Originally Posted by Fish:
Don't be dense. This isn't someone postulating. The authors are the ones who wrote the 70s regulations. There's nobody better qualified on the matter.
First sentence of the article:
This article describes the personal experience and perspective of the authors, who had primary responsibility for drafting the initial health-based regulation limiting lead content of gasoline during the early 1970s while employed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
You BOLDED the WORD POSTULATE. And prices didn't rise, not because they developed an expensive potent replacement for high octane fuel in a painless nonexpensive manner, but because people made do with unleaded from the get go.
Engines got shitty for a good while, then the engines improved. The fuel simply became less potent for good. Which is OK, but isn't analogous to across-the-board energy production. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Well, when the argument falls back to appeal to authority fallacy, the job is done.
Thanks.
You are confusing "Deferring to an authority" with "Appeal to authority." NASA is a legitimate authority on the matter while posters here are not. It would be a fallacy to say "NASA says X is true, therefore X is true." But it's not logically unreasonable to believe NASA's explanation as opposed to some none expert in this thread claiming the opposite. NASA has considerable evidence available to support its position. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fish:
You are confusing "Deferring to an authority" with "Appeal to authority." NASA is a legitimate authority on the matter while posters here are not. It would be a fallacy to say "NASA says X is true, therefore X is true." But it's not logically unreasonable to believe NASA's explanation as opposed to some none expert in this thread claiming the opposite. NASA has considerable evidence available to support its position.
No, arguing that the debate is settled because they're NASA and you're you is a logical fallacy, because the argument rests on the presumed relative pedigrees instead of the merits of the actual argument.
The future of the climate is still the future, unless NASA has time travel technology, there is no DEFINITIVE knowledge to settle the debate. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
You BOLDED the WORD POSTULATE. And prices didn't rise, not because they developed an expensive potent replacement for high octane fuel in a painless nonexpensive manner, but because people made do with unleaded from the get go.
Engines got shitty for a good while, then the engines improved. The fuel simply became less potent for good. Which is OK, but isn't analogous to across-the-board energy production.
The industry was the one postulating that prices would skyrocket. Not the authors. But prices didn't rise.
At present, the industry claims that prices would skyrocket should we try to eliminate emissions. People in this thread are claiming we couldn't economically do it. My point is that adaptation might not be as difficult as people assume. Just as it was in the leaded to unleaded conversion. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fish:
The industry was the one postulating that prices would skyrocket. Not the authors. But prices didn't rise.
At present, the industry claims that prices would skyrocket should we try to eliminate emissions. People in this thread are claiming we couldn't economically do it. My point is that adaptation might not be as difficult as people assume. Just as it was in the leaded to unleaded conversion.
The point you're missing is that prices didn't rise because we made do with decreased performance. You can't do that with energy across the board. Homes have to be heated and cooled. Lights have to provide illumination.
Had fuel potency been as imperative as our other energy needs, we would have much more pain, but we had to luxury to suffer underperformance for a mere decade or so because it's not as big a deal for it to take you 10 more seconds to get to highway speeds is it is to live with freezing or sweltering homes. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
No, arguing that the debate is settled because they're NASA and you're you is a logical fallacy, because the argument rests on the presumed relative pedigrees instead of the merits of the actual argument.
The future of the climate is still the future, unless NASA has time travel technology, there is no DEFINITIVE knowledge to settle the debate.
We're not saying NASA is correct because they're NASA. We're saying NASA is more likely to be correct because they have more available evidence than anyone else does.
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
The point you're missing is that prices didn't rise because we made do with decreased performance. You can't do that with energy across the board. Homes have to be heated and cooled. Lights have to provide illumination.
Had fuel potency been as imperative as our other energy needs, we would have much more pain, but we had to luxury to suffer underperformance for a mere decade or so because it's not as big a deal for it to take you 10 more seconds to get to highway speeds is it is to live with freezing or sweltering homes.
I'm not arguing for energy use change across the board. I never have. I was just pointing out that the industry at the time wasn't honest about the potential effects. They were doing something knowingly harmful, denying the harm, and fear mongering to prevent change. Something similar is happening now. Maybe the adaptation to reduce emissions won't be as difficult as the industry is claiming today... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fish:
I'm not arguing for energy use change across the board. I never have. I was just pointing out that the industry at the time wasn't honest about the potential effects. They were doing something knowingly harmful, denying the harm, and fear mongering to prevent change. Something similar is happening now. Maybe the adaptation to reduce emissions won't be as difficult as the industry is claiming today...
Which goes back to the part of my argument where, if it indeed is painless and popular, the market will slaver for it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Which goes back to the part of my argument where, if it indeed is painless and popular, the market will slaver for it.
And just as with the leaded to unleaded conversion, sometimes the market needs a nudge in order to do the right thing. The market in the 70s knew that lead was harmful. They denied it was harmful. Only when regulations were passed did they change. Not because the market "Slavered" for it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by SuperChief:
Just . . . the idiocy. The sheer idiocy.
I'm guessing you believe in the world is coming to an end theory of global warming. I believe in the Earth does this theory of reality. I'm guessing you believe that the Earth has never seen CO2 levels that it has today when it, in fact, has. I bet you believe that movement of the Earth axis doesn't affect CO2 offgassing from the oceans. But it does. Whatever. I hope you all save the planet from itself. [Reply]
