The Unmentionable

Dungheap said:
That's asinine. AGW isn't controversial.



Maybe there are reasons you can come up with why right-wing denialists would support cleaner sources of energy, most of which require appeals to their personal self-interest, but that doesn't make them more compelling than to avoid global human suffering on a massive scale.
Click to expand...

AGW is incredibly controversial.

If you believe in AGW, what is your plan to avoid global human suffering on a massive scale? A 10% reduction in emissions on automobiles?
 
Dungheap said:
But it really isn't.

Tax carbon and heavily subsidize cleaner energy sources.
Click to expand...

It may not be controversial at the local coffee shop with like-minded folks, but Capitol Hill?

Okay, so we tax carbon & heavily subsidize cleaner energy sources. You think that will stop global warming? Really? I assume you realize that there are natural triggers for CO2, and that even if we stopped cold turkey on carbon emissions (and I'd like you to take a moment to try to imagine that), we wouldn't see any appreciable difference for over a century?
 
Thing1 said:
It may not be controversial at the local coffee shop with like-minded folks, but Capitol Hill?
Click to expand...

Evolution is controversial on Capitol Hill. That doesn't mean it's controversial in the real world.


Thing1 said:
Okay, so we tax carbon & heavily subsidize cleaner energy sources. You think that will stop global warming? Really? I assume you realize that there are natural triggers for CO2, and that even if we stopped cold turkey on carbon emissions (and I'd like you to take a moment to try to imagine that), we wouldn't see any appreciable difference for over a century?
Click to expand...

Um, I'm not seeing any compelling response to my suggestion here.
 
Dungheap said:
Evolution is controversial on Capitol Hill. That doesn't mean it's controversial in the real world.


Um, I'm not seeing any compelling response to my suggestion here.
Click to expand...

Capitol Hill is where it matters.

As for my response, I'll translate: none of what you suggested will make one iota of difference as far as "global warming."
 
Dungheap said:
So I guess evolution is controversial, then. That's news to me.

Interesting perspective.
Click to expand...

Well, you really ought to do some reading, then. Even conservative estimates say that greenhouse emissions would stay in the atmosphere and continue to affect the environment at least a century, possibly several centuries. A recent Washington University study put it at over 1 thousand years. And that's if the entire planet (not just the U.S.) went cold turkey on emissions today. Cold turkey - like, none at all.

So, keep fantasizing that any half-measures you suggest will have any appreciable difference whatsoever. I'm 100% behind transitioning to renewables, but 100% against the false promises that many make in support of that.
 
Thing1 said:
Well, you really ought to do some reading, then. Even conservative estimates say that greenhouse emissions would stay in the atmosphere and continue to affect the environment at least a century, possibly several centuries. A recent Washington University study put it at over 1 thousand years. And that's if the entire planet (not just the U.S.) went cold turkey on emissions today. Cold turkey - like, none at all.

So, keep fantasizing that any half-measures you suggest will have any appreciable difference whatsoever. I'm 100% behind transitioning to renewables, but 100% against the false promises that many make in support of that.
Click to expand...


You seem to be having a lot of fun arguing with yourself.
 
Steelplate said:
Yep...it's just that we might not be part of the equation in a little while.
Click to expand...

Which is nonsense. We have been on this planet for a thousands of years, in periods both colder and warmer than what we are seeing today (and warmer than what the dire projections state). We are far more advanced than our ancient ancestors and are much more capable of adapting. I am not suggesting we go around polluting and not caring, but the nonsense about CO2 rising causing great calamity has to stop. The fear mongering from those on the left with a political agenda must stop.
 
Bfgrn said:
No the freak is saying that right wing turds decided to have a tantrum, because the truth in stark terms makes them shiver in fear. All we need to do is make it sound nicer and not so scary.
Click to expand...

LOL... which side is the one throwing tantrums? It is most certainly not the right... it is the left. It is the left that uses fear mongering to try and further their agenda. It is the left that ignores the actual data and the fact that the computer models (you know... the entire base for your argument) have blown up time and again and been shown to be wrong.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're problem is that you're a scientific neophyte who not only doesn't know how to objectively evaluate data with out letting your own biases color your conclusions but you don't even know how to model an observation objectively. You just cherry pick data that suits you're own point of view.
Click to expand...

The above is nothing but nonsense. Analysis of data is what I do for a living. It is your side that is completely biased and unwilling to accept the fact that your precious consensus was built on computer models that have failed to work over the past 15 years. The dire consequences predicted by the computer models with a rise in CO2 is not occurring. Which is why the actual scientists are questioning the consensus they believed in while fear mongering morons like yourself stomp your feet and scream 'no no no, we are right!!! fuck the data!!! we are right!!!'
 
Thing1 said:
I think the left should bail on the AGW argument in general. It has become too ideological & too polarizing, and too easy to dismiss.

There are more compelling, tangible & immediate reasons for accelerating the transition to domestic & renewable resources. National security is at the top of that list, but it would also be hugely beneficial economically.
Click to expand...

This...

well stated
 
Global warming ( now called climate because things get real cold) is the religion of the progressive left. it is a faith for progressives because it blames all climate change on capitalism and it calls for population control because people are destroying the planet meaning the less people there are, the less damage will be done to the environment.

It is a religion and it is based on progressive faith, their Bible of sorts and it is protected once again within political correctness by calling all those including scientists who dispute it as ignorant and anti intellectual.
 
philly rabbit said:
Global warming ( now called climate because things get real cold) is the religion of the progressive left. it is a faith for progressives because it blames all climate change on capitalism and it calls for population control because people are destroying the planet meaning the less people there are, the less damage will be done to the environment.

It is a religion and it is based on progressive faith, their Bible of sorts and it is protected once again within political correctness by calling all those including scientists who dispute it as ignorant and anti intellectual.
Click to expand...

You mean the tiny fraction of scientists? I remember seeing Kerry on the senate floor a few years back saying that there were then no peer reviewed studies to disprove AGCC - I'm not sure if this is still true, but the number of studies, much less peer reviewed studies, to go against it is very small.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I hear you. I can live with out the hyperbole and the hypocrisy too but that doesn't have anything to do with the science.
Click to expand...
Just as gpa's don't mean shit in a football discussion.
If you fly thousands of miles a year you are polluting way more than most, same with houses over 2,200 sq ft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top