Global warming?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Isn't the question important enough to make a definitive exploration of the subject?

That's precisely why the debate is not over.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That's precisely why the debate is not over.

Bruce...you made the point earlier (#292) that "it's logical to conserve resources, try to keep the air and water healthy. And working on reducing our dependency on foreign interests is always the smartest thing to do."

IMO, that should be the focus of the debate. The impact on climate change will just be a plus if nearly all of the national and international scientific bodies in the world are correct in their overwhelming consensus and will certainly do no harm if they are wrong.

Should the focus be more on "drill, baby, drill" or developing cleaner technologies and improving energy efficiency? Or just do nothing while the climate change debate continues endlessly?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I stand by that statement 100%, always have. Deciding how to do that, we have to weigh the cost benefit ratio, and in many cases we don't know what that is. I'm not suggesting every project must have a direct monetary payback, but to try and weed out outrageous waste. So, while attempting to accomplish conservation and cleanliness, the investigation and debate about how we interact with the earth/climate, and it's effect, should continue.
There will probably always be more we don't know, than we do know. More knowledge is gooder.

What, no comment on your bogus chart?

And the fact that the GDP has grown at a steady rate since 1947....with the one blip (until 2007) occuring in 1974 as a result of the Arab oil embargo....when we should have begun rethinking our reliance on foreign oil and a comprehensive national energy plan...and a couple of small dips during the Reagan years



In 1974, the Japanese understood the need to retool its economy....it shifted from oil-intensive industries to electronics and, at the same time, its auto makers entered the US market by producing small, more fuel efficient cars and, for the first time, impacting US auto sales.

Economics 101, as tw noted, innovation breads productivity. Relying on the status quo leads to stagnation.

[Undertoad]

If you need help on the basics you can always attend a class.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If you need help on the basics you can always attend a class.

Nah...I stand by what I posted.

But then, I am not a believer in the Milton Friedman "no government regulations" and the "free market will act in the best interest of the country" school of economics.

More of a Keynesian.

I thought all that government investment in the 47-55 post WW II "boom years" development of infant industries followed by the 60s "space age" creation of the new aerospace industry was good for the economy, all of which had "trickled down" positive impacts (as opposed to supply side economics). The same for the comprehensive environmental laws of the 70s. All of the above not only created jobs, but stimulated innovation and contributed in no small way to a vibrant economy.

[Undertoad]

It has to be per capita. Fixed dollars.



Here's the section I'm talking about, with trend lines. 1960-1973, 1973-1983; 1983-2000.

Right...a dip in the mid-70s that most economist attribute to the 6-month OPEC oil embargo, a smaller dip in 79 as a result of a smaller oil embargo (after the Iranian revolution), and then a dip after Reagan's first tax cut in 82 and rising again after Reagan pretty much abandoned supply side economics and worked with the Democrats in Congress on the tax reform in 84 that broadened the tax base.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Global warming does exist. Exceeds anything the earth has ever seen. Only remaining question is how severe that problem is.

Is it caused by man and can we effect a change?

Originally Posted by Redux

the Democrats in Congress on the tax reform in 84 that broadened the tax base.

[Undertoad]

Well everybody has their narratives. But if the oil embargo is the entire explanation for a bad economy, then A) apparently the Econ 101 supply curve is useful and important after all, as limiting supply raised prices; and B) why are you in favor of having an artificial, self-imposed embargo every year for twenty years?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Well everybody has their narratives. But if the oil embargo is the entire explanation for a bad economy, then A) apparently the Econ 101 supply curve is useful and important after all, as limiting supply raised prices; and B) why are you in favor of having an artificial, self-imposed embargo every year for twenty years?

Nonsense.

The 6-month OPEC oil embargo was an unanticipated event initiated by foreign powers for the sole purrpose of disrupting the flow of oil to the US and adversely impacting the economy.

Hardly the same as a planned (slow) phased-in transition over a period of 20 years, with government tax abatement programs and other assistance for some industries and citizens who may be impacted beyond reasonable means.

You can do better than that!

[SamIam]

Ya know, I have this sneaking suspicion that we are not going to find any common ground on this one - well maybe with Bruce, but everyone else is pretty polarized. We've has 346 posts so far, and MY mind hasn't been changed. Just saying.

OK proceed as before and you tell 'em Redux!

Originally Posted by SamIam

Ya know, I have this sneaking suspicion that we are not going to find any common ground on this one - well maybe with Bruce, but everyone else is pretty polarized. We've has 346 posts so far, and MY mind hasn't been changed. Just saying.

You got that right. There are strongly held beliefs on both sides.

OK proceed as before and you tell 'em Redux!

But I'm getting a head ache

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Ya know, I have this sneaking suspicion that we are not going to find any common ground on this one - well maybe with Bruce... snip

Yup, I'm a commoner.

Bull shit.

RIght.

AEI's proposed solution is to bcome "more resilient" to climate change (under AEI health care reform, does that mean free artificial lungs for those with breathing disorders?) AND to fully privatize the infrastructure (power plants, water plants, roads,....) most impacted.

CEI has opposed all government regulation in this area and has declared that higher CAFE standards for autos are more likely to kill you than provide more energy efficient autos.