A commentary slams the "false optimism" around plans to holdclimate change to 2 degrees Celsius or less

On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 3:51:29 PM UTC-5, Lord Vath spun this lie:
Hitler was a socialist and he thought only the government and artists
could create wealth. An artist can take an empty canvas and create a
beautiful painting that is very valuable and uses very little energy.
Yes, I'm comparing you to Hitler, but Hitler was better.


Hilter was no socialist.

Yes he was. I read his book. Have you?

In fact the first people he imprisoned was the socialists
and trade unionists.

He was competing for the same base.

You're a clown. I can't believe you ever read any books, much less Hitler's.. You may be able to redefine fascism in your own little right wing echo chamber, but in the real world the definition stands. Fascism is the capture of government by capitalist industry. Why don't you try redefining the word in Wickipedia, or Websters? Go ahead, try. You'll be laughed out of the room. You're mired in your own Orwellian dream where up is down, left is right, the sky is green and water is not wet.

On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 10:12:47 PM UTC+1, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 3:51:29 PM UTC-5, Lord Vath spun this lie:
Hitler was a socialist and he thought only the government and artists
could create wealth. An artist can take an empty canvas and create a
beautiful painting that is very valuable and uses very little energy..
Yes, I'm comparing you to Hitler, but Hitler was better.


Hilter was no socialist.

Yes he was. I read his book. Have you?

In fact the first people he imprisoned was the socialists
and trade unionists.

He was competing for the same base.

You're a clown. I can't believe you ever read any books, much less Hitler's. You may be able to redefine fascism in your own little right wing echo chamber, but in the real world the definition stands. Fascism is the capture of government by capitalist industry. Why don't you try redefining the word in Wickipedia, or Websters? Go ahead, try. You'll be laughed out of the room. You're mired in your own Orwellian dream where up is down, left is right, the sky is green and water is not wet.
...... the sun rising and setting doesn't correspond to a single rotation of the Earth -

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

"During one orbit around the Sun, Earth rotates about its own axis 366.26 times" Wikipedia


Orwell based his dystopian society on Nazi doctrine hence it is not altogether fiction -

"Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the
truth" exists. [...] The implied objective of this line of thought is a
nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls
not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such
an event, "It never happened"--well, it never happened. If he says that
two and two are five--well, two and two are five. This prospect
frightens me much more than bombs [...]" Orwell

Hitler was an empiricist in his convictions by way of a doctrine that laws govern existence in equating social/political supremacy via Darwin with Newton's laws of motion.

In your lifeless eyes there is no truth or joy in creation for how else to explain the acceptance of a mismatch between each 24 hour day with a rotation of the planet. The Nazi doctrine was defeated but the empiricist doctrine which encompassed his views still remain.

On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 5:12:47 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
Fascism is the capture of government by capitalist industry. Why don't you try redefining the word in Wickipedia, or Websters?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

Note that neither "capitalist" nor "industry" are mentioned in the definition.

Go ahead, try. You'll be laughed out of the room.

It appears that YOU are being "laughed out of the room," uglirollah!

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 11:45:35 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2015 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Warmingistas rarely, if ever, meet the standards that they wish to set for others. They are therefore seen for the corrupt hypocrites they really are.

So what? They advocate for legal enforcement of standards that apply
the same to them as to everyone else.

$10 per gallon gas (due a carbon tax) harms the lower and middle class far more than is would the typical warmingista, who will simply shift the cost to someone else, or find a loophole.

Any "standard" that would restrict each warmingista to two tons of CO2 emission per year would NOT have the support of the warmingistas.

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 12:20:26 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2015 11:54:37 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

1) Creating wealth requires lots of energy.

Not necessarily. Perhaps you mean that using wealth requires energy?

We are an energy-based economy. There are few ways to create wealth
without consuming lots of energy. But a problem is that some people
confuse creating wealth with creating money.

In a free market wealth and money are closely connected. In the perverse sort of economy that you would impose, there is a disconnect, and that is what confuses you.

There are many examples
of the latter which consume energy but do not result in a net increase
in societal wealth, and are reasonably restricted.

Your traveling a long distance to astro club meetings consumes energy, but does nothing to increase "societal wealth."

wrote:
On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 11:45:35 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2015 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Warmingistas rarely, if ever, meet the standards that they wish to set
for others. They are therefore seen for the corrupt hypocrites they really are.

So what? They advocate for legal enforcement of standards that apply
the same to them as to everyone else.

$10 per gallon gas (due a carbon tax) harms the lower and middle class
far more than is would the typical warmingista, who will simply shift the
cost to someone else, or find a loophole.

I pay nine dollars a gallon- it was much more. Some EU countries pay more.
Result: more economical cars , more smaller cars, less fuel consumption.
Green supporters throughout Europe are middle class.

Any "standard" that would restrict each warmingista to two tons of CO2
emission per year would NOT have the support of the warmingistas.

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 8:12:05 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 11:45:35 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2015 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Warmingistas rarely, if ever, meet the standards that they wish to set
for others. They are therefore seen for the corrupt hypocrites they really are.

So what? They advocate for legal enforcement of standards that apply
the same to them as to everyone else.

$10 per gallon gas (due a carbon tax) harms the lower and middle class
far more than is would the typical warmingista, who will simply shift the
cost to someone else, or find a loophole.

I pay nine dollars a gallon- it was much more. Some EU countries pay more..
Result: more economical cars , more smaller cars, less fuel consumption.
Green supporters throughout Europe are middle class.

All irrelevant. The tax isn't a carbon tax...yet. The tax, carbon or not, is regressive. The rich and the rich warmingistas pass the cost along. Europeans are not particularly "green." Those "green supporters" are not practicing what they preach; they would balk at a carbon tax of $90 per gallon. Even at $10/gallon there are lower-income Europeans who are being priced out of car ownership.

wrote:
On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 8:12:05 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 11:45:35 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2015 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Warmingistas rarely, if ever, meet the standards that they wish to set
for others. They are therefore seen for the corrupt hypocrites they really are.

So what? They advocate for legal enforcement of standards that apply
the same to them as to everyone else.

$10 per gallon gas (due a carbon tax) harms the lower and middle class
far more than is would the typical warmingista, who will simply shift the
cost to someone else, or find a loophole.

I pay nine dollars a gallon- it was much more. Some EU countries pay more.
Result: more economical cars , more smaller cars, less fuel consumption.
Green supporters throughout Europe are middle class.

All irrelevant. The tax isn't a carbon tax...yet. The tax, carbon or
not, is regressive. The rich and the rich warmingistas pass the cost
along. Europeans are not particularly "green." Those "green supporters"
are not practicing what they preach; they would balk at a carbon tax of
$90 per gallon. Even at $10/gallon there are lower-income Europeans who
are being priced out of car ownership.

You should be in favour of this since it's an indirect tax and saves income
tax for the rich. Just the type of society you recommend.
It's not called a carbon tax but it is nevertheless a tax on carbon.
Electric cars have no fuel tax and the vehicle tax depends on the carbon
emissions of the car. The most efficient cars pay no vehicle tax and in
London no congestion charge. Many better-off Londoners drive Fiat 500s.

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 9:12:56 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

You should be in favour of this since it's an indirect tax and saves income
tax for the rich.

There should be no income tax on anyone.

Just the type of society you recommend.

You are incorrect.

It's not called a carbon tax but it is nevertheless a tax on carbon.

Playing word games, eh? If the fuel emitted NO carbon the tax would still be collected, just as it has been long before you so-called "greenies" ever heard of CO2.

Electric cars have no fuel tax and the vehicle tax depends on the carbon
emissions of the car.

Fuel tax is enacted to pay for road construction/maintenance, at least in civilized countries such as the US.

The most efficient cars pay no vehicle tax and in
London no congestion charge. Many better-off Londoners drive Fiat 500s...

....but ONLY while they are in London. Elsewhere they no doubt drive gas guzzlers, fly on planes, etc. Of course most people in the world do not even own a car, not even a "fuel-efficient" one. Do NOT expect a pat on the back for driving a Fiat 500 in London (as if one were somehow "doing his part" by doing so.)

On Tue, 19 May 2015 02:57:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

In a free market wealth and money are closely connected. In the perverse sort of economy that you would impose, there is a disconnect, and that is what confuses you.

In it's most basic sense, money is just a mechanism for transferring
wealth, so it is closely connected with wealth in any type of economy.
In ours, however, it is closely tied to _material_ wealth, meaning
that it is quite disconnected from non-material wealth. That need not
be the case, in free market economies or any others.

Your traveling a long distance to astro club meetings consumes energy, but does nothing to increase "societal wealth."

It does nothing to create material wealth. I would argue that it
creates wealth, however, as social interaction and the transfer of
ideas and knowledge are important types of wealth themselves.