Lets pretend global warming exist

[SultanOfSurreal]

this is great stuff and all but i have to ask you deniers, how can you possibly posit that pumping literally billions of tons of noxious gases into the air every year wouldn't have any effect at all on the environment

that seems pretty dumb to me

[HapSmo19]

It means that LYR is too polite to point out your analogy of a organ transplant being performed before a donor organ is acquired is a stupid and worthless analogy. Nobody is saying shut everything down until we think of a better way to power civilization. Obviously you'd need the current energy sources and mechanisms to develop new ones. And that is actually happening right now to some degree - but there certainly could be more done. The idea is a gradual transition. Understand now?

So I should consider the systematic dismantling and relocation of western heavy-industry to a totally unregulated asia a gradual transition?

Can you hear me now?

Edit: f*ck you Al Gore

[LYR]

It means that LYR is too polite to point out your analogy of a organ transplant being performed before a donor organ is acquired is a stupid and worthless analogy. Nobody is saying shut everything down until we think of a better way to power civilization. Obviously you'd need the current energy sources and mechanisms to develop new ones. And that is actually happening right now to some degree - but there certainly could be more done. The idea is a gradual transition. Understand now?

So I should consider the systematic dismantling and relocation of western heavy-industry to a totally unregulated asia a gradual transition?

Can you hear me now?

Oh-ho... you are not stupid, you are just xenophobic...

[HapSmo19]

Oh-ho... you are not stupid, you are just xenophobic...

Try to leave the bullshit phobia stuff alone for a minute and look at what is actually happening.

K?

[StiffMittens]

It means that LYR is too polite to point out your analogy of a organ transplant being performed before a donor organ is acquired is a stupid and worthless analogy. Nobody is saying shut everything down until we think of a better way to power civilization. Obviously you'd need the current energy sources and mechanisms to develop new ones. And that is actually happening right now to some degree - but there certainly could be more done. The idea is a gradual transition. Understand now?

So I should consider the systematic dismantling and relocation of western heavy-industry to a totally unregulated asia a gradual transition?

Can you hear me now?

Edit: f*ck you Al Gore

All I hear is you rejecting a good idea on the basis that there are some (admittedly valid) concerns to that idea that need to be dealt with. In effect your stance is: Let's destroy the biosphere before the Chinese have a chance to do it.

[LYR]

Oh-ho... you are not stupid, you are just xenophobic...

Try to leave the bullshit phobia stuff alone for a minute and look at what is actually happening.

K?

Xenophobic and ultra-nationalist...

[LYR]

Are you really so scared that the Chinese will actually have an economy after centuries of European imperialism?

[StiffMittens]

Are you really so scared that the Chinese will actually have an economy after centuries of European imperialism?

It's a valid concern. There's a lot of people over there who are developing the same sort of technological appetites that we have over here. That's a big carbon footprint. But this would be true whether or not we are transitioning away from carbon emissions. So if we don't transition away from carbon emissions and China continues in the direction they're headed, then we'll have both our carbon footprint and their additional carbon footprint to deal with.

[LYR]

Are you really so scared that the Chinese will actually have an economy after centuries of European imperialism?

It's a valid concern. There's a lot of people over there who are developing the same sort of technological appetites that we have over here. That's a big carbon footprint. But this would be true whether or not we are transitioning away from carbon emissions. So if we don't transition away from carbon emissions and China continues in the direction they're headed, then we'll have both our carbon footprint and their additional carbon footprint to deal with.

That is completely true, I am not denying it.

However, HapSmo 19 seems more concerned with the fact we are "losing" our industry and the Asian countries are "taking" it away.

[StiffMittens]

Are you really so scared that the Chinese will actually have an economy after centuries of European imperialism?

It's a valid concern. There's a lot of people over there who are developing the same sort of technological appetites that we have over here. That's a big carbon footprint. But this would be true whether or not we are transitioning away from carbon emissions. So if we don't transition away from carbon emissions and China continues in the direction they're headed, then we'll have both our carbon footprint and their additional carbon footprint to deal with.

That is completely true, I am not denying it.

However, HapSmo 19 seems more concerned with the fact we are "losing" our industry and the Asian countries are "taking" it away.

This too is a valid concern, but I agree that Hap seems to adopt a pretty xenophobic posture on the matter. But still, US companies are shipping our industries overseas and we could use a little industry right now.

[LYR]

This too is a valid concern, but I agree that Hap seems to adopt a pretty xenophobic posture on the matter. But still, US companies are shipping our industries overseas and we could use a little industry right now.

So why do we not build new industries, green industries, friendly-environment industries?

[StiffMittens]

This too is a valid concern, but I agree that Hap seems to adopt a pretty xenophobic posture on the matter. But still, US companies are shipping our industries overseas and we could use a little industry right now.

So why do we not build new industries, green industries, friendly-environment industries?

Well, exactly. I think that's an argument that many proponents of green energy are making, and I agree with it. Whole new industries could arise, but you can't make that happen if your economy totally collapses because all the old industries die off before you can implement the new ones.

[LYR]

This too is a valid concern, but I agree that Hap seems to adopt a pretty xenophobic posture on the matter. But still, US companies are shipping our industries overseas and we could use a little industry right now.

So why do we not build new industries, green industries, friendly-environment industries?

Well, exactly. I think that's an argument that many proponents of green energy are making, and I agree with it. Whole new industries could arise, but you can't make that happen if your economy totally collapses because all the old industries die off before you can implement the new ones.

Talk about bad timing...

[HapSmo19]

So why do we not build new industries, green industries, friendly-environment industries?

OK. Let's do that. Name some 'green' industries and products we can manufacture that will sustain us. I mean, people are just beating down the doors of current 'environmentally friendy' product manufacturers to get their goods right? They must account for at least a quarter of a percent of the GDP right?

I know, I know. The feds can just mandate that you buy them or just take the money out of your check to keep those industries alive and well while you're not buying that shit.

Follow the fucking money if you wanna know the truth about 'global warming'. American industry is taxed and regulated out of existence, largely due to 'environmental concerns', and at the same time the door is open to have those very same products manufactured unregulated in some far off land with no oversight. Seems to me that if we were "litterally going to be cooked" in thirty years, the drafters of these trade agreements might put a couple things in there about environmental impact regulations. But for some reason they're not there or, if they are, they don't give a shit. What is in there(not in black and white) is a great way for all of these corrupt, treasonous cocksuckers in the US government to get a nice, fat skim off the top by means of cheap labor and without regulation or oversight. And whudaya know, it turns out to be a sweet deal for the chinese government as well. I mean, shit, we're paying them to destroy us.

If you think any of those hypocrits are looking out for you, you're living in a fucking dreamland.

http://southeastfarmpress.com/news_arch ... nomy-0420/

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663

f*ck you Al Gore.

[MeDeFe]

Tell me HapSmo, if there are two ways of making a product, the old, established way, and a new way that consumes, say, 40% less energy. Which would you prefer?

[thegreekdog]

Assuming man-made global warming exists, and assuming that if we do something we can stop the disasters from happening, I would think there are fairly simple ways to take care of the things people tend to worry about.

I don't consider myself a particular "green" person. However, I drive a car with good gas mileage. I don't drive a car with good gas mileage because it's the right thing to do vis-a-vis the environment. I do drive a car with good gas mileage because gasoline is expensive and I'm a cheap bastard. So, the simple solution to the problem is to make environmentally-friendly things that are also inexpensive and easy to use. You want to save the environment? Invent a power plant (or power source) that is less pollutive and less expensive than current power sources. That seems pretty simple to me (actually inventing the thing is a different matter entirely though).

[bedub1]

My question for everybody that believes in global warming, is what do we do about it? Specifics please....not just some stupid shit like "go green" which means nothing. I want some hard concrete ideas.

[HapSmo19]

Tell me HapSmo, if there are two ways of making a product, the old, established way, and a new way that consumes, say, 40% less energy. Which would you prefer?

Why? Do you have said technology in your basement and you're just trying to find someone who prefers it?

If it's 300% more expensive, no.

Be more specific.

f*ck you Al Gore

[HapSmo19]

My question for everybody that believes in global warming, is what do we do about it? Specifics please....not just some stupid shit like "go green" which means nothing. I want some hard concrete ideas.

Here's one: Stop paying tuition to state-sponsored universities with an agenda.

[StiffMittens]

Tell me HapSmo, if there are two ways of making a product, the old, established way, and a new way that consumes, say, 40% less energy. Which would you prefer?

Why? Do you have said technology in your basement and you're just trying to find someone who prefers it?

If it's 300% more expensive, no.

Be more specific.

f*ck you Al Gore

I think that was hypothetical meant to test whether you reject the idea of green technology categorically, or just on the basis of certain practical concerns.

[HapSmo19]

I think that was hypothetical meant to test whether you reject the idea of green technology categorically, or just on the basis of certain practical concerns.

Why would I categorically reject it?

And coincidentally, isn't that what the president bases our economic hope for the future on?
The hypothetical?

[StiffMittens]

I think that was hypothetical meant to test whether you reject the idea of green technology categorically, or just on the basis of certain practical concerns.

Why would I categorically reject it?

I can't see why anyone would.

[HapSmo19]

OK. So, whatever that has to do with anything.....

[LYR]

OK. Let's do that. Name some 'green' industries and products we can manufacture that will sustain us. I mean, people are just beating down the doors of current 'environmentally friendy' product manufacturers to get their goods right? They must account for at least a quarter of a percent of the GDP right?

I know, I know. The feds can just mandate that you buy them or just take the money out of your check to keep those industries alive and well while you're not buying that shit.

Follow the fucking money if you wanna know the truth about 'global warming'. American industry is taxed and regulated out of existence, largely due to 'environmental concerns', and at the same time the door is open to have those very same products manufactured unregulated in some far off land with no oversight. Seems to me that if we were "litterally going to be cooked" in thirty years, the drafters of these trade agreements might put a couple things in there about environmental impact regulations. But for some reason they're not there or, if they are, they don't give a shit. What is in there(not in black and white) is a great way for all of these corrupt, treasonous cocksuckers in the US government to get a nice, fat skim off the top by means of cheap labor and without regulation or oversight. And whudaya know, it turns out to be a sweet deal for the chinese government as well. I mean, shit, we're paying them to destroy us.

If you think any of those hypocrits are looking out for you, you're living in a fucking dreamland.

http://southeastfarmpress.com/news_arch ... nomy-0420/

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663

f*ck you Al Gore.

All that was really said in the second link was that Al Gore and a bunch of his friends stand to gain from "going green."

So you are proposing that Al Gore decided to make up this theory of "global warming" so his friends and he could make large sums of money off of it?

Well...

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. For related theoretical issues, see the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The theory of "global warming" has been around for quite some time, Al Gore just brought more people's attention to it and, albeit, most likely does stand to gain from it.

Just like.... Henry Ford.

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inven ... sbline.htm

Just like... Steven Jobs and Stephen Wozniak.

http://www.who-invented.net/who-invented-pc.htm

And just like Bill gates.

(Link I am too lazy to find, go look it up yourselves)


Al Gore is not making "global warming" up out of thin air. The idea has been around for a while, he is just the first person to alert the public to it/popularize it to try and use it for monetary gain.

Now, where have of we heard of people doing that before?

[thelastpatriot]

In spite of Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth," there's no scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. His claim that Greenland's ice will melt, causing oceans to rise twenty feet, is science fiction, not reality. Unadulterated scientific facts show us that, since 2005, Greenland's ice mass has been growing, not shrinking! So has its population of polar bears.

During a medieval period of global warming (warmer than now), Norwegian explorers settled on Greenland's grassy coast. But the climate cooled, and by 1350 AD, ice covered their fields and coastal waters. That "Little ice age" -- a natural shift in the revolving cycles of nature -- wiped out the entire community. However, during that warming period -- almost a millennium before the media would blame SUVs for warm days -- the Atlantic coasts were not buried by rising oceans. In fact, any slight variation in ocean levels are naturally moderated by increased evaporation during warmer cycles. Our Maker planned His creation well!

20 Oct 2005 - Greenland 's ice-cap has thickened slightly in recent
years despite wide predictions of a thaw, scientists said today. Satellite
measurements show that more snowfall is thickening the ice-cap,
especially at high altitudes, according to the report in the journal Science.

"The overall ice thickness changes are ... approximately plus 5 cms
(1.9 inches) a year or 54 cms (21.26 inches) over 11 years," according
to the experts at Norwegian, Russian and U.S. institutes led by Ola
Johannessen at the Mohn Sverdrup center for Global Ocean Studies
and Operational Oceanography in Norway.

Greenland glacier advancing 7.2 miles per year! The BBC recently ran a documentary, The Big Chill, saying that we could be on the verge of an ice age. Britain could be heading towards an Alaskan-type climate within a decade, say scientists, because the Gulf Stream is being gradually cut off. The Gulf Stream keeps temperatures unusually high for such a northerly latitude.

One of Greenland’s largest glaciers has already doubled its rate of advance, moving forward at the rate of 12 kilometers (7.2 miles) per year. To see a transcript of the documentary, go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... rans.shtml

15 Feb 08 - The ice between Canada and southwestern
Greenland has reached its highest level in 15 years

A quote from Al Gore:
'During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet"

I wonder what else he has invented?