Conservatives Beginning to Recognize Global Warming

[1549]

I notice you artfully ignored the issue brought up it my post 28, as you know it provides us conservatives with a slam-dunk answer to your global warming paranoia. Why don't you simply admit your true agenda? Then we can have an interesting conversation about that, instead of this made-up issue.

I don't really give a shit about nuclear power. It is clean, efficient, and if all of the proper measures are taken, it is safe. There have been a lot of questions about our ability to protect nuclear power plants, and insiders have said that they are not managed as well as they should be. If we are going to convert the entire nation to nuclear energy, we have to be certain that these potential hazards are addressed. Nuclear power is not great for surrounding eco-systems (the return water is warmer than it ought to be), a solution for that would be nice.

Right now we get 20% of our power from nuclear power, I would have no problem raising that. Nuclear plants provide 80% of France's power, and they have not had any serious problems (though we would obviously need more plants than France).

 

[Dr Grump]

Why don't you simply admit your true agenda?

Which is what?

 

[Nuc]

What a joke. Conservatives never DENIED global warming. We just don't buy off the bullshit, tree-hugger theories that's all because of something WE are doing instead of just a natural, cyclical change in the Earth's temperature.

Are you actually saying that the massive pollution visited upon this planet by mankind in the last century has no effect on the environment? What's conservative about that attitude? That's not conservative it's radical. Pollution is causing a lot of problems in the world today, global warming is only one of them.

Furthermore even if we grant your theory, is there any harm in reducing emissions? Looking for other sources of energy?

C'mon, common sense says that mankind is having a massive effect on the environment. Just look around you.

 

[Gunny]

Are you actually saying that the massive pollution visited upon this planet by mankind in the last century has no effect on the environment?

Not at all.

What's conservative about that attitude? That's not conservative it's radical. Pollution is causing a lot of problems in the world today, global warming is only one of them.

I will give you any proven case of the effects of pollution the environment. That it has caused global warming is speculation.

Furthermore even if we grant your theory, is there any harm in reducing emissions? Looking for other sources of energy?

No problem at all. Matter of fact, we should already have a thirty year head start on alternative forms of energy just as soon as we went through our first energy crisis. But we don't.

C'mon, common sense says that mankind is having a massive effect on the environment. Just look around you.

It appears that you have taken my skepticism concerning an unproven theory and relegated me to the environmentally irresponsible file. I happen to believe pretty strongly in environmental responsibility.

But I don't believe in overreacting to sensationalism. Take drilling in the ANWR. A couple of ten inch pipes are going to destroy the ecosystem of the ANWR HOW exactly? The sensationalizing overreactors would have us believe every living thing will die and all the ice will melt over some oil wells.

Likewise global warming. Had we gone out on 9/1/2 and just began indiscriminately killing all Muslims would that have addressed the issue of 9/11 and those who perpetrated it? Of course not.

Yet the proponents of global warming would have us run out and blindly react when they don't even know for a fact what the cause of it is.

 

[Stephanie]

Nothing we do here in the United States, will ever be enough for the sky is falling group....Sheesh

And maybe the blame should be laid at the feet of the countries who are actually doing Nothing.....There are plenty of them.. But yet it is always The United States FAULT..... I'm just damned tired of being blamed for all the ill's of the world, so they can soak us for more money.....Screw it...:talk2:

 

[Nuc]

Gunny, I respect your opinion. But my wife is a top scientist who has held positions at AMNH, Smithsonian and NASA for starters. She and all of her colleagues pretty much accept global warming as a fact. I'll have to go along with them on this one.

If you're wrong and global warming is the result of human influence we are in big trouble if we don't act against it.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny, I respect your opinion. But my wife is a top scientist who has held positions at AMNH, Smithsonian and NASA for starters. She and all of her colleagues pretty much accept global warming as a fact. I'll have to go along with them on this one.

If you're wrong and global warming is the result of human influence we are in big trouble if we don't act against it.

Again you are missing my point. I have never said global warming is not happening. That was the point in my original statement. You're seeing only in black or white.

My stance is not that global warming is not happening, it's that no one has yet proven what EXACTLY is causing it. I don't propose implementing steps and/or laws to stop something until the cause is known.

And you can site those scientists if you want. I bet if you do a search, you can find as many different unsubstantiated by actual fact opinions as you can those willing to post them.

 

[1549]

Nothing we do here in the United States, will ever be enough for the sky is falling group....Sheesh

And maybe the blame should be laid at the feet of the countries who are actually doing Nothing.....There are plenty of them.. But yet it is always The United States FAULT..... I'm just damned tired of being blamed for all the ill's of the world, so they can soak us for more money.....Screw it...:talk2:

Perhaps we should take the initiative...

The U.S. took action on holes in the o-zone layer and environmental cooling caused by sulfur. Our diligent efforts payed off and both problems began to improve.

Now we should see what we can do about CO2...as nuc has said, even if global warming turns out to be a flawed theory, there is no problem with cutting back pollution (as it causes countless other problems).

 

[Gunny]

Perhaps we should start the initiative...

That's crap and you know it. How many things do we already tie our hands over while the rest of the world is laughing at us?

Pollution would be one.

It's a separate topic until otherwise proven, and to attempt to address them as one and the same isn't exactly honest.

 

[1549]

That's crap and you know it. How many things do we already tie our hands over while the rest of the world is laughing at us?

I edited the post and added some of my reasoning.

We are not the only country that believes in global warming. Much of the world agrees. I do not see how cutting back on fossil fuel emissions would cause the rest of the world to laugh.

 

[Gunny]

I edited the post and added some of my reasoning.

We are not the only country that believes in global warming. Much of the world agrees. I do not see how cutting back on fossil fuel emissions would cause the rest of the world to laugh.

Again, you are confusing the issue, and taking the stance that not agreeing that global warming is cause by whatever the cause du jour is is denying it exists.

When definitive and corroboarated evidence is provided as to the cause of global warming, I'm all ears. Until then, going out and "doing something" just for the sake of "doing something" is reactionary crap.

Regardless the initiative and higher standard you want to hold us to, a whole lot fo the world just laughs and goes about dumping their trash in the bay. Ofc ourse you don't see it. You don't want to.

When you come up with a plan of action such as "cutting back on fossil fuel emissions," you better also have a plan that does not include stepping on the rights of everyone else while you're going about it.

But I forget how it is with you liberals ... it's okay to step all over MY rights if it's YOUR cause.

 

[1549]

Again, you are confusing the issue, and taking the stance that not agreeing that global warming is cause by whatever the cause du jour is is denying it exists.

When definitive and corroboarated evidence is provided as to the cause of global warming, I'm all ears. Until then, going out and "doing something" just for the sake of "doing something" is reactionary crap.

Regardless the initiative and higher standard you want to hold us to, a whole lot fo the world just laughs and goes about dumping their trash in the bay. Ofc ourse you don't see it. You don't want to.

When you come up with a plan of action such as "cutting back on fossil fuel emissions," you better also have a plan that does not include stepping on the rights of everyone else while you're going about it.

But I forget how it is with you liberals ... it's okay to step all over MY rights if it's YOUR cause.

I should correct my earlier statement: much of the world agrees that CO2 levels our causing global warming. Thus, environmental protection actions would not be laughed at by the rest of the globe.

It really does not matter if a somebody laughs and throws garbage in a bay. As long as the governments of industrial nations (U.S., China, Japan, India, some European nations) regulate emissions it does not matter who throws a cup in the bay.

 

[Gunny]

I should correct my earlier statement: much of the world agrees that CO2 levels our causing global warming. Thus, environmental protection actions would not be laughed at by the rest of the globe.

It really does not matter if a somebody laughs and throws garbage in a bay. As long as the governments of industrial nations (U.S., China, Japan, India, some European nations) regulate emissions it does not matter who throws a cup in the bay.

1. Who is this "much of the world?" Exempt nations? I don't see "much of the world" that counts lining up to do anything.

And do your homework. Or, just as Nuc. China is one of THE worst environment abusers and they are exempt from pollution control laws since they have a developing nation status. Probably same with most of the "rest of the world" you mention. What do they have to lose?

And you exaggerate the US's individual impact on the environment. Don't know how much of the world you've actually seen, but in reality we have one of the cleanest nations of the two dozen or so I have been to.

I'm not going to hold us to a higher standard when no one else but possibly a few nations that don't matter are going to adhere to it, especially when it puts the US at a disadvantage.

 

[1549]

1. Who is this "much of the world?" Exempt nations? I don't see "much of the world" that counts lining up to do anything.

And do your homework. Or, just as Nuc. China is one of THE worst environment abusers and they are exempt from pollution control laws since they have a developing nation status. Probably same with most of the "rest of the world" you mention. What do they have to lose?

And you exaggerate the US's individual impact on the environment. Don't know how much of the world you've actually seen, but in reality we have one of the cleanest nations of the two dozen or so I have been to.

I'm not going to hold us to a higher standard when no one else but possibly a few nations that don't matter are going to adhere to it, especially when it puts the US at a disadvantage.

Really the only countries that are revelant on this issue are the industrialized nations of the world. They have the biggest impact and can do the most to make a difference. (I should note that the United Nations has begun a series of conferences on the issue...that constitutes "much of the world")

China is THE biggest problem. That is why I said before that they need to regulate their emissions (the rest of the industrial world needs to as well, obviously).

You discount the U.S. greatly. We are pretty much capable of setting the world's agenda.

 

[Gunny]

Really the only countries that are revelant on this issue are the industrialized nations of the world. They have the biggest impact and can do the most to make a difference. (I should note that the United Nations has begun a series of conferences on the issue...that constitutes "much of the world")

China is THE biggest problem. That is why I said before that they need to regulate their emissions (the rest of the industrial world needs to as well, obviously).

You discount the U.S. greatly. We are pretty much capable of setting the world's agenda.

I don't know where YOU have been, but we haven't been able to set the world's agenda since the 80s and France turning the UN against us by purchasing votes with cash over invading Iraq was the final nail in the coffin.

China isn't going to do anything it doesn't want to.

And you have completely ignored my statement concerning the rights of individuals when you start forcing your ideals down eveyone's throats.

You identify a problem; yet, provide only half a solution that completely disregards impact to individuals.

 

[1549]

I don't know where YOU have been, but we haven't been able to set the world's agenda since the 80s and France turning the UN against us by purchasing votes with cash over invading Iraq was the final nail in the coffin.

China isn't going to do anything it doesn't want to.

And you have completely ignored my statement concerning the rights of individuals when you start forcing your ideals down eveyone's throats.

You identify a problem; yet, provide only half a solution that completely disregards impact to individuals.

1. Iraq and the health of our planet are two very different matters. The UN is going to look into possible solutions for the latter. That should tell you something.

2. Perhaps they will want to. I suppose we will see.

3. I am a utilitarian...greater good my friend.

 

[Gunny]

1. Iraq and the health of our planet are two very different matters. The UN is going to look into possible solutions for the latter. That should tell you something.

2. Perhaps they will want to. I suppose we will see.

3. I am a utilitarian...greater good my friend.

That "greater good" crap is about as subjective as it gets; and, quite hypocritical of you lefties who are supposedly the champions of individual rights. You need to make sure you caveat that next time with you believe in individual rights so long as they suit YOUR agenda; otherwise, you don't them for the "greater good."

It is for the greater good that radical Islam is being taken to task. If they destroy the world, your issue becomes moot, eh?

Matter of fact, if would be for the freater good of this nation if the Democrat party would disband. If y'all'd just shut the Hell up, we'd meet our emission control quota and then some.

 

[1549]

That "greater good" crap is about as subjective as it gets; and, quite hypocritical of you lefties who are supposedly the champions of individual rights. You need to make sure you caveat that next time with you believe in individual rights so long as they suit YOUR agenda; otherwise, you don't them for the "greater good."

It is for the greater good that radical Islam is being taken to task. If they destroy the world, your issue becomes moot, eh?

Matter of fact, if would be for the freater good of this nation if the Democrat party would disband. If y'all'd just shut the Hell up, we'd meet our emission control quota and then some.

Now that is what I call a conservative rant. Gunny, I knew you were riled up when you began typing in a dialect.

You can sleep easy though, pretty soon Bush will have all of us liberals sent off to secret prisons. Apparently his lawyers say it is legal.

 

[RyzinEnagy]

There were scientists around 120000 years ago that documented this??!! wow...

The reason they drilled in Greenland is to measure the carbon dioxide content in ice that was deposited ages ago. Since they know the rate at which ice accumulates, and since ice stores carbon dioxide indefinitely, they are able to figure out how much carbon dioxide the atmosphere had in such and such year.

The article (or you), made a fuzzy link between carbon dioxide content and global warming. You have to prove that carbon dioxide is actually causing the Earth to warm (and that doesn't mean pointing out a coincidence between carbon dioxide levels and the fact that the Earth is warming).

Edit: The last paragraph was not meant for you, rather the original poster.

 

[glockmail]

I don't really give a s[...] about nuclear power. It is clean, efficient, and if all of the proper measures are taken, it is safe. There have been a lot of questions about our ability to protect nuclear power plants, and insiders have said that they are not managed as well as they should be. If we are going to convert the entire nation to nuclear energy, we have to be certain that these potential hazards are addressed. Nuclear power is not great for surrounding eco-systems (the return water is warmer than it ought to be), a solution for that would be nice.

Right now we get 20% of our power from nuclear power, I would have no problem raising that. Nuclear plants provide 80% of France's power, and they have not had any serious problems (though we would obviously need more plants than France).

Then you should be advocating nuclear power as a solution to your global warming paranoia. Your friend Algore does not. Neither does any other main stream liberal environmentalist.

I've never seen any question about nuke plant safety that has not been addressed in a slam-dunk fashion. Studies of a 747 crashing into a reactor building has shown that the 5' or so of reinforced concrete may get scratched on the surface, but not much else. It is an easy target to defend. There have been no deaths in the US due to nuke plants- compare that with the simple act of oil drilling, never mind the Middle East conflicts fueled by oil money.

I think that we get about 20% of our electric needs from 103 nukes, or about 10% of our overall energy use. I've figured that we need about 500 more to eliminate oil imports. That's more than france, but the overall nukes/ square mile would be much lower due to our lower population density.

Any time you generate heat to produce electricity you have to provide cooling water, and you heat up the surrounding environment slightly. This is true for oil, coal, biomass, synfuels, biodiesel, corn husks, rat feces, ethanol, bourbon, wood, methane, or anything else that you can burn. Bringing that issue up as an argument against nuclear power is therefore nonsense.