Check out some similar questions!

tomder55 · Jun 11, 2009, 11:37 AM

Simple there are unrelated issues besides the climate that we are thinking of... like human health .

That is why I at least do not object to taking measures to reduce the amt of "trash " as you call it into the air.

However ,I never have ,and never will call CO2 "trash" . Nor do I think that the emission of CO2 is a health concern. Contrary ,I think C02 is an essential component of the atmosphere.Plants and things grow because of it.

When the planet was warm and green there was plenty of it . Then there was climate change and there was less C02 and glaciers grew all the way to where I live in NY . When the glaciers grew the amt of life shrunk and it was misery and a tough existence for the remaining life.

Who's to say that the warming is not the natural state of the planet ? Certainly not these so called scientists who are basing their findings on information that is in such a short time frame of planetary history that their conclusions cannot be based on anything except preconceived ideas .

Why is climate change a concern when change is the constant ? And on what basis besides an agenda is there a conclusion that our emissions are the cause ? None .

So ,yes... put scrubbers on smoke stacks .Convert to clean burning efficient breeder reactor nuclear energy .(you never hear them advocating this sensible solution) . There are good reasons that convince me that makes sense,and there are things that can be done that are not economy destroyers . But don't try to sucker me with chicken little mumbo jumbo disguised as scientific fact to force feed a enviro-marxist agenda down my throat .

speechlesstx · Jun 11, 2009, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by excon

But, this is where I'm confused. Either throwing trash into the air is just fine, or it isn't. If it ISN'T fine, and you're willing to cut back, then it kind of looks like you indeed, accept the premise... Yet, you BOTH continually use the term "questionable" when you speak of it.

I use "questionable" when referring to the 'science' behind the agenda which has most often been used by the media, environmentalists and left-leaning politicians as propaganda. There's no question that clean air is a good thing - regardless of the validity of climate change.

Plus, if you didn't accept the premise, why on earth would you accept ANY change at all, sensible or not?

Answered numerous times already. Who doesn't like clean air, clean water and appreciate not having to pick up the refuse of others from their yard. Who wants to go camping, fishing or hiking and see piles of trash left behind? On the other hand, who wants the feds controlling your thermostat or being forced to drive an unsafe tin-box of a car with holes for a floorboard for our Flintstone feet to get 'er going? Why are we going to muck up the landscape with thousands of wind generators (except near Hyannisport) but not build any nuclear power stations with proven technology?

I'm in the fire suppression business, why hasn't CO2 been banned if it's such a dangerous gas? Why don't we have rules for recycling the gas in extinguishers and beverage cylinders like we do for halogenated agents, some of which have been banned?

When those on the side of climate change decide to have an honest discussion with an open mind I'll listen, but I'm not too keen on having this crap forced down my throat. I thought you were a bit of a rebel, too.

speechlesstx · Jul 8, 2009, 07:48 AM

Yesterday at a forum, The Goracle compared the battle against climate to change to the battle against Nazis.

Al Gore invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill yesterday when he urged political leaders to follow the example of Britain’s wartime leader in the battle against climate change.

The former US Vice-President accused governments around the world of exploiting ignorance about the dangers of global warming to avoid taking difficult decisions.

Speaking in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by The Times, Mr Gore said: “Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation in World War Two. We have everything we need except political will, but political will is a renewable resource.”

Mr Gore admitted that it was difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change was as urgent as that from Hitler.

Also, the Times has scrubbed the article of its reference to Nazis... minus the browser header which still does at this time.

Let's see, Hitler killed 6 million Jews, climate change has killed how many people? And some of you wonder why we rail against this nonsense?

excon · Jul 8, 2009, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Let's see, Hitler killed 6 million Jews, climate change has killed how many people? And some of you wonder why we rail against this nonsense?

Hello Steve:

You DO understand, don't you, that the effects of global warming WILL kill a bunch of people. Could it be 6 million?? It could! The Goracle is the canary in the coal mine. I don't know if we had one of them BEFORE Hitler killed 6 million people, but maybe 6 million people would be alive if we did. And, if we DID have one, I'll bet there would be people like you who made fun of him.

excon

speechlesstx · Jul 8, 2009, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Steve:

You DO understand, don't you, that the effects of global warming WILL kill a bunch of people. Could it be 6 million??? It could! The Goracle is the canary in the coal mine. I dunno if we had one of them BEFORE Hitler killed 6 million people, but maybe 6 million people would be alive if we did. And, if we DID have one, I'll bet there would be people like you who made fun of him.

And Saddam Hussein COULD have had WMD's. I remember all the chiding about arguments on the POTENTIAL threat from Hussein based on questionable intelligence, I think you participated in that chiding did you not? By that example it should be perfectly reasonable to chide the climate change doomsayers for the POTENTIAL threat from climate change based on questionable science in the face of evidence of an 8-year downward trend in global temperatures and a growing number of reputable scientists that are challenging the consensus.

Bush was roundly condemned for fear mongering, ‘lying’ about Iraq, cooking the evidence and otherwise not having an honest discussion prior to beginning the offensive. Gore and the other climate doomsayers have earned this criticism for the same reasons. The double standards on this are ridiculous.

tomder55 · Jul 8, 2009, 08:27 AM

Gore is desperate because he is losing the narrative. The facts are becoming inconvenient truths .
That is why he is shifting his narrative to other things than the science to things almost metaphysical .

The thing even more bizarre from his Oxford speech was not the Nazi reference . It was his foray into human psychology . He said climate change, is "ultimately a problem of consciousness". ..... "What is being tested is the proposition of whether or not the combination of an opposable thumb and a neocortex is a viable construct on this planet".
He said that evolution has taught men to react to real physical threat but did a poor job teaching us to react to abstract threats like civilization killers. But he takes heart in the fact that once the human conscious is at one with the problem the collective will move rapidly to solve the problem..

Weird .

excon · Jul 8, 2009, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Weird .

Hello tom:

Yeah, he's weird. Einstein was weird too. Freud?? Bonkers! Newton?? All screwed up!

Your point?

excon

speechlesstx · Jul 8, 2009, 08:33 AM

LOL, he's starting to sound like Mrs. Kucinich.

speechlesstx · Aug 20, 2009, 08:50 AM

This is why I am skeptical of apocalyptic climate change claims...

The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization's recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was "a mistake."

Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled "Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts," which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.

Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the "Hardtalk" program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.

"I don't think it will be melting by 2030. ... That may have been a mistake," he said.

Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.

The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing "misleading information" and using "exaggeration and alarmism."

Leipold's admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.

Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization's practice of "emotionalizing issues" in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.

Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.

"We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. ... The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model," Leipold said. "If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary."

The arctic ice will be completely melted by 2030... but that may have been a mistake. He doesn't really think it will be melted by then, he can't vouch for the claim and he thinks it's fine to scare the public. I appreciate his honesty...

ETWolverine · Aug 20, 2009, 10:29 AM

Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.

"We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. ... The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model," Leipold said. "If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary."

This really gets to the crux of the issue and reveals the true goals of the environ-mental-cases.

Leipold seems to be stating quite clearly that his goal is THE SUPPRESSION OF ECONOMIC GROWTH.

It is possible to grow an economy without having a deliterious effect on the climate. Cleaner fuels would accomplish that. NUCLEAR POWER would accomplish that. Clean coal burning would do it. Natural gas would do it. We don't need to prevent economic growth to protect the climate. We can grow the economy safely.

But his goal isn't really to prevent climate change. It is to prevent ECONOMIC GROWTH. Climate change is just an excuse.

I think Leipold let a bit of his true agenda slip out accidentally.

Elliot

speechlesstx · Aug 20, 2009, 10:53 AM

Actually El, I think it goes beyond that to "social justice."

"The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model... "

ETWolverine · Aug 20, 2009, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Actually El, I think it goes beyond that to "social justice."

"The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model..."

Good point. It's not as if POOR people don't use energy too, to heat homes, drive cars, etc. But he only seems concerned with the RICH people who use energy. I wonder why that is...

Leipold's basic assumptions SEEM to be:
Rich people are bad.
Industry is bad.
Economic growth is bad.
Poor people, though, should get a pass.

Elliot

speechlesstx · Aug 20, 2009, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Good point. It's not as if POOR people don't use energy too, to heat homes, drive cars, etc. But he only seems concerned with the RICH people who use energy. I wonder why that is...

Leipold's basic assumptions SEEM to be:
Rich people are bad.
Industry is bad.
Economic growth is bad.
Poor people, though, should get a pass.

Elliot

That also works for the health care debate.

ETWolverine · Aug 20, 2009, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

That also works for the health care debate.

Actually, it is a general liberal attitude, and it is one of the basic thought processes that explain their agenda.

Some others are:

Violence never solved anything.
Everything has to be fair, which is to say that everyone has to be the same.
If there were no differences between people, there would be no wars.
If there were no distinctions between good and evil, there would be no wars.
Government are there to solve all your problems and are fundamentally good and benevolent.
All corporations are just out to get you and take advantage of you and must therefore be stopped by the government which is there to solve all your problems.

These concepts are the ones that determine liberal policy. The fact that HISTORY has proven each of these concepts to be fundamentaly wrong or flawed doesn't change the fact that they are the basic concepts of liberalism.

Elliot

speechlesstx · Aug 20, 2009, 12:43 PM

Yep.

speechlesstx · Aug 20, 2009, 01:30 PM

I love it, carbon traders were arrested in the UK for not paying the taxes.

British officials said the people arrested could be part of an organized group that operated a network of companies trading large volumes of the permits. The officials did not name those arrested. The agency said the fraud was carried out by companies in the network that bought the carbon permits outside of Britain without paying Value Added Tax, a levy known as V.A.T.

The companies in the network are suspected of adding the V.A.T. to the price of the permits, which they sold in Britain. The companies then disappeared before paying the tax to British authorities.

Last month, Britain exempted carbon trading from the V.A.T. to curb the possibility of similar cases in the future. France and the Netherlands took similar steps earlier in the summer. Even so, the tax agency said it “still intends to pursue relentlessly those that may have used carbon credit trading to cheat the public purse.”

I also love the solution to the problem, scrap the tax and you won't have any violators. I can see it now, the mob is probably already positioning itself for the new cap and trade market.

ETWolverine · Aug 20, 2009, 01:44 PM

I can see it now... greasy men in long black coats in the streets saying, "Pssst, got some carbon credits for ya... real cheap. Check it out... whadya mean 'where'd I get 'em?' They fell offa da truck."

Elliot

galveston · Aug 20, 2009, 01:51 PM

Heritage Foundation reports that the cap & trade bill requires us to reduce CO2 output by 83% from 2005 levels.

What are the plants going to take in to produce oxygen?

If the population of the world continues to grow (or even remains the same) we are going to need a LOT of plants.

These eco-idiots have a suicide complex, and they want to take US with them!