Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
You know, though I often disagree with you, jonessed, I think you're a very smart guy, and pretty reasonable on most issues. If there is to be movement on global warming, you're the sort of guy that needs to be convinced. You and others like you have to come to accept the science.
I'm all for ceasing all climate research and dumping all that money into basic materials and alternative energy research. If this is a given there is no need to continue this discipline. We should pour it all into the areas likely to generate a solution.
these comparisons are bad, and don't help the debate.
I don't want to help the debate.
Cute experiment related to this: When an education plan was pitched as "the Democrats' education plan," Democrats supported it 75%-17%, and Republicans opposed it 13%-78%. When the exact same plan was pitched as "the Republicans’ education plan," Democrats opposed it 80%-12% and Republicans supported it 70%-10%.
Didn't all your wonderful leaders just set a date 85 years into the future that fossil fuels will be eliminated?
You are the most horrible person on the planet. Just kidding, but that is o e of the worst posts ever, no kidding. Which is ashame because it was just after MT's post which provided some interesting points of discussion.
It's a meaningless experiment. You are given two vague options that are both equally appealing to most people and plausably supported by either party. The only revelatory piece of information is which party supports which. Of course you're going to side with whichever party you're aligned with.
Because gas prices has absolutely nothing do do with purchase and spend behaviour, right.
All you have to believe in is cause and effect to understand that humans contribute in some fashion to the course of warming/cooling. However, you have to know a HECK of a lot more than we currently do before we can realistically do anything about it.
I liked MTs post before reading the article, came away with the same impression.
It does not make the experiment meaningless though. It exposes how people might develop views of an issue before they really understand the issue.
The is always benefit to maintaining the status quo as it does not require changes which inherently have some costs associated with them. So it is easy being chicken little and run around with all kinds of scary scenarios which they really have no clue if it will actually happen.
Good morning. I did yes.
And by 'major' what did they mean? What there is consensus on is a pretty vague concept. Yes, temps are rising. Yes, man-made greenhouse gases are contributing. But there is no consensus on how much or what the impacts will be. And what little consensus that might exists on those topics are colored by computer models which we know are primitive in their understanding of global climate. Really, the impact of water vapor and the resulting types of cloud cover are such a huge unknown and driving factor that it is impossible to have any confidence in the accuracy of any of the predicted results. Does that put me in the denier "wrong" camp for stating facts and being skeptical with well-reasoned and informed opinions?
I would say yes it does.
Of course you would, but yet you have no idea and can not articulate what is wrong with anything I said.
How were they supposed to understand the issue? They were forced to choose between two plans based only on which party supports which plan. The question was designed to elicit the exact response it got.
If they drove 200 mpg I wouldn't. Then they would be a sensible consumer choice.Why do you hate trucks?
1. Show me somewhere where there is a large consensus of scientists who are convinced the consequences will be bad or catastrophic. Oceans rising might be an item there is consensus on, but I don't know that the consensus is that it will be catastrophic.
Link to the bolded? What exactly will the consequences be? Are there any positive consequences of climate change?
A consumer makes choices that are sensible to himself. Whether that's a hybrid or an Escalade.If they drove 200 mpg I wouldn't. Then they would be a sensible consumer choice.But nice dodge on the issueWhy do you hate trucks?
Remind me what was the issue? Most energy use is not impacted by increase costs. There is some discretionary use that will be impacted and if made painful enough will force people to seek alternatives. I am not sure if the surge in truck sales is due to lower gas prices or an improving economy. Probably I combination of both. My point was not that there was no impact to behavior, but the policy is largely ineffective and the cost is borne disproportionately to the middle class and poor. It will take a large increase in taxes to have a significant impact on behavior and will really put a squeeze on the poor. Minimal impact and lots of pain = bad policy.If they drove 200 mpg I wouldn't. Then they would be a sensible consumer choice.Why do you hate trucks?
But nice dodge on the issue
just curious, but what would you accept as proof?
Accurate predictions of future climate would be a real good start. They are good at explaining why their models were wrong.
The goal in California is to get 50% of our energy from renewable sources and cut oil use 50% by 2030.jon_mx, on 10 Jun 2015 - 03:30 AM, said:
Let's look at states who are doing 'something' . I just visited California and noticed how much higher gas prices are there. It appears the state has implemented a global warming tax on energy to help save the world. Of course the roads are still packed full and people are not driving less. So all they are really accomplishing is raising tax revenues in a way which disproportionately impacts the middle class and poor. But being against idiotic dishonest policies puts you in the 'denier' camp where you should be ridiculed and perhaps beheaded.
agree, and it bothers me when the "you can't prove it!" argument is made. if you can't give an example of evidence that would convince you, then you can't be convinced.
how? If you can be convinced, tell me what would convince you?
Is that a result of the taxes or is that a fad of the location? Seems like it is part of the mentality of Californians. You increase gas taxes in Missouri, there will not be a big rush to trade their pickups for a Prius.The goal in California is to get 50% of our energy from renewable sources and cut oil use 50% by 2030.jon_mx, on 10 Jun 2015 - 03:30 AM, said:
Let's look at states who are doing 'something' . I just visited California and noticed how much higher gas prices are there. It appears the state has implemented a global warming tax on energy to help save the world. Of course the roads are still packed full and people are not driving less. So all they are really accomplishing is raising tax revenues in a way which disproportionately impacts the middle class and poor. But being against idiotic dishonest policies puts you in the 'denier' camp where you should be ridiculed and perhaps beheaded.
The result of these gas taxes is that California buys more hybrid and electric cars than the rest of the country - California buys 1/2 of all electric cars, 1/4 of all Prius' and it's the best selling car in the state.
Poor people don't drive the numbers for SUVs sales up. So that is not really applicableRemind me what was the issue? Most energy use is not impacted by increase costs. There is some discretionary use that will be impacted and if made painful enough will force people to seek alternatives. I am not sure if the surge in truck sales is due to lower gas prices or an improving economy. Probably I combination of both. My point was not that there was no impact to behavior, but the policy is largely ineffective and the cost is borne disproportionately to the middle class and poor. It will take a large increase in taxes to have a significant impact on behavior and will really put a squeeze on the poor. Minimal impact and lots of pain = bad policy.If they drove 200 mpg I wouldn't. Then they would be a sensible consumer choice.Why do you hate trucks?
But nice dodge on the issue
Bunch of factors IMO:Is that a result of the taxes or is that a fad of the location? Seems like it is part of the mentality of Californians. You increase gas taxes in Missouri, there will not be a big rush to trade their pickups for a Prius.The goal in California is to get 50% of our energy from renewable sources and cut oil use 50% by 2030.jon_mx, on 10 Jun 2015 - 03:30 AM, said:
Let's look at states who are doing 'something' . I just visited California and noticed how much higher gas prices are there. It appears the state has implemented a global warming tax on energy to help save the world. Of course the roads are still packed full and people are not driving less. So all they are really accomplishing is raising tax revenues in a way which disproportionately impacts the middle class and poor. But being against idiotic dishonest policies puts you in the 'denier' camp where you should be ridiculed and perhaps beheaded.
The result of these gas taxes is that California buys more hybrid and electric cars than the rest of the country - California buys 1/2 of all electric cars, 1/4 of all Prius' and it's the best selling car in the state.
yep. And someone asked, wait, what about the measurements from 1890? Were they accurate?
didn't the state of Massachusetts put a Republican in the Senate in the hopes of stopping Obamneycare?
The consensus of the temperature measurement datasets still support the pause. NOAAs latest "adjustments' make them an outlier...
'Murica!Bunch of factors IMO:Is that a result of the taxes or is that a fad of the location? Seems like it is part of the mentality of Californians. You increase gas taxes in Missouri, there will not be a big rush to trade their pickups for a Prius.The goal in California is to get 50% of our energy from renewable sources and cut oil use 50% by 2030.jon_mx, on 10 Jun 2015 - 03:30 AM, said:
Let's look at states who are doing 'something' . I just visited California and noticed how much higher gas prices are there. It appears the state has implemented a global warming tax on energy to help save the world. Of course the roads are still packed full and people are not driving less. So all they are really accomplishing is raising tax revenues in a way which disproportionately impacts the middle class and poor. But being against idiotic dishonest policies puts you in the 'denier' camp where you should be ridiculed and perhaps beheaded.
The result of these gas taxes is that California buys more hybrid and electric cars than the rest of the country - California buys 1/2 of all electric cars, 1/4 of all Prius' and it's the best selling car in the state.
- higher gas prices
- people have long commutes
- large tax incentives to buy hybrids
- car pool access even with one person in the car
and finally,
- an attitude that respects people for driving environmentally friendly cars
Difficult to say which is the most important factor but you certainly won't get laughed at for buying a Prius here like you might in some other areas.
I find it hard to believe they have been knowingly using flawed data all this time and now that they have altered the raw data all the models are honky-dory.
Sounds like how a high school experiment is conducted. The data does not look good, so you come up with an excuse and adjust your data. Of course this is the second explanation, the first one had to do with all the increase getting absorbed by the oceans. I guess that spin was not effective enough, so it is time to fudge the data a bit.
It is a legitimate concern with the data set. If we are having difficulty measuring global temperature today with access to so much more data and vastly improved technology, what kind of confidence can we have in that data? It seems like the old data would be ripe for manipulations and thus was born the infamous hockey stick graph which was made to perfectly match the theory. Today's data does not match so well.
Like the definition of porn, I'll know it when I see it. That doesn't mean it won't ever happen, it means I have yet to see anything that looks like proof.
