How It All Ends: Get What You Want (Pt 1 of 3)

[celebrant72]

How the fuck can anyone take this guy seriously?

[fanfictionfun89]

You seem very intelligent. I would love to learn to debate from you. I admire that you keep doing this despite people being snarky to you (although you have stated your reasons for doing so) Bravo.

[scorpionsSon]

/watch?v=H3pj7l_dDWg

[mrhobbit007]

This day & age is not only a period of the highest stakes, it's also the ONLY time all man has had any kind of a chance at experiencing a global consciousness at work. It's the 1st time in history so many have had even an inkling of a chance of being on the same page with so many more. Finally we are in a position to spread rational, reasoned thought that honors and amplifies billions of souls learning globally attractive patterns AND living together in perfect harmony.

[mrhobbit007]

There is really no way for the vast majority of us here in North America to NOT be directly involved in actions that have profound effects all around and beyond us. VERY, VERY few of us can actually have a lifestyle whereby modest hand powered small holdings and animal care of a few acres keeps us and our families alive, well and eternally in harmony with out surrounds. There simply aren't enough perfect weather patterns and acreage environments to manage that.

[mrhobbit007]

For most of us in North America, "doing nothing" really isn't possible as a choice. "Most of us in North America" and part of this economic model so familiar to us here that is... Just participating enough to be employed, fed, watered and breathing with some shelter over our heads inherently means that we are part of a very large and impactful pattern that is having a humongous effect even if we consider ourselves as not part of the problem.

[delamons083067]

This whole series is well done, kudos. I`m one of many who surely appreciates the logic in your argument. Also in-action or no action, most certainly is a action. A action of apathy and perhaps for some fear paralyzing them into this choice of shirking any responsibility. What ever their reasoning, i find it`s always better to act and be wrong than not act and be wrong.

[delamons083067]

My experience in life proves over and over the consequences of no action always worse than wrong action. Even your little square chart backs this argument. When speaking about both possibilities as wrong or not the best choice, no choice is always worse.

[beatlemaniac1000]

if your disgusted with this teachers misuse of taxpayer funds call his boss @ Central High School

(503) 606-2217 his name is greg craven

[KillahMate]

@beatlemaniac1000 Taxpayer funds? He paid for this himself. Why did you think he didn't? Do you misuse taxpayer funds?

[Colin24Astonwood]

Right thats it folks,Lets Kidnap this guy in the Video and Vote him in as President of the world! He speaks the obvious truth!

VOTE WONDERINGMIND42

I defy any one to argue against what this guy is saying!

At least there is at least one sensible person in the world haha

Top Video!

[darkdonzaloog]

hey man u rock and ur right global warming is one hell of a threat

[AUTubeN22]

i have a job untill the end of the month, at least! so ill have plenty of time to research climate change by listening to debates & learning some history!about the "ice age" not sure when that was or how often it happens due to the fact that my mind does wonder, uncontrolably sometimes! so rather than being a sceptic, i tend to believe a lot of what i hear & see! so i wonder if the last ice age is still here & still in the process of thawing out almost completely before freezing over again!!

[rileannas]

From Chapter 6 of the 2007 IPCC report (Paleoclimate):

"It is very likely that the global

warming of 4°C to 7°C since the Last Glacial Maximum

occurred at an average rate about 10 times slower than

the warming of the 20th century."

As ice ages are triggered by solar activity (a change in the Earth's orbit), the current warming would have to be solar-induced to stand up to the "thawing out completely" claim. Watch the video "Solar Schmolar" by greenman3610 to see why it's not.

[fizzytinki]

You must be the world coolest dad !

I am sending your vids to my daughters!

Well done and thanks.

[SevenPatch]

Well you do say that most "skeptics" are rep. or libertarian. I don't fall under the most because I am a liberal and I don't believe in man-made GW. In fact, I used to believe in GW until I started doing research the last few months. I actually kind of think like wonderingmind42. I wanted to look for the holes in my beliefs (AGW believer) and I ended up realizing that there are a lot of holes in AGW. Don't believe me, do research for yourself. In 20 years AGW will be a footnote in history.

[wwickeddogg]

I did the research and I agree with the scientists, no doubt in my mind that global warming is occurring.

What did you see that convinced you otherwise?

[NwZ2]

No response, obviously.

[SevenPatch]

By the way, I responded. Haven't kept up with this account, sorry to disappoint you that I actually have answers.

[SevenPatch]

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I havn't really kept up with this account and responses to my comments. A simple answer but not the only one to your question is that while there is "smoke" there is no evidence that we fired the "gun" or that there is even a "gun" at all. So far CO2 is the only "gun" offered as evidence of AGW.  The problem with that is that CO2 is a heavy gas and doesn't exist in the upper atmosphere. While humans do affect the local environment,we dont affect the global one.

[wwickeddogg]

lol, I guess you haven't seen the global temperature analysis for the period of time during which all flights were grounded after September 11.

I don't know whether or not people are causing global climate change, but I know that we have the ability to.

Are you an employee of Exxon?

[SevenPatch]

Technically that is not global, it's only regional, hence my point in the first place. Also the affects on diurnal temperature range is only temporary and won't actually increase the mean temperature.

No I am not an employee of Exxon. Don't be a jackass.

[guy1481]

"The problem with that is that CO2 is a heavy gas and doesn't exist in the upper atmosphere." So then we should expect the atmosphere to contain stratified layers of gasses according to weight? In the 1800's, CO2 and other types of pollution were just local problems, but now most pollutants are essentially "injected" into the upper atmosphere for health reasons (keeps toxic gasses from hanging around). Just because a gas is heavier doesn't mean it has to stay in the lower atmosphere.

[SevenPatch]

Sorry for the late response. First of many reasons there is the fact that CO2 is a heavy gas, it doesn't affect the upper atmosphere which is where any green house gasses need to be in order to affect global temperatures. Another is the history of the Earth, Earth has been much warmer in the past and without the help of humans. We do affect the environment and we need to do something about garbage, waste and pollution. Those should be the priorities. Man made global warming however is a myth

[wwickeddogg]

I'm not really convinced that you understand the issue of climate change. There are no legitimate scientific theories that CO2 will cause the temperature of the Earth to become much warmer. The role of CO2 in the theories I have seen is more like a catalyst. In a nutshell, the theory is that the small change in temperature caused be CO2 increase starts a chain reaction of melting ice, increased methane, change in weather patterns and ocean currents... ultimately leading to climate change.

[SevenPatch]

There is no link of CO2 melting ice. Not sure where CH4 comes into play, it's another greenhouse gas and it's levels are not especially high although it has risen the last two years. Methane levels go up and down. Hint, on a nice clear day in August go to an open field somewhere and lay in the grass for about 2 hours or so. Come back and let me know what happens and why it happened and then you will find out the most likely cause of climate change. It's that simple.

[guy1481]

"There is no link of CO2 melting ice."

- except for the one agreed upon by most scientists and clearly established in this series of videos. I'd like to know where you came up with this.

"Not sure where CH4 comes into play"

- in short, it doesn't. It is a very potent greenhouse gas that we are emitting in small quantities, but its atmospheric lifetime is insignificant compared to CO2.

What exactly are you referencing at the end? Sorry, no grassy fields in LA.

[sneaky600]

You did a couple of months of research eh? Well, I'm sold. I presume that you are technically trained to do this research right? Ya know what, on second thought, I think I'll stick with the actual scientific community on this one.

[SevenPatch]

Which scientific community are you refering to? The one that doesn't believe in AGW or the one that does? You don't really need to be trained to do research. All that you need is a open mind, the desire to understand and an objective point of view. It's important to be skeptical of both sides. There is a lot of basic science out there that kind of makes AGW laughable, seriously go look for it. Fun fact, when was the worst heat wave in the US? 1901. Seven years before the first Model T.

[wwickeddogg]

There is a lot of basic science out there that makes gravity laughable. Fun fact, over 99% of the matter in the univers has not fallen to Earth.

[SevenPatch]

Wow, that is really bold. You make the comparison and assumption that AGW is as concrete a theory as gravity is. Bravo! See that is the problem, AGW is not even a theory, its a hypothesis. Certain people want you to believe it's a theory because they've staked their careers on it. I'd love to hear some basic science that makes gravity laughable by the way. Physics happens to be a hobby of mine. Also, how is your fact even relevant to the subject.

[guy1481]

Gravity: more massive objects attract less massive objects. We should therefore expect all the matter in the universe to have collided with the most massive one.  Obviously not the case. Most "basic science" objections I've heard have really "basic" answers, so go ahead, shoot.

[SevenPatch]

Your definition of gravity is over 300 years old. I'd say it's time you get some updated information. I recommend starting with anything written by Albert Einstein.

[guy1481]

Ah! So we agree that certain members of the scientific community are more credible than others. Explain why this doesn't apply to the study of climate change?

Obviously my definition isn't the whole story, and I'm not claiming it is. It just goes to show that "basic science" objections often overlook the more complicated side of science. For example, claiming that "there's been worse heat waves in the past" overlooks the fact that climate is based on averages, not single events.

[SevenPatch]

I've never claimed that credible sources are not applicable in climate change, the problem there is that there is entirely too many non credible sources. Also when considering the credible ones it's difficult since it's still a very young field of study. The fact that there has been worse heat waves in the past is not meant to prove anything about the climate other than it is capable of bizarre unexpected things. I'm not saying that the earth is not warming (it is) I'm saying AGW is unlikely

[SvenAERTS]

Give this guy a Nobel Price ...

[MEAKSTER30]

this video should be called Disclaimer Video!

[ted77756]

If it's 500 years. <-typo

[ted77756]

OK. I am a smart person.

What is the half life of aerosol in the ozone. It it's 500 years and carbon goes out quickly, then we could be in a disaster with your thinking. The reason is because the diff eq would look like the inverted pendulum. For some cases. Fixing a non lin unstable diff eq without a key part of the data is a horrible mistake.

You asked for a smart person to tell you. I need the half life of carbon and aerosol in order to set up the 2nd order diff eq. to be sure.

[blahgirl37]

wow, so thorough, nice job writing all this!

[CityzenJane]

I wish the skeptics would spend some time talking to the insurance industry. They are clear on the risks out there...that's how they make their money after all...

[MikeUpie]

From a recently retired English teacher, thank you for selflessly writing and making these videos. I still meet individuals that doubt the valididy of massive climate change. I try and gently educate them as to the realities, but it's like talking to a JFK conspiracy theorist. The mere possibility something may be amiss is enough for them to doubt the 99% of scientists that are willing to stake their reputation on their findings that climate change IS occurring and that humans are responsible.

[CityzenJane]

Isn't he a great teacher?

If I had science teachers like this guy in high school, I might have been one myself!

[t9darlantan]

in 2060 there will be no more northpole

[TempestStormwind]

Just speaking up: There *will* be a North Pole in 2060. It's part of the globe itself, not a function of its climate.

There probably won't be ice there (at the very least in the summer) if we stay in Column B, though. That's probably what you meant.

[whatsmyproblem69]

To add to that. Assuming that GCC gets worse and worse, we don't do anything to slow it down, and the climate only gets worse.

The north pole will first not have ice during the summer months, and then stay completly unfrozen for longer and longer peiods of the year.

[pgregston]

So your issue is government, plain and simple.

But energy, transportation and building - the most important sectors in regards to energy use and efficiency, are all bounded by policy. No contractor voluntarily builds to code-the market, especially the short term, says put money in your pocket. Self interest is not community interest.

That requires government.

[TheRealArchAngel]

NO. Does government tell you to buy a Gas Guzzler? Buy Charcoal or Gas Grills over say...a solar powered one?. Truth is so much of the Demand for Oil use is cause Consumers buy it so Companies provide it. If nobody will but Gasoline Cars, then to survive Car companies need to make cars with Engines using technology and fuel that consumers will buy. Governments only drive up costs,and basicially fuck up their good intentions to "help" as in Gas now being $3.35+/- gallon.

[pgregston]

There is not a real marketplace of personal transportation choices unless one lives in a city with mass transit. For instance- you can get a tax break with a hydrogen car, but not a pure electric- that's policy.

Personal transport is the smallest part of the oil and gas use- electricity generation is. Your government- through public utility commissions or other forms, guides this. Policy of elected leaders directs them.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Actually the gas tanks of Automobiles compete with Industries of pastics,sythetic rubber,and even drug companies for the raw material that it "oil" with the prodution of gasoline going from a wasteproduct of making Kerosine to being a prime product made from sweet crude leaving little left for other applications.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Gas will more likely hit $8.00 a gallon in the next 10 years (U.S.A.) with all related products made from oil also going up in cost and price and NOthing else Changing because of "Government interaction" rather then their being Alternative fuel inovation and cheap power via Government and politicains....That's "real world Economics 101".

[TheRealArchAngel]

I am for personal power in both senses of the word, commercial power is comercial power and always more expesive cause of all the hands handling it,or fucking it up in the case of government policy and politicians interested in keeping their jobs so they can benifit from companies willing to help them in their campaign in return for making policy go the right way for the companies.

[rentoninnes]

I have found a fault in your reasoning that makes a newer equation. You must include in equation the following: A: Positive ( result ) B: Negative ( result ) C: Neutral ( result ) D: Unknown ( unknown result ) E: Action F: Reaction G: Interaction H: Change I: Attraction J: Repulsion K: Translation L: Whole ( the complete combination between all things on earth and in the universe as we know it. )maybe i forgot one or two other things.

[CleanGreen13]

In British Columbia where I am from we have a native beetle called the mountain pine beetle which "nests" in pine tree. Normally the winters cull these beetles and keep them to "unnoticeable" impact on the forests. Our winters haven't been as cold and the populations have exploded to date 2 billion tree have killed by the pine beetle. Covering 9.2 million hectares.  Worth $68 billion.

[freesk8]

Still an argument from authority.

And I didn't hire these "experts."

[TempestStormwind]

Arguments from authority are legitimate arguments once you leave logic and enter specialist domains. This is why you listen to your doctor on health issues and your lawyer on legal ones. On scientific issues, the scientists are the ones to listen to, and in economic ones, the economists are.

Unless you think you're more qualified than the experts in their field, dismissing their expertise isn't rational.

[freesk8]

Experts should be able to explain things to us so we can judge for ourselves. Saying "person a must be right because she has a phd" is not a valid form of arugment. We are supposed to think for ourselves in a free country. The fact is, through history there have been many occasions when the experts have been wrong. This might be one.

[TempestStormwind]

Of course the experts have to be able to explain things to the people.

In the scientific community, such explanations are the statements from the scientific organizations.

You can read several of them on the Wikipedia page for Scientific Opinion on Climate Change.

You'll note a *distinct* trend in all of them. These *ARE* the experts, and they're *trying* to put it in words you can understand.

[freesk8]

Most of the statements are summaries.

I'm a physics teacher.

I recognize a good explanation.

I've not seen one.

And it's not for lack of looking.

[TempestStormwind]

So, because it's not spoonfed directly into you, you think it's a bad explanation? What happened to "I think for myself" that you claim in other comments?

Or is it because they don't go into *enough* technical detail? They *DO*, just not in the reports to the general public (who wouldn't understand this; if you're a physics teacher you should know this). The technical papers are publicly available.

[TempestStormwind]

Of course, you don't need to take my word on it. You can go yourself and replicate the study of Naomi Oreskes, who "analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change"...75% of the abstracts were...either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate...none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus".

(Her report is also available publicly.)

[TempestStormwind]

Now, as you claim to be a physics teacher, you must understand the nature of falsifiability. A claim *must* be falsifiable or else it is unable to be changed, and therefore not worth debating.

I must ask you: What *would* you consider a good explanation? What would it take for you to change your mind?

(What would it take ME, you might ask? Something pretty drastic that'd fill several *more* comments up. WM42's criteria are similar; watch the last No Holds Barred video for those.)

[SevenPatch]

So who are you to ridicule someone that doesn't believe in AGW. Last I checked, AGW is falsifiable which is why it's actually a hypothesis and not a theory as some would have you believe. By the way, what do you do for a living that makes you such an expert?  Thinking for yourself involves actually thinking for yourself, not blindly believing those who you believe to be smarter than you. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

[TempestStormwind]

You blatantly misunderstand what makes a theory a theory. Gravity is a theory, but all it's falsifiable (find something small more attractive than something large). Evolution is a theory, but it's falsifiable (find fossil bunnies in the Cambrian). Theories, *by definition*, need to be falsifiable or else they cannot be tested.

AGW can be falsified very easily - any of a dozen or so observations would do it (i.e. that CO2 doesn't 'trap' heat). However, we have yet to find any of those.

[SevenPatch]

HA! Blatantly eh? Really? I am sorry but you are mistaken. Although I was wrong in saying AGW being falsifiable is why it's not a theory. However just because it is falsifiable is not what makes it a theory either like you say. Falsifiable merely implies that it can be verified or falsified; you can do that with anything that can be recorded and isn't made up. No, the key to what makes a Theory a Theory is a substantially accurate prediction or model which AGW doesnt have.

[SevenPatch]

Also, in case you were wondering, Micro-Evolution can be predicted and modeled unlike Macro-evolution. This is why when you talk about the Theory of Evolution you're talking about Micro-Evolution. Not because of fossil bunnies in the Cambrian. Also your *by definition* of Theories is actually the definition of Hypothesis.

[TempestStormwind]

You want an example of macroevolution? Ever hear of Lake Victoria cichlids? Or the London Underground mosquito? Macroevolution has been observed even on human timescales. Evolution emerges for free in any system that includes reproduction with variation and differential survival/reproductive success. Illustrated at /watch?v=YZwUV-auY4w and /watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y, scientifically described in numerous papers (google "Observed Instances of Speciation" for a small sample).

[SevenPatch]

That's all fine and good; I'm not sure what you are trying to prove regarding macroevolution. The processes are still technically a hypothesis according to scientific method. Unfortunately the term theory is thrown around kind of loosely in order to group each of the hypotheses together.

[TempestStormwind]

I'm saying that macroevolution can be modeled and predicted very easily (see, for instance, the first vid I linked). It's the same mechanism as microevolution. By your logic, I can walk across the room but can't walk to work.

Regarding "theory" - it's used differently in science than it is in common parlance, sort of like the word "proof" (which, in science, only exists in mathematics and logic. No amount of observation would ever prove anything.)

What, pray tell, do you think "theory" means?

[SevenPatch]

Can you walk to work though? We can predict how much time it would take, how much energy would be used, the path taken, etc but that doesn't actually mean that you could walk to work. I get the impression that you think just because I think it's a hypothesis that I think it's unlikely to be probable. Honestly that is not the case; it's just that when it comes to evolution I can afford to live in a world of absolutes because it doesn't matter. AGW however I don't and I take it seriously.

[SevenPatch]

Regarding "theory", I've already explained the definition of it, and I prefer to use the scientific method usage as that is the most effective and only logical use of the word, especially when it comes to matters of science. You are correct however that there are many different interpretations of the word "theory". Whether something is falsifiable or not is not enough to classify something as a "theory" in my opinion.

[SevenPatch]

Also, even a hypothesis should be able to provide predictions and sometimes models however these predictions and models exist only to uncover or learn more/new information regarding the hypothesis in order to properly form a theory and a substantially accurate prediction/model. At this point I kind of feel like I'm repeating myself which is annoying. This might be my last reply as repeating the same information over and over expecting a different result is insane.

[hggh22]

Please go to dwarfurl(DOT)com/ef10b/ scroll down, and experts explain on the newscientist link and NASA link.

[1980PintoMan]

You have an either/or argument. It's not worth all this. How about this; you are a natural global warming denier. Global warming is the perfect excuse for socialism, that's all you've argued.

[TempestStormwind]

In any form of logical statement, the positive existential declaration bears the burden of proof.

In layman's terms, this means that if you claim something's there, you have to provide evidence; by default we assume it's not.

By bringing up "natural global warming", YOU have the burden of proof to provide evidence. There's also a LOT of credible evidence out there that say we're the ones doing it, which is counter to your claim and must be addressed.

[TempestStormwind]

Now, there's an easier way to remain credible than looking up *every single piece of counter-evidence*. However, I'm not going to tell it to you outright.

Instead, watch the *whole* Get What You Want video -- all three parts; they were made *explicitly* for people like you. What you'll need to do is clear after that. And no, it's not "surrender yourself to the lib'ral conspiracy for global socialist governments" or anything of the sort.

[freesk8]

I'm on your side. Gw is occuring, but AGW is a bid for global economic power and control. It is the perfect excuse for socialism, as you so aptly point out.

[TempestStormwind]

Since the "action" needed is nothing more than stopping using fossil fuels, which can easily lead to energy independence (in other words, out with OPEC, in with independent alternative energy companies), I fail to see how that leads to socialism, even if AGW isn't happening.

Watch the video How It All Ends: The Manpollo Project to understand how you can convince everyone that you're right.

[woland99]

Exactly! They want to take away your guns and

your Bibles then force your daughter to have

sex with multiple partners of different racial

background and then give her compulsory abortion.

It is all conspiracy of communists, scientists

and international banks. And we all know who is

behind it.... Could it be.... Satan?!

[freesk8]

I'm an atheist and don't own a gun, so the confiscation of bibles and guns wouldn't hurt me directly, but I do support freedom of religion and the right to bear arms. I think it is not Satan who is behind the trend towards less liberty, I think it is socialistic politicians, who want to enhance their own power. I think taxing us more is their goal, and I think promoting fear of AGW is one of their means.

[TempestStormwind]

There was research into climate change going on FAR before it became political.

The whole point of this is that the status quo is a greater threat to your liberty than taking action.

And it's not the scientists or politicians saying that. It's the MILITARY.

There was a 2003 Pentagon report on it, and more recently, eleven retired admirals and generals:

tinyurl com/2zc57x

[freesk8]

Here are two things I do not believe:

1) That global warming is significantly caused by human CO2 emissions.

2) That a 2 or 3 degree temperature increase over the next 50 years will cause significant loss of human life.

I do think global warming is happening, but I think it is most likely the result of natural changes, such as the sun.

Political action would move us closer to a one-world government or a socialistic dictatorship.

[tremain113]

so you're a scientist, right? you have full and complete evidence that global warming isn't caused by humans? You watched all of these videos and listened to them and then did your own research, right?

yeah, right.........

[freesk8]

The burden of proof is on the one proposing the theory, as opposed to the status quo. The burden of proof is on those who advocate action. The more radical the action, the more certain the proof must be. All I am saying is that I am not convinced. I have a right to my opinion, just as you have a right to yours. We will never have complete and perfect proof. When to be persuaded is personal. You seek to pressure me, instead of persuading me.

[TempestStormwind]

90-95% certainty with 9/10 confidence on the side of "AGW is real", plus the backing of every professional science organization on the planet, is sufficent grounds for switching the burden of proof, especially given the lack of evidence opposing it.

You have a right to your opinion, but all I have seen from you so far is that you continually dodge the question I asked: What is the basis for your claim being falsifiable?

Until that is answered, all you have is a belief, not an argument.

[freesk8]

A long time ago, 90-95% certainty was with the flat-earthers. Later, we thought that Newton had mechanics right. I make no claim, so my claim need not be falsifiable. YOU make a claim: that global warming is significantly anthropogenic. I don't buy it. CO2 lags temperature increases. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is more likely to be CAUSED by global warming than to be causing it.

And ALL we have are beliefs, because we know almost nothing with certainty. Beliefs CAN be used in arguments.

[tremain113]

ice caps melting at a rate faster than ever isn't proof? the mere fact hurricanes and natural disasters are becoming worse and worse doesn't catch your eye? the tsunami, hurricane katrina, etc... do you think these are all coincidences? i'm asking honestly, not trying to pressure you.

[freesk8]

I agree that the earth is warming. I do not believe that the incidence of hurricaines and natural disasters is increasing. I do not think that Katrina was caused by global warming. I do not believe that the global warming we are seeing is caused by humans. I think it is more likeley to be natural. I doubt there is anything we can do about it in any case. Reducing human CO2 emissions will have no effect.

[pgregston]

The theory was posted decades ago, and observations today are proving it. CO2 physics were established in the 19th century. There is no alternate explanation for what is observed. Man accounts for the change in CO2 balance. The loss of life starts when food doesn't grow where it does today- starts within your lifetime.

Everything to do is beneficial- clean renewable energy increases national security and prosperity. Has greater growth potential than fossil fuel too.

[freesk8]

If we stop subsidizing oil, the price of gasoline will rise, making alternative fuels competitive. Subsidizing alternative fuels is just another form of corporate welfare. International trade enhances national security, especially if it is with private, competitive corporations, and not with nationalized oil fields and dictatorships. When goods cross borders, troops tend not to. Free trade brings people from diverse backgrounds together. Government control wrecks everything.

[pgregston]

The price of gasoline will rise no matter what- Check 'peak oil'.

No SEC/courts = no stock market.

No FCC = airwaves are chaos. There is no true 'free market'. "Government" is how societies organize themselves.

The US government not only sets policies that set market stability, it is also the largest consumer in the world economy.

If the US specifies that it will pay for clean domestic energy, the private sector will find and supply the best most profitable source.

[freesk8]

The market does far more organizing than does government. Until about 1930, state, federal and local government COMBINED were 5% of GDP. Now they are about 35%, so the vast majority of economic activity is still in the private sphere. Most of gov't spending is wasted as well. e.g. Iraq. The price of gasoline will rise, but right now it is artificially low due to corporate welfare. Get government out and things get better.

[pgregston]

Lead got out of paint, and gasoline, only because of government action. Acid rain was solved through legislation.

Regulation of community benefit loads all competitors equally. Studebaker put seat belts in cars voluntarily. What good did that do them?

It is a fantasy left over from Reagan that all government is bad. Good governance is the goal.

[TheRealArchAngel]

*If we stop subsidizing oil, the price of gasoline will rise*You know that plastics like PET used in food packaging,carbon fiber that reinforces Bridges,medicines like antibiotics,fertilizer,and "1001" other products besides Gasoline is made with Oil? even if Cars go 100% to another power source we are still dependent on Oil as the "building block" of a lot of our Technology. Seeing steel,aluminum,iron,etc melted by a windmill or Solar panel would also be impressive (and they use oil base tech)

[SvenAERTS]

so... we shouldn't waste is if there's alternatives?

[TheRealArchAngel]

Well, Cars waste the most fuel and Waste Co2 into the air because of their inefficient, antiquated,gasoline engine who's design is almost 200 years old. Cars themselves are find, as are the machines connected to Fossil fuel burning engines at factories, problem is just replacing them with a Engine that runs on something Else. I Myself have always been a fan of "Regenerative kinetic looping"(perpetual motion) as a means to keep a battery array or capsitor powered to run machines.

[phreeezer]

A perpetual motion machine? You know that's impossible, right?

[TheRealArchAngel]

The Difference between "Human released Co2 is Causing Global Warming (And Evil "Big Oil" must be stopped)" now and "Human Released Co2 is Causing Global COoling(And Evil "Big Oil" must be Stopped)" 30 years ago is that The Scientis,Politicans, and Businesses didn't take dropout,hippie,druggies prostestors seriously while now the Environuts are the "Scientist',are in politics, and even are hired into Exxon,Chevon,etc R&D. The Reports you thump on are written by Evironuts in "Scientist" clothing

[SvenAERTS]

can we have the references and credicibility level of the groups you're referring to pls?

[TheRealArchAngel]

The NAS only requires that you be a Professor or Faculty member of a University, or a Grad Student and for $42 a year you get a membership card...you need not be a "Scientist" or even know what you are talking about to get your report "peer read" or supported. AAAS is a $1500 Lifetime membership and you must have a Degree in Science rather Practical(Medicine),Applied(As­tronomy), or Theoretical(Physics,Math, Theology)and again "peer review" and backing of AAAS in your Papers is always encouraged

[KamiKaziChicken]

How many members does each have? How many people have to 'peer review' the article before it is published? Is there another equally credible grouping of scientists which opposes global warming / AGW? (Not debate, just questions).

[TheRealArchAngel]

Actually for AAAS even you can submit a article and it is published after being reviewed by 120 board members in the field of interest.(being a member makes no difference in acceptance or rejection). NAS is a semi-political organization promoting Education and freedome of Academic opinions and you have to be a member(Grad Student,Professor,Univerity Employee) to do a report on your Fancy that everyone will read. There is no "debate" among Scientist."Man made Global Warming" is EnvironutPolitics

[KamiKaziChicken]

No debate? So every scientists believes man contributes absolutely nothing to climate change...?

[TheRealArchAngel]

NO. Mass Media in the information age is saying top Scientist Agree, Top scientific organizations agree, blah, blah,

blah, yadda,yadda,yadda.

Truth is that this is the same thing that happened in the 70's with the Media Hype on Gloabl Cooling. difference is that in this information age their bullshit reaches more alarmist then it did in the 70's. Result is that Politicans use the alarmist to win elections, and "Big Oil" does PR saying they offer alternative fuels, so don't blam us for your car

[KamiKaziChicken]

Media and science are too completely different things. The media is irrelevant. If you want to get to the bottom of climate change, you look at the scientists (and not just the extreme ones at that).

Of course politicans will manipulate global threats to win elections, that's what politics is. However, we should be thinking for ourselves.

[TempestStormwind]

Dude, the "review" you mention (peer-review) *is* debate.

Furthermore, even after it is published, scientists are free to respond -- and their response is also debated (peer-reviewed) before it is published in the journals.

You can find a long chain of these going back and forth in pretty much every publication. (Google Scholar the word "response" or "critique", both of which are commonly used on debate pieces.)

And for the record, what would count as a "scientist" to you?

[TheRealArchAngel]

What do I consider "a Scientist"?

You Know, everyone and their uncle can claim to be one from Inventors like Edison, to Patent Clerks like Einstein to some random Jerk on Youtube like wonderingmind42...lol

Those outside conventional thinking could be "mad Scientist"

For Me, a Astronomer is a Scientist but a Cosmologist is a Philosopher. A Computer designer,Chemist,Geologist and Meteorologist are Scientist While those that study Physics,Climatology,or "Environmental Sciences" are Philosophers

[tyrannischgott]

I think we can safely assume that anybody who belongs to the AAAS or NAS falls within the practical definition of a scientist; that is, somebody who examines empirical data and draws conclusions. That's what they give degrees out for. If you want to try to cast doubt on the entire meaning of scientist, you're more than welcome, but I'd argue that you're just playing semantics. These people are undoubtedly experts.

[tyrannischgott]

That's in response to TheRealArchAngel...

Furthermore, I'm not sure how it is you can call climatologists, environmental scientists, and especially physicists philosophers. The science of physics has essentially created the modern world. Do you think it was just philosophy that allowed NASA to send a large chunk of metal to the moon with three people inside, and then bring it back again? I'm pretty sure they got the math right and it translated into real world results.

[homedogdigity]

Cat in the hat, nice. I hope you get some "BIG" names behind you.