I’m pretty dead set against things like carbon tax, but I’m all for finding cleaner ways of producing energy (and efficiently). These are things that will have tangible financial and environmental benefits. Can’t forget human nature, if you tell everyone to drive a Prius (also a green scam) it’s not likely everyone will.[/quote]
Carbon tax, which includes such things as a tax on bovine flatulence is the main weapon in the arsenal of the eco-statist. True to their totalitarian roots the environmental Marxists have moulded the EPA into an oppressive regime that obstructs the private sector(especially energy and forestry), funnels billions of taxpayers’ money into phoney green corporations, forces people into progressively smaller and more dangerous vehicles and issues edicts on what kind of lightbulbs consumers must use, how much water their toilet is allowed to have and what they have to do with the puddle on their property to avoid a fine/tax etc. The eco-statists see this as a means of undermining the civil society and furthering their radical collectivist agenda. They overwhelm the citizen with regulations and annihilate his will with an army of bureaucrats.
'Ideologues insist that the world’s top scientists have reached a “consensus” that most of the warming which land-based weather stations have recorded in the last century is due to human activity. The basis for this claim is a set of reports published by the IPCC, an agency of the United Nations. The assumption is that the government-appointed representatives who run the IPCC would be completely objective and neutral, and would place finding and revealing the truth ahead of any nationalistic interests.
One of the major problems with many scientists’ conclusions about climate change is a misunderstanding of correlation versus causation. Some studies show correlations between increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and increasing precipitation, and between human activity and atmospheric greenhouse gases, and then go so far as to conclude that humans are causing increased rain, snow, and catastrophic flooding. Correlation does not imply causation. This is especially true considering the relatively short periods of data used (a few decades at most) compared to the Earth’s age, and the fact that weather patterns have been cyclic throughout history.
I’m pretty dead set against things like carbon tax, but I’m all for finding cleaner ways of producing energy (and efficiently). These are things that will have tangible financial and environmental benefits. Can’t forget human nature, if you tell everyone to drive a Prius (also a green scam) it’s not likely everyone will.[/quote]
Carbon tax, which includes such things as a tax on bovine flatulence is the main weapon in the arsenal of the eco-statist. True to their totalitarian roots the environmental Marxists have moulded the EPA into an oppressive regime that obstructs the private sector(especially energy and forestry), funnels billions of taxpayers’ money into phoney green corporations, forces people into progressively smaller and more dangerous vehicles and issues edicts on what kind of lightbulbs consumers must use, how much water their toilet is allowed to have and what they have to do with the puddle on their property to avoid a fine/tax etc. The eco-statists see this as a means of undermining the civil society and furthering their radical collectivist agenda. They overwhelm the citizen with regulations and annihilate his will with an army of bureaucrats.[/quote]
Carbon Tax as it stands in Australia (where I am living now) is a testament to the stupidity of politicians (protip: don’t vote for gingers), nothing more. You’re making it out to be more sinister than it really is.
Carbon Tax as it stands in Australia (where I am living now) is a testament to the stupidity of politicians (protip: don’t vote for gingers), nothing more. You’re making it out to be more sinister than it really is.[/quote]
The Greens party is full of dangerous radicals and former Soviet spies/provocateurs like Lee Rhiannon. Labor’s alliance with the Greens represents a serious threat to society and individual liberty as can be observed in the carbon tax, mining taxes in WA, illegal migrant policy etc.
Being a car guy, I am more than happy to assist you in your quest.
'69 Camaro is kind of generic. Are you looking for an original/ restored, numbers matching car, or like a ‘resto-mod’ where it keeps the look of the old, but drives new?
The former is really, really expensive, the latter still expensive, but easier to get.
Muscle cars, unfortunately, are at a premium right now. Prices have jumped 20,000% (literally) in the last 10 years. [/quote]
I am going to do this as a resto-mod car. It will be easier and take less time then a completely original, numbers matching car. I haven’t done much planning on it yet though. I don’t think I will be able to start until next summer though, what with the wedding coming up and all.[/quote]
Oh yeah, but it’s never too early to start planning though. I’d start with the kind of stance, foot print you want the car to have.
Are you looking at cars that look like what you want? I am all a-twitter. I love this shit. Going for a modest 396 or we going big, like a nice 455…Nice 6 speed tranny, Recaro seats, love the cowl induction hood look, sitin’ nice and low, exaggerated front clip with supports, slightly oversized rear spoiler.
If you’re going for high horse or forced induction you probably want lower ratio rear end otherwise you’ll just sit there and spin the tires…
Sorry, rambling… I just wish I could do that…Damn Kids, I could be driving a Bentley if it weren’t for them. And they always want shit.
Oh get a convertable! Pleeeeease?
[/quote]
I’ll e-mail you some of my thoughts later and we can discuss some things. This is going to be my first car so I am very excited about it.
[/quote]
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I will say this. It is borderline retarded to think that all the pollution we are creating isn’t have some kind of negative effect on the environment. [/quote]
If the world had ignored the ozone problem in 1987, we would have a very dismal ozone layer by now. We would have massively increased the incidence of skin cancer, and it could have all been avoided.
There were people back then who heavily doubted the data too, but the world wasn’t as polarized as it is now. The world came to an agreement, and we solved the problem.
There is overwhelming evidence that humans have caused the recent warming, and the effects could be catastrophic.
Yet, some people still believe that they are at the center of the universe. That this world moves because of them. Yet, this world does not need us. It has been here before us, and it will be here after we are gone. Those who practice such egoism have been proved wrong time after time, century after century.
[quote]D Public wrote:
If the world had ignored the ozone problem in 1987, we would have a very dismal ozone layer by now. We would have massively increased the incidence of skin cancer, and it could have all been avoided.
There were people back then who heavily doubted the data too, but the world wasn’t as polarized as it is now. The world came to an agreement, and we solved the problem.
There is overwhelming evidence that humans have caused the recent warming, and the effects could be catastrophic.
Yet, some people still believe that they are at the center of the universe. That this world moves because of them. Yet, this world does not need us. It has been here before us, and it will be here after we are gone. Those who practice such egoism have been proved wrong time after time, century after century.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t bother if I were you. You will get a lot of quotes from people saying that there are flaws in the studies and whatnot, but despite repeated attempts on my part to get them to provide actual references to where these people actually refuted, or even published a professional criticism, any single study, all I got was more quotes stating there were flaws and one excerpt from Conservipedia, most definitely non biased, right? that showed a profound misunderstanding of how scientific studies work and how a consensus is reached. I even looked into the research of several of the people being quoted as dissenters and most of them have done no research into climate change at all, and the one who did has published several articles on how climate change will affect India, and none refuting AGW.
It’s common to see people on this forum ignore evidence that doesn’t mesh with their worldview. They will start with a desired conclusion and only accept supporting evidence while actively ignoring the bulk of data.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
It’s common to see people on this forum ignore evidence that doesn’t mesh with their worldview. They will start with a desired conclusion and only accept supporting evidence while actively ignoring the bulk of data.[/quote]
Wow, I’m shocked that you’ve just now figured that out. Have you ever seen even one person change their mind based on a message board debate?
I wouldn’t bother if I were you. You will get a lot of quotes from people saying that there are flaws in the studies and whatnot, but despite repeated attempts on my part to get them to provide actual references to where these people actually refuted, or even published a professional criticism, any single study, all I got was more quotes stating there were flaws and one excerpt from Conservipedia,
[/quote]
Perhaps you missed my previous response: “…Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar is a former Research Scientist from Environment Canada where he worked for about 25 years. Khandekar holds M.Sc degree in Statistics from India and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Meteorology from USA. Khandekar has been in the fields of atmosphere/ ocean/climate for over 50 years and has published over 125 papers, reports, book reviews, scientific commentaries etc.”
The quote from conservapedia was not proffered as evidence of anything. Merely an accurate description of the ‘consensus’ debate.
How about 1100+ published and peer reviewed papers?
It is certain that the industrialization of production has added carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. It is certain that the amount of heat in a sunlit system increases with the concentration of carbon dioxide therein.
It is not certain that the two facts (and they are facts) above are responsible for any climatic or temperature trends in the last century.
But it would make sense. And I’m not saying we should panic or stop using gasoline. But it would certainly be smart, in the long run, to assume that our actions have consequences.
I wouldn’t bother if I were you. You will get a lot of quotes from people saying that there are flaws in the studies and whatnot, but despite repeated attempts on my part to get them to provide actual references to where these people actually refuted, or even published a professional criticism, any single study, all I got was more quotes stating there were flaws and one excerpt from Conservipedia,
[/quote]
Perhaps you missed my previous response: “…Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar is a former Research Scientist from Environment Canada where he worked for about 25 years. Khandekar holds M.Sc degree in Statistics from India and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Meteorology from USA. Khandekar has been in the fields of atmosphere/ ocean/climate for over 50 years and has published over 125 papers, reports, book reviews, scientific commentaries etc.”
The quote from conservapedia was not proffered as evidence of anything. Merely an accurate description of the ‘consensus’ debate.
How about 1100+ published and peer reviewed papers?
I looked into Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar and could not find a single piece of work by him that refuted AGW. In fact, the newest published piece of work from him that I could find was from 2008, which dealt with how climate change would affect India, which makes hi opinion on the matter worthless.
As for your list of peer reviewed work, I will look into a few of them, starting with Sherwood Idso, since he is the most prominent skeptic out there, here is the actual study he did that “refuted” AGW: http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10//c010p069.pdf
I will read through the whole thing later, but just skimming through and reading his conclusion (pg. 76) left some big takeaways:
-There is no controversy surrounding the claim that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are on the rise; direct measurements demonstrate that fact.
-The basic concept of the greenhouse effect is also not in question; rising carbon dioxide concentrations, in and of themselves, clearly enhance the thermal blanketing properties of the atmosphere.
-What is debatable, however, is the magnitude of any warming that might result from a rise in the airâ??s CO2 concentration.
He then goes on to talk about how the methods for approximating the increase in temperature of the Earth are very rough at best and talks about the experiments he performed and how he figures a .4 C increase in the Earth’s temperature as compared to the 1.2-2 C value most commonly stated.
So, this study which is one of the most commonly quoted, done by a very prominent skeptic states that:
Increase in atmospheric CO2 levels cause a rise in global temperature, and there is no controversy over whether or not humans are causing that, at least to a good extent.
IF things happen just the way he says (I haven’t read through all his experiments, but I will) we are looking at an average increase of .4 C, about 30% of the most common quote from increasing atmospheric CO2 levels to 600 ppm.
In other words, it will just take a little bit longer, and take possibly higher CO2 concentrations to get to the really bad effects of global warming. So, since it MAY take a little longer, let’s not worry about it, right? After all, why worry about it now when we can continue to contribute to the problem and leave it to future generations? I personally believe that it is better to confront problems before they become crises.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
since it MAY take a little longer, let’s not worry about it, right? After all, why worry about it now when we can continue to contribute to the problem and leave it to future generations? I personally believe that it is better to confront problems before they become crises.
[/quote]
Well at least you read it. I’m not claiming to be providing proof that AGW doesn’t exist. I’m just extremely sceptical of the science. And I don’t have any problem with the private sector developing ways of reducing CO2. But the government shouldn’t be involved.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I will say this. It is borderline retarded to think that all the pollution we are creating isn’t have some kind of negative effect on the environment. [/quote]
Negative is a value judgment.
It is what it is.
[/quote]
Logical or not, this kind of nihilism is, in practice, dangerous and stupid and destructive.
A bullet in your head is neither negative nor positive…it is, as you say, just what it is. But I doubt you’d let me put one there without some protest.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I will say this. It is borderline retarded to think that all the pollution we are creating isn’t have some kind of negative effect on the environment. [/quote]
Negative is a value judgment.
It is what it is.
[/quote]
Logical or not, this kind of nihilism is, in practice, dangerous and stupid and destructive.
A bullet in your head is neither negative nor positive…it is, as you say, just what it is. But I doubt you’d let me put one there without some protest.[/quote]
That very special bullet lets our plants grow faster and may very well be the part of the reason why yields are rising and rising and rising, meaning, less people starve.
Also, even if more Co2 causes global warming and even if it causes most of it most people do not die of a heatstroke, if they die of temperature extremes at all, they die of extreme cold.
So, I would be rather reluctant to call that all an unmitigated disaster.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m just extremely sceptical of the science. [/quote]
Why?
[/quote]
For starters the fact that scientists predicted an imminent ice age in 70’s, climategate I and II, billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money blown on phony green jobs/corporations, the fact that global warming became ‘climate change’ to accommodate the cold weather. And because I can clearly see where climate scientists are confusing correlation and cause. Then there’s the industry itself - whackos and alarmists, corporate green cronies, radical nuts being given tenure or appointed to the EPA(or the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency in my case) etc.
It is true that the temperature of our planet tends to follow a pattern of warming and cooling.
Aprox 11,000 yrs ago we exited out of a glacial period and entered into a more temperate inter glacial period that is called the Holocene. Throughout this period, we have gone from hunter-gatherers to a highly civilized society. It has been a highly optimal environment for us to evolve as a species.
Here is a graph of estimated temperatures during the Holocene.
this one is a close up of the last 2000 yrs
Now I won’t argue whether the earth has been hotter millions of yrs ago. It doesn’t really matter. The point is that we developed our society in an optimal temperature, and it appears that we are straying away from that temperature.
Now all the science points that the temperature rise is not due to the sun emitting more radiation.
So, if it is not the sun it must be the atmosphere.
an example to help you understand…We know that Venus is hotter than Mercury. So, how can that be if mercury is closer to the sun. Well Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere comprising mainly of Carbon Dioxide which traps tremendous amounts of heat. It is clear that atmosphere has a profound effect on temperature.
And, we also already know that certain particles can alter the atmosphere of our planet in an immediate way.
In 1991, the climate was significantly altered when mt pinatubo erupted and spewed millions of tons of ash into the atmosphere which reduced the amount of visible light that could enter our atmosphere. It caused a noticeable cooling effect on the planet.
It is very possible that if a tremendous amount of CO2 where to be released all at once, it could have a similar effect but in terms of warming rather than cooling.
Well ever since we stopped burning trees for fuel that is essentially what we have been doing. We’ve been using carbon that is millions of yrs old and burning it all at once. This happens to preside with a very sharp rise in temperature.
