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.
Conservatism is ostensibly about maintaining a comfortable life and not disturbing what works, so why ignore a huge threat to that?
Conservatives ask "how will money fix it?" How will man, nothing more than a flea on an elephant, repair earth? Can you answer that, or is it just crying wolf?
Look at the data. The United States has some of the most stringent pollution controls in place. When I was younger I helped to bring in the clean air act through picketing and signature drives. So bashing conservatives is bashing people who have little control over what the worst polluters like China and India do.
There is always unintended consequences and collateral damage when we talk about energy sources. The carbon footprint for manufacturing solar panels, wind turbines, and electric car batteries, negates the carbon savings over the life of those systems. While at the same time millions of birds, many endangered, are being killed by both blades and panels.
Look, you have a very narrow view of conservatives if you think we don't want to be more efficient. It's the polar opposite of our philosophy. We want more efficient government, so why would we want less efficient energy?
I for one have gone entirely LED and have a nice 28.8 grid tie inverter waiting for the solar panels that I cannot yet afford. My daily driver is a Honda Accord with a Vtec engine. I use tiny efficient window AC units rather than whole house forced air. I'd bet that I have reduced my carbon footprint by more than the average AGW alarmist.
Making a blanket claim that conservatives are ignoring the threat, is like me saying all Liberals want a socialist welfare state and hate the Constitution; some do, however most do not.
No, the sun has nothing to do with climate change. We're in between cycles of abnormal activity; the last time the sun acted up majorly was in the 1700's.
The site linked is associated with Georgia State University.
They mention the 1700's dip in sunspot activity that you refer to, but they do not agree with you that it's either constant or abnormal. That inference is one drawn from climate science rather than study of the sun itself. The discussion also touches on some of the flaws in this theory - and there are flaws in any theory - only the unscientific seem to claim otherwise.
CO2 exists naturally on Earth, with or without human presence. If CO2 wasn't found anywhere in Earth atmosphere, it would mean Earth is geologically dead. In fact, it would actually mean Earth is too small to sustain an atmosphere or too close to the sun, as the case is with Mercury. CO2 is needed. Too much however is a bad thing. Venus has a execs amount of CO2, and that makes it the hottest planet in our solar system. We're no where near that point, but changes of global climate can cause unpredictable problems in ecosystems around the world. Yes, this process does and has occurred naturally on it's own before. At the time of the dinosaurs, there was far more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now. Changes can be inevitable, but there not in our best interest even if they're natural. Seeing as this one has a great deal of evidence leading to it not being natural, we should probably look for ways to stop it from happening. No, we won't go extinct, but some species could potentially struggle a great deal with a climate change. Not to mention the possibly lose of habitat is sea levels do in fact rise.
I wonder what their qualifications are; it's certainly not climate scientists saying that. You also made the claim that since Pluto is so cold, CO2 must not be a greenhouse gas. Although, you were correct in saying that Pluto doesn't have any CO2; it lacks the gravity to hold and retain an atmosphere. Venus is a good example of a runaway greenhouse effect though.
It's no different from the cigarettes "controversy"; a bunch of "experts" on Big Corporations' payrolls trying to stir up people who are too dumb or uninformed to see past their lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Former Hockey Player
But if you look at Venus, it's 30% hotter than Mercury, while orbiting at twice the distance away from the sun. Why is that? Because its atmosphere is full of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that sometimes fall in sulfuric chemical rain.
Basic planetary science. How did you not know Venus is a sweltering hellhole?
Pluto also has no atmosphere. Thus, no CO2. You are correct. But if Pluto had a thick enough atmosphere, it would be able to support life.
I really wish those humans would stop causing CO2 pollution on Venus
I for one have gone entirely LED and have a nice 28.8 grid tie inverter waiting for the solar panels that I cannot yet afford.
Cool! Going to wander egregiously off topic and ask how the bulbs are holding up? I tried one in a metal shaded lamp (no hole at the top) and after a short while the bulb part broke at the base - obviously a heat problem. I've been thinking of getting a few more and being more careful about location or modifying lamps to better suit the bulb's limitations.
Modern LED's are about the coolest thing to arrive in my lifetime. Maybe I should start a thread about that and people can dispute it all they want - since there are tons of cool things that have arrived in the last 45 years
No, the sun has nothing to do with climate change. We're in between cycles of abnormal activity; the last time the sun acted up majorly was in the 1700's.
What makes you think there has to be a "major" activity by the sun in order to cause climate change? There has been climate change since the formation of the planet.. You do know that, right?
Apples to oranges. It just proves our point that CO2 is causing climate change, so we as humans should avoid putting excess amounts into our atmosphere.
only if you can explain how we are also polluting other planets with so much dam CO2 causing their atmosphere to change. Since of course you cant then what makes you so dam sure our planet isnt going through the same change those planets did at some point due to a natural occurance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Former Hockey Player
Not this rapidly. Climate change in the past has occurred over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, except when major geological events happen, like a massive volcanic eruption or the meteor impact that killed the dinosaurs. We're seeing climate change that normally takes thousands of years to happen, happen in decades.
And yet other planets have far higher CO2 levels than we ever had despite a lack of human interaction.
Apples to oranges. It just proves our point that CO2 is causing climate change, so we as humans should avoid putting excess amounts into our atmosphere.
Not this rapidly. Climate change in the past has occurred over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, except when major geological events happen, like a massive volcanic eruption or the meteor impact that killed the dinosaurs. We're seeing climate change that normally takes thousands of years to happen, happen in decades.
Some people have such ridiculously low standards..
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.
