| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Stan de SD" |
| Date: |
05 Jan 2006 08:21:59 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Hey, it's only weather ... Drought and Fire Threaten Oklahoma City |
"R Philip Dowds" <rpdowds@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_8_uf.4841$M%4.3092@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:25:45 GMT, R Philip Dowds
<rpdowds@earthlink.net> wrote:
...
What popular, generally accepted assumptions about climate change and
global warming (presumably promoted by eco-freaks and news bimbettes)
are in error, and need correction? No equations, please, just English.
Thanks.
False premise #1. Increased Atmospheric CO2 is causing increased
global temperature.
False premise #2. Without Anthropocentric (man made)CO2 the current
world climate would be more stable and cooler.
I think you're on board with the concepts that
(1) human activity is significantly increasing the atmospheric
concentration of CO2; and
(2) the global climate (God knows why) is warming at a significant rate.
However, you deny that this increased concentration of CO2 has any
causal relation with global climate change.
Yet you have no proof that it does, nor are you versed enough in the
technical specifics to offer a mechanism to explain how. Merely the fact
that some social studies major writing for the NYT believes it to hardly
constitutes scientific proof.
Climate change is what it
is, and we can neither hasten nor slow it in any way. Well, OK, that
might appear to let us Americans off the hook with respect to fossil
fuel combustion. Or ... does it?
For sake of argument, I'll agree with you that there is no relation
between CO2 increases and climate change. Even so ...
(A) Climate change is likely to have serious negative impacts on the
subsistance farming
Since when is "subsistence farming" some basic right, or even something that
is desirable? In reality, increased concentrations of CO2 will actually
increase the rate of biomass production and consequently crop yields per
acre.
and coastal communities of third world nations.
Should the US be planning ahead for assistance?
In doing what? Bailing out the rest of the world until we are as broke and
impoverished as they are?
(B1) Given the extreme volatility of the geopolitics of oil-producing
nations (the Middle East, South America, Russia, etc) ... and ...
(B2) Given that competition and demand from huge developing markets like
India and China will continue to drive up the price of fossil fuels,
impacting our cheap-energy-dependent American economy ... and ...
Maybe you idiot liberals should have considered that before you went on your
huge anti-nuke crusade a few decades back... :O|
(B3) Given the world's supply of oil (at least, economically attractive
oil) will dry up during the lifetime of our children, if not sooner ...
Known fact? Didn't think so.
... given all this, would it be smart for the US to wean itself from
foreign oil, reduce energy consumption generally, and develop
alternative energy sources?
Let the market handle that, it does a far better job than permitting
liberals to dictate public policy.
.
|
|
| User: "R Philip Dowds" |
|
| Title: Re: Hey, it's only weather ... Drought and Fire Threaten OklahomaCity |
05 Jan 2006 07:23:59 PM |
|
|
Stan de SD wrote:
"R Philip Dowds" <rpdowds@earthlink.net> wrote in message
....
However, you deny that this increased concentration of CO2 has any
causal relation with global climate change.
Yet you have no proof that it does, nor are you versed enough in the
technical specifics to offer a mechanism to explain how. Merely the fact
that some social studies major writing for the NYT believes it to hardly
constitutes scientific proof.
But, I agreed with you, see below. I make no claim and offer no proof.
I am moving on ...
Climate change is what it
is, and we can neither hasten nor slow it in any way. Well, OK, that
might appear to let us Americans off the hook with respect to fossil
fuel combustion. Or ... does it?
For sake of argument, I'll agree with you that there is no relation
between CO2 increases and climate change. Even so ...
(A) Climate change is likely to have serious negative impacts on the
subsistance farming
Since when is "subsistence farming" some basic right, or even something that
is desirable? In reality, increased concentrations of CO2 will actually
increase the rate of biomass production and consequently crop yields per
acre.
Well, you answered my question: Subsistence farming, and those who
practice it, merit no special consideration. Maybe this totally
mysterious and utterly inexplicable global warming phenomenon will
nourish their crops or parch them out, but either way, they're on their
own. That's pretty clear, thank you.
and coastal communities of third world nations.
Should the US be planning ahead for assistance?
In doing what? Bailing out the rest of the world until we are as broke and
impoverished as they are?
Hey OK! I'm starting to see a pattern here. Not only is global warming
entirely unpredictable and beyond influence, but so is the world
distribution of wealth and income. All those silly buggers who think
the policies of IMF and World Bank are working to indebt and impoverish
the third world are plainly the same liberal eco-communists who are also
worried about global warming. It's nice, having no responsibilities!
(B1) Given the extreme volatility of the geopolitics of oil-producing
nations (the Middle East, South America, Russia, etc) ... and ...
(B2) Given that competition and demand from huge developing markets like
India and China will continue to drive up the price of fossil fuels,
impacting our cheap-energy-dependent American economy ... and ...
Maybe you idiot liberals should have considered that before you went on your
huge anti-nuke crusade a few decades back... :O|
What croaked the emergent nuclear industry in the US was not "liberal"
theorists or activists, but rather (a) the costs of building safe
facilities, which made them non-competitive with coal-burning plants (at
least in the short run); and (b) NIMBYism, where communities of
liberals, conservatives, and Rosicrucians all came together to say,
"Power my house, but build your nuke somewhere else!"
The problem of long-term storage of highly radioactive spent fuel
was, is and remains a very significant unsolved problem. But as fossil
fuels decline in cost-competitiveness, and as Americans are increasingly
forced to choose between lifestyle change and alternative energy
sources, I predict that nuclear will, for better or worse, make a comeback.
(B3) Given the world's supply of oil (at least, economically attractive
oil) will dry up during the lifetime of our children, if not sooner ...
Known fact? Didn't think so.
True enough, there is still debate on how rapidly the supplies of easy
oil are, or are not, diminishing. As a prudent person, I'm sure you'd
agree that any strenuous public action based on incomplete or uncertain
information is entirely unwarranted. Which is why we refused to invade
Iraq until we were absolutely certain-sure that Mr Hussein was about to
launch his nuclear strike. It's why we won't cut taxes until we prove
withouth a doubt that the economy will benefit and government can afford
it. It's why we keep younger kids out of R movies, because of all the
rock-hard psycho-social studies that have demonstrated their teeny minds
are rotted by the subject matter. And so on. No action without
unequivocal certainty, that's the smart way to go!
... given all this, would it be smart for the US to wean itself from
foreign oil, reduce energy consumption generally, and develop
alternative energy sources?
Let the market handle that, it does a far better job than permitting
liberals to dictate public policy.
Does the market include broad-based and wide-spread taxation, tax
subsidies, revenue sharing, and grants-in-aid? Congress thinks it does.
I do too, although my priorities for federal budgeting may be somewhat
different than Congress's ...
RPD / Cambridge
Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
