Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #80 on: March 21, 2014, 11:43:57 PM »
If it wasn't the law I wouldn't buy any insurance other than home insurance.

How many times have you bought a computer or some other electrical thing and they ask you if you want a warranty? Basically, insurance in case it breaks.

Look at it this way. The insurance company knows the odds of these things breaking and offers insurance (a warranty) based on those odds + profit. Now extrapolate all the warranties over your lifetime. If you just let the occasional thing break, you'd be out of pocket to the tune of the cost of your warranties minus the profit those companies make. In other words, a warranty is a scam. Its like buying Calgon for your washing machine.

You are supposed to add a tablet every time you do a wash to protect your washing machine.

Calgon tablets are £20.29 for 75 tablets or 27p per wash.
It takes 6-8 years of washing in hard water to get a build up to get the kind of lime scale that will break your machine. In this time if you do 3 washes a week, that's over £300. Getting an technician to replace the parts would cost £50. Or of course for £300 you could buy a new bloody washing machine with all the parts including motors etc with 8 years more life in them.
source

Insurance never ever pays.

With the exception of house insurance. Not contents insurance. You are being boned on the risk of burglary vs cost of insurance + profit.

I would only buy house insurance because its the one gamble most people cannot afford to take even though of course most never claim and are paying odds + profit. Everything else, never buy insurance unless its the law.

So, do I want to pay environmental insurance just in case? No damn way.

Is household insurance not a 'what if'?

Insurance companies sell 'peace of mind'

I know that I won't make any money out of paying for household insurance however it gives me the 'peace of mind' to know that if anything happened to my home I would be able to fix it or buy another one.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #81 on: March 21, 2014, 11:59:49 PM »
Why did you quote my post and then repeat the same thing back to me?

House insurance is the one thing people cannot afford to gamble with. If I owned 100 houses or had millions to spare in the bank, I wouldn't buy it. Its purely because I couldn't cover the losses.

Back to the environment and away from your stinking red herring. When you buy insurance, the insurance company guarantees to cover your losses. Environmental tax doesn't. They are just collecting money 'just in case' without any promise to help if 'just in case' actually happens. 

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #82 on: March 22, 2014, 12:44:02 AM »
Why did you quote my post and then repeat the same thing back to me?

House insurance is the one thing people cannot afford to gamble with. If I owned 100 houses or had millions to spare in the bank, I wouldn't buy it. Its purely because I couldn't cover the losses.

Back to the environment and away from your stinking red herring. When you buy insurance, the insurance company guarantees to cover your losses. Environmental tax doesn't. They are just collecting money 'just in case' without any promise to help if 'just in case' actually happens.
It's more of a fee for polluting the atmosphere with your CO2. The atmosphere is public space. If you don't want to pay a tax, design a mechanism to capture all the CO2 you release, and store it in a warehouse.
If I went and started dumping waste from a septic tank on a public park, then i'd get fined, and probably some more severe penalties.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #83 on: March 22, 2014, 12:59:14 AM »
It's more of a fee for polluting the atmosphere with your CO2. The atmosphere is public space. If you don't want to pay a tax, design a mechanism to capture all the CO2 you release, and store it in a warehouse.
If I went and started dumping waste from a septic tank on a public park, then i'd get fined, and probably some more severe penalties.
Who gets that fee for polluting the atmosphere? Why should they have it? What do they do with the trillions of dollars? Surely they should be inventing a CO2 capturing machine with all that money? But they don't.

Dumping septic waste is demonstrably hazardous to other people's health. CO2 in the air is not. I breath out CO2. Should I pay for breathing?

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #84 on: March 22, 2014, 01:43:50 AM »
It's more of a fee for polluting the atmosphere with your CO2. The atmosphere is public space. If you don't want to pay a tax, design a mechanism to capture all the CO2 you release, and store it in a warehouse.
If I went and started dumping waste from a septic tank on a public park, then i'd get fined, and probably some more severe penalties.
Who gets that fee for polluting the atmosphere? Why should they have it? What do they do with the trillions of dollars? Surely they should be inventing a CO2 capturing machine with all that money? But they don't.

Dumping septic waste is demonstrably hazardous to other people's health. CO2 in the air is not. I breath out CO2. Should I pay for breathing?
The CO2 you breath out is being liberated due to cellular respiration, and that liberated CO2 is equivalent to the amount of CO2 that was sequestered by the plants that eventually provided you energy. Therefore the short-term (lets say 100 years) output is 0. The net output
If you'd like to see the negative health effects of CO2, try breathing out of your cars exhaust (don't actually do this). (Granted this is not a great example since you'd basically be depriving yourself of oxygen. However, increased CO2 in the body can lead to more acidic pH levels in the body, which is hazardous.)

Combustion engines will also produce carbon monoxide, which is poisonous to humans(and many other things).

Combustion engines will also produce nitrogen oxides, which will be created from the reaction of oxygen radicals produced from the combustion engine with nitrogen in the air, which has been shown to cause increased illness, and can lead to premature death from disorders of the lungs and the heart.

Nitrogen oxides are also fundamental in the production of acid rain, which is fundamental in the creation of acid rain and the acidification of the surrounding environment, which can kill off local animals due to pH intolerances.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8292
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #85 on: March 22, 2014, 03:52:10 AM »
Is this an online course for crashing the economy? If it is, there are better ways to do it.  If it isn't, well... that's a shame.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #86 on: March 22, 2014, 04:48:13 AM »
This thread is awful.  I don't even know which side is making worse arguments now.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #87 on: March 22, 2014, 08:11:42 AM »
one thing people cannot afford to gamble with.

And you think the environment and the ecosystem is something we can afford to gamble with?

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #88 on: March 22, 2014, 08:17:20 AM »
This thread is awful.  I don't even know which side is making worse arguments now.

Make the thread better then. Give an argument with meat on it. Instead of contributing to the 'worse' arguments.

At the moment I'm trying to use the only thing Thork really seems to give a shit about, money, to try and explain how stupid he's being.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #89 on: March 22, 2014, 08:35:58 AM »
If you'd like to see the negative health effects of CO2, try breathing out of your cars exhaust (don't actually do this). (Granted this is not a great example since you'd basically be depriving yourself of oxygen. However, increased CO2 in the body can lead to more acidic pH levels in the body, which is hazardous.)
What on earth are you going on about? This is the stupidest argument I have read yet. You aren't going to die from anthropogenic CO2 poisoning.

Agggghhhhh! This teacher is trying to murder the children! CO2 near their precious little nostrils! OMG!  :o
Should Broadway be sued for polluting with its dry ice shows?

More carbon in the atmosphere would actually promote plant growth. They pump CO2 into greenhouses.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/co2-capture-tomatoes-120821.htm
This would promote the growth of forests and crops around the world helping to cleanse the atmosphere of toxins and increasing global food production. CO2 would actually help.

Should this guy be suing his employers for acid blood levels? He's not even wearing a respirator! Where are the health and safety people?

Nitrogen oxide is naturally produced by forests and oceans. We could just cut down the trees and poison the algae if you like?

Carbon monoxide is also naturally occurring. The kind of levels cars kick out have no effects on us at all provided you don't hotbox your car. That is due to how readily it binds with haemoglobin and hence prevents oxygen being transported in your blood. But all the oil in the air wouldn't get close to this being a problem for us. A few parts per million would have no effect whatsoever.

Why are you telling me that the most harmless gases on earth are going to kill us all? Too much oxygen would kill you. Too much water. Too much of anything. But we aren't going to get anywhere near those kind of levels from 'pollution'.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 09:01:12 AM by Thork »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #90 on: March 22, 2014, 02:15:44 PM »
Bejing.
90s LA.

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #91 on: March 22, 2014, 02:45:21 PM »
If you'd like to see the negative health effects of CO2, try breathing out of your cars exhaust (don't actually do this). (Granted this is not a great example since you'd basically be depriving yourself of oxygen. However, increased CO2 in the body can lead to more acidic pH levels in the body, which is hazardous.)
What on earth are you going on about? This is the stupidest argument I have read yet. You aren't going to die from anthropogenic CO2 poisoning.

Agggghhhhh! This teacher is trying to murder the children! CO2 near their precious little nostrils! OMG!  :o
Should Broadway be sued for polluting with its dry ice shows?

More carbon in the atmosphere would actually promote plant growth. They pump CO2 into greenhouses.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/co2-capture-tomatoes-120821.htm
This would promote the growth of forests and crops around the world helping to cleanse the atmosphere of toxins and increasing global food production. CO2 would actually help.

Should this guy be suing his employers for acid blood levels? He's not even wearing a respirator! Where are the health and safety people?

Nitrogen oxide is naturally produced by forests and oceans. We could just cut down the trees and poison the algae if you like?

Carbon monoxide is also naturally occurring. The kind of levels cars kick out have no effects on us at all provided you don't hotbox your car. That is due to how readily it binds with haemoglobin and hence prevents oxygen being transported in your blood. But all the oil in the air wouldn't get close to this being a problem for us. A few parts per million would have no effect whatsoever.

Why are you telling me that the most harmless gases on earth are going to kill us all? Too much oxygen would kill you. Too much water. Too much of anything. But we aren't going to get anywhere near those kind of levels from 'pollution'.

According to the CDC, being in areas with heavy vehicle use can lead to the following symptoms due to Nitrogen Dioxide exposure:

From acute exposure

Infection
Discoloration of the skin
Hemoptysis
Rapid breathing
Difficult Breathing
Chills
Fever
Headache
Nausea
Vomiting
Unconsciousness
Bronchial Irritation
Collapse and death from respiratory failure

Chronic Exposure

Pulmonary Dysfunction
Low arterial oxygen saturation
Dyspnea
Moist rales and Wheezes
Sporadic cough expelling mucus and pus

Though granted CO2 and CO are probably unlikely to harm you unless you are in a closed system. (This is all assuming that CO2 won't indirectly harm humans, which I am not arguing)
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 03:11:38 PM by HHunter »

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8292
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #92 on: March 22, 2014, 03:00:35 PM »
This thread is awful.  I don't even know which side is making worse arguments now.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #93 on: March 22, 2014, 05:19:15 PM »
Or we screw up the ecosystem to an extent where we can't survive in it.
wat? No, climate change means the Dutch will have to immigrate and I'll need a cagoule. The Aussies will need better sun block and the African's will have to start eating each other. Its not some kind of end-of-days scenario.

What do you think is supposed to happen? This will be interesting.

It's happened before. Historically speaking, every species that has become dominant over the Earth has screwed it up so badly that they could no longer survive on it. The only difference is that we're smart enough to stop before we go too far. Hopefully.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #94 on: March 22, 2014, 05:30:46 PM »
Or we screw up the ecosystem to an extent where we can't survive in it.
wat? No, climate change means the Dutch will have to immigrate and I'll need a cagoule. The Aussies will need better sun block and the African's will have to start eating each other. Its not some kind of end-of-days scenario.

What do you think is supposed to happen? This will be interesting.

It's happened before. Historically speaking, every species that has become dominant over the Earth has screwed it up so badly that they could no longer survive on it. The only difference is that we're smart enough to stop before we go too far. Hopefully.
Being smart enough is irrelevant.
We as a species need to actually WANT to do it.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8292
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #95 on: March 22, 2014, 08:08:04 PM »
It's happened before. Historically speaking, every species that has become dominant over the Earth has screwed it up so badly that they could no longer survive on it. The only difference is that we're smart enough to stop before we go too far. Hopefully.

Huh? Are you saying that the dinosaurs were somehow responsible for getting themselves nuked by an asteroid?

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 908
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #96 on: March 23, 2014, 12:18:21 AM »
It's happened before. Historically speaking, every species that has become dominant over the Earth has screwed it up so badly that they could no longer survive on it. The only difference is that we're smart enough to stop before we go too far. Hopefully.

Huh? Are you saying that the dinosaurs were somehow responsible for getting themselves nuked by an asteroid?


I think he's referring to the blue green algae which poisoned everything else with oxygen.

I can't think of another apocalyptic species.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #97 on: March 23, 2014, 05:24:40 AM »
In the United States, over the past 10 years, the production of renewable electricity with non-hydroelectrical techniques has increased by over 150%, giving it the highest rate of increase by percentage in the USA. Currently, renewable energy currently constitutes about 6.25% of the United States' current electricity production, as opposed to the 2% in 2004. This easily demonstrates the results of recent efforts to use renewable energy rather than fossil fuels.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8292
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #98 on: March 23, 2014, 08:14:30 PM »
In the United States, over the past 10 years, the production of renewable electricity with non-hydroelectrical techniques has increased by over 150%, giving it the highest rate of increase by percentage in the USA. Currently, renewable energy currently constitutes about 6.25% of the United States' current electricity production, as opposed to the 2% in 2004. This easily demonstrates the results of recent efforts to use renewable energy rather than fossil fuels.

That is a result of recent subsidy programs in place, whereas you're suggesting atrocious tax hikes which do literally nothing to help.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #99 on: March 23, 2014, 11:45:55 PM »
In the United States, over the past 10 years, the production of renewable electricity with non-hydroelectrical techniques has increased by over 150%, giving it the highest rate of increase by percentage in the USA. Currently, renewable energy currently constitutes about 6.25% of the United States' current electricity production, as opposed to the 2% in 2004. This easily demonstrates the results of recent efforts to use renewable energy rather than fossil fuels.

That is a result of recent subsidy programs in place, whereas you're suggesting atrocious tax hikes which do literally nothing to help.
It is making you pay for negative externalities, which should be in place in many more places. If you don't like paying the real cost of a product, then don't buy it. Don't complain about something not costing $1.00 when it costs $2.00.