Global Warming....

[erynthered]

Granted we all could do a better job in taking care of our planet, but its not settled Science and probably never will be.

 

I voted no.

[PastaJoe]

Granted we all could do a better job in taking care of our planet, but its not settled Science and probably never will be.

 

I voted no.

 

I could understand if someone voted no to a question of the main cause of global warming, but not the fact that it exists.

[Ramius]

Granted we all could do a better job in taking care of our planet, but its not settled Science and probably never will be.

 

I voted no.

 

Actually, there seems to be a consensus that the Earth is warming. There's little dispute of that. The problems come in when we try to determine the causes (mainly nature vs anthropogenic).

[finknottle]

When the global warming cultists come up with a solution that doesnt involve a new tax or a limit on my freedoms, then I will get on board. When I see corporations going green out of the goodness of their hearts and without a profit center attached to it, Ill get on board. When I see the cultists actually sacrificing without the canard of "carbon credits" to make them feel good, Ill get on board.

 

Until then, I see it as nothing more than a hysterics generating huge scam that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

 

So - you'll only recognize a problem as long as you like the solution on the table.

[John Adams]

What's up with your avatar? Looks like Davey is administering a beating to a cantaloupe.

 

BULLY UP A TREE

 

"Davey and Goliath get into a fight with a bully and his dog, but later seeing the boy in trouble, Davey forgives him."

[RkFast]

So - you'll only recognize a problem as long as you like the solution on the table.

 

 

One day we were all humming along. Next day some bearded ex-politico puts out a book and next thing you know, Im being scoleded for driving to my parents on Xmas and for Googling what kind of stereo to buy becuase such actions mean the end of the Earth. And better....the ONLY solution to this seems to be me forking over both liberty and personal treasure.

 

So yeah....Im a skeptic.

[John Adams]

One day we were all humming along. Next day some bearded ex-politico puts out a book and next thing you know, Im being scoleded for driving to my parents on Xmas and for Googling what kind of stereo to buy becuase such actions mean the end of the Earth. And better....the ONLY solution to this seems to be me forking over both liberty and personal treasure.

 

So yeah....Im a skeptic.

 

The trick of this is that whether or not you think burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, there's not a reasonable position that says burning more fossil fuels is a good idea. It's a massive pollutant from how it's pulled from the ground to how it's shipped to how it's processed to how it's stored to how it's burned to how all the byproducts are disposed of. On that basis alone, the less we rely on fossil fuels, the better.

 

Other arguments in favor of deleveraging from FFs: it's a limited supply and it ships money to troubling countries.

 

So set aside the global warming reason--there are other reasons to be against burning FFs.

[RkFast]

The trick of this is that whether or not you think burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, there's not a reasonable position that says burning more fossil fuels is a good idea. It's a massive pollutant from how it's pulled from the ground to how it's shipped to how it's processed to how it's stored to how it's burned to how all the byproducts are disposed of. On that basis alone, the less we rely on fossil fuels, the better.

 

Other arguments in favor of deleveraging from FFs: it's a limited supply and it ships money to troubling countries.

 

So set aside the global warming reason--there are other reasons to be against burning FFs.

 

Now Im really going to piss you off......

 

I dont believe in this "alternative energy" thing either.

 

From what I understand (and I know Ill be shot to sh-- if proven incorrect in this) outside of nuclear power, crude oil is pound for pound the most efficient and effective energy producing substance at our disposal. So until solar or wind or even natural gas becomes as abundant and as cost effective to produce, distribute and consume as crude oil based product, my mantra is.......drill baby, drill.

[finknottle]

One day we were all humming along. Next day some bearded ex-politico puts out a book and next thing you know, Im being scoleded for driving to my parents on Xmas and for Googling what kind of stereo to buy becuase such actions mean the end of the Earth. And better....the ONLY solution to this seems to be me forking over both liberty and personal treasure.

 

So yeah....Im a skeptic.

 

There are two phases in having an opinion. The first is the knee-jerk opinion, and those are all reasonable contributors for being skeptical. But phase two kicks in when an issue has been before you for a few years and you've had time to review the arguments. Maybe you agree, maybe you disagree.

 

If you are still basing your judgement only the fact that you hadn't heard of climate change until a politician you don't like started preaching about it, and the only solutions people are talking about suck, then you have mispent the last 8 years.

 

 

Suppose a politician came into office whom you didn't like, and interrupted your warm fuzzy bubble with dire warnings about a dictator somewhere with WMD, and said the only solution was a costly war to remove him. Your instincts may be to distrust the politician - fine. But does that mean the warnings are neccessarily false? Would you defend the dictator against these claims indefinately regardless of what evidence was presented, until such time as you agreed with the solution, or maybe when someone you liked made the same claims? Or would you decide based on the evidence that emerges?

[PastaJoe]

Now Im really going to piss you off......

 

I dont believe in this "alternative energy" thing either.

 

From what I understand (and I know Ill be shot to sh-- if proven incorrect in this) outside of nuclear power, crude oil is pound for pound the most efficient and effective energy producing substance at our disposal. So until solar or wind or even natural gas becomes as abundant and as cost effective to produce, distribute and consume as crude oil based product, my mantra is.......drill baby, drill.

 

Do you consider the intangible cost of the harm to the environment and being held hostage to the unstable Middle East, which we would treat like Africa if not for their oil?

[John Adams]

Now Im really going to piss you off......

 

I dont believe in this "alternative energy" thing either.

 

From what I understand (and I know Ill be shot to sh-- if proven incorrect in this) outside of nuclear power, crude oil is pound for pound the most efficient and effective energy producing substance at our disposal. So until solar or wind or even natural gas becomes as abundant and as cost effective to produce, distribute and consume as crude oil based product, my mantra is.......drill baby, drill.

 

But you have a limit, do you not, on using fossil fuels? Things would be a lot cheaper and more efficient if there were less filtering/cleaning on power plants and engines. Of course, we'd be back to coating the world in inches of soot and more acid rain, but in the interests of efficiency, things would be more efficient. You'd concede the need for restrictions on FFs in the interest of controlling pollutants right?

 

Although you claim to be in agreement with the interests of businesses, you are not because for reasons not economic at all, many businesses have adopted green strategies. The simplest and most widespread example of businesses doing a small green program is recycling. It takes a little more work but it's just the right thing to do. Businesses don't get paid to do it. In most places, there's no requirement to recycle. And yet they recycle.

 

The conclusion to use alternate energy (including nuclear) follow from these premises that I think you'd agree with:

 

(1) Cleaner less-polluting energy sources are better for us all than dirtier polluting ones.

(2) Sending hundreds of billions of dollars to the middle east and Russia is not in our national best interest.

(3) Fossil fuel resources are limited and certain fossil fuels are more limited in supply than others.

 

I would add a 4th premise that I'm not sure you'd agree with:

 

(4) I'm willing to pay a little more for energy (not in taxes but in the form of cost at the pump/light switch) to follow the premises in 1-3.

[Boomer860]

But you have a limit, do you not, on using fossil fuels? Things would be a lot cheaper and more efficient if there were less filtering/cleaning on power plants and engines. Of course, we'd be back to coating the world in inches of soot and more acid rain, but in the interests of efficiency, things would be more efficient. You'd concede the need for restrictions on FFs in the interest of controlling pollutants right?

 

Although you claim to be in agreement with the interests of businesses, you are not because for reasons not economic at all, many businesses have adopted green strategies. The simplest and most widespread example of businesses doing a small green program is recycling. It takes a little more work but it's just the right thing to do. Businesses don't get paid to do it. In most places, there's no requirement to recycle. And yet they recycle.

 

The conclusion to use alternate energy (including nuclear) follow from these premises that I think you'd agree with:

 

(1) Cleaner less-polluting energy sources are better for us all than dirtier polluting ones.

(2) Sending hundreds of billions of dollars to the middle east and Russia is not in our national best interest.

(3) Fossil fuel resources are limited and certain fossil fuels are more limited in supply than others.

 

I would add a 4th premise that I'm not sure you'd agree with:

 

(4) I'm willing to pay a little more for energy (not in taxes but in the form of cost at the pump/light switch) to follow the premises in 1-3.

Pay mine to while you are at it.

[Alaska Darin]

There are two phases in having an opinion. The first is the knee-jerk opinion, and those are all reasonable contributors for being skeptical. But phase two kicks in when an issue has been before you for a few years and you've had time to review the arguments. Maybe you agree, maybe you disagree.

 

If you are still basing your judgement only the fact that you hadn't heard of climate change until a politician you don't like started preaching about it, and the only solutions people are talking about suck, then you have mispent the last 8 years.

 

 

Suppose a politician came into office whom you didn't like, and interrupted your warm fuzzy bubble with dire warnings about a dictator somewhere with WMD, and said the only solution was a costly war to remove him. Your instincts may be to distrust the politician - fine. But does that mean the warnings are neccessarily false? Would you defend the dictator against these claims indefinately regardless of what evidence was presented, until such time as you agreed with the solution, or maybe when someone you liked made the same claims? Or would you decide based on the evidence that emerges?

I'd venture to guess that I've read more about "Global Warming" (now "Climate Change") than anyone on this board. I think it's a complete load of hooey, from stem to stern.

 

That doesn't mean I think we do a good job of stewarding the environment nor does it mean that we should make serious changes. But I do think we need to be very careful in how we tread and that Al Gore and anyone who thinks he knows a damn thing need to be repeatedly Roshamboed.

[ieatcrayonz]

BULLY UP A TREE

 

"Davey and Goliath get into a fight with a bully and his dog, but later seeing the boy in trouble, Davey forgives him."

Forgiveness is nice and all but the episode would have been better if they had Davey Shiv the Mofo.

[gmac17]

I'd venture to guess that I've read more about "Global Warming" (now "Climate Change") than anyone on this board. I think it's a complete load of hooey, from stem to stern.

 

That doesn't mean I think we do a good job of stewarding the environment nor does it mean that we should make serious changes. But I do think we need to be very careful in how we tread and that Al Gore and anyone who thinks he knows a damn thing need to be repeatedly Roshamboed.

 

I am a strong proponent of cleaner air, cleaner water, responsible development, lots of animals, fish and so on. As a republican I'm often conflicted about a lot of legislation because it is frequently overdone for one side or the other.

 

My biggest charitable donations every year are to the nature conservancy.

 

I think the earth is getting warmer.

 

I'm not convinced in the slightest that it is being caused by humans. Al gore is an absolute hypocrite who has used more fossil fuels than all of us in this thread combined, and who makes himself feel good by buying carbon credits. I don't take kindly to lectures about responsibility from the guy who has a 10,000 square foot house and a 100 foot houseboat.

 

If my weatherman can't tell me what the weather will be like in a week, how am I supposed to believe what the temperature of the earth is going to be in 20 years - within half a degree........

[Jim in Anchorage]

I am a strong proponent of cleaner air, cleaner water, responsible development, lots of animals, fish and so on. As a republican I'm often conflicted about a lot of legislation because it is frequently overdone for one side or the other.

 

My biggest charitable donations every year are to the nature conservancy.

 

I think the earth is getting warmer.

 

I'm not convinced in the slightest that it is being caused by humans. Al gore is an absolute hypocrite who has used more fossil fuels than all of us in this thread combined, and who makes himself feel good by buying carbon credits. I don't take kindly to lectures about responsibility from the guy who has a 10,000 square foot house and a 100 foot houseboat.

 

If my weatherman can't tell me what the weather will be like in a week, how am I supposed to believe what the temperature of the earth is going to be in 20 years - within half a degree........

I would like to know what the "carbon load" to the atmosphere was 300 years ago when no one put out forest or prairie fires.

[DC Tom]

I would like to know what the "carbon load" to the atmosphere was 300 years when no one put out forest or prairie fires.

 

There is a difference, climatologically, between carbon sequestered in 300-year old trees and carbon sequestered in 300 million year old geological deposits.

[/dev/null]

There is a difference, climatologically, between carbon sequestered in 300-year old trees and carbon sequestered in 300 million year old geological deposits.

 

The problem with your argument is there weren't any corporations or rich dinosaurs to tax in the Mesozaic age

[PromoTheRobot]

Clarify what you mean by Global Warming:

 

A) Days getting warmer and warmer? No.

 

B) Weather becoming more extreme at both ends with more violent storms because an increase of energy in the system? Yes.

 

PTR

[Alaska Darin]

Princeton Physicist Says GW "Science" is Mistaken.

 

In 1991, Happer was appointed director of energy research for the US Department of Energy. In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn't support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him. "I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said. "I did not need the job that badly".

 

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

 

650 International Scientists Now Denying...

 

Again, this is not a diatribe saying we shouldn't do a better job with the environment. It's simply pointing out that there are over $45 TRILLION of proposals at stake if this "Climate Change" A-Holes keep up the bully pulpit.