|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 05/18/2007 : 09:29:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
HalfMooner---Do you really believe that restriction of use of a product that is desired would not increase its value?
If you would like I could explain basic economics and show many examples of this from history.
|
Indeed, but you fail to take into account cheaper alternatives. As petroleum products become more expensive, which they are even as we speak, those will be developed.
Unfortunatly, the people in the best position to do this developement are the oil companies, however, it will happen sooner or later, as history also tells us.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 09:44:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
HalfMooner---Do you really believe that restriction of use of a product that is desired would not increase its value?
If you would like I could explain basic economics and show many examples of this from history.
|
You're joking, right? He's calling for less demand, not less supply. Perhaps you need some basic economics! |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 05/18/2007 09:45:10 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 14:31:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
HalfMooner---Do you really believe that restriction of use of a product that is desired would not increase its value?
If you would like I could explain basic economics and show many examples of this from history.
|
To answer your question: Less demand for a product, which is what Richardson is calling for (not its opposite, your invented "restriction of use of"), would in itself lower prices. Richardson is talking about reduction of demand, not reduction (or "restriction") of supply. It's there in black-and-white. Obviously this would create a reduced price in and of itself, not counting other factors. Obviously, except perhaps to the very most ignorant, twisted, or agenda-laden mind. Like that of a woo-woo conspiracy "theorist."
But of course, you have repeatedly proven that you are not paying any attention to what anyone else is writing here. My reply is addressed to those who both read and think in a functional, critical manner. People who don't claim that black is white. You may indeed be so paranoid and deluded that you don't know you are lying, but others can clearly see your misrepresentations, especially when you blithely convert facts into their polar opposites.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 18:38:09 [Permalink]
|
To all: Dave was nice enough to link to Richardsons plan.
http://tinyurl.com/3du5ub
"Start with a market-based cap and trade system. By 2020 utilities and industry will be allowed to emit 80% as much global warming pollution as they do today. Combined with transportation sector savings, these changes will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020."
This is a restriction of use.
"Immediately return to the international negotiating table and support mandatory limits on global warming pollution and keep atmospheric carbon below 450 parts per million."
This is a restriction of use.
So, yes Bill wants to restrict the use of oil.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 18:41:56 [Permalink]
|
HalfMooner---"restriction of use of", would in itself lower prices"
Not according to economists.
It makes it more valuable as there is less of it.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 18:44:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
To all: Dave was nice enough to link to Richardsons plan.
http://tinyurl.com/3du5ub
"Start with a market-based cap and trade system. By 2020 utilities and industry will be allowed to emit 80% as much global warming pollution as they do today. Combined with transportation sector savings, these changes will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020."
This is a restriction of use.
"Immediately return to the international negotiating table and support mandatory limits on global warming pollution and keep atmospheric carbon below 450 parts per million."
This is a restriction of use.
So, yes Bill wants to restrict the use of oil. |
You still don't know what you're talking about. This isn't limiting the supply of oil. Instead, it will compel various groups to demand less fuel, through such things as increased fuel economy, or switching to alternative fuels, and so on.
Since you were so keen to bring up basic economics, let's go back to supply and demand. By using market-based approaches, Richardson (and many others) want to get us to demand less oil. So while the cost of fuel may go up, it's not because we're compelling, for instance, auto makers to design more fuel-efficient cars.
Know what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 19:32:38 [Permalink]
|
I am sorry you can not see the results of actions beyond the first step.
I contend that "man made global warming" is a religious belief and no reasoning can be found with zealots.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 19:37:00 [Permalink]
|
Too bad you cannot back anything up and you conveniently ignore/handwave anything brought against your "contention".
I suggest you read the quote in your signature.
Now, back to lurking... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 05/18/2007 19:37:48 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 19:51:54 [Permalink]
|
pleco--- No one has provided evidence to the contrary, only attempts to "debunk" the evidence I provide.
I have looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion.
This forum seems to base their conclusions on "experts" that agree with their religious beliefs, while discounting "experts" that disagree with their religious beliefs.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 20:13:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
pleco--- No one has provided evidence to the contrary, only attempts to "debunk" the evidence I provide.
I have looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion.
This forum seems to base their conclusions on "experts" that agree with their religious beliefs, while discounting "experts" that disagree with their religious beliefs.
|
Whatever helps you sleep at night... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 20:39:49 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
This forum seems to base their conclusions on "experts" that agree with their religious beliefs, while discounting "experts" that disagree with their religious beliefs. |
Experts like Fred Seitz???
Every major recognized scientific organization or research center that deals with climate change has come to the same conclusion. Find me one that doesn't hold the consensus view. Find even one!
In meantime, while you are looking, here is a brief summary of the scientists you have come up with so far:
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 21:01:43 [Permalink]
|
Roger Pielke---Whats wrong with this one, I bet dollars to donuts he does not count.
http://tinyurl.com/2y5vp8
Here he point out science errors in the ipcc documents.
The discussions are fascinating; they certainly provide that there is much disagreement in the science community; hardly a consensus.
I trust you will look through his writings and discussions before again claiming "world wide scientific consensus".
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 21:51:20 [Permalink]
|
I've rarely if ever run into someone who is so boneheadedly capable of making sweeping idiotic statements, then standing stubbornly behind them.
JEROME DA GNOME insists that restricting the use (ie., reducing demand) of fossil fuels would drive up their prices. He somehow, for reasons I could only speculate upon, insists on confusing reduced demand with its opposite, reduced supply. I'd love to see a single economist who supports the idea that reduced demand causes prices to increase!
JEROME DA GNOME's statement is utterly baffling. It's not just an error caused by some kind of confusing complexity. This is a simple issue, one that anyone with a functioning brain would understand. It's exactly as if JEROME DA GNOME were saying that white is black. JEROME DA GNOME, waste is a terrible thing to use as a brain.
Since he's proven utterly immune to being corrected on this basic matter, there is no use in further attempting to have a discussion with this fellow. He'd need a brain transplant, first.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 05/18/2007 : 23:18:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Roger Pielke---Whats wrong with this one, I bet dollars to donuts he does not count.
http://tinyurl.com/2y5vp8
Here he point out science errors in the ipcc documents.
The discussions are fascinating; they certainly provide that there is much disagreement in the science community; hardly a consensus.
I trust you will look through his writings and discussions before again claiming "world wide scientific consensus".
|
Yes indeed, a very interesting discussion. Nice that you brought us some actual science being discussed and debated and not some silly blather. He thinks the IPPC is off the mark by not focusing more attention on “climate change and variability on the regional and local scales.” Basically, Roger Pielke thinks the IPPC paints with too small or too big a brush, depending on how you view it.
He worries:
| There is a major risk, of course, in making CO2 the only villain in climate change, and in making definitive forecasts of what the climate will do in the coming decades. The risk is that if the IPCC forecasts do not occur as projected, then the credibility of the climate science community will be lost for a long time. This would be tragic as we need an effective climate policy to deal with the threats that climate variability and change pose to society. |
Here is his final comment on his main conclusion page:
Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur. |
Ah well, an actual reminder of how science works. I love this stuff…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 23:25:47 [Permalink]
|
Did our newest troll just link an article, that he claims supports his claim that MMGW is fake, where the scientist in question is claiming that the IPCC doesn't go far enough in attributing anthropogenic causes?
|
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is Global Warming a Scam (part 2)
Topic Locked
