Denying Global Warming

[Desperate Measures]

Well, I had fun, this has all been a blast. I suppose you guys are all just arguing for arguing sakes. I'm not going to keep going with this because arguing with you guys is like an argument between a mac and pc user. Why bother.

You guys win. I'm never coming here again. Have fun with yourselves, I'm keeping out of this.

Are you you still here? Testing, testing.

[Hamelburg]

Well, I had fun, this has all been a blast. I suppose you guys are all just arguing for arguing sakes. I'm not going to keep going with this because arguing with you guys is like an argument between a mac and pc user. Why bother.

You guys win. I'm never coming here again. Have fun with yourselves, I'm keeping out of this.

Are you you still here? Testing, testing.

(i think he actually left... usually they come back by now though...)

[Mallorea and Riva]

Rather than going through the entire thread and see who to agree with, I'll simply state my position.

The planet does have the tendency to shift on its axis, change its orbit etc. All of these things can cause a change in climate. That having been said, the recent changes in the world's climate are not explained by normal models. There is another factor causing climate change, namely humans.

[Farnhamia]

Rather than going through the entire thread and see who to agree with, I'll simply state my position.

The planet does have the tendency to shift on its axis, change its orbit etc. All of these things can cause a change in climate. That having been said, the recent changes in the world's climate are not explained by normal models. There is another factor causing climate change, namely humans.

*points* Socialist! Why do you want to destroy jobs and families and blow up dams and ... and ... *breaks down weeping* Just wait 'til I tell Speaker Boehner about you!

[Mallorea and Riva]

Rather than going through the entire thread and see who to agree with, I'll simply state my position.

The planet does have the tendency to shift on its axis, change its orbit etc. All of these things can cause a change in climate. That having been said, the recent changes in the world's climate are not explained by normal models. There is another factor causing climate change, namely humans.

*points* Socialist! Why do you want to destroy jobs and families and blow up dams and ... and ... *breaks down weeping* Just wait 'til I tell Speaker Boehner about you!

Curses you've found out my evil plan! Surely science will change simply because the free market demands it!

The politicization of science is a truly horrible thing.

[Farnhamia]

*points* Socialist! Why do you want to destroy jobs and families and blow up dams and ... and ... *breaks down weeping* Just wait 'til I tell Speaker Boehner about you!

Curses you've found out my evil plan! Surely science will change simply because the free market demands it!

The politicization of science is a truly horrible thing.

It truly, truly is.

[NERVUN]

As I said before, me coming here was pointless, and an obvious error on my part. But, hey, I know the other side of things. I'm a 4th generation logger, one of whom's job was ruined thanks to business killing enviromentalists such as you. And it wasn't even about an owl, it was about killing business. If you guys had your way, we would be stading on rocks so we wouldn't step on bugs that a starving bird might eat, we wouldn't have any form of transportation because it might have some harm to some creature or our atmosphere some way. We would have to float everywhere. We would only eat plants (as long as we set aside enough for the animals first).

I will not live life like some pitiful terrified rabbit. I am going to live life like I want to live it. If I'm going to eat, something has to die. That's the way it works in the wild, and it's a proven system. It works.

But, while you guys sit here and bicker about silly things, I'm going to get away from my computer and put time into something that's actually productive.

So, have fun stressing yourselves out over pointless matters, I've got 1965 Chevy to work on. Have fun. Or not. I don't care. Liberal Environmentalist Buffoons

*** Warned for flaming ***.

[SaintB]

Actually fossil fuels (especially coal) have been proven to provide a net loss to the economy because of the damage it causes environmentally and to people's health. Switching to some of the supposedly less efficient forms of energy generation would have a lesser loss economically and environmentally.

Source

whether or not coal makes a net loss in the economy, meh...what I do agree on is we need a new source of energy. The problem with many alternatives are the initial cost is to high, OR the average daily KWH output is not high. Solar for example is to high in intital cost and if not done on a large scale, provides not alot of KWH.

sources: http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02 ... and-solar/

They made the comment that becoming more environmentally friendly would damage the economy. I showed them how they were wrong.

[Ethel mermania]

Stop spouting the .9 F drop stat. It means nothing in this debate. NOTHING.
Global Warming is a longer process than that. Factors such as el nino and other naturally cycling effects similar to that cause small scale (Time-wise) changes. Two years is small scale.

A thousand years is small scale.

[Hittanryan]

The fact is that Global Warming is being pushed by the same people who shut down businesses that provide jobs, they tear down dams that provide energy and water, amoung other things.

But, here's this http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sc ... lacier/714 that should prove to be an interesting read.

Enjoy. I gotta run.

The fact is that there is a general consensus among the scientific community that humanity is contributing to climate change. There is debate as to how much, but it is happening.

It is also a fact that you either don't know the facts, or are intentionally choosing to ignore them.

[Hamelburg]

whether or not coal makes a net loss in the economy, meh...what I do agree on is we need a new source of energy. The problem with many alternatives are the initial cost is to high, OR the average daily KWH output is not high. Solar for example is to high in intital cost and if not done on a large scale, provides not alot of KWH.

sources: http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02 ... and-solar/

They made the comment that becoming more environmentally friendly would damage the economy. I showed them how they were wrong.

It might hurt the economy to make the switch to different energy sources at first, but then it would probably be less expensive later on, esp. with solar power. The problem in the US is that the economy is not exactly great, to say the least, and can't afford to borrow more money for much longer.

[Mavorpen]

It might hurt the economy to make the switch to different energy sources at first, but then it would probably be less expensive later on, esp. with solar power. The problem in the US is that the economy is not exactly great, to say the least, and can't afford to borrow more money for much longer.

I'm confused. Are you saying that because the U.S. is broke, it should just keep fucking up the environment?

[Mallorea and Riva]

It might hurt the economy to make the switch to different energy sources at first, but then it would probably be less expensive later on, esp. with solar power. The problem in the US is that the economy is not exactly great, to say the least, and can't afford to borrow more money for much longer.

I'm confused. Are you saying that because the U.S. is broke, it should just keep fucking up the environment?

It seems that he is saying that the financial investment necessary for a switch to greener forms of energy would put significant strain upon the already stressed economy of the United States.

[Hamelburg]

I'm confused. Are you saying that because the U.S. is broke, it should just keep fucking up the environment?

It seems that he is saying that the financial investment necessary for a switch to greener forms of energy would put significant strain upon the already stressed economy of the United States.

^this.

I'm all for cutting back on pollution, but we should try to fix the economy first.

[Grave_n_idle]

Possibly, but why stop trying?

I guess I don't have a good answer to that question.

I was always taught that in an "oh my god, we're going to crash, burn, and die horrible fiery deaths" situation, you keep trying until the aforementioned event actually occurs.

So, in a car that looks like it might crash, you don't apply the brakes or attempt to steer?

[Galloism]

I guess I don't have a good answer to that question.

I was always taught that in an "oh my god, we're going to crash, burn, and die horrible fiery deaths" situation, you keep trying until the aforementioned event actually occurs.

So, in a car that looks like it might crash, you don't apply the brakes or attempt to steer?

Of course I do.

I suggest you read the post again, and the one I quoted for reference.

[Mavorpen]

I'm confused. Are you saying that because the U.S. is broke, it should just keep fucking up the environment?

It seems that he is saying that the financial investment necessary for a switch to greener forms of energy would put significant strain upon the already stressed economy of the United States.

I have to disagree to a point here... Switching to green energy isn't really that difficult. America actually is one of the leading countries when it comes to alternative energy. The problem is that while it's doing okay with wind energy and such, it's wasteful and consuming way too much fossil fuels, which almost cancels out the alternative energy gains.

Also, solar and wind power are making such progress that they aren't that expensive at all. This year (wow it feels good to finally say this) in 2012, Solar, the largest manufacturer of thin solar panels aims to make products that will generate electricity in sunny countries as cheaply as large power stations.

And finally, it's all about the priorities. Why do Americans say, "We can't afford this VERY beneficial thing, so let's not do it" when it wastes money on stuff like defense (which is more than most, if not all the EU combined).

[Hamelburg]

It seems that he is saying that the financial investment necessary for a switch to greener forms of energy would put significant strain upon the already stressed economy of the United States.

I have to disagree to a point here... Switching to green energy isn't really that difficult. America actually is one of the leading countries when it comes to alternative energy. The problem is that while it's doing okay with wind energy and such, it's wasteful and consuming way too much fossil fuels, which almost cancels out the alternative energy gains.

Also, solar and wind power are making such progress that they aren't that expensive at all. This year (wow it feels good to finally say this) in 2012, Solar, the largest manufacturer of thin solar panels aims to make products that will generate electricity in sunny countries as cheaply as large power stations.

And finally, it's all about the priorities. Why do Americans say, "We can't afford this VERY beneficial thing, so let's not do it" when it wastes money on stuff like defense (which is more than most, if not all the EU combined).

I think the US uses its funds stupidly. It's because of this that they can't afford to switch.

It's not an excuse. It's pretty irritating, really, but the US government doesn't know what it's doing.

[Mavorpen]

It seems that he is saying that the financial investment necessary for a switch to greener forms of energy would put significant strain upon the already stressed economy of the United States.

^this.

I'm all for cutting back on pollution, but we should try to fix the economy first.

And having a better green economy will help both in the short term, but also in the long term. Even if you do get rid of your debt and fix the whole deficit thing, if all the countries are years ahead of you when it comes to green technology, America will be a joke.

[Galloism]

I have to disagree to a point here... Switching to green energy isn't really that difficult. America actually is one of the leading countries when it comes to alternative energy. The problem is that while it's doing okay with wind energy and such, it's wasteful and consuming way too much fossil fuels, which almost cancels out the alternative energy gains.

Also, solar and wind power are making such progress that they aren't that expensive at all. This year (wow it feels good to finally say this) in 2012, Solar, the largest manufacturer of thin solar panels aims to make products that will generate electricity in sunny countries as cheaply as large power stations.

And finally, it's all about the priorities. Why do Americans say, "We can't afford this VERY beneficial thing, so let's not do it" when it wastes money on stuff like defense (which is more than most, if not all the EU combined).

I think the US uses its funds stupidly. It's because of this that they can't afford to switch.

It's not an excuse. It's pretty irritating, really, but the US government doesn't know what it's doing.

On the contrary, it (and by "it", I mean the movers and shakers in the government) know precisely what the hell it's doing. It's consolidating power.

It just doesn't care about the rest.

[Hamelburg]

I think the US uses its funds stupidly. It's because of this that they can't afford to switch.

It's not an excuse. It's pretty irritating, really, but the US government doesn't know what it's doing.

On the contrary, it (and by "it", I mean the movers and shakers in the government) know precisely what the hell it's doing. It's consolidating power.

It just doesn't care about the rest.

I meant it doesn't know what it's doing in regards to fixing its internal problems, like the debt crisis, economic downturn and environmental problems.. Which I'd say, yes, they don't care about.

[Hamelburg]

^this.

I'm all for cutting back on pollution, but we should try to fix the economy first.

And having a better green economy will help both in the short term, but also in the long term. Even if you do get rid of your debt and fix the whole deficit thing, if all the countries are years ahead of you when it comes to green technology, America will be a joke.

And if they don't fix the debt problem, they won't be able to afford the changes in their internal energy-consumption policies. The country is ruining itself, not just based on the environmental perspective.

[Mavorpen]

On the contrary, it (and by "it", I mean the movers and shakers in the government) know precisely what the hell it's doing. It's consolidating power.

It just doesn't care about the rest.

I meant it doesn't know what it's doing in regards to fixing its internal problems, like the debt crisis, economic downturn and environmental problems.. Which I'd say, yes, they don't care about.

Because everything they do has this goal of trying to stabilize the economy only to let it go and get fucked up again. America's government is very strange. It calls every reform, "SOCIALISM!" and whine and complain that the government's trying to take control. Really though, when the government tries to intervene, it has the goal of doing so just to bail out their failure of a Capitalist system. It's not working, and either they know this but won't admit it, or they're complete idiots (hence pizza=vegetable).

[Mavorpen]

And having a better green economy will help both in the short term, but also in the long term. Even if you do get rid of your debt and fix the whole deficit thing, if all the countries are years ahead of you when it comes to green technology, America will be a joke.

And if they don't fix the debt problem, they won't be able to afford the changes in their internal energy-consumption policies. The country is ruining itself, not just based on the environmental perspective.

One side proposes spending cuts, the other side says "Okay, how about in defense?" The other side says, "NO! Somewhere else!" Then they end up cutting something like education (which already sucks anyway). Then one side proposes raising taxes for the rich. The other side says, "FUCK THAT!" So, what are you left with? Your debt is an issue, yes but you're government is retarded.

[Hamelburg]

And if they don't fix the debt problem, they won't be able to afford the changes in their internal energy-consumption policies. The country is ruining itself, not just based on the environmental perspective.

One side proposes spending cuts, the other side says "Okay, how about in defense?" The other side says, "NO! Somewhere else!" Then they end up cutting something like education (which already sucks anyway). Then one side proposes raising taxes for the rich. The other side says, "FUCK THAT!" So, what are you left with? Your debt is an issue, yes but you're government is retarded.

yup, pretty much. I don't know the whole solution for solving the problem, but cutting education spending is probably not it....