[paraclete]

She could have been mistaken for an iceberg as she starred at Trump at the UN. A child shall lead them is becoming a reality in the climate debate because the time for talking is over. Either way, whether you believe as I do, that climate change is a natural process, or you believe in AGW and man's ability to limit the damage, the time for talking is over. It is ridiculous that world leaders have to be challenged by a child, it is ridiculous that school children have to be incited to hold rallies because of assine ideas that profit should come before people, or that one nation controls the debate or the action. The problem will not go away, it needs clear ideas on how to mitigate the effects and this might mean starting mass migration and resettlement away from coastal areas now.

To be practical, China and India are not going to stop using coal, Japan is not going to stop using coal. Brazil is not going to stop burning the amazon. The only way to stop this is to destroy these economies which isn't going to happen. But the elephant in the room isn't Trump, it is "population" there are too many people thus there is pollution and there is consumption. The fact that there are too many people is why the US and Europe have an immigration problem. So instead of CO2 emissions control we need birth control

[InfoJunkie4Life]

Population control is slippery slope. If there is anything used to justify it, then it devalues the human life. For the sake of mother Earth or the sake of our national sovereignty we must kill x, y, z people.

The Earth is more than capable of handling 11 billion people in terms of food supply, more without waste and who knows what kinds of technology will multiply that capacity in the future.

In terms of space, the whole population of the world can fit inside and of Texas, and we're good at building up.

As far as pollution, there will be technology that changes energy sources, that captures carbon, that mediates flooding, etc. People tend to invent out of necessity.

On top of all this, it seems to be wise to beware of doomsday seers. Throughout history they've always had an agenda.

Personally I'm not convinced of the catastrophy, for decades they've told us that in 10 years we're going to be drowning and such. I've yet to see where they're predictions have come to fruition in any vector.

[jlisenbe]

. Either way, whether you believe as I do, that climate change is a natural process, or you believe in AGW and man's ability to limit the damage, the time for talking is over.

I'm not following you on this one. You say that you believe climate change to be a natural process. I suppose that would indicate that any contribution by man is pretty much incidental, but then you say that we should be moving aggressively to do something about it such as controlling the population of the earth. But if CC is a natural occurrence, then why should we worry about population growth and its effect on carbon emissions? If you don't believe in man's ability to limit the damage, then why are you suggesting we take steps to limit the damage? I mean if climate change is purely natural, as you say it is, then the only reason that the time for talking is over would be because there is nothing to talk about. We would not be able to stop CC anymore than we could stop an erupting volcano or an earthquake.

[paraclete]

I'm not following you on this one. You say that you believe climate change to be a natural process. I suppose that would indicate that any contribution by man is pretty much incidental, but then you say that we should be moving aggressively to do something about it such as controlling the population of the earth. But if CC is a natural occurrence, then why should we worry about population growth and its effect on carbon emissions? If you don't believe in man's ability to limit the damage, then why are you suggesting we take steps to limit the damage? I mean if climate change is purely natural, as you say it is, then the only reason that the time for talking is over would be because there is nothing to talk about. We would not be able to stop CC anymore than we could stop an erupting volcano or an earthquake.

There is more pollution than CO2, plastics are trashing the oceans, getting into the food chain and this is solely because of the amount of it and that is down to population. Climate change has been happening for thousands of years, it is what has allowed our population to grow, but at the same time, that population is a serious problem because of its demand for resources. Recognise that sea level rise is real and move populations before the planet kills them, then do something real about limiting population.

You are right, we cannot stop climate change and it is utter foolishness, hysteria, to think we can. If there is a tipping point then we are already well beyond it, but anything we do is little compared to the forces that are in play, our activities may actually be slowing down the possibility of an ice age so that a few generations may enjoy the climate we have, however there is a cost

[talaniman]

Just curious Clete about what your ideas about controlling populations are? The China experiment doesn't work very well, and nobody is leading the charge to change human climate behavior, as it seems they rather have lights, cars and cable at a rising cost rather than a consensus global plan, be it a natural process, or a man made one obviously it must be addressed. On that we agree, but HOW would you go about population control. if indeed it's your solution?

[jlisenbe]

nobody is leading the charge to change human climate behavior, as it seems they rather have lights, cars and cable at a rising cost rather than a consensus global plan, be it a natural process, or a man made one obviously it must be addressed.

So you believe that going to a non carbon-based electrical grid is going to lower the costs of electricity and cable?

[talaniman]

Carbon based power has been subsidized for decades or else nobody could afford to use it, and the biproduct of that is filthy air and water and land quality. At some point you have to seriously do better and doing nothing should not be an option. Subsidize clean energy like you do coal.

[jlisenbe]

Carbon based power has been subsidized for decades or else nobody could afford to use it, and the biproduct of that is filthy air and water and land quality.

Filthy air and water? Poor land quality? Not in Mississippi, and not in practically all of the United States.

At some point you have to seriously do better and doing nothing should not be an option. Subsidize clean energy like you do coal.

"Green" sources of electricity are fantastically expensive. I hope you realize that subsidies don't come from money grown on trees. It comes from taxpayers, or even worse, borrowed money.

[Vacuum7]

Talaniman: The solution is to GO NUCLEAR! It makes tons of sense! If the French can do it right, why can't the United States? Why will we allow a Hollywood movie and a few screwups by the Soviets and Japanese eclipse us from going forward with Nuclear Power? We can do it safely. Have an uncle and two cousins in Nuclear Engineering....they been in it a long time and know its safe....like anything else, you have to be conscious of what you are dealing with at all times: Respect the power!

Wind Farms are for those who dream, they are not practical and never will be: You have to keep power plants geared up and online while the wind mills are going because we can ensure that the wind will continue to blow all the time.

Paraclete is correct about the plastic problem: Its a PROBLEM! Go PAPER, as much as possible....Paper is a renewable resource with many valuable byproducts and the Paper Industry is Power-Self-Sufficient: They can make their own power as a by-product of their processes.....The Pulp & Paper Industry is TRULY A GREEN INDUSTRY.

Paraclete is also correct about Climate Change: The climate is changing, all the time! And it isn't about to stop changing.....and we have little influence on the climate....its like a piss-ant peeing on a forest fire: Our contributions to climate changes are inconsequential.

[jlisenbe]

Paraclete is correct about the plastic problem: Its a PROBLEM! Go PAPER, as much as possible....Paper is a renewable resource with many valuable byproducts and the Paper Industry is Power-Self-Sufficient: They can make their own power as a by-product of their processes.....The Pulp & Paper Industry is TRULY A GREEN INDUSTRY.

There is no way to replace all, and most likely even most plastic products with paper.

[paraclete]

There is no way to replace all, and most likely even most plastic products with paper.

Paper manufacturing is a highly polluting industry, any processing of timber is an issue, you can get touchy, feely about "renewables" but they have their own set of issues, we have to get sensible about packaging. For example; what I think is ridiculous is that products coming out of China are all packaged in plastic and cardboard but China refuses to take this back for reprocessing. We should regulate that all packaging can be returned to the country of origin, a legitimate cost of doing business

[Vacuum7]

jlisenbe: No, not all, but as much as possible......And certainly, you don't want to replace SOME paper products with plastic (flush!)! I can say the straws could go away as could plastic bags.....and there are many more.

Paraclete: New, modern Pulp and Paper Mills are an Engineering marvel! They are nearly self-contained units and, here in the states, at least, their effluents are highly monitored and tracked.....they aren't like they used to be and they used to be awful, not any more.

[Athos]

Can someone explain to me why the political right denies man-influenced climate change and the political left believes in it? Why should it be partisan?

[jlisenbe]

Can someone explain to me why the political right denies man-influenced climate change and the political left believes in it? Why should it be partisan?

Good question. I'll take a stab at it. It seems that the question of climate change has become, as you suggested, polarized. You can either believe that carbon pollution is going to destroy civilization in the next ten years or you can discard the whole theory as junk. There seems to be no middle ground. Those of us, like me, who do not entirely accept the theory point to cases of orchestrated deception that have taken place, airheads like Al Gore and AOC who lead the movement, and consistently inaccurate computer models as our justification.

But perhaps the biggest hindrances for many of us are the draconian "Alice in Wonderland" solutions being proposed that are sure to be fabulously expensive (refer to the Green New Deal), the fact that it will result in considerably higher costs for electricity, and the likelihood that it will do very little to reverse climate change unless these are done world-wide for several decades. Good luck with that. Maybe if we could come together in a reasoned manner and begin to look at realistic measures to cut carbon emissions, it might prove useful.

[Vacuum7]

Athos: My shot at explaining the positions of the left and Right on the Global Warming Hysteria Phenomena: It is quite simple, actually: It comes down to a "World View" between left and Right with the left seeking to install a "One World Government" and do away with nations and nationalism by tearing down borders and imposing "World Law", effectively the old Bolshevik outlook, and the Right taking a position that is diametrically opposed to that vision in every way.

Global Warming Religion has its roots in the goal of destroying Western Civilization. The left chooses to attach Western Civilization at every opportunity while the Right chooses to preserve Western Civilization at every opportunity. You can bet that if you take the position of preserving Western Civilization, you will be demonized by the left...hence the left's demonization of Caucasians (White Guilt mantra) and the idea that Western achievements were only realized because of the exploitation of the East and underdeveloped nations/3rd World nations as a whole. Every leader or nation that has tried to preserve the ideals and cultures of Western Civilization have been attacked and demonized: The winners write the histories. The whole Global Warming pseudo science is simply a religion, at this point: G.W. is a scheme designed by multinational industrialist and Globalist to siphon/move jobs from the West to the East and effectively enhance profit margins. It is a fact that all Western nations have suffered greatly in the throes of enduring the G.W. hysteria mandates on emissions, carbon footprints (what a crock of sh&$) and the like...and, the U.S. has suffered the most of any nation (look at the job losses!)....By contrast, the East (ChiComs, especially, and many other Asian nations) have made fabulous economic gains during this time period with millions upon millions of jobs being exported from the West to the East, not to mention the exporting of technologies: The West has become the Research Company for the ChiComs. One almost wants to say that the ChiComs were behind all of this but they didn't need to considering they had the Globalist/New World Order bunch doing the job for them.

The carnage upon Western economies has been severe since the inception of the G.W. hysteria....and the mind pollution has gone several layers deep, getting down into youngsters even at the Elementary Schools level. Several of the G.W. scientist have been caught manipulating the data to "fit" their narratives....that shows you the ideological bent and fervor this G.W. religion has on its "believers"....and it also discredits the pseudo science itself. The Global Warming Hysteria is a "Selling Tool" in the tool bag of those wanting to line their pocket with gold off the backs of the available "slave labor" in undeveloped countries and they don't give one damn about the repercussions that these move have upon the developed countries.

[talaniman]

Rant on wingers, the progressives already know we will have to grab you by the ankles and drag your scarey arses into the future kicking and screaming your conspiracy theories. I think venting those fears is good therapy, but why is everything left or right with no middle?

[jlisenbe]

Rant on wingers, the progressives already know we will have to grab you by the ankles and drag your scarey arses into the future kicking and screaming your conspiracy theories. I think venting those fears is good therapy, but why is everything left or right with no middle?

Many words. Much name-calling. No facts.

[talaniman]

What good are facts when you're mind is made up and you wouldn't accept a fact from anyone you think is a leftie in the first place? Fact is you lump stuff into one big basket and criticize rather than answer the simple question of why is everything left or right and no middle? The post by Vac7 was nothing but a rant with no facts just feelings. Like much of your own postings are.

Rather paranoid to be fair, as decades of mixed up history are hardly facts. Heck, they aren't even accurate.

[jlisenbe]

What good are facts when you're mind is made up and you wouldn't accept a fact from anyone you think is a leftie in the first place? Fact is you lump stuff into one big basket and criticize rather than answer the simple question of why is everything left or right and no middle? The post by Vac7 was nothing but a rant with no facts just feelings. Like much of your own postings are.

Rather paranoid to be fair, as decades of mixed up history are hardly facts. Heck, they aren't even accurate.Rather paranoid to be fair, as decades of mixed up history are hardly facts. Heck, they aren't even accurate.

More words. Still no facts.

When you find a post of mind which is "a rant with no facts just feelings", you make sure and let me know.

[talaniman]

Sorry, don't have the time or inclination to argue, but my above post was in reference to the rant by Vac7. When you post crazy stuff rest aassured I will let you know like I always do.