Page 3 of 198 FirstFirst 123451353103 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 1976
  1. #21
    All-Conference Kahns Krazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,699
    Quote Originally Posted by CSS85 View Post
    Yes, If the call to action was what you describe here, I think virtually everyone would agree and participate. BUT, this is not the call to action that the global warming crowd is making. They want carbon taxes, and penalties for producing carbon, and sham government supported initiatives like Solyndra, etc etc. all focused on CO2, which now does not look like it is actually a problem, scientifically. This results in diverting money and time and goodwill away from taking the steps necessary to achieve the desirable objectives you've listed.

    I agree with what you have stated here and the biggest thing standing in the way of taking the actions you've outlined, is the political sham of a blatantly false "science" thrust upon us which is aligned with politicians and special interest groups - NOT achieving the actual objectives. They destroy the credibility necessary to get mainstream people to believe, and more importantly act.
    Yeah. What he said.
    "Give a toast to my brother, hug your family, and do everything possible to live the life you dream of. God Bless."
    -Matt McCormick

  2. #22
    Voice of Reason Masterofreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    On America's Great North Coast
    Posts
    17,654
    Quote Originally Posted by CSS85 View Post
    There was a good article in The Week covering this exact subject. The unavoidable fact is that the "model" that has been used for supporting the man made "greenhouse" via CO2 emissions theory is simply wrong. It has not accurately predicted the outcome of the variables supposedly at work, and may not include important variables that do have some influence.

    The undisputed facts are:

    1. That the decade of the 2000s showed a "plateau" of the previous warming "trends" of the 1980s and 1990s which even global warming advocates acknowledge.
    2. In this same decade, the world pumped 110 billion tons of CO2 into the air, which is calculated as 25% of the entire amount from the beginning of the industrial revolution to now. In other words, far more than ever before.
    3. The model that says the more CO2 in the air, the warmer the world gets, does not allow a "plateau" when more CO2 is pumped into the air at a faster rate than in the past. Therefore it is wrong.

    The article did mention some alternate "explanations" offered by global warming supporters, such as that the oceans are absorbing the "missing heat". Of course the oceans did not just appear in the last 10 years, and they are still made of whatever they were made of before, so if the models did not account for the oceans and their interaction with the supposed warming elements, they are still wrong, and the true lack of understanding of all the earth's forces and interaction is on public display.

    Another proposed explanation for up to 30% of the "missing heat" is that there are "sunlight blocking particles" being released into the air by coal-burning China and a few random volcanoes. If true, they are so myopic that they don't see the obvious "solution" to global warming - the elimination of pollution controls in the rest of the world! All we need to do then, is to go back to the days before the EPA and allow the factories to spew out as much stuff as they did from 1900 to 1970 or so. Of course China has been burning coal for decades and has been growing for decades, which should have short circuited warming much earlier. Volcanoes seem to be a part of nature, which cannot be accounted for in man made situations. Otherwise you would have to allow that the previous colder temperatures could have been the result of higher volcanic activity centuries ago, a fact which is documented both scientifically and in popular culture such as the European "year without a summer" in 1816. Maybe the "real" temperature is what we are seeing now, and the previous colder temps were the "un-natural" ones.

    If real scientists cannot stop politicians from taking advantage of medieval human paranoia that every storm, earthquake, or meteor that occurs is the result of global warming or human sin ( nowadays pretty much the same thing), we will miss the truth whatever it is, and feed the ignorance and greed of the masses until it's too late to take whatever necessary action is actually required.
    Uh, this. Reps!
    "I Got CHAMPIONS in that Lockerroom!" -Stanley Burrell

  3. #23
    President Snipe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen
    Posts
    9,644
    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoX View Post
    This.

    People may disagree with the science, but does anyone disagree with the call to action to become more responsible stewards of the planet? Does anyone think that developing cleaner and more efficient energy, recycling and energy conservation are bad things? Wouldn't it be nice to no longer have to rely on Middle East countries such as Saudi Arabia for oil when their social mindsets resemble something out of the Eighth Century? Shouldn't the U.S. be the worldwide leader in developing new technologies that are cleaner, more efficient and more technologically suited for the 21st century?

    There is so much good that could come out of becoming more responsible stewards of this planet, and unless you work for one of the energy companies who continue to make record profits, I fail to see why so many people could be against such a positive cause. Why is the status quo so acceptable to so many people when better, cleaner, more efficient and more responsible options are out there and just ripe for development?
    Wow are you full of yourself.

    We spend billions on global warming. Meanwhile millions of children go blind because of malnutrition. Clean water and a viable food supply is a luxury for most of the world's poor population, yet white liberals want to spend billions on "global warming". Really, fuck the poor! I love it. And while you bend them over you congratulate yourself on how "aware" you are.

    The models didn't predict the flat line in global warming. The earth was supposed to be warmer compared to all the models that they sold us. It is cooler now than in 1998. We haven't had any warming for 15 years.

    What is the opportunity cost of this?

    The economic concept of opportunity cost is that the real cost of something is something else that you could have had instead. Say, instead of spending billions to combat the non-existent warming, we could have spent those billions educating poor black children. Why do you hate black children? I think we can all agree educating black children would be a great thing.

    When global warming doesn't happen, (and it hasn't been happening in the past 15 year (check your models)), somebody has some splaining to do. Except nobody will every have to apologize or explain anything, because liberals like you are morally right, even if the facts say that you are wrong.

    Spending billions on global warming is the worst allocation of resources that I could ever imagine given the overall poverty of the majority of this planet.
    RIP Brian Dargin McCormick

  4. #24
    Supporting Member XU 87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,447
    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoX View Post
    Why is the status quo so acceptable to so many people when better, cleaner, more efficient and more responsible options are out there and just ripe for development?
    The status quo (fossil fuels) is acceptable because these are the best and most efficient ways of producing energy. If the "options were just ripe for development", they'd be developed and people and companies would making millions producing alternative energy. That's the way the capitalistic system works. We used to have horse and buggies but something better was developed called the automobile which replaced them.

    The bottom line is that alternative energy is 'not ripe for development" at this point and can no way serve our current energy needs. Someday they will. But not right now. But yet as a country we refuse to use our natural resources (see Alaska) and instead hold onto this blind dream that we're just a step away from developing alternative energy.
    Last edited by XU 87; 08-30-2013 at 02:56 PM.

  5. #25
    Supporting Member ChicagoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    864
    Quote Originally Posted by Snipe View Post
    Wow are you full of yourself.
    Pot, meet kettle. The rest of your response was the expected extreme far, right-wing dross that you love to regurgitate on this board. I trust the vast majority of climate scientists who know far more about this topic than both of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snipe View Post
    Why do you hate black children?
    This would be comedic if it weren't coming from the biggest racist and bigot on this entire board.
    Last edited by ChicagoX; 08-30-2013 at 02:43 PM.

  6. #26
    Supporting Member paulxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    14,492
    How about a different approach to alternative energy sources. What you might call the long view.

    Whatever fossil fuels are, for sure we are consuming them a lot faster than the earth can produce them. There is a limited supply of them.
    Eventually they will run out, and certainly a global population of 6 billion+ is accelerating that time frame.
    What is it? 100 years? 200 years?
    Whatever it is, it's coming.

    So, it does behoove the planet to explore (now) alternative, renewable energy sources for future generations.
    Solar power installation cost is coming down; hopefully you live in a state where you can sell extra power back to the grid (I don't).
    The fossil fuel driven power suppliers aren't in favor of solar because you might become self-sufficient. But someday we'll get there.
    ...he went up late, and I was already up there.

  7. #27
    Global Warming for the Dems is used as a prop for the betterment of their social stature and pocketbook (just like everything else).

    CSS85 made good points. Everyone in good faith should treat the environment with respect, global warming is just another Democratic initiative so they can control and receive kickbacks on another industry.

  8. #28
    Supporting Member DC Muskie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Beltway
    Posts
    11,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Masterofreality View Post
    The fact that I cited is true when it comes to the number of named storms in the Atlantic. The number has been below the predictions.

    I'm not arguing both sides. A hurricane happens to hit the Northeast where prices are high as a kite. If the same "one off" hurricane happened to veer another way, there is no discussion. Do you not understand the concept of a one off....like a "one hundred year flood that happens every 100 years, "global warming" or not? BTW. Sandy was only a Category 3, not a 5. She just happened to come ashore at the wrong place. Camille was a Category 5....in 1969. It did 1/60th of the financial damage that Sandy did. Ever hear of inflation?

    Point being is that Category 3, 4, and 5 hurricanes can and have happened in any era- "warming" or not and still the evidence that man is causing any change is questionable.

    Anyway, go talk to China and leave us the hell alone.
    I have no idea what you are arguing now. None of this makes sense. Inflation? Categories of hurricanes? If hurricanes don't hit land, who gives a shit?

    I was pointing out that two big hurricanes have happened the last two years. Last year Sandy hit 24 states.

    Look I don't care whatever your boner is with climate change. I think the entire argument from both sides is pretty silly, and your posts pretty much cement that opinion.
    Award Winning Poster Since 2015

  9. #29
    Voice of Reason Masterofreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    On America's Great North Coast
    Posts
    17,654
    Just remember that the entire planet was going to explode over Y2K also- as per the alarmists.

    How about instead of worrying about the false temperature models, we worry about the spew of raw sewage into our lakes and rivers? However, the same government that wants us to go "green" and preaches about "carbon footprint" and "global warming" has no problem wasting the tax money we send them on bloated employment contracts with their union buddies, throwing money at Solar energy entities (where most of that money winds up with Chinese solar panel manufacturers), ridiculous subsidies for cars (Chevy Volt) that no one wants, and "shovel ready" projects like adding sidewalks on 6 lane throfares that no one walks on/replacing street lights with quaint looking faux gaslights (Memorial Drive- Atlanta, Ga) that make the trade unions happy. They should be spending it on fixing public sewers. Sewers don't affect "climate change" but it does affect the environment in a real sense.
    "I Got CHAMPIONS in that Lockerroom!" -Stanley Burrell

  10. #30
    Supporting Member GoMuskies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    27,131
    Quote Originally Posted by paulxu View Post
    How about a different approach to alternative energy sources. What you might call the long view.

    Whatever fossil fuels are, for sure we are consuming them a lot faster than the earth can produce them. There is a limited supply of them.
    Eventually they will run out, and certainly a global population of 6 billion+ is accelerating that time frame.
    What is it? 100 years? 200 years?
    Whatever it is, it's coming.

    So, it does behoove the planet to explore (now) alternative, renewable energy sources for future generations.
    Solar power installation cost is coming down; hopefully you live in a state where you can sell extra power back to the grid (I don't).
    The fossil fuel driven power suppliers aren't in favor of solar because you might become self-sufficient. But someday we'll get there.
    The fossil fuel power suppliers are all looking at, and working on projects related to, renewables as well. They just need to become economically viable on a stand-alone basis (or together with government subsidies) before they will be widely adopted.

    In the meantime, we continue to try to find new sources of, and ways to more effectively exploit, the fossil fuels that are still in the ground.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •