scary article today in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/scien ... r=homepage
What pisses me off is how this has become a "political" issue. Liberals seems to believe the global warming is a big threat, but Conservatives think it is not. I don't see the connection. It is not a political issue. Even if you think it's all a farce, what would be the harm in reducing our carbon monoxide output and our dependance on oil? Why not err on the side of the good of the planet? I am not a scientist, but it isn't made up that the polar ice sheets are melting at an alarming rate. Canada just reported last month another major ice sheet that broke away from the main ice mass. Why are we so unconcerned about all this as a society? Why isn't the US leading the way towards minimizing the effects of global warming?
There is scientific proof that is the ice sheets continue to melt at the rate they currently are, that huge portions of FL, CA and NY will be underwater.
How can anyone dismiss all these reports as false or hype? If you are a disbeliever, please convince me that this isn't going to happen. I thnk people just have other more pressing isssues in their lives and think this won't effect them in their lifetimes, but what about their granchildren and their grandchildren? I would love to be wrong on this, but I think it's just too important of a threat to ignore.
OT: Global Warming - Real or Contrived?
Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
Wow, didn't go for a 'light' topic here, huh?
If you want to find out the other side of the story that the media doesn't like to cover, try http://www.junkscience.com
Also, this is a VERY good article. It features a letter of resignation from the IPCC by one of the climate scientists who contributed to earlier versions of the report.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index ... -less-1-2/
If you read this and you don't start to smell something fishy, I don't know what more remains to be said.
My take on it is this: The science is unsettled. The climate is changing. It always has, and it always will change. That's the nature of CLIMATE. At issue is whether or not the alarmist projections have any scientific credibility, and whether or not we're to blame, and whether or not we can do something about it. The projects are based almost entirely upon computer models that are tweaked and massaged. Similar systems of projection gave us the dire warning of the worst hurricane season ever in 2006 (whoops), and have consistently been significantly off-target with reality.
So given the generally horrible track record in forecasting reality, and the fact that the global warming alarmists propose nothing less than massive wealth transfer to solve the problem, I think this is a thinly veiled attempt at seizing power to control our lives...and the trojan horse of environmentalism is the vehicle of doing it. How else do you explain the suppression of evidence, the utterly one-sided reporting, the mirepresentation and outright lies about what scientists actually SAY, and the attempts to decertify and marginalize any critic, whether they have a phD in climatology or not.
And of course, remember in the 1970's the 'consensus' that we were in global cooling and approaching another ice age. The wording used in the news media in the 70's are almost identical the alarmist reporting used today, but in the opposite direction.
Manmade global warming will be looked on one day in the not too distant future the way global cooling is looked on now, and the way we look at hollywood activists telling us we have 'only 10 years left' back in Earth Day many years ago -- naturally they don't admit they were wrong - they just find another way to keep screaming the same warnings.
The abuse of science to further social engineering ambitions is one of the scourges of our time, and scientists themselves, needing grant money, tenure and jobs, are all too often being corrupted into doing what the puppetmasters say, or have their professional lives ruined by speaking out. It leaves the public dazed and confused, not sure who to believe. It's tragic, but I don't know how we get out of this mess. The biggest worldwide politicians promoting radical change and treaties to stop global warming have been caught saying on the record that they really do see global warming as the gateway to global governance and a more socialist system, and that should speak volumes.
Randy
If you want to find out the other side of the story that the media doesn't like to cover, try http://www.junkscience.com
Also, this is a VERY good article. It features a letter of resignation from the IPCC by one of the climate scientists who contributed to earlier versions of the report.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index ... -less-1-2/
If you read this and you don't start to smell something fishy, I don't know what more remains to be said.
My take on it is this: The science is unsettled. The climate is changing. It always has, and it always will change. That's the nature of CLIMATE. At issue is whether or not the alarmist projections have any scientific credibility, and whether or not we're to blame, and whether or not we can do something about it. The projects are based almost entirely upon computer models that are tweaked and massaged. Similar systems of projection gave us the dire warning of the worst hurricane season ever in 2006 (whoops), and have consistently been significantly off-target with reality.
So given the generally horrible track record in forecasting reality, and the fact that the global warming alarmists propose nothing less than massive wealth transfer to solve the problem, I think this is a thinly veiled attempt at seizing power to control our lives...and the trojan horse of environmentalism is the vehicle of doing it. How else do you explain the suppression of evidence, the utterly one-sided reporting, the mirepresentation and outright lies about what scientists actually SAY, and the attempts to decertify and marginalize any critic, whether they have a phD in climatology or not.
And of course, remember in the 1970's the 'consensus' that we were in global cooling and approaching another ice age. The wording used in the news media in the 70's are almost identical the alarmist reporting used today, but in the opposite direction.
Manmade global warming will be looked on one day in the not too distant future the way global cooling is looked on now, and the way we look at hollywood activists telling us we have 'only 10 years left' back in Earth Day many years ago -- naturally they don't admit they were wrong - they just find another way to keep screaming the same warnings.
The abuse of science to further social engineering ambitions is one of the scourges of our time, and scientists themselves, needing grant money, tenure and jobs, are all too often being corrupted into doing what the puppetmasters say, or have their professional lives ruined by speaking out. It leaves the public dazed and confused, not sure who to believe. It's tragic, but I don't know how we get out of this mess. The biggest worldwide politicians promoting radical change and treaties to stop global warming have been caught saying on the record that they really do see global warming as the gateway to global governance and a more socialist system, and that should speak volumes.
Randy
Btw, this is one the most interesting bits reported today:
"First, the UN isn’t releasing its full report this week – just the curiously edited “Summary for Policy Makers.” The detailed report on the science won’t be issued until May or so because it’s not finished.
If you’re wondering how the UN can issue a summary of a report that’s not even finished, fear not. The UN has announced that changes to the full report shall be made “to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policy Makers." The UN process – akin to shooting first and asking questions later –is the exact opposite of the traditional scientific method."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249598,00.html
"First, the UN isn’t releasing its full report this week – just the curiously edited “Summary for Policy Makers.” The detailed report on the science won’t be issued until May or so because it’s not finished.
If you’re wondering how the UN can issue a summary of a report that’s not even finished, fear not. The UN has announced that changes to the full report shall be made “to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policy Makers." The UN process – akin to shooting first and asking questions later –is the exact opposite of the traditional scientific method."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249598,00.html
Every time I hear the for and against arguments for global warming I am reminded of George Carlin's "The Planet is Fine" material. Someone transcribed it here: http://www.chaparyan.com/2005/04/george ... s-fine.php
I'm not saying I disagree with you, but to play devil's advocate, the temperature of the earth has always fluctuated quite a bit, as has the size of the polar ice sheets and glaciers, etc.
My understanding of the factual evidence is that global termperatures have risen at a peculiarly high rate in the last few decades, which has coincided with an extremely high number of bits of carbon in the atmosphere. Given that, the best we can tell is that global temperature generally (though not always) follows bits of carbon in the atmosphere.
Given the increasing confidence of the scientific community in global warming, it certainly does seem to me that preventative measures are past due. I also am very optimistic that with a strong commitment to new technologies, that in 20-30 years energy efficiency might not even be a big sacrifice anymore.
Also, personally, I find it highly suspect when every time there is any tiny bit of peculiar weather ranging from, higher/lower temperatures, increased/decreased severe storms, high/low precipitation levels, inevitably some expert blames global warming in some way or another. Nor do I take many of the doom's day predictions at face value. Whether or not global warming is real or fake, a serious threat or benign, I think the issue has become over-politicized and people play the environmentalist card way too often.
At least that's my two cents.
My understanding of the factual evidence is that global termperatures have risen at a peculiarly high rate in the last few decades, which has coincided with an extremely high number of bits of carbon in the atmosphere. Given that, the best we can tell is that global temperature generally (though not always) follows bits of carbon in the atmosphere.
Given the increasing confidence of the scientific community in global warming, it certainly does seem to me that preventative measures are past due. I also am very optimistic that with a strong commitment to new technologies, that in 20-30 years energy efficiency might not even be a big sacrifice anymore.
Also, personally, I find it highly suspect when every time there is any tiny bit of peculiar weather ranging from, higher/lower temperatures, increased/decreased severe storms, high/low precipitation levels, inevitably some expert blames global warming in some way or another. Nor do I take many of the doom's day predictions at face value. Whether or not global warming is real or fake, a serious threat or benign, I think the issue has become over-politicized and people play the environmentalist card way too often.
At least that's my two cents.
I was listening to the news update on the radio on the way to work today...
This is what the dude said..." Scientists predict the worlds seas will rise 3 feet over the next century due to global warming.(without even pausing) Prepare for bitter cold as arctic air moves in ."
Just a new political football for the clowns in congress to kick around.
Speaking of football................Go Bears!
This is what the dude said..." Scientists predict the worlds seas will rise 3 feet over the next century due to global warming.(without even pausing) Prepare for bitter cold as arctic air moves in ."
Just a new political football for the clowns in congress to kick around.
Speaking of football................Go Bears!
-
AJColossal
- Starting 5
- Posts: 882
- Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 4:00 am
- Location: Chicago
I think it's funny that while driving around, you see various signs that give the current temperature, and each one has a different reading. So in 2007, there are some issues with recording tempertures. Now consider the fact that we're basing a lot of our analysis on recorded temperatures from ancient equipment decades and decades ago.
I think global warming is possible, just as it's possible for scientists to misinterpret what's going on. There have been warming and freezing trends all throughout history.
I dunno, I guess I'm not feeling the whole global warming thing when I just ran through 12 degree weather to get to work, lol.
Yeah, GO BEARS!!!!!
I think global warming is possible, just as it's possible for scientists to misinterpret what's going on. There have been warming and freezing trends all throughout history.
I dunno, I guess I'm not feeling the whole global warming thing when I just ran through 12 degree weather to get to work, lol.
Yeah, GO BEARS!!!!!
I think Naples nailed it. The vast majority of the scientific community believes that global warming is being strongly influenced by human fuel consumption. Are they right? I think so. At the very least, I think it's much better to err on the side of caution than to believe a complete and utter hack like Steve Milloy, who should wear oversized red shoes and a button nose every time he reports on science.
Having hunkered down in my basement while a tornado ripped down my street last year, I have a new found respect for how much we're still nature's bitches.
Having hunkered down in my basement while a tornado ripped down my street last year, I have a new found respect for how much we're still nature's bitches.
Brando70 wrote:I think Naples nailed it. The vast majority of the scientific community believes that global warming is being strongly influenced by human fuel consumption. Are they right? I think so. At the very least, I think it's much better to err on the side of caution than to believe a complete and utter hack like Steve Milloy, who should wear oversized red shoes and a button nose every time he reports on science.
Having hunkered down in my basement while a tornado ripped down my street last year, I have a new found respect for how much we're still nature's bitches.
A Steve Milloy link AND a Fox News link....they report, we decide.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about the science behind the issue. But I've read enough things from reputable scientists that I have to believe this is a cause for concern.
"The vast majority of the scientific community believes that global warming is being strongly influenced by human fuel consumption."
I don't think that the facts bear this out. Just because someone claims that 'the vast majority says' or (dare I say it) a 'consensus exists' doesn't make it so.
You might check out the Oregon Petition online. It's rather on the large side. The problem isn't that there isn't a large # of dissenters, it's that a propaganda machine worthy of Goerbbels is taking whatever measures are necessary to silence, intimidate and punish those dissenters.
It would be interesting to see how many people would get these questions right:
a) What is the most prevalent greenhouse gas?
b) What are the top contributors to greenhouse gases, in order of magnitude?
c) What has a bigger impact on hurricane strength and frequency? El Nino or Global Warming?
d) Were sea temperatures in the mid-atlantic and gulf of mexico warmer or cooler in 2006 than 2005?\
e) True or False - global warming projections are based upon observations and measurements?
You'd be amazed at how many people cannot answer these questions correctly, thanks to the misinformation being delivered uncritically by a media which has a socialist agenda of moving wealth.
Randy
I don't think that the facts bear this out. Just because someone claims that 'the vast majority says' or (dare I say it) a 'consensus exists' doesn't make it so.
You might check out the Oregon Petition online. It's rather on the large side. The problem isn't that there isn't a large # of dissenters, it's that a propaganda machine worthy of Goerbbels is taking whatever measures are necessary to silence, intimidate and punish those dissenters.
It would be interesting to see how many people would get these questions right:
a) What is the most prevalent greenhouse gas?
b) What are the top contributors to greenhouse gases, in order of magnitude?
c) What has a bigger impact on hurricane strength and frequency? El Nino or Global Warming?
d) Were sea temperatures in the mid-atlantic and gulf of mexico warmer or cooler in 2006 than 2005?\
e) True or False - global warming projections are based upon observations and measurements?
You'd be amazed at how many people cannot answer these questions correctly, thanks to the misinformation being delivered uncritically by a media which has a socialist agenda of moving wealth.
Randy
-
matthewk
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 3324
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 3:00 am
- Location: Wisconsin
- Contact:
That was my first thought as wellGameSeven wrote:Every time I hear the for and against arguments for global warming I am reminded of George Carlin's "The Planet is Fine" material. Someone transcribed it here: http://www.chaparyan.com/2005/04/george ... s-fine.php
-Matt
Here's a non-fox news link btw:
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs ... /1006/NEWS
But don't listen to this guy. he's only a climatologist. What does HE know about climate change?
Randy
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs ... /1006/NEWS
But don't listen to this guy. he's only a climatologist. What does HE know about climate change?
Randy
-
matthewk
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 3324
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 3:00 am
- Location: Wisconsin
- Contact:
While I'm not sold on the idea that man is the cause of global warming, I do think it's a good idea to be as freindly to the environment as possible.
Is global warming even a fact itself? What would we have thought if we had been around during the Ice Age? There would have been people running around screaming "the sky is falling". Sure, there has been some warmer weather around my parts lately, but now we're in the beginning of a massive cold snap. Does that mean the next ice age is on its way?
One thing to keep in mind during all the talk of reducing our dependance on oil is what the alternative is. If its ethanol, then we will be worse off than with oil. Creating ethanol uses up far more energy than refining oil, so all of that needs to be taken into account. There is also the economical side effect of the price of corn. Just look at the protests in Mexico, where the dramatic rise in corn prices is causing havoc down there. We may pay less for gas (which is also suspect, since the 10% ethanol adds 10 cents to our local gas prices), but the higher corn prices will result in many other items (mostly food related) to rise. So all you've done is transfer the cost from gas to food.
Is global warming even a fact itself? What would we have thought if we had been around during the Ice Age? There would have been people running around screaming "the sky is falling". Sure, there has been some warmer weather around my parts lately, but now we're in the beginning of a massive cold snap. Does that mean the next ice age is on its way?
One thing to keep in mind during all the talk of reducing our dependance on oil is what the alternative is. If its ethanol, then we will be worse off than with oil. Creating ethanol uses up far more energy than refining oil, so all of that needs to be taken into account. There is also the economical side effect of the price of corn. Just look at the protests in Mexico, where the dramatic rise in corn prices is causing havoc down there. We may pay less for gas (which is also suspect, since the 10% ethanol adds 10 cents to our local gas prices), but the higher corn prices will result in many other items (mostly food related) to rise. So all you've done is transfer the cost from gas to food.
-Matt
Thirty or forty years ago, it also wasn't too hard to find "experts" who disputed the link between cigarette smoke and lung cancer.
And with Exxon's $39 billion profit announcement from yesterday, I'd say the transfer of wealth has already occurred. If they (and others in the industry) should've known and helped screw things up, why shouldn't they help pay to fix it.
And with Exxon's $39 billion profit announcement from yesterday, I'd say the transfer of wealth has already occurred. If they (and others in the industry) should've known and helped screw things up, why shouldn't they help pay to fix it.
Every summer in Atlanta I just have to shake my head in wonder and disgust on the days when newscasters report that the air quality is so poor that children, people with respiratory issues and the elderly should stay inside. This happens in American cities quite a bit in the summertime and yet people act like this is normal.
The average American doesn't want to hear about air quality and the environment and it will only become an issue when it starts directly affecting people's lives.
The average American doesn't want to hear about air quality and the environment and it will only become an issue when it starts directly affecting people's lives.
Addressing pollution because of global warming and addressing pollution because of air quality where you live is not the same debate. They lie on entirely different ethical grounds, and it's exactly that kind of thinking that George Carlin is lampooning in that link Game7 posted.kevinpars wrote:Every summer in Atlanta I just have to shake my head in wonder and disgust on the days when newscasters report that the air quality is so poor that children, people with respiratory issues and the elderly should stay inside. This happens in American cities quite a bit in the summertime and yet people act like this is normal.
The average American doesn't want to hear about air quality and the environment and it will only become an issue when it starts directly affecting people's lives.
-
pk500
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 33886
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
- Contact:
This entire thread proves that none of us know sh*t about global warming because everyone appears to be taking the side to which their respective political ideology ascribes. Both sides can trot out scientists (mad, bad, both?) who support their beliefs.
Is there a liberal in here who has denied the existence of global warming? Is there a conservative who has said it's very real?
Not that I can see, based on ideologies expressed in past political threads in here.
Mirror, meet DSP. DSP, meet mirror. Sadly, this issue has become a political football instead of a matter of science. Just like stem-cell research.
I don't know enough about the topic to cast an opinion. But I am firmly in the camp that we should do whatever we can to strike a proper balance between protecting the environment and allowing business to flourish, and we definitely should reduce our usage of fossil fuels.
Should we not cut a forest because two spotted owls live there? Hell no. But should we continue to tighten emissions standards and use more alternative fuels? Hell yes.
Take care,
PK
Is there a liberal in here who has denied the existence of global warming? Is there a conservative who has said it's very real?
Not that I can see, based on ideologies expressed in past political threads in here.
Mirror, meet DSP. DSP, meet mirror. Sadly, this issue has become a political football instead of a matter of science. Just like stem-cell research.
I don't know enough about the topic to cast an opinion. But I am firmly in the camp that we should do whatever we can to strike a proper balance between protecting the environment and allowing business to flourish, and we definitely should reduce our usage of fossil fuels.
Should we not cut a forest because two spotted owls live there? Hell no. But should we continue to tighten emissions standards and use more alternative fuels? Hell yes.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
Does the presence of man affect the global climate? I don't know.
Does the presence of man affect the micro climate? You bet.
Does Nature itself affect climate? You bet.
For the 2nd statement, just look at places around you. I've been to Las Vegas, and although I thought it was bone dry (coming from Houston, even 50% humidity is dry). But the residents there were noticing the increases in humidity (still less than 20%) due to the growth - pools, fountains, golf courses needing water, etc. All that growth has brought something else in - concrete which retains heat. The desert used to cool rapidly, but Vegas can be well over 100 degrees after dark as all the heat contained in the concrete slowly radiates back out.
In Houston, I live 15 miles from the city center in a suburb that has quite a bit of ruralness to it. In the hotter months, the temperature here is a good 4-5 degrees cooler than in town. Why? Cars, more air conditioners generating waste heat, concrete.
In Tokyo last year the government promoted no suits for men. Why? All the air conditioners were working hard to keep offices "cool" (quotes as anyone who has been there knows they keep the thermostat higher than we do). With so many A/Cs working hard, the temperature of Tokyo has been rising each year.
But we can blame Mother Nature for woes as well. The dust from China's deserts gets blown across the Pacific, settles on the snow in the Rockies, and causes premature snow melt. Natural forest fires are devastating as well.
Does the presence of man affect the micro climate? You bet.
Does Nature itself affect climate? You bet.
For the 2nd statement, just look at places around you. I've been to Las Vegas, and although I thought it was bone dry (coming from Houston, even 50% humidity is dry). But the residents there were noticing the increases in humidity (still less than 20%) due to the growth - pools, fountains, golf courses needing water, etc. All that growth has brought something else in - concrete which retains heat. The desert used to cool rapidly, but Vegas can be well over 100 degrees after dark as all the heat contained in the concrete slowly radiates back out.
In Houston, I live 15 miles from the city center in a suburb that has quite a bit of ruralness to it. In the hotter months, the temperature here is a good 4-5 degrees cooler than in town. Why? Cars, more air conditioners generating waste heat, concrete.
In Tokyo last year the government promoted no suits for men. Why? All the air conditioners were working hard to keep offices "cool" (quotes as anyone who has been there knows they keep the thermostat higher than we do). With so many A/Cs working hard, the temperature of Tokyo has been rising each year.
But we can blame Mother Nature for woes as well. The dust from China's deserts gets blown across the Pacific, settles on the snow in the Rockies, and causes premature snow melt. Natural forest fires are devastating as well.
Does the presence of man affect the global climate? I don't know.
Does the presence of man affect the micro climate? You bet.
Does Nature itself affect climate? You bet.
For the 2nd statement, just look at places around you. I've been to Las Vegas, and although I thought it was bone dry (coming from Houston, even 50% humidity is dry). But the residents there were noticing the increases in humidity (still less than 20%) due to the growth - pools, fountains, golf courses needing water, etc. All that growth has brought something else in - concrete which retains heat. The desert used to cool rapidly, but Vegas can be well over 100 degrees after dark as all the heat contained in the concrete slowly radiates back out.
In Houston, I live 15 miles from the city center in a suburb that has quite a bit of ruralness to it. In the hotter months, the temperature here is a good 4-5 degrees cooler than in town. Why? Cars, more air conditioners generating waste heat, concrete.
In Tokyo last year the government promoted no suits for men. Why? All the air conditioners were working hard to keep offices "cool" (quotes as anyone who has been there knows they keep the thermostat higher than we do). With so many A/Cs working hard, the temperature of Tokyo has been rising each year.
But we can blame Mother Nature for woes as well. The dust from China's deserts gets blown across the Pacific, settles on the snow in the Rockies, and causes premature snow melt. Natural forest fires are devastating as well. Every summer in Houston we have natural ozone "clouds" that begin near my area and drift north with the coastal winds. We get a bad rap for ozone , and often federal funding for projects can be tied to ozone counts. Yet what's a population to do when that ozone starts in a relatively unpopulated area with few places of industry?
Does the presence of man affect the micro climate? You bet.
Does Nature itself affect climate? You bet.
For the 2nd statement, just look at places around you. I've been to Las Vegas, and although I thought it was bone dry (coming from Houston, even 50% humidity is dry). But the residents there were noticing the increases in humidity (still less than 20%) due to the growth - pools, fountains, golf courses needing water, etc. All that growth has brought something else in - concrete which retains heat. The desert used to cool rapidly, but Vegas can be well over 100 degrees after dark as all the heat contained in the concrete slowly radiates back out.
In Houston, I live 15 miles from the city center in a suburb that has quite a bit of ruralness to it. In the hotter months, the temperature here is a good 4-5 degrees cooler than in town. Why? Cars, more air conditioners generating waste heat, concrete.
In Tokyo last year the government promoted no suits for men. Why? All the air conditioners were working hard to keep offices "cool" (quotes as anyone who has been there knows they keep the thermostat higher than we do). With so many A/Cs working hard, the temperature of Tokyo has been rising each year.
But we can blame Mother Nature for woes as well. The dust from China's deserts gets blown across the Pacific, settles on the snow in the Rockies, and causes premature snow melt. Natural forest fires are devastating as well. Every summer in Houston we have natural ozone "clouds" that begin near my area and drift north with the coastal winds. We get a bad rap for ozone , and often federal funding for projects can be tied to ozone counts. Yet what's a population to do when that ozone starts in a relatively unpopulated area with few places of industry?
Thirty or so years ago I recall universal agreement that there were 9 planets in our solar system and now Pluto is getting shafted!GTHobbes wrote:Thirty or forty years ago, it also wasn't too hard to find "experts" who disputed the link between cigarette smoke and lung cancer.
I don't know enough about global climate and science to really form an opinion one way or the other, but I do feel the "chicken littles" hurt the cause the most. Last year everyone was claiming the end of the world because of all the hurricanes. How many Cat 4 or 5 did we have this year? For that matter, how many *named* storms did we have past hurricane season.
PK wrote
"I don't know enough about the topic to cast an opinion. But I am firmly in the camp that we should do whatever we can to strike a proper balance between protecting the environment and allowing business to flourish, and we definitely should reduce our usage of fossil fuels."
I'm a conservative, but I agree with you that we need to do the things you mentioned. I'm not anti-environment at all. I'm definitely anti-environmental-whacko "omigod the sky is falling and it's all exxon's fault!", though.
By wealth transfer, I'm talking about global governance, something that the UN and particularly European nations are keen to get onboard with - telling people anywhere in the world how to live their lives. And also the idea that things need to be made more 'fair', which relates to the whole carbon-credit nonsense, and exempting polluters like China while stamping all over us here.
As for dependence on foreign I'm all for it. First thing I say is start drilling HERE. In Anwr, the gulf, wherever. If it has a great benefit for the environment to get away from fossil fuels, great. I'm all for that. But #1, it would get us out of having to placate and get in bed with some of the undesirable types in the middle east. Easy question: Just what would the Arab nations in the world have as a stick if they didn't have oil? Just what would they contribute to the world? Where would their wealth come from if they suddenly found no one wanted their oil? Things would be a lot simpler if we could give them the finger and not be held hostage by oil.
But the thread was started about global warming. Problem is, it doesn't seem to be an isolated issue. It seems to be the same crowd that's out there protesting the war, insisting that we all raise taxes and mandate what a CEO can make (funny how they never have any problem with the multimillion dollar salaries of athletes and Hollywood stars.. The only people who need their income capped for being greedy are corporate CEO...quite selective).
When you look past the global warming debate to see the "what do they propose we DO about it" it almost always involves a power grab and a wealth transfer. And when someone wants to do something 'for my own good', that's usually the time I check my wallet to see if it's still there. And what's worse, when they try to intimidate those who silence and criticize, trying to make them out to be either a bunch of kooks or a bunch of people paid off by their opponents, then my suspicions about the integrity of their assumptions just go through the roof. It's funny that the same crowd that wants us to uncritically accept what they say about global warming says it's AMERICAN to criticisize and question the Republican administration about the war. Why are some things okay, even patriotic, to criticize and other things we just need to take their word for? There's just a lot of baggage there. When I see the spinning stop, when I see the half-truths stop, when I see scientists stop getting threatened with decertification, or scorned as 'deniers' for challenging 'consensus', I'll take the scientific debate about global warming a little more seriously. But when someone's defense of their position is to attempt to silence or marginalize their opposition, it says something about the strength of their position (or lack thereof).
Randy
"I don't know enough about the topic to cast an opinion. But I am firmly in the camp that we should do whatever we can to strike a proper balance between protecting the environment and allowing business to flourish, and we definitely should reduce our usage of fossil fuels."
I'm a conservative, but I agree with you that we need to do the things you mentioned. I'm not anti-environment at all. I'm definitely anti-environmental-whacko "omigod the sky is falling and it's all exxon's fault!", though.
By wealth transfer, I'm talking about global governance, something that the UN and particularly European nations are keen to get onboard with - telling people anywhere in the world how to live their lives. And also the idea that things need to be made more 'fair', which relates to the whole carbon-credit nonsense, and exempting polluters like China while stamping all over us here.
As for dependence on foreign I'm all for it. First thing I say is start drilling HERE. In Anwr, the gulf, wherever. If it has a great benefit for the environment to get away from fossil fuels, great. I'm all for that. But #1, it would get us out of having to placate and get in bed with some of the undesirable types in the middle east. Easy question: Just what would the Arab nations in the world have as a stick if they didn't have oil? Just what would they contribute to the world? Where would their wealth come from if they suddenly found no one wanted their oil? Things would be a lot simpler if we could give them the finger and not be held hostage by oil.
But the thread was started about global warming. Problem is, it doesn't seem to be an isolated issue. It seems to be the same crowd that's out there protesting the war, insisting that we all raise taxes and mandate what a CEO can make (funny how they never have any problem with the multimillion dollar salaries of athletes and Hollywood stars.. The only people who need their income capped for being greedy are corporate CEO...quite selective).
When you look past the global warming debate to see the "what do they propose we DO about it" it almost always involves a power grab and a wealth transfer. And when someone wants to do something 'for my own good', that's usually the time I check my wallet to see if it's still there. And what's worse, when they try to intimidate those who silence and criticize, trying to make them out to be either a bunch of kooks or a bunch of people paid off by their opponents, then my suspicions about the integrity of their assumptions just go through the roof. It's funny that the same crowd that wants us to uncritically accept what they say about global warming says it's AMERICAN to criticisize and question the Republican administration about the war. Why are some things okay, even patriotic, to criticize and other things we just need to take their word for? There's just a lot of baggage there. When I see the spinning stop, when I see the half-truths stop, when I see scientists stop getting threatened with decertification, or scorned as 'deniers' for challenging 'consensus', I'll take the scientific debate about global warming a little more seriously. But when someone's defense of their position is to attempt to silence or marginalize their opposition, it says something about the strength of their position (or lack thereof).
Randy