Australia See's the Light...

[Foxfyre]

Particulate material I agree. That's why they have to have scrubbers to keep it out of the atmosphere now. Poisonous gasses should not be allowed into the atmosphere at all. However, CO2 is not a poisonous gas. In fact it is the fundamental building block of all life on this planet and the more CO2 in the atmosphere the better.

It has been shown to have zero effect on global temperatures. That theory is now toast. But pollution control is always important and necessary. Just make sure you're cleaning up something that IS a pollutant.

CO2 isn't.

When was CO2 shown to have zero effect on global temperatures?

There is as much evidence to show that increases in CO2 followed increases in temperature as there is evidence that rise in temperature followed increases in CO2.

All credible scientists now agree that global warming is in a stalled period and there has been no appreciable warming for about a decade or so now. And yet the CO2 levels have continued to increase. Shouldn't that at least give you pause for thought that if CO2 was capable of significantly heating up the atmosphere, that we would see that in atmospheric temperatures for the last ten years or so?

And that, my friend, is based on that empirical evidence that you seem to believe does not exist. You do know what empirical evidence is don't you? As opposed to speculation based on computer models?

 

[Unkotare]

Canada has also recently backed off some economy-hampering self regulation.

 

[Unkotare]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/w...s-citing-fukushima.html?hpw&rref=science&_r=0

 

[Abraham3]

When was CO2 shown to have zero effect on global temperatures?

There is as much evidence to show that increases in CO2 followed increases in temperature as there is evidence that rise in temperature followed increases in CO2.

That is a gross oversimplification and thus seriously flawed. If global temperatures rise, CO2 will be released from organic, terrestrial and marine sequestration. That has been the case throughout much of the planet's history. Temperatures have risen most often from orbital effects and, to a lesser extent, from solar fluctuations. Those increases have led to the release of CO2 that had been held in solution and bound in carbonates. HOWEVER, this has no bearing on the FACT that CO2 in the atmosphere traps infrared radiation and drives further temperature increases. Shaun Marcott's work on the early Holocene decisively shows that in every case studied, CO2 levels - raised by non-greenhouse heating - came to dominate the warming process after a few hundred years. In all those cases in which CO2 lagged heating, it eventually came to lead; like a small fire that starts a bigger one.

Besides, what is the applicability of these paleo events? At no time since the fires of the KT impact, has the Earth's CO2 levels risen as quickly as they have since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. By several different means it is demonstrable that virtually every molecule of increased CO2 in our atmosphere originated in fossil fuels that we have burned. It was NOT released into the atmosphere by 'third-party' heating.

All credible scientists now agree that global warming is in a stalled period and there has been no appreciable warming for about a decade or so now.

I'm curious why you use the term "credible" there. What is agreed is that atmosphere and surface warming have slowed dramatically. Both are still warming, but at a dramatically reduced rate. However, several different studies have indicated that a temperature-driven change in tropical wind patterns has begun to move thermal energy into the deep ocean. Among those studies is seen the fact that satellites making direct measurements find no change to the Top of Atmosphere (ToA) imbalance (energy-in vs energy-out) that says the Earth is accumulating solar energy. The only thing that has changed is WHERE that energy is being stored.

I've brought these points up here on numerous occasions. Do you know what the response has been from EVERY denier on EVERY occasion? Blithe ignorance. They pretend they didn't hear me. They just carry on talking about the last 15 years as if it is still hard proof that CO2 doesn't REALLY absorb IR.

And yet the CO2 levels have continued to increase. Shouldn't that at least give you pause for thought that if CO2 was capable of significantly heating up the atmosphere, that we would see that in atmospheric temperatures for the last ten years or so?

It certainly gives me pause. It makes me wonder what's happening. It doesn't make me suspect that the greenhouse effect isn't real. Does a cloudy day make you wonder if the sun still exists?

And that, my friend, is based on that empirical evidence that you seem to believe does not exist. You do know what empirical evidence is don't you? As opposed to speculation based on computer models?

Before you get that foot too far down your own gullet, you might want to do some serious thinking as to what hypothesis your empirical evidence actually supports. Because if you actually think it refutes the greenhouse effect, you're not applying enough of those neurons to the task at hand. And I really think you ALL need to get a handle as to how GCMs are built, what they do and how scientists actually use their results. Because the vast bulk of the attacks your side of the argument have been throwing at them indicates some serious shortcomings in all those regards - much of it apparently willful.

 

[Foxfyre]

When was CO2 shown to have zero effect on global temperatures?

There is as much evidence to show that increases in CO2 followed increases in temperature as there is evidence that rise in temperature followed increases in CO2.

That is a gross oversimplification and thus seriously flawed. If global temperatures rise, CO2 will be released from organic, terrestrial and marine sequestration. That has been the case throughout much of the planet's history. Temperatures have risen most often from orbital effects and, to a lesser extent, from solar fluctuations. Those increases have led to the release of CO2 that had been held in solution and bound in carbonates. HOWEVER, this has no bearing on the FACT that CO2 in the atmosphere traps infrared radiation and drives further temperature increases. Shaun Marcott's work on the early Holocene decisively shows that in every case studied, CO2 levels - raised by non-greenhouse heating - came to dominate the warming process after a few hundred years. In all those cases in which CO2 lagged heating, it eventually came to lead; like a small fire that starts a bigger one.

Besides, what is the applicability of these paleo events? At no time since the fires of the KT impact, has the Earth's CO2 levels risen as quickly as they have since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. By several different means it is demonstrable that virtually every molecule of increased CO2 in our atmosphere originated in fossil fuels that we have burned. It was NOT released into the atmosphere by 'third-party' heating.



I'm curious why you use the term "credible" there. What is agreed is that atmosphere and surface warming have slowed dramatically. Both are still warming, but at a dramatically reduced rate. However, several different studies have indicated that a temperature-driven change in tropical wind patterns has begun to move thermal energy into the deep ocean. Among those studies is seen the fact that satellites making direct measurements find no change to the Top of Atmosphere (ToA) imbalance (energy-in vs energy-out) that says the Earth is accumulating solar energy. The only thing that has changed is WHERE that energy is being stored.

I've brought these points up here on numerous occasions. Do you know what the response has been from EVERY denier on EVERY occasion? Blithe ignorance. They pretend they didn't hear me. They just carry on talking about the last 15 years as if it is still hard proof that CO2 doesn't REALLY absorb IR.

And yet the CO2 levels have continued to increase. Shouldn't that at least give you pause for thought that if CO2 was capable of significantly heating up the atmosphere, that we would see that in atmospheric temperatures for the last ten years or so?

It certainly gives me pause. It makes me wonder what's happening. It doesn't make me suspect that the greenhouse effect isn't real. Does a cloudy day make you wonder if the sun still exists?

And that, my friend, is based on that empirical evidence that you seem to believe does not exist. You do know what empirical evidence is don't you? As opposed to speculation based on computer models?

Before you get that foot too far down your own gullet, you might want to do some serious thinking as to what hypothesis your empirical evidence actually supports. Because if you actually think it refutes the greenhouse effect, you're not applying enough of those neurons to the task at hand. And I really think you ALL need to get a handle as to how GCMs are built, what they do and how scientists actually use their results. Because the vast bulk of the attacks your side of the argument have been throwing at them indicates some serious shortcomings in all those regards - much of it apparently willful.

"Credible" to me is that science that cannot be accused of being paid to achieve a certain result. When ONLY scientists who will advance a theory of anthropologial global warming receive the grant monies or will have their work approved by the government or their employers, I believe it is reasonable to question the validity of their studies.

The hypothesis that 'my empirical evidence' supports is that AGW promoted as a religion not to be questioned by anybody for any reason is a really bad way of doing science. And I, for one, do not wish to give up my individual liberties, my choices, my options, and/or my opportunities for what could very well be bogus science. And as an ethical person, I cannot stand by silently while destructive policies needlessly hurt people and could consign whole populations to more generations of crushing poverty, again based on what is likely self-serving and flawed and materialistically motivated conclusions that pass for science related to AGW.

 

[flacaltenn]

FreedomBecki Says:

And as an ethical person, I cannot stand by silently while destructive policies needlessly hurt people and could consign whole populations to more generations of crushing poverty, again based on what is likely self-serving and flawed and materialistically motivated conclusions that pass for science related to AGW.

Especially since it came as a SURPRISE to our current govt leadership, that the MARKET had managed to roll back our USA CO2 emissions to a 30 yr low.. Without the UN, Without a $Trill investment, IN SPITE of opposition to fracking and fossil fuel exploration, and without a Carbon Tax.

It NOW would be HIGHLY unethical to do ANY of those things without looking at less dictatorial means of accomplishing that (ficticious) goal of CO2 reductions.

OR --- we could bomb China.

 

[Foxfyre]

FreedomBecki Says:

And as an ethical person, I cannot stand by silently while destructive policies needlessly hurt people and could consign whole populations to more generations of crushing poverty, again based on what is likely self-serving and flawed and materialistically motivated conclusions that pass for science related to AGW.

Especially since it came as a SURPRISE to our current govt leadership, that the MARKET had managed to roll back our USA CO2 emissions to a 30 yr low.. Without the UN, Without a $Trill investment, IN SPITE of opposition to fracking and fossil fuel exploration, and without a Carbon Tax.

It NOW would be HIGHLY unethical to do ANY of those things without looking at less dictatorial means of accomplishing that (ficticious) goal of CO2 reductions.

OR --- we could bomb China.

Well while I believe Becki could have said something like that, it actually was not Becki but it was me who said it.

And in spite of reducing USA CO2 emissions to a 30-year low, CO2 levels continue to rise while the Earth's temperatures remain stable or have even possibly retreated a bit. Would CO2 levels be significantly higher without those reductions? I dunno. But my gut says there would have been only a minute difference given that human emitted CO2 is such a small fraction of that occurring naturally in the atmosphere.

I will continue to rail against the stupid initiatives like Ethanol that are genuinely hurting people while possibly doing more harm than good and subsidized expensive alternate energy sources except in those cases where they are practical and efficient, and will deplore the government policies that hnder us from maximizing exploitation of our natural resources for the people to use. Humankind has always been able to adapt and innovate as it has become necessary to do so, and by the time we run out of oil and natural gas, the private sector will have already come up with and will be using something else that works as well or better.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Here's a much more likely culprit, if you want to really know how so much "stuff", including CO2, get into our atmosphere. But, hey, there's no money to be made from a volcano.

Look: Dangerous New Eruption at Sumatra's Sinabung Volcano - SKYE on AOL

 

[Abraham3]

"Credible" to me is that science that cannot be accused of being paid to achieve a certain result. When ONLY scientists who will advance a theory of anthropologial global warming receive the grant monies or will have their work approved by the government or their employers, I believe it is reasonable to question the validity of their studies.

The hypothesis that 'my empirical evidence' supports is that AGW promoted as a religion not to be questioned by anybody for any reason is a really bad way of doing science. And I, for one, do not wish to give up my individual liberties, my choices, my options, and/or my opportunities for what could very well be bogus science. And as an ethical person, I cannot stand by silently while destructive policies needlessly hurt people and could consign whole populations to more generations of crushing poverty, again based on what is likely self-serving and flawed and materialistically motivated conclusions that pass for science related to AGW.

Try this as an alternative explanation for your observations (Bill Ockham would approve): The work of climate researchers tend to advance the theory of anthropogenic global warming because it is true. The same is true of research in a thousand other established fields. Organizations, institutions and individuals that want to fund research, want to fund research that will expand our knowledge, that will discover new and useful fact and principles and, in general benefit humanity. Research aimed at refuting AGW simply fails to accomplish any of those goals. By your concluding line, we should reject ALL research not conducted pro bono and at no cost. Funding pays for research, not for results guaranteed in advance.

That surface warming has slowed over the last 15 years provides no support - is not even related in any way - to the paranoid fantasies from which you appear to suffer.

This is the third time (at least) that you have rambled on about losing liberties and freedom to people trying to fight AGW. I have asked you at least twice to explain how and why you believe that to be the case but you have yet to provide a single iota of reasoning or evidence to support your vague charges.

You've added to your panoply; now working to reduce AGW is going to create generations of crushing poverty. How?

 

[Abraham3]

I will continue to rail against the stupid initiatives like Ethanol that are genuinely hurting people while possibly doing more harm than good and subsidized expensive alternate energy sources except in those cases where they are practical and efficient, and will deplore the government policies that hnder us from maximizing exploitation of our natural resources for the people to use. Humankind has always been able to adapt and innovate as it has become necessary to do so, and by the time we run out of oil and natural gas, the private sector will have already come up with and will be using something else that works as well or better.

Uhh....

o Ethanol is a stupid initiative
o Ethanol is genuinely hurting people
o Ethanol is possibly doing more harm than good
o Alternative energy sources are expensive except where they are practical and efficient
o The government should not hinder us from maximizing our exploitation of natural resources (conservation BAD)
o We can use oil and natural gas as fast as we like because SOMETHING will turn up

Wow...

 

[Abraham3]

Here's a much more likely culprit, if you want to really know how so much "stuff", including CO2, get into our atmosphere. But, hey, there's no money to be made from a volcano.

Look: Dangerous New Eruption at Sumatra's Sinabung Volcano - SKYE on AOL

Human emit roughly 135 TIMES as much CO2 as all the world's volcanoes. While humans put out enough CO2 to fill the gas tanks in seven full size SUVS, the world's volcanoes would put out enough to fill one milk jug.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Credible" to me is that science that cannot be accused of being paid to achieve a certain result. When ONLY scientists who will advance a theory of anthropologial global warming receive the grant monies or will have their work approved by the government or their employers, I believe it is reasonable to question the validity of their studies.

The hypothesis that 'my empirical evidence' supports is that AGW promoted as a religion not to be questioned by anybody for any reason is a really bad way of doing science. And I, for one, do not wish to give up my individual liberties, my choices, my options, and/or my opportunities for what could very well be bogus science. And as an ethical person, I cannot stand by silently while destructive policies needlessly hurt people and could consign whole populations to more generations of crushing poverty, again based on what is likely self-serving and flawed and materialistically motivated conclusions that pass for science related to AGW.

Try this as an alternative explanation for your observations (Bill Ockham would approve): The work of climate researchers tend to advance the theory of anthropogenic global warming because it is true. The same is true of research in a thousand other established fields. Organizations, institutions and individuals that want to fund research, want to fund research that will expand our knowledge, that will discover new and useful fact and principles and, in general benefit humanity. Research aimed at refuting AGW simply fails to accomplish any of those goals. By your concluding line, we should reject ALL research not conducted pro bono and at no cost. Funding pays for research, not for results guaranteed in advance.

That surface warming has slowed over the last 15 years provides no support - is not even related in any way - to the paranoid fantasies from which you appear to suffer.

This is the third time (at least) that you have rambled on about losing liberties and freedom to people trying to fight AGW. I have asked you at least twice to explain how and why you believe that to be the case but you have yet to provide a single iota of reasoning or evidence to support your vague charges.

You've added to your panoply; now working to reduce AGW is going to create generations of crushing poverty. How?

Billions of us on Earth have prospered by exploiting natural resources and using them to advance our civilization. There are billions on Earth, however, who still live in third world countries that have not yet started or are just beginning to advance. If the world technology removes the ability for them to expoit their their natural resources to use for their own advancement, they may have no means to advance when they have the incentive to do so.

And I have provided post after post after post after post on numerous threads, many of which you have participated, to illustrate how authoritarian national and world government is using AGW to take more and more control over people with the intention of dictating what they will and will not be allowed to do or how we will be allowed to live. It starts by mandating the type of toilet than can be sold or the type olf lightbulbs that will be allowed to be manufactured to mandatory fuel requirements in vehicles that restricts the kinds of vehicles that manufacturers will be allowed to make or sell or the types of fuel we will be allowed to use.

In the world of renewable fuels, science simply has not provided scientific or empircal evidence that there is sufficient merit in using ethanol or other biofuels or wind energy or solar energy to justify converting millions of acres of land once used for food production to such alternate fuels. That plus the assault on conventional fuels has driven food costs up to levels that many people can no longer easily affod such basic staples as potatoes or fresh produce. In my sense of ethics, that is not only wrong, but it is cruel.

And all this without science being able to show any empirical evidence that any of it was ever necessary or any empircal evidence that any of it has had enough benefit for the government to dictate our choices.

And as paranoid fantasies go, I am not the one who is pushing an AGW religion that simply is not standing up either under competent scientific analysis or empirical evidence.

Nor am I the one who is personally insulting and defensive when my opinions and conclusions are challenged.

 

[Abraham3]

Billions of us on Earth have prospered by exploiting natural resources and using them to advance our civilization. There are billions on Earth, however, who still live in third world countries that have not yet started or are just beginning to advance. If the world technology removes the ability for them to expoit their their natural resources to use for their own advancement, they may have no means to advance when they have the incentive to do so.

"If the world technology removes the ability for them to exploit their natural resources"? WTF are you talking about?

And I have provided post after post after post after post on numerous threads, many of which you have participated, to illustrate how authoritarian national and world government is using AGW to take more and more control over people with the intention of dictating what they will and will not be allowed to do or how we will be allowed to live.

Then you will have no problem providing a PermaLink link to one or more of them.

It starts by mandating the type of toilet than can be sold or the type olf lightbulbs that will be allowed to be manufactured to mandatory fuel requirements in vehicles that restricts the kinds of vehicles that manufacturers will be allowed to make or sell or the types of fuel we will be allowed to use.

Please show me where the Constitution guarantees you your choice of toilet, lightbulb or fuel. Alternatively, show me where the Constitution tells the government they cannot restrain your choice of toilet, lightbulb or fuel.

In the world of renewable fuels, science simply has not provided scientific or empircal evidence that there is sufficient merit in using ethanol or other biofuels or wind energy or solar energy to justify converting millions of acres of land once used for food production to such alternate fuels.

There is no such thing as a renewable fuel. Your phrase "scientific or empirical evidence" indicates you don't know the definition of either term. I am not a huge fan of ethanol fuel and whether or not it is a net benefit has absolutely NOTHING to do with the validity of AGW.

That plus the assault on conventional fuels has driven food costs up to levels that many people can no longer easily affod such basic staples as potatoes or fresh produce. In my sense of ethics, that is not only wrong, but it is cruel.

What assault on conventional fuels? The cost of gasoline has almost NOTHING to do with any effort to reduce its use and almost EVERYTHING to do with its dwindling supply worldwide. I agree that the increased cost of transportation has increased the cost of goods that must be transported, like fresh food.

And all this without science being able to show any empirical evidence that any of it was ever necessary or any empircal evidence that any of it has had enough benefit for the government to dictate our choices.

The world's scientists have shown clearly and thoroughly that we are being harmed by GHG emissions and that we need to reduce them. The government has not dictated choices to anyone regarding power technologies. They have assigned regulatory fees in an attempt to make such fees reflect the actual cost to the taxpayer of their employment.

If the entire world's energy production facilities could be shifted to non-carbon emitting technologies overnight, we would do so and the benefits of having done so would be obvious. But since reality and the laws of nature require us to actually build the plants the old-fashioned way, it will take some time before a significant benefit is seen. I know you are not actually suggesting that because they didn't cure the problem overnight, they shouldn't be used. Your smarter than that.

And as paranoid fantasies go, I am not the one who is pushing an AGW religion that simply is not standing up either under competent scientific analysis or empirical evidence.

AGW is not a religion. I have no religion. I bet you do, but I won't get into that. AGW is supported by enough evidence to have garnered acceptance by 97% of all active climate scientists. I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced by anything you've told me that I should reject the opinions of thousands of actively researching, PhD climate scientists. And you REALLY ought to look up the word "empirical" and think about whether or not "empirical evidence" and "scientific evidence" are two distinct and complimentary things.

Nor am I the one who is personally insulting and defensive when my opinions and conclusions are challenged.

You have accused me and millions of other people of backing anti-AGW measures only because we're some sort of jack-booted Nazi control freaks looking to oppress the world's poor and get rich selling LED light bulbs. You have accused us of wanton cruelty, assaulting conventional fossil fuels despite its effect on the cost of fresh produce. And you have accused me of being either sufficiently ignorant or amoral to back costly action - creating generations of crushing poverty - based on a theory you claim I know to be invalid.

I would suggest you read your own posts before you try to claim the high ground.

 

[Foxfyre]

Billions of us on Earth have prospered by exploiting natural resources and using them to advance our civilization. There are billions on Earth, however, who still live in third world countries that have not yet started or are just beginning to advance. If the world technology removes the ability for them to expoit their their natural resources to use for their own advancement, they may have no means to advance when they have the incentive to do so.

"If the world technology removes the ability for them to exploit their natural resources"? WTF are you talking about?

And I have provided post after post after post after post on numerous threads, many of which you have participated, to illustrate how authoritarian national and world government is using AGW to take more and more control over people with the intention of dictating what they will and will not be allowed to do or how we will be allowed to live.

Then you will have no problem providing a PermaLink link to one or more of them.



Please show me where the Constitution guarantees you your choice of toilet, lightbulb or fuel. Alternatively, show me where the Constitution tells the government they cannot restrain your choice of toilet, lightbulb or fuel.



There is no such thing as a renewable fuel. Your phrase "scientific or empirical evidence" indicates you don't know the definition of either term. I am not a huge fan of ethanol fuel and whether or not it is a net benefit has absolutely NOTHING to do with the validity of AGW.



What assault on conventional fuels? The cost of gasoline has almost NOTHING to do with any effort to reduce its use and almost EVERYTHING to do with its dwindling supply worldwide. I agree that the increased cost of transportation has increased the cost of goods that must be transported, like fresh food.



The world's scientists have shown clearly and thoroughly that we are being harmed by GHG emissions and that we need to reduce them. The government has not dictated choices to anyone regarding power technologies. They have assigned regulatory fees in an attempt to make such fees reflect the actual cost to the taxpayer of their employment.

If the entire world's energy production facilities could be shifted to non-carbon emitting technologies overnight, we would do so and the benefits of having done so would be obvious. But since reality and the laws of nature require us to actually build the plants the old-fashioned way, it will take some time before a significant benefit is seen. I know you are not actually suggesting that because they didn't cure the problem overnight, they shouldn't be used. Your smarter than that.

And as paranoid fantasies go, I am not the one who is pushing an AGW religion that simply is not standing up either under competent scientific analysis or empirical evidence.

AGW is not a religion. I have no religion. I bet you do, but I won't get into that. AGW is supported by enough evidence to have garnered acceptance by 97% of all active climate scientists. I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced by anything you've told me that I should reject the opinions of thousands of actively researching, PhD climate scientists. And you REALLY ought to look up the word "empirical" and think about whether or not "empirical evidence" and "scientific evidence" are two distinct and complimentary things.

Nor am I the one who is personally insulting and defensive when my opinions and conclusions are challenged.

You have accused me and millions of other people of backing anti-AGW measures only because we're some sort of jack-booted Nazi control freaks looking to oppress the world's poor and get rich selling LED light bulbs. You have accused us of wanton cruelty, assaulting conventional fossil fuels despite its effect on the cost of fresh produce. And you have accused me of being either sufficiently ignorant or amoral to back costly action - creating generations of crushing poverty - based on a theory you claim I know to be invalid.

I would suggest you read your own posts before you try to claim the high ground.

I have accused you of nothing. You accuse yourself. But read what you wrote here and elsewhere on this thread. Can you say you have not been personally insulting at times in this thread? And your post here is about as defensive as it gets.

I don't take your statement that you wish to be fact as personally insulting unless you make a personal insult. Nor do I intend to personally insult you when I state my opinion about global warming. Most especially when I am answering your direct question put to me as honestly as I can.

You see a true scientist is not threatened or defensive or insulted by an opposing opinion. Nor are those who are interested in getting it right rather than settling for fooling somebody or getting them to fall for a lot of bull. So those who want the truth welcome give and take and solid arguments.

Those who are almost desperate for there to be global warming never seem to welcome those opposing arguments though. In fact they reject them quite harshly. A pity.

 

[ScienceRocks]

When this prime minsters builds a dozen nuclear plants = seen the light

 

[flacaltenn]

I will continue to rail against the stupid initiatives like Ethanol that are genuinely hurting people while possibly doing more harm than good and subsidized expensive alternate energy sources except in those cases where they are practical and efficient, and will deplore the government policies that hnder us from maximizing exploitation of our natural resources for the people to use. Humankind has always been able to adapt and innovate as it has become necessary to do so, and by the time we run out of oil and natural gas, the private sector will have already come up with and will be using something else that works as well or better.

Uhh....

o Ethanol is a stupid initiative
o Ethanol is genuinely hurting people
o Ethanol is possibly doing more harm than good
o Alternative energy sources are expensive except where they are practical and efficient
o The government should not hinder us from maximizing our exploitation of natural resources (conservation BAD)
o We can use oil and natural gas as fast as we like because SOMETHING will turn up

Wow...

Eco-whacks tend to screw up like this a lot.. It's not an isolated example of bitchin and moaning for something and then AFTER THEY WARNED OF CONSEQUENCES, and the damage is done -- they admit it was not a great idea..

See Large HydroElectric for instance. Or the MTBE mandate. Or Biomass conversion in Great Britain. Guaranteed, that list of mea culpas is gonna grow quickly in the next decade. CFL bulbs are soon gonna make the list.

Alternatives to oil and nat gas HAVE turned up.. It's just that govt funding of OTHER approaches has hinder the progress.

 

[Papageorgio]

Here's a much more likely culprit, if you want to really know how so much "stuff", including CO2, get into our atmosphere. But, hey, there's no money to be made from a volcano.

Look: Dangerous New Eruption at Sumatra's Sinabung Volcano - SKYE on AOL

Human emit roughly 135 TIMES as much CO2 as all the world's volcanoes. While humans put out enough CO2 to fill the gas tanks in seven full size SUVS, the world's volcanoes would put out enough to fill one milk jug.

Got a link for that?

Hmmmmm........

 

[Papageorgio]

I heard that this prime minster hates boat people too.

Looks like someone that would post on stormfront!

Noomi, is racist against Indians. Maybe she could use stormfront.

 

[Abraham3]

Here's a much more likely culprit, if you want to really know how so much "stuff", including CO2, get into our atmosphere. But, hey, there's no money to be made from a volcano.

Look: Dangerous New Eruption at Sumatra's Sinabung Volcano - SKYE on AOL

Human emit roughly 135 TIMES as much CO2 as all the world's volcanoes. While humans put out enough CO2 to fill the gas tanks in seven full size SUVS, the world's volcanoes would put out enough to fill one milk jug.

Got a link for that?

Hmmmmm........

Several. Try Google

 

[Abraham3]

I will continue to rail against the stupid initiatives like Ethanol that are genuinely hurting people while possibly doing more harm than good and subsidized expensive alternate energy sources except in those cases where they are practical and efficient, and will deplore the government policies that hnder us from maximizing exploitation of our natural resources for the people to use. Humankind has always been able to adapt and innovate as it has become necessary to do so, and by the time we run out of oil and natural gas, the private sector will have already come up with and will be using something else that works as well or better.

Uhh....

o Ethanol is a stupid initiative
o Ethanol is genuinely hurting people
o Ethanol is possibly doing more harm than good
o Alternative energy sources are expensive except where they are practical and efficient
o The government should not hinder us from maximizing our exploitation of natural resources (conservation BAD)
o We can use oil and natural gas as fast as we like because SOMETHING will turn up

Wow...

Eco-whacks tend to screw up like this a lot.. It's not an isolated example of bitchin and moaning for something and then AFTER THEY WARNED OF CONSEQUENCES, and the damage is done -- they admit it was not a great idea..

See Large HydroElectric for instance. Or the MTBE mandate. Or Biomass conversion in Great Britain. Guaranteed, that list of mea culpas is gonna grow quickly in the next decade. CFL bulbs are soon gonna make the list.

Alternatives to oil and nat gas HAVE turned up.. It's just that govt funding of OTHER approaches has hinder the progress.

WTF are YOU talking about? The bulleted points all came from Foxfyre's post. I was pointing out the incredible density of contradictions she had reached.