Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

[Tristam]

Except solar panels and windmills are not cheaper energy. They cost more per unit energy than coal and oil.

Right now, solar panels and windmills need government subsidies to survive, which essentially means that they are not cheaper.

Cuz' technology never improves.

[Leif]

Yeah, carbon based energy sources didn't require gov't subsidies to develop ataaaaaallll.

Except you can't demonstrate that without these subsidies, the economy wouldn't be better.

Shell economists did a piece in Nature the other week, alternative energy is inevitable. Welcome to the 21st century.

Yes. Like I said, I'll let the free market to decide when to invest in these technologies.

Everyone will eventually die. It's inevitable. Now, everyone put a gun to their head and pull the trigger!

You're taking a position held by noone with any stake in the future.

To the contrary, the very people freaking out about climate change are people with little stake in society: the very rich and the very poor.

Coincidentally, I just described the Democratic party.

Cuz' technology never improves.

Because technology develops faster and more efficiently when it is allowed to naturally develop, without the government telling people which technology is important and which isn't.

[Jaybar]

How does technology develop faster when there is no acting catalyst to promote it's development? I wouldn't say we are FORCING alternative energy. If we pool money into research, then there's your catalyst. Of course, you need a reason to put that money into research. In most cases, it's war (which is ironic because you spend even more money on the war than you would on the research). I'd say in this case it's fear. Fear that an oligopoly might choke us and that we'd have no way to support ourselves (and the alternative is fear that we might actually run out).

[Leif]

How does technology develop faster when there is no acting catalyst to promote it's development?

Profit seems like a fabulous catalyst to me.

I wouldn't say we are FORCING alternative energy.

It wouldn't otherwise develop at that time, but it is because the government is making it so.

Sounds like "forcing" to me.

[Tristam]

How does technology develop faster when there is no acting catalyst to promote it's development? I wouldn't say we are FORCING alternative energy. If we pool money into research, then there's your catalyst. Of course, you need a reason to put that money into research. In most cases, it's war (which is ironic because you spend even more money on the war than you would on the research). I'd say in this case it's fear. Fear that an oligopoly might choke us and that we'd have no way to support ourselves (and the alternative is fear that we might actually run out).

It's not that the technology isn't necessarily there yet. The point of the Shell piece was that wind, nuclear, solar etc. all have the capacity to begin large scale production of energy, but there remains an old and archaic infrastructure devoted to carbon. That infrastructure needs to be replaced eventually, but industry will not do it until the costs of maintaining outweight the benefits of new technology. The economic benefit to the country in the long run is to progress with alternative energy faster than the free market currently demands because of the variable of climate. Leif just hates america.

[Jaybar]

Profits > Ethos. Got it.

[Leif]

The economic benefit to the country in the long run is to progress with alternative energy faster than the free market currently demands because of the variable of climate.

Which is a variable of unknown size. It could be nothing, it could be very little, it could be some, it could be a lot. Nobody can say. The left, with an ulterior motive of actually dismantling America, cannot be trusted with such a question.

Leif just hates america.

That's the best conclusion you can make? Considering you rambled on for a paragraph and you're conclusion was inherently false, do I really need to deconstruct it?

Profits > Ethos. Got it.

Yes. This is what made America so great.

As I have previously explained at length, there is no better motive for productive and efficient work than the profit motive (or the gun to your head motive).

[Tristam]

That's the best conclusion you can make?

It's obvious you want to hinder american development and industry.

[Leif]

It's obvious you want to hinder american development and industry.

In fact, I so desperately want it to prosper. But the idea that the government or the people know what is best for a particular industry (in which they have no stake in) is preposterous.

The people running these companies are faced with a choice:

Make money or make more money. Why on earth would they choose not to make more money?



Why do they need the government to tell them what is best for their business? I think they know.

[Jaybar]

I'm still having trouble here.

• We remove ourselves from the grasp of an oligopoly that we hate with our Amurkan guts.
• We have assurance that we will never run out of raw material.
• Our carbon based manufacturers can still be sustained because America has a supply pool.
• Employment may or may not be hurt (Still require labor force plus technical support).
• Lybrahls will be happy.
• Depending on the plant, job safety would be reduced dramatically (compared from an oil/coal plant to that of a solar plant - Nuclear plant is different and has room for improvement).
• Possible new technologies that are founded based on research into alternative energy (Maybe a super lazer to kill infidels).
• ???
• Profits...? Probably not 560 billion.

Edit: What's best for a company is not always what is best for the country. I don't know how in God's name you could even compare the two.

[Cadsuane]

Things gets subsidized because they would never happen as much as we'd like them to at the free market equilibrium, ie. positive externalities from stuff like education and research aren't taken into account by firms unless they're given an incentive. Free markets are a good way to organize economic activity... unless there are ologopolies/monopolies/monopsonies/oligopsonies. Taxes/subsidies cause net welfare losses which is a loss in economic efficiency... unless there are externalities. Basic economics.

[Tristam]

In fact, I so desperately want it to prosper. But the idea that the government or the people know what is best for a particular industry (in which they have no stake in) is preposterous.

The people running these companies are faced with a choice:

Make money or make more money. Why on earth would they choose not to make more money?



Why do they need the government to tell them what is best for their business? I think they know.

They do know, they want to invest in alternative energy, the government does already have a stake in it as do the people (I like electricity too!). The companies have decided to invest in the technology and infrastructure, but they know they need gov't help. I know you're not quite up with the times, but why do you hate corporations? Do you think they're all full of stupid people? CEOs don't make millions of dollars for nothing. Are you a communist?

[Leif]

They do know, they want to invest in alternative energy, the government does already have a stake in it as do the people (I like electricity too!). The companies have decided to invest in the technology and infrastructure, but they know they need gov't help.

What kind of make-believe bedtime story is this? There is no basis in fact for your assertion that companies require the government's help to succeed. Ever consider that they are looking for a hand out? Why pay for it when the government will? Don't give it to them. Pay for it themselves and keep my taxes low.

I know you're not quite up with the times, but why do you hate corporations? Do you think they're all full of stupid people? CEOs don't make millions of dollars for nothing. Are you a communist?

Again, why are you making things up? Corporations are great. They are full of the hardworking people. CEOs make millions of dollars because they decide things like whether or not the company will invest in alternative energy. I'm not a communist.

What's best for a company is not always what is best for the country. I don't know how in God's name you could even compare the two.

You're right. But you talk like the government acts in the best interest of the country. That's most often not the case.



edit: good night!

[Heavencloud]

Again, why are you making things up? Corporations are great. They are full of the hardworking people. CEOs make millions of dollars because they decide things like whether or not the company will invest in alternative energy. I'm not a communist.

We had to bail out huge corporations, but they're "great," even though they caused the economy to collapse. Cool story bro.

[Leif]

We had to bail out huge corporations, but they're "great," even though they caused the economy to collapse. Cool story bro.

Another liberal bedtime story.

Because of political correctness lending pushed by top Democrats like Barney Frank, we have a crisis on our hands.

So there are two philosophies about lending:

1) "Everyone who wants a house should be able to get a house."
2) "Everyone who can afford a house should be able to get a house."

Liberal Democrats pushed #1, causing loans to be given out to people who did not deserve loans. All under the veil of "fairness" (if you haven't caught on by now, any Democratic proposal with the word "fair" in it is inherently unfair), individuals that shouldn't have gotten loans were given loans.

This is yet another case of liberals ruining everyone's lives rationalized by you as a case of corporations gone wild.

As Ann has mocked, "It's the famous liberal two-step: First screw something up, then claim that it's screwed up because there's not enough government oversight (it's the free market run wild!), and then step in and really screw it up in the name of 'reform.'"


Why is it that example after example, Democrats and liberals screw something up with a big government program, and then actively work to make everything worse with even more government programs and regulation. Well, in this case, big government Fannie and Freddie were making bad loans. Then, along comes Barney Frank who yells at them for not giving poor people loans. Then they give poor people loans, the entire economy collapses, and you blame it on companies?


This active liberal policy of rewriting history as it happens is completely insane.

[Kuya]

Leif is the best entertainment this forum has had in some time.

[Leif]

Thank you. =D

You actually have no idea how happy that makes me.

[pahnphoenix]

Thank you. =D

You actually have no idea how happy that makes me.

Spoiler: show

it's obvious you're trolling, so they probably do have an idea.

---

it's sad how so many people seem to think the united states is run in some kind of overwhelmingly democratic fashion. in irl conversations and on messageboards, people actually state things like "we're held back from nuclear energy b/c of liberals like you," as if a leftist/liberal goes down to city hall and sets energy policy; as if anyone you know has any fucking say at all in energy policy. keep writing letters to your congressmen, and never let go of your dreams.

[Leif]

Spoiler: show

it's obvious you're trolling, so they probably do have an idea.

---

it's sad how so many people seem to think the united states is run in some kind of overwhelmingly democratic fashion. in irl conversations and on messageboards, people actually state things like "we're held back from nuclear energy b/c of liberals like you," as if a leftist/liberal goes down to city hall and sets energy policy; as if anyone you know has any fucking say at all in energy policy. keep writing letters to your congressmen, and never let go of your dreams.

What's the point?

As far as people saying "We're held back from nuclear energy because of liberals like you"... well... that's completely true. Liberals are by definition a bunch of pussies. Liberal sissies have irrational fears of nuclear energy and guns. Meanwhile, they actively refuse to have a coherent foreign policy (with some choosing to instead side with the enemy), put up idiotic "gun-free school zone" signs everywhere, and manage to simultaneously find ways to the destroy constitution as they find imaginary entitlements and rights in the document that has no mention of abortion or gay marriage.

It's a completely valid position that refers more to the mindset of the person than the person's individual actions.

[Daimen-G]

liberals are by definition a bunch of pussies

Yeah man. You fucken tell those pinko fucks. Peace? Hahahaha no. War owns. War is AWESOME I FUCKEN LOVE WAR MAN KILL ALL FOREIGNERS YEAHHHHHHH *slams back a brewski, spends 50% of the national budget on the military, gets hacked by a $26 script*