Climate Change Report

[Johnny Five]

If the middle east killed itself I really wouldn't give a damn. When they were all dead then we could just go over and get the oil ourselves at a much cheaper rate. Good idea WB.

[Warriorbird]

If the middle east killed itself I really wouldn't give a damn. When they were all dead then we could just go over and get the oil ourselves at a much cheaper rate. Good idea WB.

If only other people felt that way. But oh no, we must obsess.

[Johnny Five]

If only other people felt that way. But oh no, we must obsess.

Maybe we should just glass the entire Middle East then we could not only get our oil but make wonderful works of art out of all the melted sand! You are on a roll!

[Warriorbird]

Maybe we should just glass the entire Middle East then we could not only get our oil but make wonderful works of art out of all the melted sand! You are on a roll!

For some reason we sort of like Israel.

[Tgo01]

It's shocking that a Republican is being anti science. We've never heard that before.

Anti science or anti anti realist? Did Democrats openly embrace Reagan's SDI initiative or did they mock it by referring to it as Star Wars?

Having our country not pathetically reliant on fossil fuels would benefit us in many ways.

I'm actually in favor of more renewable energy sources and am ashamed we haven't developed more of it over the past few decades. Believe it or not I do care about the environment. At the same time I realize it's not as easy as flipping a light switch. Coal is cheap. Many Americans are poor. Many (most? all?) Americans don't give two shits about actually, y'know, reducing their energy consumption.

It seems these goals can be tackled in several ways, or a combination of them all; building more renewable energy sources, encouraging Americans to actually use less and encouraging/forcing companies to build more energy efficient products.

The problem is Democrats just scream and point to number one; building more renewable energy sources. Why? It gives their voting base a distinct bad guy in this scenario (read EVERYONE BUT THEM) so they can sucker people into voting for them while making them feel as though they did the right thing.

It's just not realistic to expect Americans to not change their habits, switch everything over to an entirely new (and much more expensive) energy source and think there aren't going to be some serious consequences.

[Thondalar]

Having our country not pathetically reliant on fossil fuels would benefit us in many ways. We could let the Middle East kill itself and not give a damn.

There's nothing pathetic about our reliance on fossil fuels...relatively cheap energy, not to mention plastics, insecticides, paint thinner, disinfectants, batteries, insulation, Toys, telephones, floor coverings, contact lenses, dyes, upholstery, dishes, diapers, analog recording tape, shower curtains, paints, varnishes, adhesives...I could go on and on. It's really quite an amazing discovery. I'd put it in the top 5 ever for mankind.

The problem is, we don't have anything that can replace it in a lot of these. Energy production is certainly one of the bigger fish we could fry...America uses about 4.2 trillion killowatt-hours a year...we could switch all of our electric power plants to nuclear, but then people whine about the occasional melt down. It's been proven that wind generators simply don't generate enough for the whole country, same with hydro. They could, hypothetically, if we had enough places to put them....but we don't, not to mention the incredible toll these sorts of power-generators take on the local environment where they're installed.

There are a lot of promising advances in bio-fuels...using bacteria and such to generate electricity...but anything commercially viable there is a LONG way off. We can't reduce emissions now without reducing our quality of life.

So...what's the answer?

[Warriorbird]

Anti science or anti anti realist? Did Democrats openly embrace Reagan's SDI initiative or did they mock it by referring to it as Star Wars?



I'm actually in favor of more renewable energy sources and am ashamed we haven't developed more of it over the past few decades. Believe it or not I do care about the environment. At the same time I realize it's not as easy as flipping a light switch. Coal is cheap. Many Americans are poor. Many (most? all?) Americans don't give two shits about actually, y'know, reducing their energy consumption.

It seems these goals can be tackled in several ways, or a combination of them all; building more renewable energy sources, encouraging Americans to actually use less and encouraging/forcing companies to build more energy efficient products.

The problem is Democrats just scream and point to number one; building more renewable energy sources. Why? It gives their voting base a distinct bad guy in this scenario (read EVERYONE BUT THEM) so they can sucker people into voting for them while making them feel as though they did the right thing.

It's just not realistic to expect Americans to not change their habits, switch everything over to an entirely new (and much more expensive) energy source and think there aren't going to be some serious consequences.

Presented in the context of "Make the Soviet Union bankrupt" SDI sure seems awesome. I can't say elementary school me thought it wasn't cool. It's actually one of my favorite parts of teaching about Reagan's legacy even now. Stick that in your partisan pipe and smoke it.

Without SDI the Israelis might not have their current shield now and would be feeling a lot worse about the Hamas attacks. So I think tacit dismissal of all of these is equally as silly as complaining about Star Wars (which still didn't win the Democrats an election.) Nowadays, I can see Obama proposing it and the Republicans railing about how wasteful it was. No Emperor has clothes.

Democrats are cowed from the second two goals on your list by what happened to Jimmy Carter thanks to your party. We all deserve the blame.

There's nothing pathetic about our reliance on fossil fuels...relatively cheap energy, not to mention plastics, insecticides, paint thinner, disinfectants, batteries, insulation, Toys, telephones, floor coverings, contact lenses, dyes, upholstery, dishes, diapers, analog recording tape, shower curtains, paints, varnishes, adhesives...I could go on and on. It's really quite an amazing discovery. I'd put it in the top 5 ever for mankind.

The problem is, we don't have anything that can replace it in a lot of these. Energy production is certainly one of the bigger fish we could fry...America uses about 4.2 trillion killowatt-hours a year...we could switch all of our electric power plants to nuclear, but then people whine about the occasional melt down. It's been proven that wind generators simply don't generate enough for the whole country, same with hydro. They could, hypothetically, if we had enough places to put them....but we don't, not to mention the incredible toll these sorts of power-generators take on the local environment where they're installed.

There are a lot of promising advances in bio-fuels...using bacteria and such to generate electricity...but anything commercially viable there is a LONG way off. We can't reduce emissions now without reducing our quality of life.

So...what's the answer?

Going nuclear would be an excellent idea. Wind isn't bad either. Petroleum SHOULD be saved for plastics. We can't achieve it all now but we can certainly start.

[Parkbandit]

There's nothing pathetic about our reliance on fossil fuels...relatively cheap energy, not to mention plastics, insecticides, paint thinner, disinfectants, batteries, insulation, Toys, telephones, floor coverings, contact lenses, dyes, upholstery, dishes, diapers, analog recording tape, shower curtains, paints, varnishes, adhesives...I could go on and on. It's really quite an amazing discovery. I'd put it in the top 5 ever for mankind.

The problem is, we don't have anything that can replace it in a lot of these. Energy production is certainly one of the bigger fish we could fry...America uses about 4.2 trillion killowatt-hours a year...we could switch all of our electric power plants to nuclear, but then people whine about the occasional melt down. It's been proven that wind generators simply don't generate enough for the whole country, same with hydro. They could, hypothetically, if we had enough places to put them....but we don't, not to mention the incredible toll these sorts of power-generators take on the local environment where they're installed.

There are a lot of promising advances in bio-fuels...using bacteria and such to generate electricity...but anything commercially viable there is a LONG way off. We can't reduce emissions now without reducing our quality of life.

So...what's the answer?

Reduce your quality of life, you fucking greedy bastard.

[Latrinsorm]

BS Latrine, you compaired it to a speeding vehicle racing towards a cliff. Not once have you or anyone of these "climatologists" provided us with a model of the normal climate.

I did exactly that. You refuse to see it for some reason, but that's on you.

So you're saying they were lying to us about the coming ice age in the late 70's ?

I'm saying the people who told you the scientists said that were mistaken.

And why should we believe their bullshit now.

In general you shouldn't believe what someone tells you about what another person said, hence our legal system's taboo on hearsay. In the Internet age there's really no reason to, either.

I'm willing to take the risk of your trumpeting of doom and gloom over a carbon tax. Now if you believers want to take action go for it, but we know you won't because your full of shit.

My record withstands scrutiny.

I'm starting to believe a lot of your problems are rooted in poor reading comprehension skills. Let me link it for you again so you can read it slowly...I'll even bold the specifics for you:

Your misunderstanding lies in assuming that there are only two possible levels: current and pre-industrial. It is true that we can't get to pre-industrial by the time you die, but this does not guarantee that we remain at the current level, or put another way that "the damage is already done". Look at the graphs on the same page as your quotes to understand, or don't.

[Thondalar]

It is true that we can't get to pre-industrial by the time you die, but this does not guarantee that we remain at the current level, or put another way that "the damage is already done". Look at the graphs on the same page as your quotes to understand, or don't.

What part of "Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years" and "The current C02-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales" Are you not getting? Why can't you just admit that you misquoted it on purpose when you typed the same sentence but ended it with "life-time" instead of "timescale"?

Why are you incapable of admitting you're wrong about anything?