quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard It's only cost prohibitive based on a very narrow view... the cost for fosil fuels is only going to rise as demand increases and supply stays finite. It would be a far better long term strategy to employ alternates where they are available thus protecting the resources for uses for which there are not presently alternates rather then face truly prohibitive costs when the fosil fuels (particularly oil) reach scarcity. Besides, investing in new technologies creates wealth in the long run as new technologies = new industries = new jobs. I won't even bother to get into the potential social costs that continued abuse of fosil fuels may cause. Alternate sorces of energy aren't enough to satisfy our need now; however, that can be corrected with adequate investment in research and development, implementation and conservation. Let's face it... we waste way too much energy, thus our demand is beyond what our real requirement is. Nuk power would fall into the catagory of an alternative to fosil fuels... and I'm in full support of it.

I don't disagree with your assessment, but with big business, they usually are remarkably short sighted when it comes to long term sustainability. There is still profit to be had in fossil fuel, so it's the avenue to persue. In their eyes, they have all the infrastructure up and running, working fine from an economic perspective, so why take on an additional cost? This is where responsible government's role is to step in an force industry's hand at changing. To represent the people in the greater economy, but I think it's becoming very apparent that the government is failing us in doing so.

___________________
Not Everyone Understands House Music, It's a Spiritual Thing, a Body Thing, a Soul Thing

quote:

Originally posted by Sly_Guy are remarkably short sighted when it comes to long term sustainability.

And therein lies the problem. Governments are too.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Sly_Guy I don't disagree with your assessment, but with big business, they usually are remarkably short sighted when it comes to long term sustainability. There is still profit to be had in fossil fuel, so it's the avenue to persue. In their eyes, they have all the infrastructure up and running, working fine from an economic perspective, so why take on an additional cost? This is where responsible government's role is to step in an force industry's hand at changing. To represent the people in the greater economy, but I think it's becoming very apparent that the government is failing us in doing so.

Indeed; however, it's measures like this that help to force industry to make changes.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis And therein lies the problem. Voters are too.

Fixed... since governments only do what will allow them to remain in government. Truth is we have too many short sighted people that are too concerned with their immediate finacial situation/tax burden to allow anyone with vision to incur the up front costs associated with trying to bring that vision into reality.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Fixed... since governments only do what will allow them to remain in government. Truth is we have too many short sighted people that are too concerned with their immediate finacial situation/tax burden to allow anyone with vision to incur the up front costs associated with trying to bring that vision into reality.

the strength of a society is found in the size and strength of it's middle class. Measures like this are more often than not going to be shouldered by the everyday consumer, who is already strained harder than it should. The only ways to solve that is by taxing industry and either setting costs from the government level [making us commies and therefore bumbling economic fools], or tax cuts for the paying populace, which none of us have faith will happen at 'revenue neutral'.

___________________
Not Everyone Understands House Music, It's a Spiritual Thing, a Body Thing, a Soul Thing

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis You are a complete and utter moron if you believe there is even the slightest bit of scientific doubt when it comes to the whole climate change issue.

Thank you for proving my point. It's impossible to have a rational debate with a person who takes this attitude.

quote:

To address your point and your charts - the first chart is about atmospheric CO2 levels, and yes, it's quite clear that they've gone up and almost certainly as a result of human action. Although I'd like to note for the record the scale of those graphs, which exaggerate the difference a great deal.

In any event, carbon dioxide levels are not what scientists debate about, and not what I'm debating about, so that chart is essentially a red herring. Moving on...

quote:

The second chart is just a more colourful version of the infamous "hockey stick" which has been so thoroughly debunked and admitted as misleading by even the most dedicated environmental scientists (except perhaps for David Suzuki). Some food for thought:

1. Once again, the scale exaggerates the magnitude, which is actually not statistically significant (the margin of error on modeled vs. real is almost as large as the actual temperature difference from year to year).

2. The chart begins at 1900 in spite of the fact that we actually have some temperature data dating back much farther. In particular, it ignores the well-documented Medieval Warm period which ended in the 15th century, followed by the Little Ice Age which ended in 1850. It's therefore no surprise that temperatures have gone up drastically because they had already gone down drastically. We're now in the warming part of the cycle. It's also worth pointing out that there was a transient period around the 1970s where temperatures were starting to drop heavily (remember scientists freaking out about a new ice age back then?), so again, it makes sense that in the past 30 years specifically, temperatures would have increased more than usual.

3. The chart ends at 1990. Which is very convenient, because the warming trend has not continued at all during the past 5-10 years.

4. The apparent correlation with CO2 emissions (which again, does not correlate so well during the past 5-10 years) is of course interesting and worth looking into - which we have been doing - but does not in and of itself prove causation. If it can be proven that the current warming is part of a natural cycle (and it has been - the current scientific debate focuses on the extent of the cycle and whether or not it fully accounts for the rise), then the correlation is effectively meaningless.

5. The average global temperature is in and of itself a questionable figure. Claiming that the average "global" temperature is rising faster than it should be is very much akin to claiming that the average length of people's first names is increasing too fast. Temperature and climate by their very nature aren't global, they are extremely localized, and if you're going to aggregate them into a single number then you have to be damn sure you're accounting for local phenomena (such as the heat island effect, which the hockey stick totally ignores), as well as the statistical uncertainty that results from aggregating data from many statistically-variant sources.

I could go on of course, but I don't think there's any point. I'll just end with this: you claim that one would have to be a moron to doubt that there's a scientific consensus, so I present you this petition, signed by 31,072 scientists, urging reconsideration of Kyoto citing a lack of scientific evidence.

But I'm sure they're all just right-wing industry shills. Anyone can get a Ph.D nowadays!

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard It would be a far better long term strategy to employ alternates where they are available thus protecting the resources for uses for which there are not presently alternates rather then face truly prohibitive costs when the fosil fuels (particularly oil) reach scarcity.

This is a much more reasonable argument, but as I stated before, on what evidence do you and others contend that we're just going to wake up one day and see fossil fuel prices skyrocket?

There's every reason to believe that prices will climb slowly and gradually and that alternatives will be put into place slowly and gradually. It's a natural equilibrium with economics and technological progress that we've seen demonstrated hundreds of times in the past. Hybrid cars have already become more popular and gone down in price. Electrical distribution and metering allow much finer control of demand and per-use billing. People are buying Compact Fluorescents left and right. Half of what you buy today is made out of recycled material.

People never seem to notice that society is improving itself with respect to the environment, and all without the government's help. The CPC hasn't done much because the CPC doesn't need to do much. There are enough incentives other than taxation to improve efficiency and reduce waste (as well as foreign oil dependency of course).

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Hippies should concentrate on preventing the destruction of forest and biomasses that liberate much more Carbon gas than burning fuel gazes.

But oh no, its much easier to annoy the honest citizen who's already strangled with all the taxes, fees and what not he has to endure.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by malek Hippies should concentrate on preventing the destruction of forest and biomasses that liberate much more Carbon gas than burning fuel gazes. But oh no, its much easier to annoy the honest citizen who's already strangled with all the taxes, fees and what not he has to endure.

fuck you people are ignorant.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis fuck you people are ignorant.

Do you even have any argument, other than to say that people who disagree with you are ignorant and/or stupid and/or wingnuts?

In almost every remotely controversial thread you post your little 15-words-or-less pearls of wisdom and start firing off insults at anybody who dares to say differently. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it's common sense not to go around trumpeting it when you're unable to back it up with logic and reason (not to mention facts).

There are plenty on this forum whom I disagree with, but I can usually count on getting something that's at least interesting or thought-provoking from them. With you it's just empty rhetoric and personal insults, sprinkled liberally with enviro-socialist buzzphrases like "carbon footprint".

You're constantly berating others as stupid and ignorant, but I'm starting to think you base most of your opinions on Star editorials and Rick Mercer rants. If you want to persuade people that you're right, then by all means, show us what you've got, but if your only defense is complete and utter contempt for your peers then maybe you should just keep your mouth shut and your hands off the keyboard.

Or don't. Continue your mudslinging unabated and see how many people are still listening to you in a few weeks.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis fuck you people are ignorant.

omg, you really hurt my feelings, i'll go drive my V6 3.0 for an hour or so to get my senses together

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]