I have already provided an answer for them, written down in case I am not there to deliver it in person.
“it is bloody cold outside.”
- Status
“it is bloody cold outside.”
R
ringil
Guest
The Right will prevent any meaningful change on this issue leaving the mess to our children and grandchildren.
At that point they will say one of two things as their invincible argument.
It’s really fairly hopeless- unless the Legislature gains such a strong majority of the sane that the deniers and those in the pocket of big oil can’t prevent it. With states like TX, OK, LA, SC, and others it’s not going to change. Sad really.
At that point they will say one of two things as their invincible argument.
- The Earth goes through cycles- look at history.
or - The damage is done and there is nothing we can do about it now anyway so. . … .
It’s really fairly hopeless- unless the Legislature gains such a strong majority of the sane that the deniers and those in the pocket of big oil can’t prevent it. With states like TX, OK, LA, SC, and others it’s not going to change. Sad really.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The majority of meteorologists either don’t believe in MMGW at all or do believe in it but don’t think it portends any significant harm.
But, as with this debate and every high school debate, there are going to be counters to that “Oh, meteorologists are not sufficiently scientific” “Oh, they’re in the pay of the oil company sponsors of weather shows”, “my expert is better than your expert”, on and on.
The numbers don’t matter, and can be deceptive because the likelihood of your obtaining research funding is pretty slim if you are deemed a “denier”. I recall reading that the oil companies have spent a relatively modest sum on their advertising; largely “we’re environmentalists too” sort of thing. The government alone has spent $100 billion selling global warming in one way or another.
The majority of Americans don’t believe in it anymore. Some will say that’s sad, some will say it’s sensible.
But no matter what, if you look at any of the information “proving” that MMGW exists and how bad MMGW is going to be, it always involves a leap of some kind. Some kind of computer model. Some kind of extrapolation. Increasingly dubious explanations of why climate really is warming even when it manifestly isn’t.
On the other side of the coin, we know the following for sure:
- Billionaire investors have put a lot of money into “alternative energies” (also fossil fuels) that don’t work without transfers of public funds.
- Neither the investors nor the politicians pushing it live as if they believe a word of it. “Remediation” is all for the “little people” to endure, not the ones who will profit.
- Making peoples’ utility bills “skyrocket” as Obama has promised to do in the name of MMGW, is going to cause real human hardship, without fail.
- The rest of the world is not undertaking remediation, and some of those who did are retreating from it. (e.g. Spain, Germany) And so, what we do in the U.S. will not change the outcome.
- Making energy artificially expensive will have negative economic effects.
- It involves very significant money transfers on a global scale, to some of the worst rulers on the planet, which is why the IPCC is so adamant (some would add “deceptive”)about MMGW.
It is a choice in our personal lives. People like Lynnvinc can put a windmill in her yard and drive a Volt (though as a taxpayer I have a problem with paying for the subsidy). I have no problem with that. On the other hand, we have those who would force others to pay more for energy; perhaps beyond their ability to do so, seeming untroubled by the suffering they will cause.
Seems an obvious choice to me.
P
PLeeD
Guest
Do all the warmists here deny that global temperatures have not risen in the last 10 to 15 years?
If you don’t deny it, how can you still believe in the myth of MMGW predicted by the global warming activists? Seems really convenient to say that it doesn’t matter when all the predictions turn out to be wrong. Yet the sky is still said to be falling.
If you don’t deny it, how can you still believe in the myth of MMGW predicted by the global warming activists? Seems really convenient to say that it doesn’t matter when all the predictions turn out to be wrong. Yet the sky is still said to be falling.
E
estesbob
Guest
I believe the UN has told us the lack of warming proves the world is warming-or something like that
F
frobert
Guest
It is not as obvious as You may think. The cost of energy is based on energy return on energy invested EROEI. In the early days of fossil fuel extraction the EROEI ratio was 200 to 1. It has since declined to an average of around 30 to 1. The ratio is dropping more quickly with unconventional oil and gas. As it gets lower our cost will rise. There is also a paradox though, when the price goes up there is backlash with less consumption and the price drops for a period of time. This in turn discourages new development because at the lower price there is no room for profit. As supply drops price then goes up again till there is an equilibrium between supply and. demand. In other words the fantasy of infinite supply in a finite world meets reality.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Yes, I think most of us have seen that “shrinking EROEI” thing before. Nevertheless, gasoline costs about the same as it has since even before WWI, adjusted for inflation.
I don’t think anyone thinks there is an infinite supply of fossil fuels. But they’re still bringing a lot of it online, and more gets discovered. yes, we all know fossil fuels will run out, but does that mean we ought to deliberately go to less efficient sources of energy in the face of that reality before we really need to do it?
That’s the reality behind the MMGW argument. Some think we should pay more for energy than we need to, and MMGW provides a rationale even though the foundational information is often shaky and suspicious and “remediation” measures are ineffective and pointless.
Sometimes one suspects a bit of schadenfreude is involved (except among the rich and powerful, for whom it’s all about money and power). It’s sort of like a “new puritanism” in which its proponents just can’t stand the thought that somebody is having a good time or a relatively comfortable life.
S
stevegravy
Guest
Well somebody was going to let the whole Anthropomorphic Global Warming Climate Change agenda out od the bag
thegatewaypundit.com/2014/01/un-climate-chief-communism-is-best-way-to-fight-global-warming/#!
She is like the gift that keeps on giving
the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/01/16/more-nut-job-balderdash-from-supposedly-responsible-green-leaders/
It is about a power grab to redistribute.
Which is why I prefer to say it is Mann Made Global Warming .
powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/01/is-obama-a-liar-epa-administrator-cant-say.php
T
Tony_Micelli
Guest
Damn! You’ve figured it out! We really thought we would be able to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes and grift your wealth away. Hopefully not everyone is as wise as you, we have other plans too, like having the Pope of Rome rule America and take away everyone’s guns. Even Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was in on this great conspiracy of “man-made global warming”
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m sure such people bristle at the sight of American workers with their cars and cell phones and homes and plasma TVs and changes of colorful clothing. It’s so far from their ideal vision of a gray line of workers trudging on foot through slushy snow from their crackerbox “worker housing” apartments to a fire-belching factory, with their threadbare service caps on and carrying their well-worn paper bag lunches with one piece of crumbly cornbread inside.
What a frustration that must be for them!
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
You do know, don’t you, that there is more than one kind of “manmade climate change”?
Do you know for sure the Pope was talking about Americans in North Dakota heating their homes, or perhaps the ongoing desertification from poor practices that really is causing climate change in some places.
This might be of some interest to some. I tend to be a believer in it, because I have done what he recommends, and it works. But, as a former believer in MMGW caused by fossil fuels, he is now a believer in MMGW caused by terrible land management, including most notably in this country, that of the federal government. ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Faith and Morals.
T
Tony_Micelli
Guest
I agree 100% with you that care of creation and care of our brothers and sisters on this planet are part of faith and morals.
I used to think “liberalism” was the biggest threat to our society, but now, this thing called “conservatism” might be just the flip side of the same coin.
Profit and consumption are core to GOP styled economics.
F
frobert
Guest
You know that the easiest and money saving way to stretch out our finite energy supply is to conserve energy. The US population is small compared to the world population yet we consume approx 20% of the world energy supply and more than twice as much as other developed countries many of which have a better standard of life. Yet while more and more people are conserving there is no national movement to do so. A former v-pres said "our life style is non-negotialable. But in the nature will have the final say. We have already reached many tipping points and many experts now believe it is too late to make much difference.
I wouldn’t count on sustainable energy ever be able to run an industrial world, so while hybreds and the like are expensive toys I am with you they should not be substisized
E
estesbob
Guest
Actually the easiest way to save money is to quit blocking fracking and offshore drilling. we can be energy independent in this country if we do this
How exactly are we defining finite?
I do not believe there has been a limit applied to potential energy production.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
Quicker, easier, cheaper, and cleaner: Go nuclear.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I think that’s a bit of a jump. In my previous post, I cited a short video which, in my mind, would be considered “conservative”. Far from encouraging measures that would reduce the conditions for human life and comfort, he encourages them. In so doing, the land is “conserved”. Most country people are fairly conservative, both politically and in conserving the land and resources.
I think we all have stereotypical notions of what a “liberal” might be and what a “conservative” might be. I suppose they’re useful until they break down and differences are known.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t think of it in that way.
The U.S. consumption of energy as a percentage of world consumption is almost exactly equal to the U.S. production of goods and services as a percentage of world production.
It takes energy to make things and to get things done that need doing. So I don’t know that there’s really any negative judgment that can be derived from U.S. energy consumption. Indeed, the U.S. may be one of the world’s most efficient in the production and use of energy.
Interesting that electricity is cheapest in Finland (mainly due to water resources and a small population), followed by the U.S., Canada and Australia. It goes up pretty sharply from there.
- Status