rural areas was impractical because it wasn't profitable (sound familiar - you made the statement that rural electricity needing subsidies). But can you **really** say with a straight face that these same corporations would have completely changed their minds (out of the goodness of their heart and ignore the shareholders and profits) and provide it themselves. Now that is funny You know full well the act was responsible. If you want to think you 'won' then feel free to continue to delude yourself.

The best you can do is the REA, really? No hard feelings, but can you provide a modern example? Can you reach close than 80 years ago to justify your believe in govt intervention in the marketplace?

Certainly 8) Roll back the clock to 1980 and you will find the Hunt brothers were attempting to corner the silver market. They literally took delivery of massive amounts of silver and shipped it to Switzerland. The feds reacted to the market manipulation so there wouldn't be a shortage.

http://www.wallstraits.com/main/viewarticle.php?id=1298

I gave you a crystal clear answer re inflation. Markets work.

For most things I would agree.

How have we responded to inflation in the past? Did Nixon's price and wage controls work? No, facts are that markets do sort things out much better than the govt. The Fed Reserve has some ability to affect inflation with the money supply; otherwise govt intervention makes it worse. Are you old enough to remember the long gas lines during the Carter administration?

He instituted price controls and the supplies dropped. Thus, govt intervention made things worse, not better. This is a classic example that more than proves my point.

You ignore the fact that supplies will alway drop irregardless. This will always be true of finite resources that are consumed. As for the long lines - well I was pretty young. They definitely had them (they were all over t.v.) but it seemed pretty regionalized issues. I dont remember them being a problem here.

I am still waiting for your govt solution to inflation, prices and energy supplies.

Well, I think we need to think in the 'long term'. A resource that we use is going to be either cut off or prohibitively expensive in the future. The logical answer is to gradually switch to fuels that are readily available. Since coal, nuclear, and wind are converted readily into electricity then we should encourage its use over say natural gas and home heating oil. This could be done using something like a tax credit or a similar incentive. Please dont lecture on taxes - we have been using the tax law to reward / punish behaviors for decades.

As for vehicles - we are dependent on oil as there is no immediate replacement. Since this is the case research should be pursued with determination to find a low cost alternative so the switch from gasoline to another source at least started as soon as possible.

I love analogies - lets say I have a term paper and it is due at the end of the semester. Now I could wait until the last day to work on it but we all know what that causes. Anyone familiar with this? The 2AM keyboard typing? :whistle: Its far better to work on it some gradually throughout the year so the day its due things are not so 'involved'. Same thing applies here. We know there will come a day when oil will not be a practical resource. It is just good sense to start early on the switchover.

As for inflation - well the fed can help some and I'm sure they will. Some things can be done to help though:

Standardizing the standards (sounds silly but it is what it is) so that the states cant require so many blends is needed. Streamline the certification process so refineries are built. Switch back to the 55 MPH system on the roads which does save fuel.

I am sure you probably took Econ 101. Prices go up and demand goes down. We are already experiencing that with current gasoline prices.

Doesnt really work here. After all there are few true companies that we buy the oil from. Rather, they are state run (though others can invest). Its not like we can buy from Japan if we dont like Saudi Arabia's prices.

You believe that larger govt is better than the market.

Putting words in my mouth ....again. I have merely advocated very modest incentives and research be carried out for a switch that is inevitable. The only question is how painful it will be.

I don't and I think the economic growth in the West and the US justifies my position.

To make is simple, just look at the differences b/t North and South Korea; East and West Germany; East Berlin, West Berlin. Chile and the rest of South America. The more economically free countries are, the better econonic growth and better health, life expectantcy, cleaner environment etc. Do you agree wtih that statement or not?

Tough question. First, let me first say that I dont think polically free is necessary. South Korea was under a political dictator for some time during its growth spurt.

Okay, as far as the answer to your questions I would say mixed:

Economic growth - yes
Life expectency - probably unchanged initially
Cleaner enviornment - worse (initially)

China and perhaps America in the 1800's is a good example of this. Economic growth is going to jump - no doubt.

Life expectancy - some are going to have better healthcare and others are going to be left out. I think gradually it will improve though at a far slower rate.

Cleaner environment - this is clearly the opposite initially. One has only to look at all the poluted rivers in China which has more economic freedom then 20 years ago. Even in the United States we actually had one of our rivers (Cuyahoga River which drained into Lake Erie) caught fire because it was so poluted! As time goes along the government will reign in the business. So I would say free markets cause the environment to detiorate forcing government regulation.

[SubGod22]

Over 31,000 US Scientists say "… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate..."

[ABC]

Not sure how I missed the response to my point, but there is empirical data to support my position that the more economically free a country is, the more wealth, life expentancy, lower infant mortality, cleaner water etc.

There is really nothing to argue.

I will put together a summary and post sometime soon.

[wufan]

I am posting mainly to try and bring this back to the original subject.

It is my understanding that the data indicates that it is a fact that global temperatures have generally risen over the last century.

It is a fact that temperatures have went up and down historically and that at times the earth was much warmer and mush colder than it is today. Some in the evolution debate would probably question this fact since it is based upon faulty or unreliable sciences.

It is a fact that man is drawing and burning fossil fuels which places carbon back into the environment that was stored in the ground millions of years ago when the earth was warmer.

It is a fact that the warmer the earth is globally the more water vapor there is in the atmosphere. Water vapor is the predominant green house gas. Much of what mankind does increases water vapor in the air such as irrigation, dam building and farming. I do not see many questioning the use of irrigation for increasing food production.

Still, the major questions are:

What is the long term effects of a rise in global temperatures? Many have predicted flooding of coastal areas, droughts, floods, etc. but how mush of this is really going to happen? Could rising global temperatures actually prevent an ice age which would also be a bad thing? Is man causing the rise in global temperatures? Can anything be done about rising global temperatures? Should anything be done?

Stating that temperature has generally risen over the last cenutry isn't saying much. Temperatures have risen in some areas, but not others. In the last 20 years the change has become difficult to ascertain as the data from several thermometers was pulled from databases or they were removed all together if they showed a trend towards lower temperatures. I will however grant this as a likely possibility.

CO2 is a very minor green house gas. By regulating the amount of human output we do very little to the total amount (something like 6%). The reason CO2 became a recent concern is that there was a correlation between global heat and global CO2 levels. Some idiot assumed that as CO2 increases so does temperature. However, the truth is that as temperature rises so does CO2. Other scientists used this correlation to claculate artic temperature millinia ago. This showed that the Earth is much warmer now than any other time recorded. Problem is that CO2 breaks down when it is defrosted from the ice cores and a much smaller amount was shown to exist, i.e. they said the Earth was cold when in reality, whatever the temp was it was warmer than what they were saying.

The Kyoto conference used a third version of a scientific report on global warming that was signed by 99% of scientists on the committee. What they don't talk about is that 1/4 of scientists disagreed with the first version and they were kicked out. The paper was completely rewritten with a stonger political take, and again they booted the discenters. It was written a third time and got a near 100% approval from those remaining. Then, the leaders of the conference removed all of the evidence that contradicted man-made global warming and only left in the hard hitting stuff. This paper was given to left-wing politicians for policy recomendation.

My concern is that the public is being totally mislead and the governments of the world are making policy based on bad science boardering on fraud.

[rrshock]

I still don't think this is an issue. Especially with the number of scientists that don't believe it exists either. How do polar ice caps grow if the climate is getting warmer?

[SubGod22]

Al Gore's Epic Hypocrisy

[rrshock]

What a joke

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

People doing stuff like that will cause places to have to build new power plants. Using enough power for 232 average homes in a month.

Plus after having asked around about the Wind Generators, the government is requiring companies to put these in and they can't even be paid for. Without raising electricity rates that is. If they are able to be paid for, it will take more than 20 years to do so.

I think it's time to build either a new nuclear reactor or give in and let them build the coal plants with the cleaner technology.

I don't buy into this global warming stuff at all and I hope that after seeing what Gore has done, less and less people will too.

[SubGod22]

I don't buy into global warming but I'm all for other energy sources when they become cost efficient and can be used on a wide scale basis. But some of the "green" people like Gore trying to scare everyone into doing this stuff really annoys me. Especially when they don't practice what they preach. As I've read in previous articles, Gore is doing this to try and make a butt load of money for himself. That's all.

[RoyalShock]

I remember taking an Ecology class at WSU. We were required to read Gore's book "Earth in the Balance." I don't remember much from the book, just that I thought it was a pathetic attempt by the prof to further an agenda. The text book we used was far better.

[Maggie]

I have always viewed environmental alarmists with a skeptical eye and ask – what is their real agenda? Back in the day global cooling, not warming, was the fashionable doomsday scenario. Interestingly, I read some where that the planet has not actually been warming since around 1998 and that it may not pick up again until around 2015 or so. Since global warming is a long-term trend, a decade-long or more stall in temperatures doesn’t mean much — except that environmentalists have banked so much politically on whipping up hysteria based on imminent catastrophe. The stall in temperatures shows how little we know about global warming.

When they want to seem mainstream, anti-carbon crusaders insist that we must achieve “energy independence” to “end our addiction on Middle Eastern oil.” This makes it sound like their real motive is common sense or national security. "We’re not anti-oil, we just don’t want to fund our enemies." That sounds reasonable, and it is a legitimate position — it’s just not the one they actually hold.

If energy independence were their real goal, not only would oil, coal, and nuclear be on the table, but you would hear more lamentations about our “addiction” to Canadian oil — a bigger source than Saudi Arabia.

Instead we are treated to an endless stream of intellectual jibber-jabber and nonsensical arguments. We need to be energy independent, but we can’t use the energy sources we have. We need to switch to ethanol fast, but we can’t import cheaper ethanol from Brazil. We must increase gas taxes to wean ourselves from fossil fuels, but when gas prices go up for any other reason, it’s a crisis, even a crime. We’re told we’ll get nowhere drilling our way to independence or lower prices, as if windmills will do the job (stop laughing).

[SubGod22]

(stop laughing).

I can't




You are right on in my view.