You started a pit thread about the bad behavior of ARCO. ARCO is currently nothing more than a brand name owned by BP, and has been for over ten years. I made that connection pretty clear in my post.
Your comment about “oil consumption versus replacement” has absolutely nothing to do with my point about “consumables and capital goods,” except that the letters “consum” appear consecutively in both.
Clearly my posts in this thread were a waste of your time, so I am done here.
And he pointed out very clearly that the current scientific consensus links the two:
That is, the basic consensus on the explanation of global warming is that
As Try2BComprehensive noted, there is indeed a lot of debate about exactly what the consequences of this warming will be, but there’s not significant disagreement about what’s causing the warming.
If you do indeed disagree that human activities are having a warming effect on the planet, well, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you can’t pretend that you’re not seriously out of step with the scientific consensus.
I think you’ve got the causality precisely backwards here. The only reason that “reduction in carbon emissions” is a “liberal policy goal” at all is precisely because of scientific concerns about anthropogenic global warming.
Sure, liberals have always been concerned about pollution and fossil fuels and the environment in general, but until the scientists and science popularizers started making noise about the “greenhouse effect” issue, we didn’t give a rat’s ass about “greenhouse gas” emissions per se, because we had no idea that they were anything to be concerned about.
Now, of course, we liberals want the US to reduce carbon emissions, because we believe what the scientists are telling us about carbon emissions being an environmental problem. It isn’t that “the science on AGW fits neatly into liberal policy goals” so much as that these particular liberal policy goals have been constructed around the science. That’s how science policy goals are supposed to be constructed, after all.
I don’t feel like parsing this out any further with you. If you think you’ve won a debate, then you have, I concede, congratulations.
Reducing carbon emissions isn’t the liberal policy goal I’m talking about. The liberal policy goal I’m talking about is a general reduction in human development and the level of economic activity. A “return to the land” mentality. A “stick it to big business” mentality. A “we don’t need no loud shiny crap from China” mentality. A “I have nothing to offer other people so I want other people to cater to me” mentality. A “I fail at business so I want business to fail” mentality.
As I pointed before, it is just an accident of history that the current facts are liberal.
If we had Teddy Roosevelt as president he would had punched Exxon and others like the Koch companies in the face for spreading misinformation regarding the conservation of the environment.
Back then though, many progressives supported giving the business to the monopolies and the trusts of the day, and many did support the creation of new national parks. So there was an educated support from the other side to the Republican president.
However, many conservatives of today are in reality not worried about conserving the environment. But then again they are not all experts or scientists.
**
It would be impossible for the 97% or so of climate researchers and a super majority of scientists that propose AGW to be all liberals, the fact is that even your assumption that there is a political ideology **creating **this issue is without basis in reality. Specially when the basics of AGW were more formally established in the 50’s during the Eisenhower administration. **
Just a few posts ago you made a challenge to me regarding what could make me realize AGW is wrong, I answered, now show that at least you can explain away and with good reason what the republican scientist at BYU said about the issue, politics does not drive the science.
I of course agree that not all scientists are liberals. But not all scientists believe everything that is part of mainstream AGW theory. Rather, the work of many scientists is cobbled together by politicians to create a theory from A to Z, whereas some scientists in there only work on A to B and others only work on C to E.
The issue of “should the US enact legislation designed to reduce carbon emission” is not a scientific issue, it’s a policy issue. So, the liberals’ answer of “yes” on that issue cannot be supported by science–it’s an extra-scientific question.
One misty evening after many drinks, elucidator even confided to me that he’s got some nagging doubts about the whole Time Cube thing, too. I swore never to revea… oops.
:dubious: Hmmm. Even if we accept your somewhat, um, slanted presentation of economic failure as a liberal policy goal, I think you’re mistaken about AGW policy recommendations dovetailing with that.
In fact, AFAICT, most economic predictions say that climate change impacts are likely to be worse for economic development than typical emissions reduction measures would be. Droughts, floods and wildfires, to take just a few examples, are typically not cheap to deal with, and the increased circulation of water in and on a warmer planet makes them more frequent and severe.
If we were really trying to promote the hypothetical dreams of anti-development and anti-prosperity Luddite cranks, our best bet would be to sit back and let global warming charge ahead completely unchecked. Years of sustained severe droughts, floods and fires can wipe out economic prosperity much faster than most environmental regulations ever could. (Especially since studies indicate that most environmental regulations don’t actually have significant negative economic impacts.)
And so the Talk Origins people were right, you do have an agenda that is blinding you to the science.
The only reason why one should stick it to business is when their actions are damaging to the common good. The tobacco companies delayed any action against them and denied for decades the connection smoking has with cancer, going to the extreme of funding misleading research that only served to seed doubts.
It is no coincidence that virtually the same organizations that setup unscrupulous scientists to deny any connection with smoking and cancer are now using the same methods (And sometimes the same scientists!) to deny AGW.
“Do I detect uncertainty in your purpose?” - Warhammer 40k 
Incidentally what you said now** does not require at all to continue to stupidly deny the science.
**
This +100
The saying here is “an ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure”, it is not the restrictions that we can get today that scare me, but the future dictators that would pop up if we do nothing and then the shit hits the fan as even a favorite of the deniers like Lonborg admits we will experience by the end of the century.
So if he had just said, “My post is my cite,” he would be more convicing because it meant that he knew it. But because he was forced to provide links to NASA and AIP backing him he is clearly uninformed and can be dismissed as a blowhard.
You live in a fascinating world.
The Mormon geophysicist professor(!) at BYU said that CO2 reduction is needed, dismissing policies like cap-and-trade does not mean that we should not propose other policies that will reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions.
What it is clear is that your ideology is also going for the **unnecessary **dismissal of the science and it is clear that your agenda is to not even enact alternative policies as recommended by the conservative scientist.
So it is clear that you did not deal with what the BYU scientist said, Not all policies depend on science, but policies that ignore science (as in doing nothing) are foolish.
Re-reading my post, perhaps I wasn’t very clear. I don’t think that liberals just want business to be hurt–I think they want to hurt it. They aren’t Luddites, they’re sadists. They want to teach those meanies that they’re mean meanies and must pay for their meanness. Waiting around 100 years for the effects of climate change to take hold wouldn’t accomplish that goal. Also, the relationship between liberals and business is complicated in that liberals need business to generate wealth (so that liberals can re-distribute it to people they find more worthy). So they don’t want the complete destruction of civilization–they just want to punish business a bit, to bring it to its knees.
Sadism came from corporations and think tanks getting scientists to mislead congress or health organisations to minimize the dangers of smoking for so many decades.
Now they just retooled to do the same with climate change science.
Even so, even if the deaths of many were the result of their efforts, in the end we are just asking (And not only liberals) is that they just take some responsibility and help all in the changes that are needed.
The sadists are still the ones trying to deny that something needs to be done.
Sorry. I did criticize the article I cited in the OP by pointing out that it doesn’t mention when ARCO bought the solar divisions. I acknowledge your point about it currently being owned by BP (alas, too late), but would like to stress that this issue stretches back longer than 10 years.
A quantity of capital goods- solar panels (&etc.)- would have to be in place before supplies of fossil fuels begin to contract to avoid messy economic realities for Joe Everyday. Also before AGW causes messy environmental problems for Joe Everyday. In conjunction with a proportionate number of electric vehicles or alternative fuel vehicles, and/or displacement of oil power generation plants to replace projected declines in oil production, etc. This takes years of advance planning, and oil companies appear to be slowing down the process by investing millions in lies.
So. Efforts by oil companies to retard the adoption of solar power is wrong for more reasons than conflict with the realities of AGW. But if I meant to broaden the issue, I neglected to let on.
People have stormed out of these threads before only to return. Maybe you too will be back with some more input.
Huh. In other words, you’re saying that economic regulation of greenhouse gas emissions would be a way of just “punishing business a bit”? Whereas waiting around for the unchecked consequences of climate change “to take hold” would entail “the complete destruction of civilization”? Which, presumably, would end up punishing business substantially more?
You seem to be saying that even though these liberal environmental policy goals would end up being less destructive to business than the laissez-faire alternative, you’re still opposed to them essentially just because you feel those mean old liberals are motivated by sadism and shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.
Which, as far as I’m concerned, adds up to a big tall glass of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. Are you seriously so pathologically prejudiced against liberals that you’d actually welcome “the complete destruction of civilization” in preference to having to swallow a little liberal-spawned environmental regulation, even if it reduced the negative impacts of climate change? 
Like I said, political ideology cannot usefully serve as a proxy for scientific understanding. Or for rational policy assessment, for that matter.
When we lie prone on the craquelure of New Yucca Flat (formerly the United States Midwest), having drained the last of the uncontaminated water from the broken vaporator and shared our final meal—the last of the dried crickets, long saved for a special occasion—lacking the strength to move, or speak, barely able to squint against the assail of the dust devils—listening to the drumbeat of the approaching cannibal horde, and wondering if we’ll have the fortune to die before they arrive—I take comfort in knowing I’ll be able to turn my head, stiffly, in your direction, and croak “HA-ha!”
Well, sure, he’ll be just as dead as you. But he’ll have an excellent credit rating!
Yeah, I was gonna have the world’s last known nickel fall from Randy’s dessicated palm… too much?
Not too much, you might get away with a nickel. A quarter, his rotted bones would jump up and chase you.