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.
Do you really think the government or anyone has a solution that will cool the planet?...I kind of like it warming up more. You have most of the world developing and in need of cheap energy sources to advance their economies and lifestyles...
That is an absurd response. I hesitate to "refute" it and lend it any credibility by responding! The solutions are not only regularly expressed by concerned writers meaning the majority of them, but they are obvious and opposed by the right who wants Exxon-Mobil and Shell to make more, more, more profits.
Developing countries are, more and more, taking advantage of cheap alternative and renewable sources of power. In the U.S., an air force base N.E. of Las Vegas has installed 70,000 solar panels on 140 acres and it is generating 14 megawatts of power for the base. They did it because it's the right thing to do now that alternative energy solutions are gaining popularity and installations are developing. Every month this year the standing record of alternative energy installations in the U.S. has been broken.
Quote:
You're okay with GW proponents scampering about the planet in private jets....shouldn't they be setting a good example?
There is that "individual hypocrisy" claim again. If a person in Seattle has a business need to be in Chicago for a meeting, what alternative would you suggest? And why do you think we are calling for alternatives to be developed????
You argue like the typical activist using all the anti-science and trigger words like "denialist".
Nobody cares about this propaganda. The ignorant are tired of your BS and ignore, and the people who actually look into the details see the corruption of your position.
Your arguments are like pop-up ads, just annoying falsehoods trying to sucker someone into a sale.
Nobody cares! Off to the ignore bin you go and I advise anyone else to start sending these charlatans to the ignore list.
Richard Muller, a prominent Berkeley physicist, several years ago was considered the most prominent global warming denier. So a large project was funded by a Koch foundation, which actively funds climate change deniers, in order to investigate whether man-made global warming was real or not.
Here was the result of Muller's investigation:
<<“Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”>>
Ocean acidification as a result of fossil burning is even more easily measured with pernicious impacts on ocean life and massive human protein sources, and it is hardly discussed in American politics.
<<Although the oceans are global, ocean acidification isn’t uniform, and its effects are not the same everywhere and on every species. Fisheries that depend heavily on mollusks, such as those in New England, would likely be hit harder. Fisheries in Hawaii and Alaska should be less vulnerable, because mollusks make up a tiny fraction of the catch there.
Then again, Cooley said, the finfish catch may also decline, because many of the fish we like to eat, such as haddock, halibut, herring, flounder, and cod, depend heavily on mollusks for their own nourishment. Even top predators, the animals that eat the haddock, herring, and cod, could be affected. Swordfish, tuna, shark, and salmon are on that list.>>
<< Earlier in Earth’s history, changes in ocean conditions that were much slower than today still managed to wipe out 95 percent of marine species. If emissions continue at current rates, our planet is risking a similar mass extinction event, one that could begin within our lifetimes.>>
If people in Florida want to sell me their beachfront homes for $1k... I'll take it... its basically worthless, please sell to me... I don't understand why the government wants to tax beachfront properties so high considering its worthless...
Call me when you've banned Volcano activity, stopped China,the Levant and even one of our closest neighbors called Mexico from totally trashing their environment.
Let me know when their air is even HALF as clean as ours is as THEN you may have something rational to complain about.
Riiiiiiiiight. We shouldn't lead anymore. We shouldn't do anything to solve anything until other countries lead on it first. What could possibly go wrong with that?!
Quote:
BTW, anyone notice that we've slowly slipped from "global warming" to "climate change"? Could that be because reports have been saying we're headed towards cooling again?
Catch up. Read something other than your favorite right wing extremist trash. It was originally referred to as "global warming" and still is frequently, but you on the right made such a stink by taking advantage of the anticipated and predicted weather extremes on both ends that scientists began calling it "climate change". And BTW, the average global temperature has increased and continues to increase at a rate far beyond anything that ever happened in past history.
If people in Florida want to sell me their beachfront homes for $1k... I'll take it... its basically worthless, please sell to me... I don't understand why the government wants to tax beachfront properties so high considering its worthless...
BTW, anyone notice that we've slowly slipped from "global warming" to "climate change"? Could that be because reports have been saying we're headed towards cooling again?
Actually the term climate change was used long before global warming, but in any case they are two different things...There is no dispute that the planet is warming, and that warming is causing the climate to change.
The global average temperature has increased by more than 1.5°F since the late 1800s. Some regions of the world have warmed by more than twice this amount. The buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and the warming of the planet are responsible for other changes, such as: https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/s.../overview.html
I just want to get on the scam and milk a few million from some gullible fools for some perceived solution to a problem that is genned up with no real solution....want to join the scam on the profit side.
When the proponents of GW stop taking private jets across the planet to tell others they have to turn out their lights, start using sail and row boats, feet and bikes for travel, and turn off their lights, I'll take them seriously.
Here's the tragic irony of your argument: We are making the worlds WEALTHIEST corporations untold billions, and you and yours are, by refuting the damage they are doing to this earth, making a specious, fact-free argument that scientists studying climate change are getting rich. (Of course there has never been any evidence of this)
But I will tell you what there is evidence of: The profits of Exxon Mobil, as well as all the other fossil fuel producers, the ones you so vociferously support.
Right now crude oil prices are very low, but 10 years ago, this was the case instead:
Quote:
ExxonMobil xom on Friday posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company — $40.6 billion — as the world's largest publicly traded oil company benefited from historic crude prices at year's end.
Exxon also set a U.S. record for the biggest quarterly profit, posting net income of $11.7 billion for the final three months of 2007, besting its own mark of $10.71 billion in the fourth quarter of 2005.
Even with the market in freefall this company still makes billions every year. And yet water carriers like yourself argue that climate scientists are getting rich? You, and other denialists, live in an alternate universe.
Not until we analyze this and determine how this compares, per person, to carbon emissions resulting from driving the average car to make the same trip because in many cases that would be the alternative.
Let's see... "a carbon footprint a third the size of a US citizen's carbon footprint for the entire year".
So that would be a "a carbon footprint the size of a US citizen's carbon footprint for 4 months" or about 120 days. Divide that by the average number of passengers on such a flight. That seems to be about 100. 120/100=1.2
So each passenger's share of the carbon footprint (using these calculations if they are valid) created by flying from LA to NYC would be equal to that person's carbon footprint for 1.2 days.
Any carbon is not good, but the original wording makes it sound absolutely horrible. Not so when it is broken down.
No, that is per person on the flight not per plane.
A nonstop flight from San Francisco to New York puts you on the hook for 2.23 tons of carbon dioxide. Fly first class, and the extra space you occupy bumps you to 5.59 tons—more than twice the 2.2 tons you’d emit driving a midrange car 7,500 miles. It’s not just aviation’s carbon emissions that make it so bad for the climate, it’s also factors like vapor trails and ozone as well as where a jet’s emissions occur—in a sensitive part of the atmosphere where their effects become magnified. Scientists call this effect “radiative forcing” and calculations that don’t include it can make flying seem deceptively benign. Don’t be fooled: Every time you get on an airplane, you’re helping to shove a Bangladeshi’s home under water.
Are you going to halt all your leisure air travel?
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.
