re: AP News: Scientists say the ozone layer is recovering

quote:

---

ETA: my fundamental belief is that the free market is better than the gov and that applies to everything


So you would have let the ozone fail?

---

sees hook swims away fatboy

quote:

---

The less government the better.


So the ideal government is zero-government. I believe that makes you an anarchist.

---

less gov =/=zero gov

quote:

---

f gov has to get invovled, which they do, then they should not use system (i.e cap and trade) that are proven losers


I'm confused - I thought the acid rain program was a success. Do you know different? It seems to be the only example of a world-wide cap & trade scheme - and it apparently worked with resounding success.

---

acid rain is not the same as GW. There was a direct cause and affect with acid rain. Not so with CO2 and temp. CO2 is rising at an all time high according to the thread the other day and yet there has been no GW since the 90's. Also us allowing natural gas to be cheaper than coal has worked better than europe's cap and trade system

quote:

---

Wait - I thought you were for LESS government. You'd prefer an IRS based system to an emissions trading based system? THat makes absolutely no sense since you claim to be a conservative. Its almost as if you're just reflexively against anything the Democrats favor.

---

I would prefer a flat 15% income tax on persoan and corp tax and then the gov get out of it and let ppl spend their money on green stuff if they want. However since that won't happen, tax credits work well in our current system, see the tax credits in Louisiana and the movie industry (this is not a thread hijack for IBF, just an example).

you really have no ability to comprehend, did you get you phd from the university of phoenix?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I thought it was your position it would be economically devastating to use less CO2? 12% in two years should mean our economy is utterly devastated, right?

---

Actually, it was 12% from 2007-2012. Almost no GDP growth over that time period, with a great big 'ol dip in the middle.

---

Are you saying that the drop in CO2 was a direct result of the economy suffering and therefore there was a similar reduction in energy production?

quote:

---

The the GDP is flat because we aren't putting enough CO2 in the air? Is that your position?

---

No. That isn't my position. Nor did I claim it was.

But you asked if our economy was in shambles. It was! "Worst economy since the Great Depression" was the way I remember the rhetoric at the time.

Keep punching that strawman! You've almost got him beat!

quote:

---

So the ideal government is zero-government. I believe that makes you an anarchist.

---

There's a word for this fallacy...

quote:

---

Since Gov't Scientist have been caught lying about global warming, it difficult to know what is fact.

---

"Caught".










Yes. Some imbecile who can put together a blog says they are liars. So they've been caught! Red handed! fricking liars!

quote:

---

Are you saying that the drop in CO2 was a direct result of the economy suffering and therefore there was a similar reduction in energy production?

---

Maybe? Let's look at a major industrial producer...



We should also consider how the CO2 production estimate is calculated. I'd reckon, it's calculated by looking at commodity use, and stats like above. It's not a real measurement. It's no like there are magical CO2 meters that sniff every emission source (or even most) to arrive at a physical measurement. Probably some bias built in there.

Regardless, the OP looked to be rampping up to claim a disconnect between the economy and CO2 production. They look pretty well connected to my "eyeball test". Ironically, over the same time period the CO2-GDP correlation looks a lot better than the CO2-Temp correlation. But hey, it's just correlation, right?

The other fallacy running around in this thread is the false equivalency between CFC regulation and CO2 regulation.

The two are not comparable.

In the case of CFCs we had a readily available, economically (and commercially) viable substitute at hand. Even though outright banning, had the potential to make some uncomfortable... let's face it... AC isn't a necessity. Further, the advocates proposed solution-made sense. Ban the harmful products.

In the second case, no viable commercial or economic alternatives exist. Widespread poverty, starvation, and most of the pillars of our modern civilization would result if the product were outright banned. Energy is not optional for civilized living.

And most advocates... Propose a senseless bromide as a solution. No one wants to ban the production of CO2. Or even curb their own use. They simply want to others to pay taxes and fees by creating transactions out of a valueless commodity. At best--it's the equivalent of paying for indulgences. At its worst... it is a thinly disguised mechanism of creating wealth out of thin air and transferring the vig to preferred political and ideologically aligned groups.

The reductio absurdum argument that holds if you are not an AGW acolyte, you are therefore a proponent of pollution abounds. Makes any honest discussion about the difficult.

quote:

---

The other fallacy running around in this thread is the false equivalency between CFC regulation and CO2 regulation.

The two are not comparable.

In the case of CFCs we had a readily available, economically (and commercially) viable substitute at hand. Even though outright banning, had the potential to make some uncomfortable... let's face it... AC isn't a necessity. Further, the advocates proposed solution-made sense. Ban the harmful products.

In the second case, no viable commercial or economic alternatives exist. Widespread poverty, starvation, and most of the pillars of our modern civilization would result if the product were outright banned. Energy is not optional for civilized living.

And most advocates... Propose a senseless bromide as a solution. No one wants to ban the production of CO2. Or even curb their own use. They simply want to others to pay taxes and fees by creating transactions out of a valueless commodity. At best--it's the equivalent of paying for indulgences. At its worst... it is a thinly disguised mechanism of creating wealth out of thin air and transferring the vig to preferred political and ideologically aligned groups.

The reductio absurdum argument that holds if you are not an AGW acolyte, you are therefore a proponent of pollution abounds. Makes any honest discussion about the difficult.

---

thank you

I remember when stamps were only 22 cents.