Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because if you asked me that question you would get a question in return.
Does "effecting the environment" have to mean changing the climate?
those two things are not the same.
and CO2 isnt "a chemical" it is a gas. A naturally occuring gas.
A gas that is necessary for life.
your question is silly, pointless, and without merit in the AGW debate.
Yes CO2 is a chemical, so is H20... Why do you think they have "Chemical Properties" As for being "naturally occurring" well of course it is. And by chemicals I also mean more than CO2, how about lead and Mercury? Nitrogen Trifluoride? Sulfur Hexafluoride? Methane?
Did you know that cyanide is naturally occurring?
Last edited by CityPerson09; 11-25-2009 at 02:03 PM..
Since neither position in the argument can ever really know what will happen in the future, whats wrong with using the cleanest, most efficient, highest technology available just because its the smartest thing to do? Thats just using intelligence. If a side effect happens to be that the air becomes cleaner because of that, then so be it.
Because the purpose of opposing climate change is to aid the oil and coal industries in their search for money versus funding real alternatives. Money matters and the billions made by the oil industry allows many more people to be held in their pockets vs. Al Gore's single movie.
Quote:
The other side of the whole global warming debate is basically saying...
"Nothing we do is affecting the earth! Who cares if cleaner, more efficient technologies exist?? Lets just keep doin' the same ol' ol'! Suck all the oil dry, dont try to progress! Lets keep supporting our enemies by purchasing their oil, Its not hurting the earth! Global warming rubbish! The liberals are liars with a secret agenda!"
I suggest liberals change their argument away from global warming, and to more of a "Do it just because we can, and because its smart." Then see what arguments a republican oil pig nut job will bring up.
That is the point I have been making this entire thread, and not a single climate change denier has been able to answer the question about the effect of millions of tons of chemicals being released into the environment. Because to claim their is no effect on the environment is disingenuous.
Recently liberals have been moving away from arguing about global warming and started talking about green jobs. There is a big computer recycling center close by, BAN certified, and they employee people to break down and recycle old computers and electronics.
One of the problems is that the anti-climate change crowd sees climate change solely as global warming and people who look into the issue see way beyond that.
Because the purpose of opposing climate change is to aid the oil and coal industries in their search for money versus funding real alternatives. Money matters and the billions made by the oil industry allows many more people to be held in their pockets vs. Al Gore's single movie.
That is the point I have been making this entire thread, and not a single climate change denier has been able to answer the question about the effect of millions of tons of chemicals being released into the environment. Because to claim their is no effect on the environment is disingenuous.
Recently liberals have been moving away from arguing about global warming and started talking about green jobs. There is a big computer recycling center close by, BAN certified, and they employee people to break down and recycle old computers and electronics.
One of the problems is that the anti-climate change crowd sees climate change solely as global warming and people who look into the issue see way beyond that.
Heres the deal... debating chemical releases into the air, global warming and the like gives way too much headway to get distracted debating things that can never be resolved or proven. Neither party will ever change their views on these matters or be able to provide that elusive proof that makes the other side say, "WOW, I GET IT NOW!"
Forget all that!
The question is plain & simple:
Why should we be resistant to the concept of moving away from oil and using new technologies? Given that oil is a dirty, limited resource that gets us embroiled in costly wars overseas AND ultimately finances terrorism against our own country, if technologies exist, what REASON is there to NOT work towards using them? Period.
Since neither position in the argument can ever really know what will happen in the future, whats wrong with using the cleanest, most efficient, highest technology available just because its the smartest thing to do? Thats just using intelligence. If a side effect happens to be that the air becomes cleaner because of that, then so be it.
Sure, lets be cleaner. We do this by encouraging such actions and giving incentives to innovations that achieve such "practically".
Yet is that what is happening? Nope, what is happening is massive regulation, taxes, fines, fees, and restrictions on individual liberties.
As has been said a million times, few would argue for cleaner and more efficient, but doing so in the manners being demanded, is not practical, it is not reasonable, it is just plain stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borus
The global warming argument distracts both sides from actually looking at the real question. What is the benefit to the continued burning of filthy oil, and FOREIGN oil at that? Who knows if it causes global warming... but if there are cleaner, smarter more independent ways within our technological capabilities to create energy, then why shouldnt we work towards using them?
The problem is, those claims of "cleaner" are often not "efficient" or "practical". Do you honestly think that if these magically "green" technologies were not only cleaner, but more efficient and cost effective that private industry would not be churning this out as fast as they can?
Much of the products out there calling themselves green are either scams, clever wording, or simply less efficient products compared to their so called "un-green" opponents. HP makes a neat little "green" hard drive that is nothing more than a better model stripped down of all its power and ability so it functions at less power, but also performs at less.
What about light bulbs? Well, the green alternative is a light source that is actually more toxic than an incandescent, costs much more, and performs less. A lot of the "green" products are like this. The reason you see so much of them is because 1) many get government subsides to produce them 2) they can make a lot of money of people who think a sticker claiming "green" means "better".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borus
I can only imagine that someone profiting from the oil industry itself would make such an argument to use antiquated technologies instead of progressing into the future.
The question is, can you "imagine" the profiting being done by those pushing the green movement? You do realize there are mass players here who are going to make trillions on these deals as well as gain a level of power that would not even be considered without the fear campaigns used to get people to agree. Oil money is small compared to this, it doesn't even register on the scale compared to this movement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borus
The other side of the whole global warming debate is basically saying...
"Nothing we do is affecting the earth! Who cares if cleaner, more efficient technologies exist?? Lets just keep doin' the same ol' same ol'! Suck all the oil dry, dont try to progress! I'm makin easy money this way, dont get people all interested in a technology that wont make ME money!!! Lets keep supporting our enemies by purchasing their oil, Its not hurting the earth! Global warming rubbish! The liberals are liars with a secret agenda!"
No, that is you fallaciously summarizing the other side to fit neatly into a straw man that you can knock over easily. I won't even bother with this one, if you want to know the other sides views, do some reading on it, but apparently your response is only interested in the sound of your own position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borus
Seems to me those in favor of the oil industry MUST operate based on secret agenda because there isnt ONE logical reason to steer the world away from advancing. Its actually ironic that their main claim is that OTHER side has the secret agenda and people actually buy it.
Actually, by pushing for a more strict adherence to the science, they are actually pushing for advancement. Ignorance and the manipulation of ignorance is a devolving concept and is the problem here, which by the way is the very core of this movement. It is a campaign of lies and deceit designed to obtain power and money. This group makes the oil claims look as if they were saints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borus
I suggest liberals change their argument away from global warming, and to more of a "Do it just because we can, and because its smart." Then see what arguments a republican oil pig nut job will bring up.
So your suggestion is that they should thumb their nose at the facts and just do what they want anyway "because they can" while claiming their invalid position is "smart"? Sounds like a good way to start a war if you ask me. Without adherence to truth, there is no reason for any civility and if simple might makes right becomes the motto, then many will stop acting civil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borus
I imagine when "whaling" was a profitable business because it was used to fuel lanterns for lighting, they cried foul when power plants were invented, and maybe they even had weird stories back then of some hidden leftist agenda to derail the country, when in reality it was only progress. Progress is sure to kick some deadbeats off its path and they wont go away easily.
Progress requires one to acknowledge the truth. One can not move forward on lies, it is actually the opposite in such cases. This movement, though by some an honest intent, is carried by lies. You can not build on a lie, its foundation is that of sand and will eventually swallow up any attempts to do so (as we are seeing with this issue).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borus
Its time again to progress, move into the future, use the newest technologies available, just because its the smart thing to do whether or not it effects global warming.
Sure, progress, but is cutting your legs off to lose weight progress or just stupid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borus
Im curious what the arguments are for continued use of dirty industy that supports terrorists when cleaner ones exist BESIDES "because it DOESNT cause global warming".
We look for cleaner, more efficient (this means it works better or equal to what we had) and practical (this means it is cost effective compared to what we have) solutions. That is moving forward. That is progress. That should be our goal.
I have a question: What is your real motivation for denying climate change?
Everyone knows that climates change. The question stands, is the change anthropogenic? No.
Logically, we've had a half dozen Ice Ages without human intervention. It got cold and warmed back up by itself. Moreover, there have been other climatic periods were it has been much hotter.
We've had the Medieval Climate Optimum (800AD -1300AD) which was followed by the Little Ice Age (1600-1800). Then, there's the correlation btwn the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum (sun spots).
On another tangent, the climate data was protected like a trade secret. It was held by a monopoly. The monopoly prevented the data from being independently verified. The "science" behind the hoax did not follow the scientific method and the experiment/conclusion could not be duplicated outside CRU's monopoly. (Jones went so far to say he lost all the orgininal data points in defiance of a Freedom Information Act request.)
And now we know because of a whistle-blower what we all suspected: Global Warming = Junk Science. Like Times and Newsweek's 1970's The Next Ice Age beliefs.
Why should we be resistant to the concept of moving away from oil and using new technologies? Given that oil is a dirty, limited resource that gets us embroiled in costly wars overseas AND ultimately finances terrorism against our own country, if technologies exist, what REASON is there to NOT work towards using them? Period.
Everything else is completely irrelevant
That's not the discussion. Cleaning up the environment is a red herring that keeps getting thrown around to sidetrack the debate.
Nobody is saying pollution is a good thing.
We all want cleaner energy and a cleaner environment. Forcing change by perpetuating a fraud is not the way to do it.
I have a question: What is your real motivation for denying climate change?
Is it an economic reason that you deny this is happening largely as a consequence of man made global pollutants, or is it a political reason, as the right has used Al Gore as their lightning rod to politicize a scientific argument, not a political one. If neither of those, how do you consistently deny that rising temperatures are not showing copious examples of potentially irreversible change?
I would estimate between 40 to 60% of deniers have no clue as to why they think man is not causing this but instead do so for a combination of reasons, mainly the radical rightwing attempts to deny this is happening (George W. Bush, Sen. Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh, FOX, etc., etc..) being the primary reason(s).
Simple. It's a lie. Please see GW emails that expose these "scientists" for what they are, mainly that they resist ANY attempt for peer review of their data, which is the basis of the scientific method in the first place. Junk science. Junk scientists. Lies.
I have a question: What is your real motivation for denying climate change?
Is it an economic reason that you deny this is happening largely as a consequence of man made global pollutants, or is it a political reason, as the right has used Al Gore as their lightning rod to politicize a scientific argument, not a political one. If neither of those, how do you consistently deny that rising temperatures are not showing copious examples of potentially irreversible change?
I would estimate between 40 to 60% of deniers have no clue as to why they think man is not causing this but instead do so for a combination of reasons, mainly the radical rightwing attempts to deny this is happening (George W. Bush, Sen. Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh, FOX, etc., etc..) being the primary reason(s).
Yet is that what is happening? Nope, what is happening is massive regulation, taxes, fines, fees, and restrictions on individual liberties.
.
I am not aware of restrictions on individual liberties caused by converting to cleaner industry, but if you could expound on that I would be interested. I agree the cost is higher to start up a brand new industry and is a big deterrent but that is a sacrifice that someone WILL have to take at some point.
But I look at it like this..
Look at the sorry state of our economy right now. We are all making sacrifices for NOTHING! We are struggling mainly due to incompetent banks flooding the world with loans that had no hope of being repaid. Once we recover from this, what have we achieved?? We are back to square one, in EXACTLY the same place we were before the mess.
Now, lets say we were all going through a crisis that wasnt bank driven but was due to having to make a pretty significant shift towards energy independence. Once we recover from THIS type of crisis, we can cheer in the streets that no more money is going to Arabs, that energy is cheaper and more renewable, that we actually PAID for something that we want, thats smarter and makes sense.
I dont know about others but I would be willing to endure some rough times knowing that we are doing whats better for our future vs. enduring hard times due to absolute incompetence, which is what we are doing now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
As has been said a million times, few would argue for cleaner and more efficient, but doing so in the manners being demanded, is not practical, it is not reasonable, it is just plain stupid.
I would completely agree with this and think everyone could even agree with this statement. I am moreso of the belief that through intelligence we can progress to a whole new level. Instead of spending so much time trying to figure out how to regulate carbon emissions, more attention should be used to bring us into the future. Think of how far a computer has come in 5 years for instance. I believe the same progression of technology is possible to produce power, but more time is spent trying to figure out a way to continue to burn oil "cleaner" than developing newer technologies that would make it obsolete. Of course the first models will be clunkier and get outdated as time goes on, but we cant very well work on improving something that cant even come into existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
The problem is, those claims of "cleaner" are often not "efficient" or "practical". Do you honestly think that if these magically "green" technologies were not only cleaner, but more efficient and cost effective that private industry would not be churning this out as fast as they can?
I think the oil industry knows it going down at some point and its going to go down kicking and screaming. It is going to perpetuate whatever myths it has to in order to survive as long as possible. Those that NEED to profit off of oil are going to throw up as many road blocks as possible.
I would bet that there is likely a huge ball of red tape that stands in the way of any new private industry that would take away from oil profits. I am more thinking that they are developing their own things so that once the oil companies have raped every American for as much as they can off gasoline, they will all of a sudden have discovered their OWN new efficient green technology at just the right time, and we will be buying our "green" energy from "Exxon, Mobil, Shell". Do you really think a billion dollar industry is just going to let itself be demolished by green technologies? They have every reason to stand in the way of progress until they THEMSELVES can offer that progress. Not only that... BUT they have the money to pay people off to create conditions that are prohibitive to progress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Much of the products out there calling themselves green are either scams, clever wording, or simply less efficient products compared to their so called "un-green" opponents. HP makes a neat little "green" hard drive that is nothing more than a better model stripped down of all its power and ability so it functions at less power, but also performs at less.
What about light bulbs? Well, the green alternative is a light source that is actually more toxic than an incandescent, costs much more, and performs less. A lot of the "green" products are like this. The reason you see so much of them is because 1) many get government subsides to produce them 2) they can make a lot of money of people who think a sticker claiming "green" means "better".
This I completely agree with. There are certainly capitalistic opportunities to profit off of green thinkers. I see it too, and despise it. This is what gives the whole "green" movement a really bad name. Regarding light bulbs, I dont know or care about that. Im mostly concerned about getting off oil for now.
I am not a one sided thinker. I see both sides, but to point all your anger at corporations that profit off of selling "green" while ignoring the truth that we are PAWNS being used in the oil companies game of chess is unfortunate and does not help this country move forward.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As for being "naturally occurring" well of course it is. And by chemicals I also mean more than CO2, how about lead and Mercury? Nitrogen Trifluoride? Sulfur Hexafluoride? Methane?
