I am not against a single one of those issues. I am just not willing to have my energy rates and prices on things like food and goods shoot sky high because one or all are not yet ready for prime time.
Once you find an economically VIABLE alternative to fossil fuels, I will be one of the first adopters. I want a car that has the range, power and space of my gasoline powered sedan. Give me that at an affordable price and I'll jump on it.
While we're at it, give me a VIABLE affordable alternative to incandescent light bulbs and I'll jump on that too. CFLs suck for most applications and good LED lights are just too expensive.
I'm all for trading in our coal and NG power plant for Nuclear. We HAVE a viable option for power yet refuse to use it because of irrational fear. Once other "renewable" sources of power become truly viable, I'm all for adopting them. But NOT at the cost of my standard of living.
However, it is plainly obvious that MMGW is being used to restrict freedoms, and tax people unfairly through a now obviously manufactured "emergency."
There has been an element of the left that is anti-industrial and anti-capitalst and MMGW is a perfect way for them to push these ideologies.
What is this the 80's? Are we back to celebrating selfishness?
Wow. Way to completely miss the point.
I posted this in response to the post about the alleged cooling between 1940 and 1970, which this graph clearly shows doesn't exist. It's not a cooling trend if there was a short spike followed by a return to steady temperatures (due to particulate pollution). That's the same BS that Rush Limbaugh and his buddies have been trying to pass off as "5 years of cooling". It's a shame that it works on people with no statistics knowledge.
The fact that we've warmed this much in only 100 years is exactly the problem, not some mitigating factor. Warming and cooling normally occurs at a much slower RATE, which the Vostok data shows. RATE. RATE. RATE. Get it?
Here is what is happening here. You guys say "but we're really cooling" so I post a graph that shows that statement is untrue, then your response is "but you only showed 120 years". How the hell does that make sense? Stop playing games.
I think this is an excellent summary of the mindset of most people in the US. They don't understand global warming, and they don't want to because of the potential implication that they will have to make changes to their lifestyle.
This is why whenever any climate scientist says something that can be interpreted as global warming skepticism, it hits the newspapers in 48 point font, and it creates an environment where it's impossible for scientists to share and publish information because they're afraid that whatever they say will be twisted and tortured to fit the denier agenda.
"NOT at the cost of my standard of living"
What is this the 80's? Are we back to celebrating selfishness?
And your response is the mindset of the elitist AND mindless left in the US.
I understand the claims just fine. I also understand that there is bias behind them.
I am not compelled to lower my standard of living based on guess work and biased computer modelling. Sorry, but the entire mindset of "you're too stupid to understand, just follow along" will and SHOULD be met with massive backlash.
That IS the main theme in GW/CC threads. That we are all too stupid and uneducated to understand this and we should just follow this "consensus" of scientists. The minute I hear that, I am reminded of religion. I am reminded of scams. I've never been told that on any other subject. From medicine to astronomy, from physics to philosphy. The ONLY time I have been told this is with religion, and MMGW.
RED FLAG!!!
I love how sceptics on this issue are compared to religionists (hypocrisy anyone?) conspirasy theorists and creationists. I happen to be agonstic and hold no belief in any of the popular conspirasy theories. I AM a critical thinker.
Do I think the climate is changing? Yes. Do I believe man is causing it? No. I have not seen any VALID proof of this beyond computer models programed by the very people who have a vested interest in proving their point.
So, no. I will not accept a lowering of my lifestyle. I will not accept skyrocketing energy prices and the resulting rise in the cost of foods and goods. I will not accept the starvation of millions of poor as food becomes more expensive. All this based on some very suspect theory and pushed by a group known to loathe industrialization and capitalism.
Nope. And as time goes by the bias and outright fraud of the MMGW theory creators is being exposed for just that.
And speaking of religion, I've seen about as much proof for MMGW as I've seen for a deity.
I am 42 years old. I have lived through MANY manufactured emergences. From the fabled running out of landfill space, to Y2K, to the coming ice age of the 70s... all were bullshit hysteria. This is exactly the same. We have people telling us a "consensus has formed and the subject is just too complicated for us to understand" just as all the other bullshit scams have done.
People felt the same way about CFCs. The world didn't end by addressing the issue. It won't end addressing this one either.
There are some steps that can be taken regardless of whether we agree or disagree with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. For instance, we know high CO2 levels stress reefs and other ocean life in pH-stable regions, increases lake and stream acidification, and accelerates corrosion and wear on everything from the Sphinx to your hot rod. Anything we can do internally to reduce CO2 emissions is likely to have positive effects. And anything we can do to reduce dependence on imported oil keeps wealth in our country and reduces funding for Islamic fundi causes. To me we should be doing tons of research to make clean alternative energy more cost effective, investing in those sources (such as nuclear) that make economic sense, investing in conservation (especially existing schools and government buildings, since their appetite for energy is fed by tax dollars), and generally doing things that make economic sense to gradually transition our economy away from oil. What we should not do is trust or fund scientists (or scientific institutions) once caught in fraud (one strike and you're out, go work for PETA or ACORN), making sweeping international treaties, transferring power to the UN or wealth to third-world or third-world-like New World nations for no better reason than they have failed to progress, or giving government any more power over us than it absolutely has to have.Bullshit. I'm not about to "address" an issue that doesn't exist.
Bullshit. I'm not about to "address" an issue that doesn't exist.
The thing is, I DO have a clue what I'm talking about. I'm a geographer and this IS my field. I've debunked talking point after talking point. You're some internet yahoo who gets his information from climate change denier websites that quote non-peer reviewed papers and purposely misrepresent real phenomena. You're SO deluded that you're willing to dispute the known physical properties of a gas!
No I didn't read the references. You were asking about the uncertainties so I posted the link so you could look for them.
I'm still just trying to figure out why no one cries about global warming/climate change all that much in the winter. But damn if I don't turn the TV on and hear "global" (change channel) "warming" in the summer.
BTW, it's freaking cold down here in TN this winter. Yeah yeah local weather means nothing I know I know.
Then you have Failed, not once, but twice.
There are some steps that can be taken regardless of whether we agree or disagree with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. For instance, we know high CO2 levels stress reefs and other ocean life in pH-stable regions, increases lake and stream acidification, and accelerates corrosion and wear on everything from the Sphinx to your hot rod. Anything we can do internally to reduce CO2 emissions is likely to have positive effects. And anything we can do to reduce dependence on imported oil keeps wealth in our country and reduces funding for Islamic fundi causes. To me we should be doing tons of research to make clean alternative energy more cost effective, investing in those sources (such as nuclear) that make economic sense, investing in conservation (especially existing schools and government buildings, since their appetite for energy is fed by tax dollars), and generally doing things that make economic sense to gradually transition our economy away from oil. What we should not do is trust or fund scientists (or scientific institutions) once caught in fraud (one strike and you're out, go work for PETA or ACORN), making sweeping international treaties, transferring power to the UN or wealth to third-world or third-world-like New World nations for no better reason than they have failed to progress, or giving government any more power over us than it absolutely has to have.
It's smart to transition away from oil and to work toward that goal; it's stupid to do so before it's a near break-even deal, especially in such a global recession.
As I have said before, I am all for VIABLE alternatives (both economical and practical). So far, none exist but I do believe we are getting closer. We would have been a LOT better off had we not listened to the bullshit hysteria over nuclear power in the 70s and later. We could be 80+% clean energy by now had we ignored THAT bit of bullshit hysteria.
While I have always been a conservationist ever since my early backpacking days, I know the difference between common sense and hysterical wastes of time and productivity.
So I agree with you 100%. Right now is a TERRIBLE time to be doing this and hampering productivity and growth.
But let's not forget the more sinister side to this movement. These emergencies are usually designed for one purpose: Transfer of power and loss of freedoms and rights.
Ridiculous.
Hardly. It is always crisis that is used to convince the public to throw away their rights and freedoms and in this case, their standard of living as well. Just look at the Patriot Act.
Less than ten days after Obama was elected president, Rahm Emanuel went on a Sunday morning talk show and said, Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.
Yep...
More confirmation. :shrug:
I'm going to let you in on a Secret. The Success of the US has been through Change and Adaptation. If you attempt to stop Time, you will Fail. The rest of the World is going forward, don't fall behind.
You jump to the most Sinister conclusion, rather than the Fact that all he meant was Change. Change can be Good or Bad, not just the Bad you assume.
More confirmation. :shrug:
I'm going to let you in on a Secret. The Success of the US has been through Change and Adaptation. If you attempt to stop Time, you will Fail. The rest of the World is going forward, don't fall behind.
You jump to the most Sinister conclusion, rather than the Fact that all he meant was Change. Change can be Good or Bad, not just the Bad you assume.
Ridiculous.
Try it and find out for yourself.
Nah, not for me. I was wondering what it'd be like to make senseless posts like you, and now that I've experienced it, I feel the need to go kill off the damaged braincells.
Any more, and I'll be putting dumbass self quotes in my sig to make myself seem more intelligent...
Chuck