Aces, what if they are wrong about what is actually happening? For instance: that it is cooling....not warming....

Okay, and let's suppose you're right. What do we do? So let's do..., business as usual, and look at a future picture.

We see expanding deserts and melting ice caps, rising oceans and so forth. Because we do nothing, the food resources upon which many countries depend get worse, lack of water gets worse, and war between neighbors for scarce resources get worse. The seas change drastically also, yielding less food.

and the proposed legislation that will cause financ...

read more»

Aces, what if they are wrong about what is actually happening? For instance: that it is cooling....not warming....

Okay, and let's suppose you're right. What do we do? So let's do..., business as usual, and look at a future picture.

We see expanding deserts and melting ice caps, rising oceans and so forth. Because we do nothing, the food resources upon which many countries depend get worse, lack of water gets worse, and war between neighbors for scarce resources get worse. The seas change drastically also, yielding less food.

and the proposed legislation that will cause financial hardship for the USA and other countries (in a time of recession!!!) will be creating even more problems!

Proposed legislation that will cause financial hardship is a red herring. What it really means is that those who are making a killing NOW in polluting the earth will be less depended upon. Among them, big oil. This is the power structure, the big money.

Of course they don't want to lose their power or their money. But the NEW power structure will come from clean energy and will force R&D and investment into NEW jobs. This undermines the old money structure, and that's why they spend so much trying to sway people away from this development.

New investment doesn't mean a loss of jobs, it means a new set of jobs and a new power structure that can handle the demands of this new century.

There just seems to be so much of a political power grab woven into this......

There is! The old money doesn't want to give up its power to the next generation. (Remember McCain couldn't even get his email? They're still in the 20th century.)

The old money doesn't want to give up its power to the next generation

No. I disagree, it is not merely a generational power switch. This is about power being transferred to a very 'leftist--leaning' ideology, wherein all kinds of pressures can be exerted that far exceed the stated 'climate change' goals.

Also, no one said it would be 'business as usual', or 'do nothing' as regards the challenges facing the planet. Nobody is keen to watch the health of our shared home go down the toilet....but does there need to be the drastic scare tactics (especially where kids are concerned) when there is NOT unanimous consensus regarding this topic? If you are so positive that global wa...

The old money doesn't want to give up its power to the next generation

No. I disagree, it is not merely a generational power switch. This is about power being transferred to a very 'leftist--leaning' ideology, wherein all kinds of pressures can be exerted that far exceed the stated 'climate change' goals.

Also, no one said it would be 'business as usual', or 'do nothing' as regards the challenges facing the planet. Nobody is keen to watch the health of our shared home go down the toilet....but does there need to be the drastic scare tactics (especially where kids are concerned) when there is NOT unanimous consensus regarding this topic? If you are so positive that global warming is a man made threat...then why does ANYONE (apart from the supposedly awful oil people you mention) disagree? Not everyone who thinks this is bunk is on their payrolls. What of those scientists who say this is a natural cycle, or that it's cause is actually the Sun?

And why will they not have open debates regarding the issues that we see daily in the papers? Why does AL Gore refuse to debate? Why have so many scientists demanded their names be removed from the 'man made global warming' wagon?

There are a finite number of dollars we can spend helping the environment. We can either spend those dollars on concrete problems such as real pollution, or we can throw them at things that may or may not be real problems doing things that may or may not help even if those problems are real.

And who is to say what is the perfect temperature of the Earth? How is it that throughout all of history with the constantly changing temperatures of the Earth that today, right this very moment is the perfect temperature and that we must attempt to stop anything which may change that temperature by a few tenths of a degree?

In the 70s scientists were proposing ideas to warm the Earth to prevent the co...

There are a finite number of dollars we can spend helping the environment. We can either spend those dollars on concrete problems such as real pollution, or we can throw them at things that may or may not be real problems doing things that may or may not help even if those problems are real.

And who is to say what is the perfect temperature of the Earth? How is it that throughout all of history with the constantly changing temperatures of the Earth that today, right this very moment is the perfect temperature and that we must attempt to stop anything which may change that temperature by a few tenths of a degree?

In the 70s scientists were proposing ideas to warm the Earth to prevent the coming ice age. What if they had been given that money and allowed to carry out their plans? And what if those plans had worked? Would we be better off now? When scientists claim to be all knowing and say that there is a consensus and the debate is over all they are really saying is that they have given up science in favor of their beliefs. It is no longer a science, it is a religion.

This is from Merrie's clip today:


If you go to this official US Government site, you'll find this smokin' compilation of links and statements of scientist that are not part of the idolized and canonized "manmade global warming scientific consensus"
60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears
“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certai...

This is from Merrie's clip today:


If you go to this official US Government site, you'll find this smokin' compilation of links and statements of scientist that are not part of the idolized and canonized "manmade global warming scientific consensus"
60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears
“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote. See: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

Aceslucky, what is this? Do you know clean energy? Wind+solar is now less than 1% of what we use now and they are not as green as you hope. But how green they will get at 20%? Consider how much you will have to pay your green electricity bill, especially after promised victory over global warming.

Oh, no; I you all miss the point. I don't know if it's real or memorex. And "leftist ideology?" What's that?

I'm talking about staying with energy sources we already know is dirty, vs. developing energy sources that aren't.

I'm not talking about electricity from coal, from a super grid run by a monopoly and vulnerable to fascism and attack. I'm talking about every community or ev...

Aceslucky, what is this? Do you know clean energy? Wind+solar is now less than 1% of what we use now and they are not as green as you hope. But how green they will get at 20%? Consider how much you will have to pay your green electricity bill, especially after promised victory over global warming.

Oh, no; I you all miss the point. I don't know if it's real or memorex. And "leftist ideology?" What's that?

I'm talking about staying with energy sources we already know is dirty, vs. developing energy sources that aren't.

I'm not talking about electricity from coal, from a super grid run by a monopoly and vulnerable to fascism and attack. I'm talking about every community or every house having its OWN power supply!

Such a concept might be "leftist" because it takes away dependence on a monopolistic power structure, but virtually cost free to everyone, and excess energy can be piped back into the grid.

Free energy will make the economy boom! And make us safer, and the world cleaner and less expensive.

Pie in the sky? Of course it is... right now, because technology won't develop what it can't profit from. But the technology can be MADE profitable by having a world market that craves energy.

It's a new shift from old thinking to new thinking, but it has nothing to do with ideology. It has to do with those in power not wanting to give up their power and wealth. They never do!

The airplane was once pie-in-the-sky too. It took vision (leftist?) and investment. But it made the world a better place by making transportation more efficient.

Those old wires, replaced by fiber optic, replaced by wi-fi. Now practically everybody has their own phone! Progress is not inherently a leftist ideology, is it?

It's daring to move forward, to make life better.

Just imagine: so-called “renewable” energy sources in barrel-of-oil-equivalents give about 76,000 barrels of oil per day. But the USA total primary energy use equivalent is 47.4 million barrels of oil per day.

So, at least for next 50 years the "renewable" is going to be just a tiny addition (not replacement) to oil and gas.

I'm sure that's probably right, but if we don't start now where will we be in the next 50 years? Answer: we'd be just starting!

Plus, once we get things going, technology has a tendency to accelerate somewhat geometrically. A two year jump could put us 10 years ahead of our competitors at a certain point.

In addition, if we don't jump o...

Just imagine: so-called “renewable” energy sources in barrel-of-oil-equivalents give about 76,000 barrels of oil per day. But the USA total primary energy use equivalent is 47.4 million barrels of oil per day.

So, at least for next 50 years the "renewable" is going to be just a tiny addition (not replacement) to oil and gas.

I'm sure that's probably right, but if we don't start now where will we be in the next 50 years? Answer: we'd be just starting!

Plus, once we get things going, technology has a tendency to accelerate somewhat geometrically. A two year jump could put us 10 years ahead of our competitors at a certain point.

In addition, if we don't jump on it and other countries do, then we lose our competitive edge once again. We NEED to do this or others will win the brain game. Fossil fuels are not forever. And the oil cartel is not your friend.

AcesLucky said:

What if the scientists are completely wrong but because of it proceed to make our earth cleaner and more energy efficient for future generations?

I only scanned the entirety of this discussion, but this quote stuck out to me. Antara sufficiently addressed the "because of it" premise. Like willhelm, I focused on accepting "what if" logic and the implied subsequent action required.

For example...
I can say with near certainty that earth will suffer a celestial impact event from a comet or asteroid at some point in the future. Thus being certain it has happened and will again, we must immediately mandate research and engineering into building vast spac...

AcesLucky said:

What if the scientists are completely wrong but because of it proceed to make our earth cleaner and more energy efficient for future generations?

I only scanned the entirety of this discussion, but this quote stuck out to me. Antara sufficiently addressed the "because of it" premise. Like willhelm, I focused on accepting "what if" logic and the implied subsequent action required.

For example...
I can say with near certainty that earth will suffer a celestial impact event from a comet or asteroid at some point in the future. Thus being certain it has happened and will again, we must immediately mandate research and engineering into building vast spaceships to enable the species to survive. Taxes must be raised, committees must be formed, laws must be passed! It will take a united effort to save humanity. Instead of going green, we'll go black. Who's against that? Seems almost reasonable given the potentially disasterous scenario of doing nothing.

I trust the absurdity of immediately commiting humanity's effort and resources with this purpose is evident. This example was not meant to mirror the scientific basis of GW, but to illustrate how even valid risks don't necessarily merit a course of action.

I trust the absurdity of immediately commiting humanity's effort and resources with this purpose is evident. This example was not meant to mirror the scientific basis of GW, but to illustrate how even valid risks don't necessarily merit a course of action.

I would have to agree, and I also accept your analogy.

Now, what if practically every astronomer (not every scientist from every walk of life that disagrees, but nearly every single "astronomer" that studies asteroids!) says one is DEFINITELY on its way directly towards earth as we speak, and there is volumes of evidence to support it and it's 12 years away and to avert it will take about 10 years preparation...

What shou...

I trust the absurdity of immediately commiting humanity's effort and resources with this purpose is evident. This example was not meant to mirror the scientific basis of GW, but to illustrate how even valid risks don't necessarily merit a course of action.

I would have to agree, and I also accept your analogy.

Now, what if practically every astronomer (not every scientist from every walk of life that disagrees, but nearly every single "astronomer" that studies asteroids!) says one is DEFINITELY on its way directly towards earth as we speak, and there is volumes of evidence to support it and it's 12 years away and to avert it will take about 10 years preparation...

What should be our course of action given the fact that the vast majority of disbelievers are NOT climatologists ('scuse me, astrologers) and have a "vested interest" in doing nothing?

Believe me, I do understand were you're coming from. But am I to also understand that practically every "professional" meteorologist and climatologist that has studied this extensively WORLD WIDE (not just in the U.S. but the world over) has some sort of ideological or political stake in lying to the rest of the world? What stake could that possibly be?

Does a European climatologist have a shared interest with a Canadian climatologist to "dupe" the world? For what purpose, and to gain what? What possible agenda do they share?

But I can easily see why oil companies would pay big bucks to counter the information. Can't you?

So who should I believe? (Myriad oncology doctors agreeing with the Heart and Lung Association, or Marboro?)