Yeah but wouldn't one volcanic eruption put just as much carbon in the air as we have "dug up and sprayed into the air"?
Nature goes through these cycles were it cools and heats up.
Even a complete layman should be able to understand that..........
Not being a big Bush fan or nothing but didn't most of Congress (including alot of liberal people) vote for that war? I seem to recall that Obama was one of the few that didn't.
but his current Sec of State did:brokenheart:
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Yep...everyone save all your money and buy carbon credits FTW!!!!
I think people are beginning to see just how ridiculous that solution really is.. this whole thing is a joke.. they created a commodity market for carbon to "save the planet"..
I personally think it is genius. Still debating if I should erect a carbon credit based business.
I agree, it's a genius way for them to make money, not do any good for the environment.. google "carbon offset" and you can find lots of snake oil salesmen.
I've considered a business too (not seriously) where for people who pay to offset their carbon usage, I'd water my plants or breathe a little shallow for a few minutes
Oh I agree the science behind it isnt there. But it is genius playing off people's precieved guilts. I have done a little homework and think there is some money to be made in a specific carbon offset. Just labor intensive but could be a big money maker.
Obama is a fan of the cap-and-trade system too :disgust: The scary thing about this approach is the possibility of it becoming a world wide carbon tax on everything we do.. hopefully it won't get that far
Yeap, an overwhelming majority of Congress voted in effect for the war. I wasn't talking about Congress though, I was talking about people... and there were an awful lot of people who thought the war was illegal and a terrible idea. (myself included even though I was on a ship at the time sailing over to take part in it)
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,139
- 236
- 106
Yeah...
California is facing the most significant water crisis in its history. After experiencing two years of drought and the driest spring in recorded history, water reserves are extremely low. With the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem near collapse, court-ordered restrictions on water deliveries from the Delta have reduced supplies from the state's two largest water systems by twenty to thirty percent.
Drought conditions in the Colorado River Basin and a Sierra snowpack that is now dangerously unreliable due to global climate change, is leaving many communities throughout California facing mandatory restrictions on water use and/or rising water bills. If the drought continues into next year, the results could be catastrophic to our economy.
Nothing to see here move along... Hope you don't mind paying extra for your vegetables and melons of course you don't.
If you feel that guilty about your carbon, JPMorgan is willing to make you feel better for a few dollars.
Climatecare
Yes, and it'd be an ecological disaster. Why continue to strive towards creating one of our own?
Again, why should we hurry the climate along in a direction that would be detrimental to us?
Fair enough. Still though, it seems like when it could've made a difference too many people in positions of power chose to continue down the wrong path because of ideology rather than science. Guess it's all water under the bridge now though..
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
You can't predict a fair coin flip, so why should I believe you when you say that if a coin is flipped a billion times the percentage of heads will be VERY close to 50?
You can't predict whether a specific smoker of cigarettes will get lung cancer, so why should I believe you when you say that cigarette smoking greatly increases the risk of getting lung cancer?
Really? Honestly, I thought they were useful. Surely not the energy endgame, but to say "useless" seems naive.
I guess they look ugly and let some people make a big stink about great progress, but they don't do anything efficiently.
Congrats. Let me know when its actually useful enough to replace oil....say by the year 2998 or so.
In this article, i write how global warming is being used by the ruling class as a way of returning the commoners back to serfdom. I highly recommend you listen to the video too
The modern form of malthusianism
The modern form of malthusianism
Get a clue. People like you are the ones that make conservatives look like we are anti science. That is a big deal. There has been huge progress. Right now, prices are at a point where a home setup pays for itself in about 20 years. Sure, it will be nice if it gets cheaper, but it has definitely reached a point where it is realistic for many people.
Now to return to topic, since you've shown you're not really capable of thinking for yourself, I'll provide you with a reasonable rebuttal to the OP. You don't seam to care what the argument is as long as it opposes global warming. The real problem is just what the article states. We have no idea quantitatively how much our actions will influence the future climate. If the whole world stops producing carbon tomorrow, how much better is that than if we cut emissions in half. Or 3/4ths. Or do we need to start actively removing CO2. We clearly don't want to ruin the world we live on, but we don't want to return to being hunter gatherer's either. Also, as many accurately point out on the right, we only have so much influence on the global emissions. Would our resources be better spent elsewhere?
Global warming at this point seems to be primarily a political tool used to get votes. The democrats simply make sure they are doing more than the republicans, and they win the issue because most people would agree that we can do more at this point. They have no clue what the right amount is, they just urge for more. It would actually be interesting if republicans would actually work with them on this issue, then at least economically we could start to figure out where the painful point is from the money side. We saw that a little bit with oil prices last summer, and I think it showed that it is significantly higher than most people believed. However, it is really just feel good gestures, since again, we have no idea how much of an influence the changes global warming advocates will have. I think everyone rational agrees that reducing CO2 emissions is a good thing. All the argument is in where the cost benefit curve really lies.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Yep...everyone save all your money and buy carbon credits FTW!!!!
I think people are beginning to see just how ridiculous that solution really is.. this whole thing is a joke.. they created a commodity market for carbon to "save the planet"..
I personally think it is genius. Still debating if I should erect a carbon credit based business.
I agree, it's a genius way for them to make money, not do any good for the environment.. google "carbon offset" and you can find lots of snake oil salesmen.
I've considered a business too (not seriously) where for people who pay to offset their carbon usage, I'd water my plants or breathe a little shallow for a few minutes
Oh I agree the science behind it isnt there. But it is genius playing off people's precieved guilts. I have done a little homework and think there is some money to be made in a specific carbon offset. Just labor intensive but could be a big money maker.
As long as you do some good with your offset business and don?t just pocket the money, I don't see why you shouldn't go for it. If you have land to put some windmills on that generate electricity for example, you'd be reducing dependence of fossil fuels and making some serious cash while doing it. No one gets hurt.
If you look at the graphs in that "Inconvenient Truth" movie, we should have already experienced some sort of doomsday scenario by now, but instead the world has actually cooled down a bit.
I'm skeptical of the whole climate change thing. I'm a believer in changing what we can provided that it does not add additional cost. There are plenty of examples of things we can do in this regard. Wind power instead of coal is one prime example. IMO coal power should be illegal.
I'm skeptical of the whole climate change thing. I'm a believer in changing what we can provided that it does not add additional cost. There are plenty of examples of things we can do in this regard. Wind power instead of coal is one prime example. IMO coal power should be illegal.
dphantom
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2005
- 4,763
- 327
- 126
The last few winters and summers here are reminding me more and more of what I grew up in in the 60's/70's when the worry was over a new Ice Age. Anecdotal of course, but last weekend I was in the UP of Michigan and we had temps in the -20 to -25 F range every night with highs 0 - 5 F. Pretty normal 20-40 years ago. Not at all like it was in the 80's/90's. Seems like we're close to being back where we were.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter