Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 Global warming deniers
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 6

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2009 :  12:45:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Hittman

That's exactly what I expected from you Dave. Put words in my mouth, belittle everything I said...
Except, of course, that I didn't.
...just being your general asshole self.
Ditto so far, buck-o.
Tell you what, genius. Since you insisted on bringing up the CRA in the SHS thread, I'm going to do the same in this one. Give me a valid explanation of how the economic meltdown could have happened without the CRA, to demonstrate you're not just an ignorant blowhard. Until then, I'll be ignoring you and talking with the grownups here.
Ah, yes, I see: you refuse to present evidence to support your assertion that the CRA is the root cause of our woes, but I am the child. Your demand is nothing more than an attempt to distract people from your failure, Hittman.
Humburt, most libertarians are skeptics, but most skeptics aren't libertarians. (They probably would be, if they were really skeptical about government in general, instead of just being skeptical about the party they disagree with the most.)
Bwahahahaha! As if libertarianism weren't government.
Skepticism starts with being skeptical of any information source, on any subject.
Except for piles and piles of newpaper clippings.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2009 :  12:50:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dude

You are going to have to provide a specific, current, example of fringe environmentalists interfering with wind, solar, or nuclear projects.
There have been several news stories of wind projects facing lawsuits from people worried about bird strikes and turbine noise.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2009 :  15:33:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Yeah, but have any of these lawsuits actually shut down the construction or operation of a wind or solar facility?

I am aware of the incredible difficulty in getting the permits to build a new nuclear plant in the US, and think we should adopt the same model as the French use instead of just making it impossible to build one.

But I'd like to see an actual example of Hittman's claim. Show me where fringe "environmentalists" have done more than complain.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9666 Posts

Posted - 02/02/2009 :  04:35:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Hittman
Humburt, most libertarians are skeptics, but most skeptics aren't libertarians. (They probably would be, if they were really skeptical about government in general, instead of just being skeptical about the party they disagree with the most.)
On the contrary: It's the social conscience and empathy for your fellow man that has kept Western European politics from tipping over into corporate fasism (or libtertarianism for that matter) like USA.
Short term profit in companies will always trump social and environmental concience. Human egoism will see to that.
Government regulations are the implementation tools that work for the benefit of the collective, counteracting the egoism of the individual.

Regulation such as extra tax on fossil CO2, and tax relief on biofuels is the instrument to steer the market toward an ecologically sustainable situation.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 02/02/2009 :  06:21:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Hittman

If it were up to me, my solutions would be:

Allow drilling offshore and in ANWAR and the Midwest to deal with the current problem of supply, knowing this is a temporary solution.
That's an odd first step to addressing global warming...

Wherever possible switch from oil to electricity, and generate that electricity with nukes, supplementing it with wind and solar.
I agree, nuclear power's the likely solution. I think orbital solar would be a better solution in more ways that one, but I doubt we'll see that in my lifetime.
An electric car that uses energy from coal fired plants doesn't help the problem; it just moves it out of sight.
Actually, it helps a lot of problems. To take your polluting sources and put them in a few descrete, immobile spots, as opposed to spreading millions around the country's roads and highways, makes emissions a lot easier to address with a technological fix.

Relax. Substantially reducing our carbon footprint is going to take 20-30 years.
Provided we actually start.
The world isn't going to .... reach some point-of-no-return tipping point in that time.
You know this because....?
For instance, electric family cars can be practical, electric semi's aren't likely to be, so don't get all pissy when they're still running on diesel.
Actually, it's feasible to eliminate long haul semi's, move freight by rail, and use electrics to move from rail hubs to delivery points. And while you're expanding your rail network, add some cars for travelers. Two birds / one stone.
LED lights aren't quite there yet, so wait until they are, and people by them because they're cheaper and better, instead of passing legislation banning tungsten bulbs.
There's nothing wrong in subsidizing LED development and production. "Speed it along" vs. "wait until they are..."

-Chaloobi

Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 02/02/2009 :  06:28:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Speaking of Tipping Points, here's more on ocean acidification. I think we discussed this a short while back. Looks like the issues getting more attention:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/science/earth/31ocean.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Rising Acidity Is Threatening Food Web of Oceans, Science Panel Says

Jeremy B. C. Jackson, a coral expert at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego who has no connection to the Monaco report, said “there is just no doubt” that the acidification of the oceans is a major problem. “Nobody really focused on it because we were all so worried about warming,” he said, “but it is very clear that acid is a major threat.”
...
The group says acidity of ocean surface waters has increased by 30 percent since the 17th century.
...
According to the declaration, “ocean acidification may render most regions chemically inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050.” The group said that acidification could be controlled only by limiting future atmospheric levels of the gas. Other strategies, including “fertilizing” the oceans to encourage the growth of tiny marine plants that take up carbon dioxide, may actually make the problem worse in some regions, it said.

-Chaloobi

Edited by - chaloobi on 02/02/2009 06:28:59
Go to Top of Page

Simon
SFN Regular

USA
1992 Posts

Posted - 02/02/2009 :  09:11:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Simon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dude

Yeah, but have any of these lawsuits actually shut down the construction or operation of a wind or solar facility?

I am aware of the incredible difficulty in getting the permits to build a new nuclear plant in the US, and think we should adopt the same model as the French use instead of just making it impossible to build one.

But I'd like to see an actual example of Hittman's claim. Show me where fringe "environmentalists" have done more than complain.


Actually, it was quite a terrible model.

Essentially, the National Electrical Company decided where it wanted a plant build and try to buy out the agreement of the local community with subside. Even if it failed, the plant's construction was generally imposed against the will of the locals in the name of the 'Good of the Nation'.
I am only aware of one instance where such a building was abandoned, in the face of public anger, and it required several weeks of constant political activism (here).

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996
Edited by - Simon on 02/02/2009 09:12:06
Go to Top of Page

Hittman
Skeptic Friend

134 Posts

Posted - 02/02/2009 :  10:12:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hittman's Homepage Send Hittman a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Yeah, but have any of these lawsuits actually shut down the construction or operation of a wind or solar facility?


I haven't found any that permanently shut one down, and some (but not as many as I expected) that have caused delays and increased implementation expense.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123181056426575945.html
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/01/15/cape_wind_proposal_clears_big_obstacle/
Lawsuits against texas wind farms
http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives2/2008/08/012212.html
http://www.reporternews.com/news/2008/Apr/17/today-interviews-tuscola-rancher-involved-in/
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2007/02/05/wind-farms-generate-opposition/
Kansas:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OXD/is_2005_Feb_16/ai_n11832840

I was also able to find lawsuits against power lines, which are, of course, essential to getting power from remote instillations, but are only indirectly related to clean power.

I knew Annnnold's plans for solar in the Mohave has met with a lot of opposition from tree, er, turtle huggers, but was surprised to find they haven't done anything to stop it, just bitched about it a lot.

I expected to find a lot more than I did. There's a lot of bitching and moaning and whining and kvetching, but actual blockage and delays, not so much. So I've got to concede your point, Dude. I was wrong on this one.

Various bitching and moaning about wind farms: http://www.windaction.org/

I am aware of the incredible difficulty in getting the permits to build a new nuclear plant in the US, and think we should adopt the same model as the French use instead of just making it impossible to build one.


They have a pretty smart approach. Rather than design every reactor from scratch, they have one standard design and use it over and over again.

That's an odd first step to addressing global warming...


It's the first step in addressing our energy shortages. As I said, a temporary one.

The world isn't going to .... reach some point-of-no-return tipping point in that time.
You know this because....?


Perhaps I should rephrase: The odds of the world reaching some point-of-no-return tipping point is even lower than the odds of Dave W answering the CRA question.

I can't prove it won't, but no one can prove it will either, so I'll take the default skeptic position that there's no evidence to support the claim(s).

There's nothing wrong in subsidizing LED development and production. "Speed it along" vs. "wait until they are..."


How about offering a prize instead? It provides incentive and the only project we pay for is the one that works. But is already a huge move, with a great incentive, to make these bigger-better-cheaper, so I don't think either approach is necessary.

But I wasn't talking about subsidizing them, I was talking about legislation banning incandescent bulbs, which is not only unnecessary but stupid. And not only stupid, but wrong.

When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com

Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 02/02/2009 :  10:38:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Hittman

That's an odd first step to addressing global warming...


It's the first step in addressing our energy shortages. As I said, a temporary one.
But there is no energy shortage.

The world isn't going to .... reach some point-of-no-return tipping point in that time.
You know this because....?


Perhaps I should rephrase: The odds of the world reaching some point-of-no-return tipping point is even lower than the odds of Dave W answering the CRA question.

I can't prove it won't, but no one can prove it will either, so I'll take the default skeptic position that there's no evidence to support the claim(s).
What you mean is, you personally have no idea if there is a PONR or not, but have concluded based on nothing that any scientist who says there might be one is wrong, and in discussions you go so far as to make this claim as if it's factual until someone calls you on it. Right?

There's nothing wrong in subsidizing LED development and production. "Speed it along" vs. "wait until they are..."


How about offering a prize instead?
Prizes sound good (but I agree it's not necessary in this case). I know of a few prizes out there, like the X-prize to encourage commercial space flight in particular. The jury's still out about whether that actually worked. Do you know of any prizes that actually resulted in break through technology? I read about the robotic vehicle the military was looking for, but I don't know of anything practical that came out of that. I'd be interested if you have a link.

I was talking about legislation banning incandescent bulbs, which is not only unnecessary but stupid. And not only stupid, but wrong.
I don't know it's unnecessary or stupid. It seems reasonable if your goal is to cut electrical usage in your state quickly. Low hanging fruit... Do you know if this has actually been done? I thought I read something about it a while back, can you post a link?

-Chaloobi

Edited by - chaloobi on 02/02/2009 10:39:37
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 02/02/2009 :  10:50:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Simon said:
Actually, it was quite a terrible model.

Essentially, the National Electrical Company decided where it wanted a plant build and try to buy out the agreement of the local community with subside. Even if it failed, the plant's construction was generally imposed against the will of the locals in the name of the 'Good of the Nation'.
I am only aware of one instance where such a building was abandoned, in the face of public anger, and it required several weeks of constant political activism (here).

Yeah, it may not be perfect. But it has to be better than what the US has. Any company that wants to build a nuclear plant has to wade through 5 years of paperwork and about $25million in bribesapplication fees for the permits. And then it isn't even a 100% guarantee that you will get permission to build one.

In Europe most of the countries have nationalized some basic services (like telecom, trains, and power). That isn't likely to happen here, but we could take part of the French model for approving and initiating the construction of power plants, and apply that through our own department of energy.

Their system is obviously aimed at getting the plants built, while ours currently just makes it deliberately impossible.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 02/02/2009 :  10:54:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Did some looking into the 'tipping point' sub-topic and there's a ton of articles out there. Looks like the 9 tipping points ID'd by a study published in '08 is where it all originates. Here's a typical summary:

http://u3aclimatestudy.pbwiki.com/9+Tipping+Points

I haven't been able to locate any reference to the reasearch behind this - like how they identified the 9 and how they ranked the uncertainty about when they could happen and how the determined they'd be point-of-no-returns.

Does anyone have a link to an explanation of nuts and bolts behind these 9 tipping points?

EDIT:

This Washington Post article actually contains a discussion about the tipping points from a pro/con perspective and in skimming it I gleaned that they used simulations - using current data - and observations of past sudden climate changes to create the list and suggest what's near-fall for tipping.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012801021_pf.html

-Chaloobi

Edited by - chaloobi on 02/02/2009 11:05:50
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 02/02/2009 :  10:55:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hittman said:
I expected to find a lot more than I did. There's a lot of bitching and moaning and whining and kvetching, but actual blockage and delays, not so much. So I've got to concede your point, Dude. I was wrong on this one.

That is pretty much what I expected. A lot of complaining and very little actual impediment.

There are some legitimate issues that need to be resolved through the court system, and that can cause delays and extra expense, but the trivial and unevidenced crap the fringe spits out mostly gets brushed off.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 02/02/2009 :  13:45:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Hittman

...the odds of Dave W answering the CRA question.
It's not my point to prove, it's yours. It's been yours ever since you claimed that the CRA was responsible. Even though 75% of sub-prime mortgages are owned by non-CRA-regulated entities. Even though the vast majority of problem sub-primes did not originate in "bad neighborhoods." Even though mortgage brokers like Countrywide (was) have never been regulated by the CRA. Even though CRA loans do not have a significantly different default rate than non-CRA loans.

You're willing to concede points when you're wrong, Hittman (as you just did with Dude), but here, despite having no evidence and an argument that defies what is observed, you dogmatically adhere to the "CRA caused the economic crisis" line as if it's scripture. And what does it get you besides Carter and Clinton as scapegoats?

Whatever I might think have caused the crisis is irrelevant to the point that what you think caused it fails to match reality. That's why your demands of me are nothing but a transparent attempt to distract away from your obvious failures.

How the hell is the CRA supposed to have increased home values, anyway?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Hittman
Skeptic Friend

134 Posts

Posted - 02/02/2009 :  16:27:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hittman's Homepage Send Hittman a Private Message  Reply with Quote
OK, Dave, it's been explained and explained, but I'll do it one more time.

When Clinton put the CRA on steroids, more under qualified people got home loans. This increased demand, but since the supply of homes doesn't change rapidly, it resulted in a large and rapid spike in real estate prices. The rapidly escalating prices started a feeding frenzy among both banks and other lending institutions that passed out the loans like candy to just about anyone with a pulse. This furthered the price escalation, which made it look like it was risk free – even if someone defaulted their collateral would be worth more than the loan.

The effect kept going above and beyond the institutions that were required to provide sub-prime loans. But. . . without the CRA as a catalyst it never would have happened.

It's pretty basic economics, Dave. Supply, demand. It was the CRA that increased the demand and set everything in motion.

Now, what's your explanation, which completely leaves out the influence of the CRA?

When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com

Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 02/02/2009 :  17:04:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Hittman
When Clinton put the CRA on steroids, more under qualified people got home loans.
Except from everything I've read about the CRA, it had nothing to do with who qualified for loans.

This increased demand...
Not really. The demand for homes has always been pretty steady among under-qualified people. It's not like they choose to live in apartments or tenement projects. Home ownership remains a constant goal.

...but since the supply of homes doesn't change rapidly, it resulted in a large and rapid spike in real estate prices.
Actually, the rapid spike in real estate prices probably had more to do with people thinking that real estate was a safer investment than the stock market after the tech bubble collapse. And for awhile it was, until people discovered they could buy multiple properties to fix up and "flip" for a quick profit. That trend represented a significance increase in demand--but again nothing to do with the CRA.

The rapidly escalating prices started a feeding frenzy among both banks and other lending institutions that passed out the loans like candy to just about anyone with a pulse.
And here it seems like you've identified the main problem--unscrupulous and predatory banks and lenders. So why do you gloss over the actions of these institutions, and the government deregulation which lifted oversight of them, and instead choose to blame the CRA?


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/02/2009 17:13:13
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.33 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000