More Global Warming Nonsense

mulp · #61 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyote

Sure, here you go:

Malaria is a parasite, not a mosquito.

coyote · #62 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

That's like saying the vikings were innovating in finding gold and producing food when they raped, pillaged, and plundered.

One can argue that the Vikings and other barbarian raiders were useful because they unlocked the stored capital of the feudal merchantile centers that considered gaining and holding capital in treasuries and granaries was what made a kingdom great. And Adam Smith was making the point that it wasn't what was in the treasuries that made nation great.

But as you view robber barons so highly, and you consider liberals to be robber barrons, you should be supporting Obama for president and hoping for a liberal landslide in November.

So you’re saying that when a consumer voluntarily pays a certain dollar amount for a certain good that this is the equivalent of having your treasuries stolen from you? I don’t see your logic at all, as one economist once said, “One of the wonderful things about free markets is that the path to greater wealth comes not from looting, plundering and enslaving one's fellow man, as it has throughout most of human history, but by serving and pleasing him.”

smart makes a comeback · #63 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 10:18 PM

NO ONE HAS YET MET MY CHALLANGE TO POST A STATEMENT BY A SINGLE NON BIAS, NON DISCREDED, OBJECTIVE EXPERT CLAIMING THAT THERE IS NO MADE MADE CONNECTION TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Going on 6 months now, and none of the flat earth kooks have been able to do it

Why ?

Because no such testimony exists

coyote · #64 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

Malaria is a parasite, not a mosquito.

Okay I mispoke, I ment to say, "malaria rates have declined"

coyote · #65 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

NO ONE HAS YET MET MY CHALLANGE TO POST A STATEMENT BY A SINGLE NON BIAS, NON DISCREDED, OBJECTIVE EXPERT CLAIMING THAT THERE IS NO MADE MADE CONNECTION TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Going on 6 months now, and none of the flat earth kooks have been able to do it

Why ?

Becuuse no such testimony exists

Want a cookie?

smart makes a comeback · #66 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

NO ONE HAS YET MET MY CHALLANGE TO POST A STATEMENT BY A SINGLE NON BIAS, NON DISCREDED, OBJECTIVE EXPERT CLAIMING THAT THERE IS NO MADE MADE CONNECTION TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Going on 6 months now, and none of the flat earth kooks have been able to do it

Why ?

Because no such testimony exists

Fuinny thing is, they used to try...LOL

I guess I exposed their "experts' as oil and utility company hacks one too many times

mulp · #67 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyote

I asked you for an example of something that contributes to economic growth that has been proven to be finite. You have failed to give me a single example. I gave you the example of the one inch line which can have an infinite number of points on it if the points were imposable to measure. Same rule applies to the resources that contribute to economic growth; they cannot be measured, so they cannot be considered meaningfully finite.

Oil in the lower 48. The US was once an exporter of oil supplying the world.

In 1980, the commitment was for the US to become energy independent by opening up vast ranges of Federally owned land to exploration and development, yet with all that land opened up, and the addition of deep water US territory and Alaska, the US produces less oil than it did when the plan was to become energy independent by giving more welfare to the oil corporations.

After years and years of corporate welfare, the oil companies abandoned all those projects which the taxpayers had been funding to make the US energy independent. And the amount of new territory the conservatives call for Congress to open up over the objection of the environmentalists, the only significant one is ANWR, with most of the "new" areas already authorized by Congress back when Carter was president. That Reagan-Bush-Bush delayed on the regulations indicates their undesirability to the oil companies. The Clinton administration actually issued the regulations for a number of tracts before he left office, which Bush then suspended as his administration sought to make them more lucrative for the oil companies.

So, oil as a resource if finite and the US is running up against limits because the focus has been placed predominantly on fossil fuels and oil in particular because the economists make the claim you do, and then ignore the limits with the handwave "innovatio will find a substitute".

Well, government funding of innovation focused on fossil fuels has failed to deliver that promised innovation that will deliver the fossil derived substitute for oil.

And the reason is rather clear. These substitutes are far too costly relative to the price Saudi Arabia can set in the short term for an empire, a couple of decades, and they are finite for the long term for an empire. Provide the fossil energy map for the next two centuries, at which time the US will be reaching the age of some of the world's notable empires.

In the long term, sustainable energy is the only answer and the dominant source is solar, including winds driven by solar. And the innovation of Asia and Japan built on the US innovation killed in its infany by Reagan policies that made it clear that sustainable energy would not be supported by his administration. The price of solar power is beginning to match coal, and the capital cost is far less than nuclear with no where near the risk building the first five plants.

Given $10B to invest, the lowest risk is in building a solar thermal power and wind system, the next lowest risk is expanding in Canada the oil sands, and the third is finding some way around US sanctions and criminal charges to get into Iran. The last place to invest $10B is in oil shale or nuclear. If you were to invest $10B in nuclear, you would need to go after a $5B project, holding the other $5B in reserve for the cost overruns caused by:
- no US founderies capable today of making the critical components like the pressure vessel
- shortage of experienced nuclear scientist and engineers
- shortage of welders and pipefitters able to meet the high standards
- the lack of a project manager capable of delivering on schedule (oh, wait, they can use the big dig contractor, Bechtel, they reliably deliver over budget and years late on such big projects)

The only resource that is almost infinite is solar and the things that can be "renewed." Steel can be recycled many times so the demand for iron ore is finite because the maximum population is finite. Ditto aluminum, lead, et al. But fossil fuels are not renewable except as polymers.

coyote · #68 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

Fuinny thing is, they used to try...LOL

I guess I exposed their "experts' as oil and utility company hacks one too many times

Good for you sport.

mulp · #69 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyote

Okay I mispoke, I ment to say, "malaria rates have declined"

If you knew why they have declined, all the hundreds of times they have declined, you would have immediately realized that mosquito populations has little to do with malaria or the other diseases spread by mosquitos.

The virtual elimination of malaria in India circa 1950 and the resurgence of malaria in India in the 1950s and 60s and 70s and 80s would have made it clear to you that economic theories are wrong when it comes to dealing with diseases like malaria.

coyote · #70 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

So, oil as a resource if finite and the US is running up against limits because the focus has been placed predominantly on fossil fuels and oil in particular because the economists make the claim you do, and then ignore the limits with the handwave "innovatio will find a substitute".

The only resource that is almost infinite is solar and the things that can be "renewed." Steel can be recycled many times so the demand for iron ore is finite because the maximum population is finite. Ditto aluminum, lead, et al. But fossil fuels are not renewable except as polymers.

What does finite mean? It means “measurable” or “limited” correct? What is the limit for oil, iron, aluminum, and lead?