Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ

  1. 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:

     At the end of the day, you deny the science without actually being one of the scientists who publishes peer reviewed papers and participates in the scientific discussion.

    You claim you don't deny the science, but then, why are you pretending that there aren't any statements about how much man is contributing?

    Why do you say you want someone to tell you exactly how much man is contributing when it is clear you will reject that as "theory"? 



    Well if, the peer reviewed science was always good we would have no ice caps now, the himalayans would be pools of warm water, NY would be part of the Atlantic, Cali and Washington state would be part of the Pacific and we would all be starving due to our inability to adapt our agriculture with the warming.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

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

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    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!



    California has ozone pollution (smog) because it has a bunch of large cities built in the desert where it rarely rains.  Arizona and Nevada have the same issues.  Its strict controls are practical, given its climate.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

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

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

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


    Most Republicans and right-wing media; about half the conservatives who post on BDC.

     


    Pay attention.

     

     

     

    (And this is the biggest problem: They claim they are arguing that global warming theory is a hoax and man isn't contributing. When shot down, they tap dance over to a completely different position: That the political will isn't there for solutions to the problem).



    That's a load of bullbleep.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother'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.

     

     



    Seems like you are taking the same route you criticize in others.

     

    When shot down, they tap dance over to a completely different position: That the political will isn't there for solutions to the problem


    A dam or levee is more likely to hold back water than trusting politicians across the globe to control CO2.  The dam will work, CO2 mitigation will not. Why should we waste time and money on CO2 mitigation?

    I question your conclusion there is no political will for undertaking projects that protect cities, etc. from rising water. Seems to me that those are great construction jobs that unions would love to have a piece of. 

     

     

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

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

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    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.

    That's not true.  In the last 35 years, the sun and climate have gone in opposite directions, the former actually cooling slightly.

    Besides, the sun does not produce carbon emissions/particulates into the air (which are then trapped by the atmosphere).  We do.  That is the whole point.

     

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

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

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

      Sorry you progressives cannot take some constructive critisim on the subject of global warming.


    Let us know when you offer some....

     

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

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

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    Thank God Bush 41 fixed the acid rain horror in time eh?   How bout a hip hip hooray from the Greenies who voted for Dukakis.



    Acid rain?

    Is this 1983...?

     

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

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

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    A dam or levee is more likely to hold back water than trusting politicians across the globe to control CO2.  The dam will work, CO2 mitigation will not. Why should we waste time and money on CO2 mitigation?


    What gives you the idea that carbon mitigation can't/won't work...?

    It's already working on a large scale in several different applications, not least of which is the extraction of fossil fuels.

    Carbon recapture and sequestration alone can make an immediate impact, if more widely adopted.  Those who choose not to are cheating and abdicating their responsibility to the public trust.

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share