Rand Paul's Budget

[timwakefield 68]

If this was the only claim the climate change club was making, there would be no controversy. Instead they are saying "humans are causing environmental changes and it will definitely lead to death and destruction and therefore we have to destroy the foundation of our economy to prevent that from happening."

Whut? Are you talking about how we're hoping to ween our species off of natural gas? Because we're not doing that for nature or fears of global warming - we're hoping to do that so that we don't need to rely on the goddam terrorist-loving A-rabs for oil anymore. Our motive is largely economic, so I surely don't see how it will destroy the foundation of our economy. Maybe you're talking about something else though? Please tell.

[hblask 1]

Whut? Are you talking about how we're hoping to ween our species off of natural gas? Because we're not doing that for nature or fears of global warming - we're hoping to do that so that we don't need to rely on the goddam terrorist-loving A-rabs for oil anymore. Our motive is largely economic, so I surely don't see how it will destroy the foundation of our economy. Maybe you're talking about something else though? Please tell.

At the current time, I'm referring to things like the Kyoto protocol and cap and trade, both which impose massive costs which have little theoretical backing and do almost nothing to address the climate issue. The exact solutions vary among time and place, but those are the two most egregious examples right now.

[timwakefield 68]

At the current time, I'm referring to things like the Kyoto protocol

The United States has not, and does not intend to ratify the Kyoto protocol, so how is that relevant?But I'm also interested in how it has "impose[d] massive costs which have little theoretical backing and [done] almost nothing to address the climate issue." I'm not trying to be snarky - I simply don't know very much about it.

Trees

Have you checked on the South American rainforests lately? I saw nothing in Randy's post that suggested he was talking about the US specifically.

[hblask 1]

The United States has not, and does not intend to ratify the Kyoto protocol, so how is that relevant?

I was pointing out the typical solutions that follow "every scientist agrees global warming will lead to worldwide catastrophe", which seems to be the most common statement on global warming.

But I'm also interested in how it has "impose[d] massive costs which have little theoretical backing and [done] almost nothing to address the climate issue." I'm not trying to be snarky - I simply don't know very much about it.

Basically it forces the US and a few other rich countries to cut way back on carbon production while letting many other countries go on as usual. The predictable result of this is that manufacturing in the US will become prohibitively expensive and manufacturing will move overseas to countries that escaped the limits -- countries that have lower limits than the US to begin with. So it's a double whammy -- harm jobs and manufacturing in the US while create *more* carbon due to no standards in third world countries.And even if it did lower carbon emissions -- which there is no evidence of a net worldwide reduction from any plan offered so far -- there is still the little matter that nobody really knows how much it will slow the warming, if at all.

[brvheart 1,752]

Have you checked on the South American rainforests lately? I saw nothing in Randy's post that suggested he was talking about the US specifically.

Randy is a hard-core democrat which means he thinks that the US is an evil monster in every situation. I was just heading him off at the pass.

[mrdannyg 274]

I didn't mean to clearly imply that, or to imply it at all. Before there was any life on the earth, there were climate changes that were almost unimaginably dramatic. And even since then, there have been huge horrific climate changes caused by massive meteor collisions - so horrific that a similar disaster could wipe out 99% (or more) of humanity if it happened today. Natural ice ages and periods of hotness (or whatever) are also known to have occurred, and to have had drastic, catastrophic effects around the world.I think you read more into my wording than I meant to be read. By "We've never seen or studied before" I simply meant that the outcome is unknowable, as this is the first time in earth's history that humans are causing environmental changes. We cannot study it in Antarctic ice or in sedimentary layers, and we certainly cannot study what the outcome is unless we traveled to the future and came back. It's something that's happening for the first time ever, but I certainly didn't mean to imply that it will or could be more drastic than a natural ice age or meteor collision. It won't, and couldn't possibly do the amount of damage that a sizable and well-placed meteor could (and frankly, eventually will, unless we create and build some way to deflect them).

HB covered me on this one. What you said above I have no issue with. I'm even fine with saying that there is consensus it will lead to things that are bad (not just unknowable/different). Like HB, I take exception to the implication (apparently not intended by you) that there is consesnsu it will lead to DEATH AND DESTRUCTION AND CALIFORNIA UNDER WATER AND DEAD BABIES within any specific timeframes.