Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming?

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4418078]Shouldn't there also be a debate about how much the gov't should "force" its agenda on a captive public?

    They say corn is the next energy source, so they start devoting farm land to it. Turns out it causes more harm than good, and made the price of food go up to boot.

    They say electric cars are the answer, but people have to pay more to own one. They then have to use taxpayer money to "persuade" people to buy them (and carmakers to produce them), which is money we don't have in the first place. They practically admit they WANT the price of gas to go up, yet there's currently no realistic alternative for the masses.

    I'm not against alternative energy -- we NEED to figure out a better way to do things. But it seems the gov't (both sides) is always jumping on "the next big thing", and instead of taking the time to study it and get it right, they rush the process and push an agenda, and it rarely seems to benefit the taxpayer . . .[/QUOTE]

    I'm a big believer in market oriented solutions. Alternative energy has to compete. What that means when we are at war, leasing lands for drilling and mining, subsidizing farming and offering tax rebates for purchases is anyone’s guess.

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4418104]I'm a big believer in market oriented solutions. [B] Alternative energy has to compete[/B]. What that means when we are at war, leasing lands for drilling and mining, subsidizing farming and offering tax rebates for purchases is anyone’s guess.[/QUOTE]

    But what does that mean?

    We seem to be taking a "fire, ready, aim" approach as opposed to a "ready, aim, fire" -- all in the name of "something has to be done".

    Of course the lobbyists play a big role in this, but I really think we'd be better off taking advantage of our own natural resources until alternative energy is more viable . . .

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4417778]There's plenty of evidence that buring fossil fuels destroys our environment. Just moving it destroy's our environment.[/QUOTE]

    Unless you're referring to strip mining for coal, what environment has been destroyed?

    Billions of barrels of oil have been removed from Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Alaska, etc. All are vast wastelands now due to man drilling oil wells?

    There is the occasional oil spill such as the Exxon Valdez but nature is resilient and always bounces back. Hell, even the Bikini Atoll is habitable now....

  4. #24
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,564
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4418040]You are absolutely correct. Let me say it clearly. For me it doesn't matter if we are causing global warming or not. There are dozens of reasons we have to reduce our use of fossil fuels and use alternate energy sources. Whether or not the scientific community has come up with enough data to suggest or not suggest that man has a significant impact on global warming is almost a side show to the debate regarding the reduction of the use of fossil fuels.

    Regardless of scientific evidence the country should be moving away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources as quickly as possible. Science and innovation is probably the best way forward.

    I have no clue if we are or aren’t causing the earth to warm, I suspect we are having a significant impact but even if we aren’t there are enough other reasons to move away from them and the debate should be about affordability not whether or not we should do it.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed.

    We should be pursuing other options for the right reasons.

    But basing political standpoints on lies labelled "science" will never be acceptable. I can support a lot of these initiatives, but I refuse to do so on the wrong premises.

  5. #25
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,278
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4418104]I'm a big believer in market oriented solutions. Alternative energy has to compete. What that means when we are at war, leasing lands for drilling and mining, subsidizing farming and offering tax rebates for purchases is anyone’s guess.[/QUOTE]

    The only one that has shown any inkling to changing our stance on all of those subjects is Ron Paul and sadly he was quickly marginalized.

    I am with JP on this. There are reasons to pursue other energy sources but I don't think lying to get what you want is the way to go. The ends don't justify the means.

    I use CFLs, keep my heat on 60, try to squeeze an extra MPG or 2 out of my truck when I can and reduce my electricity usage as much as possible without living off the grid. I do most of these to save myself money. Make alternative fuels cost effective, remove ALL subsidies and get out of the needless wars and we will all be better off.

    And for OCCH the government hasn't "practically" said they want higher gas prices. They have EXPLICITLY said they want higher gas prices.

  6. #26
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,665
    Images
    142
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4418040]You are absolutely correct. Let me say it clearly. For me it doesn't matter if we are causing global warming or not. There are dozens of reasons we have to reduce our use of fossil fuels and use alternate energy sources. Whether or not the scientific community has come up with enough data to suggest or not suggest that man has a significant impact on global warming is almost a side show to the debate regarding the reduction of the use of fossil fuels.[/QUOTE]

    What if we could identify every relevant variable, including socioeconomic variables, that would factor into a cost/benefit analysis of your contention that burning fossil fuelds is bad for mankind, and it turned out that burning fossil fuels is a net positive for the human race?

    More availability of housing, food and medicines. More effective deterents to diseases. More economic opportunity because of low cost transporation. More individual liberty for the same reason. It's very easy to paint fossil fuels as some sort of villain, from the comfort of your average, 80+ year western hemisphere lifespan. Viewed from a pair of shoes in a less fortunate part of the world, not so much.

    Imagine you are some poor schmuck in West Africa, feeding yourself via a wood cooking stove in your one room house. You (and your kids) will probably die before the age of 40 from lung disease. Or you'll die of dysintery at 30, because the coal-fired power plant that would have powered a water treatment plant in your region didn't get built because the UN IPCC decided such things are bad.

    Fossil fuels have brought us incredible lifespans, freedoms, wealth and well-being. Many people in the world still haven't received that windfall, and you're advocating that even if they have to wait 10, 20, 100 years, or even forever, we need to get rid of this stuff pronto.

    Not very thoughtful.

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=rbstern;4419829]What if we could identify every relevant variable, including socioeconomic variables, that would factor into a cost/benefit analysis of your contention that burning fossil fuelds is bad for mankind, and it turned out that burning fossil fuels is a net positive for the human race?

    More availability of housing, food and medicines. More effective deterents to diseases. More economic opportunity because of low cost transporation. More individual liberty for the same reason. It's very easy to paint fossil fuels as some sort of villain, from the comfort of your average, 80+ year western hemisphere lifespan. Viewed from a pair of shoes in a less fortunate part of the world, not so much.

    Imagine you are some poor schmuck in West Africa, feeding yourself via a wood cooking stove in your one room house. You (and your kids) will probably die before the age of 40 from lung disease. Or you'll die of dysintery at 30, because the coal-fired power plant that would have powered a water treatment plant in your region didn't get built because the UN IPCC decided such things are bad.

    Fossil fuels have brought us incredible lifespans, freedoms, wealth and well-being. Many people in the world still haven't received that windfall, and you're advocating that even if they have to wait 10, 20, 100 years, or even forever, we need to get rid of this stuff pronto.

    Not very thoughtful.[/QUOTE]

    Whale oil lit the streets of Europe and horse drawn vehicles delivered all kinds of product to consumers all over our cities. It's 2011 and I live in the West. We split the atom, we can harness wind the sun and the atom, the Chinese want to give away solar panels and we have a ton of construction workers with nothing to do sitting idle all over the Southwest. We have natural gas coming out of our eyeballs while deisel prices skyrocket (Not a perfect solution but better than oil). Wake up it's time for [B]us[/B] to move on, it's called progress.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 03-28-2012 at 08:55 AM.

  8. #28
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,665
    Images
    142
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4420115]Whale oil lit the streets of Europe and horse drawn vehicles delivered all kinds of product to consumers all over our cities. It's 2011 and I live in the West. We split the atom, we can harness wind the sun and the atom, the Chinese want to give away solar panels and we have a ton of construction workers with nothing to do sitting idle all over the Southwest. We have natural gas coming out of our eyeballs while deisel prices skyrocket (Not a perfect solution but better than oil). Wake up it's time for [B]us[/B] to move on, it's called progress.[/QUOTE]

    If it's progress, why does it require government intervention to work in a free market?

    That's a funny definition of progress.

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=rbstern;4420242]If it's progress, why does it require government intervention to work in a free market?

    That's a funny definition of progress.[/QUOTE]

    Government is highly envolved in our energy markets. Oil is drilled for on public lands, transported through them, regulated by them and taxed by them. It's a market but not exactly free.

  10. #30
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,533
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4420115] We have natural gas coming out of our [B][I]eyeballs[/I][/B] [/QUOTE]

    would have been funnier if you had said "ass". :D

    Hard to move on when libs and enviro-terrorists are spewing lies about fracking. NY still hasn't decided what to do.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us