Say Anything Blog

I’ll just bet that we can all thank Al Gore for the sterling example he set. Anybody? Anybody??

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

We’d probably be under the Kyoto target if 1) The enviroweenies didn’t block nuclear power plants. 2) and tards like Gore put their lifestyles where their mouths are.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

The only workable solution is one that encourages changes in behavior and for-profit development of solutions that won’t cause a loss in living standard.

It can’t be forced and it can’t be government controlled.

Strange the the markets have consistently changed behaviors when people are trusted to do what is right (Kathy Gifford and her sweat shops are one example).  It is not in a company’s best interests to be known as a big polluter.  Just look at the BP, Shell, Conoco, etc ads on TV.

But that is not what CO2 controls are really all about anyway.  As we discussed on Rob’s post, “Environmentalism is Socialism,” it is all about control and redistribution.
DKK

Somebody (I think Hoss) already commented on this in another thread.  (Couldn’t immediately locate it; it may be a victim of the comment eater bug.)

We actually have data though 2006.  .Here’s a link to the latest for the United States. It’s actually decreased by about 2% in 2006 (don’t worry it still increased by about 1% in Europe over the same interval).

The only workable solution is one that encourages changes in behavior and for-profit development of solutions that won’t cause a loss in living standard.

Why do we need changes in behavior? Why not just keep things as they are? The whole thing is just a communist conspiracy anyway isn’t it?

Socialist:

Why do we need changes in behavior? Why not just keep things as they are?

Because things change, son.  Constancy is an illusion.

Not that I believe it is your capacity to understand but the govenrnment needs to take away impediments to development.  There is every benefit to society from doing things in a more efficient way.

Get the government and enviroweenies out of the way and things should progress nicely. 

I think petroleum is going to continue to be expensive.  The market will find a way.

The biggest thing we can do to cut carbon emission would be to build nuclear power plants.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Carbon taxes are just the latest version of the BTU taxes Clinton/Gore tried in the early eighties.
It’s all an attack on Capitalism.

Before you say that we are doing better than average, why don’t you look into how much the average American produces compared to the rest of the world.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Lestat: By “produces”, you must mean prosperity, right?
In that respect, we outproduce the world.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Before you say that we are doing better than average, why don’t you look into how much the average American produces compared to the rest of the world.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Actually, compared to the rest of the world, the US produces 10x as much. Add to that the fact that everyone else is increasing their pollution faster than us...and we’re the frigging best friends the world has.

No my point is that Whistler is using statistics to lie, but that is what conservatives do.

The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world’s population, accounts for 21 percent of carbon emissions. (http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/CO2/2006.htm)

However, what is rarely mentioned is that the US produces 21% of the worlds food (http://www.fas.usda.gov/wap/current/toc.asp) and (if you include the green revolution) are responsible up to 60% of the worlds total food production.

The US also creates 27% of the worlds annual wealth (2006 world GDP figures). That is money spent worldwide that people earn to feed and clothe their families that they wouldn’t have if it wasn’t created here(and don’t even start the argument between the haves and the have-nots. Wealth is not a zero sum game where one looses when another wins.)

So, it would appear to be an effective use of the extra greenhouse gases.  Drop the amount we use and risk reducing the food produced that helps feed the world.

When you realize that we produce so much of the worlds food and wealth it puts that little canard of using 25% of the worlds resources or produce 21% of the greenhouse gases for only 5% of the worlds population in a VERY different light.
DKK

LT: Not to mention the fact that there is no proof that human-produced CO2 is the source of any problems whatsoever.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Add to that the fact that everyone else is increasing their pollution faster than us…

CO2 is not “pollution”.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I think Lestat’s point is he doesn’t understand math.  That’s what liberals “don’t”.

If you look at CO2, it tracks with economic productivity. The more productive you are, the more CO2 you produce.  If you look at technological development, the more developed you are, the less CO2 you produce for the same given economic output.  The simplest way to properly normalize it is to divide CO2 production by unit GDP (called “CO2 intensity"): 

The only way the US can cut back significantly on its CO2 production is to either improve its technology (helped by investment in CO2 research) or by cutting back on its economic productivity.

And those are the facts.

Dividing CO2 production by per capita is something people do who don’t understand numbers and where they come from.

One other thing I wanted to point out, is just how infrequently people like Lestat ever stick up for their country.  I mean, don’t you think once in a while, we’d be in the right?

As long as it’s hip to bash the US (and you know how liberals like to look hip), don’t expect to see Lestat or any of his brethren to ever waste a breath defending our country against any critic.

CO2 is not “pollution”.

Let’s assume, just for a moment, that it is. (Just for the sheer argumentative value of it.) If CO2 is pollution, then the US is one of the countries that is doing their best to reduce it while every other country in the world is ignoring Kyoto and damn near doubling their CO2 output.

My original point stands. We are increasing our CO2 output at the lowest rate in the world and yet outperforming everyone. We are the world’s best friends.

Even Socialist seems to have adopted a more moderate tone--we’ll take it as a good sign.

I really have to question the rationality of people that think we should live in the stone age (say drop our per capita income to North Korea levels) while ignoring the fact that China is the worlds biggest carbon emitter.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Whistler, they are just playing into the hands of countries who are trying to get an economic advantage on us by constraining our economic growth.  If they can’t beat us fair, it wouldn’t hurt their feelings to beat us by cheating

And once again, almost every single liberal in this country is on their side.

Kenny your point definitely holds.  We are actually expanding our economy and decreasing our CO2 production simultaneously.  China sure isn’t doing that. Neither are the nanny-staters in Europe.

Useful idiots.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

CO2 is not “pollution”.

Let’s assume, just for a moment, that it is. (Just for the sheer argumentative value of it.)

CO2 is NOT pollution.  It is a greenhouse gas. I know what you’re getting that, but even though anthropogenic CO2 is probably responsible for climate change shouldn’t be considered pollution

I really have to question the rationality of people that think we should live in the stone age

Who suggests that? If anything, advances in technology will be what saves us.  More development of alternative energy sources is needed.  I know alot of you feel nuclear power is the solution, but it has its drawbacks as well.  Some combination of nuclear, wind, solar, combustion, and other sources would probably be the best solution. 
Even if you don’t believe in global warming, you have to realize that eventually we’re going to run out of natural resources to burn, and if our country wants to remain prosperous, we need to develop new energy sources

...but even though anthropogenic CO2 is probably responsible for climate change…

Two things: First, it’s strictly an hypothesis; it might be remotely possible, but certainly not probable.  Second, CO2 is limited to being claimed as a cause of warming, not climate change in general.  The entire hypothesis of human-produced CO2 producing warming at some time in the future(it’s not happening now) is now being morphed into “climate change”, which is completely disingenuous.  Climate changes all the time; that is its nature.
BB: I agree with you that more technology is the “answer"(if we actually need one), but the real agenda of the globalwarmingists is power and control, I’m afraid, and the ascendancy of worldwide totalitarianism.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Please, Please. Stop telling your children to draw those Global Warming charts, How Cruel!