antartic ice cap not melting after all

canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
The problem is the manufactured urgency that ALWAYS accompanies the agenda of the Eco-loons. I myself, as well as all of the talking heads that I watch and listen to that argue against the MMGW crowd all embrace the move to green energy. The difference is the time frame and a "sane" approach. All the whining and LYING about the impending disaster doesn't change the fact it's going to take 20+ years and we're going to be completely reliant on fossil fuels, coal, nuclear, etc, to get there. You don't shoot your burro today because you might inherit a draft horse in ten years.
Click to expand...
I disagree - the problem currently is the nay sayers, They don't preach cautioned, reasoned action, they preach "nothing is going to happen so don't worry, we should just drill more ok?". Many scientists are seeing a tipping point in less than a decade where not only climate change but a host of other factors converge. As long as we are reliant on fossil fuels we are screwed in half a dozen ways, we have been talking about getting off of this stuff since carter and we have been told over and over again that nothing is going to happen, get over it.

Furthermore there is the sort who is certain that science will ride in at the last minute and hand us some magic pellets that will make everything all better.. so we can just keep headed toward that cliff. The doomsdayers are over reacting but in the long run they will be right but only if the naysayers continue to hold sway.

"oh yeah, green energy is a good idea, but not now, maybe when we get around to it, manana" The truth is that for many of us, global warming is just an excuse and it is really hubbert that has us worried, the sooner we admit that global warming is an issue the sooner we shuck our need for oil and the sooner we change course from that peak. I figure we are there now.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
This graph jogged my memory. Not too long ago (ten years,, twenty year?) the big hand-wringing worry was that we were about to enter another ice age. Now here we are worrying about having to tread water from the antarctic not melting.

Face it, the climate is not a trivial thing to understand; putting punitive taxes in place to save the planet from something you don't understand in the first place seems to me like an invitation to our overlords to pick our pockets.
Click to expand...


And we get this argumet "science was wrong before so it must be wrong now". or "well we can't really understand it all so nothing we do understand could possibly be right". Now as far as this overloard thing.


Follow the money - all global warming science grants and every solution put forth is worth hundreds of billions.

the status quo? trillions.


on that basis, who would you believe?
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
The naysayers aren't holding back advances in solar technology or in battery technology. Maybe there will be a breakthrough in the near future, maybe it will be in twenty years, taxing our population into the ground and/or limiting our access to current energy sources will not speed up the process. That's a pie in the sky philosophy that will absolutely harm people in reality. We do need to drill, we need to frack and we need to "nuke up". Then when the economy is humming, wealth is flowing and scientific coffers are overflowing, that's when advances will be made.
 
RawBudzski

RawBudzski

Well-Known Member
I don't care about the political agendas in regards to the topic. @ the end of the day, to deny that human beings are altering this planet in some form or another seems sheltered to me.
Remember, $$$ and jobs aside.

I am sure somewhere between the millions of gallons of chemical agents sprayed over the earth, the tons of material being pumped into the atmosphere & the several thousand nuclear bomb tests that have been conducted on this planet.. something has changed.






Only when you put jobs & $$$ in the picture can someone so retarded argue the subject.
 
nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
Canndo I will answer this questions as honestly as I feel I can, I am not trying to argue with you or prove anyone wrong. Just trying to save a lot of banter. MY BEST ANSWER: We are a nation of procrastination, while we know it's possible at this point in time we don't give a shit. We're to busy kicking the shit out of Muslims err terrorist and hemorrhaging money to worry about this right now. But I promise you, when the first 3 year old gets skin cancer, we will then know we can't procrastinate any longer. We will enforce some policies that blame it on the Iranians and then go kick their ass.

Signed,
Uncle Sam
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
All the whining and LYING about the impending disaster doesn't change the fact it's going to take 20+ years and we're going to be completely reliant on fossil fuels, coal, nuclear, etc, to get there.
Click to expand...
i guarantee anti-science tards like yourself were telling the same tale 20 years ago.

now say eco-loons again. or liberal lemmings. you predictable douche.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Here is a question:

How do we get off of fossil fuels? Society will literally collapse without enough energy to sustain the 7 billion people on earth. We can't simply pass a law that outlaws internal combustion engines. "Renewable energy" sources account for only a few percent of total energy needs.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i guarantee anti-science tards like yourself were telling the same tale 20 years ago.

now say eco-loons again. or liberal lemmings. you predictable douche.
Click to expand...

Aww, did somebody miss their nap today?

Fortunately, enough time has passed since this latest environmental crisis was put forth, that the doomsday predictions that are the basis for the "movement" are all starting to be proven false. I've listened to scientists on both sides of the argument and I find the MMGW arguments lacking.

Didn't I just call you predictable yesterday? Get your own material.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Here is a question:

How do we get off of fossil fuels? Society will literally collapse without enough energy to sustain the 7 billion people on earth. We can't simply pass a law that outlaws internal combustion engines. "Renewable energy" sources account for only a few percent of total energy needs.
Click to expand...
The price of oil currently is spurring scientific advances in renewables, even certain members of OPEC (a few of those Prince fellas) are getting concerned that theyre shooting themselves in the foot.

I don't think man causes global warming, I think we contribute to and as a result possibly accelerate global climate changes, but we're a harmless bacteria on this planet, assuming anymore is pure arrogance.

That said, renewables like solar and wind are just common sense when you think about it, so we need to start putting the RD grants into batteries, not into MMGW scare-mongos bullshit schemes. Let's use the giant ready made fusion ball in the sky, seems sensible to me.

Lets accelerate the phasing out of oil, not throw new taxes and levies around the place that serve no purpose.

And if everyone on both sides would stop fighting over it they might get some work done ;)
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
The naysayers aren't holding back advances in solar technology or in battery technology. Maybe there will be a breakthrough in the near future, maybe it will be in twenty years, taxing our population into the ground and/or limiting our access to current energy sources will not speed up the process. That's a pie in the sky philosophy that will absolutely harm people in reality. We do need to drill, we need to frack and we need to "nuke up". Then when the economy is humming, wealth is flowing and scientific coffers are overflowing, that's when advances will be made.
Click to expand...
Wrong, the situational aspects of the fossil fuel industry hampers innovation. There will likely never be a "breakthrough", there wasn't with coal, there wasn't with fossil fuels. Anyone can see that bringing a new source of energy online in a free enterprise is hampered by the volitile price of fuel. I got this new thing, it breaks even when gas is 4.20 a gallon and makes money at higher. Ok, so gas varies from 3.20 to 4.80 and you never know when or for how long, so this innovation will only work some times and so i can't get my infrastructure introduced. Of course I can just wait, but then the economy will take a shock and we will all be in trouble anyway. This waiting for some silver bullet is for people who have watched too many monster movies.

And no, when we drill (which is a joke anyway), frack and nuke up - when our coffers were full, then we will simply depend upon the drilling and fracking - why look elsewhere when everything is humming? Nice dream though - seeing as how we have been "humming" on and off for long periods and are no where.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
the graph is 11 years old and that little green line soars off the chart, we are at the top of the cycle and continuing to rise.
Click to expand...
The graph covers a half million years, 11 years is nothing. Pot grows faster with higher co2 because it evolved at a time when co2 levels were much higher than they are now. You should be more concerned about the next ice age coming, not global warming. Al Gore has made a BILLION dollars in profits off carbon credits, kickbacks from "green" industries, etc. He says he's "putting his money where his mouth is". I say he's putting his mouth where his money is.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
The graph covers a half million years, 11 years is nothing. Pot grows faster with higher co2 because it evolved at a time when co2 levels were much higher than they are now. You should be more concerned about the next ice age coming, not global warming. Al Gore has made a BILLION dollars in profits off carbon credits, kickbacks from "green" industries, etc. He says he's "putting his money where his mouth is". I say he's putting his mouth where his money is.
Click to expand...
nobel prize winning analysis there from the 65 year old virgin!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top