A victory for "Liberal" science.

[antagon]

i think conservation assumes our wherewithal to sustain ourselves under more perilous conditions than critters like snails and the habitats crucial to them. for this reason, due to our involvement or not, other plants and animals have become extinct while we haven't.

if you don't consider some of these creatures ahead of inconveniences which we can adapt to, they'll die as they have historically. i dont think there's a mutually exclusive relationship between the survival of some snails and the survival of humanity. if there were, maybe you'd have an argument.


edit: oh a snail darter's a fish.

 

[antagon]

How do you expect a country, like Haiti, to pay for "clean" energy when they cannot even afford to pay for the dirty energy we have now?

haiti would be well-served to seek energy independence. the proceeds from such would help them with their poverty and marginal economic participation.

Energy independence? Perhaps they can achieve that by developing their vast natural resources and converting to natural gas. Or they could cover every square inch of land with solar cells and starve to death. Or they could drill geothermal plants along the fault lines.

poor countries can still afford capital projects which could give their economies a leg up in survival. haiti is in their predicament because they've not sufficiently sought to do so. as to starvation, caribbean islands cant sustain themselves from shit grown on their own soil. they'll need to generate an economy which is capable of sustaining the consumption of food imports. haiti learned this the hard way. i think a cash-crop or bio-fuels industry would have more utility for haiti than hoping to grow as much edible produce. history shows that they wont be able to afford the fertilizer for non-commercial produce.

as a larger island, they have wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and biofuels resources by which they could effect the independence im on about.

 

[konradv]

What can be clearly seen down the road? The absolute inevitable climate change that will occur no matter what we do? Just how do you expect us to prevent that? Or the upcoming magnetic shift that is overdue? The next eruption of a super volcano?

You are running around like Chicken Little warning us that the sky is falling, and that we need to buy umbrellas, and ignoring the fact that umbrellas will do nothing to keep us safe.

Hmmm..., now who's saying "the science is settled"!

Science is never settled. History, however, is. History points out that the Earth has gone through a climate change every few thousand years. This includes the medieval warming period, that had higher temps than are projected as a result of AGW, and the little ice age that we are currently leaving. Climate changes.

So what? That doesn't disprove AGW. What projected temps are you talking about, anyway? Sounds like you're cherry-picking your favorite computer model, while at the same time saying climate models are useless for making predictions. The skeptics need to make up their mind about which story they're going to stick with. You can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, like humans putting out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. I've got a projection too. It says the MWP was a blip compared to what's coming. Prove me wrong. You can't negate the value of my computer projection without trashing your own, can you?!?! At least I have logic on my side. CO2 absorbs energy. More CO2, more absorption. More absorption, more heat. QED

 

[antagon]

konrad brings the rehash to another thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

haiti would be well-served to seek energy independence. the proceeds from such would help them with their poverty and marginal economic participation.

Energy independence? Perhaps they can achieve that by developing their vast natural resources and converting to natural gas. Or they could cover every square inch of land with solar cells and starve to death. Or they could drill geothermal plants along the fault lines.

poor countries can still afford capital projects which could give their economies a leg up in survival. haiti is in their predicament because they've not sufficiently sought to do so. as to starvation, caribbean islands cant sustain themselves from shit grown on their own soil. they'll need to generate an economy which is capable of sustaining the consumption of food imports. haiti learned this the hard way. i think a cash-crop or bio-fuels industry would have more utility for haiti than hoping to grow as much edible produce. history shows that they wont be able to afford the fertilizer for non-commercial produce.

as a larger island, they have wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and biofuels resources by which they could effect the independence im on about.

Carri bean countries cannot sustain themselves? How did all those people survive there before modern technology allowed for the rapid transportation of food supplies?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hmmm..., now who's saying "the science is settled"!

Science is never settled. History, however, is. History points out that the Earth has gone through a climate change every few thousand years. This includes the medieval warming period, that had higher temps than are projected as a result of AGW, and the little ice age that we are currently leaving. Climate changes.

So what? That doesn't disprove AGW. What projected temps are you talking about, anyway? Sounds like you're cherry-picking your favorite computer model, while at the same time saying climate models are useless for making predictions. The skeptics need to make up their mind about which story they're going to stick with. You can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, like humans putting out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. I've got a projection too. It says the MWP was a blip compared to what's coming. Prove me wrong. You can't negate the value of my computer projection without trashing your own, can you?!?! At least I have logic on my side. CO2 absorbs energy. More CO2, more absorption. More absorption, more heat. QED

What part of climate change is inevitable do you not understand? We could be hit by a comet and plunged into an ice age. The sun could get hit my a large asteroid, send out an insignificant flare, and burn the Earth to a crisp.

In either case life will survive, and my guess is it will be preserved by humans. I do not have a problem with climate change, I do have a problem with idiots that think we should go back to pre-industrial emission levels to stop it. The problem is not the science, it is the idiots that use the science to promote an agenda.

 

[antagon]

Energy independence? Perhaps they can achieve that by developing their vast natural resources and converting to natural gas. Or they could cover every square inch of land with solar cells and starve to death. Or they could drill geothermal plants along the fault lines.

poor countries can still afford capital projects which could give their economies a leg up in survival. haiti is in their predicament because they've not sufficiently sought to do so. as to starvation, caribbean islands cant sustain themselves from shit grown on their own soil. they'll need to generate an economy which is capable of sustaining the consumption of food imports. haiti learned this the hard way. i think a cash-crop or bio-fuels industry would have more utility for haiti than hoping to grow as much edible produce. history shows that they wont be able to afford the fertilizer for non-commercial produce.

as a larger island, they have wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and biofuels resources by which they could effect the independence im on about.

Carri bean countries cannot sustain themselves? How did all those people survive there before modern technology allowed for the rapid transportation of food supplies?

all which people? the population on the bigger islands was nothing like it is now... not on the smaller islands either.

anyhow, they used ancient technology and slow transportation, but the islands have been about trade by virtue of necessity for a thousand years.

 

[daveman]

Actually, energy is convertible. Energy derived from one source can be used to generate cleaner fuels, like hydrogen, for example. All sources contribute, but only fusion will give us a long-term solution. For more info go to:

ITER - the way to new energy OR

Department of Energy - Fusion

I can't put hydrogen in the tank of my Town & Country.

 

[daveman]

Republican strategy on climate change..

1. Denial: Climate changes all the time. We need more statistical evidence to show that their is, in fact, climate change
Course of action- Do nothing

2. Acceptance: Well, yes, there is in fact climate change. But we need more evidence that man is affecting it
Course of action- Do nothing

3. Surrender: Yes, there is human induced climate change. But the damage is already done and it is too late to do anything about it
Course of action- Do nothing

Liberal strategy on climate change:

1. Give American tax dollars to third-world countries.

2. ?????

3. Unicorns roam the meadows!

 

[glew]

and spread the money out.

Hahahahaha! I'm sure this helps the planet and keeps the polar bears from a sunburn...Environmentalism is the "new" communism and you ignorant chicken littles aren't smart enough to hide that fact...are you? lolololol!

 

[rightwinger]

and spread the money out.

Hahahahaha! I'm sure this helps the planet and keeps the polar bears from a sunburn...Environmentalism is the "new" communism and you ignorant chicken littles aren't smart enough to hide that fact...are you? lolololol!

You tell them

Don't forget to mention that cigarettes don't cause cancer

 

[rightwinger]

Republican strategy on climate change..

1. Denial: Climate changes all the time. We need more statistical evidence to show that their is, in fact, climate change
Course of action- Do nothing

2. Acceptance: Well, yes, there is in fact climate change. But we need more evidence that man is affecting it
Course of action- Do nothing

3. Surrender: Yes, there is human induced climate change. But the damage is already done and it is too late to do anything about it
Course of action- Do nothing

Liberal strategy on climate change:

1. Give American tax dollars to third-world countries.

2. ?????

3. Unicorns roam the meadows!

So what is your scientific opinion Dave........does global warming exist? No big deal? All made up? What do you base it on?

 

[daveman]

Republican strategy on climate change..

1. Denial: Climate changes all the time. We need more statistical evidence to show that their is, in fact, climate change
Course of action- Do nothing

2. Acceptance: Well, yes, there is in fact climate change. But we need more evidence that man is affecting it
Course of action- Do nothing

3. Surrender: Yes, there is human induced climate change. But the damage is already done and it is too late to do anything about it
Course of action- Do nothing

Liberal strategy on climate change:

1. Give American tax dollars to third-world countries.

2. ?????

3. Unicorns roam the meadows!

So what is your scientific opinion Dave........does global warming exist? No big deal? All made up? What do you base it on?

It exists. It is not caused or aggravated by man's activities. There is no optimum temperature. AGW is designed not to "save the planet", but to increase government control over individual lives and take money from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't.

I base it on the AGW promoter's work. They simply do not have the science on their side.

 

[rightwinger]

Liberal strategy on climate change:

1. Give American tax dollars to third-world countries.

2. ?????

3. Unicorns roam the meadows!

So what is your scientific opinion Dave........does global warming exist? No big deal? All made up? What do you base it on?

It exists. It is not caused or aggravated by man's activities. There is no optimum temperature. AGW is designed not to "save the planet", but to increase government control over individual lives and take money from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't.

I base it on the AGW promoter's work. They simply do not have the science on their side.

So your positition then is that there is no damage whatsoever in pumping hydrocarbons into the atmosphere? Ozone depletion has not increased in the last 100 years?

 

[daveman]

So what is your scientific opinion Dave........does global warming exist? No big deal? All made up? What do you base it on?

It exists. It is not caused or aggravated by man's activities. There is no optimum temperature. AGW is designed not to "save the planet", but to increase government control over individual lives and take money from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't.

I base it on the AGW promoter's work. They simply do not have the science on their side.

So your positition then is that there is no damage whatsoever in pumping hydrocarbons into the atmosphere? Ozone depletion has not increased in the last 100 years?

I didn't say that. Pollution has a real, measurable, negative effect...but not on climate.

Yes, yes, I know that a long time ago a guy proved that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the atmosphere is infinitely more complex than a bell jar in a lab, so you all need to stop waving that experiment around. Current computer models, likewise, are simply inadequate...even when you manipulate them to remove the MWP and produce a hockey stick.

 

[rightwinger]

It exists. It is not caused or aggravated by man's activities. There is no optimum temperature. AGW is designed not to "save the planet", but to increase government control over individual lives and take money from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't.

I base it on the AGW promoter's work. They simply do not have the science on their side.

So your positition then is that there is no damage whatsoever in pumping hydrocarbons into the atmosphere? Ozone depletion has not increased in the last 100 years?

I didn't say that. Pollution has a real, measurable, negative effect...but not on climate.

Yes, yes, I know that a long time ago a guy proved that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the atmosphere is infinitely more complex than a bell jar in a lab, so you all need to stop waving that experiment around. Current computer models, likewise, are simply inadequate...even when you manipulate them to remove the MWP and produce a hockey stick.

So if dumping shit into the air is harmful, you would agree that trying to reduce the amount of crap we dump in the air would be good?

Does investing in alternative energy make sense?

 

[glew]

So your positition then is that there is no damage whatsoever in pumping hydrocarbons into the atmosphere? Ozone depletion has not increased in the last 100 years?

Perhaps we should put a giant cork in the volcanoe that shut down europe a few months back...Can you send me a reference to any "man made" event, outside of war, that has shut down travel in the world? Do we pollute? Yes. It is so fractional in the overall scheme of things that thinking we can actually change the climate is arrogant and ignorant. we see a hazy skyline in southern California, and think that the whole world is like that. Or we see a clear cut in the mountains and think every forest is clear cut. When a giant cloud of human pollution stops some part of the world from functioning, then I will be the first in line to cry that the sky is falling

 

[rightwinger]

So your positition then is that there is no damage whatsoever in pumping hydrocarbons into the atmosphere? Ozone depletion has not increased in the last 100 years?

Perhaps we should put a giant cork in the volcanoe that shut down europe a few months back...Can you send me a reference to any "man made" event, outside of war, that has shut down travel in the world? Do we pollute? Yes. It is so fractional in the overall scheme of things that thinking we can actually change the climate is arrogant and ignorant. we see a hazy skyline in southern California, and think that the whole world is like that. Or we see a clear cut in the mountains and think every forest is clear cut. When a giant cloud of human pollution stops some part of the world from functioning, then I will be the first in line to cry that the sky is falling

Interesting point of view. I grew up in the 60s and used to hear the same thing about pollution.

The Ocean is so big, dumping waste in it can't cause any harm
There is so much air....a little car exhaust can't hur it

Read up on Chernoble and Bho Pal if you don't think man can hurt the environment

 

[westwall]

So your positition then is that there is no damage whatsoever in pumping hydrocarbons into the atmosphere? Ozone depletion has not increased in the last 100 years?

I didn't say that. Pollution has a real, measurable, negative effect...but not on climate.

Yes, yes, I know that a long time ago a guy proved that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the atmosphere is infinitely more complex than a bell jar in a lab, so you all need to stop waving that experiment around. Current computer models, likewise, are simply inadequate...even when you manipulate them to remove the MWP and produce a hockey stick.

So if dumping shit into the air is harmful, you would agree that trying to reduce the amount of crap we dump in the air would be good?

Does investing in alternative energy make sense?

Pollution control is allways a good goal. No sane person thinks otherwise. The problem arises when the goal is not pollution mitigation but rather, redistribution of wealth (managed by those in control don't you know, "the savages aren't smart enough to take care of themselves so we have to do it for them") and consolidation of power.

Pollution control however is not a part of the Cap and Trade nor a part of any of the carbon trading schemes being dreamed up around the globe. The scammers running the show wish to charge extra for the priviledge of polluting but there is absolutley no mechanism for the reduction of pollution.

That simple fact should give any true environmentalist pause, yet I have never seen a single greenie on this board ever consider those fundamental problems with the schemes as they exist.

Why is that?

 

[westwall]

So your positition then is that there is no damage whatsoever in pumping hydrocarbons into the atmosphere? Ozone depletion has not increased in the last 100 years?

Perhaps we should put a giant cork in the volcanoe that shut down europe a few months back...Can you send me a reference to any "man made" event, outside of war, that has shut down travel in the world? Do we pollute? Yes. It is so fractional in the overall scheme of things that thinking we can actually change the climate is arrogant and ignorant. we see a hazy skyline in southern California, and think that the whole world is like that. Or we see a clear cut in the mountains and think every forest is clear cut. When a giant cloud of human pollution stops some part of the world from functioning, then I will be the first in line to cry that the sky is falling

Interesting point of view. I grew up in the 60s and used to hear the same thing about pollution.

The Ocean is so big, dumping waste in it can't cause any harm
There is so much air....a little car exhaust can't hur it

Read up on Chernoble and Bho Pal if you don't think man can hurt the environment

No one has ever said that. We know exactly how devestating man can be at the local level, your assertion that man is changing the climate is unsupported by empirical data however.