|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
 Posted - 02/06/2009 : 17:43:53 [Permalink]
|
At the risk of He Said She Said, which I've been trying to avoid: http://mises.org/story/2963 Of course, they're capitalists, so they must be wrong.
| Then why bring up Al Gore in the first place, except for offering him up as a Red Herring? |
Because smug, self-righteous hypocrisy pisses me off. Especially when it's someone who wants to tell you and me how to live while applying completely different rules to himself.
|
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 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2009 : 19:36:58 [Permalink]
|
Epic fail for you again, Hittman. The article you link to directly contradicts your claim that the CRA is the "root" of the current crisis. DiLorenzo's argument is a rebuttal to Gordon's argument that the CRA is not only blameless for the meltdown, but an excellent piece of legislation that's provided nothing but sunshine and butterflies. DiLorenzo clearly believes that the CRA is not the "root cause," and also appears to be unwilling to quantify just how much it's responsible (probably because he doesn't know any better than anyone else how much any one factor is to blame for the mess we find ourselves in).
Specifically, DiLorenzo says,Fed policy... is the cause of the boom-and-bust cycle that has caused the housing bubble and its bursting. You, Hittman, blamed the boom on the invention of the subprime loan by the CRA, so your own citation contradicts your assertion again (as happened with regard to your claims about the publication bias with regard to no-effect SHS studies).
DiLorenzo also cites Bernanke to demonstrate that the securitization of loans (which massively reduces the risk to loan originator) was "exploding" years before the invention of the subprime loan (and hence also prior to Clinton's tinkering with the CRA), due to other legislation and more bad Fed policy. Another nail in your argument's coffin, Hittman, from your own reference. A couple of obvious "own goals" here.| Of course, they're capitalists, so they must be wrong. |
It's hard to tell. DiLorenzo, like you, offers very little evidence for his assertions. In fact, his central theme, that under the CRA, "the Fed and other financial regulators have pressured/extorted banks into making more loans to less-than-creditworthy borrowers than they would normally be willing to risk," is stated without support. He claims that all sorts of mergers and expansions have been hindered by CRA complaints, but he never mentions that out of 13,000+ applications for such activities since the RNIBBEA, only 25 have been denied, and only eight of them were denied on CRA-compliance grounds. As "pressure" or "extortion," it's pretty weak when the CRA has only stopped 0.06% of banks' CRA-regulated activities. Again: reality suggests that the unsupported premise is false.| Because smug, self-righteous hypocrisy pisses me off. |
Which is very, very ironic considering the way you've acted around here. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2009 : 08:00:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
| Even if Gore is a complete and total hypocrite, it doesn't change the truth about climate change a bit. |
You keep harping on this, and I never said or implied that it did. My point is solely and completely that Al Gore, the person, is an enormous hypocrite, demanding everyone change their lifestyle while he spews more carbon than a small village. It doesn't have anything to do with the reality of GW, it has to do with his hypocrisy. |
Then save if for the "Al Gore Is a Hypocrite" thread. This is a thread about denying global warming. Which is kinda funny to say since you and Dave are all about your ad nauseum CRA pissing contest... Don't know why you don't just do some research and post a source, that or stop arguing with him. Doesn't going round and around (and round) feel to you like wasting time??? |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2009 : 12:14:02 [Permalink]
|
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.
|
Coming a bit late on this discussion (haven't been on this forum for a couple of weeks, due to starting my new job), but with wind energy there are some serious efforts disrupting plans to increase this form of energy. The same in Sweden and Denmark and possibly the UK and Germany. Although it's not really "fringe environmentalists" driving that effort, but rather local groups who do not like having a 100 meter large pole put in their (proverbial) backyard. There are also issues with the noise produced by wind turbines. I did a literature review on the few researches that have been performed on this and it seems that the number of annoyed people already increases dramatically starting at a noise level of 35 to 40 dB(A), way below the sound levels at which other sources of noise (like airplanes, cars etc) start to annoy people. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2009 : 12:32:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dude
If Limpbaugh says it, it must be true afterall! |
Nah, it's Steven Milloy and the jerkoffs at the Cato Institute. After all, they sound much more sane, at least acknowledging that climate change maybe, possibly, might be due in some part to human activities. Rush and company finally figured out a couple years ago that their complete denial of climate change in its entirety was getting them nowhere, so they started taking cues from the Libertarians, who are aiming for the same economic goals, but appear to the average observer to be the acme of rationality compared to the Republicans. Unfortunately, they're just as full of crap as any other political party.
|
I read some articles on global warming from the CATO institute. I found the articles annoyingly dumb. Ever since I disregard any data coming from them. It's not a credible institute.
It's a pity Penn and Teller seem to take them seriously as a source. It tells me something about their research team, namely that it is probably not that good. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2009 : 12:39:06 [Permalink]
|
There is, by the way, an "easy" solution to the annoyance caused by (and resistance to) windturbines. Make the surrounding population co-owners. If people are co-owners of the wind turbine, they don't mind the noise. Probably because the noise in those cases sounds like cash rolling in  |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2009 : 12:50:36 [Permalink]
|
One last thing. I also am aware of environmentalists worry on biofuels. However, it is hard to describe these people as "fringe", because the concerns they raise are quite legitimate. The main concern is that the first generation fuels cost more energy to produce than they supply. This is a fairly simple equation to make and shows that at best, first generation biodiesel produces around 10% more energy than is consumed in the complete production process.
Another concern is increasing food prices. While statements that increasing food prices are completely due to biofuels are probably overstatements, a weak effect is not unlikely. The problem here is that a even weak increase in prices hits the bottom 1% of the income direct and hard.
A last concern is safety, the concern that the exhaust fumes from biofuels are harmful. While this may be a legitimate concern, the problem is that we have yet to get a good grip on the exhaust fumes from regular gasoline or diesel. Producers of gasoline and especially it's additives do not have to show in great detail that their product is safe before bringing it on the market. So even if we show at some point that biofuels are harmful for the health of the general population, we still wouldn't know whether they are more or less harmful then the stuff we're using now.
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2009 : 13:23:51 [Permalink]
|
tomk80 said:
| Coming a bit late on this discussion (haven't been on this forum for a couple of weeks, due to starting my new job), but with wind energy there are some serious efforts disrupting plans to increase this form of energy. The same in Sweden and Denmark and possibly the UK and Germany. Although it's not really "fringe environmentalists" driving that effort, but rather local groups who do not like having a 100 meter large pole put in their (proverbial) backyard. There are also issues with the noise produced by wind turbines. I did a literature review on the few researches that have been performed on this and it seems that the number of annoyed people already increases dramatically starting at a noise level of 35 to 40 dB(A), way below the sound levels at which other sources of noise (like airplanes, cars etc) start to annoy people. |
What I want is a specific example (preferably examples) of any group that has actually shut down production or blocked production of new energy sources. Give me some documentation of these "serious efforts" and their results.
As for the use of biofuel, the current methods of producing ethanol are very inefficient. However, once cellulosic methods are used in mass production of ethanol, that will change dramatically. It will also have much less of an impact on food crops because cellulosic production of ethanol will utilize any part of a plant, not just the fruit or simple sugar containing parts. There won't be any need to fertilize with nitrogen for this either, as there are ample nuisance plants (kudzu, for one) that grow rapidly and without help from us to increase yield.
My point, in responding to Hittman, was to point out that environmental concerns (which allow him to blame the left wing of US politics) are not causing any actual delays or blocking any construction of new energy from wind or solar. Any objections on environmental grounds come from "fringe" groups who are about as reality based as the rapture ready crowd, and I can find no single instance, anywhere, of such groups actually managing to interfere. They just complain, but are not taken seriously.
The real impediment, in the US, to renewable enery is our own energy policy over the last eight years, which was writtin entirely by coal, oil, and mining lobbyists/execs. No federal tax subsidy, on par with coal and oil, for renewable energy. That means no real investment and any company that tries will be at a massive market disadvantage vs those industries who get the subsidy.
Its really a tidy package. Oil and coal can block competition and blame their political opposition for doing the actual blocking.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2009 : 15:15:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
tomk80 said:
What I want is a specific example (preferably examples) of any group that has actually shut down production or blocked production of new energy sources. Give me some documentation of these "serious efforts" and their results. |
here for example. Especially in the introduction of the article: "Although national surveys throughout Europe show high levels of support for renewable energy amongst the general public, support at a local level is
often seriously reduced when specific projects are proposed. Members of the local communities often object to proposed wind turbines on the grounds of visual intrusion, noise pollution or local environmental disturbance. In many cases, well-organised local opposition groups form."
In the Netherlands the goal of doubling wind power by 2010 is seriously hampered by this kind of local opposition, delaying and in a number of cases preventing the placement of wind turbines. Our minister of housing, planning and environment halted the placement of new wind turbines near the A2 (one of the dutch highways) in the vicinity of the village "Woerden" in response to local opposition. Presently windfarm development in the vicinity of the isle of Urk in the Netherlands is delayed due to opposition from local inhabitants and local industry (I could link to this but all the articles regarding this are in dutch). These kind of issues are common in many European countries and part of the NIMBY-phenomenon (Not In My BackYard). There is a lot of support for wind energy in general, but not so much support for having that wind turbine placed in your vicinity. Currently the dutch government is implementing new regulations on wind turbines because of this. In one of my last assignments at my previous employer (a government institute) I was working on figuring out what the impact of these regulations would be on possible sites to place wind turbines and the first results before I left indicated that there might not be much room left.
| As for the use of biofuel, the current methods of producing ethanol are very inefficient. However, once cellulosic methods are used in mass production of ethanol, that will change dramatically. It will also have much less of an impact on food crops because cellulosic production of ethanol will utilize any part of a plant, not just the fruit or simple sugar containing parts. There won't be any need to fertilize with nitrogen for this either, as there are ample nuisance plants (kudzu, for one) that grow rapidly and without help from us to increase yield. |
True, second and third generation biofuels look very promising on the energy aspect, as well as the food aspect.
| My point, in responding to Hittman, was to point out that environmental concerns (which allow him to blame the left wing of US politics) are not causing any actual delays or blocking any construction of new energy from wind or solar. Any objections on environmental grounds come from "fringe" groups who are about as reality based as the rapture ready crowd, and I can find no single instance, anywhere, of such groups actually managing to interfere. They just complain, but are not taken seriously. |
As I hopefully showed above, in the Netherlands they are for wind turbines. The opposition is not fringe, not even specifically environmentalist, but it does cause significant delays and even cancellations of plans. However, in the case of wind turbines their concerns are reality based. The disturbance of wind turbines from disturbance of the view or noise disturbance are real, they should be taken seriously and are taken seriously. With wind turbines there are a number of other problems with wildlife (bats and birds) some of which do have a serious basis (especially with regards to bats). But that is the Netherlands/Europe, I could imagine the US being different since you've got a bit more room there. Moving off-shore causes other concerns, mainly in the disturbance of marine ecosystems.
The real impediment, in the US, to renewable enery is our own energy policy over the last eight years, which was writtin entirely by coal, oil, and mining lobbyists/execs. No federal tax subsidy, on par with coal and oil, for renewable energy. That means no real investment and any company that tries will be at a massive market disadvantage vs those industries who get the subsidy.
Its really a tidy package. Oil and coal can block competition and blame their political opposition for doing the actual blocking.
|
That much is true. In Europe the emphasis on renewable energy has probably been much higher.
edited to add: We did have a great laugh in our department about a newspaper article from a US or UK newspaper, titled "local citizen concerned about the health impacts of wind turbnes on her baby", where this pregnant local citizen was photographed smoking. But that's just standard idiocy, not fringe environmentalism. Can't find the photgraph at this point. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 02/11/2009 01:36:59 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2009 : 02:29:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
We did have a great laugh in our department about a newspaper article from a US or UK newspaper, titled "local citizen concerned about the health impacts of wind turbnes on her baby", where this pregnant local citizen was photographed smoking. But that's just standard idiocy, not fringe environmentalism. Can't find the photgraph at this point.
|
You're thinking of this pic from Roanoke Times?
It's a classic FAIL.
 |
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. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2009 : 05:00:35 [Permalink]
|
| That's the one! I see I remembered incorrectly, it was about jackhammers. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2009 : 13:04:14 [Permalink]
|
tomk80 said:
Especially in the introduction of the article: "Although national surveys throughout Europe show high levels of support for renewable energy amongst the general public, support at a local level is
often seriously reduced when specific projects are proposed. Members of the local communities often object to proposed wind turbines on the grounds of visual intrusion, noise pollution or local environmental disturbance. In many cases, well-organised local opposition groups form."
|
Thanks. That is interesting.
I seem to recall, now, some ultra rich people here in the US blocking an offshore wind farm in the northeast, because it would mess up their view on the water or something.
I think this kind of opposition can be overcome though, with a little education.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2009 : 14:08:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Thanks. That is interesting.
I seem to recall, now, some ultra rich people here in the US blocking an offshore wind farm in the northeast, because it would mess up their view on the water or something.
I think this kind of opposition can be overcome though, with a little education.
|
I think it will depend on the situation. The problem is that these kind of things, noise annoyance and what in the Netherlands is known as horizon pollution (the disturbance of the view by artificial elements), can have a number of very real consequences. The one that is easiest to imagine is a drop in the value of your house. For other effects it depends a little on the situation, but in the Netherlands noise annoyance is considered a health effect (it disturbs well-being, which is a part of health according to the WHO). 'Education' is not magic, some problems with alternative sources of energy are very real and need to be solved or to be taken into account. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2009 : 22:50:28 [Permalink]
|
I'm not a climatologist, but I would be greatly surprised if adding billions of tons of CO<sub>2</sub> into the atmosphere will have no effect at all. To quote speculations from the 70's as evidence that the warnings about global warming 30 years later are equally dubious, is simply ridiculous. Penn and Teller did it on their strange show Bullshit!.
It's obvious that even if we don't care one bit about carbon emissions, pollution or their effects on the planet, we still have to switch from petroleum as fuel to something else, simply because we're running out of it. Regarding energy production, I support nuclear fission as a temporary solution until we have fusion (and yes, I am convinced it will be possible one day), and I also support wind and solar power. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2009 : 02:10:14 [Permalink]
|
I have been trying to find a reference to the non-fiction article I read around 1960 or so in a science fiction magazine about man-made global warming. The article was in either Galaxy or Astounding (Analog). I recall the writer warned of rising CO2 levels due to the Industrial Revolution, and suspected they would begin warming earth. The writer knew of carbonate formation in the oceans, and was unsure whether or not these would keep up with the CO2 greenhouse gasses. The author was probably one of the Galaxy or Astounding regular fiction writers.
I didn't find that reference yet, but when I Googled using "history of man-made global warming," what I found were almost exclusively denialist articles, following the GOP Talking Points agenda. Turns out that two CNN meteorologists and one from Accuweather are on the Big Oil denialist team. The denialists seem extremely well-published in the popular press, and seem to have a lot more clout (and money behind them) than their actual numbers might account for.
Despite this, MMGW denialism remains mostly an American thing, largely tied to Christian Fundamentalism as a support for short-sighted petroleum corporations. Why the Hell is it that every imaginable kind of evil always seems to be a project of Christians?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/13/2009 02:11:33 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Global warming deniers
