Global Warming very likely man made

[Bungee Jumper]

It could, it would also make other technologies more economically viable, without Big Brother dictating the winners & losers (other than petro's)

 

Actually, I was joking. Along the same lines that a pollution tax to consumers on cars would encourage manufactures to build cleaner cars - either that, or it's going to encourage consumers to pay more taxes. History says the latter, as most people don't factor in the cost of taxes to the cost of their operation or purchase of a car.

 

A gas tax, though...you're right, it would work differently. A gas tax would, in most people's minds, be considered an operational cost directly related to the car.

 

Or, you can just do it the Maryland way: the Clean Car Act requires that 2% of all cars sold next year be ultra-low emission. No one's yet been able to explain to me how the state is going to force retailers to sell specific types of cars.

[GG]

Or, you can just do it the Maryland way: the Clean Car Act requires that 2% of all cars sold next year be ultra-low emission. No one's yet been able to explain to me how the state is going to force retailers to sell specific types of cars.

 

Never mind the damage you'll likely inflict on the environment in getting the new fuels to the consumers.

[Bungee Jumper]

Never mind the damage you'll likely inflict on the environment in getting the new fuels to the consumers.

 

 

Don't need new fuels; the Prius is ULEV. You just need to convince people it's in their interest to buy them.

 

And the way Maryland plans to do that is...force the retailers to sell them. Dumb.

[GG]

Don't need new fuels; the Prius is ULEV. You just need to convince people it's in their interest to buy them.

 

And the way Maryland plans to do that is...force the retailers to sell them. Dumb.

 

Nice timing:

 

Is It Time for a New Tax on Energy?

Economists Say Government Should Foster Alternatives – But Not How Bush Proposes

By PHIL IZZO

February 8, 2007 3:12 p.m.

 

The government should encourage development of alternatives to fossil fuels, economists said in a WSJ.com survey. But most say the best way to do that isn't in President Bush's energy proposals: a new tax on fossil fuels.

 

Forty of 47 economists who answered the question said the government should help champion alternative fuels. "Economists generally are in favor of free-market solutions, but there are times when you need to intervene," said David Wyss at Standard & Poor's Corp. "We're already in the danger zone" because of the outlook for oil supplies and concerns about climate change, he said.

 

A majority of the economists said a tax on fossil fuels would be the most economically sound way to encourage alternatives. A tax would raise the price of fossil fuels and make alternatives, which today often are more costly to produce, more competitive in the consumer market. "A tax puts pressure on the market, rather than forcing an artificial solution on it," said Mr. Wyss.

 

...

 

full article

[Bungee Jumper]

Nice timing:

 

 

 

full article

 

 

The only problem with that in practice is that it will not make alternative sources of energy more affordable. Just more marketable. Raising the prices of cheaper alternatives (i.e. fossil fuels) does not necessarily encourage innovation in alternative fuels, just consumption of them.

 

It's not necessarily environmentally sound, either. People tend to underestimate the environmental footprint of alternative sources of energy. I've seen compelling analysis (from hard-core environmentalists) that suggest that the process of farming, harvesting, and processing bio-diesel might be more environmentally damaging than fossil fuels are now.

[ExiledInIllinois]

The only problem with that in practice is that it will not make alternative sources of energy more affordable. Just more marketable. Raising the prices of cheaper alternatives (i.e. fossil fuels) does not necessarily encourage innovation in alternative fuels, just consumption of them.

 

It's not necessarily environmentally sound, either. People tend to underestimate the environmental footprint of alternative sources of energy. I've seen compelling analysis (from hard-core environmentalists) that suggest that the process of farming, harvesting, and processing bio-diesel might be more environmentally damaging than fossil fuels are now.

 

Bingo!

[Orton's Arm]

You mean those other stupid things I've written like...the mathematical concept of variance?

 

Again, we keep running up against your bullheaded refusal to discuss or even understand the actual concepts at issue. Your stubborn insistence on repeating the same incorrect nonsense doesn't begin to make it correct, whether it's math or genetics or economics or psychology or football or just about anything else you've ever discussed on the boards. The only reason we indulge it is because...frankly, it's just so damned funny. Like watching a four-year old try to play basketball with adults.

You seem to think that a comment like "you're too stupid to understand variance" constitutes a perfectly intelligent and legitimate contribution to a discussion of regression toward the mean. I'm sorry, but your inability or refusal to contribute anything constructive or useful would get you laughed out of any intellectually credible discussion forum.

[Orton's Arm]

There's that, too.

 

Although I was too busy focusing on how taxing the consumer would force the manufacturers to build cleaner cars. And that's just two of the fallacies I found in his post.

I'm sorry, but you clearly know too little about economics to try to point out fallacies in my posts. Say you worked the tax so that it was $0 for an electric car, $1,000 for a Honda Civic, and $10,000 for a Hummer. You force the car dealers to put that tax information on the stickers when they're selling the cars. Taxes like that will radically affect consumer behavior. That, in turn, will radically affect the behavior of car manufacturers.

 

@GG: good article on the gas tax. I'm certainly in favor of a higher gas tax. But I like the above tax even better. 1) It hits potential SUV buyers upfront; where they're most likely to pay attention, 2) you can structure the tax in a way which creates very little punishment for a sensible, fuel-efficient vehicle, but drastic punishment for a gas guzzler. That would create a more drastic vehicle buying change than merely making gas more expensive, and 3) the tax I've described would do little or no harm to the little guy. The little guy typically isn't engaging in conspicuous consumption by buying an SUV in the first place, or else he's buying his car used. The gas tax hurts the little guy a lot more than the tax I'm proposing.

[/dev/null]

I'm sorry, but you clearly know too little about economics to try to point out fallacies in my posts. Say you worked the tax so that it was $0 for an electric car, $1,000 for a Honda Civic, and $10,000 for a Hummer. You force the car dealers to put that tax information on the stickers when they're selling the cars. Taxes like that will radically affect consumer behavior. That, in turn, will radically affect the behavior of car manufacturers.

 

@GG: good article on the gas tax. I'm certainly in favor of a higher gas tax. But I like the above tax even better. 1) It hits potential SUV buyers upfront; where they're most likely to pay attention, 2) you can structure the tax in a way which creates very little punishment for a sensible, fuel-efficient vehicle, but drastic punishment for a gas guzzler. That would create a more drastic vehicle buying change than merely making gas more expensive, and 3) the tax I've described would do little or no harm to the little guy. The little guy typically isn't engaging in conspicuous consumption by buying an SUV in the first place, or else he's buying his car used. The gas tax hurts the little guy a lot more than the tax I'm proposing.

 

An interesting idea, except it would create more hybdrid drivers

 

And as everyone knows people who drive hybrids are the leading producers of smug

[Bungee Jumper]

You seem to think that a comment like "you're too stupid to understand variance" constitutes a perfectly intelligent and legitimate contribution to a discussion of regression toward the mean. I'm sorry, but your inability or refusal to contribute anything constructive or useful would get you laughed out of any intellectually credible discussion forum.

 

 

No, a perfectly intelligent and legitimate contribution to a discussion of regression toward the mean would involve a discussion of variance. Which I did. Specifically, and clearly, with my startlingly clear dice example. You, on the other hand, limited your argument to "Stanford says so! I'm special, I'm special!" Because you're too stupid to understand variance, or any other mathematical concept.

 

You see, it's the difference between discussing math, as I was, and discussing a pile of bull sh-- that just happens to bear a passing resemblance to math to people who don't even begin to understand math, as you were doing. But gosh darn it, you're so damned cute when you're doing it!

[Bungee Jumper]

I'm sorry, but you clearly know too little about economics to try to point out fallacies in my posts. Say you worked the tax so that it was $0 for an electric car, $1,000 for a Honda Civic, and $10,000 for a Hummer. You force the car dealers to put that tax information on the stickers when they're selling the cars. Taxes like that will radically affect consumer behavior. That, in turn, will radically affect the behavior of car manufacturers.

 

@GG: good article on the gas tax. I'm certainly in favor of a higher gas tax. But I like the above tax even better. 1) It hits potential SUV buyers upfront; where they're most likely to pay attention, 2) you can structure the tax in a way which creates very little punishment for a sensible, fuel-efficient vehicle, but drastic punishment for a gas guzzler. That would create a more drastic vehicle buying change than merely making gas more expensive, and 3) the tax I've described would do little or no harm to the little guy. The little guy typically isn't engaging in conspicuous consumption by buying an SUV in the first place, or else he's buying his car used. The gas tax hurts the little guy a lot more than the tax I'm proposing.

 

Never claimed to know much about economics. Doesn't change the fact that I know more than you about it.

[Orton's Arm]

No, a perfectly intelligent and legitimate contribution to a discussion of regression toward the mean would involve a discussion of variance. Which I did. Specifically, and clearly, with my startlingly clear dice example. You, on the other hand, limited your argument to "Stanford says so! I'm special, I'm special!" Because you're too stupid to understand variance, or any other mathematical concept.

 

You see, it's the difference between discussing math, as I was, and discussing a pile of bull sh-- that just happens to bear a passing resemblance to math to people who don't even begin to understand math, as you were doing. But gosh darn it, you're so damned cute when you're doing it!

Your dice example showed that when initial test results are determined entirely by random chance, retesting those who obtained extreme scores will, on average, result in complete regression toward the population's mean. I'd never disputed that point. I'm not sure what you hoped to add to the discussion by bringing in your dice example; but it certainly did nothing to contradict the statements I'd been making from the very beginning.

 

The specific claim I made was that if you gather a group of people who scored a 140 on an initial I.Q. test, and if you ask the group to retake the test, the people in the group will, on average, score somewhat less well the second time around. You ridiculed the claim when I first made it. After I found support for that claim from Stanford, the University of Chicago, Duke, the University of Washington, and the EPA, you admitted the phenomenon itself was valid. Oddly, that admission didn't deter you from continuing to poke fun at the phenomenon, or at me for having described it.

[Bungee Jumper]

Your dice example showed that when initial test results are determined entirely by random chance, retesting those who obtained extreme scores will, on average, result in complete regression toward the population's mean. I'd never disputed that point. I'm not sure what you hoped to add to the discussion by bringing in your dice example; but it certainly did nothing to contradict the statements I'd been making from the very beginning.

 

The specific claim I made was that if you gather a group of people who scored a 140 on an initial I.Q. test, and if you ask the group to retake the test, the people in the group will, on average, score somewhat less well the second time around. You ridiculed the claim when I first made it. After I found support for that claim from Stanford, the University of Chicago, Duke, the University of Washington, and the EPA, you admitted the phenomenon itself was valid. Oddly, that admission didn't deter you from continuing to poke fun at the phenomenon, or at me for having described it.

 

It's truly amazing. I don't even have to read your posts. I just know the correct response is: you still don't know what you're talking about.

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

It's truly amazing. I don't even have to read your posts. I just know the correct response is: you still don't know what you're talking about.

[yall]

I don't think I have ever seen a thread discussing statistics cause such a long lasting ruckus that spilled over into almost every other thread.

 

I feel like I'm posting in a Reese's commercial....

 

"You got your regression in my global warming!"

[GG]

I'm sorry, but you clearly know too little about economics to try to point out fallacies in my posts. Say you worked the tax so that it was $0 for an electric car, $1,000 for a Honda Civic, and $10,000 for a Hummer. You force the car dealers to put that tax information on the stickers when they're selling the cars. Taxes like that will radically affect consumer behavior. That, in turn, will radically affect the behavior of car manufacturers.

 

@GG: good article on the gas tax. I'm certainly in favor of a higher gas tax. But I like the above tax even better. 1) It hits potential SUV buyers upfront; where they're most likely to pay attention, 2) you can structure the tax in a way which creates very little punishment for a sensible, fuel-efficient vehicle, but drastic punishment for a gas guzzler. That would create a more drastic vehicle buying change than merely making gas more expensive, and 3) the tax I've described would do little or no harm to the little guy. The little guy typically isn't engaging in conspicuous consumption by buying an SUV in the first place, or else he's buying his car used. The gas tax hurts the little guy a lot more than the tax I'm proposing.

 

And you know too little of anything other than what sticks in your head to see the obvious problem with another of your master plans.

 

Tell me, MENSA, if you enact this tax plan of yours, how will you fill up the electric car? How much more electricity will be cycled over an already stressed national grid? How will that electricity be generated - coal, oil, or gas fired plants? How will you dispose the batteries? Or is your goal to get people to drive less? Won't that pull them back to the cities, and cause infrastructure issues, since cities don't have the capacity to handle the mass population influx?

 

Or is this a back way to your eugenics plan to kill off the stupid, so the smarties will have the world to themselves?

[Ramius]

And you know too little of anything other than what sticks in your head to see the obvious problem with another of your master plans.

 

Tell me, MENSA, if you enact this tax plan of yours, how will you fill up the electric car? How much more electricity will be cycled over an already stressed national grid? How will that electricity be generated - coal, oil, or gas fired plants? How will you dispose the batteries? Or is your goal to get people to drive less? Won't that pull them back to the cities, and cause infrastructure issues, since cities don't have the capacity to handle the mass population influx?

 

Or is this a back way to your eugenics plan to kill off the stupid, so the smarties will have the world to themselves?

 

stop right there. you know he isnt capable of critical thought.

[Alaska Darin]

And you know too little of anything other than what sticks in your head to see the obvious problem with another of your master plans.

 

Tell me, MENSA, if you enact this tax plan of yours, how will you fill up the electric car? How much more electricity will be cycled over an already stressed national grid? How will that electricity be generated - coal, oil, or gas fired plants? How will you dispose the batteries? Or is your goal to get people to drive less? Won't that pull them back to the cities, and cause infrastructure issues, since cities don't have the capacity to handle the mass population influx?

 

Or is this a back way to your eugenics plan to kill off the stupid, so the smarties will have the world to themselves?

You mean there's a butterfly effect to all this "feel good" crap?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

NUKES.

 

Build nuke plants to generate electricity, encourage more plug-in hybrids.

 

That change alone would amount to a significant reduction in fossil fuels usage. And don't tell me it isn't safe. Those idiot Frenchmen generate a HUGE portion of their electric via nuclear fission.

[Orton's Arm]

It's truly amazing. I don't even have to read your posts. I just know the correct response is: you still don't know what you're talking about.

And yet you get so annoyed when I point out that you make unfair and inaccurate assumptions!