Smalliebigs Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Smallie. This guy is a WEATHERman. His job is to predict short term trends in WEATHER. The only reason this debate exists at all is because of day to day, year to year variation in weather that hides long term trends until you back up and look at the big picture. Anyone prattling about the planet cooling off when we have just finished finished a year tied for the hottest on record, and a decade that is the hottest ever recorded a the end of a 150 year tend in temperature increase is simply not worth listening to. I knew you would automaticly try to dispell by attacking credentials....but the Pacific is very cold right now, all the earths oceans are cooler right now.Say what you want I don't buy your allegations you read and recite.I don't want anyone to think I want to rape the planet's natural resources just because I disagree with you.I conserve as much as I can, I have been for about the last 18 years.
kevthebassman Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 You boys are really bashing your heads against the wall on this one. In the end, it doesn't make one darn bit of difference if global warming is real or fake, man-made or natural. The US could change over to horse and buggy transportation, but there are two billion people in India and China, and those two billion people are growing their per-capita oil consumption by double-digit percentages every year. Those nations are NEVER going to cripple their economies by signing on to some greenie-weenie treaty for greenhouse gasses. It will not happen. Any mandated reduction of carbon emissions in this country is going to end up being like bailing water from the titanic with a teacup, with the added consequence of crippling our economy for a decade. Now, that said, this country has a SERIOUS problem with energy. Our dependence on foreign oil is a national disgrace. This national addiction has caused us to be involved in the middle east for half a century, propping up brutal dictatorships who's repression spawned radical Islamic movements. If we didn't have to buy oil from that cesspit of humanity, they could all go back to being dirt poor goat herders, and we could bring our boys home. To that end, there are many things we could be doing, but the leftist eco-nazis, the very same ones pushing for cap and trade, carbon taxes, etc, are blocking it. The darn FRENCH get upwards of 80% of their electricity from nuclear plants. Nuclear energy is safe, cheap, and green. We could be building Thorium reactors that are run on a nearly inexhaustible fuel, are inherently safe, and can burn our current nuclear waste. But the left won't have it. These things could provide the electricity cheaply enough to make a hydrogen fuel a viable economic reality. Or they could be used to extract the oil from the oil shale deposits that this nation has an ample supply of. Something has to be done about this, and that right soon. Nothing is going to get done until it's far too late if we allow business to go on as usual, like the oil lobby and certain other people would like to see happen. Likewise, if we let the environmentalists set the agenda, we're going to end up a 3rd world nation, because our energy needs will not be met, and the energy they do allow will be too expensive for the common man to afford.
podum Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Nuclear energy and nuclear waste are misunderstood in ways that have generated irrational policy and public hysteria. If you want out of carbon and petroleum, it is the only cost effective, workable solution given current technology and infrastructure. I, like kev, am not concerned about so much about the carbon. But I would love to use nukes as the solution to part of the oil dependence problem. There is more common ground in this thread than most think. A man-made climate change skeptic does not necessarily disagree with a conservation ethic, reduction of oil use or many of the other policies advocated with climate change crowd. My complaint is the use of a consensus argument as scientific proof of something that is not provable given current climate understanding. I wish I had more time more than I wish I had more money.
kevthebassman Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 It's not so much that I'm not concerned about the carbon. I honestly don't know what to think about the assertion that global warming is man-made and caused by carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels. Both sides are frothing at the mouth, throwing around statistics that can be easily manipulated, and they've both got BIG MONEY riding on their schemes. I've made up my mind that it doesn't much matter who is right. There's nothing to be done with India and China, they are going to keep on burning fossil fuels. This big 'ole earth we're spinning around on will correct the problem, given time. Billions of people may suffer and die in the mean time, but on a geological timescale, that doesn't make a tinker's darn. I think all this hysteria about warming is overblown anyway. Fresh water and energy are going to be humanity's biggest problems going forward. If we get on the stick and get nukes up and running, we can desalinate water and have electricity to spare.
eric1978 Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 The darn FRENCH get upwards of 80% of their electricity from nuclear plants. Nuclear energy is safe, cheap, and green. We could be building Thorium reactors that are run on a nearly inexhaustible fuel, are inherently safe, and can burn our current nuclear waste. But the left won't have it. Neither will the oil companies, so your boys on the right won't have it either. And if we had the will, we could boycott or tariff Chinese and Indian products until they got their environmental act together...they need the US to sell all their cheap garbage to, and I for one would be happy to pay a little more for higher quality products if they were made in the USA by American workers being paid a livable wage. But your boys on the right would never have that, either...too many uber-wealthy with overseas businesses would be affected.
gotmuddy Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 But your boys on the right would never have that, either...too many uber-wealthy with overseas businesses would be affected. Who was it that signed NAFTA? (the question was rhetorical we both know who it was) everything in this post is purely opinion and is said to annoy you.
eric1978 Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Who was it that signed NAFTA? (the question was rhetorical we both know who it was) Yeah, his biggest (and basically only) economic screw up, trying to be a "centrist" and playing footsies with Newt and the other American job exporters.
Wayne SW/MO Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Nuclear energy and nuclear waste are misunderstood in ways that have generated irrational policy and public hysteria. If you want out of carbon and petroleum, it is the only cost effective, workable solution given current technology and infrastructure. I, like kev, am not concerned about so much about the carbon. But I would love to use nukes as the solution to part of the oil dependence problem. There is more common ground in this thread than most think. A man-made climate change skeptic does not necessarily disagree with a conservation ethic, reduction of oil use or many of the other policies advocated with climate change crowd. My complaint is the use of a consensus argument as scientific proof of something that is not provable given current climate understanding. I agree! Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
Wayne SW/MO Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Neither will the oil companies, so your boys on the right won't have it either. Come on Eric, what do the oil companies have to do with electricity generation? It's not hard to find information pointing out that coal fired generating plants produce more toxic waste then nuclear plants do. The problem is that we're behind and it's been risky to even plan a nuclear power plant. That seems to be waning, but it takes along time and lots of money to build one plant. The issue of storage of spent fuel was derailed by the senate majority leader, he didn't want it in his desert. Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
Smalliebigs Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I have read stuff from William M. Gray that states global warming beeing caused by man is a farce.His knowledge in the field of global atmoshperic conditions and predicting tropical hurricanes is enough for me. I don't need to watch someone on CNN to tell me the world is boiling and we did it. When you reduce the stations where you take the temps to determine the average global temps from 10,000 to roughly 1,000 do you think you can the results can get gerrymandered???? I need to stay out of this section of the forum!!!
Recommended Posts