2014 was World's Warmest Year on Record

[User Name]

Is this an argument for something?

Not sure why everything has to be an argument.

Meanwhile, the government keeps increasing taxes. Have you not noticed?

Of course I've noticed. Like I said, I'm generally not in favor of big government solutions. The only solutions that will work are solutions that enhance our freedoms and standard of living, rather than restrict them. I say that because it was technology that got us into this situation and it is technology that will get us out of it, and the only place for technology to progress is in a society that is as free and economically prosperous as possible.

I don't really know enough about the organized proposals that have been put forward to deal with global warming for me to comment on them. Perhaps someone who does can explain them and then we can discuss their merits and/or demerits.

 

[Stripe]

Not sure why everything has to be an argument.

It doesn't have to be an argument, but it helps when a post is rational.

I don't really know enough about the organized proposals that have been put forward to deal with global warming for me to comment on them. Perhaps someone who does can explain them and then we can discuss their merits and/or demerits.

Fair enough.

However, the suggestions always boil down to more taxes as a means to restrict freedom.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian explains why much lower solar output only slowed the rate of warming:
No, in fact, the current cycle is less than half of what it was in previous cycles. And yet temperatures are at record levels. This is consistent with the evidence that solar output matters, but not as much as rising CO2 levels.

You mean like how the rising CO2 levels between 1940 and 1970 resulted in global cooling,

The data say that much lower levels of CO2 at that time were not sufficient to override other factors. And that the much higher levels of CO2 today are more than sufficient to override other factors.

and the same thing happening in 2002?

The highest average temperature anomaly in the period you're citing was 14 and the next highest was 9. In 2002 it was um... 60.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Someone's had a little fun with your trust in them.

 

[rexlunae]

You're weird. :AMR:

I'm not gonna deny that.

Because governments are generally only justified in taxing people based on what is necessary for the continued operation of the government.

What if we used the tax to fund the government? Wouldn't that be justifiable, even to you?

I don't understand why you hold this principle. But I would be relatively happy if we just removed the subsidies from the tax code and the federal budget for fossil fuel extraction. Would you agree that that would be a good thing? Is that loss of freedom not equally terrifying for you?

Uh, taxes are a mandate. lain:

To some extent. You certainly can't skip them. But it's a lot less heavy-handed than other solutions. We could just ban fossil-fuel energies outright.

Event if it were true that the "best evidence" showed that people are causing the world to heat up, legislating away freedom is not a moral response.

I still don't see how the approach of shifting subsidies away from fossil fuel production and toward renewable energy is less free. Can you explain that?

And the fact that these people will use anything to continue the scare tactics shows just how politically motivated the whole thing is.

It's not a scare tactic if it's the truth. The potential consequences of global warming are scary, and they should be taken seriously. Or is it impossible for you to even consider a possibility that might be frightening?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Global warming in a nutshell:

A vastly unproven theory which was propelled in a liberal agenda and believed by liberals where the overwhelming majority of atheists reside_

Because all the atheists are there and most conservatives are religious, and also liberals in general loving gov't and taxes, they have labored under merely saying it is true and masquerading their confirmation biases in graphs and figures as being evidence.

That is to say, of course atheists and liberals are going to try and stand by something that conservatives theists don't believe. It's not about evidence, it's about being contrary.

 

[User Name]

It doesn't have to be an argument, but it helps when a post is rational.

What did I post that wasn't rational?

Fair enough.

However, the suggestions always boil down to more taxes as a means to restrict freedom.

Perhaps Barb or Alate would be willing to explain how we should deal with the issue. How about it, folks?

 

[Morpheus]

Practically everyone is out to mandate whatever they consider to be ethical behavior. Global warming aside, I'm sure you also would prefer to live in a cleaner environment--to breathe cleaner air, drink cleaner water, etc. I'm more of a moderate myself. I'm not much in favor of big guberment solutions to any problem as they tend to be hugely over-budget and under-performing. The most optimal environmental solutions are coming from the free-market private sector where people have realized that there are personal financial gains to be made in an economy that is green in more ways than one.

Private industry does research when they can convince shareholders it will be profitable. That typically has to be relatively short-term investment with promises of near-term profits since most investors are not interested in decades-long investment in anticipation of maybe some distant payoff. Historically basic research that learns to breakthrough innovation has been funded by government. Private industry typically builds upon those breakthroughs, but is unwilling to take the initial risks in unproven technology fields. Business may build the building, but not until government lays the foundation. Yet without those basic initial breakthroughs paid for through government- funded projects much of the associated research done through venture capital investment never would have occurred, and many of our Fortune 500 companies never would have come into existence. Yet overall the government has a pretty good record directing that funding. Cutting funding for government research has sent much of the technological innovation overseas where other governments can see how investment will drive their nations' economic futures. We aware already being left behind. Clean energy is only one industry where we have fallen far behind because we believe private money will take care of us while they continue hanging onto 100-year-old technology for short-term profits.

The High Return on Investment for Publicly Funded Research

Why Private Companies Won't Make Up for Cuts in Government Science Funding

 

[Morpheus]

It's not a scare tactic if it's the truth. The potential consequences of global warming are scary, and they should be taken seriously. Or is it impossible for you to even consider a possibility that might be frightening?

He didn't have any problem believing that Iraq had WMDs.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Or is it impossible for you to even consider a possibility that might be frightening?

You are speaking among people who hold to a belief that the Devil himself will arise from the ethereal fires of Hell to raise it on Earth, and upon such God purges the entire planet in flames and the Feast of Crows comes in to finish the dead.

Your global warming ain't nothin'

 

[Stripe]

What if we used the tax to fund the government? Wouldn't that be justifiable, even to you?

:dizzy:

I don't understand why you hold this principle.

Because governments have necessary functions, nobody understands what they are, wants to discuss -- or even acknowledge -- them, or appreciates their value. Because the focus on anything but the fundamentals destroys society.

But I would be relatively happy if we just removed the subsidies from the tax code and the federal budget for fossil fuel extraction. Would you agree that that would be a good thing?

Of course.

Is that loss of freedom not equally terrifying for you?

That wouldn't be a loss of freedom. And what you are raising is known as a rabbit trail. Try to stick to the subject. :thumb:

To some extent.

To what extent is paying taxes not mandatory?

You certainly can't skip them.

You certainly can't construct a coherent argument.

But it's a lot less heavy-handed than other solutions. We could just ban fossil-fuel energies outright.

Which is a ridiculous notion that does not make taxing fossil fuels legitimate.

I still don't see how the approach of shifting subsidies away from fossil fuel production and toward renewable energy is less free. Can you explain that?

Because governments should stick to their necessary functions.

It's not a scare tactic if it's the truth.

Global warming isn't the truth. It is just a theory. The statements in OP are just scare tactics. The "hottest year" data point is only presented with 38 percent confidence, but you won't see Alate sharing that fact.

The potential consequences of global warming are scary, and they should be taken seriously.

The necessary consequences of increases in taxation destroy nations.

Or is it impossible for you to even consider a possibility that might be frightening?

Warmer temperatures or more oceans do not scare me in the slightest. Are you frightened that the Earth is going to end in a fiery cataclysm? The science on that is far more certain than your vague predictions of bad weather.

What did I post that wasn't rational?

A couple of what look to me like arguments from consequence.

Perhaps Barb or Alate would be willing to explain how we should deal with the issue. How about it, folks?

Or how about we consider a rational and reasonable point of view?

 

[Morpheus]

Global warming in a nutshell:

A vastly unproven theory which was propelled in a liberal agenda and believed by liberals where the overwhelming majority of atheists reside_

Because all the atheists are there and most conservatives are religious, and also liberals in general loving gov't and taxes, they have labored under merely saying it is true and masquerading their confirmation biases in graphs and figures as being evidence.

That is to say, of course atheists and liberals are going to try and stand by something that conservatives theists don't believe. It's not about evidence, it's about being contrary.

The graphs and figures show results of testing done by scientists; they aren't drawings fabricated by artists. Your argument could just as easily be worded, they tell us that 2+2=4 but we don't believe it, and the only reason they stand by it is to be contrary. Just because a handful of you decide that you don't believe an overwhelming mountain of scientific evidence then of course your opinion must be right and all the evidence wrong. It's as if you were chosen to sit on a jury, yet you had already decided guilt or innocence before the first witness was called, so no matter how much evidence is displayed it is a waste of time since you already decided. Why even listen to the proof? HANG HIM! .....:angrymob:

 

[User Name]

13 Misconceptions About Global Warming

​

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

overwhelming mountain of scientific evidence

:rotfl: Where is this evidence? All I see is confirmation bias. I've taken the most objective stance with global warming and could not be convinced of this 'overwhelming mountain of evidence' you speak of. I see assumption.

There is no proven involvement with global warming, in fact there is not even much in the way of concluding that the Earth is simply going through a trend, and that global warming is nothing more then a money maker.

 

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps Barb or Alate would be willing to explain how we should deal with the issue. How about it, folks?

First, I think we can do some things by governmental action. Car milage rules, for example, have been spectacularly successful, reducing the cost of operating a car, while also reducing carbon emissions. Other things won't go so well. It's my conviction that we lack the will and the moral fiber to do it entirely by government.

On the other hand, I see technology starting to expand beyond any government mandates. Wind power is now a huge factor in places like Iowa, which generates about 27 percent of its electricity that way. Solar is becoming increasingly less expensive.

So if we dodge this bullet, it will be more by the private sector than by laws. The only thing we need to do, is remove any government incentives to do the wrong thing.

I think that's the only hope we have.

 

[User Name]

It's official, 2014 was the world's warmest year on record.

We aren't helpless. Nor should we just crawl in a hole and give up.

What specifically do you guys think we should do about it? And by "we" I mean two groups of people--each one of us as individuals, and "we" as in larger groups, such as the government.

 

[rexlunae]

Because governments have necessary functions, nobody understands what they are, wants to discuss -- or even acknowledge -- them, or appreciates their value. Because the focus on anything but the fundamentals destroys society.

Specifically, what are the fundamental functions of government? At the very minimum, I would say that the government must do the good that cannot be motivated by the pursuit of profit. Tackling Global Warming seems to quality.

That wouldn't be a loss of freedom. And what you are raising is known as a rabbit trail. Try to stick to the subject. :thumb:

Seems pretty on-point to me.

To what extent is paying taxes not mandatory?

To the extent that you can avoid the activities that bring you the tax liability.

Because governments should stick to their necessary functions.

Those being?

Global warming isn't the truth. It is just a theory.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. But here I am, trying to teach that to a creationist...

The necessary consequences of increases in taxation destroy nations.

Funny, then, how the most prosperous year in the history of the US have also seen some of the highest tax rates.

It's not true that taxes necessarily hurt the economy, and they certainly don't "destroy nations".

Warmer temperatures or more oceans do not scare me in the slightest.

If that were the limit of the consequences, you just might have a point.

Are you frightened that the Earth is going to end in a fiery cataclysm?

In a billion years when the sun expands to envelope the planet? Not especially. I would be more worried in a few hundred million years, if I were living here.

The science on that is far more certain than your vague predictions of bad weather.

And far more distant in time. And there might be something we can do about global warming.

 

[Stripe]

I guess this is another one of those threads where Alate posts a couple of pretty pictures and then runs for the hills when confronted with evidence.

 

[resodko]

i was chopping ice this morning


i'll be glad when it's warm again :idunno:

 

[aikido7]

It's a hoax, isn't it? Don't liberal thermometers work differently than conservative ones?

 

[Stripe]

I would say that the government must do the good that cannot be motivated by the pursuit of profit.

Which means it "must do" a whole raft of stuff that would make taxes about 1,000 percent of each person's income. lain:

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Sounds like something an evolutionist would believe.

It's not true that taxes necessarily hurt the economy.

Necessary in the same way that four minus two equals two.

You can't add tax and say it does not remove spending power.

In a billion years when the sun expands to envelope the planet?

Nope. Not the sun, and within a couple of hundred generations.