[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The irony is that you're also part of the cult. You're make some excellent arguments for human-caused global warming.

Narh, I'm just hoping that everyone left of Reagan will realise how their mere existence is contributing to global warming and subsequently off themselves (for the good of the planet, you understand). I can live in hope.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Human caused? Partially.
But SUVs are not the sole perpitrator. As the environazis would have us believe.

Exactly.

But, as is usual with those on the left, it's always someone else or "the rich" who's to blame. Like how their idea of "wealth redistribution" is always them giving away someone else's money, never their own.

[osiris]

People should attach tubes to cow's bumholes (and their own human counterparts) and capture the expelled gases into large bladders as a means to harness the untapped power of this most natural albeit untapped resource.

We'd stop global warming, foreign oil addiction, shut the liberals/rightwingers up, and can finally move on with our miserable bum-plugged lives.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Human caused? Partially.
But SUVs are not the sole perpitrator. As the environazis would have us believe.

What?!? That's ridiculous! No one in their right mind thinks SUVs are the sole perpetrator of GHG emissions. It's been going on since far before SUVs were invented, for god's sake!

greg

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yet people like the UK government (climate change cultists) charge you extra for driving a Range Rover (over a "normal" vehicle) while actually paying you (family tax credit) to produce mobile CO2 manufacturing units (kids).

Doesn't make any sense whatsoever - just like a cult.

Originally Posted by SkyCaptain

But SUVs are not the sole perpitrator. As the environazis would have us believe.

You and SkyCaptain are the cultists here. You are taking an insane position: Increase fuel economy with hybrid vehicles? No! Let's wipe out half the world's population. SkyCaptain is arguing against a fictional environazi whom he seems to have found in a novel somewhere.

Are you just trying to build up your credentials so Bush will invite you to the White House?

[Sky Captain]

Search SUV here.
There's plenty.
A cultist I'm not.

And where is the fnck did you read wipe out half the world's population?

[tie]

Go back and read Doofy's posts on page 2. Then tell me who's the Nazi.

Originally Posted by Doofy

I mean... ...perhaps half the population of the planet needs to die out (from famine, etc.) in order to solve the problem - and that by taking measures to ensure that this doesn't happen is perhaps storing up all sorts of problems for the future. Harsh, but perhaps true.

You and Doofy both act like cultists. Find me the environazi posting in this thread.

[Sky Captain]

Search the forum.
This goes beyond this one thread.

Lets see. Population is increasing.
Population is creatinf more and more CO2 by breathing.
Yet CO2 emissions have to be cut. So the population can continue increasing.
It's a catch 22.

The chart a while back shows the CO2 rise with the industrial age.
This is also rise of the population explosion.

[tie]

I'm supposed to search the forum to find out who you are arguing against?? Oo-kay.

Lets see. Population is increasing.
Population is creatinf more and more CO2 by breathing.
Yet CO2 emissions have to be cut. So the population can continue increasing.
It's a catch 22.

This is nonsense. Pseudo-science and calls for population control are both signs of Naziism.

How about this? You give me a reasonable, implementable proposal for limiting population growth to give a 10% drop in CO2 emissions over the next ten years. Somehow, you're going to have to figure out how to eliminate more than 600 million people. Good luck.

(Of course, if you actually look at the statistics, eliminating only 120 million Americans would have the necessary effect. This, no doubt, is because Americans have bigger lungs.)

Me, I give you Kyoto. I give you hybrid cars. Nuclear energy. Solar and wind power. A market for carbon credits. Etc. etc. The technology and means are all here and have been here. There is a framework of international diplomacy. The costs are comparable to the Iraq war, and the benefits real and long term.

[Sky Captain]

Hell Canada has a problem reaching KYOTO goals
Where you gonna bury all the spent fuel rods?
Wind power can only suppliment.
Carbon credits = strangling industrial countries and punishing the rich.
Hybred cars are a band-aid. They are not that carbon friendly.(manufacturing)

And common sense says the population will have to come under some kind of control eventually.
Housing = habitat loss.
Farming = habitat loss.

Also:
China insists that the gas emissions level of any given country is a multiplication of its per capita emission and its population. Because China has emplaced population control measures while maintaining low emissions per capita, it claims it should therefore in both the above aspects be considered a contributor to the world environment. China considers the criticism of its energy policy unjust.[28] China is currently the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and is expected to become the largest by 2030

[tie]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Hell Canada has a problem reaching KYOTO goals

And how then do you expect Canada to be able to cut its population by 10% over the next decade?

If the solutions were trivial, then there wouldn't be a problem. But the solutions aren't all that hard, and my proposed solution is still much, much easier than yours (which I'm still waiting for).

[Sky Captain]

I'm waiting on the government to become my nanny and fix it all.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

This is nonsense. Pseudo-science and calls for population control are both signs of Naziism.

Stop talking crap. Nobody has proposed population control, but simply stopping population enhancement. Perhaps global warming is nature's method of population control and you hippies are actually actively working against it (and thus making the problem much, much worse than it should be).

Originally Posted by tie 

How about this? You give me a reasonable, implementable proposal for limiting population growth to give a 10% drop in CO2 emissions over the next ten years. Somehow, you're going to have to figure out how to eliminate more than 600 million people.

Real easy. Stop all foreign aid and the problem will sort itself out in no time.

Originally Posted by tie 

(Of course, if you actually look at the statistics, eliminating only 120 million Americans would have the necessary effect. This, no doubt, is because Americans have bigger lungs.)

Oooo oooo oooo. Is my dream of all the Dems offing themselves becoming a reality then? Can someone video it for me please?

[ink]

Originally Posted by tie 

Me, I give you Kyoto. I give you hybrid cars. Nuclear energy. Solar and wind power. A market for carbon credits. Etc. etc. The technology and means are all here and have been here. There is a framework of international diplomacy. The costs are comparable to the Iraq war, and the benefits real and long term.

Don't worry, they'll just call you a liberal hippy, out to steal all their gas money as part of a communist wealth-redistribution scheme for daring to bring up science and market economics.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ink 

Don't worry, they'll just call you a liberal hippy, out to steal all their gas money as part of a communist wealth-redistribution scheme for daring to bring up science and market economics.

It's funny that carbon trading credits have been mentioned. Just this week the UK government has proposed such a scheme for individuals. And they're including food.

Now, if you think about how that will work for a moment, you'll figure that some kind of massive tracking system is going to be required so that every time you buy something, your credits are suitably adjusted. No more credits left? Tough crap, no more food. Temporary glitch in the system? Tough crap, no food. Script kiddie hacked the central database? Tough crap, no food.

And do you get extra credits for reducing your carbon footprint by, say, planting trees? Nope.

That's the reality, but just for fun let's project: Government (with a party boosted by BillyFunds) says that your typing on a Mac in MacNN uses more carbon than typing on a PC in a Windoze forum? Tough crap, suck it up.

Is this the kind of world you want to live in? Because if you ain't careful, it's going to happen.

Right, now go read Revelation.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Stop talking crap. Nobody has proposed population control, but simply stopping population enhancement. Perhaps global warming is nature's method of population control and you hippies are actually actively working against it (and thus making the problem much, much worse than it should be).

Real easy. Stop all foreign aid and the problem will sort itself out in no time.

You are crazy and immoral. The US will suffer as well as Africa from global warming. Your plan is to stand by and do nothing?

SkyCaptain, please let us know how you are going to get the US and Canada to cut their populations by 10% over the next ten years. I don't expect all the details, but at least the broad sketches.

Then we can take your approach for cutting CO2 emissions and compare it to mine, and weigh the costs and benefits of each approach.

[Sky Captain]

I never said CUT the population.
I said CONTROL the population expansion.
I have a spare Speak and Spell™ I can loan you.(now stop being silly and I will)


And what's YOUR solution to the population?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

You are crazy and immoral.

No, you're the crazy cultist. I'm the rational pragmatist.

Originally Posted by tie 

The US will suffer as well as Africa from global warming.

So?

Originally Posted by tie 

Your plan is to stand by and do nothing?

Yep.

[Spliffdaddy]

The USA could simply stop producing so many crops and livestock. Hell, we only eat 35% of what we produce. Our CO2 emissions would decline rapidly - and millions of people worldwide would stop living. It's a win-win situation for "Global Warming" supporters.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

The USA could simply stop producing so many crops and livestock. Hell, we only eat 35% of what we produce. Our CO2 emissions would decline rapidly - and millions of people worldwide would stop living. It's a win-win situation for "Global Warming" supporters.

That's crazy and immoral Spliffy! Don't you know that the only way to stop this global warming is to stop rich people from driving around in their SUVs?

[Nicko]

This chart is illustrative.

[Sky Captain]

Define energy. This is very broad.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Define energy. This is very broad.

"British Thermal Units"

[Spliffdaddy]

We use our BTUs way more efficiently than other countries.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

"British Thermal Units"

rods to the hog's head ratio.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

We use our BTUs way more efficiently than other countries.

The stats are probably even more scewed considering that China uses most of their energy to produce cheap crap to export to the US. (ie. China brings online the equivalent of one coal fire plant every WEEK).

[Sky Captain]

Not just to the US, Europe too.(and parts of Africa)
You are using a computer, right?

[ink]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's funny that carbon trading credits have been mentioned. Just this week the UK government has proposed such a scheme for individuals. And they're including food.

Now, if you think about how that will work for a moment, you'll figure that some kind of massive tracking system is going to be required so that every time you buy something, your credits are suitably adjusted. No more credits left? Tough crap, no more food. Temporary glitch in the system? Tough crap, no food. Script kiddie hacked the central database? Tough crap, no food.

And do you get extra credits for reducing your carbon footprint by, say, planting trees? Nope.

That's the reality, but just for fun let's project: Government (with a party boosted by BillyFunds) says that your typing on a Mac in MacNN uses more carbon than typing on a PC in a Windoze forum? Tough crap, suck it up.

Is this the kind of world you want to live in? Because if you ain't careful, it's going to happen.

1) Any politician that tries to enforce a plan that starves people will be out on their ears.

2) The government already tells me I can't do/own things for the public good (no cocaine, ID for suphedarine, license for driving, passports, etc.).

3) Programs that overreach are typically corrected. See the recent trend of requiring paper trails in electronic voting machines and the TSA's reintroduction of liquids in carry-ons.

Right, now go read Revelation.

Geeze, how many times are people going to use the mark of the beast? It was currency, then it was social security, then it was drivers' licenses, then it was credit cards, then it was RFID tags -- now it's going to be carbon trading that finally brings "prophecy to life".

[tie]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

I never said CUT the population.
I said CONTROL the population expansion.
I have a spare Speak and Spell™ I can loan you.(now stop being silly and I will)

And what's YOUR solution to the population?

If you want to cut CO2 emissions and not just control them, then you will need to cut the population. Tell me your plan.

I don't need a solution to the population, because it is not as urgent a threat as global warming. Obviously the Earth can't sustain an unbounded human population. As the population grows, problems will become more serious and global in nature, requiring globally coordinated responses. However, this isn't an urgent problem at the moment; global warming is. Also, populations have tended to stabilize and even decline as incomes rise and education increases, particularly for women. So I think population growth will naturally stabilize without any necessary intervention. Say the population stabilizes at 8 billion. I think 8 billion people is an indefinitely sustainable population level.

So: I say start implementing CO2 reductions immediately. Invest in education in the third-world to stabilize population levels over the next ten to twenty years.

Originally Posted by Doofy

"The US will suffer as well as Africa from global warming."
So?

So I care. What are you doing in this thread or this forum if you don't care about the US, or your country? I don't get you.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's funny that carbon trading credits have been mentioned. Just this week the UK government has proposed such a scheme for individuals. And they're including food.

Now, if you think about how that will work for a moment, you'll figure that some kind of massive tracking system is going to be required so that every time you buy something, your credits are suitably adjusted. No more credits left? Tough crap, no more food. Temporary glitch in the system? Tough crap, no food. Script kiddie hacked the central database? Tough crap, no food.

And do you get extra credits for reducing your carbon footprint by, say, planting trees? Nope.

That's the reality, but just for fun let's project: Government (with a party boosted by BillyFunds) says that your typing on a Mac in MacNN uses more carbon than typing on a PC in a Windoze forum? Tough crap, suck it up.

Is this the kind of world you want to live in? Because if you ain't careful, it's going to happen.

Right, now go read Revelation.

I don't know who you are arguing with. I didn't propose that plan.

However, the longer we wait to do anything, the more extreme measures will be necessary. If you want to avoid extreme measures in the future, you should support modest measures today.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

I don't need a solution to the population, because it is not as urgent a threat as global warming. Obviously the Earth can't sustain an unbounded human population. As the population grows, problems will become more serious and global in nature, requiring globally coordinated responses. However, this isn't an urgent problem at the moment; global warming is. Also, populations have tended to stabilize and even decline as incomes rise and education increases, particularly for women. So I think population growth will naturally stabilize without any necessary intervention. Say the population stabilizes at 8 billion. I think 8 billion people is an indefinitely sustainable population level.

You guys aren't getting it. What if the current population levels are what's causing global warming?

Originally Posted by tie 

So I care. What are you doing in this thread or this forum if you don't care about the US, or your country? I don't get you.

I'm a libertarian - I care about freedom, not countries.

Originally Posted by tie 

I don't know who you are arguing with.

I'm not arguing. I'm telling you how it is.