Global Warming Has Leaders Underwater

[H-con]

But hey, that's why you have Cass Sunstein! To "nudge" people into conforming to big government policies! Especially now with the EPA able to regulate carbon! We're all going to be in sunshine and lollipop land business suffers, electricity rates skyrocket and the price of everything from food to cars becomes impossible for the regular joe to afford!

Completely ignoring the fact that we're now in a discussion about reducing our consumption of electricity. Sure, that will make the prices of electricity to skyrocket up.

EDIT: I googled it. It was done by the plastic industry. You know, the ones who can lose money if everyone stops using plastic bags. So of COURSE that's what they're going to say.

Seriously? Tells you a thing or two about the plastic-industry...

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Completely ignoring the fact that we're now in a discussion about reducing our consumption of electricity. Sure, that will make the prices of electricity to skyrocket up.

Fighting fire with fire.

Seriously? Tells you a thing or two about the plastic-industry...

I still don't understand why you don't advocate recycling bags. Bags CAN be recycled - it's all the other stuff like latex and polystyrene that can't really be effectively recycled.

 

[H-con]

Fighting fire with fire.

Fighting higher prices of electricity with cutting consumption of electricity ... makes sense. We couldn't, even if we would, just stop consuming fossil fuels. There is, however, a lot of potential energy that can be processed, and has a lot of potential. Cleaner too.

I still don't understand why you don't advocate recycling bags. Bags CAN be recycled - it's all the other stuff like latex and polystyrene that can't really be effectively recycled.

No, but the fact that the plastic industry would start a rumor that says "bacterias can be mixed and you could get sick" to promote their product. That's just wrong, in any sense. Spreading lies won't help anyone but yourself, and you might end up losing in the long run.

 

[Big Lutz]

No, but the fact that the plastic industry would start a rumor that says "bacterias can be mixed and you could get sick" to promote their product. That's just wrong, in any sense. Spreading lies won't help anyone but yourself, and you might end up losing in the long run.

Now see here is what is curious, is it a rumor? It was reported heavily when the study was first released which is why I picked it up and the payment by the plastic industry is troubling. That being said if it is true, then it should be explored, the only way that would be found out is if more research were done on it.

 

[H-con]

But I don't see how bacteria could even manage to even get there, if all the food is wrapped up. It would be a problem if you just carelessly put all your food unwrapped and mixed together. Then you could very well end up sick. That's not the purpose of the bag.
I just buy that argument against cloth-bags. And besides, you could at the very least grow them, unlike plastics created from oil. A resource that's not going to get more bountiful over the years. The area needed to grow them wouldn't really cut down on the food supply if real steps are taken, and really shouldn't be a problem.

More research should indeed be done about it. The cloth-bags we've been using has had no such problems however, but we don't use them that often (mostly because we forget about them, fail)

 

[Big Lutz]

But I don't see how bacteria could even manage to even get there, if all the food is wrapped up. It would be a problem if you just carelessly put all your food unwrapped and mixed together. Then you could very well end up sick. That's not the purpose of the bag.
I just buy that argument against cloth-bags. And besides, you could at the very least grow them, unlike plastics created from oil. A resource that's not going to get more bountiful over the years. The area needed to grow them wouldn't really cut down on the food supply if real steps are taken, and really shouldn't be a problem.

On the topic of how bacteria gets into there the answer really is quite easy, for example with meat the plastic wrap is not always completely secure over it, causing some of the blood and juices from the meat to leak out.

Or for example usually at a cash register the bagger tends to separate the food from other products you buy at the grocery store, specifically things like detergent which if you ever noticed some of say your dish or clothing detergent tends to collect a little bit on the under side of the box, this tends to happen while it is being shipped, or one of the boxes breaks open and gives the shelf in the store a nice coating.

Now normally when some one is bagging they tend to keep things like detergent separated from the food, or the meat only going with other closed containers. When you are reusing a bag over and over again, the person bagging has no idea what used to be in it, a bag that once contained meat or dish washing detergent could be used for fruits, etc etc.

 

[Nekusagi]

On the topic of how bacteria gets into there the answer really is quite easy, for example with meat the plastic wrap is not always completely secure over it, causing some of the blood and juices from the meat to leak out.

Or for example usually at a cash register the bagger tends to separate the food from other products you buy at the grocery store, specifically things like detergent which if you ever noticed some of say your dish or clothing detergent tends to collect a little bit on the under side of the box, this tends to happen while it is being shipped, or one of the boxes breaks open and gives the shelf in the store a nice coating.

Now normally when some one is bagging they tend to keep things like detergent separated from the food, or the meat only going with other closed containers. When you are reusing a bag over and over again, the person bagging has no idea what used to be in it, a bag that once contained meat or dish washing detergent could be used for fruits, etc etc.

Or people can, you know, stop being idiots and START TAKING FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY for their own actions, and WASH THEIR BAGS, maybe even label them with a sharpie. No, the bagger isn't gonna know if you have a meat bag or a veggie bag. That is YOUR JOB.

You're condemning cloth bags because of a few morons who don't use common sense you're already supposed to use around the kitchen (and said morons deserve that e. coli and salmonella- natural selection in action!). And making yourself look like an idiot in the process.

Hey, people who ride bikes are stupid sometimes and ride out in traffic and die! Let's discourage bikes! Clearly they are a risk to public health and safety!

 

[Eredar Warlock]

You're condemning cloth bags because of a few morons who don't use common sense you're already supposed to use around the kitchen (and said morons deserve that e. coli and salmonella- natural selection in action!). And making yourself look like an idiot in the process.

Hey, people who ride bikes are stupid sometimes and ride out in traffic and die! Let's discourage bikes! Clearly they are a risk to public health and safety!

That's how major product recalls happen. Because there are some people who don't have common sense and because people are sue-happy in this country.

 

[Big Lutz]

Or people can, you know, stop being idiots and START TAKING FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY for their own actions, and WASH THEIR BAGS, maybe even label them with a sharpie. No, the bagger isn't gonna know if you have a meat bag or a veggie bag. That is YOUR JOB.

No complaint there, but people are idiots and tend to not thing of such a thing, something I have maintained all along.

You're condemning cloth bags because of a few morons who don't use common sense you're already supposed to use around the kitchen (and said morons deserve that e. coli and salmonella- natural selection in action!). And making yourself look like an idiot in the process.

I condem people not cloth bags, it is not the cloth bags fault that people do not have the sense to wash them before and after they take them to the store.

Hey, people who ride bikes are stupid sometimes and ride out in traffic and die! Let's discourage bikes! Clearly they are a risk to public health and safety!

Actually to prevent that we encourage helmets in many places it is the law that you have to have a helmet on to prevent dying in case they ride out into traffic and get hit.

 

[Nekusagi]

No complaint there, but people are idiots and tend to not thing of such a thing, something I have maintained all along.



I condem people not cloth bags, it is not the cloth bags fault that people do not have the sense to wash them before and after they take them to the store.

..so why did you call reusable bags a bad idea that shouldn't be used?

Actually to prevent that we encourage helmets in many places it is the law that you have to have a helmet on to prevent dying in case they ride out into traffic and get hit.

Spoiler

My point

































Your head​

 

[Big Lutz]

..so why did you call reusable bags a bad idea that shouldn't be used?

Well lets revisit what I said:

Cloth bags are good, but they shouldn't be used for food shopping, as studies now coming out are now showing, that too many people who go food shopping with cloth bags forget to wash them out before and afterwards, causing bacteria to build up inside of the bag. Since most people are either too lazy or too stupid to realize that if you reuse a bag over and over again in which different types of food and juices and chemicals are leaking or rubbing off on the material, it is going to get you very very sick.

Notice I never said that they were a bad idea or that shouldn't be used period, I actually said they were good but shouldn't be used for food shopping due to the potential risk they pose to lazy people, stupid people, or people who do not clean them properly.

Personally I would find it better to use them strictly for non food related products at grocery stores, as well as possibly expanding their use to malls.

Now, if I was say childish, I would insert some snotty or dumb ass comment here, but meh.

 

[Phoenicks]

But if CO2 is one factor, increasing it would upset the balance.

That is of course, assuming that there is a constant balance that doesn't change.

Face it. Temperatures have changed throughout history. Co2 levels have changed throughout history. Without human intervention. Yet, Dinosaurs lived when Co2 and temperature levels were higher. Vikings could Farm in Greenland and much of the Sahara was a jungle with warmer temperatures. Evidence shows that humans perform better in warmer climates than in colder climates.

Let's see. When the lightbulb as we know it today was invented, it quickly made pretty much a monopoly on electric lighting. This didn't cause any improvement to it, and it's stuck as it is today, very inefficent at most uses (except some, which The Big Al mentioned, but those are exceptions).

And honestly, if you invest in a product that's so inefficent as the normal lightbulb is, then you're not a wise spender, at least not today. Investing in LED-lights would probably earn you much greater profits.

Then the free market works. People who make better choices are rewarded... better.

I was just mentioning the fact that you did the same thing, and complaining about it. Surely I have the same right as you do to do this?

Two 'wrongs' don't make a right.

Besides, I ignored specific points in your arguments where you spouted ideology about what we should do regarding lightbulbs and such. Much of it was ideas on what should be done, not actual arguments seeking debate. Even then, I addressed all or most of your points at one point or another.

On the other hand, you completely ignored my post where I cited several links that show the lack of Global Warming.

Do not dodge the fact that I showed sources that are dismissive of the leading research of Global Warming. It can only cause me to believe what I have posted.

The temperature-increase is very uneven, and has hit the poles harder. And that has caused a reduction in the polar ice.

As for reduction of temperatures, that would probably wary from chart to chart, as I've seen plenty of charts not agreeing with each other.

Here is something I'd like for everyone to see. It is another source showing the foolishness of man-made Global Warming. Be warned, the graphs in the picturs are very large:

J. Storrs Hall writes:

One thing that Climategate does is give us an opportunity to step back from the details of the AGW argument and say, maybe these are heat-of-the-moment stuff, and in the long run will look as silly as the Durants’ allergy to Eisenhower. And perhaps, if we can put climate arguments in perspective, it will allow us to put the much smaller nano arguments (pun intended) into perspective too.

So let’s look at some ice.

I’m looking at the temperature record as read from this central Greenland ice core. It gives us about as close as we can come to a direct, experimental measurement of temperature at that one spot for the past 50,000 years. As far as I know, the data are not adjusted according to any fancy computer climate model or anything else like that.

So what does it tell us about, say, the past 500 years? (the youngest datum is age=0.0951409 (thousand years before present) — perhaps younger snow doesn’t work so well?):

Spoiler

Well, whaddaya know — a hockey stick. In fact, the “blade” continues up in the 20th century at least another half a degree. But how long is the handle? How unprecedented is the current warming trend?

Spoiler

Yes, Virginia, there was a Medieval Warm Period, in central Greenland at any rate. But we knew that — that’s when the Vikings were naming it Greenland, after all. And the following Little Ice Age is what killed them off, and caused widespread crop failures (and the consequent burning of witches) across Europe. But was the MWP itself unusual?

Spoiler

Well, no — over the period of recorded history, the average temperature was about equal to the height of the MWP. Rises not only as high, but as rapid, as the current hockey stick blade have been the rule, not the exception.

Spoiler

In fact for the entire Holocene — the period over which, by some odd coincidence, humanity developed agriculture and civilization — the temperature has been higher than now, and the trend over the past 4000 years is a marked decline. From this perspective, it’s the LIA that was unusual, and the current warming trend simply represents a return to the mean. If it lasts.

Spoiler

From the perspective of the Holocene as a whole, our current hockeystick is beginning to look pretty dinky. By far the possibility I would worry about, if I were the worrying sort, would be the return to an ice age — since interglacials, over the past half million years or so, have tended to last only 10,000 years or so. And Ice ages are not conducive to agriculture.

Spoiler

… and ice ages have a better claim on being the natural state of Earth’s climate than interglacials. This next graph, for the longest period, we have to go to an Antarctic core (Vostok):

*********

In other words, we’re pretty lucky to be here during this rare, warm period in climate history. But the broader lesson is, climate doesn’t stand still. It doesn’t even stay on the relatively constrained range of the last 10,000 years for more than about 10,000 years at a time.

Does this mean that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas? No.

Does it mean that it isn’t warming? No.

Does it mean that we shouldn’t develop clean, efficient technology that gets its energy elsewhere than burning fossil fuels? Of course not. We should do all those things for many reasons — but there’s plenty of time to do them the right way, by developing nanotech. (There’s plenty of money, too, but it’s all going to climate science at the moment. ) And that will be a very good thing to have done if we do fall back into an ice age, believe me.

For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock.

Strawman. You're blowing this out of proportion. It's talk of banning an inefficient product.
Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Those are all 'inefficient products' too, by the standards that you're using. They all save money long-term, though they cost more up-front.

Naturally, it's because they're cheaper. But, in the long run, by saving more energy and lasting longer, you'd save money, no doubt. But Big Lutz raised a point, which I've responded to further below.

But that the government is actively trying to reduce the problem by causing more physical activity is unheard of. If they really want to help down the economy and cut obesity, they should help people get in motion and drive less car, and making more people bike would help against this.

I've listed three arguments for subsidizing bikes. If you count the "it costs money"-argument, you lack some points to prove that this really is a bad idea.

Allow people to live with the consequences of their actions. That is how you solve problems created by people. It was Ben Franklin who said: "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

However, H-con, I don't even know what point you're trying to make here. You have a plan, and that's fine, but it's not worth pointing out in a friendly way, then complaining about when no one treats it as an argument.

The natural carbon-sinks will stop absorbing CO2. You seem to think that all of a sudden, more CO2 would equal more plants. That's not how it works. More CO2 doesn't suddenly make more plants pop out.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V2/N4/EDIT.php

More Co2 means better plant growth along many metrics, H-con.

But the problem is that many countries are forced to export raw-materials whose prices are decided by us.
And, should we just watch and wait while the rain-forest is reduced to next to nothing when we have the option to intervene against it? It won't suddenly stop and regrow over a short period of time. If we don't act, we could lose it forever, and I don't think we can make that sacrifice.

What does this have to do with our government intervening in the problems of another country?

A cloth bag could be reused over and over again. You can't reuse a plastic bag over and over again. The quality simply doesn't allow that, as it would very soon tear. Paper bags can be recycled, and doesn't do as much harm to the environment by throwing it away as plastic, although that would not be acceptable behavior anyways. Such a ban would cause the industry to think about new solutions. It would cause innovation.

You're right, companies innovate around government regulations. But they innovate to keep doing what they were doing before, not to abide by the regulations.

The best example is with health care. During WWII, the government prevented companies from offering higher wages to get workers, in an attempt to prevent competition over workers (Note: We hardly hear about this 'problem', do we?). Instead, companies started offering expanded health care plans equivalent to the pay rises. They kept doing the same behavior. The government regulation prevented nothing.

The market innovates best in a free-market system. Such is the lesson of history.

You think private persons could actually do all of the things I listed? If i'm using beliefs, then so are you. Your fear of the government (because that's what it is), is really odd. The government supply you with roads and school amongst other things, doesn't it. Do you trust those?

It's not an issue of trust or fear in the government. It's an issue of what works. The free-market system works much better than the government-run systems (Or whatever you want to propose it, I'm using a general term here.).

For the record, private roads are better-maintained that government roads, and privately-run charter schools on average outperform government schools. Oops.

I already own a bike, so instead of actually purchasing a new one. At the current time, my income is too small to actually pay any tax, but in the future, I'd still think that this is a good idea.

Again, you're talking about spending other people's money for something that you think is nice.

H-Con, here is my problem with all of your arguments: You have turned away from Global Warming. In a thread focused on Global Warming, you turn away from the discussion on Global Warming to talk about what you think the government should do to solve various environmental concerns. They're all interconnected topics, but you keep advoiding the main point of discussion and fleeing to a conversation of ideologally. That's off-topic in my book.

Adding to H-con's point... Phoenicks, even you should know that every investment comes with risks. You can't just defend EVERYTHING simply because there's someone who invested in it. As an investor, they can stick with regular light bulbs or start investing in alternatives. It's kind of how those things go.

Government intervention is arbitrary and unpredictable. No one says when launching a product "Well, let's keep some money in the bank in case the government bans this product...". That line of thought is just...

 

[Dewgong Reign]

No, but the fact that the plastic industry would start a rumor that says "bacterias can be mixed and you could get sick" to promote their product. That's just wrong, in any sense. Spreading lies won't help anyone but yourself, and you might end up losing in the long run.

Spoiler

According to my mother, when we decieve others for our own personl gain... We make Jesus cry.

Unavoidable reference.

Anyway, I can't tell if that rumor is hilarious or disgusting. Because I know there were people who believed it. "Oh no, reusable bags can build up bacteria to make us sick, so the most logical choice is to throw away every bag we use immediatley!"

 

[Sheshi]

Spoiler

According to my mother, when we decieve others for our own personl gain... We make Jesus cry.

Unavoidable reference.

Anyway, I can't tell if that rumor is hilarious or disgusting. Because I know there were people who believed it. "Oh no, reusable bags can build up bacteria to make us sick, so the most logical choice is to throw away every bag we use immediatley!"

Dammit! Guess we're back to where we started

 

[H-con]

H-Con, here is my problem with all of your arguments: You have turned away from Global Warming. In a thread focused on Global Warming, you turn away from the discussion on Global Warming to talk about what you think the government should do to solve various environmental concerns. They're all interconnected topics, but you keep advoiding the main point of discussion and fleeing to a conversation of ideologally. That's off-topic in my book.

The point is that envrionmental issues are connected. Deforestation is connected to CO2-emissions, and thus adds to the theory of global warming. Plastic bafgs are made of oil, and you know what that means. Waste of resources put unnecessary strain on.. well, just about everything, and reducing this will help the environment in various ways. Like that bike-thing, that wasn't off-topic, as that would have reducing CO2-emissions as one of the key benefits, amongst other things- The point is that it's probable that you reduce CO2-emissions by doing many of these things. Like overfishing, not only does that kill the marine life, but all those fishing-boats aren't driven by the wind either.

It's not an issue of trust or fear in the government. It's an issue of what works. The free-market system works much better than the government-run systems (Or whatever you want to propose it, I'm using a general term here.).

For the record, private roads are better-maintained that government roads, and privately-run charter schools on average outperform government schools. Oops.

That private roads are usually better maintained than government roads is certainly depending from place to place. I've experienced horrible private roads and horrible public roads. Your point? As for charter-schools, you'd end up paying more. Money that many don't have. Both a completely state-owned economy and a totally free economy would both fail, I'm pretty sure about that. Greed will stop them both.

More Co2 means better plant growth along many metrics, H-con.

But does this mean more growth in nature? It would seem that many places, plants are being removed faster.
And plant-growth is dependent on many factors, not only CO2. Light, nutrition in the ground amongst other things. I find that a bold statement, to say the least.

The market innovates best in a free-market system. Such is the lesson of history.

Not to start a capitalism vs. government debate here, do not believe that I think the government should have total control over nearly every aspect of the economy. That would fail. I do think that a totally free market would fail too, so I think there's a golden line in between.

Allow people to live with the consequences of their actions. That is how you solve problems created by people. It was Ben Franklin who said: "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

However, H-con, I don't even know what point you're trying to make here. You have a plan, and that's fine, but it's not worth pointing out in a friendly way, then complaining about when no one treats it as an argument.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't in this case obesity in some cases caused by the price of more healthy food? (But being obese is obviously so much more greener than not being...) If the same was said about smoking, fine, but seeing this as one of the factors amongst other things, I don't really see a problem, as the program would work well even if people didn't get less fat. Anyways, this is somewhat straying off-topic.
I do think people should take responsibility for their own actions. But the government should help take the right choices, or at least make them easier.

Do not dodge the fact that I showed sources that are dismissive of the leading research of Global Warming. It can only cause me to believe what I have posted.

You don't believe in what you write yourself. I have seen evidence of global warming. You're using this climate-gate to say otherwise. I trust the scientists telling me that it's still reliable. That doesn't necessarily mean your graphs are less accurate, but I just believe more on the others.

What does this have to do with our government intervening in the problems of another country?

Because we cannot afford to lose the rainforest, if the progress continues as today, they will be reduced to a remnant of what they were earlier. The loss is nothing to be taken lightly.

Then the free market works. People who make better choices are rewarded... better.

But due to the regular light-bulb's total dominace of the market (due to lack of other technology), there was little need to actually improve the product. But if you think it's okay to waste energy, don't let it affect the rest of us.

One thing I dislike, is Christmas-lights, especially colored ones. In my opinion, they're ugly, and doesn't add any decoration at all. Plus, it uses a lot of electricity. Not needed, although a lot of people would probably disagree. I simply don't see any sense in making your house a glowing ... something.

Yesterday, prices of electricty sky-rocketed in all of Norway due to several reasons, like the cold period we're having right now. It went from around 0,5 NOK to 12 NOK between 16:00 and 18:00. That's a massive increase, although it wasn't exactly permanent.

Notice I never said that they were a bad idea or that shouldn't be used period, I actually said they were good but shouldn't be used for food shopping due to the potential risk they pose to lazy people, stupid people, or people who do not clean them properly.

Heck, I've never even thought of the possibility of something like this happening, so unreasonable is it too me. Maybe your packaging is worse over there, but I don't see any problems at all with using them to shop for food with. I don't even think we've even washed them once. And I certainly haven't died of anything nasty ... yet.

As for regular, non-food products, ban, ban, ban. Right now. Because you can't continue with the way we're seeing right now. It simply doesn't work in the long run. I've heard numbers of three billion plastic-bags are being used in China (although to be honest, I think it's less, but still damn much), every day. Now, the average consumption in Norway each year is one billion. Puts things in perspective. The point against plastic bags is that a very large portion of these end up in places they're not designed to be in. Like nature. Cloth bags would be at least somewhat biodegradable, and so could paper bags somewhat be too, although I wouldn't recommend throwing either away. The paper bags should be recycled, along with all the other paper that's thrown away.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't in this case obesity in some cases caused by the price of more healthy food? (But being obese is obviously so much more greener than not being...) If the same was said about smoking, fine, but seeing this as one of the factors amongst other things, I don't really see a problem, as the program would work well even if people didn't get less fat. Anyways, this is somewhat straying off-topic.
I do think people should take responsibility for their own actions. But the government should help take the right choices, or at least make them easier.

Save the planet! Ban steaks!

Seriously. Say that out here in cowboy country, and you'd be on the business end of a rifle.

You don't believe in what you write yourself. I have seen evidence of global warming. You're using this climate-gate to say otherwise. I trust the scientists telling me that it's still reliable. That doesn't necessarily mean your graphs are less accurate, but I just believe more on the others.

Doesn't that make your belief in it similar to a religion?

But due to the regular light-bulb's total dominace of the market (due to lack of other technology), there was little need to actually improve the product. But if you think it's okay to waste energy, don't let it affect the rest of us.

Ignoring the point I made earlier: It's not always in the budget of people to afford fluorescents.

One thing I dislike, is Christmas-lights, especially colored ones. In my opinion, they're ugly, and doesn't add any decoration at all. Plus, it uses a lot of electricity. Not needed, although a lot of people would probably disagree. I simply don't see any sense in making your house a glowing ... something.

Too bad. Nobody will change, and they'll never pass a law about it. And even if they did, it would never stand up in Constitutionality lawsuits. Traditions like this are nigh-impossible to change.

As for regular, non-food products, ban, ban, ban. Right now. Because you can't continue with the way we're seeing right now. It simply doesn't work in the long run. I've heard numbers of three billion plastic-bags are being used in China (although to be honest, I think it's less, but still damn much), every day. Now, the average consumption in Norway each year is one billion. Puts things in perspective. The point against plastic bags is that a very large portion of these end up in places they're not designed to be in. Like nature. Cloth bags would be at least somewhat biodegradable, and so could paper bags somewhat be too, although I wouldn't recommend throwing either away. The paper bags should be recycled, along with all the other paper that's thrown away.

No no no. Regular, non food products? What does that mean? No computers? No phones?

That's what we call a reduction in the standard of living. You will not get away with it in the political front.

 

[Phoenicks]

The point is that envrionmental issues are connected. Deforestation is connected to CO2-emissions, and thus adds to the theory of global warming. Plastic bafgs are made of oil, and you know what that means. Waste of resources put unnecessary strain on.. well, just about everything, and reducing this will help the environment in various ways. Like that bike-thing, that wasn't off-topic, as that would have reducing CO2-emissions as one of the key benefits, amongst other things- The point is that it's probable that you reduce CO2-emissions by doing many of these things. Like overfishing, not only does that kill the marine life, but all those fishing-boats aren't driven by the wind either.

I realize that all of the topics are interconnected (I even admitted it). My point is that you never respond to the arguments on Global Warming. You're responding to the Co2 arguments, which may or may not have a big impact on the environment. All of your arguments have started from this position of "Man-made Global Warming is real, and Co2 is a major cause of it". Yet instead of arguing over those beliefs, which are crucial to the purpose of this thread, you gloss over all of the proof used to disprove Global Warming and center on your ideological fight for whatever.

That private roads are usually better maintained than government roads is certainly depending from place to place. I've experienced horrible private roads and horrible public roads. Your point? As for charter-schools, you'd end up paying more. Money that many don't have. Both a completely state-owned economy and a totally free economy would both fail, I'm pretty sure about that. Greed will stop them both.

Charter schools cost less money than government-run schools. That is a fact, simply by the laws that are in place. You can not turn that around and claim "Well, I know that a free market approach to schools would cost more money that people don't have". We are not debating theory. We are debating facts.

But does this mean more growth in nature? It would seem that many places, plants are being removed faster.
And plant-growth is dependent on many factors, not only CO2. Light, nutrition in the ground amongst other things. I find that a bold statement, to say the least.

Assuming all other constants, more Co2 is More growth. Factoring in other variables to say "Saying that Co2 benefits plants is a bold statement because of other variables" is ridiculous.

Again I point to historical precedence of more Co2 in the atmosphere during periods with diversity in plantlife. The Dinosaurs lived in conditions estimated to have had up to 20 times the current amount of Co2.

Not to start a capitalism vs. government debate here, do not believe that I think the government should have total control over nearly every aspect of the economy. That would fail. I do think that a totally free market would fail too, so I think there's a golden line in between.

Of course, I with that. The question is where to place the line.

And that doesn't disprove my comment regarding lightbulbs.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't in this case obesity in some cases caused by the price of more healthy food? (But being obese is obviously so much more greener than not being...) If the same was said about smoking, fine, but seeing this as one of the factors amongst other things, I don't really see a problem, as the program would work well even if people didn't get less fat. Anyways, this is somewhat straying off-topic.

America is the world's only country with a large population of poor, obese people. Much of it has to do with cheaper foods being subsidized by the government also being unhealthy foods.

I do think people should take responsibility for their own actions. But the government should help take the right choices, or at least make them easier.

The government encouraging people to do what the government thinks is right leads to the government imposing it's values on the citizens.

You don't believe in what you write yourself. I have seen evidence of global warming. You're using this climate-gate to say otherwise. I trust the scientists telling me that it's still reliable. That doesn't necessarily mean your graphs are less accurate, but I just believe more on the others.

Many of the scientists you're still trusting... have been caught red-handed lying.

I'm not using Climategate to disprove Global Warming. I'm using it to disprove the IPCC data and the individual scientific reports supporting Global Warming that emerged from Climategate. I'm using completely different data, like proof of the Midieval Warming Period, to disprove Global Warming.

H-Con, you can't deny my graphs by saying "I trust the other scientists more". That is another dodge. You seem to refuse to debate the graphs or articles I post disproving the existence of Global Warming.

Even in this post I'm responding to, you have debated against everything except the graphs I show casting Global Warming in doubt.

Because we cannot afford to lose the rainforest, if the progress continues as today, they will be reduced to a remnant of what they were earlier. The loss is nothing to be taken lightly.

Okay then, I'll play along. How do you propose to stop the rainforest deforestation exactly?

But due to the regular light-bulb's total dominace of the market (due to lack of other technology), there was little need to actually improve the product. But if you think it's okay to waste energy, don't let it affect the rest of us.

Lightbulbs aren't made exclusively by one company; therefore, no monopoly. Lightbulbs have improved since their invention too.

Heck, I've never even thought of the possibility of something like this happening, so unreasonable is it too me. Maybe your packaging is worse over there, but I don't see any problems at all with using them to shop for food with. I don't even think we've even washed them once. And I certainly haven't died of anything nasty ... yet.

As for regular, non-food products, ban, ban, ban. Right now. Because you can't continue with the way we're seeing right now. It simply doesn't work in the long run. I've heard numbers of three billion plastic-bags are being used in China (although to be honest, I think it's less, but still damn much), every day. Now, the average consumption in Norway each year is one billion. Puts things in perspective. The point against plastic bags is that a very large portion of these end up in places they're not designed to be in. Like nature. Cloth bags would be at least somewhat biodegradable, and so could paper bags somewhat be too, although I wouldn't recommend throwing either away. The paper bags should be recycled, along with all the other paper that's thrown away.

Minor correction, you forgot to attribute that to Lutz.

H-Con, another question: Why do you think that these bags are so popular?

 

[Eredar Warlock]

I was going to post this in the Copenhagen thread, but decided it would be better here.

Apparently, the failure at Copenhagen has doomed any chance at Cap and Trade here in America.

 

[H-con]

No no no. Regular, non food products? What does that mean? No computers? No phones?

That's what we call a reduction in the standard of living. You will not get away with it in the political front.

A reduction in standard of living? What exactly are you talking about? I was talking about dropping the use of plastic bags on every thing that's not food.
And standards of living. I'm so sick of talking about reduction of "standards of living". I really doubt that buying that second phone would reduce the standards of living. Or buying two instead of one t-shirts when you already have enough.

Save the planet! Ban steaks!

Seriously. Say that out here in cowboy country, and you'd be on the business end of a rifle.

Heck, I love steaks as well, and I could never be a vegetarian, as I love meat. I'm willing to eat less meat though, as raising cattle takes massive amounts of water, corn, if fed by that or grass. And that's not even taking into the account of the methane released into the atmosphere.

Too bad. Nobody will change, and they'll never pass a law about it. And even if they did, it would never stand up in Constitutionality lawsuits. Traditions like this are nigh-impossible to change.

Traditions not really worth upholding shouldn't just continue. Note that this is my opinion on Christmas decorations. I just don't see any use or need of decorating your house with a lot of multi-colored lights that isn't even decorative and just uses electricity.

Many of the scientists you're still trusting... have been caught red-handed lying.

I don't think they're lying. So I don't have any reason not to believe them. So I don't really see the point here. I know you think they're lying, I don't think so. The debate would go on forever, so I don't find it necessary to continue it.

Again I point to historical precedence of more Co2 in the atmosphere during periods with diversity in plantlife. The Dinosaurs lived in conditions estimated to have had up to 20 times the current amount of Co2.

20 times? That certainly sounds ridicolusly much. That sounds like speculation to me, unless you show me a credible source.

Lightbulbs aren't made exclusively by one company; therefore, no monopoly. Lightbulbs have improved since their invention too.

A monopoly in electric lighting, not as a monopoly by one company. No real change have been done in energy-efficiency, as 95% waste of energy doesn't sound much as an improvement.

H-Con, another question: Why do you think that these bags are so popular?

Plastic bags? Or cloth bags? I'm gonna guess plastic bags. Because no-one has ever really bothered to invest in increasing production of cloth bags, as it would be harder to actually get people to use them. That doesn't mean it's any better using plastic bags. The reason if you use a bag correctly, you could potentially save more instead of buying (that's assuming they don't give them away, as some stores might do) new ones all the time.

The government encouraging people to do what the government thinks is right leads to the government imposing it's values on the citizens.

I don't see any set of value that really makes it acceptable to be obese and don't actually try to do something with it, either if you fail or not. You've at least tried. Or any set of value that allows waste of food, electricity and just about everything else.


And Phoenicks, I let the scientists do the proving. I don't find it necessary to continously post links and stuff, as we both know neither of us are going to change our minds. It would be a waste of time. What I care about is that a warming has happened in the polar-region, and that will affect us no matter what we think about man-made global warming (speaking of warming, I could use some right now, instead of the snow we've got...)

 

[Phoenicks]

Heck, I love steaks as well, and I could never be a vegetarian, as I love meat. I'm willing to eat less meat though, as raising cattle takes massive amounts of water, corn, if fed by that or grass. And that's not even taking into the account of the methane released into the atmosphere.

So let's see where you stand... You favor using other people's money to subsidize bikes and lightbulbs for the environment, and want to ban plastic bags used by other people, yet you don't want to stop eating steaks.

I don't think they're lying. So I don't have any reason not to believe them. So I don't really see the point here. I know you think they're lying, I don't think so. The debate would go on forever, so I don't find it necessary to continue it.

When I bring up a source that proves they're lying, and you don't challenge it, I can only assume that I'm right. When you don't respond, you're dodging the argument. This discussion is about Global Warming, and you refuse to talk about that. The entire point of this debate is to prove or disprove Man-made Global Warming. Every time I try to argue this, you say that the differences are irreconcilable and that the argument should be advoided. You refuse to acknowledge the other side of the debate because they might be right.

20 times? That certainly sounds ridicolusly much. That sounds like speculation to me, unless you show me a credible source.

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/what_will_happen_when_co2_levels_are_20_times_higher

However if you look futher in the past, you will find out, that the CO2 levels used to be very much higher. When the dinos came, the levels were 4-5 times higher than now. When multi-cellular organisms appeared 500 million years ago, the levels were even 20x higher than now!

My mistake, when multi-cellular organisms first formed.

The point still stands though: HIGHER Co2 levels are beneficial to the planet and to life.

A monopoly in electric lighting, not as a monopoly by one company. No real change have been done in energy-efficiency, as 95% waste of energy doesn't sound much as an improvement.

I'm not sure what definition of 'Monopoly' you're using:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Monopoly

Main Entry: mo·nop·o·ly
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly

Lightbulbs have not had a monopoly at lighting. They were the dominant form - because they were the most effective form.

I don't see any set of value that really makes it acceptable to be obese and don't actually try to do something with it, either if you fail or not. You've at least tried. Or any set of value that allows waste of food, electricity and just about everything else.

The whole point of more government control is that the government supposedly does things better, and that the people should be dependant on it. Dependancy.

And Phoenicks, I let the scientists do the proving. I don't find it necessary to continously post links and stuff, as we both know neither of us are going to change our minds. It would be a waste of time. What I care about is that a warming has happened in the polar-region, and that will affect us no matter what we think about man-made global warming (speaking of warming, I could use some right now, instead of the snow we've got...)

By that logic, this entire debate is a waste of time. I know that I'll never be able to get you to respond to my proof refuting man-made Global Warming.

The polar warming doesn't necessarily come from man.

And H-Con, if warming will affect no matter what we do, as you claim, then why is it the best solution to adopt measures like banning plastic bags or subsidizing bikes? Those are attempts at reducing our effects on the environment... While preventing us from adapting to the changes.