Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    Maybe they should listen to the insurance companies' underwriters...

    ...who invariably pay very, very close attention to the climate scientists' consensus on the effects (never mind the causes) of global climate change.

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    LOL!!

    So, who is arguing that global warming doesnt happen?

    Who is arguing that CO2 isnt harmful or that it can't cause the atmosphere to hold heat which causes global warming?

    What we (all scientist) DO NOT know is how much mankind (better yet the USA) (which is much better at being green than say China, India, Russia etc) are contributing to the actual warming effect and how much would take place from maturally occuring co2!

    Should we wreck our economy on hunch while the rest of the world expands in fossil fuels??

     

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ


    lol,

    "Most" republicans are demiers of global warming?

    lol whatever.

    Denying it happens is silly saying definitively that mankind is making a significant and negative impact is just as silly.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    Should we wreck our economy on hunch while the rest of the world expands in fossil fuels??

     



    It's interesting to hear someone who has argued that long-term debt accumulation will eventually wreck our economy and must therefore be dealt with RIGHT NOW despite the damage austerity can cause......

    ...argue the opposite when it comes to the economic wreck that will ensue if even the tamest present models for global warming bear out 50 or 100 years from now?

    How would you explain this seeming inconsistency? (May I recommend a denial of the future economic effects of warming? It's one of the chef's best.)

     

     

     

    It's a given that we cannot model this with extreme precision, as we see the models changing as new data comes in. But if even rising ocean levels is the only thing to actually happen, we're talking incredible expenses. Just how many trillions would it cost to take a massive city that has existed for hundreds of years like NYC, and seal it against deeper waters?

    Moved/walled up cities, changing weather patterns affecting crops/wildfires/etc, changing temperatures changing where crops can be grown, some areas becomming fertile while others becoming infertile.


    Now add in global effects as said changes effect countries who do not occupy as large landmass as the U.S. Places like Africa and Europe, where the answer would not be to simply move your farm a thousand miles over because....that would be a different country and/or the ocean.... ?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The biggest problem is that the models are so far out that no one in power wants to get slammed for doing something that hurts the economy now, even if it avoids economic catastrophe for our grandchildren.

     

     

    Interesting post.  you are however misinterpreting the conservative linkage between debt/economy and global warming.  The answer to you point is that we don't trust the solutions progressives have pushed to fix the economy, as they have largely made things worse, so we don't trust progressive solutions to global warming, as they will likely make things worse.

    The problem is, we can't really do much about climate change.  The science is that it is largely driven by the Sun.  Does that mean we should pollute as much as possible? Clearly not.  But the solutions need to be tempered with the reality that there is little we can do, as the industry of man is not the significant problem.

    let me know when you find the off switch for the Sun.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    Saying that two things are equal does not make them equal.

    It also does not make you look neutral.

    Mankind is definitely making an impact and the only real disagremeent is over the specific details on how that effect plays out. ie, mitigation. 

    I see you completely failed to address my points. Very well. Run along, coward.




    You wont listen and you go into a hissy fit when people dont see things as you do.

    There are around 60,000,000 labelled republicans in this country.

    When talking politicians I agree that most DENY global warming is man made.

    But, it's more complex than you make it out to be.

    Man made industry as well as nature and natural occurances off gas CO2 and other "greenhouse gases".

    The real question that no scientific theory can get a grasp on is if, we reduce or eliminate all industrial green houses gases (assuming we could get other countries to comply; which they will not) how much if, any positive effect will it have on global warming or climate change in the short or long term?

     

     

     

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     you are however misinterpreting the conservative linkage between debt/economy and global warming.  The answer to you point is that we don't trust the solutions progressives have pushed to fix the economy, as they have largely made things worse, so we don't trust progressive solutions to global warming, as they will likely make things worse.

     




     

    Progressive solutions have largely made things worse? Care to cite any examples of what you are talking about, followed by explanations of how said examples made something 'worse'?

    The problem is that we cannot debate possible solutions because of politicians who deny the science in order to watch their constituents' backs.

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]
    The problem is, we can't really do much about climate change.  The science is that it is largely driven by the Sun.  Does that mean we should pollute as much as possible? Clearly not.  But the solutions need to be tempered with the reality that there is little we can do, as the industry of man is not the significant problem.

     

    let me know when you find the off switch for the Sun.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, no, that's logically flawed.

     

    Even if the sun and the molten core of the earth are responsible for most of the heat on earth....

    ...that does not mean that increasing temperatures further cannot tip things from a tolerable balance to an intolerable imbalance.

    The non-man-heat is a baseline. That says nothing about where the ceiling lies.

    [/QUOTE]

    Let me be as clear as possible:

    the problem is not global warming, or the economy, the problem is that the progressive solutions to either problem don't work, and in the process will the very people they claim to help.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     you are however misinterpreting the conservative linkage between debt/economy and global warming.  The answer to you point is that we don't trust the solutions progressives have pushed to fix the economy, as they have largely made things worse, so we don't trust progressive solutions to global warming, as they will likely make things worse.

     

     




     

     

    Progressive solutions have largely made things worse? Care to cite any examples of what you are talking about, followed by explanations of how said examples made something 'worse'?

    The problem is that we cannot debate possible solutions because of politicians who deny the science in order to watch their constituents' backs.

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]
    The problem is, we can't really do much about climate change.  The science is that it is largely driven by the Sun.  Does that mean we should pollute as much as possible? Clearly not.  But the solutions need to be tempered with the reality that there is little we can do, as the industry of man is not the significant problem.

     

     

    let me know when you find the off switch for the Sun.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, no, that's logically flawed.

     

     

    Even if the sun and the molten core of the earth are responsible for most of the heat on earth....

    ...that does not mean that increasing temperatures further cannot tip things from a tolerable balance to an intolerable imbalance.

    The non-man-heat is a baseline. That says nothing about where the ceiling lies.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Let me be as clear as possible:

     

    the problem is not global warming, or the economy, the problem is that the progressive solutions to either problem don't work, and in the process will the very people they claim to help.

    [/QUOTE]


    You're not painting an honest picture of modern conservatism.  Nobody on the right, whether it's in the media or holding office, is making the argument that global warming is a serious issue facing our country and planet, but it is beyond our control.  Nobody on the right is reluctantly embracing the necessary evil of fossil fuels.  Quite the opposite - the right celebrates fossil fuels with "drill baby drill" parties and muscle trucks that achieve the worst fuel efficiency allowed by law.  

     

     

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     you are however misinterpreting the conservative linkage between debt/economy and global warming.  The answer to you point is that we don't trust the solutions progressives have pushed to fix the economy, as they have largely made things worse, so we don't trust progressive solutions to global warming, as they will likely make things worse.

     

     

     




     

     

     

    Progressive solutions have largely made things worse? Care to cite any examples of what you are talking about, followed by explanations of how said examples made something 'worse'?

    The problem is that we cannot debate possible solutions because of politicians who deny the science in order to watch their constituents' backs.

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]
    The problem is, we can't really do much about climate change.  The science is that it is largely driven by the Sun.  Does that mean we should pollute as much as possible? Clearly not.  But the solutions need to be tempered with the reality that there is little we can do, as the industry of man is not the significant problem.

     

     

     

    let me know when you find the off switch for the Sun.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, no, that's logically flawed.

     

     

     

    Even if the sun and the molten core of the earth are responsible for most of the heat on earth....

    ...that does not mean that increasing temperatures further cannot tip things from a tolerable balance to an intolerable imbalance.

    The non-man-heat is a baseline. That says nothing about where the ceiling lies.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Let me be as clear as possible:

     

     

    the problem is not global warming, or the economy, the problem is that the progressive solutions to either problem don't work, and in the process will the very people they claim to help.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    You're not painting an honest picture of modern conservatism.  Nobody on the right, whether it's in the media or holding office, is making the argument that global warming is a serious issue facing our country and planet, but it is beyond our control.  Nobody on the right is reluctantly embracing the necessary evil of fossil fuels.  Quite the opposite - the right celebrates fossil fuels with "drill baby drill" parties and muscle trucks that achieve the worst fuel efficiency allowed by law.  

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not talking about conservatism, I'm talking about progressives.  They are the problem.  They can't be trusted to develop solutions to these "problems".

    As far as the science, it is settled.  The Sun is the biggest culprit in the global warming arena.  Go find the OFF switch for the Sun and get back to me.

    Until then, stop being an alarmist calling human activity to grind to a halt to save the polar bears.  It is bad science, but it does give you more control over people's lives.  That's the real target for progressives.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]
    I'm nOt talking about conservatism, I'm talking about progressives.  They are the problem.  They can't be trusted to develop solutions to these "problems".

     

     



    blah blah blah, crap crap crap?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Or in other words, you cannot be serious to sum up the multiple posts.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

     you are however misinterpreting the conservative linkage between debt/economy and global warming.  The answer to you point is that we don't trust the solutions progressives have pushed to fix the economy, as they have largely made things worse, so we don't trust progressive solutions to global warming, as they will likely make things worse.

     

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

     

    Progressive solutions have largely made things worse? Care to cite any examples of what you are talking about, followed by explanations of how said examples made something 'worse'?

    The problem is that we cannot debate possible solutions because of politicians who deny the science in order to watch their constituents' backs.

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]
    The problem is, we can't really do much about climate change.  The science is that it is largely driven by the Sun.  Does that mean we should pollute as much as possible? Clearly not.  But the solutions need to be tempered with the reality that there is little we can do, as the industry of man is not the significant problem.

     

     

     

     

     

    let me know when you find the off switch for the Sun.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, no, that's logically flawed.

     

     

     

     

     

    Even if the sun and the molten core of the earth are responsible for most of the heat on earth....

    ...that does not mean that increasing temperatures further cannot tip things from a tolerable balance to an intolerable imbalance.

    The non-man-heat is a baseline. That says nothing about where the ceiling lies.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Let me be as clear as possible:

     

     

     

     

    the problem is not global warming, or the economy, the problem is that the progressive solutions to either problem don't work, and in the process will the very people they claim to help.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

     

    You're not painting an honest picture of modern conservatism.  Nobody on the right, whether it's in the media or holding office, is making the argument that global warming is a serious issue facing our country and planet, but it is beyond our control.  Nobody on the right is reluctantly embracing the necessary evil of fossil fuels.  Quite the opposite - the right celebrates fossil fuels with "drill baby drill" parties and muscle trucks that achieve the worst fuel efficiency allowed by law.  

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not talking about conservatism, I'm talking about progressives.  They are the problem.  They can't be trusted to develop solutions to these "problems".

     

     

    As far as the science, it is settled.  The Sun is the biggest culprit in the global warming arena.  Go find the OFF switch for the Sun and get back to me.

    Until then, stop being an alarmist calling human activity to grind to a halt to save the polar bears.  It is bad science, but it does give you more control over people's lives.  That's the real target for progressives.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    OMG! My brain wants to ooze out of my ears and gouge my eyes out after reading that! What a stupid comment.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Right.  Truth does seem to have this impact on progressives.

    I guess we are stuck with stopping all human activity until the planet stops having a fever.

     

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]
    I'm nOt talking about conservatism, I'm talking about progressives.  They are the problem.  They can't be trusted to develop solutions to these "problems".

     

     



    blah blah blah, crap crap crap?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, was I talking about conservatism, or was I talking about progressives?

    I know you progressives approach global warming with religious zeal, but no need to tell me I am talking about conservatives when I am talking about progressives, who are systematically destroying the people who inhabit this planet.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]
    I'm nOt talking about conservatism, I'm talking about progressives.  They are the problem.  They can't be trusted to develop solutions to these "problems".

     

     

     

     



    blah blah blah, crap crap crap?

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Or in other words, you cannot be serious to sum up the multiple posts.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The multiple posts whihc never mentioned conservatism.  Sorry you progressives cannot take some constructive critisim on the subject of global warming.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    It is clear that there is an effect. Just look at the graph, if you don't trust 98% of scientists who researched the question of whether man is contributing and wrote a peer reviewed paper on it.

    Your position is a dangerous one. The science is in: Man is having an effect and we're starting to see it. The underlying theory is 100% sound. The only disagreements are fo the sort of whether the oceans will rise 5 feet in 50 years or 8 feet.

     



    geez!

    There is an effect yes no one is denying that!

    How much IF ANY is man contributing to that effect??

    Until we have a better understanding or at least a global consensus in industrialized nations along with a sincere mindset to make changes it is irrational and irresponsible to make radical changes to ONLY OUR industry and economy based on a hunch that other countries (china india etc) will go along!!

    They will laugh and take our share of the global economics.

    Why lessen the quality of life for 10's of thouseands if not many times that until it will make a difference?

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]
    I'm nOt talking about conservatism, I'm talking about progressives.  They are the problem.  They can't be trusted to develop solutions to these "problems".

     

     

     

     

     

     



    blah blah blah, crap crap crap?

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Or in other words, you cannot be serious to sum up the multiple posts.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The multiple posts whihc never mentioned conservatism.  Sorry you progressives cannot take some constructive critisim on the subject of global warming.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    skeeter,

    Very simply, like I was a two year old, is your analysis of global warming and what we should do about it and what we should not do about it?

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I know you progressives approach global warming with religious zeal, but no need to tell me I am talking about conservatives when I am talking about progressives, who are systematically destroying the people who inhabit this planet.

     




     

    And where do the Lizard People fit in?

    [/QUOTE]

    The Lizzard people are inthe invivisble space ships circling the Sun.

    I thought you knew that.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    If there was a giant asteroid headed toward earth, you wouldn't see it - you would have to take the scientists word for it.  You wouldn't know exactly what the effect would be, or where it would land.  You would be asked to pay to help develop a means to destroy it, and you would be paying a disproportionate amount to the rest of the world.

    Would you agree to help, or would you shrug your shoulders and say "it's just a hoax" or "there's nothing we can do about it" and post another thread about how terrible Obama has been for the country you love.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

     

     

    There is an effect yes no one is denying that!

    How much IF ANY is man contributing to that effect??

     

     

     

     

    Again:

    Do you really see no flaw in demanding that you be presented with a prediction that is 100% accurate?

     

    It's fundamentally impossible. It's a prediction until that which is predicted happens or doesn't happen.

     

    It is clear that there is an effect. Just look at the graph, if you don't trust 98% of scientists who researched the question of whether man is contributing and wrote a peer reviewed paper on it.

    Without a time machine, it is literally impossible to predict exactly 100% what effect there is, but it has been proven that there IS an effect, that it is getting worse, and that it will continue to get worse.


    If you say that they cannot show that there is an effect or how much it is, you are simply denying science even though you pose as someone who accepts it.

     

     

     

     

     

    Until we have a better understanding or at least a global consensus in industrialized nations along with a sincere mindset to make changes it is irrational and irresponsible to make radical changes to ONLY OUR industry and economy based on a hunch that other countries (china india etc) will go along!!

    They will laugh and take our share of the global economics.

    Why lessen the quality of life for 10's of thouseands if not many times that until it will make a difference?

     

     

     

     

     

    And how, pray tell, are we going to ever have a chance of building a global census with one party rife with people denying science....

    .....and the people who aren't denying science denying the plausibility of any approach to reduce emissions in any way?

     

     

    It's just a ploy. You don't even get to "if at first you don't succeed" if you have managed to block even the beginnings of discourse on the matter. Just brush it under the rug and hope the scientists are right that the real S won't hit the fan until we're dead.




     



    "And how, pray tell, are we going to ever have a chance of building a global census with one party rife with people denying science...."

     

    And that party is????

    The Democrat party.

    The Democrats have latched onto global warming and the related legislation as a way to further expand their control over people and their lives.

    If this was about science, then they would agree that the Sun is the larger problem, and Obama, although he claims he can stop the sea levels from rising, runs out of special super powers when it comes to turning off the Sun.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

     

     

    There is an effect yes no one is denying that!

    How much IF ANY is man contributing to that effect??

     

     

     

     

    Again:

    Do you really see no flaw in demanding that you be presented with a prediction that is 100% accurate?

     

    It's fundamentally impossible. It's a prediction until that which is predicted happens or doesn't happen.

     

    It is clear that there is an effect. Just look at the graph, if you don't trust 98% of scientists who researched the question of whether man is contributing and wrote a peer reviewed paper on it.

    Without a time machine, it is literally impossible to predict exactly 100% what effect there is, but it has been proven that there IS an effect, that it is getting worse, and that it will continue to get worse.


    If you say that they cannot show that there is an effect or how much it is, you are simply denying science even though you pose as someone who accepts it.

     

     

     

     

     

    Until we have a better understanding or at least a global consensus in industrialized nations along with a sincere mindset to make changes it is irrational and irresponsible to make radical changes to ONLY OUR industry and economy based on a hunch that other countries (china india etc) will go along!!

    They will laugh and take our share of the global economics.

    Why lessen the quality of life for 10's of thouseands if not many times that until it will make a difference?

     

     

     

     

     

    And how, pray tell, are we going to ever have a chance of building a global census with one party rife with people denying science....

    .....and the people who aren't denying science denying the plausibility of any approach to reduce emissions in any way?

     

     

    It's just a ploy. You don't even get to "if at first you don't succeed" if you have managed to block even the beginnings of discourse on the matter. Just brush it under the rug and hope the scientists are right that the real S won't hit the fan until we're dead.




     



    "And how, pray tell, are we going to ever have a chance of building a global census with one party rife with people denying science...."

     

    And that party is????

    The Democrat party.

    The Democrats have latched onto global warming and the related legislation as a way to further expand their control over people and their lives.

    If this was about science, then they would agree that the Sun is the larger problem, and Obama, although he claims he can stop the sea levels from rising, runs out of special super powers when it comes to turning off the Sun.



    skeeter,

    At least some posters have stated what they believe global warming is about.

    They have also stated what they think are some of the ways to approach it.

    Again I ask you, explain it to me as if I were a two year old. What is YOUR position on global warming?

    What is YOUR position on what we should be doing about it...for us, for our children...for our grandchildren?

     It is a lot easier to ridicule those who come out with a position and possible solutions than to come out with your own position and possible solutions, is it not?

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

    lol

    No one is against a cleaner planet or reducing emissions.

    Draconian attempts at a carbon tax or carbon credits are just that aa tax and revenue for the govt at the expense of business.

    California has the strictest environment control for the oil and gas industry in the country.

    Want to know why they atill have so much pollution?

    Because all they do is fine the companies and the companies just build the cost of the fines into doing business and pass it on to us because to meet the regulation is not feasible to accomplish and remain in business.

    btw: it was no accident it was set up this way by the govt!

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share