Stuff Republicans say.

[sun rise]

Just total dysfunction. Senate Dems and Pubs send bonehead Boehner a clean bill to fund DHS and he refused to bring it to the floor for a vote so what does he do....Yep. You guest it. He goes with "Plan B"....I seem to recall he had no luck with a Plan B of his a couple years ago...I think he's scared of the teapubtarians that actually run the House. So what happen to "Plan B"...Well, instead of the clear DHS funding bill he puts a bill on the House floor that would fund DHS for three weeks. WT...HE(double hockey sticks) is a three week funding bill supposed to accomplish. Well, like his other "Plan B" foulup this one too went down in flames. Once again apparently he was unable to WHIP pubs or dems into going for this sharade..... Had he just put a clean DHS funding bill on the floor to be voted on they all could be out o there......Just tragic..Hey, but the sheeple love them for some reason even though it's clear theyre having a hard time actually governing given the fact they have both houses...oh and a supposed "mandate"...LOL!!!!

Why don't they just hang a sign up that says "Welcome to America terrorists. We're going to help you blow up buildings and kill people".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And as a personal note, I have no particular love for the Democratic party either right now. Neither party represents the interests of the country. Both are to a greater or lesser degree instruments of special interest groups. I happen to think the Democrats are better than the Republicans here since the Republicans have to bow before their rulers, the Koch brothers, while the Democrats are quietly taking money from their own special interests with the control more indirect and less blatant. But it's a matter of degree not kind.

Here the Democrats are hardly any better. Though you'll find more support for gay rights, our Democrat Representative, Joe Donnelly, until about a year and a half ago. And either party will role out the red carpet for big business. But you don't hear the Democrats saying that rape, when it results in pregnancy, is something god intended, like Richard Murdock (R) did. And it was the Republicans who ran the Right-to-Work bill through. And it's the Republicans who have tried to get Creationism taught as a science.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But we're not talking about a few molecules here or there in relative terms. We know exactly when all the began. Looking backward at data from the beginning of the industrial age shows us the upward progression of CO2. Back in the day we realized how harmful man has become to the environment when dealing with acid rain. We were pumping more destructive by products into our environment than the environment could naturally handle.



But you seem to be under the impression NASA and others are relying solely on "Landsats" and the is so far from being true. Scientist in the respective field are using a host of tools and they do in fact rely on satellites to track short term and long term weather trends.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: NASA's Role

It has 'progressed' a little more than one extra molecule of CO2 in 10,000 of air, it's genuinely surprising how many believers seem to be unaware of this, it's just not enough to alter the climate in any significant way,


Next time you see any kind of hockey stick chart, or chart claiming 'warmest year on record' check the source of the data, I guarantee you it's cobbled together from sporadic fudgable land data, nothing to do with the direct reliable satellite data which has never agreed. The warmest actual temps were measured back in '98.

Also I agree there are destructive products, but CO2 is not one, especially at these levels, most plants prefer far higher levels than we have today, 1200-1500ppm.

again, pre-industrial 275ppm represented a near starvation level, after millions of years of CO2 depletion, helping open up vast deserts on Earth, mother nature would be very grateful for our restoring some of this nutrient, albeit a tiny amount

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It has 'progressed' a little more than one extra molecule of CO2 in 10,000 of air, it's genuinely surprising how many believers seem to be unaware of this, it's just not enough to alter the climate in any significant way,

Your position is no different than claims that the average global temperature increasing only a few degrees isn't that much, even though we have documented the melting of the ice caps and animal migration patterns to know it is a huge difference.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Your position is no different than claims that the average global temperature increasing only a few degrees isn't that much, even though we have documented the melting of the ice caps and animal migration patterns to know it is a huge difference.

I don't even know of any climastrologers who claim 'several degrees'- even the data they were caught red handed manipulating was under 1 degree.

Antarctica continues to set records for increasing ice coverage. The worrying part there is that ice caps, glaciers have been retreating, melting since the last ice age nearly 20,000 years ago, if this were ever to stop/reverse, we might have a real problem on our hands. Antarctica represents a vastly greater percentage of the Earth's ice caps than the relatively minute amount of floating sea ice in the Arctic.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't even know of any climastrologers who claim 'several degrees'- even the data they were caught red handed manipulating was under 1 degree.

How is it manipulation when the decade of 2000-2009 is the warmest on record and 2010-current is getting warmer still?

Antarctica continues to set records for increasing ice coverage. The worrying part there is that ice caps, glaciers have been retreating, melting since the last ice age nearly 20,000 years ago, if this were ever to stop/reverse, we might have a real problem on our hands. Antarctica represents a vastly greater percentage of the Earth's ice caps than the relatively minute amount of floating sea ice in the Arctic.

By all observations, especially satellite, by even with other measurements here on earth, we can see the ice is melting. This melting ice raises the global ocean levels, cools the oceans (which is not at all good for the gulf stream), and is causing problems for the native species in these climates.

 

[esmith]

Whether man is affecting the climate or not appears to be a topic of contention. However, what I find rather troubling is the idea that the US can do something about it without the commitment of the entire world is to put it bluntly idiotic. Yes, I hear your comment "the US can set an example". Well to this is say, " you are living in a fantasy world". Those developing countries are not going to do anything that will reduce their desire to provide their citizens progress. I here the comment that the US was the major source of emissions for years, which is true. We had the ambition and technical knowledge to put to use natural resource to improve our economy to a point that we are the the most successfully nation on earth. Yes, I admit that what we did to achieve this hurt the environment along the way, either by ignorance or greed, but we did it. Get over it. I do not want the children of this country to become second rate to any other nation just to "set an example". I agree that we should do all we can to improve but not at the cost of harming our economy. So I say to all of you radical climate changers (note not all people that believe that man causes climate change are radicals) I am willing to accept the idea that we can do something to improve the environment but do not harm the economy or our way of life.

 

[metis]

Green energy, energy conservation, and switching to less polluting forms of energy will not hurt the economy but actually help it in the long run. Even if one were to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence for global warming, which is actually based on real measurements and not estimates, there simply is no logical nor any economic reason why not to go ahead with the above programs. It's basically a win/win situation, and we can make these transitions rather easily over a period of decades.

We've already taken many steps in that direction and have had success, so why should we stop now?

 

[Revoltingest]

Green energy, energy conservation, and switching to less polluting forms of energy will not hurt the economy but actually help it in the long run. Even if one were to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence for global warming, which is actually based on real measurements and not estimates, there simply is no logical nor any economic reason why not to go ahead with the above programs. It's basically a win/win situation, and we can make these transitions rather easily over a period of decades.

I don't think the AGW argument makes any sense. No matter how much we as a country reduce our impact, we won't affect other countries. The stronger argument for greener energy sources are:
A) Cleaner environment
B) Military strategic concerns:
- Reduced dependence upon foreign sources
- Decentralization of power utilities
C) Long term economic benefits of lower energy & health care costs

 

[metis]

I don't think the AGW argument makes any sense. No matter how much we as a country reduce our impact, we won't affect other countries. The stronger argument for greener energy sources are:
A) Cleaner environment
B) Military strategic concerns:
- Reduced dependence upon foreign sources
- Decentralization of power utilities
C) Long term economic benefits of lower energy & health care costs

We cannot control what other countries do, but we can do somethings ourselves that not only may help the environment somewhat, but also makes sense for other reasons. Also, China right now is actually spending more time and money on developing green energy than we are, partially because parts of the country, especially Beijing and Shanghai, are so terribly polluted that they don't have much choice but to try and change things. My oldest daughter was in Beijing three years ago and couldn't believe how polluted the air was.

 

[Revoltingest]

We cannot control what other countries do, but we can do somethings ourselves that not only may help the environment somewhat, but also makes sense for other reasons. Also, China right now is actually spending more time and money on developing green energy than we are, partially because parts of the country, especially Beijing and Shanghai, are so terribly polluted that they don't have much choice but to try and change things. My oldest daughter was in Beijing three years ago and couldn't believe how polluted the air was.

To be clear, I'm advocating green energy. It makes sense for some reasons, but not for fighting AGW. That it mitigates AGW is merely a side benefit.

 

[metis]

To be clear, I'm advocating green energy. It makes sense for some reasons, but not for fighting AGW. That it mitigates AGW is merely a side benefit.

As Gandhi said, there are no perfect victories, so the idea that at least we can do something to help plays well with me-- what he called "disinterested action"-- namely, do that which is right regardless of the consequences.

Of course I don't always do that.

 

[sun rise]

I don't think the AGW argument makes any sense. No matter how much we as a country reduce our impact, we won't affect other countries. The stronger argument for greener energy sources are:
A) Cleaner environment
B) Military strategic concerns:
- Reduced dependence upon foreign sources
- Decentralization of power utilities
C) Long term economic benefits of lower energy & health care costs

No matter why you get "on the bus", welcome.

I've had a love/hate relationship with American exceptionalism for a long time. Where I am with it now is that other nations won't follow our example just because we say it's a good thing to do. They will follow it if they see that it works for us and decide it's in their own best interest to follow our lead.

If you search on "leading by example" you'll find a gazillion web sites that talk about why it's such a powerful thing to do, how to do it and the wonderful results that follow. What's true for business is true for nations albeit it can take longer for governments and citizens to recognize what is in their own self interest and they often insist on doing the opposite.

If only there was a second party which did not just scream "no" but came up with practical proposals that were based on what has worked in the past.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How is it manipulation when the decade of 2000-2009 is the warmest on record and 2010-current is getting warmer still?

By all observations, especially satellite, by even with other measurements here on earth, we can see the ice is melting. This melting ice raises the global ocean levels, cools the oceans (which is not at all good for the gulf stream), and is causing problems for the native species in these climates.

In 2007, IPCC notes “Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year
(IPCC) concluded that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected

as above, ice has been melting/retreating since the last glacial maximum, and at a very steady rate in recent history. The suggestion that this rise is somehow new and linked to 2 molecules CO2 in 10,000 of air is simply scientifically illiterate

The thin layer of floating sea ice in the arctic, may look like a dramatic change when it shrinks (or grows as it has in recent years) but the overall volume is infinitesimal compared to Earth's total ice, mostly constituted by Antarctica which is expanding and setting new records yearly. That's why sea level rise is so steady.

If you lived on a beach long enough, you would have witnessed the sea level rise several inches over the last century. But you probably would not notice it, don't you think there would quite a few events in world history that were a tad more important?

Let me ask you, what is it you are most afraid from global warming?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

To be clear, I'm advocating green energy. It makes sense for some reasons, but not for fighting AGW. That it mitigates AGW is merely a side benefit.

I'm all for sustainable energy, economically sustainable, earns it's own keep and then some, does not rely on massive tax payer subsidy, contributes to the economy instead of eating away at it, improves our standard of living instead of rationing it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm all for sustainable energy, economically sustainable, earns it's own keep and then some, does not rely on massive tax payer subsidy, contributes to the economy instead of eating away at it, improves our standard of living instead of rationing it.

I agree in principal. But I'm willing to allow some subsidy because energy independence & decentralization have strategic self-defense ramifications. As an ex-weapon system designer, I look at green energy as another defensive weapon in our arsenal. Now, & even more so in the future, we face new weapons, eg, EMP (to take out electronics & power systems), hacking (to sabotage everything), airborne carbon particulates (to take out electronics).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I agree in principal. But I'm willing to allow some subsidy because energy independence & decentralization have strategic self-defense ramifications. As an ex-weapon system designer, I look at green energy as another defensive weapon in our arsenal. Now, & even more so in the future, we face new weapons, eg, EMP (to take out electronics & power systems), hacking (to sabotage everything), airborne carbon particulates (to take out electronics).

well that's an unusual angle, but you're an unusual guy! out of curiosity, what's your take on cold fusion?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To be clear, I'm advocating green energy. It makes sense for some reasons, but not for fighting AGW. That it mitigates AGW is merely a side benefit.

This I agree with. Though the evidence is clear, global warming/climate change has become such a heavily politicized topic that it has become an obstacle for needed switches. On the other hand, there are so many good reasons for switching to green energy that it makes no sense to oppose it. The biggest reason, which I'm not sure if I've even heard a politician mention, is the biggest and most obvious, and that is we have only a limited amount of coal, oil, gas, and any other natural resource. I would think that alone would get people drawing up plans to start working towards sustainable energy, but it apparently hasn't.

 

[Revoltingest]

well that's an unusual angle, but you're an unusual guy! out of curiosity, what's your take on cold fusion?

When it was the justification offered at the end of The Matrix, I thought.....
You ignorant boobs! There was no reason to introduce a thoroughly discredited theory which descended into a desperate attempt by Pons & Fleischmann to save face in spite of no one being able to replicate their experimental results.

 

[Revoltingest]

This I agree with. Though the evidence is clear, global warming/climate change has become such a heavily politicized topic that it has become an obstacle for needed switches. On the other hand, there are so many good reasons for switching to green energy that it makes no sense to oppose it. The biggest reason, which I'm not sure if I've even heard a politician mention, is the biggest and most obvious, and that is we have only a limited amount of coal, oil, gas, and any other natural resource. I would think that alone would get people drawing up plans to start working towards sustainable energy, but it apparently hasn't.

There is much work towards sustainable energy....some of it good (solar cell improvements)....some of it bad (ethanol from corn). But nothing is really taking off because fossil fuels are still plentiful, & will be for some time. Americastan has massive oil, gas & coal reserves.