Ten Years And Counting: Where’s The Global Warming?

[Okotoks]

Interesting article.

http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/06/08/ten-years-and-counting-wheres-the-global-warming/

Posted from Calgary where today is the warmest it has been(72 F) and we cool off again tomorrow. ??? Wish we could share some of the cool wet stuff with those that are burning up.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/index.php?product=weather&placecode=caab0049&switchto=f

 

[knabe]

then the easiest method to reduce global warming is to reduce the number of people.

why do we insist on a growing population?  people with kids should be taxed more, not subsidized more with child tax credits and the endless stream of redistribution.

 

[xxcc]

do you think before you speak?

 

[vanridge]

then the easiest method to reduce global warming is to reduce the number of people.

why do we insist on a growing population?  people with kids should be taxed more, not subsidized more with child tax credits and the endless stream of redistribution.

You did NOT just say that..... 
I think Okotoks was saying its not warn enough for this time of year....
Before I get really riled up I'm going to follow some good old cowboy wisdom "never miss a good chance to shut up"

 

[knabe]

do you think before you speak?

only before i enter an intersection

some people aren't able to think because they are in a coma

 

[knabe]

You did NOT just say that..... 

http://growthmadness.org/2007/07/13/global-population-reduction-confronting-the-inevitable/

so increasing the population reduces global warming?

 

[xxcc]

do you think before you speak?

only before i enter an intersection

that's what I thought and appearantly there are no intersections in your life.  

it must be nice to live in a world where your the only person that can see and it's a one way street.

 

[vanridge]

do you think before you speak?

only before i enter an intersection

that's what I thought and appearantly there are no intersections in your life.  

it must be nice to live in a world where your the only person that can see and it's a one way street.

(











(clapping) (clapping) (clapping)

 

[vanridge]

You did NOT just say that..... 

http://growthmadness.org/2007/07/13/global-population-reduction-confronting-the-inevitable/

so increasing the population reduces global warming?

Are you seriously going to argue about this? I can give you lots of examples where a large family is way more efficient than a small one. For eg It takes just as  much elctricity to heat a house for a family of 4 as it does for a family of 6. YOu want to live in a place where there are only small families go live in China. Next thing you're gonna say is to euthanise the old people, they are past their "usefullness " and they are warming up the world.....

 

[knabe]

Are you seriously going to argue about this? I can give you lots of examples where a large family is way more efficient than a small one. For eg It takes just as  much elctricity to heat a house for a family of 4 as it does for a family of 6. YOu want to live in a place where there are only small families go live in China. Next thing you're gonna say is to euthanise the old people, they are past their "usefullness " and they are warming up the world.....
[/quote]

so one should receive a larger child tax credit the fewer kids one has?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdsbuJfMpr0

all the arguments you propose are not required.  2.1 kids per family is a static population.   some will have more, some will have less.  you mention china.  your family of 4 example is merely 2 kids per family and is below a static population.  if one can afford 6 without a child tax credit and other subsidies, then have 6.  others will have 0, but get rid of the subsidies.  people talk endlessly about subsidies for corporations, but are unwilling to give up their own subsidies.

 

[vanridge]

That is not global warming, that is subsidies, a total different can of worms....

 

[knabe]

That is not global warming, that is subsidies, a total different can of worms....

global warming technologies are heavily subsidized, 50x more than oil

http://www.masterresource.org/2011/05/big-wind-sen-alexander/

“So I ask the question: If wind has all these drawbacks, is a mature technology, and receives subsidies greater than any other form of energy per unit of actual energy produced, why are we subsidizing it with billions of dollars and not including it in [the energy subsidy] debate? Why are we talking about Big Oil and not talking about Big Wind?”

it's all tied together.  solar has been around forever.  passive heating and cooling techniques are far more cost effective than solar.  if people were held accountable for their trousers, perhaps they would stay on a little better.  works all the way up and down global warming and population growth.

 

[knabe]

here's a different way to look at energy subsidies to address global warming not based on energy created, but just total per industry.

also, the earned income credit costs about $36 billion in 2004.   and it has only gone up since then to 54 billion projected in 2012.

the vast majority of these people pay no federal income tax and about half of those get a refund, meaning they are subsidized.

think of the freed up resources available if all these subsidies ended.  

attached is another graph showing how energy subsidies are allocated.

 

[simmyman67]

knabe: smh......

 

[knabe]

knabe: smh......

what should the world population be strawman?

 

[xxcc]

why should anyone have an opinion of what the world population should be?  opinions should based more on how those of us here take care of it. if efforts of infrastrucutre are necessary to preserve the health of the planet, then they should not be condemned.

 

[chambero]

why should anyone have an opinion of what the world population should be?  opinions should based more on how those of us here take care of it. if efforts of infrastrucutre are necessary to preserve the health of the planet, then they should not be condemned.

There are a whole lot of people whose job is to keep up with these kinds of issues.  That's the only way we'll ever be able to literally avoid a mass human die off if we can no longer feed ourselves.  It's not really much of an issue in this country, but it is a real NOW issue in much of the world.  As cruel as China might be, they had to do something.

We take for granted that we are truly immune to famine.  That is a very new reality for a portion of the world that we hope isn't short-lived.

The global warming issue is really just one of the side-effects of resource consumption.  I understood Knabe's points.  He is very anti-government and against government incentives.  In this case, he is correct that there are incentives that cause ineffiiciency in resource consumption.  People in this country do not need to be having "umpteen" kids any more.  Very, very few families can truly support that size of family financially.  Typical taxpayers (those of us with 2-3 kids) wind up footing the bill for large families more of than not.  Some countries (China, India - I think) realy do have laws/taxes in place to penalize people from having too many babies in an attempt to reduce the rate of population growth.

 

[knabe]

why should anyone have an opinion of what the world population should be?  opinions should based more on how those of us here take care of it. if efforts of infrastrucutre are necessary to preserve the health of the planet, then they should not be condemned.

only you should judge who should have opinions and who is mentally competent. 

if infrastructure efforts are found to have unintended consequences like shifting peak oil to peak lithium and exchanging the middle east for china, then they should not be subsidized and they should be condemned.

 

[xxcc]

knabe, i really don't understand your immense desire to kick everyone in the teeth or try to slap them with some sarcastic response.  you missed my point.  really, why should anyone have a personal opinion of what the global population should be?  if people can be self sufficient enough to support the number of children they have then that is what's right.  there is a fine line in what family size works for particular global geographic reasons. 

I guess I missed the point of your lithium comment, but whatever.  in my opinion, wind, solar and hydroelectric should be subsidized...as a matter of fact, i feel they should take the places of coal, oil, ethonal and nuclear on your pie.  the problem is oil is exploited for more uses than those that should be subsidized more.

I can see why you detest Obama -> http://www.hybridcars.com/news/obama-seeks-slash-oil-subsidies-2012-budget-29425.html (totally goes against your thinking)

http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/theclog/2011/03/02/house-gop-refuses-to-cut-subsidies-for-big-oil/  Vote Republican, I would.  <rock>