http://news.yahoo.com/robert-redford-sees-last-chance-fix-climate-213826093.html;_ylt=AwrC1TF04JFVFSAA7R_QtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByNXQ0NThjBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM1BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg-- Hilarious....yet again the UN tells us it is our "last chance" to fix the climate, supported by another climate expert, Dr. (lol) Robert Redford. Anyone on this forum or anywhere else that still HONESTLY believes this stuff (after decades of prediction fails) ranks right up there with Alien Abductions and the Gov't experimenting with us via sprays in jet contrails.....
If you can tell me how dumping billions of tons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere every year can be a GOOD thing, I'll stop believing in alien abductions, mmm-kay?
Since many billions of greenhouse gas has been "dumped" into the atmosphere every year since water was on the earths surface, its up to you to prove how this requires everyone in the USA (not the world, just the USA, China and the rest of the world seem to get a pass on "global warming") to return to the stone age.
Fortunately it doesn't. But if you're interested in debating real ideas instead of self-invented strawmen, let me know. I'm betting you'll pass.
Gee, did you read your own sentence? You claimed that dealing with greenhouse gases requires everyone to return to the stone age. Of course, I can see why you have absolutely no interest in defending such a ridiculous proposition. But you made it, I just responded to it.
You responded to it very poorly. Some of the proposed solutions require the US to return to 1990 emission levels, or to cut emissions by 40%, or equally huge reductions. The only way to meet those proposals is to cut energy usage drastically. Since energy usage increases every year, and since energy usage is directly proportional to quality of life, the solution to a apparently mythical problem is to significantly cut US quality of life. Not to the stone age, that was hyperbole, but for people who actually believe catastrophic AGW it was probably too much to expect them to recognize hyperbole.
Thank you Battle, very well phrased, even though some claim your colorful descriptor invalidates your point. No on can dodge an issue like a liberal zealot....
Completely false. That only requires us to cut fossil energy usage. Non-fossil energy can grow without restriction. And in fact, it might even be possible to achieve that without cutting fossil energy usage, if they can ever make CCS work. I'm not optimistic on that one, but it might be possible. False. US primary energy consuption peaked in 2007 at 2371 MTOE. That's seven years with no increase and counting. Again utterly failing to understand the basic point: not all energy is fossil. Only fossil energy needs to be cut. And it is apparently too much to expect the denizens of Denierstan to recognize the difference between fossil fuels and every other kind of energy.
Quality of life is directly related to energy consumption http://pmrl.ce.gatech.edu/papers/Pasten_2012a.pdf Actually energy production has been increasing http://energy.gov/articles/us-energy-production-through-years and here http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...and-gas-u-s-energy-production-is-on-the-rise/ Your argument is not making any progress. Maybe you need to pause to re-evaluate.
Let's see. In my previous post I pointed out the critical difference between fossil energy and non-fossil energy no less than three times. And in response, Battle3 completely ignores that critical difference again. I guess any tactic is acceptable, so long as you never have to admit any error in Deneristan. Even the obvious errors. And you thought nobody would notice the difference between production and consumption, so you'd just try to slip one in there? Nice try. Increasing production doesn't mean we're using more, it just means we're importing less. On the contrary, my argument is making progress with the general public every day. It won't make progress with the denizens of Denierstan, but who cares? Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between fossil energy and other forms is too ignorant to worry about.
Oh, the scientist always brought up by the warmists as proof of AGW, Svante Arrhenius, someone that discovered this early said it would be beneficial making climate more equitable. Warmer in the higher latitudes, better plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. He wasn't the only scientist that claimed this before the great political CAGW scare to give government more power over the economy and your life.
No you didn't. You provided links showing that quality of life is related to energy consumption. You didn't provide a single link showing that quality of life is related to carbon emission. (And that would be pretty hard to do, considering that Sweden, Switzerland, Ontario, and a number of other places have already decarbonized their grids with no ill effects.) In other words, you either didn't read your own links or you didn't understand them. Denier FAIL.
Carbon emission? Wow you sure changed your tune with that one. Maybe you have some magic means of generating a whole lot of energy without generating any carbon? Wind and solar won't do it. Nuclear is hated by the enviro's and the AGW crowd (interesting how the AGW crowd demands we stop using oil and gas and coal but refuse anything that would actually help their problem). Fusion is a pipe dream. Geothermal and hydro, LOL what a joke. Looks like you are back to the original solution - we all go back to the stone age.
No I didn't. You were the one who brought up greenhouse gas emissions, not me. Remember all the way back to -- oh, I think it was yesterday: Wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, biomass. The list is endless. Not alone, but together with other alternatives. False. Nuclear is supported by large numbers of environmentalists, including James Hansen [who warned Congress about global warming in 1988], Stewart Brand (of the Whole Earth Catalog), George Monbiot (enviro columnist for the Guardian), Steven Chu (former energy secretary), Mark Lynas, Carol Browner (former EPA head), James Lovelock, Gwenyth Cravens, and many others. And me. Some entire nations get virtually their entire electric supply from geothermal and hydro. That's no joke. No, we're back to the original solution, which is a dozen ways other than fossil. Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Ontario, and other nations have already decarbonized their grids using alternative energy, and once the grid is decarbonized a lot of fossil-based processes can be electrified and decarbonized. It's entirely possible. All it takes is for naysayers like you to get out of the way and let the rest of us clean up the mess you made.
Geothermal: Iceland. Hydro: Norway, Paraguay, Zambia, Nepal. And France gets 75% from nuclear. Oddly enough, they are not in the stone age.
Stan Meyer created an engine that ran completely on water, to bad he died and his work magically disappeared at the age of 57. He drove from Ohio to Texas on one tank of water.
