zaitcev
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,257
- Display Name
Display name:
Pete Zaitcev
Good for you. But the destruction of civilization is actually the express aim of greenies. They say that much openly.
The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science
- Thread starter steingar
- Start date
roncachamp
Final Approach
We sure did. And we had climate changes before cars and AC, just as there was climate before civilization, and before people too.
Skylane81E
Final Approach
Obviously you think books written by unknown individuals featuring talking snakes, mythical beings and magic are more trustworthy than careful observation, factual reporting, and enlightened discourse. Whatever works for you.
What does the Bible have to do with this?
I reffuse to drink the kool aid offerd me by people who activly try to kill any decenting opinions. I've just seen too much number fudging
steingar
Taxi to Parking
In an earlier post, I said that religion preached superstition, while science preached reality, or something similar. Another poster found that particularly funny. I thus brought in some aspects of religious worship, and contrasted them to scientific discipline.
I've been saying all along, scientific discourse doesn't kill dissenting opinions if they're backed up by data. I've published more than my fair share. If the data is solid, the work gets published.
Indeed, a point of the second article was that scientific inquiry is portrayed falsely by those seeking to influence to public discourse. The fact that I have had to vigorously and repeatedly defend scientists from accusations of bias and corruption makes me suspect this is quite true.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
As I said earlier, Gore is a terrible spokesman for MMGW. So, I'm pretty sure if Gore stopped breathing, it would be very good for the environment.
ebacon
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 502
- Location
- Rochester Hills, MI
- Display Name
Display name:
Bounces Three Times
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
The idea behind hybrid cars is that the gasoline engine can always be run at the most efficient RPM, rather than constantly changing as the car's speed and gears change. Also, they can reclaim some of the kinetic energy of the car through regenerative braking.
However, since airplanes mostly run at a constant RPM and the engines are presumably designed for that, and I doubt they're using a windmilling prop in a descent to generate more electricity, I suspect that you're right, Ed - This may well be snake oil. But I bet they got some government funding from somewhere to do it anyway.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
That video is hilarious!
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
About the debate? You're damn right. Silliest debate we can have, IMO...
I don't think we should "dismantle our civilization" by any means, and those who would advocate for such things are seriously delusional and far out on the fringes.
The reason I say this is the silliest debate we can have is this: Let's just assume for a moment, like you did, that the answer to the big MMGW question is that it does exist. What would we do? Well, try to make our transportation more efficient, reducing consumption of fossil fuels and lowering our dependence on foreign oil, improving national security... Wait, what was bad about that again?
Should we "dismantle civilization"? No. Should every soccer mom have a giant SUV that not only guzzles gas, it's too big for her to handle safely? No. Should the government dictate that choice? No... But they could impose some sort of financial penalty (big gas tax, vehicle sales tax by weight, etc) to encourage those who don't need such vehicles to look in a more efficient direction. (This is already done to some extent.) Ideal solutions? No, but when is a solution ever ideal?
The big problem is that there's no middle in politics any more. Do we have too many oversized or inefficient vehicles on the road? Right now one side might say "Ban them all!" while the other side says "Screw you, it's a free country and I can do what I want!" A middle ground that makes sense would be more like: Well, let's add on a higher gas tax and use the money to fund more R&D for fuel-efficient vehicles or infrastructure for alternative fuels.
Shut down factories? Well, we still need to make stuff, and our current problem is that for every factory that gets shut down in the US, another one opens in China or some other country that has very lax environmental policies and is probably dirtier than the factory in the US was, plus you add on the environmental cost of transportation halfway around the world, making it a BIG loss for the world environment if we shut factories down here. So, how about we try our best to keep our own factories open, and since that alone should provide increased tax revenue, it makes sense to invest some money in keeping them both open AND as clean as possible.
I guess that maybe just makes too much sense, so instead we spend tons of money on an argument, nothing ever changes, and we simply **** away that money without accomplishing anything. And that's how things will be until we get our heads out of our asses, stop pointing at each other and yelling, and agree that we can improve things more effectively if we can come to a compromise that allows us to work together.
roncachamp
Final Approach
I don't think we should "dismantle our civilization" by any means, and those who would advocate for such things are seriously delusional and far out on the fringes.
The reason I say this is the silliest debate we can have is this: Let's just assume for a moment, like you did, that the answer to the big MMGW question is that it does exist. What would we do? Well, try to make our transportation more efficient, reducing consumption of fossil fuels and lowering our dependence on foreign oil, improving national security... Wait, what was bad about that again?
Should we "dismantle civilization"? No. Should every soccer mom have a giant SUV that not only guzzles gas, it's too big for her to handle safely? No. Should the government dictate that choice? No... But they could impose some sort of financial penalty (big gas tax, vehicle sales tax by weight, etc) to encourage those who don't need such vehicles to look in a more efficient direction. (This is already done to some extent.) Ideal solutions? No, but when is a solution ever ideal?
The big problem is that there's no middle in politics any more. Do we have too many oversized or inefficient vehicles on the road? Right now one side might say "Ban them all!" while the other side says "Screw you, it's a free country and I can do what I want!" A middle ground that makes sense would be more like: Well, let's add on a higher gas tax and use the money to fund more R&D for fuel-efficient vehicles or infrastructure for alternative fuels.
Shut down factories? Well, we still need to make stuff, and our current problem is that for every factory that gets shut down in the US, another one opens in China or some other country that has very lax environmental policies and is probably dirtier than the factory in the US was, plus you add on the environmental cost of transportation halfway around the world, making it a BIG loss for the world environment if we shut factories down here. So, how about we try our best to keep our own factories open, and since that alone should provide increased tax revenue, it makes sense to invest some money in keeping them both open AND as clean as possible.
I guess that maybe just makes too much sense, so instead we spend tons of money on an argument, nothing ever changes, and we simply **** away that money without accomplishing anything. And that's how things will be until we get our heads out of our asses, stop pointing at each other and yelling, and agree that we can improve things more effectively if we can come to a compromise that allows us to work together.
If we do all of those things will the problem be solved? Will MMGW be halted or reversed, and the Earth return the supposedly ideal temperatures it would have if man hadn't done all those nasty things?
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Wow -- someone who actually "gets" what has been done to us. Thank you!
In their largely successful attempt to "clean up our environment" the good folks at the EPA never admit that the toxic by-product of their endeavor was to render a large part of America unemployed. By moving all of our production capacity overseas, not only have we not helped the environment in a macro sense, we have destroyed our Middle Class in the process.
Funny how the EPA never mentions THAT in their Powerpoint presentations...
What's worse is that many of these same people then rant and rave at industrialists for moving their production operations overseas, when it was they who forced them to do so.
Meanwhile, the sheeple just keep voting for these same crooks -- many of whom are now benefiting handsomely from Climate Change preparations.
Sometimes I wish I could just watch Oprah all day long, and not worry about any of this. Life would be SO much more pleasant...
Gary
En-Route
Gary
En-Route
In their largely successful attempt to "clean up our environment" the good folks at the EPA never admit that the toxic by-product of their endeavor was to render a large part of America unemployed. By moving all of our production capacity overseas, not only have we not helped the environment in a macro sense, we have destroyed our Middle Class in the process.
Funny how the EPA never mentions THAT in their Powerpoint presentations...
Quite the rant against the EPA! No doubt a business looks at the regulatory requirements when siting a factory. That being said, it's fairly low down on the priority list. Things like availiblity and cost of raw material, availiblity and cost of labor and cost of transportation to market overwhelm the environmental concerns.
What's worse is that many of these same people then rant and rave at industrialists for moving their production operations overseas, when it was they who forced them to do so.
Meanwhile, the sheeple just keep voting for these same crooks -- many of whom are now benefiting handsomely from Climate Change preparations.
Why has Wal-Mart been so successful? They sell stuff cheaper! Much of that stuff is made abroad. Price is what sells, how many successful advertisements are there that says "buy from us - our quality is higher, but you will pay more".
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Hey, I call it like I see it. Right now, all I see is a bunch of partisan bickering that accomplishes nothing positive.
I think the EPA is at best a contributing factor. Greed is what rendered a large part of America unemployed. The type of unions that serve to do little more than protect the lazy from their employers and constantly force the corporations to pay higher wages and benefits enabled that greed to spiral out of control, resulting in our current situation. It was exacerbated by the super-cheap Chinese labor, which made the transportation costs tolerable. CEO's and shareholders alike jumped all over it, and here we are.
But where we are isn't important. How we get to where we want to be is.
It's not fun to give a hoot about the future, is it?
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Wow -- someone who actually "gets" what has been done to us. Thank you!
In their largely successful attempt to "clean up our environment" the good folks at the EPA never admit that the toxic by-product of their endeavor was to render a large part of America unemployed. By moving all of our production capacity overseas, not only have we not helped the environment in a macro sense, we have destroyed our Middle Class in the process.
Funny how the EPA never mentions THAT in their Powerpoint presentations...
What's worse is that many of these same people then rant and rave at industrialists for moving their production operations overseas, when it was they who forced them to do so.
Meanwhile, the sheeple just keep voting for these same crooks -- many of whom are now benefiting handsomely from Climate Change preparations.
Sometimes I wish I could just watch Oprah all day long, and not worry about any of this. Life would be SO much more pleasant...
In case you haven't noticed, large swaths of China have been reduced toxic dumps where the inhabitants get sick from breathing the air and drinking the water. And unlike here, they have no say whatsoever in what happens to their environment. The reason we have the EPA is because people wanted it. All the money and job security in the world won't help you if you have to live in a sewer.
Moreover, all this industrialization and pollution is happening in the third of the country where they can grow crops. China has been self-sufficient for food except for a very short period. I wonder whether they can keep that up when they inundate what little good land they have with toxic by products.
Oh, and look up what's happening to the Three Gorges Damn vis a vis siltification. I can't imagine the bill for that fiasco. I suspect China is a paper tiger about which we'll be laughing ten years from now, just like Japan before the tsunami.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
I've heard this, off and on, for years -- but I've never seen any data to support it.
Further, I have never seen any data to support anything except that the common Chinese person is very, very happy with the way things have changed in the last 30 years. More Chinese are living better now than at any point in their history.
Think about it: When I was a boy, Nixon went to China to "open it up". It was a backwards, impoverished nation, with starvation rampant, automobiles scarce, and personal freedoms crushed.
In my lifetime, that has all changed -- dramatically for the better -- mostly at our expense. They have beaten us, fair and square, at our own game.
I'm sure there are pockets of discontent in their country with the way things have changed, just as there are everywhere -- but, by and large, the Chinese people are now the most rapidly advancing people in world history.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
"EPA" is my lazy short-hand for "stupid government taxation and regulation". The anti-business/anti-industry standard bearers inside our government bureaucracy extend far beyond mere environmental issues. However, that is what we were talking about in this thread, so EPA came to the fore in my example.
Beyond EPA, every day, in a hundred ways, the bureaucrats make it difficult to open/expand/move/grow industry in America, while their counterparts in China do just the opposite for their industry. (The same cannot be said for their treatment of foreign industries trying to break into the Chinese market; their blatant protectionism is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.) EPA is a glaring offender, but it's just one of many.
I'm sorry, but that seems like a non sequitur at this point in the conversation. What has Wal-Mart's consumer success got to do with China's success, and our government throwing up obstacles to American business and industry?
olasek
Pattern Altitude
Sure, but everything is relative. I can keep you in a smelly cage and then move you to a low security prison and you will feel like being in heaven. Chinese are happy because they compare to their past.
I don't think so. I don't think there are many Americans that would like to move to China and start living there like an average Chinese, no, not yet. Give them perhaps 200 years...
Gary F
Final Approach
Well maybe not data but how about a few photos. Pollution in China can be bad, really bad. Sorry about the small size.
Attachments
olasek
Pattern Altitude
Mainland China is like XIX century capitalism, everybody has to fend for himself/herself, all rules go, etc. My friend married a woman from China - she has very interesting tales to tell but the overriding motto is "life is cheap in China". But the ultimate irony is that it is the communist party that is supposedly promoting this state of affairs.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Really, is there any other measure that matters?
I don't miss living in a 40-room mansion, or flying a TBM-800, because I've never had either one. But I'm sure glad to not be flying clapped-out rental planes anymore. My world has improved a lot, and I am happy.
So are the Chinese.
Conversely, our middle class is shrinking, families cannot be supported solely by working fathers, and avgas costs $5/gallon. Compared to our parents, this sucks rocks. Compared to our great grandparents, this is still the life of Riley.
What matters most?
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ironically, my first thought was: "Hey, those pictures look like my hometown when I was a boy."
Racine, WI had JI Case Company. Twin Disc. Modine. Racine Steel. Andis Clippers. Walker Manufacturing. The Clausen Works on the south side was the largest tractor plant in the world.
We had full employment, fantastic, high-paying jobs, and lots of happy kids. Sure, it was a tough, hard-scrabble life for the men, and you didn't want to swim in the lake -- but times were good.
The tractor plant site is now a giant, clean field of grass, over-looking the pristine waters of Lake Michigan. All those jobs are gone, the middle class is gone with them, and Racine is just another post-industrial turd swirling in our post-industrial society's toilet.
Which would you rather have? Personally, I would have chosen to take care of the people in OUR country.
Gary
En-Route
OK. No doubt our government has all of those things. Don't argue that it can be smaller. The tough part is what can go by the wayside.
No, it isn't. If I understand your premise, it is the policies of the US government that has caused the flight of manufacturing industries from the US and the rise of China. My point is that the rise of Chinese manufacturing is largely driven by all those customers in Wal-Mart. Want to cripple Chinese manufacturing? - don't buy their products.
Gary
Gary F
Final Approach
One valuable lesson is that perfect is the enemy of good. In the governments attempt to make everything in the workplace perfect it has placed heavy burdens on industry often with little or no return for the costs. I agree with the concept of the EPA and labor laws just not the implementation. The people who run government agencies often do not understand what a constitutes a reasonable cost vs. benefit. Don't forget the lawyers who routinely extort large sums of money in class action lawsuits that provide little if any benefit for class members.
Skylane81E
Final Approach
Shows what I get for trying to keep up with this tread
Why the government, both national and "one world" (UN) needs to BUTT THE HELL OUT and let scientists work it out, without pressuring them to find one way or the other.
Richard
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2005
- Messages
- 9,076
- Location
- West Coast Resistance
- Display Name
Display name:
Ack...city life
So burning dinosaur remains is green? I'm pointing specifically to the manufacturing process that results in petro oil. No, while it's still in the ground.
olasek
Pattern Altitude
I am very late to this whole global warming discussion but I would like to point out there are very serious scientists that have strong doubts about this whole global warming stuff.
One of them is professor Richard S. Lindzen ([FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT) who wrote many papers on the subject. For example one can read [/FONT]his famous There is no ‘consensus’ on global warming published in WSJ in 2006 or his more recent Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously.
For example he ends the last article with some general observations among them: Hopefully, this paper has also clarified why significant doubt persists concerning the remarkably politicized issue of global warming alarm.
His work is easy to google and he published in numerous scientific journals. He once testified in the US Congress on the subject of the changing climate. Obviously his conclusions are not considered very politically correct.
One of them is professor Richard S. Lindzen ([FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT) who wrote many papers on the subject. For example one can read [/FONT]his famous There is no ‘consensus’ on global warming published in WSJ in 2006 or his more recent Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously.
For example he ends the last article with some general observations among them: Hopefully, this paper has also clarified why significant doubt persists concerning the remarkably politicized issue of global warming alarm.
His work is easy to google and he published in numerous scientific journals. He once testified in the US Congress on the subject of the changing climate. Obviously his conclusions are not considered very politically correct.
Last edited:
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ah, I get it.
You're looking at the horse from the ass-end, while I was looking down its throat. You're probably right -- the only way to fix the Chinese problem now is to stop buying their products. The time to fix it PROactively has now long-since passed us by.
However, what you are asking millions of people to do is act against their personal best interests, and that's a tough row to hoe.
Here's an example from my personal life. In fact, it just happened yesterday. I bought a cheap set of Chinese screwdrivers at Harbor Freight for $8.00, to put in my hangar toolbox. I also bought a set of Chinese pliers for $9.00.
Why? Because these tools are rarely used, and I don't need to be Snap-On quality. If I didn't have those Chinese tools to buy, I probably would have gone with middle-of-the-road Craftsman brand stuff.
I now saved myself around $50 (or more) by buying Chinese junk that fills my needs -- and I can happily pump that amount into my gas tank, instead. THAT is what drives American's economic choices -- not patriotism or some idea of helping our brothers get back to work. Enlightened self-interest is the driving force behind our economy.
The real question we should be asking is: WHY can't we make cheap hand tools in America? What are the impediments to building a factory here, and putting some of our 17% unemployed back to work?
My contention is that we cannot do so because our own government has stacked the deck against us -- and then had the nerve to complain about it! I know politics is the art of blaming everyone else, but that's just too two-faced to go unpunished.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Our workers are not willing to work as cheaply as the Chinese. Like someone else said, not many people in this country would be willing to go to China and live like an average Chinese person.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
No, using microbes to pull (or "fix") CO2 from the air, and then burning it in our vehicles is carbon neutral. What we're really doing is using solar power, which photosynthetic microbes can harness far more efficiently than we ever will.
So try this out. If we take CO2 out of the air, then put the same amount of CO2 back into the air, what we have done is carbon neutral, meaning it didn't influence the amount of CO2 in the air. Pulling dino remains out of the ground and burning it adds CO2 to the atmosphere. Planting trees takes CO2 out of the atmosphere (and puts it into tree trunks).
Hope that helps.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
True (although the gap is closing), but in many industries, labor is a relatively minor part of their economic equation -- yet even THOSE industries are leaving America.
You have to ask yourself "Why?". Why would (for example) a lithium-ion battery company that employs relatively few people build a billion-dollar plant in China, rather than Wisconsin?
I contend it is due to onerous government regulations and bureaucracy -- which the proponents of "Climate Change" (to tie this back to the thread) are advocating EXPANDING -- that have put the kibosh on our middle class.
There are other reasons for our economic problems, of course. These include a relatively poorly educated workforce, and a poor work ethic among blue-collar workers. This is an on-going headache for those of us who must hire them. Quite frankly, if I had to hire several hundred blue-collar workers, and my company was portable, I would be looking overseas, too.
I wonder how many of these problems would exist if we had simply stayed the course in the '70s? If we could go back in time, and simply change NOTHING from 1970 in our government, would all those jobs still be here?
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
I don't remember the 1970s being such a great time for our government, Watergate, among other things.
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
No, neither would there be a viable country. Remember price controls? We'd be bankrupt long ago...
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
It all started downhill when George quashed the Whiskey Rebellion!!
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
based on my current knowledge, I agree. Do you have any idea how many of the algae (or whatever we choose to use) facilities we will need, and how big they need to be? I haven't heard estimates about this.
I like the algal biodiesel because we can use it for feedstock for our refineries for other things besides fuel.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
If you remember the '70s, you weren't there!
I picked 1970 quite by choice, although 1965 would have been better. It pre-dated a lot of the current crap fouling our economy. EPA was in its infancy, although growing in power. Watergate was still a hotel. Viet Nam was still raging, but our factories were humming along nicely.
In 1965, industry accounted for 53% of employment in America. By 2004, that had dropped to just 9%. (That's NOT a typo.) Read more here: http://www.thetrumpet.com/?page=article&id=1955
Here's the only pertinent questions, IMHO: Were we better off with polluted air, and a thriving middle class? Was their destruction, done in the name of environmentalism, worth the cost?
Are we willing to face the results of climate change? Or should we continue to eliminate our industrial capacity, in hopes of "saving" the planet? Is the cure worse than the disease?
These are what we SHOULD be talking about -- not just arguing whether (or not) climate change is real.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
I'll have to say that I remember the '70s better than 1965.If you remember the '70s, you weren't there!
Seems to me there were also race riots and a whole lot of social upheaval. You already mentioned Vietnam. I also remember hearing about Lake Erie being dead and there was a lot more pollution in the eastern cities. Personally I think many of the environmental laws are a good thing. Even Denver's brown cloud isn't as bad as I remember it being when I moved here in the 80s.
I think we still have a middle class, they're just doing other things instead of manufacturing. Time moves on and people need to adjust. We don't have so many people in the stagecoach business now either.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'm not saying we should step back in time to the days of Jim Crow and all the rest. I'm talking about regulatory impact on industry.
Whew. Try telling that to the millions of shiftless, under-educated young men who once had a clear career path into the factories, and now face lives of frustration and poverty-stricken idleness. Never forget that we cleaned the air and water on THEIR backs, not ours.
olasek
Pattern Altitude
But there is inescapable fact that economies change, everything change, industries appear and disappear, carriages no longer exists, Polaroid no longer exists, Smith-Corona typewriters no longer exist, so regardless if something is hard or easy to tell - there it is, people have to adjust to the situation, only Marxists systems tried to isolate people from any change. And I would bet my 401K that those poverty-stricken in the US still lead a much better life than an average Chinese worker in some depleted shop in China turning some low-cost widgets.
Last edited: