Originally posted by Crowley"Is there anyone on this planet who believes it a good idea to use up more fossil fuels that stinks up the place?"
What it always boils down to for me, whether you buy into global warming - man made or not - is this:
Is there anyone on this planet who believes it a good idea to use up more fossil fuels that stinks up the place?
Didn't think so. End of debate.
What are you going to replace them with? Who is going to pay for the costs?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHow much man made CO2 is doing is questionable.
Well said 🙂
And even if a MAJORITY of scientists actually believed that manmade global warming was a myth (which they do not), the fact remains that basic science say CO2 should cause warming and the EVIDENCE appears to confirm that we are causing the warming through CO2 and it is the EVIDENCE and NOT consensus that determines what is science and what is not.
It is a rather minor factor when compared to the natural production of CO2.
I seriously get to questioning a claim's validity, when to support it debate is shut down, and there is so much fraud by proponents.
I've lived through quite a number of these "crisis" situations. The coming ice age, global starvation, and running out of fossil fuels, all of which were supposed to have happened before the end of the 20th century according to the fear mongers of three decades ago.
There is nothing wrong with science looking for cleaner and better ways to supply energy, but these efforts will successfully come from market driven efforts, not anti-capitalist propaganda.
At the present time, converting Western industrialized countries to non fossil fuel energy is simply backward, and probably wouldn't make a difference in total CO2 emitted. Emerging economies will buy and use all the fossil fuels we don't and replace us, as polluters and industrial leaders.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraFinally, we agree on something. Nuclear energy is the only proven adequate replacement for fossil fuels, not that others may not eventually be developed.
I believe this is the core of the issue. Global warming or not, we're going to have to use renewable sources of energy anyway, so we might as well invest more in nuclear, fusion and green power.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignTo bad liberal snub their noses at it. On the one hand they say fossil fuels are killing us and on the other snub their noses at nuclear power as an alternative. It lead me to believe that they really don't buy what they say.
Finally, we agree on something. Nuclear energy is the only proven adequate replacement for fossil fuels, not that others may not eventually be developed.
As for getting off fossil fuels, there are plenty of reasons to do so other than global warming. Think of all the oil rich countries and as you tally them up you realize they all hate the US. It is a matter of national security unless Americans enjoy visiting such exotic places as Iraq. For me it is a crime that the US government has not rid themselves of their dependence on foreign oil. Both parties are equally guilty in this respect.
Originally posted by whodeyNo, both parties aren't equally guilty. Carter was doing good work on alternative energy but Reagan hijacked it for corporate interests.
To bad liberal snub their noses at it. On the one hand they say fossil fuels are killing us and on the other snub their noses at nuclear power as an alternative. It lead me to believe that they really don't buy what they say.
As for getting off fossil fuels, there are plenty of reasons to do so other than global warming. Think of all the oil rich countr ...[text shortened]... hemselves of their dependence on foreign oil. Both parties are equally guilty in this respect.
Originally posted by whodeyBoth political parties have paid lip service to ridding ourselves of "dependence on foreign oil'.
To bad liberal snub their noses at it. On the one hand they say fossil fuels are killing us and on the other snub their noses at nuclear power as an alternative. It lead me to believe that they really don't buy what they say.
As for getting off fossil fuels, there are plenty of reasons to do so other than global warming. Think of all the oil rich countr ...[text shortened]... hemselves of their dependence on foreign oil. Both parties are equally guilty in this respect.
Doing something about it is one of those things that involves "heavy lifting". That is stuff that isn't popular with certain factions.
Here are some known technologies which have been available for some time:
1. Nuclear
2. Gasification of coal
3. Exploration and drilling for domestic oil
4. Expanding the use of natural gas
5. Hydrogen
6 Wind
7. Geothermal
8. Solar
It is likely that any or all of these would already be more significantly used except for restrictions by government. Instead of government attempting to force any of these down the public's throat, why don't they simply get out of the way, and allow Americans to develop what works.
Originally posted by karnachzI simply don't recall Carter doing anything good during his presidency or thereafter. That said, blame has to go to both parties and their constituency groups, no more to one than the other.
No, both parties aren't equally guilty. Carter was doing good work on alternative energy but Reagan hijacked it for corporate interests.
Government in its switching from one side to the other has blocked anything but the status quo, and regulated to death anything new and entrepreneurial from happening in energy. How about just getting government out of the way, except for necessary safety requirements.
Whatever Reagan did, his administration faced the most difficult set of economic circumstances I've yet seen in my life, including the present "crisis". Under his leadership, a lot of good things happened, reflected in the massive landslide reelection.
What has and hasn't happened since:
1. No new oil refineries
2. Nuclear development stopped
3. Local designer blends of gasoline disrupt supply lines
4. Few if any new non nuclear power facilities built
5. Exploration and extraction of domestic oil and gas stagnated
6. Limited experimental wind farms and solar facilities
7. Proposal for gasifying coal in Montana, shut down by government
We are stagnated, because government favoring interest groups aren't permitting any progress on any of the possible solutions. Even the wind farms favored by some liberals are under attack by California animal rights groups because they kill certain species of birds.
I personally don't favor any energy over any other. If we simply allowed all to be developed free from government meddling, the best would prevail, and in my opinion, all have merits and applications where they are best suited. And we had better get started. I read somewhere recently, that the Saudi oil reserves are actually a small fraction of what everyone thought a few years ago.
But no, we tend to rely on mandatory systems, like dictating so much use of bio fuels, backed by the farm lobby, one of the strongest corporate interest groups, one that every Presidential candidate courts as seen by the first in the nation Iowa caucus.
Originally posted by zeeblebotThis article is amateurish c**p. It's not the work of a journalist's backside. Read it - there's absolutely no attempt at balance.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
January 14, 2009
Posted by Marc Morano – 9:30 AM EST - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.GOV
U. S. Senate Minority Repor ...[text shortened]... 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:
...
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignWell, the one thing that stood out for me in the Gore documentary was the rise in CO2 levels. The evidence of ice samples shows that CO2 levels have spiked many orders of magnitude beyond anything seen in over 100 000 years, and particularly in the last 30 years. Refute this, please. The only logical conclusion for the massive increase in CO2 levels is the effect of mankind and its endeavours.
How much man made CO2 is doing is questionable.
It is a rather minor factor when compared to the natural production of CO2.
I seriously get to questioning a claim's validity, when to support it debate is shut down, and there is so much fraud by proponents.
I've lived through quite a number of these "crisis" situations. The coming ice age, gl and use all the fossil fuels we don't and replace us, as polluters and industrial leaders.
There's many other things to ponder but what is also clear to me from watching the Gore documentary is how much we're now guessing about the effects of CO2 and global warming. This is because science is hypothesizing and extrapolating the impact. Much of it is educated guesswork and scientists will disagree. The fact is, the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are completely unprecedented in any history we are able to measure. Now, show me this is natural. Meanwhile, if you ever had a hankering to see the snows of Kilimanjaro, you'd better hurry - they'll be gone in ten years.
In the meantime, your argument against greener energy technologies seems to be based on the statement that "if we don't burn it first, THEY will". Who's more backward?
EDIT: Whether there's global warming or not can be argued. What appears to be significant is local climate change. What this will be, we don't know.
Originally posted by normbenignReagan got a lot of undeserved mileage over the improvement to the economy during his first term, which probably wasn't even due to anything Reagan did. Carter appointed Volcker in 1979, and Volcker used a controversial method to fix the stagflation crisis by taking the country into a deep recession. The improvements didn't kick in until after Carter was out of office.
I simply don't recall Carter doing anything good during his presidency or thereafter. That said, blame has to go to both parties and their constituency groups, no more to one than the other.
Government in its switching from one side to the other has blocked anything but the status quo, and regulated to death anything new and entrepreneurial from happe ...[text shortened]... that every Presidential candidate courts as seen by the first in the nation Iowa caucus.
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenign….How much man made CO2 is doing is questionable.
How much man made CO2 is doing is questionable.
It is a rather minor factor when compared to the natural production of CO2.
I seriously get to questioning a claim's validity, when to support it debate is shut down, and there is so much fraud by proponents.
I've lived through quite a number of these "crisis" situations. The coming ice age, gl and use all the fossil fuels we don't and replace us, as polluters and industrial leaders.
..…
“questionable” to whom? Basic science tells us that CO2 should significantly warm the climate.
….It is a rather minor factor when compared to the natural production of CO2.
..…
How could that be true when virtually all the rise in CO2 in the last 1000 years is man made due to the combination of deforestation and also, more recently, burning of fossil fuels?
…
There is nothing wrong with science looking for cleaner and better ways to supply energy, but these efforts will successfully come from market driven efforts, not anti-capitalist propaganda.
.…
Mmmm -so much of the current efforts to develop renewables is just part of one big leftwing conspiracy? 😛
Can’t the research and development into renewables be funded by government rather than privately?
-after all, a lot of such research and development into renewables already is government funded.
…At the present time, converting Western industrialized countries to non fossil fuel energy is simply backward, and probably wouldn't make a difference in total CO2 emitted.
.…
What about converting ALL industrialized countries to non fossil fuel energy?
-wouldn’t that make much difference in total CO2 emitted? 😛
Originally posted by normbenign….Nuclear energy is the only proven adequate replacement for fossil fuels,
Finally, we agree on something. Nuclear energy is the only proven adequate replacement for fossil fuels, not that others may not eventually be developed.
..…
Nuclear fusion is still under development so I assume you are talking about nuclear fission:
It has been calculated that it is unlikely that it would be practical to make nuclear fission energy replace all fossil fuels if we maintain anything like our current energy consumption.
If we tried to do this -even with breeder reactors that produce plutonium, we would rapidly spent all the nuclear energy that can be gained from the known reserves of Uranium ore.
Nuclear fission energy is non-renewable and thus certainly would not solve our energy problems in the long run.
The only real replacement for fossil fuels in the long run are the renewables such as solar power etc.
The global warming scare is all about taxing people more.
Whenever the news media tries to scare you into chicken little mode and offer you an extra tax burden you should beware. They are not really serious about saving energy. If they were, we would put efficiency standards on DVD players, TVs and other electronic devices. Even when the power is turned off they use 40% of the energy they do when the power is on.
Refrigerators and freezers are extremely inefficient. They could also serve as air conditioners for very little extra cost. Instead of pumping heat into your hot home in the summer, they could pump it outside. They could also pull in cold air from the outside in colder climates to save energy and help heat your home.
These are simple solutions that would save a great deal of energy. Since our leaders want to avoid a practical start to saving energy in a cost effective way, they must not care about saving energy. They just want to tax us more.
There is no evidence that Co2 is the primary cause of global warming.