or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Cash for clunkers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Cash for clunkers - Page 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac

avg fuel savings per traded car = 9.6 miles/gal (phenomefuckingnal)

avg drive distance per year 12,000 miles

total miles for 750,000 cars = 9,000,000,000 miles

fuel @ 15.8 miles/gal = 569,620,253 gal (avg consumption of cars to be destroyed)
fuel @ 25.4 miles/gal = 354,330,708 gal (avg consumption of new cars purchased)
Fuel savings initiated = 215,289,545 gal per year.
Consumers will save approx \$ 560,000,000 per year on gas. (\$ 2,60 per gal)

In 5.36 years individuals who have purchased a new car under the program will save 3 Bill \$ in gas.

If there is a free market that will mean that gas will become cheaper, FOR EVERY ONE!

Some assumptions are being made here. First the 9.6 MPG improvement is based on a sampling of 120,000 cars not the full 750,000 (like the rest of your calculations) so we'll have to see when the program is completed a couple of things:

1. What is the average MPG improvement at that time. Undoubtedly we can do better than a "sampling" since someone will have electronic records that can easily be shove through a spreadsheet to get the actual number.

2. In addition to the \$3 billion spent by the government, how much did individuals spend?

Then we can get closer to a total cost benefit analysis.

None of this factors in the secondary effects that have already been mentioned (e.g., upward price pressures for remaining used cars, etc.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Some assumptions are being made here. First the 9.6 MPG improvement is based on a sampling of 120,000 cars not the full 750,000 (like the rest of your calculations) so we'll have to see when the program is completed a couple of things:

1. What is the average MPG improvement at that time. Undoubtedly we can do better than a "sampling" since someone will have electronic records that can easily be shove through a spreadsheet to get the actual number.

2. In addition to the \$3 billion spent by the government, how much did individuals spend?

Then we can get closer to a total cost benefit analysis.

None of this factors in the secondary effects that have already been mentioned (e.g., upward price pressures for remaining used cars, etc.)

You do trust a sampling 1001 people to reflect the popularity of Sarah Palin do you?

Ok margin of error ±5% .. would you agree?

It is far more important to our security, our planet and our children to use less gas than anything else. PERIOD!

One more thing: The government will be in possession of at least 1 Mill tons of scrap steel currently trading at around \$ 270/ton or \$ 270,000,000 it will be more like 500,000,000 considering some of the SUVs and trucks being recycled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac

Ok margin of error ±5% .. would you agree?

No. We don't have all the numbers. Once we have them then we can do some real analysis. Until then, this is guess work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac

It is far more important to our security, our planet and our children to use less gas than anything else. PERIOD!

This is an opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

No. We don't have all the numbers. Once we have them then we can do some real analysis. Until then, this is guess work.

This is an opinion.

An opinion based in fact unless you ignore CO₂'s role on global warming.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

An opinion based in fact unless you ignore CO₂'s role on global warming.

Not to mention the political implications of all that Arab Oil Money.
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Some assumptions are being made here. First the 9.6 MPG improvement is based on a sampling of 120,000 cars not the full 750,000 (like the rest of your calculations) so we'll have to see when the program is completed a couple of things:

1. What is the average MPG improvement at that time. Undoubtedly we can do better than a "sampling" since someone will have electronic records that can easily be shove through a spreadsheet to get the actual number.

2. In addition to the \$3 billion spent by the government, how much did individuals spend?

Then we can get closer to a total cost benefit analysis.

None of this factors in the secondary effects that have already been mentioned (e.g., upward price pressures for remaining used cars, etc.)

The above are real numbers though, not mear handwaving of overly simplistic demand/supply arguments that are only true in a truly free market, something we all know has never existed.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
There are degrees of freedom. I say the more freedom, the better for everyone all around.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

No. We don't have all the numbers. Once we have them then we can do some real analysis. Until then, this is guess work.

This is an opinion.

Selig sind die arm am Geiste, denn sie wissen nicht was sie tun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent

The above are real numbers though, not mear handwaving of overly simplistic demand/supply arguments that are only true in a truly free market, something we all know has never existed.

But they are incomplete numbers with assumptions built in. When we have the complete numbers then we can talk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent

...not mear handwaving of overly simplistic demand/supply arguments that are only true in a truly free market, something we all know has never existed.

We've already established that you were the one doing the hand waving. If you wish to ignore the reality and real-world impacts of the laws of supply and demand, I can't help that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

An opinion based in fact...

Not really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker

Not to mention the political implications of all that Arab Oil Money.

True, but with plans already underway for Africa to provide huge amounts of solar power energy, enough for all of Europe's total electricity needs from vast solar panel farms, it's worrying to think about what might happen to an increasingly destabilized and impoverished Middle East as relates to oil revenue.

Africa-" Dwarfed by any of the north African nations, it represents an area slightly smaller than Wales but scientists claimed yesterday it could one day generate enough solar energy to supply all of Europe with clean electricity."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ower.windpower

And India - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ia-solar-power
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Not really.

So what else is causing this?

"When the Chacaltaya glacier vanished six years sooner than scientists predicted, a victim of global warming, so too did the world’s highest ski run.The loss of the 18,000-year-old glacier this year that loomed above Bolivia’s altiplano threatens to diminish water supplies to 2 million people"
~ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a5uefC1W0_bY
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

So what else is causing this?

"When the Chacaltaya glacier vanished six years sooner than scientists predicted, a victim of global warming, so too did the world’s highest ski run.The loss of the 18,000-year-old glacier this year that loomed above Bolivia’s altiplano threatens to diminish water supplies to 2 million people"
~ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a5uefC1W0_bY

I'm not going to engage in a debate about global warming or climate change or whatever the heck we're calling it these days.

The fundamental opinion stated makes a personal value judgement about security and the environment and suggests, unequivocally that this is the single most important issue. Undoubtedly we can look at objective facts and find other issues that are similarly concerning that could rank above those. Further, the national security "issues" related to foreign oil are misplaced and do not address root causes. Finally, all we hear regarding so-called climate change are its negative effects and hear nothing of potential positive impacts. So given this lack of information, it can hardly be said that an opinion is based on "fact". It is an individual value judgement based on partial facts.
The earth has always undergone periods of cooling and warming. Icecaps and glaciers recede and grow. The earth's climate is never the same. Change is the only constant.

The earth was once much warmer than it is now. Studies indicate life flourished during that time.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

I'm not going to engage in a debate about global warming or climate change or whatever the heck we're calling it these days.

The fundamental opinion stated makes a personal value judgement about security and the environment and suggests, unequivocally that this is the single most important issue. Undoubtedly we can look at objective facts and find other issues that are similarly concerning that could rank above those. Further, the national security "issues" related to foreign oil are misplaced and do not address root causes. Finally, all we hear regarding so-called climate change are its negative effects and hear nothing of potential positive impacts. So given this lack of information, it can hardly be said that an opinion is based on "fact". It is an individual value judgement based on partial facts.

The only real positive effect is that technology is becoming greener, it can't happen soon enough.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

The only real positive effect is that technology is becoming greener, it can't happen soon enough.

Are you sure? There are absolutely, positively, unquestionably no other positive effects?
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

But they are incomplete numbers with assumptions built in. When we have the complete numbers then we can talk.

We've already established that involuntary_serf is the one doing the hand waving. If I wish to ignore the reality and real-world impacts of the laws of supply and demand, you can't help that.

No, you have only decided that you are doing all the handwaving.

All your links on increased prices occured prior to the CARS program.

Talk about being incomplete, you are de facto, incomplete.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent

No, you have only decided that you are doing all the handwaving.

All your links on increased prices occured prior to the CARS program.

Talk about being incomplete, you are de facto, incomplete.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Truly, you are an ... who presents incomplete anecdotal evidence to support their mind numbing and singular POV.

You assume "negative unintended consequences" and that about sums up your "in depth analysis."
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru

The earth has always undergone periods of cooling and warming. Icecaps and glaciers recede and grow. The earth's climate is never the same. Change is the only constant.

The earth was once much warmer than it is now. Studies indicate life flourished during that time.

Are you saying we shouldn't limit our CO2 emissions? Don't you think the negatives of increased CO2 levels far outweigh the very few positives for the vast majority of (really all) people?
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Are you saying we shouldn't limit our CO2 emissions? Don't you think the negatives of increased CO2 levels far outweigh the very few positives for the vast majority of (really all) people?

Are you sure there are absolutely, positively, unquestionably no other positive effects?
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent

Truly, you are an ... who presents incomplete anecdotal evidence to support their mind numbing and singular POV.

You assume "negative unintended consequences" and that about sums up your "in depth analysis."

I realize that being shown to be wrong is painful for you, but some day you'll have to come to terms with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Are you sure? There are absolutely, positively, unquestionably no other positive effects?

Very few, but if you care to enlighten me with positive effects that outweigh the negatives go ahead.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Very few...

Like what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Like what?

I thought this was your area of expertise!
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

I thought this was your area of expertise!

I never made such a claim. But you've admitted that there are a few positive effects of "climate change" (that beautifully, vaguely, all-encompassingly named "issue"). I'm just curious to know what those few are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

I never made such a claim. But you've admitted that there are a few positive effects of "climate change" (that beautifully, vaguely, all-encompassingly named "issue"). I'm just curious to know what those few are.

I used the term expertise loosely, simply to convey that you appeared to know something so big it put nearly all the current scientific thinking to shame.

I've never argued that there aren't any positive effect's that can be attributed to increased CO2. Instead, that they are far outweighed by the negative effects.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

I've never argued that there aren't any positive effect's that can be attributed to increased CO2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

The only real positive effect is that technology is becoming greener, it can't happen soon enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Instead, that they are far outweighed by the negative effects.

After the above quote where you claimed only a singular positive effect, you said there were a few.

Can you tell what they are?
Can you tell what the possible magnitude of them is?
Can you tell what the probability of them occurring is?

NOTE: It's okay if the answer to those questions is "no". It isn't a crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Granted it is just a start and I trust Toyota, more than anyone else in the business, to find a way to make it work.

We might just find out that the cheapest "solar" energy is that black stuff in the ground.

Though Toyota may have been leading and may continue leading, I wouldn't want to completely rule out another company,even GM, making a breakthrough and getting ahead at least in some areas.

If the black stuff in the ground, including coal, could be a greener energy than renewables then great, but it's certainly looking like it's going the other way. Also, especially in the light of recent events, producing your own energy is likely to be preferable than using/relying/controlling/stealing/ on someone else's.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

I realize that being shown to be wrong is painful for you, but some day you'll have to come to terms with it.

And you have not shown any evidence whatsoever to support your biased view point.

Give us all some evidence for the CARS segment of the used car market.

You don't have any.

Or it's clearly incomplete and can't be judged until all the factual evidence is in.

That's your own apparently fuzzy pretzil logic thrown right back at you. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Though Toyota may have been leading and may continue leading, I wouldn't want to completely rule out another company,even GM, making a breakthrough and getting ahead at least in some areas.

I don't rule out other companies at all (well maybe GM, the Amtrack of the automobile industry). But I've watched Toyota very closely for a long time and they're an impressive company. They are the tortoise to the hare of other companies. While at the same time having the capacity to make leaps forward too. If I were a betting man, my money would be on Toyota.

My real point in that comment though was about the previous posts about just slapping some solar panels up and away you go. Toyota (as only one example) has a ton of money invested in all of this. If they haven't figured out how to do, it seems unlikely (not impossible) that someone in their backyard is going to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent

And you have not shown any evidence whatsoever to support your biased view point.

Give us all some evidence for the CARS segment of the used car market.

You don't have any.

Or it's clearly incomplete and can't be judged until all the factual evidence is in.

That's your own apparently fuzzy pretzil logic thrown right back at you. \

It's okay frank. I understand. It'll be fine. It's not the end of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

It's okay frank. I understand. It'll be fine. It's not the end of the world.

Still making stuff up I see. I understand. It'll be fine. It's not the end of the world.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent

Still making stuff up I see. I understand. It'll be fine. It's not the end of the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

After the above quote where you claimed only a singular positive effect, you said there were a few.

Can you tell what they are?
Can you tell what the possible magnitude of them is?
Can you tell what the probability of them occurring is?

NOTE: It's okay if the answer to those questions is "no". It isn't a crime.

CO2 is an essential part of the atmosphere for life on this planet. I and every scientist acknowledges that. Increasing CO2 levels does encourage plant growth, however it's not always that straightforward as studies have shown that sometimes there are negative consequences for the plants too. As shown here-

"When attacked by Japanese beetles, the plants grown in CO2-rich air failed to induce these three genes to the same extent as plants grown under normal conditions. In contrast, the soybeans' exposure to carbon dioxide didn't affect their use of two control genes unrelated to defence, regardless of the presence of the beetles."
~ http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketsci..._against_h.php

The point though is that rising global temperatures far outweigh any benefits, as shown here-

"WITHIN 60 years the Arctic Ocean could be a stagnant, polluted soup."
~ http://www.newscientist.com/article/...climate-change
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

CO2 is an essential part of the atmosphere for life on this planet. I and every scientist acknowledges that. Increasing CO2 levels does encourage plant growth, however it's not always that straightforward as studies have shown that sometimes there are negative consequences for the plants too. As shown here-

"When attacked by Japanese beetles, the plants grown in CO2-rich air failed to induce these three genes to the same extent as plants grown under normal conditions. In contrast, the soybeans' exposure to carbon dioxide didn't affect their use of two control genes unrelated to defence, regardless of the presence of the beetles."
~ http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketsci..._against_h.php

The point though is that rising global temperatures far outweigh any benefits, as shown here-

"WITHIN 60 years the Arctic Ocean could be a stagnant, polluted soup."
~ http://www.newscientist.com/article/...climate-change

You seem to be evading the questions.

You have one article that says "WITHIN 60 years the Arctic Ocean could be a stagnant, polluted soup." No mention of the probability of this happening and certainly no mention of countervailing effects or factors.

You've not answered my questions. That's fine. But you should note that if you cannot, then you're not making a rational determination. If you are unable to know all or most of both the negative and positive effects as well as their impacts and probabilities, then your determination is based on incomplete information.

Now granted, no one can know all of these things with 100% certainty. We're talking about predicting the future here. But my point is that all we've heard about are the negative impacts (along with the assumption that the impacts will be huge and wide not to mention happen with almost 100% probability).

When I find someone trying to sell me something (whether it is a "Cash for Clunkers" program, a government takeover of banks, insurance companies and automobile industries; a "stimulus" program or a government health care "reform" plan) I always find it curious when I see the following pattern:

1. All of the effects are claimed to be positive (or negative depending on which way the argument is going).
2. All of these positive effects are claimed to be of a large and wide magnitude.
3. All of these effects are assumed to be highly probably to the point of near certainty.
4. No mention is ever (or at least rarely and or casually, sometimes derisively dismissed) made of any negative (or positive depending on which way the argument is going) effects (or their magnitudes and probabilities).

I've found this to be true for all of the above mentioned "issues" (and more).

This tends to set off my "Bullshit Meter" or at least my "I Think I Might Be Getting Conned Meter".
How 'Cash for Clunkers' is Adding Carbon

Quote:
Green critics have been circling the program since it began in late July, focusing mostly on concerns that 'Cash for Clunkers' does not require high enough fuel economy for the new vehicles that are eligible for the program.

Now comes Harvard economist Edward L. Glaser with a criticism from the behavioral economics camp in his weekend Boston Globe op-ed. Glaser's point? If Americans derive more pleasure from driving newer cars, they are likely to drive more. Not to mention that they will be getting better gas mileage that will make leisure drives, long road trips and the daily commute much more affordable. As a result, even if they are driving more fuel efficient vehicles, "Cash for Clunkers" might not have a net GHG-lowering impact. There goes one leg of the economy/consumer/environment stool.

The environmental "benefits", if any, will probably be minimal.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

You seem to be evading the questions.

You have one article that says "WITHIN 60 years the Arctic Ocean could be a stagnant, polluted soup." No mention of the probability of this happening and certainly no mention of countervailing effects or factors.

You've not answered my questions. That's fine. But you should note that if you cannot, then you're not making a rational determination. If you are unable to know all or most of both the negative and positive effects as well as their impacts and probabilities, then your determination is based on incomplete information.

Now granted, no one can know all of these things with 100% certainty. We're talking about predicting the future here. But my point is that all we've heard about are the negative impacts (along with the assumption that the impacts will be huge and wide not to mention happen with almost 100% probability).

When I find someone trying to sell me something (whether it is a "Cash for Clunkers" program, a government takeover of banks, insurance companies and automobile industries; a "stimulus" program or a government health care "reform" plan) I always find it curious when I see the following pattern:

1. All of the effects are claimed to be positive (or negative depending on which way the argument is going).
2. All of these positive effects are claimed to be of a large and wide magnitude.
3. All of these effects are assumed to be highly probably to the point of near certainty.
4. No mention is ever (or at least rarely and or casually, sometimes derisively dismissed) made of any negative (or positive depending on which way the argument is going) effects (or their magnitudes and probabilities).

I've found this to be true for all of the above mentioned "issues" (and more).

This tends to set off my "Bullshit Meter" or at least my "I Think I Might Be Getting Conned Meter".

If you had read all of the fairly short article you would have seen that there was a counter argument made, at least towards the timescale at the end of the article. Maybe this "Stagnant Arctic Soup" won't even happen, but it certainly worth the research and appears like a very real possibility. I posted it because of the headline, which is eye-catching, simply to highlight the enormity of what's happening. You may feel like you don't get both sides, positive and negative, when in fact the actual outcomes of CC are practically always more negative than was once predicted. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize there's a bunch of bad news and little good news when observing those effects. Other than increased plant growth (where applicable) and not having to worry about someone throwing a snowball at you so hard it gives you a black eye, there really isn't much positive news to tell sadly. That's reality.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

You seem to be evading the questions.

You have one article that says "WITHIN 60 years the Arctic Ocean could be a stagnant, polluted soup." No mention of the probability of this happening and certainly no mention of countervailing effects or factors.

You've not answered my questions. That's fine. But you should note that if you cannot, then you're not making a rational determination. If you are unable to know all or most of both the negative and positive effects as well as their impacts and probabilities, then your determination is based on incomplete information.

Now granted, no one can know all of these things with 100% certainty. We're talking about predicting the future here. But my point is that all we've heard about are the negative impacts (along with the assumption that the impacts will be huge and wide not to mention happen with almost 100% probability).

When I find someone trying to sell me something (whether it is a "Cash for Clunkers" program, a government takeover of banks, insurance companies and automobile industries; a "stimulus" program or a government health care "reform" plan) I always find it curious when I see the following pattern:

1. All of the effects are claimed to be positive (or negative depending on which way the argument is going).
2. All of these positive effects are claimed to be of a large and wide magnitude.
3. All of these effects are assumed to be highly probably to the point of near certainty.
4. No mention is ever (or at least rarely and or casually, sometimes derisively dismissed) made of any negative (or positive depending on which way the argument is going) effects (or their magnitudes and probabilities).

I've found this to be true for all of the above mentioned "issues" (and more).

This tends to set off my "Bullshit Meter" or at least my "I Think I Might Be Getting Conned Meter".

The ocean turning acidic is the most positive effect of increased CO2.
It will kill all sea life and I hate sea food.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru

How 'Cash for Clunkers' is Adding Carbon