Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11453 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 12:43 pm 
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
What about advocates that live their beliefs and advocate for free market solutions? -- e.g. Amory Lovins

He's acting to live his arguments and values while leaving others free to live theirs, good idea.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6842 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 1:22 pm 
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
Again that's your proposed theory of human behavior -- of which you have provided zero supporting evidence.    History has plenty of counter examples

RandyHiker wrote:
LINK

There's no theory required for this argument, merely fact.

You cannot know what people would have chosen when conditions allowing the choice were not allowed.

So since you can't provide any evidence to support your theory of human behavior that is counter to experience you just claim its a fact. 

Not exactly using the scientific method.

People most certainly would not have widely adopted catalytic converters without governmental regulations -- individual choice was impractical, if not impossible.   An individual could certainly have purchased and installed a catalytic converter on their vehicle as an individual -- however where would they have purchased unleaded gasoline to power their vehicle?

Unleaded didn't become widely available without government regulation -- it should have been banned decades earlier just to protect the public from lead contamination -- but it wasn't until catalytic converters required unleaded gasoline did unleaded gasoline become widely available.   

Quote:
1974: EPA requires availability of at least one grade of unleaded gasoline, in order to be compatible with 1975 make and model year vehicles. Lead damages the catalytic converters used in these new vehicles to control tailpipe emissions. Catalytic converters are still used in vehicles today.

Industry waged both a lobbying campaign and a disinformation campaign for many years to allow lead to continue to be included in gasoline. LINK
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11453 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 1:36 pm 
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
So since you can't provide any evidence to support your theory of human behavior that is counter to experience you just claim its a fact. 

Not exactly using the scientific method.

When the basics of logic cannot be counted as 'evidence', you're already up a creek. That too, is standard science.

You haven't shown how the logic is incorrect..because you cannot. 

RandyHiker wrote:
People most certainly would not have widely adopted catalytic converters without governmental regulations -- individual choice was impractical, if not impossible.   An individual could certainly have purchased and installed a catalytic converter on their vehicle as an individual -- however where would they have purchased unleaded gasoline to power their vehicle?

That may well be the case, but it's unknowable since the conditions of choice were not allowed to exist.

What is 'impractical', 'impossible', etc relates to the desire for an outcome by the standards of the observer, not all will do what you want by choice.

After all, when I look at the situation, I don't see that people will not make the choice as a reason to compel them to. Your argument boils down to you want them to do it, and if they won't, force them to do it. In other words, whatever it takes with your goal as what matters, not theirs.

Unleaded didn't become widely available without government regulation -- it should have been banned decades earlier just to protect the public from lead contamination -- but it wasn't until catalytic converters required unleaded gasoline did unleaded gasoline become widely available.[/quote]

RandyHiker wrote:
Industry waged both a lobbying campaign and a disinformation campaign for many years to allow lead to continue to be included in gasoline. LINK

I'm sure they did some of that, wether it is disinformation depends on the actual truth of facts stated, not wether you disagree with facts. Even people in industry own the right to lobby or speak facts.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6842 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 1:47 pm 
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
Industry waged both a lobbying campaign and a disinformation campaign for many years to allow lead to continue to be included in gasoline. LINK

I'm sure they did some of that, wether it is disinformation depends on the actual truth of facts stated, not wether you disagree with facts. Even people in industry own the right to lobby or speak facts.

I can see that you didn't bother to read the content of the link -- here is one relevant passage:

Quote:
for more than four decades, all scientific research regarding the health implications of leaded gasoline was underwritten and controlled by the original lead cabal–Du Pont, GM and Standard Oil; such research invariably favored the industry’s pro-lead views, but was from the outset fatally flawed; independent scientists who would finally catch up with the earlier work’s infirmities and debunk them were–and continue to be–threatened and defamed by the lead interests and their hired hands;

The industry is certainly free to "speak facts" -- but they didn't do that -- they created and spread knowingly false information and actively worked to suppress research that would counter their narrative.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 972 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 2:03 pm 
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
they created and spread knowingly false information and actively worked to suppress research that would counter their narrative.

Sounds just like the extreme global warming wolf-criers these days.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6842 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 2:10 pm 
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
they created and spread knowingly false information and actively worked to suppress research that would counter their narrative.

Sounds just like the extreme global warming wolf-criers these days.

Right -- and there is now measurable evidence that removing lead from gasoline improved human well being and that leaded gasoline was far more harmful than industry advocates claimed

Just one example:  Lead-Crime Hypothesis

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Property_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 972 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 2:12 pm 
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
Parked Out wrote:
What a weenie!

climate weenie
climate weenie

That guy is legitimately mentally ill.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 972 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 2:18 pm 
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
Randy, ya lead sucks.

CO2 of course is not lead.

If your intention was to point out the failure of industry in ignoring science, i'm sure we can find a great many cases of politicians and journalists that likewise fail the test of science.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6842 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 2:26 pm 
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
Randy, ya lead sucks.

CO2 of course is not lead.

If your intention was to point out the failure of industry in ignoring science, i'm sure we can find a great many cases of politicians and journalists that likewise fail the test of science.

My point is to discredit MG's hypothesis that individual action is sufficient to accomplish environmental protection -- that government regulation is unnecessary.

Leaded gasoline is still used in Algeria, Iraq, Yemen, Myanmar, North Korea, and Afghanistan.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
Brian R
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Feb 2018
Posts: 254 | TRs
Location: Fircrest WA
Brian R
  Top

Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 5:03 pm 
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Right -- and there is now measurable evidence that removing lead from gasoline improved human well being and that leaded gasoline was far more harmful than industry advocates claimed

Just one example:  Lead-Crime Hypothesis

We exhale CO2, but not lead. Lead was becoming prolific, yes, but CO2 is ubiquitous. Removing lead precipitously from gasoline was a regulatory fix related to human health that didn't upend a way of life. Again, I have no problem weaning off coal--but not without a viable replacement. So, you ok with nuclear?

Lead equals more crime? Correlation must equal causation? This seems to be an easy trap for the AGW politico crowd nowadays, science be damned. Crime went down because, as a society, we finally said enough. We started locking up repeat offenders throughout the 80s, 90s, and 00s.  Love that bubble revisionism though!
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11453 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 5:42 pm 
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
My point is to discredit MG's hypothesis that individual action is sufficient to accomplish environmental protection -- that government regulation is unnecessary.

Leaded gasoline is still used in Algeria, Iraq, Yemen, Myanmar, North Korea, and Afghanistan.

You haven't even scratched 'debunking' it.

Individual action by the believers would massively reduce, if not solve the problem. Remember, it is claimed there is a huge majority in favor of action. They have the numbers...if they'd act on them in their own lives. Prove the majority.... by *action* in your own lives.

Just because they *won't* do something is not a 'debunking' of the fact that if they did choose it, it would have huge impacts with no laws needed. It is an indictment of their actual value decisions (and thus actions), vs the statements of belief made, not the impact they'd have if they acted upon them. Sustained production in a market exists solely because of demand. Stop buying the products. No demand, no continued production. Of course this requires a level of commitment never reached by folks who've internalized that somehow, it's OK to use innocent people as long as you have the power to do so.

The salient point here is the wish to use people who don't agree, in order to make their stated goals easier for *them*, with less effort, and fewer hard choices.

Other people weren't put here to serve your ends, I'm not sure this ever penetrates any deeper than the minor effort of ignoring it when it's stated.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6842 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 5:48 pm 
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Individual action by the believers would massively reduce, if not solve the problem.

Explain how leaded gasoline would have been removed from use in the United States without government regulation.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11453 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 5:50 pm 
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
Stop buying it.

Use the verifiable science to bring suits.

Both methods are legitimate.

Keep in mind we are at loggerheads because I don't count difficulty in achieving voluntary action as a valid reason to use the State against innocent citizens. The ends do not justify the means. If you say it's impossible without the use of force, then I say OK, it's impossible.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6842 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 6:10 pm 
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Stop buying it.

Use the verifiable science to bring suits.

Both methods are legitimate.

Keep in mind we are at loggerheads because I don't count difficulty in achieving voluntary action as a valid reason to use the State against innocent citizens. The ends do not justify the means. If you say it's impossible without the use of force, then I say OK, it's impossible.

You concede that your "voluntary" solution is no solution.

Millions of people lives were improved by the removal of lead from gasoline, why is this not a worthwhile objective?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 10324 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostWed Dec 04, 2019 6:27 pm 
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Stop buying it.

And exactly how would that be possible? Each individual is going to build his own refinery and make his own unleaded gas?
Be serious.

Unleaded gasoline would not have happened had it not been for its being legislated into being. Full stop.

You can dance around all over this one until hell freezes over, but it doesn't change the facts.

There was no option for "voluntary" in the early 1970s when that change took place. If you bought gasoline, you got leaded gasoline. There wasn't anything else available.
Or perhaps you're suggesting that all of those who wanted to "voluntarily" stop using it could have just walked or pedaled their bicycles to work?

Thanks for the laugh. dizzy.gif

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday peppersteak'n'ale, lookout bob, chiwakum!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy