[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by lizard

The Anthropocene Age is an interesting recent topic. . .

Fortunately Stoner was around then, so he can give us first hand accounts!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Depends upon the solution. Can you be specific, please?

Stop buying cars that get less than 25 miles per gallon (average)

Set your themostart to 70 (or less) in the winter and 78 (or more) in the summer.

Those are very good starts. And while I don't support "forced" compliance because it doesn't work, I do support incentives. Give tax incentives for conservation rather than taxing for over-usage--will work much better AND the economy will do much better.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

Fortunately Stoner was around then, so he can give us first hand accounts!

This was actually the first I heard about it.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

.......................... Give tax incentives for conservation rather than taxing for over-usage--will work much better AND the economy will do much better.

Agreed.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by lizard

I haven't proposed any extreme legislation or extreme solutions, nor do I recall compushlep doing any of the same.
As my previous post indicates, the extreme stuff, which LAN has posted l i b e r a l l y throughout this thread, is of his own making and is all in his mind.

I don't recall any solutions being discussed. Certainly none proposed by LAN.
I believe his position before this lastest foray was acceptance of Climate Change as fact, but reluctance to accept the level of human contribution to it.

Why he would think that thermostats have a bearing on the human contribution of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, I have no clue.
I've already discussed these thermostats with him earlier on, and even pointed out to him what I thought were additional deficiencies. But, if they're to measure a change in temp over time, then what does it matter where they are placed, as long as they're not moved.

I support the positions of the IPCC, EPA, NOAA, and the AGU, to name a few.
They all basically say the same thing. A measurable increase in greenhouse gases from human activity is changing Global Climate.

Solutions other than voluntary seem unacceptable to most.

I think "solutions that force compliance are unacceptable to most" is more accurate. I think most people would accept reasonable conservation incentive programs (we already have many). I think we just need to step up the incentives.

Also--the Climate Change Nazis are going about affecting change the wrong way. It is far too difficult to prove that greenhouse gases are affecting climate change or if it does, that it does in any significant degree. A much better argument is come spend a few days in LA at the height of summer and look at the smog. That is INDISPUTABLE evidence of what the emissions do to the air quality. You can get people to buy into changing that very easily and in the end, you accomplish the same thing.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Agreed.

But then you get the typical "tax incentives for the rich."

Just to give you an example--I know you don't necessarily buy into the hybrid solution, but they give tax incentives (tax credits) for purchase. Well not for me! I got nothing because I made too much money. And the point is I don't make that much money--if you really want this to work you have to give it to everyone--from the guy that buys the $100,000 hybrid sports car

http://www.fiskerautomotive.com/ (I know someone that owns one--sweeeeeeeeet)

to the person like me who buys a Prius. Point is if we want to change people's buying habits we have to make it profitable for them. I knew when I bought the Hybrid it would likely cost me more money in the long run to own one--it shouldn't.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

But then you get the typical "tax incentives for the rich."

Just to give you an example--I know you don't necessarily buy into the hybrid solution, but they give tax incentives (tax credits) for purchase. Well not for me! I got nothing because I made too much money. And the point is I don't make that much money--if you really want this to work you have to give it to everyone--from the guy that buys the $100,000 hybrid sports car

http://www.fiskerautomotive.com/ (I know someone that owns one--sweeeeeeeeet)

to the person like me who buys a Prius. Point is if we want to change people's buying habits we have to make it profitable for them. I knew when I bought the Hybrid it would likely cost me more money in the long run to own one--it shouldn't.

I have no problem with incentives.
A rebate of a portion of federal taxes at the gas pumps would make sense to entice people to drive a certain type of car.
As I remember, something like that was done with diesel cars back in the 80's to get people into more fuel efficient vehicles. And done with success.

Penalizing merely imposes economic restrictions by funneling money out of the economy.
It does little for conservation, imo.

[family gal]

Freeze Gore's Convenient Lies: The Ice Pack Is Expanding!
22 Feb 2008

February 22, 2008 (LPAC)--Scaring people and drumming up convenient lies on man-made global warming are the means used by Al Gore to pursue deindustrialization and genocide. However, the plan has developed a hole through which people can see the truth. It came out in the form of a report issued by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), that reveals that almost all the ice allegedly lost in the Arctic has come back. The report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual. The Daily Express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg, which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former VP Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind's alleged impact on the global climate, and points out
that Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or, that the polar bear population has soared in recent years. Reading the NOAA report, one columnist pointed out: If global warming gets any worse, we'll all freeze to death.

Gore's blatant lies were exposed long back by the EIR. Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. In its Sept. 28, 2007 issue, EIR analyst Greg Murphy pointed out that because the current interglacial period has lasted more than the 10,000-year average, it is expected that a new ice age is in the making. "We don't know exactly when ice will once again advance to cover a good part of the Northern Hemisphere," but an ice age is coming.

[Stoner]

I don't support Gore, but I've seen none of these reports claiming the ice sheets are increasing.
How about some linkage to these claims?

[valis]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I would truly like to be here to see that.

ditto......i have faith.....

[valis]

jack:

Here's a better link wrt to fusion and what's being done to further it.

http://www.fusion.org.uk/focus/index.htm

[lizard]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I call BS on that.

BS on what?
Are you saying you had some proposals before you brought up this thermostat thing again?
No, you didn't. Links please.

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I have proposed specific solutions using the entrepreneurship combined with governmental stimulation.

Good for you. I hope your proposals will be considered by someone who has some say in the matter.

Originally Posted by LANMaster

You have proposed nothing except to listen to bureauweenies discussing how to topple Capitalism.

Bolded part...I'm not interested in playing games with this, I'm not a policymaker.
The rest...prove it. Links please.

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Wrong. Because sometimes there are vehicles parked next to them, and sometimes there isn't. Sometimes the A/Cs are running, and sometimes they're not.

Nice try, though.

OMG! Sometimes it's daytime, and, and, at other times it's nighttime! What's to be done?

Explain to me how you see that these thermostats have an effect on the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
They don't. None at all. You have no valid point with these.
Time to move on to the 400 (scientists) again.

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I do not support ALL of the positions of those organizations. Some I do, and some I don't.

IMO, they're all highly respectable scientific bodies.
I'm sure they would appreciate any correspondence from you concerning their errors.

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Depends upon the solution. Can you be specific, please?

Sorry, I'm not playing the policymaker game with ya, LAN.
Rather pointless.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

Stop buying cars that get less than 25 miles per gallon (average)

Set your themostart to 70 (or less) in the winter and 78 (or more) in the summer.

Those are very good starts. And while I don't support "forced" compliance because it doesn't work, I do support incentives. Give tax incentives for conservation rather than taxing for over-usage--will work much better AND the economy will do much better.

agreed. I got all three of those nailed. We keep the thermostat at 80 in the summer (ac cools it down more than that, but the 80 keeps it from kicking on every 30 seconds), and we generally keep it spot on at 70 in the winter. But then again, winter down here is a bit of misnomer.

Curious about the over-usage thing. Are you talking about capping the limits a corporation can use, then hitting them hard for the amount they go over it? Or are you talking more the civilian usage?

[Bastiat]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I have proposed specific solutions using the entrepreneurship combined with governmental stimulation.

Allow me to translate that from federal bureaucracees to English: A new way of getting ****ed by your federal government.


How's that for governmental stimulation and with no foreplay!

[Stoner]

This was the only article I could find at NOAA concerning Arctic ice in the time frame mentioned by the article family girl posted:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...eportcard.html
I see noting that could be interpreted as her article suggests.

Here is a list of recent reports by NOAA: http://www.noaa.gov/newsarchive.html

Maybe someone can find what was claimed.....I couldn't.