Genesis and Matthew

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 7:15:17 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:38:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:

(quoting Chris L. Peterson)
Using carbon-based energy creates global pollution. All use affects
everyone negatively.

Except when it doesn't.

Well, the problem is that it does. If you believe otherwise, you are
factually wrong.

It's possible that instead of denying global warming, he was merely claiming that sometimes the benefits of a specific use of fossil fuels outweigh the costs. So if you disagree with that, he will then demand you stop all fossil fuel use immediately!

If you don't anticipate the other fellow's arguments, and attempt to determine what he actually means by what he is posting, rather than just what he seems to mean, the two of you will be arguing past each other for many posts to come.

John Savard

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 9:13:45 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:33:10 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

We are a democracy. Although that is less the case with every passing
year.

The word "democracy" does not appear in the Constitution.

So? We are a democracy.

The US has a republican form of government.

On Friday, February 28, 2014 9:58:50 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:48:10 -0800 (PST), wrote:

It is difficult to capitalize a company that mass-produces cars, for
example, without incorporating.

Well, with benefits come responsibilities.

It is true that corporations wield great power.

However, an argument that something could be done is far from an argument that it should be done. And don't get me started about radioactive spiders...

John Savard

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 9:15:17 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:38:25 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

Your viewpoint is ridiculous. Fossil fuel use enabled and continues to
enable a rise in standard of living that far outweighs the damage.

The standard of living is not rising in many countries, including the
U.S. Climate risk puts our entire civilization at real risk of
collapse. How much damage is that?

So far, none. In the foreseeable future, little to none.

Photovoltaic continues to get better and cheaper. Even without
subsidies, it is now very cost effective for me to convert to 100% PV
and be off grid.

Perhaps only because you might be distant from civilization, ie no Greyhound or other mass/public transit.

No, it is cost effective all over the country.

No, only in a some areas. Based on my typical electric bill, the breakeven would take decades. If solar is cost effective, why the subsidies, why is green more expensive?

There's little doubt in the climate science community that Sandy would
not have occurred without our current climate change. There's also no
doubt at all about how rising sea level affects the damage created by
storm surges. That aspect of climate change prediction is rock solid.

You have offered no proof; hurricanes and the damage caused are not a new phenomenon:

There were several papers published about this recently. Do your own
homework. And as long as you use words like "proof", you continue to
demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding about science.

Hurricanes are not new, are not happening any more often, and any additional damage they cause is simply due to more people living/working on the coasts.

Using carbon-based energy creates global pollution. All use affects
everyone negatively.

Except when it doesn't.

Well, the problem is that it does. If you believe otherwise, you are
factually wrong.

"All use affects everyone negatively" = wrong.

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 11:03:22 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, March 1, 2014 7:15:17 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:38:25 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

(quoting Chris L. Peterson)

Using carbon-based energy creates global pollution. All use affects
everyone negatively.

Except when it doesn't.

Well, the problem is that it does. If you believe otherwise, you are
factually wrong.

It's possible that instead of denying global warming, he was merely claiming that sometimes the benefits of a specific use of fossil fuels outweigh the costs. So if you disagree with that, he will then demand you stop all fossil fuel use immediately!

Peterson wrote: All use affects everyone negatively.
I wrote: Except when it doesn't.

MBP benefits from his use of private jets, limos and his heated pool. No one has noticed the effects of the resultant CO2 from those uses.

Peterson benefits from using his car to go see an eclipse. No one has noticed the effects of that CO2.

The problem is that people such as Peterson want to carbon-tax or coerce someone else into reducing his already low CO2 to even lower levels. Yet, no one has noticed the effects of -that- CO2 either.

It hasn't been made clear how either MBP or Peterson have been harmed by CO2 from fossil fuels. If they wish to make a case that CO2 will harm future generations, then they do need to stop using fossil fuels. There is no need to wait for a carbon tax or regulations to take that step.

On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 08:03:22 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

It's possible that instead of denying global warming, he was merely claiming that sometimes the benefits of a specific use of fossil fuels outweigh the costs. So if you disagree with that, he will then demand you stop all fossil fuel use immediately!

Nope, I don't disagree at all. That's why I advocate a free-market
approach to the problem, with the emitters of carbon paying for the
damage created. It allows cost/benefit decisions to be rational.

On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 08:17:29 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The standard of living is not rising in many countries, including the
U.S. Climate risk puts our entire civilization at real risk of
collapse. How much damage is that?

So far, none. In the foreseeable future, little to none.

So far, hundreds of billions of dollars worldwide. And every
expectation of those numbers increasing hugely. A wise person plans
for future costs, and doesn't wait for economic disaster to hit. A
wise society does the same.

Hurricanes are not new, are not happening any more often, and any additional damage they cause is simply due to more people living/working on the coasts.

The amount of damage increases with sea level rise. For instance, a 1
cm rise in sea level produces billions of dollars more damage in low
lying coastal areas (much of the East Coast) when a hurricane hits.
Although Sandy itself has largely been determined to have been
directly the result of global warming (the first large individual
weather event so identified), no change in hurricane patterns is
necessary to reliably predict high costs associated with just sea
level rise, which is happening and will continue to happen.

On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 07:50:35 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

So? We are a democracy.

Perhaps you are in a republic with democratic characteristics. Where the people are not the absolute rulers, because the Constitution limits what their elected representatives can do, and therefore what they can do in the way of imposing laws on one another.

Of course. A republic is a form of democracy. There are many types of
democracy, which is any system primarily characterized by decisions
being made by the people. That includes the various representative
types of democracies.

It is only silly pedants who can't read through words to the
underlying meanings that claim the U.S. isn't a democracy. Seems to be
a popular view of teabaggers, in particular.

So much for a thread overrun by consumerist/empiricist drones but then again what community can accept the nuanced approach of the great Biblical writers when the noble astronomical tradition dealing with physical matters is in such a mess.

The great structure of Genesis with its elaborate chronological scheme plays out before the reader in such a lovable way where 86,400 weeks cover the cycle from creation of Adam to the day of the great flood of Noah mirroring the 86,400 seconds in a 24 hour cycle. The spirited and spiritual person delights in the upward shift in perspective in understanding leaving these drones and their dead concerns behind.

As these works pass through a person they change them as all the great Christian works do,they burn away the pretense,wants and hates that prevent the intellectual dullard from seeing and hearing the great spectacle of creation encompassing them as both a work in itself and a journey,for such is the life of Christ and all true Christians.

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:19:07 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 08:17:29 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

The standard of living is not rising in many countries, including the
U.S. Climate risk puts our entire civilization at real risk of
collapse. How much damage is that?

So far, none. In the foreseeable future, little to none.

So far, hundreds of billions of dollars worldwide. And every
expectation of those numbers increasing hugely. A wise person plans
for future costs, and doesn't wait for economic disaster to hit. A
wise society does the same.

A carbon tax would be an economic disaster in its own right. The money would just disappear down a rat hole. Savings, investments and economic activity would decline, more people would end up in poverty.

Hurricanes are not new, are not happening any more often, and any additional
damage they cause is simply due to more people living/working on the coasts.

The amount of damage increases with sea level rise. For instance, a 1
cm rise in sea level produces billions of dollars more damage in low
lying coastal areas (much of the East Coast) when a hurricane hits.
Although Sandy itself has largely been determined to have been
directly the result of global warming

I'm calling BS on that one. Sandy was just another hurricane, it just happened to hit a densely populated area.

(the first large individual
weather event so identified), no change in hurricane patterns is
necessary to reliably predict high costs associated with just sea
level rise, which is happening and will continue to happen.

Increased hurricane damage premiums should cover the damage, if/when it occurs. There is no reason that a coastal resident should be subsidized by someone who lives inland.