A Must read on global warming

[wist43]

Some people here would call me a 'liberal' because I voted for Obama, but here is my take on global warming/climate change:


I am a skeptic... I don't buy into all the hoo-rah that Al Gore brought to the table. I think the Earth goes through climate changes of its own and we have nothing to deal with them.

With that said.

I don't see what is wrong with regulations to limit pollution. I prefer the cap and trade system, as it seems most efficient.

But even if we have nothing to deal with global warming or climate change.... what is wrong with wanting to limit pollution and take better care of Earth?

So you say you're a "man-made" global warming skeptic... and that is the debate, man-made, but then say it is okay to enact governmental regulations based on some what??? That CO2 is a pollutant???

And then "cap and trade" what???

What your talking about is building a political and governmental boondoggle... layers of bureaucracy greased with corruption... very naive.

The radical left wants governemental control of everything... "global warming" has been a wonderful vehicle to transport them closer to that over riding goal.

At least two generations of kids have been exposed to the lies and propaganda of the global warming crowd; despite having been lied to, however, it is still somehow okay to build the institutions and governemental frame work the leftists who were lying to us in the first place are calling for???

What the hell sense does that make???

[MJZiggy]

Man made or not, I hope you don't like seafood....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/27/AR2008122701126.html?hpid=topnews

If you ignore the effects of pollution, stuff dies.

[digitaldean]

Regardless of all of this, we do need to find alternative energy sources that are truly viable.

[MJZiggy]

Amen.

[wist43]

Man made or not, I hope you don't like seafood....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/27/AR2008122701126.html?hpid=topnews

If you ignore the effects of pollution, stuff dies.

Hang on a sec...

You're trying to link standing up for telling the truth about global warming, with environmental irresponsibility??? Can't do that. Smacks of McCarthyism... even though I detest the term itself.

Didn't say the first thing about what to do about pollution... and no, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a naturally occuring molecule... rising and falling with temperature fluctuations, not the other way around.

The truth is that there is no correlation in the scientific data that an increase in CO2 raises the temp. Beyond that, there is quite a bit of data that shows that CO2 levels tend to follow temp, and global temp fluctuations follow sunspot activity and cosmic dust ratios more than anything else.

Too bad, that back in the middle ages - when it was considerably warmer than it is today - too bad they didn't have the ability to legislate the weather, like we do today.

We're so enlightened... government regulation can solve all our problems - those stupid saps back in the middle ages, all they had to do was pass a law raising fuel efficiency standards

[MJZiggy]

I actually wasn't talking to ya, wist. I just didn't feel like starting another thread, so I dumped that in here after arclite mentioned taking care of the planet...

[wist43]

Sorry MJ, mistook your meaning...

[MJZiggy]

No worries, but I really am a fan of crab meat and mussels so I hope they get this problem solved...

[texaspackerbacker]

Some people here would call me a 'liberal' because I voted for Obama, but here is my take on global warming/climate change:


I am a skeptic... I don't buy into all the hoo-rah that Al Gore brought to the table. I think the Earth goes through climate changes of its own and we have nothing to deal with them.

With that said.

I don't see what is wrong with regulations to limit pollution. I prefer the cap and trade system, as it seems most efficient.

But even if we have nothing to deal with global warming or climate change.... what is wrong with wanting to limit pollution and take better care of Earth?

Your surprisingly rational post--which, of course, runs very contrary to the leftist party line, is greatly appreciated.

Depending on the definition of pollution, I would agree with your conclusion. The large HOWEVER, though, is that placing CO2 emissions on the same level as various REAL chemical pollutants that have come along is bogus science and IMO, politically motivated. DDT, lead, phosphates, sulphur, and a bunch of other contaminants that really did have undeniable harmful effects on the environment have been dealt with effectively without a whole lot of opposition even from those of us who hate government regulation, and without severely harming the economy and lifestyle of Americans and capitalist western civilization in general.

Cap and trade, however, indeed would have a strongly adverse effect on America and on the economic engine that has brought us and much of the rest of the world progress and prosperity. You artificially cripple free enterprise businesses and you take a giant step down the road toward socialism and the kind of squalor and poverty it brings. And the obvious next step beyond driving the world into poverty is loss of freedom and representative government. All you have to do is look at sub-Saharan Africa to see the fruits of that--the horrendous depravity, poverty, etc. resulting from America encouraging socialist dictators in that area prior to 1980, and not doing much to turn things around since that time.

And all of that would be due to the extremely dubious conclusion that manmade CO2 emissions--miniscule in comparison to natural emissions of the same thing--are even harmful.

[bobblehead]

Some people here would call me a 'liberal' because I voted for Obama, but here is my take on global warming/climate change:


I am a skeptic... I don't buy into all the hoo-rah that Al Gore brought to the table. I think the Earth goes through climate changes of its own and we have nothing to deal with them.

With that said.

I don't see what is wrong with regulations to limit pollution. I prefer the cap and trade system, as it seems most efficient.

But even if we have nothing to deal with global warming or climate change.... what is wrong with wanting to limit pollution and take better care of Earth?

There is nothing wrong with limiting pollution. I am all for solar power and nuclear power. I think getting off coal and oil is good. What we can't do is handicap our businesses against the rest of the world by asking them to meet standards other countries won't.

There is a very famous scientist named Ray Kurzweil that insists solar is becoming very viable. He says certain nanotechnology designs will have solar ahead of oil and coal in 5-7 years. Gov't can't speed that up, public pressure and private enterprise desiring to can.

Any cap and trade system would instantly be corrupt and rife with anticapitalism. Guys who get to make decisions would get bought off and companies that otherwise would be superior would be slapped with unreasonable standards. Costs of infrastructure would be too high for private enterprise and big corporations would rule.

The fixes for pollutant energy are coming, we can't make it happen faster. Be patient. As far as labeling you liberal or not, doesn't matter a bit. Stake out your positions, defend them, then let the labels fall where they may.

[MadScientist]

There is a very famous scientist named Ray Kurzweil that insists solar is becoming very viable. He says certain nanotechnology designs will have solar ahead of oil and coal in 5-7 years. Gov't can't speed that up, public pressure and private enterprise desiring to can.

Increasing government support of these lines of research (university and industrial via SBIR grants, etc.) would likely speed things up a bit. Programs like cap and trade would do nothing to help technology, but there are useful things that the government can do.

[SkinBasket]

Find a way to put your nanotech solar panels on military hardware and you got your funding.

[Zool]

[texaspackerbacker]

Which one is PIP and which one Ziggy?

[packinpatland]

Which one is PIP and which one Ziggy?

Neither. The one on the right would be your mother, the other two I assume are your sisters.....or brothers?