Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 Next
Comments 61501 to 61550:
-
dunc461 at 01:02 AM on 22 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
scaddenp @83 To answer your question the source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source I used for the cost data states "The availability of various incentives including state or federal tax credits can also impact the calculation of levelized cost. The values shown in the tables below do not incorporate any such incentives."[11] Incentives, tax credits, production mandates, etc. are discussed in the overall comprehensive EIA report: "Annual Energy Outlook 2011".[12][13][14] I spent several hours this morning trying to find the specific data like I used for Nordhaus and Stern. If you could provided a site that has this kind of information I would greatly appreciate it. The one reference I did find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation said that for a reduction in fossil fuels to 75% in 2050 Stern estimates a cost of 2% of GDP. Because my calculation are in today's dollars in assumes all costs rise at the same rate. I get a cost of 12% of %GDP. If I assume that GDP rises at the same rate as energy usage (or 2% above inflation) that % is reduced to 8% of GDP. In the case on the spread sheet I raised the cost of fossil fuels by 150% from $.02 to $0.05 /KWH to account for price increases above inflation. -
Byron Smith at 00:39 AM on 22 March 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
Dana might have missed John Mashey's comment at #42 pointing out that Scott Armstrong's name ought to be highlighted red. -
John Mason at 20:45 PM on 21 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
layzej (#64), Good suggestion, but remember that I showed how Singer himself failed his own test, by simply repeating the Houghton misquote without checking its authenticity first. Given scrutiny, I reckon every single one of them would fail spectacularly! -
Ari Jokimäki at 20:18 PM on 21 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
No worries, I do have a rough idea how many people read this every week. -
OPatrick at 19:58 PM on 21 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
Still reading. (It worries me Ari that the small number of comments might lead you to think that not many people read this and you might stop providing this invaluable service. Can we have a 'thank you and still reading' button?) -
Philippe Chantreau at 17:56 PM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
To mods: apologies for entertaining trolls and contributing to pull the thread off-topic. Won't do it again. -
Doug Hutcheson at 16:58 PM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
Albatross @ 36, thanks for the link to the 'list of 17' article. Living in Australia, that sort of information does not hit our headlines, so I was unaware of the depth of his iniquity. I knew he was anti-science and wanted to investigate 'climate scientists' in general, but had not realised he had actually named his targets! What a buffoon. What a dangerous fool. -
owl905 at 15:55 PM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
"If you regulate carbon, you regulate life." For Snubwub@1, it was basically a left-wing plot to institute state control over the individual(a Big Brother by e-outlet). Dana's take is it's a fraud smokescreen to prevent common sense regulation - like speed limits on roads. The first reaction here was more basic - haul out the pro-life vote - by making this seem like a backdoor form of birth control. It is really sleazy at any level. It's the same with the cap-and-trade tirade. If C&T hadn't worked as well as it did for the reduction of the acid-rain problem, that could be the US equivalent of the ABC crisis. Check the rollup on Inhoffe's presentation - big government, socialism, regulation, private science clubs, anti-life, brainwashing. He's pushed every button to avoid addressing the pollution problem. Maddow should have asked for a longer explanation of how God was going to solve it. -
Phil L at 15:30 PM on 21 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
jimb 15 and 18: The Bakken and other oil finds will be developed, whether a right or left leaning provincial government is in power. The future of the Saskatchewan oilsands is uncertain because the deposits are so deep and borderline economic to extract. The company most involved in exploration and promotion of the Saskatchewan oilsands is under bankruptcy protection. -
5n0wf1ak3 at 14:06 PM on 21 March 2012Climate's changed before
The "myth" is Human belief of separation from nature. The first chlorophyllic plants 'industry' was tasked with the ( apparently disastrous Great Oxygenation Event) modification of the primitive atmosphere We need to remember that we are that original green slime. It did not pave the way for us - it did so for its own continuity, diversity and complexity. -
jmsully at 14:04 PM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
Dana, IIRC, when I read the Climategate emails a substantial plurality of them did relate to the drafting of the paleo chapters of 4AR and TAR. Saying that the emails had very little to do with the IPCC is therefore incorrect. Inhofe was also incorrect in saying that these emails a lot to do with the review of these chapters, however. Most of them were routine (read heated) discussion between scientists holding differing, although not widely differing, opinions of where various papers fit into the puzzle of the evolution of climate over the past few millenia. -
Albatross at 13:47 PM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
DougH@35, "The only conspiratorial thinking in Inhofe's head would appear to come from the way he is apparently picking up his misinformation from the FF industry,...." I agree with most of your post. However, we have to remember that Inhofe and his pal Marc Morano are actively engaged in spreading misinformation and FUD. Inhofe's ramblings in his book are part of that ongoing misinformation campaign and outright attack on science and scientists. Speaking of which, don't forget Inhofe's infamous list of 17. Maddow did an OK job reigning him in, but as others have noted, she also missed a good few opportunities to call him on his nonsense. -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:06 PM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
From the OP:Inhofe's climate "skepticism" derives from his conspiratorial thinking
That is generous to Inhofe, IMHO. I get the impression that he is smart, cunning like a fox and knows very well that he is saying things which may not be representative of the truth. The only conspiratorial thinking in Inhofe's head would appear to come from the way he is apparently picking up his misinformation from the FF industry, which some might characterise as a conspiracy to delay action on AGW. -
muoncounter at 13:02 PM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
Let's also be aware of Inhofe's position on the Keystone XL pipeline: U.S. Sen. James Inhofe says he supports a bill being introduced in the U.S. Senate that will bypass the president and provide congressional approval to the Keystone XL pipeline. That's a runaround of the executive authority given the President by these self-same Republicans. Maddow has covered the over-hyping of the number of jobs to be 'created' by this project. She's also covered the oil spill from the existing tar sands pipeline (starting at about 6:50 of the video). The Republican Party lampooned her position on this issue, in their characteristically juvenile fashion. But also note that she actually read Inhofe's book before interviewing him. What a concept. -
scaddenp at 12:44 PM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
Putting the discussion back on track. Note this: "The total CO2 potential of the earth’s proven reserves comes to 2795 GtCO2. 65% of this is from coal, with oil providing 22 % and gas 13%." Source which in turn is based on BP Statistical Review of Energy -
scaddenp at 12:13 PM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
Further to commenting on unpublished opinion - With peer-review, you have scientists speaking to other scientists about their science. Ideally, peer-review means that reviewers are satisfied with the methods, analysis, and that the conclusions follow logically from the analysis. Its a minimum bar to be taken seriously. Everyone has opinions,( they may even be right) but just because a scientist is stating them, doesnt imbue them any authority unless that opinion is rooted in published research. Can we get back to economics? -
muoncounter at 11:58 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
Here's a quote from an online excerpt from Storms of My Grandchildren: If we continue business as usual fossil fuel use, a conservative estimate is that by the end of the century, we will have committed to extinction 20% of the Earth's species, that is, about 2 million species. There's no indication of the source or accuracy of this excerpt, other than the fact that the poster linked to amazon in Canada. But the book is about future storms and this thread is about Inhofe. Chasing snippets of who-said-what in unrelated books and video is clearly an exercise in taking the thread off-topic.Response:[DB] Agreed. Everyone, do not buy into the thread being diverted OT.
-
jzk at 11:43 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
(-snip-)Response:[DB] This thread is about Inhofe's Myths on Maddow. James Hansen and any of his non-peer-reviewed publications are not on-topic for this thread.
Off-topic snipped.
-
scaddenp at 11:42 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
Which is an extrapolation from what has happened in past period of rapid climate change, so not unreasonable, and assumes that we are stupid enough to allow several degrees of warming. But its still unpublished opinion, and (And as such has provided an unneeded distraction on this thread about economics.)Response:[DB] Thank you for attempting to redirect this thread back the the general vicinity of the OP.
-
jzk at 11:17 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
(-snip-)Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
-
scaddenp at 11:04 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
I havent read James Hansen's book, but I doubt you can find either assertion in any peer-reviewed science paper, and especially not in the IPCC reports. I would very strongly doubt Hansen made such an assertion about vaporising all the water on the planet. This is good physical reasons to believe that this is not possible, but sure, find me the quote. Guessing the level of mass-extinction - that is much harder, but a long way from inconceivable when considering what happened in other times of very rapid change. Perhaps I should be more explicit - stick to the peer-reviewed literature. That's where scientists speak when they have something of value to say. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:01 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
@ jzk Not to pile on, but also do your due diligence and find a more appropriate thread (Search function...) to post those comments on, should you ever find links to support your position. -
Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
jzk - Vaporize the oceans? Hardly. Temperatures would be a number of degrees C warmer than present if we burn all the fossil fuels (5-8C?), but not boiling temperatures. As to species extinction, we appear to already be on the path to one of the great extinctions. Thomas et al 2004 predicted 18-35% of species 'committed to extinction' by 2050 (depending on emission scenarios), with more in the future. That's an ongoing major extinction event, no matter how you slice the numbers. As with the previous posters, I would suggest you find references for these claims. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:55 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
jzk, I can only assume that your question is rethorical. If not, then I have to refrain from describing it by the only appropriate qualificative, as it may go against comment policy. What will happen to the world economies and to the poorest nations if we go into resource exhaustion without alternative is also self evident. The strain will lead to conflict, likely violent, probably widespread. I am not sure what exactly can be your purpose in asking such a question. Your subsequent posts hint at some vague intent of provocation. It does not speak in your favor, nor in that of your argument, whatever that may be. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:55 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
22, jzk, Your impressions of what you think maybe someone else wrote are of zero value. Make an actual statement, and support it with facts, or withdraw your crap. Yes, as of this moment, until you prove otherwise, you are wrong on "those counts" because what you have posted amounts to wishy-washy hearsay. This site is about science, not your vague impressions about what you think you maybe remember someone implied in their writing. -
jzk at 10:43 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
scaddenp@21, I was under the impression that James Hansen was asserting that if we continue burning fossil fuels that one half of all species will go extinct. I also read in Storms of my grandchildren a strong implication that in 400 years we will vaporize all of the water on the planet. Am I wrong on those counts? -
layzej at 10:34 AM on 21 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
It looks like Richard Lindzen may be one of Singer's "deniers". Singer states "there is another group of deniers who accept the existence of the greenhouse effect but argue about the cause and effect of the observed increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide." Recently Lindzen questioned the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 on an Australian talk show: "the argument often is presented that the natural part is in balance and our contribution is imbalancing, unbalancing the system and so that’s leading to a rise. Uh, that’s an arguably possible situation but in point of fact there’s limited evidence of that and the merest uh misunderstanding of the 97% could easily overbalance man’s contribution" - http://planet3.org/2012/03/19/who-will-tell-us-whom-to-believe/ It would be interesting to compile a list of main stream contrarians that fail Singer's skeptic test. Would many survive? -
scaddenp at 10:25 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
"Of course, if using the original resource will cause mass extinction and all the water on the planet to vaporize, then resource exhaustion is the least of our worries" Actually, the argument is that getting off fossil fuel is cheaper in the long run than adapting to AGW. Burning every piece of carbon will not vaporize the oceans but there a lot of unpleasant/expensive things a long way short of that happening. I think it would be easier to discuss if you confined your statements to what scientists have actually predicted as summarized in IPCC AR4 reports. But to the real argument, it seems quite likely rising petroleum prices will indeed make for useful cuts in fossil fuel use, but combatting AGW is really all about coal. Our reserves are vast and you will do serious damage to the climate long before resource restriction has much effect on price. -
John Hartz at 10:09 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
@Dana: Have you forwarded this and your prior article to Maddow?Response:[dana1981] Yes, both
-
Phil at 10:01 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
jzk @16 This may make interesting reading. The suggestion is that Peak Oil (resource exhaustion) will give rise to wild fluctuations in price - which, I would suggest, is not a good backdrop for a stable economy in which to develop alternatives. -
Daniel J. Andrews at 09:58 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
There's an article...in Nature magazine, a very liberal publication, or publication on your side,
Interesting. Science journals are liberal publications, and Nature is a *very* liberal publication. Must be all those articles on stem cells, evolution, warming, and closer geographical proximity (than the U.S.) to some suspect socialist/communist countries. Since Nature (and other science journals that reflect reality) is "liberal" that allows him to dismiss anything in science journals as something from the liberals (unless it is something he agrees with, of course, in which case he'll wave it around for all to see). It is nice though that he recognizes we're on the side of science, except he doesn't know what science is. Sigh. Reality...still has a liberal bias apparently. Might be fun to collect Inhofe quotes/ideas. Science journals are liberal publications. Global warming can't be happening because fixing it would be too expensive. It can't be happening because God said there'd always be a spring, summer, winter, fall (wonder what happened during the flood? Or in tropical countries? Or what happens when spring floods, summer bakes, winter washes away the soil)? Religion has no business in science...except when global warming can't happen because God said it won't. The job of brain-washing the kids falls to elected officials, not unelected bureaucrats. ;) Well, maybe that one is a strawman argument, but it was the first thing that came to mind when I heard him talk about it. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:16 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
"...this is my goal to stop, that is unelected bureaucrats taking positions, contrary to the elected officials in brainwashing our kids."
Except neither should be setting curriculum, let alone brainwashing. In every other subject the material and curriculum are established by educators, authors, and the academics working in the field. No one in government, elected or appointed, decides what is taught in math, literature, history or anything else. Truth is not established by democracy. We don't vote on the truth. Truth is not defined in elections by the opinion of the majority. So why does Inhofe think he has any right to determine what science, climate science, is taught in schools? Or the EPA? Where's his evidence that any such direction came from the EPA, for that matter? It's simple. What do the scientists say? What do people doing research and teaching at higher level educational institutions say? That's what should be taught. So what are they saying and teaching, Inhofe? Gee, I wonder. -
jzk at 09:07 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
Philippe@14, Why is waiting for resource exhaustion a bad way to accomplish a switch to new energy sources (Aside from AGW implications)? Resource exhaustion causes the cost of the resource to increase, creating incentive to develop alternative technology. And, the resource will not become exhausted overnight. It will slowly become more and more scarce. That gives alternative energy sources time to be developed and phased in. Of course, if using the original resource will cause mass extinction and all the water on the planet to vaporize, then resource exhaustion is the least of our worries. -
Trent1492 at 08:54 AM on 21 March 2012Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
I think it might be a good idea to update the Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995? article with the 2010 story. -
jimb at 08:06 AM on 21 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
re 15- here are a couple of links to the Saskatchewan oil sands/Bakken field. The one from the Pembina Institute is the most thorough (pubs.pembina.org/reports/sask-carbon-copy-report.pdf)- a second one from the Manitoba government outlines the possibilities of Bakken field exploitation in southeastern Saskatchewan (http://www.manitoba.ca/iem/mrd/geo/willistontgi/downloads/kreis_et_al_bakken-torquay_paper.pdf) The 'we' only refers to those who may have to re-evaluate the hope that the history of the Saskatchewan government as referred to by Alces @ 10 would keep that province from following Alberta's path once economic factors . Sorry that my computer skills are not up to providing direct links. Hope these help.Response:[DB] Hot-linked URLs.
-
funglestrumpet at 07:57 AM on 21 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Thanks for a very thought provoking article. It has long been a thought of mine that those living in nations who can be seen to have done least to combat climate change are going to face the wrath of other nations when the public eventually cottens on to just how deep the ungazi is. Recompence will be the minimum demand, I suspect. In particular, I am very glad that as of this moment, none of the funglestrumpet line will be living in or anywhere near the good old U.S. of A. when that time comes. [snip] Can't see anyone on either side of the great divide who will take the action on climate change so urgenty needed.Moderator Response: [Sph] Political rant in violation of the comments policy snipped. -
Composer99 at 07:22 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
IMO SirNubWub's claims fall even from a libertarian perspective on rights. I note that all humans are possessed of certain rights to person & property which, I am led to believe, liberatians assert are not to be violated by others (least of all governments). However, it is fairly clear that climate change, given its anthropogenic origins, violates the person and property rights of those who are subject to predicted and actualized negative impacts - Texas ranchers & farmers subject to drought, Pakistani farmers inundated in floods, heat wave deaths in Moscow, and the like. So anyone contributing to climate change is contributing to an illegitimate violation of others' inalienable rights. As far as I know, most libertarians are not opposed to government action to defend people's rights to person & property (e.g. the "nightwatchman state") - even though such defence will of necessity abridge rights somewhere down the line. What makes the property/person rights of Texas ranchers, Pakistani farmers, Tuvaluan property owners, &c less valid than those of gasoline buyers? Finally, it should be noted that pricing carbon and regulating emissions is effectively similar to the special taxes & regulations levied on alcohol & tobacco products. My freedom of action to drink alcoholic beverages, smoke tobacco products, or consume fossil fuels, is subject to abridgement where such freedom of action would violate others' rights to person & property. From a libertarian perspective I do not see any reasonable objection I could make to such abridgement. -
Philippe Chantreau at 07:14 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
One thing is certain: the large scale industrial use of fossil fuels will be eradicated from this world in the future. How it happens and how difficult it is to cope with is up to humans. There is a wide variety of ways to accomplish it with minimal pain, but no way to do it entirely pain free. Some ways to do it could be extremely painful, like waiting for resource exhaustion without developing alternatives. In fact, it is obvious that this would be the worst possible way. Any way to do it with minimal pain implies a gradual transition and has to be started as early as possible. It is possible, even likely that the transition can be completed before significant resource exhaustion sets in. This can be regarded as a problem only by the few drawing large profits from FF use, who are not willing to change and would like to extract every last drop of profit from their activity. Their opinion should be be ignored, as their input in this whole debate is only self-serving. These are plain and self evident truths that no level of denial can alter. -
John Hartz at 07:10 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
“Despite claims to the contrary, planetary sh*t does happen” Source: “Climate, Science, and Religion” by Bill Chameides, The Greengrok Blog, Scientific American, Mar 19, 2012 This hard-hitting commentary was prompted by Inhofe’s new book. -
scaddenp at 07:03 AM on 21 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
RonManley, you obviously believe this despite the science saying otherwise. What is the source of such a belief. Though the statement "Those who are alive in 5000 years time will look back on our period as the age of profligacy" is undoubtedly true. Hard to imagine any fossil fuel still around so I hope they get fusion sorted by then. -
scaddenp at 07:00 AM on 21 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Makes no nukes look bad doesnt it? Does the spreadsheet take off the subsidies? IEA estimates fossil fuel subsidies at 409 billion per year. Furthermore, the cost of petroleum and to lesser extent coal will rise no matter what because of production constraint so you cant park all of that cost at door of fossil fuel reduction. You also look at the full analysis done by economists instead of a spreadsheet (eg Nordhaus or Stern). -
DSL at 06:34 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
SirNubWub, I've heard "free market" proponents say that air as a commodity is fair game (I think one even claims it in the documentary The Corporation. A few decades ago, the privatization of water would have seemed ridiculous. Bechtel doesn't think so. You're right, though: regulation limits economy. It doesn't bound economy, though. It might stretch economic growth temporally, or it might reorganize the existing structure of production. It might prevent certain forms of production and products. Eventually, all the recoverable FF carbon in the ground will be recovered. Will it happen as fast as possible, with no thought for the future (none possible in the unregulated free market -- government is, by definition, the vision, whether it is government by democracy, government by CEO, or government by direct capitalist), suspending 10-12 billion people into an econo-chronotope (historical moment) that cannot support their weight? Will the free marketers like Inhofe then say, "Well, it's not our fault! We just made stuff. We didn't force people to buy it." Therein the great lie. A libertarian's analysis is as good as the information the libertarian chooses to freely accept. -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:05 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
John, you're probably right, although someone by that screen name has posted here before. On other venues I found trying to discuss anything with the libertarian types and try to keep it grounded in reality was indeed a futile exercise. It is always to be hoped that one could prove otherwise. -
Rob Painting at 06:00 AM on 21 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
Monckton speaking at the Kroc Institute Theatre - how apt. -
caerbannog at 05:55 AM on 21 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
Just found out that "Lord" Monckton will be appearing here in San Diego on the 24th. Details here: http://octeapartyblog.com/event/lord-monckton-at-university-of-san-diego/ Monckton will be giving a presentation at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice Theatre, 5998 Acala Park, University of San Diego, Saturday Mar 24 at 7PM. A California Assemblyman from east San Diego County (our own "cultural" outback) will be MC'ing the event. Of course, I don't expect that folks from Down Under will be likely to pop by ;) ;), but if anyone here knows any San Diego area scientists (like folks at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography -- SIO is just a few minutes from USD) who might be interested in "crashing Monckton's party", please pass this along to them Rather short notice, but this event is being promoted to Tea-Partiers and right-wing GOP types here (with very little notice being given to the general public). New info: Pre-registration for the event is available here. -
John Hartz at 05:51 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
@Philippe Chantreau: I suspect that SirNubwub is just a drive-by blogger who will not be back to engage us in any meaningful conversation. His post suggests to me that he is a die-hard Libertarian whose political ideology rules supreme. If so, he does not subscribe to the concept of the "common good." Attempting to discuss the realities of manmade climate change with someone of this ilk is an exercise in futitlity. -
Composer99 at 05:45 AM on 21 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
Hopefully on topic for published research: A bistable organic-rich atmosphere on the Neoarchaean Earth (Zerkle et al 2012) published last week in Nature Geoscience on the ancient (~2.5 billion years ago) Earth atmosphere. -
r.pauli at 05:25 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
(language warning) It seems rather silly to hear both scientific and economic high risk language coming from a US Senator. Inhofe seems to be pissing directly into the wind and yet insists on standing upwind and telling us it's rain, -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:11 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
On another note, it is worth noting that speculation affects energy prices in ways more significant than regulations, although much more unpredictable. Speculation can make the price of the oil barrel vary on scales that make regulation costs look like child play. By NubWub's reasoning, speculation will then "affect the production of food and other business enterprises." It will also "affect how people commute to work and take vacations." There is no doubt that it actually does that, and it does it now, as it is not, like emission regulation, something proposed for the future. I am sure that SirNubWub's concern on individual freedoms then must imply some strong, current action against speculation, the terrible speculation that is unduly affecting so many areas of our lives, to the point of limiting choices for individuals. I also note the "some people have argued" section in post #1 (end of 2nd paragraph), leading to the really scary stuff, is not accompanied by any quote of reference. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:56 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
SirNubWub's mumbo-jumbo seems carefully chosen to scare, but is only loosely related to any reality: The this and that we are "allowed" to do, as if some gestapo type of body is going to monitor you and come knock on your door in the night if you're not compliant; it makes for splendid emotional reactions in the audience, no doubt. In my experience, that kind of talk is most often associated with mind manipulation attempts. It's nonsense and indicates SirNubWub is the one mired in misunderstanding. Smart grids detect use and react accordingly. One is still free to run the oven and a pressure washer at 3 am if he choses to do so, it won't affect anything other than his reputation with neighbors. Regulations will not dictate the size of the TV one can buy. It may very well make that TV more expensive, by including in its price costs that are currently externalized. Perhaps NubWub's argument is that, in effect it will make it unaffordable, thereby "dictating" that it is not "allowed." That is so much of a stretch that I might as well say I am not "allowed" to buy a yacht or a 12 room mansion. I certainly can't afford either one of them. We all pay at some point or another for externalized costs. Sometimes it's immediate: SUV drivers increase demand by using more gas than efficient car drivers for the same mileage. By increasing demand, they force prices up, but pay the same at the pump as efficient car drivers. So they externalize some of their costs (that of higher demand for the commodity) to efficient car drivers. That happens in the here and now. Some costs are externalized in much more diluted ways. Some seem to believe externalizing costs is OK, as long as they are diluted enough that someone else, either in time or space, will have to deal with it. I'm sure the ones who will have to deal with it would disagree. The precious "freedoms" so vociferously touted by a certain ideology is nothing but that of externalizing costs to others.
Prev 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 Next
