[tomder55]

But Mother Nature is creating jobs by blowing down homes, pulling up trees, wrecking stores and government buildings, tossing vehicles into the air, flooding civilization and newly-planted farmland.

T'was ever thus

[speechlesstx]

I did not even know this was in the works, but Texas has told the feds what they can do with their light bulb ban.

Texas Tells Feds: Shove Your Light Bulb Ban

Do we make incandescent bulbs in Texas? If not, I reckon there's another job creator for our state. And think of all the light bulb tourism dollars headed our way. Things are looking brighter in Texas.

[excon]

And think of all the light bulb tourism dollars headed our way. Things are looking brighter in Texas.

Hello again, Steve:

So, throwing your trash into the air isn't so bad after all? How did I know that's how you really felt?

excon

[speechlesstx]

So, do you want me to live in the dark, or live with the toxins? Which is it?

[talaniman]

You don't have to do either. The technology is out there to have power, and a clean environment. Its expensive but you get a tax credit for using it. So why don't they?

For the same reason you didn't get a carburetor that allowed you greater range and better efficiency, even though they had that technology too (and still do).

There is a lot of resistance to changes, and the resistance has the money. They always have, Steve.

[speechlesstx]

Since the technology is not in the stores and at a price I can afford, my choices are limited to incandescent, living in the dark, living with the toxins or burning oil lamps. Which would ex prefer for me?

[excon]

my choices are limited to incandescent, living in the dark, living with the toxins or burning oil lamps. Which would ex prefer for me?

Hello again, Steve:

If my impudent teenager asked me that question, I'd tell her to do without makeup.

excon

[talaniman]

Don't worry Steve, you are on the clean end of the process, the finished product. The problem is on the production end of it, where the dirty stuff goes on.

You did know there is NO such thing as clean coal don't you?

[speechlesstx]

If my impudent teenager asked me that question, I'd tell her to do without makeup.

Well there's no need for makeup if you live in the dark. Ok, so how about we do without real meat?

Artificial meat could slice emissions, say scientists

Mm, mm... can't wait to try me some cultured cube steak.

Extra: More climate change news, the world's oceans are in "shocking" decline according to a group called IPSO. The solution?

"We have to bring down CO2 emissions to zero within about 20 years," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg told BBC News.

How are we going to do that?

[paraclete]

I did not even know this was in the works, but Texas has told the feds what they can do with their light bulb ban.

Texas Tells Feds: Shove Your Light Bulb Ban

Do we make incandescent bulbs in Texas? If not, I reckon there's another job creator for our state. And think of all the light bulb tourism dollars headed our way. Things are looking brighter in Texas.

Well it's a good move but they may find incandescent light bulbs become a great deal more expensive. Any bets on a ban on the importation of incandescent light bulbs?

As to ISPO concern about the oceans all I can say is the only way to solve that problem is a mass extinction of humans, let's face it folks, we are in the middle of a MEE, that's mass extinction event

[cdad]

You don't have to do either. The technology is out there to have power, and a clean environment. Its expensive but you get a tax credit for using it. So why don't they??

For the same reason you didn't get a carburetor that allowed you greater range and better efficiency, even though they had that technology too (and still do).

There is a lot of resistance to changes, and the resistance has the money. They always have, Steve.

On the first part we have old technology that works just fine for power generation and its not listed as "green" by the government. Why ? Did you know hydro power isn't a "green" power source? All it has is moving parts and the footprint to make it happen. The building of a damn plus what it takes to make the generating turbines and upkeep. It doesn't use fuel to make electricity. Why are the enviromentalists against it?

As far as a carburetor goes that was replaced by fuel injection only because of the high cost involved in making one to meet the emission standards of the time. You can only run an engine so lean before you lose all benefits so going to direct injection has solved tha part of the puzzle. When is the last time you heard a car in a parking lot diesel ? It takes a carb to do that. Also the standard that the industry is held to rather then a free standing method is holding back many inovations in the auto industry.

[paraclete]

On the first part we have old technology that works just fine for power generation and its not listed as "green" by the government. Why ? Did you know hydro power isn't a "green" power source? All it has is moving parts and the footprint to make it happen. The building of a damn plus what it takes to make the generating turbines and upkeep. It doesn't use fuel to make electricity. Why are the enviromentalists against it?

Dad you know there is no sense in this climate change debate, we have to have new technologies, not technologies that last a hundred years. You could not build enough dams to generate the power anyway and hydro is the system of the local power scheme, no money in it for big generators, who have to fight the environmentalists tooth and nail to build a dam.

. Also the standard that the industry is held to rather then a free standing method is holding back many inovations in the auto industry.

What has been holding back innovation in the auto industry for years is the oil companies, they didn't want the impact of moving away from the internal combustion engine or having to meet emission standards

[speechlesstx]

As to ISPO concern about the oceans all I can say is the only way to solve that problem is a mass extinction of humans, let's face it folks, we are in the middle of a MEE, that's mass extinction event

I can't agree we're in the middle of a mass extinction event, but you're right on the other. The only way to get to zero CO2 emissions is for everyone and everything to stop breathing. Of course all the plants would die so then the final MEE can take place.

Speaking of emissions though, the bad economy is exciting to the left in this sense, emissions are down.

American Economy Quickly Nearing Perfection

[excon]

The only way to get to zero CO2 emissions is for everyone and everything to stop breathing. Of course all the plants would die so then the final MEE can take place.

Hello again, steve:

If you'd just STOP the hysteria for a minute, we could actually SOLVE the problem... But, as long as you frame the choice between one disaster or another, there's NO solution...

That's the problem with science deniers. They THINK they're saying something very profound, but they're not. Nobody, absolutely NOBODY thinks we should get rid of all the CO2. But, I'm sure you'll come up with something equally ridiculous like, should I go dark or throw my trash into the air.

Oh, that's right. We JUST did that one.

excon

[tomder55]

Such hyperbole !We've gone from AGW skeptics to science deniers .lol. Do you not think your own rhetoric equally ridiculous ?

[speechlesstx]

But ex my friend, the scientist said the only solution was zero CO2 emissions. You keep thinking I'm making this stuff up and I'm not. When someone makes an absurd claim such as that I'm going to point out that absurdity, which you call my hysteria. I know he isn't the only scientist to make such a claim.

And on that note, noted Nobel winner and filthy rich, jet-setting environmental activist Al Gore wants to "stabilize the population" by empowering women so there will be fewer of us throwing our trash in the air.

You're the one that's over the top, I'm just being sarcastic. I didn't think you needed the sarcasm font.

[tomder55]

Michael Mann is in the thick of it again . He and a group of scientists did another 'pick and choose' the data studies about the oceans. This time it was convenient for him to choose to account for the Medieval Warming period that he ignored in his hockey stick graph(although this time it was rename the "Medieval Climate Anomaly").

In this case the scientists looked at a single sea fossil(foraminifera... single-celled protists ) from a single region of the Atlantic Ocean to make broad predictions of global sea level rises .
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...WT.mc_ev=click

[speechlesstx]

And they even used radio carbon dating to verify their claims. I'm sorry, I find hard to believe anyone can accurately measure a millimeter of sea level rise, especially from 2000 years ago.

[talaniman]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice all the creeks and rivers are higher than normal, and precautions are losing ground. Where did all that water com from, and how come we can't get some in Texas?

[cdad]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice all the creeks and rivers are higher than normal, and precautions are losing ground. Where did all that water com from, and how come we can't get some in Texas??

Its on its way as we speak. The condition that has had our weather doing screwy things has now ended officially.

La Nina over, ocean conditions return to neutral in the Pacific, forecasters say - The Washington Post