Global Warmers Promote Dark Ages, Permanently

[mhaze]

...ETA: And back to my point: the OP seems to think that reducing carbon emissions means going backward technologically. I was pointing out that here things have improved since the Victorian Age.

Yes, things have improved as we learned how to harness energy and use it to make things and move them around efficiently using carbon based energy. Yes, we have in the US and Europe some of the cleanest air today since the beginning of the industrial age. Yes, much of our dirty industry has been pushed offshore to China and similar areas due to lunatic environmental restrictions, taxation and regulation on basic industry. Yes, environmental wackos are trying to further destroy our economy.

A fair part of the mess that California is in today is due to their giving say to these environmentalists and their crazy and anti-business ideas.

I think that all of the people that have these ideas should use California as a testbed for their wondrous vision of the future, and make it happen there. And you should do it without trying to take the other states and the other peoples' money from them.

So let me know when you've got CA running on windmills and solar, and when you've got CA's airports running on biofuels. Let me know when you've talked their politicians into extending their four nuclear plants licenses, currently soon to expire.

Please do let us know - we will be cheering for this type of experimental testbed. But keep your hands out of other peoples' pockets, and don't try to steal from the federal government, either.

In my area, we will build new nuclear plants, and we'll expand coal and basic industry. We'll have lots of new jobs based on proven methods from the past, and we'll create them without any help from Washington.

 

[keale]

Yes, we have in the US and Europe some of the cleanest air today since the beginning of the industrial age. Yes, much of our dirty industry has been pushed offshore to China and similar areas due to lunatic environmental restrictions, taxation and regulation on basic industry.

You dont like clean air and those that do are "lunatics"....gotcha....

 

[mhaze]

You dont like clean air and those that do are "lunatics"....gotcha....

Do you really?

LOL!

Those industries would be polluting LESS if they were still here, and the world would be a cleaner place then.

 

[keale]

Do you really?

LOL!

Those industries would be polluting LESS if they were still here, and the world would be a cleaner place then.

What industry are you talking about? Be specific im curious to find out what industry is now in China that would still be here if not for some regulation.

 

[Cuddles]

A large number of uncivil and off topic posts have been removed to AAH. Continuing this behaviour will likely result in further moderator action.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[leftysergeant]

Yes, things have improved as we learned how to harness energy and use it to make things and move them around efficiently using carbon based energy. Yes, we have in the US and Europe some of the cleanest air today since the beginning of the industrial age. Yes, much of our dirty industry has been pushed offshore to China and similar areas due to lunatic environmental restrictions, taxation and regulation on basic industry. Yes, environmental wackos are trying to further destroy our economy.

No. The investor class has just decided that they would rather go somewhere else where they can destroy the environment without worry and still make money. They do it because we let them. And then some idiot thought it was a good idea to let them make stuff overseas, sell it to themselvews, import it to sell here, and then call the profits that they made selling it to themselves "repatriated capital." They get subsidized to screw us, thanks to thirty years of stupidity in government.

A fair part of the mess that California is in today is due to their giving say to these environmentalists and their crazy and anti-business ideas.

And a lot of it is because the Shrub's buddy Kenny Boy corrupted the power grid for fun and profit and a lot because a bunch of whiney babies didn't like paying taxes.

In my area, we will build new nuclear plants, and we'll expand coal and basic industry. We'll have lots of new jobs based on proven methods from the past, and we'll create them without any help from Washington.

And you all had better figure a way to keep the waste products out of the water supply and the air.

 

[stokes234]

Cattle methane is simply a recycling of carbon already present in the active carbon cycle and totally irrelevent to any consideration of issues of the additions of carbon to the biosphere from previously sequestered carbon reserves. The latter yields composition changes of our atmosphere that decreases the rate at which our planet re-radiates the energy it absorbs from sunlight. The former, just like the carbon in our exhalations are a part of the active carbon cycle which is constantly flowing from the air to be built up into sugars and carbohydrates in plants, which then get consumed by animals, which we break down for energy by combining with oxygen, generating CO2 that we exhale back into the active cycle. Though the path through this cycle is complex the system is balanced and somewhat buffered. Our Anthropogenic forcing is primarily due to the fact that we are tapping reserves from outside of this balanced system and adding it into the system at a level and rate that is overwhelming the buffering system and sequestration rates.

Rather simplistically stated.

Are you saying that cattle farming extracts CO2 from the atmosphere at an equivalent rate to the methane it deposits in the atmosphere (balanced for relative effect)? Because if not, then reducing cattle numbers around the world may be one of the easiest and cheapest solutions to AGW we have available. We don't have a few centuries grace for the carbon cycle to catch up.

 

[stokes234]

Yes, things have improved as we learned how to harness energy and use it to make things and move them around efficiently using carbon based energy. Yes, we have in the US and Europe some of the cleanest air today since the beginning of the industrial age. Yes, much of our dirty industry has been pushed offshore to China and similar areas due to lunatic environmental restrictions, taxation and regulation on basic industry. Yes, environmental wackos are trying to further destroy our economy.

It's the lack of those same regulations abroad that is the real problem, not the institution of the regulations in the western world. You imply that if the west had never imposed environmental regulations on industry, china would never have had an industrial revolution. You can argue that it might have been delayed, but arguing that it would never have happened is farcical.

In my area, we will build new nuclear plants, and we'll expand coal and basic industry. We'll have lots of new jobs based on proven methods from the past, and we'll create them without any help from Washington.

And without any regulation from washington, the profits from these new jobs will all end up in the hands of a select few, while the workers in these jobs argue loudly for the "economic freedom" their bosses need to keep their wages as low as possible.

 

[Upchurch]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organisations also hold non-committal positions.

(source)

So, yeah. No scientific body of any standing thinks global warming is a hoax. To the best of my knowledge, there are no credible studies that shows it isn't happening.

Just sayin'.

 

[BenBurch]

(source)

So, yeah. No scientific body of any standing thinks global warming is a hoax. To the best of my knowledge, there are no credible studies that shows it isn't happening.

Just sayin'.

The opposition is entirely ideologically-motivated, so they assume that the side they are fighting, the science side, MUST therefore have an ideology opposite to the one they are attempting to promote. Therefore they discount any scientific opinion or body as being "partisan" which says that reality is something other than what their ideology demands that it MUST be.

When reality is made to conform to ideology rather than ideology conforming to reality, people can do dangerous things.

 

[Kestrel]

The opposition is entirely ideologically-motivated, so they assume that the side they are fighting, the science side, MUST therefore have an ideology opposite to the one they are attempting to promote. Therefore they discount any scientific opinion or body as being "partisan" which says that reality is something other than what their ideology demands that it MUST be.

The claim by global warming deniers that the scientists at our National Labs are all corrupt is a clue that they are promoting a conspiracy theory.

 

[BenBurch]

The claim by global warming deniers that the scientists at our National Labs are all corrupt is a clue that they are promoting a conspiracy theory.

It doesn't help that the great majority of scientists are Democrats. It's a selection bias - Conservatives are more likely to have been raised with anti-science beliefs, so they just do not go into science.

 

[mhaze]

....OK, so let us imagine the worst possible case imaginable, ....The reduction by 80% is so we don't all freaking DIE. We have to stop this **** so the planet doesn't overheat and we all roast. ....I would rather lose electricity and technology, then lose the entire planet! THINK boy!

Isn't that really just a lie?

 

[AlBell]

(source)

So, yeah. No scientific body of any standing thinks global warming is a hoax. To the best of my knowledge, there are no credible studies that shows it isn't happening.

Just sayin'.

True. I suppose there are few diehards who don't agree with the actual consensus:

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

•Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
•Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
•The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

The OMG! Sky Is Falling! is where the problems start. And what Lewis was likely pointing at.

And then to really move to the politics:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108,0,545056.story

Still, the scope of the group's work is limited, reflecting the ongoing reluctance among many scientists to venture into politics.

A rapid-response team, however, is willing to delve into politics. In the week that Abraham and others have been marshaling the team, 39 scientists agreed to participate, including Richard Feely, senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.

Just wow.

Kevin[where is all the Heat going?]Trenberth.

 

[Upchurch]

The OMG! Sky Is Falling! is where the problems start. And what Lewis was likely pointing at.

How do you translate what you just quoted as "OMG! Sky Is Falling!"?

 

[BenBurch]

How do you translate what you just quoted as "OMG! Sky Is Falling!"?

Its the usual Straw Man. Whenever anybody says that carbon emissions will cause a serious problem that will be costly if we continue with them, the ideological opposition hauls out "Chicken Little" and dishonestly pretends that they have just heard some kind of doomsayer.

 

[lomiller]

Speaking of Doomsayers claiming the sky will fall...

If the US cut it’s per capita CO2 by 50% it would be right in line with the Japan, UK, Germany and most of the other developed countries in Europe. If it cut it’s per capita CO2 by 70% it would be right in line with where France is today. Not only that, these countries are managing to reduce their carbon footprint.

Seems to me the only doomsayers claiming the sky will fall are the ones who say the US can’t cut its carbon footprint.

 

[Upchurch]

Just like Al Bell said <<liberal misdirection and derails ignored>>

Not to misdirect or derail any more than is necessary, but are you referring to the science as the "<<liberal misdirection and derails ignored>>"?

 

[Trakar]

It doesn't help that the great majority of scientists are Democrats. It's a selection bias - Conservatives are more likely to have been raised with anti-science beliefs, so they just do not go into science.

I'm not sure this is the case with the researchers at the national laboratories, or even science in general. while it is true that you are unlikely to find very many hard-core fundementalists among the scientific community, there are definitely more politically right-leaning adherents in lab coats than you can shake a stick at.

I've seen the Pew Poll from last year indicating that only 6% of scientists in the US self-identify as Republican, but there are some issues with their methodology that give me strong pause. Especially since more than half of the generic "scientists" who responded to the poll are doctors or medical researchers during a time when national healthcare, evolution teachings, and issues such as Stem cell research and numerous other hot button popular issues were more likely to draw advocacy responses, and notably fewer scientific specialties of more traditionally conservative science fields (such as Chemistry, Geology, and Physics).

I'm not saying that there probably isn't a higher portion of open-minded critical thinkers who gravitate to political views that hold such values in esteem, but the numbers presented seem skewed by the circumstances of when and how the poll was conducted.

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1554

 

[johnny karate]

Global Warming is not in the Bible or the Constitution.

'Nuff said.