Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
deniers and, more importantly- polluters, are going into panic mode
and burying the nuclear waste under who's grandchildren's porch?
Legislation has to be passed for action to be taken. And don't get me started on legislation not getting passed.
First of all, no, legislation doesn't have to be passed in order to get change to happen.
And second, your response begs the question. If there was less insult and more focus on approaching things in a way people could rally behind, there could be more legislation. But people -- even people who claim to want the government to take action in response to global warming -- block legislation for political purposes.
So my point stands -- how about less focus on people who deny climate change and more focus on things which would be good policy even for those who won't agree that man-made global warming is something to be alarmed about.
Do people want action or don't they? If they do, then acknowledge that much of what has been tried so far hasn't worked very well and make adjustments.
I applaud your efforts but you don't seem to understand the depth of denial present in denialists. If confronted w/ an alternative, they'll simply move the goalposts. Their ideology compels them to do so
Obama dont give a shit about climate change, he just wants the money. Allways follow the money to get to the real truth.
Liberal Billionaire Pledges $100 Million to Bully U.S. on Global Warming
Read more: Liberal Billionaire Pledges $100 Million to Bully U.S. on Global Warming | NewsBusters
Here' the end game, tho. No matter what WE do...the pollution of China and India is multiple times worse....and we can't stop them.
I applaud your efforts but you don't seem to understand the depth of denial present in denialists. If confronted w/ an alternative, they'll just move the goalposts.
So do you have any ideas which don't involve demonizing people who have a whole lot of money fight with? or people who vote most heavily in midterms?
We're going to tag team you and all your little kitties, pretty. The climate deniers are the Republicans base. The only way to save the planet is to convince enough in the middle to come out and vote for common sense, and survival. Republicans take the Senate and anything even close to the Ryan budget gets passed and not only will things not get better, the EPA will be knee capped and the End of Times is indeed here. I honestly think a big enough group believe that to tip the scale in their favor.
What thing?We have already reduced emissions in this country and will continue to do so as technology improves and when we all come to our senses and embrace nuclear power.
So why don't you tell me how you are going to force China and the rest of the world to stop polluting and how taxing and regulating us and our businesses into oblivion will accomplish that?
can we dispose of the spent nuclear fuel in your back yard
I've heard that argument but that was about ten years ago. This thing is not waiting for us to make up our minds.
Another nut job that doesn't know what the word evidence is. Not models, not theories, validation of models and theories, where are those? Come on are you really that stupid?So, do you even know what the word evidence means? Providng models and theory are not evidence, what is evidence is showing validation of the theory. Your theory, if consistent with the rest is that an increase of CO2 causes warmer temperatures. That could be tested in a lab. Do you have results of those types of tests? That is where your evidence would be. See merely showing a graph and making a statement and using the statement as evidence isn't so.This board and the rest of the internet is loaded with evidence. Every time evidence is posted, the same ignorant dupes say its not true and now they're saying they want evidence.
Typical.
Experiment results proving the theory is what I'd need to see.
That was done in 1859 by John Tyndall.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)
I never thought of that. very interesting.Haven't the seen the lab experiments demonstrating the relationship between changes in the atmospheric trace element CO2 and temperature here either and I've been asking FOR YEARS!
Oh one more thing, when you buy Thermal-pane windows why is it they use Argon and not CO2? If they wanted to trap all that heat, they should use CO2, right? I mean why Argon?
No mystery. CO2 is better at heat storage than Argon. And what you want is insulation, not heat transfer. Argon is also pretty dead in terms of reacting with other elements and compounds, whereas CO2 is pretty active in creating acid and carbonates, etc.
First off, wouldn't you want evidence to support something of change? I'm just saying, the point from the opposing side is that there is litterly no evidence. None, nadda, zero validation of anything they say. So with that you wish to move forward eh? that's incredible. So if someone told you they needed to tear your house down to get gold under your foundation, you would just say oki doki eh? LOL. Now that is just downright silly!So is the answer is that you prefer to say "can't be done" because some people don't see things they way you do ... blowing off people like me who are willing to look for common ground?
You're reinforcing my belief that a lot of people don't want change to happen nearly as much as they want a talking point to hold against political opposition.
I sincerely wish that people would step back from the partisanship and look for common ground in the name of things like air quality and energy independence.
I don't want people to lose jobs or food costs to skyrocket or the government to sink a lot of money into speculative activities. But I am very willing to consider making some changes which seem like they would please people who are concerned about global warming.
You can't make public policy based on senseless scaring of folks with dubious science. So if you want action on "things like air quality and energy independence" your FIRST STEP in a brokering such a deal would be to admit that these goals have NOTHING TO DO with CO2 or Global Warming theory.. No honest broker is gonna be able to broker on DISHONESTY and fear..
My approach would not require people on either side to cede ground on their opinions about climate change. Air quality and energy independence are important on their own.
Nope, I want proof, evidence confirmation they are rght. It is simply that easy to move on. So again, why aren't you asking for the evidence that there is gold under your house before you just let them have your house? Still silly.My approach would not require people on either side to cede ground on their opinions about climate change. Air quality and energy independence are important on their own.
But they have ZERO, NADA, ZILCH to do with CO2 or Global Warming. Be honest -- and there would be support for enviro issues..
Do you need someone to renounce their beliefs before you'll support any environmental or energy policy which would coincide with what you'd generally consider good policy?
First of all, no, legislation doesn't have to be passed in order to get change to happen.
And second, your response begs the question. If there was less insult and more focus on approaching things in a way people could rally behind, there could be more legislation. But people -- even people who claim to want the government to take action in response to global warming -- block legislation for political purposes.
So my point stands -- how about less focus on people who deny climate change and more focus on things which would be good policy even for those who won't agree that man-made global warming is something to be alarmed about.
Do people want action or don't they? If they do, then acknowledge that much of what has been tried so far hasn't worked very well and make adjustments.
I applaud your efforts but you don't seem to understand the depth of denial present in denialists. If confronted w/ an alternative, they'll simply move the goalposts. Their ideology compels them to do so
I think you think you know too much about your opposition. The truth is, that there is none of us that would turn away from new technology. I think you are very mistaken. What we are is concerned over the sacrifices to get new technologies. You all act like there can't be synergies during research and development and abandaon current technologies and have people making choices. So, you are very wrong in your thinking.
Again, I'm all for any new technology, but not at the cost of human folks. If synergies exist, and something new is actually produced, roll that mother out. The fact is there aren't any new ideas, solar, nope, wind, nope, hydrocells, sounds good, but sustainable energy is needed to replace existing fuels, so, let's see what you have? What is your technology that you wish me to support?I applaud your efforts but you don't seem to understand the depth of denial present in denialists. If confronted w/ an alternative, they'll simply move the goalposts. Their ideology compels them to do so
I think you think you know too much about your opposition. The truth is, that there is none of us that would turn away from new technology. I think you are very mistaken. What we are is concerned over the sacrifices to get new technologies. You all act like there can't be synergies during research and development and abandaon current technologies and have people making choices. So, you are very wrong in your thinking.
But the return on investment in the technologies is positive. In a sense it does not make any difference if we are saving the planet or not, we are still growing the economy by the effort alone. (In actuality it makes a huge difference.) The problem is certain people don't want us to make the effort and they think no matter how bad things get they will always be above it all. Not all boats rise and as long as their's does and keeps them above the toxic waste, well the rest is population reduction.
Again, I'm all for any new technology, but not at the cost of human folks. If synergies exist, and something new is actually produced, roll that mother out. The fact is there aren't any new ideas, solar, nope, wind, nope, hydrocells, sounds good, but sustainable energy is needed to replace existing fuels, so, let's see what you have? What is your technology that you wish me to support?I think you think you know too much about your opposition. The truth is, that there is none of us that would turn away from new technology. I think you are very mistaken. What we are is concerned over the sacrifices to get new technologies. You all act like there can't be synergies during research and development and abandaon current technologies and have people making choices. So, you are very wrong in your thinking.
But the return on investment in the technologies is positive. In a sense it does not make any difference if we are saving the planet or not, we are still growing the economy by the effort alone. (In actuality it makes a huge difference.) The problem is certain people don't want us to make the effort and they think no matter how bad things get they will always be above it all. Not all boats rise and as long as their's does and keeps them above the toxic waste, well the rest is population reduction.
Again, I'm all for any new technology, but not at the cost of human folks. If synergies exist, and something new is actually produced, roll that mother out. The fact is there aren't any new ideas, solar, nope, wind, nope, hydrocells, sounds good, but sustainable energy is needed to replace existing fuels, so, let's see what you have? What is your technology that you wish me to support?But the return on investment in the technologies is positive. In a sense it does not make any difference if we are saving the planet or not, we are still growing the economy by the effort alone. (In actuality it makes a huge difference.) The problem is certain people don't want us to make the effort and they think no matter how bad things get they will always be above it all. Not all boats rise and as long as their's does and keeps them above the toxic waste, well the rest is population reduction.
How about we just create a few grants, request submissions, and let the best few applications have some funding? That sound alright?
Would it be wrong to try and stop the change? You know, just in case and all.
We have already reduced emissions in this country and will continue to do so as technology improves and when we all come to our senses and embrace nuclear power.
So why don't you tell me how you are going to force China and the rest of the world to stop polluting and how taxing and regulating us and our businesses into oblivion will accomplish that?
can we dispose of the spent nuclear fuel in your back yard
Again, I'm all for any new technology, but not at the cost of human folks. If synergies exist, and something new is actually produced, roll that mother out. The fact is there aren't any new ideas, solar, nope, wind, nope, hydrocells, sounds good, but sustainable energy is needed to replace existing fuels, so, let's see what you have? What is your technology that you wish me to support?But the return on investment in the technologies is positive. In a sense it does not make any difference if we are saving the planet or not, we are still growing the economy by the effort alone. (In actuality it makes a huge difference.) The problem is certain people don't want us to make the effort and they think no matter how bad things get they will always be above it all. Not all boats rise and as long as their's does and keeps them above the toxic waste, well the rest is population reduction.
How about we just create a few grants, request submissions, and let the best few applications have some funding? That sound alright?
