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.
If you don’t trust the information coming from scientists active in their research and studies…..then who do you trust? Talk show host Sean Hannity? The real estate mogul Donald Trump? The Republican politicians? What gives them the authority on this subject manner…..because they are on TV and sound like they know what they are talking about?
They sure have lied in the past and been caught at it.
While this is nice and all, it doesn't seem to be making it's way to policy. California, state with rolling brown-outs and an escalating energy crisis, is about to shut down it's last nuclear plant. The pressure against nuclear energy in Cali has come entirely from the Left. True fact:
I don't like the fact that nuclear energy turned into a partisan issue. It never should have. I'm not really loyal to either Left or Right, and when it comes to Climate Change, the Left is essentially correct: It's a real thing and we really should be doing something about it. (Yet another item that got politicized that never shouldn't have.)
Every new nuclear plant is in a Red State. I sincerely wish that wasn't the case, but it's true. Bill Gates can be as pro-nuclear as you like, but Washington where he lives hasn't been building new nuclear plants in ages. Hence, Bill Gates' opinion on the matter doesn't change reality.
We are in a 50 year solar minimum, which has been cooling the planet.
If you are concerned about CO2, YOU NEED TO:
1. stop using air conditioning
2. stop using central heating
3. stop driving a car
4. don't take any flights
5. don't use plastics
6. don't use a lawnmower
7. start planting trees everywhere you can
8. show how to offset the reduced food production with lower CO2 levels
9. don't have any children
10. advocate mass sterilization of "the poor"
Of course, no liberal will do ANYTHING to reduce CO2 themselves (that is the job of other people). That is fortunate, as the planet needs MORE CO2, not less.
Ah yes the 1deg C warming over the last century is not actually warming, it's a giant mistake by the scientific community. Keep smacking that head, you'll get it.
So you admit that the earth was once an unpleasant place to live, yet the earth has survived through this unpleasantness? So you would agree the earth will survive through human nuisance?
Speaking of green house gases, you know water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? CO2 makes up .004% of the atmosphere. Like water vapor, CO2 isn’t a pollutant. Plants need CO2 to survive.
Pretty obvious that the planet was at one time warmer, no idea why that keeps being brought up as some sort of revelation. That's you claiming that CO2 is a pollutant, but are you denying that it is a heat trapping gas as are other greenhouse gasses. Spare me the semantic argument. Yes plants need CO2, so. There needs to be a balance and right now the balance is off if you look at the numbers.
If that's true, then this solar minimum has been masking the true impact of CO2 increase. What will happen when the solar minimum is over? We should expect to see an even more dramatic increase in global temperature, no?
That is a completely fallacious and unfounded statement.
You ASSUME that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" and that the absence of current global warming (gee.........that kind of refutes the notion that CO2 is the main driver of climate change, does it not?) is just overshadowed by the solar minimum is absurd.
IF CO2 was a greater driver of global temp changes than solar activity, then a solar minimum would not make a rip of a difference.
Actual science and examination of all contributing factors influencing the earth's climate have been vacated as liberal KNOW that ONLY CO2 drives everything! This is not only false, but is quite dangerous to mankind. IF we ever have marked increases in global temps, the wrong "remedy" will be instituted, as ever other factor other than CO2 has been dismissed by liberal idiots.
This is the only response necessary when someone suggests that citizens of the U.S. need to reduce their quality of life in any way due to climate change.
If China continues what they're doing, there's no point in anyone else doing anything at all. Anything we do will amount to nothing more than a gesture, and sorry to the climate zealots but I'm not giving up squat so they can feel like they "did something."
Anyone parroting the "U.S. is evil" narrative on the climate issue is lying or brainwashed. If they were knowledgeable and serious, the U.S. wouldn't even be an issue for them right now. China and India would have ALL of their attention.
If you entertain any other argument, you're giving it legitimacy.
Our per capita consumption of fossil fuels even with out reduction over the past few decades is 3 times that of China and that has been the case for decades. Yes China and India generate more because their population is greater than ours.
See I want to have a discussion with yall, but the blatant hyper-partisan "lefty", "righty" nonsense is so nauseating to read. I dont know why this CD forum has drunk so much partisan kool aid. We can't have college conversations talking like elementary schoolers.
The "lefties" are not against nuclear energy. Even after the nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011, you didnt have worldwide cries to "defund" nuclear energy. Everyone understands while there's a risk of meltdown, nuclear is still a better option than coal.
The typical mobs of activists who show up to protest every single proposed nuclear plant are almost 100% politically on the Left. Sure it's stupid, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Power companies have learned to fear the shrieking anti-nuclear mobs, and very few even try to build the things anymore -- not because they aren't effective or efficient. No other power source can beat nuclear in these areas. Areas that are primarily powered by nuclear have dirt cheap electric bills for a reason. Clearly they are extremely effective and efficient. Sadly, those who would like to build nuclear plants don't want to deal with the endless stream of artificially bad PR, all thanks to the shrieking Lefty activists.
Likewise, Climate Change Denial is almost entirely on the political Right. No clue why that is, but that too is just a fact.
And while you seem so bothered by my characterization of anti-nuclear activism being an entirely Lefty problem, you dove right in and blamed Republicans and Conservatives for being the ones continuing to prop up fossil fuels. The thing about that: You're not wrong. Advocacy for fossil fuels is almost entirely on the Right.
The USA is blessed with massive amounts of coal. We are essentially the Saudi Arabia of coal. I believe we have something like 25% of the entire planet's coal reserves. It would certainly be mighty convenient if we could put it to good use, but at present it's the dirtiest option for power production available to us. West Virginia can go nuclear and they'll be just fine. The biggest coal state of them all -- Wyoming -- can get along fine doing other things.
If we can stop listening to the anti-nuclear mob and convert over to nuclear everywhere in the USA, we'd have more than enough juice to run with electric cars, easily keep pace with the every increasing demand for more electricity, and stop dumping all the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Nuclear is the only option we have for going green while actually increasing the amount of power we produce.
I was poised to start a thread on this topic but checked first and saw this one. A few questions:
If we take "sky is falling" type action how will we know if the suffering on the poor we are inflicting accomplishes anything?
It's been a cold summer so far where we are. Why?
Why should I trust the speculations of people who have a lot to gain on "climate research"? and
How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man?
Good questions!
1. We must be vigilant and demand supply-chain transparency
2. Climate is not weather
3. Follow the money straight to the fossil fuel industry
4. Ha!
Thanks for the compliment on the questions.
What is the meaning of "(w)e must be vigilant and demand supply-chain transparency" and how does that relate to whether mitigation steps accomplish anything? Your response is a non-sequitur;
Except climate is the sum of weather and pointing to dramatic events such as Siberian and Northwest U.S. heat waves does not show that on balance it's hotter;
The fossil fuel industry is not monolithic but researchers have basically one source of ultimate funding, the government. That is true whether it's research grants, or loan-inflated college tuition;
How many seas must a white dove sail before she sleeps in the sand, and how many times must the cannonball fly before they're forever banned?
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.
