fuzzles
OG
While typing my response to the last poster in the thread I started titled "Join the Fight in countering Earth Hour!" it was evidently deleted.
I'm going to assume, however, that a thread devoted to intellectual discussion of a controversial topic is acceptable so long as the posters remain courteous. If it be no offense, I copied my post before attempting to submit. I have no qualm if a mod decides to delete this thread as well.
Here is my response:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I got in trouble for being insulting lol...
I know it seems more persuasive to write as though you refuse to even communicate directly with me, but I'll rely on facts and logic to be persuasive.
First up: "we" don't get to decide the use of resources whether they're limited or not. Fossils fuels and the like belong to the people or institutions (businesses) that own the land in which those resources exist. In a capitalist world, not socialist, it is their decision how quickly or slowly those resources are consumed because they own them. Power companies give customers no cap on their use of the company's product so the owners of said resource evidently don't care how much we use or for what reason we use it.
We should all consider ourselves lucky that a group of businessmen found it profitable to supply us with something so helpful as electricity. Electricity is not a right; it is a product made available for purchase from a company. This concept that "we" own this world's resources and collectively get to decide how they're used is a hippy pipe dream, to put it bluntly.
Not to mention you have bonafide morons like Ted Turner on your side.
My primary points:
1. Carbon emissions make no significant difference in global temperatures. After Al Gore's schpeal about carbon emissions following temperature changes, it was discovered the opposite is true; global carbon dioxide content increases when global temperatures change. This is because the ocean emits the vast majority of the earth's total carbon emissions (many times more than mankind ever has) and its carbon emitting increases when its temperature goes up. Thus global warming causes the increase of carbon emissions; the opposite of what is necessary for anthropocentric global warming. Nevermind that comparing recent temperature patterns show no abnormally high changes next to geological extrapolations of previous temperature changes.
2. All this push to "go green" is bull shit. The reason I say bull shit is not simply because it's based on false premises, but because it's used by people for purposes not related to its original point. Saving the earth and Democrats getting elected have nothing to do with one another, but if you convince voters global warming is a crisis that only yours truly will fight if elected you've got yourself a crusade (the reference is deliberate). The second reason I consider it bull shit is because all this legislation is harmful. Even in a democrat-majority congress, the US has yet to pass Cap & Trade legislation (the Warner-Lieberman bill) because even environmentalists understand how harmful this type of regulation is to the economy. No one needs energy costs to go up, especially if it's for a bull shit reason.
P.S.: I'm not a partisan basher. I'm disappointed with both American political parties.
EDIT: I feel it necessary to point out that, if our resources do dwindle and we run out of fossil fuels, it will be the single greatest blessing environmentalists could ask for.
Why?
There is no creative force greater than that of a strong economy with a large demand. When a free market's greatest minds have monetary motivation to come up alternative energy, new and innovative products will supply that demand. More will be achieved by private enterprise in 5 years than liberal politicians and government funding have in the past 50 years. You want the world to switch to renewable energy? Let it run out of fossil fuels. Where the money is is where the success will be.
I'm going to assume, however, that a thread devoted to intellectual discussion of a controversial topic is acceptable so long as the posters remain courteous. If it be no offense, I copied my post before attempting to submit. I have no qualm if a mod decides to delete this thread as well.
Here is my response:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I got in trouble for being insulting lol...
Uhm I do pay for my own electricity. I pay for everything in my life and I have never been spoiled. I at least realize that someone having dissenting opinions does not mean that person is intellectually inferior.Magrim said:
I know it seems more persuasive to write as though you refuse to even communicate directly with me, but I'll rely on facts and logic to be persuasive.
First up: "we" don't get to decide the use of resources whether they're limited or not. Fossils fuels and the like belong to the people or institutions (businesses) that own the land in which those resources exist. In a capitalist world, not socialist, it is their decision how quickly or slowly those resources are consumed because they own them. Power companies give customers no cap on their use of the company's product so the owners of said resource evidently don't care how much we use or for what reason we use it.
We should all consider ourselves lucky that a group of businessmen found it profitable to supply us with something so helpful as electricity. Electricity is not a right; it is a product made available for purchase from a company. This concept that "we" own this world's resources and collectively get to decide how they're used is a hippy pipe dream, to put it bluntly.
lol come now neither of us are experts but we all refer to different qualified voices. Don't be a hypocrite about this; so long as my points are valid I deserve to dissent you however I please.
The Nobel prizes are a joke. The last person to win one for something that wasn't socialist was Friedrich von Hayek in 1974.
Not to mention you have bonafide morons like Ted Turner on your side.
My primary points:
1. Carbon emissions make no significant difference in global temperatures. After Al Gore's schpeal about carbon emissions following temperature changes, it was discovered the opposite is true; global carbon dioxide content increases when global temperatures change. This is because the ocean emits the vast majority of the earth's total carbon emissions (many times more than mankind ever has) and its carbon emitting increases when its temperature goes up. Thus global warming causes the increase of carbon emissions; the opposite of what is necessary for anthropocentric global warming. Nevermind that comparing recent temperature patterns show no abnormally high changes next to geological extrapolations of previous temperature changes.
2. All this push to "go green" is bull shit. The reason I say bull shit is not simply because it's based on false premises, but because it's used by people for purposes not related to its original point. Saving the earth and Democrats getting elected have nothing to do with one another, but if you convince voters global warming is a crisis that only yours truly will fight if elected you've got yourself a crusade (the reference is deliberate). The second reason I consider it bull shit is because all this legislation is harmful. Even in a democrat-majority congress, the US has yet to pass Cap & Trade legislation (the Warner-Lieberman bill) because even environmentalists understand how harmful this type of regulation is to the economy. No one needs energy costs to go up, especially if it's for a bull shit reason.
P.S.: I'm not a partisan basher. I'm disappointed with both American political parties.
EDIT: I feel it necessary to point out that, if our resources do dwindle and we run out of fossil fuels, it will be the single greatest blessing environmentalists could ask for.
Why?
There is no creative force greater than that of a strong economy with a large demand. When a free market's greatest minds have monetary motivation to come up alternative energy, new and innovative products will supply that demand. More will be achieved by private enterprise in 5 years than liberal politicians and government funding have in the past 50 years. You want the world to switch to renewable energy? Let it run out of fossil fuels. Where the money is is where the success will be.
