For you Global Warming fans-

[drcampbell]

The existence of charlatans is not disproof of the existence of global warming's.

That's as logical as saying that since there were people charging $10/gallon for Diesel fuel in the aftermath of a hurricane, there's no such thing as a hurricane.

[checkthisout]

Originally Posted by macmaniac1

I have to ask this one question to gore supporters. If he truly believes that human induced co2 production will eventually cause catastrophic global climate change which could end up destroying life as we know it. Then why is he trying to regulate, tax, etc. the effect of the problem and not the problem itself. Why is he going after the co2 and not the human population that produces it? Why, because it is more marketable. He is a very crude business man after all. He has made huge sums of money in oil and other "dirty" businesses only realizing that he can make way more if he could convince the whole planet on his c02 theory by using data over a short period of earth's history. This is why most of the scientist that are balking and disproving his claims have looked at data from over hundreds of millions of years and proving that this may just be another ecological bump in the road. just my .02

It's another way for foreigners to loot the U.S. economy as they have been doing for decades. Why do you think Al Gore's Hedge Fund is based out of London?

Al Gore is a hinderance to progress because he is a polarizing figure.

FYI, a policy that aims to let the "Free Market" reduce C02 output through Cap and Trade is anything but left and theirfore not liberal. However, it is very far right and theirfore inherently fascist.

[AK_Gandy]

Originally Posted by RatherBNtheWoods

During a global warming trend, not every square inch of the globe will be warmer 100% of the time. Global warming is the average temperature of the surface of the "3 rock" increasing. It has been observed, noted, noticed,discovered (WETF) that the earth is in a warming trend. Global warming isn't really an arguable point amongst knowledgeable or learned peoples.

What is arguable is whether mankind is:

:Fully responsible?
:Partially responsible?
:Not responsible?

After that argument is determined, the argument becomes can mankind stop, slow or change the warming trend?

One school of thought is that since the Earth "IS" warming, and we as mankind "MAY" be somewhat the cause, should we do what we can to lower the impact we have.

Additionally, some of us think it wise to not go off the deep end possibly causing more harm and/or burdening us with useless hardship. Instead we should exercise some common sense and do what we can that will do the most good without destroying our life styles or mankind in it's entirety.

Very good post.

[Pappy19]

That is a good post. My view is more nukes and more natural gas, including natural gas vehicles. Between the US and Canada, we have about 200-300 years of known deposits. We need to utilize this clean source of energy way more than we are currently using.

[DirtFarmer]

Originally Posted by checkthisout

FYI, a policy that aims to let the "Free Market" reduce C02 output through Cap and Trade is anything but left and theirfore not liberal. However, it is very far right and theirfore inherently fascist.

The "Free Market" is what takes place in the absence of government intervention. The 1200+ page Cap and Trade bill, pushed through and supported almost exclusively by the Democrats in congress, is not the "Free Market".

Cap and Trade is a huge tax on proven energy sources to pay for subsidies to marginal, but politically correct "green" energy sources.

However, the merging of government and industry is a key ingredient for fascism, so I guess you are on the right track in using that term.

[AK_Gandy]

Industry without some form of government soon becomes a monopolistic society.

Government without a form of free enterprise becomes totalitarianism.

As in most things in life, a balance must be struck.

[checkthisout]

Originally Posted by DirtFarmer

The "Free Market" is what takes place in the absence of government intervention. The 1200+ page Cap and Trade bill, pushed through and supported almost exclusively by the Democrats in congress, is not the "Free Market".

Cap and Trade is a huge tax on proven energy sources to pay for subsidies to marginal, but politically correct "green" energy sources.

However, the merging of government and industry is a key ingredient for fascism, so I guess you are on the right track in using that term.

Cap and Trade isn't a tax just like Obama's proposed Public Healthcare isn't public at all.

[Bill1013]

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Solution for Global Warming. Shoot all those farting cattle in Texas, New Mexico, Wyoming, etc.

You suppose all those cattlemen would be pissed off?

[AK_Gandy]

"Political Correctness" came into being as a change to the unconscionable act of discrimination against those who were not "white and right."

Yes, it has certainly gone overboard at times but....the original purpose was/is a noble cause.

Oftentimes you can substitute the words "politeness and manners" for "political correctness" ...................... and the meaning would stay the same.

[gcduece]

[QUOTE=drcampbell;1750725]Yes, the facts speak for themselves: The CO2 level in the atmosphere is currently 50% higher than what it has averaged for the last 400,000 years, and 25% higher than its highest peak.



Could have something to do with the same fear mongers putting catalytic converters on everything. Nothing like producing even more CO2.

[Pappy19]

[quote=gcduece;1753596]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

Yes, the facts speak for themselves: The CO2 level in the atmosphere is currently 50% higher than what it has averaged for the last 400,000 years, and 25% higher than its highest peak.



Could have something to do with the same fear mongers putting catalytic converters on everything. Nothing like producing even more CO2.

I don't think so-

Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. How and why we are told otherwise?

[drcampbell]

Originally Posted by gcduece

Could have something to do with the same fear mongers putting catalytic converters on everything. Nothing like producing even more CO2.

What you suggest is strictly correct, but such a small effect that it is irrelevant.

Combustion in a modern engine is 99-plus percent complete. Less than 1% of the carbon in the fuel is converted into carbon monoxide and more than 99% of the carbon in the fuel is already converted into carbon dioxide before encountering the catalyst. A catalytic converter does convert CO to CO2, but the increase in CO2 emission is nil.

One need not be a "fearmonger" to insist on cleaning up carbon monoxide emissions. CO is deadly toxic.

[kude]

I was reading something this week on the high cost of carbon fiber. One of the problems government scientists have was finding a way of oxidizing the carbon. They suggested using plasmas. It occurs to me, if there are tons of CO2 floating around, and that is carbon that has been oxidized, why not pull that of the atmosphere and turn it into carbon fiber that can be used on cars? If 50 billion dollars had been put into a nuclear reactor, and a condensation sytem to pull CO2 out of the air and turn it into carbon fiber body parts for cars, wouldn't the "climate change" problem be helped, but no we bail out old technology GM just to save a few union jobs.

I'm beginning to wonder if government scientists and government don't want to really solve the problems because that would put them out of a job once accomplished. I suppose they will hold onto the climate change issue for years scaring voters of doom instead of handling it like a man would do, solving it directly. Tax and cap is a joke. Pull the ^&%$ CO2 out of the air and convert it to carbon fiber. that would improve the situation.

[gcduece]

Originally Posted by kude

I'm beginning to wonder if government scientists and government don't want to really solve the problems because that would put them out of a job once accomplished. I suppose they will hold onto the climate change issue for years scaring voters of doom instead of handling it like a man would do, solving it directly. Tax and cap is a joke. Pull the ^&%$ CO2 out of the air and convert it to carbon fiber. that would improve the situation.

DING, DING, DING...We have a Winner, tell him what he's won Charlie!