|
Post by socold on Mar 8, 2010 21:51:15 GMT
socold, Your side does not get to declare a climate crisis, an impending apocalypse, and then complain when people notice that the policies your side wants to implement are extreme. And when we find out that the apocalyptic predictions are just more in a long line of historic apocalyptic claptrap, you don't get to pretend it is the skeptic's fault. I don't see a contradiction between extreme policies forged to deal with a impending apocalypse What I do see is a contradiction by those who on one hand say that hypothesizing about a crisis is de-facto wrong - ie "alarmism" (this is actually very dangerous, a society that laughs and ignores potential threats is surely one that is more likely to fall foul of one), but on the otherhand they hypothesize about an economic crisis if co2 emission reductions are made. A economic crisis is true if you cut co2 emissions to much too fast, just as a crisis is true if you raise co2 emissions to much too fast. My position on both is not inconsistent. There's a valid potential crisis in both cases, it's the middle ground which avoids both the best.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 9, 2010 1:14:06 GMT
socold, Your side does not get to declare a climate crisis, an impending apocalypse, and then complain when people notice that the policies your side wants to implement are extreme. And when we find out that the apocalyptic predictions are just more in a long line of historic apocalyptic claptrap, you don't get to pretend it is the skeptic's fault. I don't see a contradiction between extreme policies forged to deal with a impending apocalypse What I do see is a contradiction by those who on one hand say that hypothesizing about a crisis is de-facto wrong - ie "alarmism" (this is actually very dangerous, a society that laughs and ignores potential threats is surely one that is more likely to fall foul of one), but on the otherhand they hypothesize about an economic crisis if co2 emission reductions are made. A economic crisis is true if you cut co2 emissions to much too fast, just as a crisis is true if you raise co2 emissions to much too fast. My position on both is not inconsistent. There's a valid potential crisis in both cases, it's the middle ground which avoids both the best. So $7/gallon gasoline is an acceptable emissions mitigation plan in your view and it won't have serious negative economic repercussions? Oh pray tell, how does that work? Let's see the grand plan to reverse CO2 emissions back to 1990 levels without requiring us to revert back 100 years in standards of living.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Mar 9, 2010 2:13:13 GMT
Like a person, the truest indicator of a corporation's political leanings is a look at where the money goes. Rupert Murdoch gives 95% of his substantial political contributions to leftist politicians, but is wise enough to allow his media companies to appear somewhat centrist.
The Washington Post allows a small amount of center left material, and is excoriated by the far left for "conservatism." As far as topical reporting is concerned, there are NO conservative media outlets, there are a bare handful of centrist media outlets, and a vast sea of barren and increasingly bankrupt far left media conglomerates.
In other words, if it were not for blogs and a few blog like web pages we would have no honest news reporting at all.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 9, 2010 2:22:46 GMT
The Washington Post allows a small amount of center left material, and is excoriated by the far left for "conservatism." Stranger You mean Washington Times. The Washington Post is totally left.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 9, 2010 3:28:12 GMT
socold, What crisis? I mean, outside of the social hysteria of AGW, what crisis? Not one thing AGW promoters have said about temperature, sea levels, ocean pH, ice melt, storms, drought, winter, summer spring or fall. holds up under scrutiny. It is all crap. You were sold a crap pie. Spit it out.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 15, 2010 13:37:15 GMT
Brits excessive use of cocaine "Cocaine users 'making global warming worse'" Group chairman Keith Vaz said: "We were horrified to learn for every few lines of cocaine snorted in a London club, four square metres of rainforest is destroyed." Oh and by the way "The MPs also warned that more people in Britain were dying from the drug - cocaine caused 235 sudden deaths in 2008. The committee said that it led to heart disease, the erosion of brain function and could be "extremely toxic" when mixed with alcohol." Who would have ever thought? www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/03/cocaine-users-making-global-warming-worse-115875-22081755/
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Mar 15, 2010 14:07:42 GMT
Here's yet another "Publish or die" meaningless study. Windfarms could aggravate AGW. Ron Prinn, TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science, and principal research scientist Chien Wang of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences suggest that using wind turbines to meet 10 percent of global energy demand in 2100 could cause temperatures to rise by one degree Celsius in the regions on land where they're installed.
The opposite holds true for wind turbines installed in water, though, with a predicted drop in temperaturs by one degree Celsius over those regions. www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/48842-wind-farms-could-raise-temperatures
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 15, 2010 19:53:36 GMT
socold, What crisis? I mean, outside of the social hysteria of AGW, what crisis? Not one thing AGW promoters have said about temperature, sea levels, ocean pH, ice melt, storms, drought, winter, summer spring or fall. holds up under scrutiny. It is all crap. You were sold a crap pie. Spit it out. Not one thing Economic Alarmists have said about economic collapse due to carbon taxes holds up under scrutiny. What crisis? I don't see the economy collapsing because of carbon taxes. You were sold a crap pie!
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 15, 2010 21:24:09 GMT
socold, What crisis? I mean, outside of the social hysteria of AGW, what crisis? Not one thing AGW promoters have said about temperature, sea levels, ocean pH, ice melt, storms, drought, winter, summer spring or fall. holds up under scrutiny. It is all crap. You were sold a crap pie. Spit it out. Not one thing Economic Alarmists have said about economic collapse due to carbon taxes holds up under scrutiny. What crisis? I don't see the economy collapsing because of carbon taxes. You were sold a crap pie! Energy prices in the UK have approximately doubled in the last 10 years, mostly fueled by co2 panic and "responses." For those on fixed incomes who froze to death due to the new policies, the crisis was real. Well done.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 15, 2010 22:37:12 GMT
Energy prices in the UK increased because of the global increase in the price of oil. It would be more accurate to argue that the "crisis" was thanks to the UK being shortsighted in sticking to fossil fuels and a reliance on imported natural gas.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 15, 2010 23:11:23 GMT
Energy prices in the UK increased because of the global increase in the price of oil. It would be more accurate to argue that the "crisis" was thanks to the UK being shortsighted in sticking to fossil fuels and a reliance on imported natural gas. The U.S. is nearly entirely fossil-fuel powered. Monthly utility bills, while they have risen, have not doubled here. The British experiment, like the Spanish experiment, like the Danish experiment, is proving to be expensive -- and deadly. You may not live on a fixed income, or know anyone who does, but I assure you that horsing around with energy in the way that you advocate has killed people needlessly. You claim that countries forcing premature conversion to "green" technologies such as wind are going to be reaping lower energy prices soon. Let us know when that starts to happen, OK? It is madness for Britain not to aggressively grow its energy independence through the expansion of nuclear power and intelligent use of its coal reserves. Putin is not messing around. This is not a game.
|
|
|
Post by nemesis on Mar 16, 2010 0:07:00 GMT
Brits excessive use of cocaine "Cocaine users 'making global warming worse'" Group chairman Keith Vaz said: "We were horrified to learn for every few lines of cocaine snorted in a London club, four square metres of rainforest is destroyed." Oh and by the way "The MPs also warned that more people in Britain were dying from the drug - cocaine caused 235 sudden deaths in 2008. The committee said that it led to heart disease, the erosion of brain function and could be "extremely toxic" when mixed with alcohol." Who would have ever thought? www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/03/cocaine-users-making-global-warming-worse-115875-22081755/Cocaine eh! I think that is one that is missing from John Brignell's 'Warmlist' www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 16, 2010 5:50:01 GMT
Is there anything that isn't the result of AGW?
|
|
|
Post by gahooduk on Mar 17, 2010 19:00:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 17, 2010 20:16:17 GMT
Another alarmist piece on MSM TV news last night. "Butterflies suffering from Climate change"
The Butterflies were "suffering" by (a) maturing more quickly and (b) maturing earlier in the season.
There are now 249,000 Google entries for climate change suffering butterflies
Now, my own observation of butterflies is that their lives are always short and painful. (Particularly any cabbage white that comes into my garden if I have any say on the matter.)
Now, I don't mind objective reporting on habitat change and butterfly numbers, but such nonsense is nothing but propaganda.
BTW, I support govt buying up marginal land for wildlife reserves etc. Something much more useful than green energy.
|
|