15 Oct 10
Well, AGW certainly is the current statist enthusiasm.
But that need not mean it isn't real. A bureaucrat is right once in a while.
However, even if AGW isn't real, it's hardly clear that drastically curtailing conventional energy consumption is the best response to it.
The poor are most harmed by GW. If they were richer, they could cope better.
Alas, drastically curtailing conventional energy consumption retards the enrichment of the poor.
Hence, it may well be better to make the poor rich, so they can better adapt to global warming, than to try to avert GW. Rising sea levels won't bother the rich Dutch, who reclaimed part of the sea, as much as the poor Bangladeshis, who live at its mercy.
Moreover, GW may not be completely AGW. And doing what would be necessary to prevent AGW may not be politically feasible anyway.
So I say: we burn, baby, burn; we thereby enrich the world as quickly and as much as possible; and we concomitantly invest in future sources of alternative energy that might actually be efficient and productive enough to work. None of this wind-farm lunacy.
16 Oct 10
Originally posted by IshDaGeggspending trillions of dollars on harebrained amelioration schemes isn't going to help the Bangladeshi, especially if AGW is a fraud.
Well, AGW certainly is the current statist enthusiasm.
But that need not mean it isn't real. A bureaucrat is right once in a while.
However, even if AGW isn't real, it's hardly clear that drastically curtailing conventional energy consumption is the best response to it.
The poor are most harmed by GW. If they were richer, they could cope better. ...[text shortened]... at might actually be efficient and productive enough to work. None of this wind-farm lunacy.
17 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by IshDaGeggIn addition, if AGW is real (and, let's face it, it probably is), there may be ways to reverse it that barely make a dent in the World economy, such as releasing sulfur into the stratosphere and developing enormous CO2 sucking machines (I read an article in Nat Geo about that).
Well, AGW certainly is the current statist enthusiasm.
But that need not mean it isn't real. A bureaucrat is right once in a while.
However, even if AGW isn't real, it's hardly clear that drastically curtailing conventional energy consumption is the best response to it.
The poor are most harmed by GW. If they were richer, they could cope better. ...[text shortened]... at might actually be efficient and productive enough to work. None of this wind-farm lunacy.
Rather than just work so hard to convince us that AGW is real, I'd like scientists to work more on solutions that won't devastate the World economy.
But then, those other solutions won't require massive wealth redistribution, now, will they?
17 Oct 10
Originally posted by sh76
In addition, if AGW is real (and, let's face it, it probably is), there may be ways to reverse it that barely make a dent in the World economy, such as releasing sulfur into the stratosphere and developing enormous CO2 sucking machines (I read an article in Nat Geo about that).
Rather than just work so hard to convince us that AGW is real, I'd like scientist ...[text shortened]... But then, those other solutions won't require massive wealth redistribution, now, will they?
In addition, if AGW is real (and, let's face it, it probably is)-sh76
Lets face it sh76, its probably not! i dont understand why you always got to straddle the fence and never want to rock the boat.
I specifically recall on more than one occasion you saying it was a farce. Take a stand man! stop being so wishy washy.
17 Oct 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonI say it is a farce but at the same time recognize the need to get off foriegn oil. Face it, the US is at the mercy of groups like OPEC and countries like Iran. Enough!!! ðŸ˜In addition, if AGW is real (and, let's face it, it probably is)-sh76
Lets face it sh76, its probably not! i dont understand why you always got to straddle the fence and never want to rock the boat.
I specifically recall on more than one occasion you saying it was a farce. Take a stand man! stop being so wishy washy.
17 Oct 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonI never ever said AGW was a farce. I think you're confusing my attitude towards the Kyoto accord and the Copenhagen conference with the underlying issue that those discussions deal with. The fact that some liberals overplay the AGW card and use it as a means to promote global wealth redistribution does not mean that it's not real. And the fact that the West's attempts to deal with AGW have been inconsistent, ineffective and, on the whole, incompetent, likewise does not impact the validity of the problem.In addition, if AGW is real (and, let's face it, it probably is)-sh76
Lets face it sh76, its probably not! i dont understand why you always got to straddle the fence and never want to rock the boat.
I specifically recall on more than one occasion you saying it was a farce. Take a stand man! stop being so wishy washy.
I don't know for certain whether AGW is real. But GW is clearly real (even if possibly cyclical) the weight of the scientific community seems to think that humankind has a significant role in it. I have a friend who is a professor of environmental studies at CCNY. I've quizzed him at length on this issue. He's no liberal, he'd very understated and has no agenda here; but he consistently maintains that the current GW trend is probably at least partially caused by man.
I read the climategate emails and no, I don't for a minute buy the explanation that all those damning sounding emails were really just scientific points not fully understandable to the layman. But again, the fact that some take it too far for political purposes does not impeach the idea itself.
I have no problem with rocking the boat. But I'm not going to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing with no reason to do so.
In any case, I thought that urging scientists to spend less time playing up AGW and more time searching for alternative solutions was a stand.
17 Oct 10
Originally posted by sh76Spot on sh76!! They don't care about global warming, rather, they only care about getting their hands in our back pockets.
In addition, if AGW is real (and, let's face it, it probably is), there may be ways to reverse it that barely make a dent in the World economy, such as releasing sulfur into the stratosphere and developing enormous CO2 sucking machines (I read an article in Nat Geo about that).
Rather than just work so hard to convince us that AGW is real, I'd like scientist ...[text shortened]... But then, those other solutions won't require massive wealth redistribution, now, will they?
17 Oct 10
Originally posted by sh76All you got to do is follow the money and you will see its the biggest fraud ever in history.
I never ever said AGW was a farce. I think you're confusing my attitude towards the Kyoto accord and the Copenhagen conference with the underlying issue that those discussions deal with. The fact that some liberals overplay the AGW card and use it as a means to promote global wealth redistribution does not mean that it's not real. And the fact that the West's a ...[text shortened]... less time playing up AGW and more time searching for alternative solutions was a stand.