| ??? 05/04/07 18:44 Modified: 05/04/07 20:08 Read: times |
#138637 - Continuing on Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Craig Steiner said:
I have intellect, intelligence, self-awareness, and the ability to recognize right and wrong. I also have empathy for my fellow human beings that compels me to, given the choice, save a human rather than an antelope if given the choice. Richard Erlacher said:
Wouldn't you rather save them both if you could? You can at least try, by being conscienscious in your consumption of resources. Sure, absolutely. But I have no evidence that my behavior is killing off the deer and the antelope. Besides, I don't consume for the sake of consuming. But if I need a new laptop (and I do), I'm not going to forego the purchase because I'm concerned about the deer and antelope that I have no evidence my new laptop is going to effect. Craig Steiner said:
Already the impact of the reduction in honeybees has been substantially debunked since bees are far from the only way that plants are pollinated. Nor will Americans go extinct if we can't grow our own food for awhile. Richard Erlacher said:
It's been reduced, as I mentioned before, by the fact thta flies and other insects participate in the process too, but debunked? ... well, we'll see ... You may be right. When some doom-and-gloom, worst-case theory starts producing responses that reasonably explain why they are overreacting, yes, that's usually the beginning of the debunking. Craig Steiner said:
Right. Because no other die-offs or complete extinctions have ever happened except at the hands of chemical companies. In fact, prehistoric man had to do battle with tyrannosaurus rex until some enterprising caveman came along and founded the Dow Chemical company that, in its quest to produce matches for easy fire-starting, accidentally came up with a poisonous by-product which, luckily, was useful at exterminaing the t-rex. A successful match wouldn't be achieved for thousands of years, but the founding caveman of Dow was able to buy a bigger cave with all the sales of his toxic t-rex posion. Lucky for us since camping in the Rocky Mountains would be a lot more adventurous if we had to be prepared to deal with some t-rex lurking around the next boulder. Richard Erlacher said:
You can't seriously believe that it's the same thing. My point was that you are already assuming that the decrease in bee population is a direct result of some chemical company even though you currently have no evidence to support that belief and despite the fact that many species have appeared and gone extinct over billions of years completely naturally. But now some honeybees are missing and you automatically, and irrationally, assume that we must be the cause. Craig Steiner said:
If he has so many kids that he needs a Blazer to haul them around, an increase in gas prices will not be a major increase in a major expense. An increase in the cost of health care will impact him far more than another buck or two a gallon on gas. Richard Erlacher said:
How many kids does it take to warrant a need for 6-passenger car. The guy drives a Blazer because they're cheap, and nobody in his right mind would want one. He's poor. That's why he drives it. If he doesn't need the size, there are plenty of cheap, old cars that consume much less gas. If he chose a Blazer, it's because he, too--despite his lack of money--wanted a big car. Don't blame that on the rich. Richard Erlacher said:
Now I only mentioned this because you said that your willingness to buy and, if you want, to waste whatever, won't harm any one. You seem to continually erect strawmen in this debate. I never said buying and wasting anything would never harm anyone. It depends on what's being bought and/or wasted. I would never buy a gallon of cyanide just to waste it by dumping it in a river. But I've seen no evidence that what we're talking about (CO2) is a waste nor is it destructive. Richard Erlacher said:
Since power plants take decades to build, what will solve the problem within this life? Well, the only real candidate is economizing, and that begins with charging a higher rate for using more power. Why? If demand is high, the price will rise naturally. There is no reason to artificially and arbitrarily raise prices. The market will ensure that prices will rise and fall to the right levels. Richard Erlacher said:
They charge ME a higher rate if I use more power. The lowest rates should go to the smallest users. We've already gone over this. If you really like that approach, feel free to move to Mexico. That's how they do it here. I don't think it's right, though. Craig Steiner said:
Or another power plant should be built. As far as I know, we haven't run out of power, though, so your hypothetical either/or scenario remains a cute hypothetical. Richard Erlacher said:
That won't solve the problem this week! Economizing would. What's the problem? You've already agreed that we don't have a shortage of energy. So we apparently don't need a new plant. Nor do we need to economize unless you subscribe to a worst-case scenario that has not yet beenb proven. I don't. Craig Steiner said:
While the income distribution in Mexico is bad, it's not nearly as bad as 99.9/0.1%. Richard Erlacher said:
I wasn't referring to income distribution. I was referring to material wealth. I recently read that over 90% of all Mexican resources, land, money, etc, are owned by fewer than 100 individuals. Well now you're changing what you originally said, aren't you? Since you are providing no links I will not take issue with that. I know that the majority of the wealth is in the hands of a few. But it's nowhere near the 99.9/0.1% that you originally cited. That was just hyperbole on your part, as most of what you state seems to be. Craig Steiner said:
As already demonstrated by another member, all that heat you're talking about in transmission is so absolutely miniscule when compared to the entire heat budget so as to be irrelevant. For that matter, so is human contribution to CO2. Richard Erlacher said:
Hogwash! The "demonstration" simply showed that that individual had no concept of what matters. The planet isn't heated excessively by heat coming in from the sun. With a comment like that, I'm forced to conclude that there's really no point even discussing it with you. The sun doesn't heat the planet excessively??? Come on Richard... It's damaged by heat being generated by man and then being prevented from escaping by the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The CO2 part is at least arguable. But the heat we produce is trivial compared to what the sun gives us. That was the point of the previous post that demonstrated this to you. Like CO2, you are focusing on minuita. Water vapor is a far more important greenhouse gas, but people like you focus on CO2. The sun is a far more important source of heat, but you focus on heat loss from electrical power transmission and consumption. It's like you weigh 300 pounds and you are trying to reduce your weight by three ounces by shaving your head. Richard Erlacher said:
... yet they seldom mention that, during the development of the "mid-west" in the U.S, which was nearly entirely tree-covered in the 18th century, nearly all the forestation was destroyed. Craig Steiner said:
Please define "mid-west". I'm curious as to what parts of the plains of Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska and the deserts of Utah, Arizona, California, and Nevada you think were "nearly entirely tree-covered." Richard Erlacher said:
It's as I said, from the eastern seaboard to the Mississippi river. The states to which you refer are the plains and western desert states not the mid-west. That is not a correct definition of "midwest". Though you're right that I included some states that are definitely "west", the midwest doesn't go to the eastern seaboard--that'd be an oxymoron. The definitions Google just came up with included text such as "The central area of the United States, from the Ohio River to the Rocky Mountains, including the Prairie and Great Plains regions" while others listed the specific states of "Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin." Of those specific states, I'd be curious which you think were heavily forested before and which aren't now. Craig Steiner said:
Yet you disappoint and depress others with your negativity. Richard Erlacher said:
It's not negativity, it's realism. No, actually it's negativity. Craig Steiner said:
Even not being a gambling man, I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that whatever we do, climate will change. It will get warmer, it'll get cooler, but it won't remain the same. Thus any effort spent on trying to keep the climate from changing is an arrogant waste of money and effort. Richard Erlacher said:
Don't you agree that it's safer to err on the side of caution? NO! That's always the fallback position for an environmentalist that has lost the debate and it's not a valid argument. I will not be strong-armed into adopting very questionable policies that will at the very least require major changes to our lifestyle and, at worst, cause major changes to our freedom and economic systems "just in case" because compelling evidence is unable to those that would have us make these changes. Get real evidence and then we'll talk. But don't ask me to adopt or accept your position "just in case." Heck, if we're going to play that game, I think you and every environmentalist should pay me $1000/year "just in case" not doing so will bring about the end of the world. Even though it doesn't seem likely, don't you agree it's safer to err on the side of caution and pay me $1000 yearly? Richard Erlacher said:
You once said that the activites of man are also a naturally occurring phenomenon. Actually, that wasn't me. Regards, Craig Steiner |
