I agree with Global Warming SCIENCE, but not Global Warmign POLICY, they are not same

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by SiliconMagician, Aug 24, 2011.

  1. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is really not much more to be said, the environmental left are the modern Luddites who are intentionally crippling the economy of Western Civilization right at the time when we need every ounce of comparative advantage we can muster. We are intentionally handing the economic power of the planet over to the Asians and for what? A secular Earth Religion? Why does environmentalism have to be anti-capitalist?

    Want "science"? Well there is absolutely NO scientific indicator that crippling the Western industrial economy with Luddite policies is going to make a (*)(*)(*)(*) bit a difference in the atmosphere, but it will sure make a (*)(*)(*)(*) bit of difference when it comes comparative advantage and competition with the Asian Hive Mind.

    Global Warming Luddite Policies are one of the primary vehicles of Western Decline.
     
  2. kmisho

    kmisho New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,259
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How do you expect people to tkae you seriously when you liken the Chinese to the Borg?
     
  3. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Chinese are a monolithic society. There is no dissent allowed, if you dissent you are imprisoned, possibly shot and your organs sold on the organ black market.

    Sounds exactly like something the borg would do IMO. You know, "defective units" and all that. But none of that has to do with the OP. You don't have to take me seriously, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
     
  4. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,593
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I totally agree. And, when I hear the scientists extolling the virtues of smoking Chesterfields on Old Time Radio, I believe them, too.

    I believe the climate has been warming. I'll go out on a limb and say that's why the glaciers that covered much of what is now the U.S. disappeared over 20,000 years ago.

    The "science" isn't science when the alleged scientists don't follow the scientific process. Sharing data, sharing process, seeking peer review are not part of the climate "research". My favorite excuse was one scientist who refused to release his data because opponents would use it to discredit his findings. That's enough for me to consider his findings discredited.

    And, computer modeling. I love computer modeling. Ever play "Sim City"? That's computer modeling. With computer models, the results depend totally on how the "researcher" chooses to program the computer.

    Yes, the planet is getting warmer. The "research" is designed to support the plan of higher taxes and massive international income redistribution.

    It's bogus.
     
  5. Small_government_caligula

    Small_government_caligula Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lol don't worry, even if you are correct I don't think anyone's made that mistake.
     
  6. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Says the guy with 212 posts as if he's a veteran with his hand on the pulse of the PF community!
     
  7. ModerateG

    ModerateG New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,054
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I kind of agree. I think Climate Change exists. I do not think it's as fast as people claim. I'm open to less restrictions (within reasonable limits... LA shouldn't become smog town again).

    That said, what if we're wrong and 100 years from now the sky is always brown? :p

    I say leave it up to the scientists to decided what measures must be taken to preserve our world and not the stupid obviously bought ones. Maybe it's completely necessary to have the restrictions. Sometimes the right thing isn't the cheapest thing or easiest thing. Money isn't everything.
     
  8. Small_government_caligula

    Small_government_caligula Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Listen. I think you're smart, and I agree with alot of your views. However, your painful habit of posting the same (*)(*)(*)(*)ing thing every day and your smug bastard nature just ruins whatever otherwise insightful things you might say. Sorry but that's the truth. I don't need to spend all my time on here and have 100000+ posts to know what poop smells like.
     
  9. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Most climate change policies are about limiting our oil consumption. Which I am all about. For too long we have allowed hostile dictatorships to have control over oil prices and thus have control over our economy. The 70s was an entire lost decade of economic growth due to Opec literally staging an economic attack on us. And it'll happen again, I guarantee it. The sooner we get off foreign oil the better our nation will be.

    As for climate change. It's happening. It's man made. And there is little we can do to stop it at this point. What's done is done.
     
  10. ModerateG

    ModerateG New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,054
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wish the west coast would start oil drilling. We have a lot of oil off the shore but everyone here is so against it. With the proper safety and responsibility it's fully possible to do this correctly.
     
  11. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I think wind and solar are more promising in the west. Especially in the desert regions.
     
  12. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We don't burn oil for electricity. Why are you trying to conflate renewable electricity with the petroleum we need to run our vehicles??
     
  13. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Because of the rise of electric vehicles. They will replace petrol vehicles in my life time. I guarantee it.
     
  14. tehduder

    tehduder New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I find your position a little bit too far to the right for my tastes, but I am a semi-skeptic in the way that Bjorn Lomborg is. I believe climate change is real, but the role humans have in it is highly debatable and if we are, it's not like we're bad people and are failing mother Earth, it's that we naturally have an increasing population (more demand) and a need for more resources (supply.) We're not going to escape climate change, but it is reasonable for us to wean off petroleum over the next couple of decades since it'll help the US economy advance and will get us out of some dilemmas we're in when it comes to foreign policy, along with coal for electricity. Environmentalists refuse to do cost-benefit analysis and often base their worldviews on romantic thinking (believing that people and nature are inherently good, and all the problems are the fault of business and society), which is why it's not worth it to court them. We have to think of environmental policy on an economic rather than activist level. The Kyoto Protocol is a worthless excuse to satiate bureaucrats, as for every dollar you spend on it, you get a quarter back in benefit compared to over 10 dollars in benefit for every dollar spent, say, fighting HIV in Africa...Cap and Trade, on the other hand, I would support as long as it has a lower rate.

    The first step is investing a couple hundred billion into new MSR-reactor thorium Nuclear plants which have a vastly reduced risk of any harmful meltdowns, via a mixture of investment and incentives from government and private sector efforts. This will help wean off us off of Coal which is more volatile than oil, and emissions from coal plants have been directly linked to various cancers and asthma. New nuclear technologies also would improve electric cars since we wouldn't need massive amounts of coal to power them (although I believe electric is worthless as an alternative.)

    For alternative fuels, our best bets are hydrogen fuel cells (for the equivalent of the amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline, you could get as much as 70 mpg equivalent) and natural gas (btw, it's possible to frack without the consequences we've seen, and even then, we've get 2552 tcf of natural gas so it's the best bet we have as a natural alternative). However, with the way our government and business interests are, we probably won't see any real advancements till we experience another 73ish crisis.
     
  15. Daybreaker

    Daybreaker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    17,158
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What about technological solutions to global warming? Or cultural?
     
  16. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A New Mexico biology teacher and coach has elaborated on one of the most practical opening gambits to combat climate change that I have ever read.

     
  17. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This one sure looks good to me:


    http://saharaforestproject.com
     
  18. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A cultural partial solution was elaborated on by Geoff Lawton regarding how burning the stocks from last years crop is a terrible idea especially in dry areas of the world such as Jordan.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzTHjlueqFI
    Greening the Desert with Geoff Lawton, Original and Update: 1 of 4
     
  19. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I devote a significant portion of my free time to environmental charities and nonprofits. None of them are generalized "climate change" nonprofits. Average reasonable people can tell when they are being sold a bill of political goods, and the climate change religion hasn't changed in decades. Last night they had "The China Syndrome" on Turner, in which evil corporatists conceal a massive nuclear accident with murder, etc. That movie had alot to do with the completely irrational condemnation of nuclear energy when it came out, and the BS continues from leftyland.

    Any rational climate change argument contains several necessary planks 1. Is the climate changing in ways other than naturally? 2. Did man cause it? 3. Can we change it? 4. Would the costs of changing it be reasonable in light of any captured benefit? This is simple stuff. Yet that's not what we get from the left, rather a bunch of half-assed poorly reasoned -religious- arguments based on emotionalism and skipping necessary causality. I would listen otherwise, as it is? No, it's just another leftist political talking point towards political power.
     
  20. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sanskrit…. what do you think of the idea of combining turning deserts green with the promotion of a proposed peace deal between Jordan and Israel?


    http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...saving-new-orleans-florida-rising-oceans.html
    The Sahara Forest Project...and saving New Orleans and Florida from rising oceans!

    …..http://saharaforestproject.com/projects/jordan.html
     
  21. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What I read about the Stanley Meyer hydrogen fuel vehicle was encouraging as well.

    http://www.theorionproject.org/en/hydroxy.html
     
  22. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As outspoken as I am on here, am pretty much ignorant on Jordanian/Israeli relations or that kind of terraforming, lol, so no opinion. I'm much more concerned about clean water and conservation of our water supply and freshwater ecology/food chain in the US.
     

Share This Page