The 'Lefts' answer to Global Warming

[jpd80]

While I agree with this, (there are extremist on both sides) what I still don't agree with is CO2 being the end-all and be-all of all earths troubles.

My main issue with the whole enviro side of it, is it's based on what I consider a falicy in the first place.

Of all the things to pick out of thin air as the "culprit to all the planets ail's" why CO2?

The earth REQUIRES CO2.

Even though it is a greenhouse gas, it is only responsible for approx 9% overall.

I could go on...

 

Cut CO2 and there are less crop output, plants and trees decline, like, WTF???

Good post.

 

CO2 has been demonized because it is easy to blame and make the science fit.

What annoys me is that these ass clowns now want to get everyone on board their

ideas and changing every little thing to decrease our CO2 foot print...

 

Hello, coal fired power plants account for 50% of all carbon output. Cars are like 13% of total output

but take 20 times more carbon to make than they ever produce in their lifetime burning up fuel...

 

If they want to show real impact, change power generation first and the way we make

our products like cars second and then waaaaayyyyy down the list worry about fuel

consumption.CO2 nuts are aiming at the wrong things first just to get people invested

That really sucks.

Edited March 26, 2011 by jpd80

[RangerM]

So, by your logic, there shouldn't be any environmental protection regulations whatsoever because people should all be allowed to make their own decisions? In other words, the government shouldn't be able to force an energy company not to dump nuclear waste on their property? This would be extreme? If you think that the government imposing laws like "build more fuel efficient vehicles" and "use more efficient lightbulbs" is extreme... you need to grow up and suck it up. Are you gonna cry because you can't buy the classic light bulb?

So if we have any environmental protection at all, it has to be an all or nothing proposition? We either have no regulations whatsoever, or we must refrain from any and all activities based on whatever remote chance that some scientist says might happen in 100 years?

 

I may need to "grow up and suck it up", but you need to get real.

 

 

People should be able to make whatever choices they want so long as there is no reasonable chance they might directly harm someone else. That is all, and on that sole basis should any environmental law be passed.

[mustang_sallad]

So if we have any environmental protection at all, it has to be an all or nothing proposition? We either have no regulations whatsoever, or we must refrain from any and all activities based on whatever remote chance that some scientist says might happen in 100 years?

 

I may need to "grow up and suck it up", but you need to get real.

 

 

People should be able to make whatever choices they want so long as there is no reasonable chance they might directly harm someone else. That is all, and on that sole basis should any environmental law be passed.

 

I don't think pushing for more efficient vehicles, or one type of lighting over another is an all or nothing proposition. But regardless, I'm curious to know what you think would be examples of acceptable environmental regulation, other than just inaction. A bunch of government pamphlets telling people of the virtues of consuming less energy?

[mustang_sallad]

Cars are like 13% of total output

but take 20 times more carbon to make than they ever produce in their lifetime burning up fuel...

 

Thank you for doing a quick job of removing all credibility from anything you post, removing my need to actually decide whether or not you are worth listening to. It's true that passenger cars are only one part of the equation (and I'd say improving their performance is one of the lower hanging fruits). But that "20 times more carbon than they produce in their lifetime" number is either straight out of your ass, or quoted from somebody else who pulled it out of their ass. Try actually running some numbers for a change, it's actually closer to 0.2 times. (edit: in other words, manufacturing the vehicle accounts for 20% of total life cycle carbon output, with 80% coming from the vehicle's fuel consumption) Here's a good place to get started:

 

http://greet.es.anl.gov/main

 

Thanks for saving me the time of trying to figure out whether what you're saying might have some validity. I know now that you'll happily write things down here of which you clearly know absolutely nothing.

Edited March 26, 2011 by mustang_sallad

[goinbroke2]

Regardless of the numbers, his POINT was, there a lot of MAJOR things we can be doing instead of the hair-brained things enviro's go for.

Forget who said it on here, but it is very valid;

A car is dripping/burning oil, the motor is shot, the tranny is slipping so bad it will barely move, there are no brakes and the tires are bald.....and the enviro's are screaming about the wheelnuts not being at the correct torque and if they are incorrect, SOMEBODY COULD DIE IN A CRASH!!!!

It's not to much to have the government regulate wheelnut torque checks is it? After all they could be saving the life of a poor little baby who might get burnt to death in a car accident!!! YOU DON'T WANT BABY'S TO BURN TO DEATH DO YOU???

and, Enviro's would want a complete wheelnut torque check everytime you move a vehicle....FOR YOUR OWN SAKE, mind you.

 

Of course in the free market society, manufacturer's would come up with an "insta-torque" which is installed on all cars and cures this menace to society (the lose nuts)and the enviro's? Well they move on to the next crisis. (think catelytic converters and the subsequent cleaner cars...which need continually stricker reg's...now CO2 is the "bad guy" for cars) They are never satisfied and keep dreaming up new crap to save people from themselves.

 

Oh, did you hear? If the obama gang has their way, by 2014 ALL CARS BY LAW WILL REQUIRE BACK UP CAMERA'S!!! Did you hear the reasoning? "you wouldn't buy a car that you couldn't see 30ft in front of you would you?" SERIOUSLY, THAT'S THEIR LOGIC???

Ever wonder why cars weigh 5000lb's and cost $50,000 now?????

MORE shit added like the 25 airbags, auto parking, power EVERYTHING, run flat tires, it goes on and on and on.

But it's STILL not enough!

You can float a boat across the ocean spewing pure shit out of the stack and nothing is said, you can buy products from countries where they throw garbage in the streets, but your car puts out .00000000000001% of whatever and AHHHHH!!! THE DAMN WESTERN COUNTRIES!!!

 

 

Whatever, enviro's, go away we don't believe your shit anymore.

Edited March 26, 2011 by goinbroke2

[RangerM]

I don't think pushing for more efficient vehicles, or one type of lighting over another is an all or nothing proposition. But regardless, I'm curious to know what you think would be examples of acceptable environmental regulation, other than just inaction.

Acceptable would be something that prevents direct (or within one degree of separation) harm to others. You would not want a company or an individual dumping toxic waste into a public waterway. And you wouldn't want a company burning hazardous (biological/chemical/nuclear) wastes uncontrolled.

 

You WOULD want a company to become more efficient, and not pass laws that would discourage it. An example would be the Clean Air Act regulations for aging power plants (President Bush repealed around 2002). That law made an aging facility abide by (then) current emission standards if the facility performed any degree of modernization. Increases in efficiency, I'm sure you'll agree, result in less (overall) emissions. So instead of improvements in efficiency that would result from minor upgrades, the facility just wouldn't upgrade at all, and keep polluting at the same rate as before (without the increase in efficiency) because the cost of compliance was economically unfeasible.

A bunch of government pamphlets telling people of the virtues of consuming less energy?

Trust me--or don't--$3.50/gallon gasoline is enough to get people to understand the virtues of reducing their gasoline consumption. Why is it that you believe government is the only entity capable (and necessary) to enable people to understand virtue? What do you believe is the source of virtue?

[xr7g428]

Salad, you have also made it perfectly clear that you want to use the strong arm of the government to make other people live according to your rules. This is the heart of the issue: force.

 

Since the slight chance that global warming (your religion) might be real is enough to make you want to force every one else to live according to your precepts, then you must also be willing to practice a religion of others choosing based on the slight chance there might be a hell.

[timmm55]

I don't think pushing for more efficient vehicles, or one type of lighting over another is an all or nothing proposition. But regardless, I'm curious to know what you think would be examples of acceptable environmental regulation, other than just inaction. A bunch of government pamphlets telling people of the virtues of consuming less energy?

 

Hang in there Mustang_sallad! I sort of stumbled onto this hyperbolic and vitriolic thread by accident. There must be a "Right Wing School of Science" for the environment and evolution. Their answer to Al Gore's junk science is junk science of their own. How about just real science?

 

I'm not good at recycling and all that. Hell I still smoke. I'm a lazy Green. I think great strides have been made in the environment in the last 30 years. I've seen it in the L.A. basin. In the late 70s the smog was horrible. Now you can see for MILES from Mulholland Drive. It also looks like a corner has been turned in the ozone depletion in NZ.

 

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental-reporting/atmosphere/ozone/

 

Since the Right Wing is so anti-Communist China, maybe they should look to Beijing to see how we used to be. They are learning from us, yet some propose relaxing our smog emission? Maybe we should let them surpass our technology while we are at it. Clean Air is a technology too!

http://alttransport.com/2010/11/chinas-car-boom-is-ruining-its-air-quality/

 

I don't know if it's Global Warning so much as it's Global Climate Change/Extremes. Regardless if we kill our species off, the earth will continue with or without us. It will heal itself....it may take a few million years.

Edited March 27, 2011 by timmm55

[timmm55]

Enviro's would want a complete wheelnut torque check everytime you move a vehicle....FOR YOUR OWN SAKE, mind you.

 

Whatever, enviro's, go away we don't believe your shit anymore.

 

WTF are you talking about?

[mustang_sallad]

Regardless of the numbers....

beautiful.

 

 

and, Enviro's would want a complete wheelnut torque check everytime you move a vehicle....FOR YOUR OWN SAKE, mind you.

....

etc.

that was just plain weird.

[mustang_sallad]

Salad, you have also made it perfectly clear that you want to use the strong arm of the government to make other people live according to your rules. This is the heart of the issue: force.

 

Since the slight chance that global warming (your religion) might be real is enough to make you want to force every one else to live according to your precepts, then you must also be willing to practice a religion of others choosing based on the slight chance there might be a hell.

 

 

I'd say there's a bit more of a scientific backing behind anthropocentric climate change than there is behind hell. No, it's still not 100% certain, but there's a hell of a lot more credible scientific reasoning behind it than I've ever seen any religion make.

[mustang_sallad]

Salad, you have also made it perfectly clear that you want to use the strong arm of the government to make other people live according to your rules. This is the heart of the issue: force.

 

Since the slight chance that global warming (your religion) might be real is enough to make you want to force every one else to live according to your precepts....

 

and may I remind you:

 

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organisations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

 

These aren't my beliefs, these are the best understandings of the international scientific community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

[RangerM]

Hang in there Mustang_sallad! I sort of stumbled onto this hyperbolic and vitriolic thread by accident. There must be a "Right Wing School of Science" for the environment and evolution. Their answer to Al Gore's junk science is junk science of their own. How about just real science?

 

I'm not good at recycling and all that. Hell I still smoke. I'm a lazy Green. I think great strides have been made in the environment in the last 30 years. I've seen it in the L.A. basin. In the late 70s the smog was horrible. Now you can see for MILES from Mulholland Drive. It also looks like a corner has been turned in the ozone depletion in NZ.

 

Since the Right Wing is so anti-Communist China, maybe they should look to Beijing to see how we used to be. They are learning from us, yet some propose relaxing our smog emission? Maybe we should let them surpass our technology while we are at it. Clean Air is a technology too!

I guess that whole "junk science of their own" is a way to be passive-aggressive, without being vitriolic, huh?

 

In any case, you make the choices you want. Smoking is one of them, and if you can pay for your own medical care (resulting from a smoking-related disease), I'm all for it; just so long as you leave me out of it.

 

I have no problem with the solutions that California came up with in the 60s/70s to combat their smog problem. I can respect the fortitude to pass laws that may cut against the grain. That said, I do NOT want that imposed on me, if where I live does not suffer the same problem. And it wasn't. There were cars with "Califorinia emission systems" and cars for the rest of us. Now you have the current administration desiring to export those standards from California to the rest of us. I have a problem with that. I see no reason to force people into more expensive automobiles to quench some "green" desire to eliminate a problem where none exists.

 

Noone is talking about "relaxing" ALL the emissions' standards. But there are certainly some environmental laws that could be relaxed (or repealed). Being an environmental consultant (mostly air-related), I see them on a frequent basis. Given that China has triple the population (and in their cities a lot higher population density), perhaps they should surpass our "clean air" technology.

[xr7g428]

Salad, once again, being right and being in the majority are not synonymous. There are many organizations that reject parts of the greater global warming hoax. You simply chose to selectively ignore that. There are lots of astrophysicists that agree that there has been warming, because they have the data to support a better explanation. There are physicists that reject the mechanism implied in global warming, on the basis that it defies the laws of physics for heat to move toward heat instead of toward cold. There are lots of mathematicians that reject the models because they try to model the complex systems and assume the results are credible when they are not. There are lots of meteorologists that reject the predictions of what will occur in 100 years globally when they cannot accurately predict what will happen in a region more than a few days in advance, and then with only a broad range of variability. It appears that the only people who truly buy into every aspect of the hoax are those that have a vested interest in doing so. It has been said that the human mind has the ability to rationalize anything that it perceives to be in its own best interest. It is obvious that this is what we are seeing right now.

 

I am sure that anyone who has been paying attention has noticed that Al Gore and company have faded from the scene, pockets full of cash... He is not alone. The forecasts made in the early 90's have not panned out. The forecasts made in the 2000's have not panned out. As it turns out the models couldn't even predict 10 years into the future, much less 50 or 100. Increasingly we are hearing more and more about the possibility of a global cooling trend. I am equally skeptical. The one thing we do know is that the climate is forever in flux. It will not stop to appease any particular group. The reality of our situation is that there are any number of natural disasters that have happened, and will happen again that are much more lethal and much more probable. The only difference is that no one has yet determined how to make money from selling earthquake credits, or super volcano power points. Regardless of the catastrophe, the planet is going to be just fine, we however, might be totally screwed...

 

In the mean time, most rational people chose freedom over slavery. Any government that thinks that they need to tell us what kind of light bulb we can buy is no longer interested in freedom. And here is the best part, when rational people choose freedom, they give it as a gift to everyone else that chooses to be free. So Timm, light one up and enjoy. You deserve to be free to make your choices and every one else deserves to be free to make theirs. Salad, be careful what you ask for. A government that is so petty that it regulates simple light bulbs will not stop there.

Edited March 27, 2011 by xr7g428

[grbeck]

This is a ridiculous rant. no i don't think everybody should go back to living in caves.

 

I only carried your arguments to their logical conclusion. If my post was "ridiculous" it was because of the original material.

 

If it there is a crisis - please remember that you are the one claiming that there is - then you need to take decisive action to prevent it. Otherwise, you've pretty much confirmed the views of those who say that manmade global warming is happening, but is nothing to get alarmed about, and may even be beneficial in the long run. As you need to learn, actions speak louder than words. If there is a real crisis, then stop worrying about what type of light bulbs your neighbor uses, and start taking immediate action to set an example for the rest of us. You can start by walking everywhere and turning off the computer for good.

 

Meanwhile, there are opportunities to generate and harness energy that have a much lower impact on the environment and are a lot more agreeable to be around, and I think we should make efforts in those directions as well.

 

 

You mean the wind farms that the Kennedy family is against? The dams that environmentalists have lobbied to remove (or prevent from being constructed in the first place)?

 

There's a bit of a middle ground between the nut jobs who say we should live in caves, and the nut jobs who say we shouldn't do shit all for the sake of maintaining a healthy environment to live in. I'd hope that all of us on these forums are somewhere between those extremes, and I don't see why you'd assume that anybody saying reducing CO2 output is a good idea must automatically be saying that all CO2 output should be stopped immediately with no excuses.

 

Again, if it is a crisis - and that is what people on YOUR side are saying - then a little carbon dioxide reduction here and there is not going to cut it in the long run.

Edited March 28, 2011 by grbeck

[grbeck]

So, by your logic, there shouldn't be any environmental protection regulations whatsoever because people should all be allowed to make their own decisions? In other words, the government shouldn't be able to force an energy company not to dump nuclear waste on their property? This would be extreme? If you think that the government imposing laws like "build more fuel efficient vehicles" and "use more efficient lightbulbs" is extreme... you need to grow up and suck it up. Are you gonna cry because you can't buy the classic light bulb?

 

So we go from dumping nuclear waste to fuel economy regulations for vehicles, because all regulations are equally good and all are needed. Which is the sort of logic that leads one to think that, because mandatory seat belt laws save lives, the 55 mph speed limit is a good idea, too...even though it was largely ineffective (one hopes and prays that no one is enough of a dolt to still support that one in 2011). What matters is that all regulations are good, because the people supporting them said so.

Edited March 28, 2011 by grbeck

[goinbroke2]

So we go from dumping nuclear waste to fuel economy regulations for vehicles, because all regulations are equally good and all are needed. Which is the sort of logic that leads one to think that, because mandatory seat belt laws save lives, the 55 mph speed limit is a good idea, too...even though it was largely ineffective (one hopes and prays that no one is enough of a dolt to still support that one in 2011). What matters is that all regulations are good, because the people supporting them said so.

 

I like how you clearly and concisely put what I so un-elegantly tried to say.

My analogy of one rule (emission controls) being used to justify further rules (wheelnut torque checks) was completely lost on some. ("WTF was that about")

Or the fact that getting one rule passed only leads to more stricter rules not because of "enviro concerns" but more for control over the population.

[goinbroke2]

LOL!

After rereading it, "control over the population" will be taken the wrong way by the left I'm sure.

No I wasn't talking about communism, I was talking about the government doing things to ensure people change to the way they want them. An example would be higher taxes on spirits than beer because spirits are still considered "more dangerous" than beer or wine even though it has been disproven time after time.

Or, taxes on diesel compared to gas...heck a simple one that is REALLY obvious is the high tax on cigs to discourage smoking.

 

THAT'S what I was talking about.

[Imawhosure]

why is it so that when we basically show there IS climate change, it is a normal happening; and has been happening for a very long time.....the left comes in and says without any CREDIBLE models from them that work, "it is human created." When we balk as it is basically an attack on us....our countrys who have progressed....and in their genius they want to exclude....or maybe allow exclusion of our economic competition, they can't understand why we consider them socialists at best, downright communistic at worst?

 

Why don't they go over to the middle East and scream at those drilling the oil, putting everyone in the same boat, instead of screwing with North America? Instead, they tie Americas hands behind her back, then whine when jobs disappear, the cost of everything rises because of transportation costs, etc.

 

Can their whining that somehow it is the right causing this even hold water to the most illiterate voter, when it is obviously they who are the cause of the extra billions flowing out of this country, just on the grounds of enviro fanatacism? And if they try such blatant lies, how can they even keep a straight face when questioned how it is they will throttle us back, while leaving China and India to do whatever they want; while they still try and convince everyone we all reside on this small planet?

 

If any of us allow this to be pulled off without screaming, then we deserve what we get.

 

We shall see if any politicians running for office during this upcoming cycle are willing to tell enough of the truth while pissing off the enviro fanatic religion. I am opotomistic many will, but if we don't stand behind them, we are bigger fools than the enviros are full of bull. That is no way to run a country, especially one that virtually everyone who lives in it knows it needs JOBS!

[xr7g428]

The funny thing we keep hearing from the Global Warming forces is this: Well, if it turns out that it really wasn't a problem, that's okay because it was a good idea to stop burning so much coal, oil, wood, etc... Which basically tells us that they really don't believe in Global Warming, but simply use it as a ruse to accomplish their agenda of social engineering.

[goinbroke2]

SOCIAL ENGINEERING!!

 

DAMN IT!

 

THAT'S the word I was trying to think of....man I hate that...I must be getting old...memory going....

[mustang_sallad]

The funny thing we keep hearing from the Global Warming forces is this: Well, if it turns out that it really wasn't a problem, that's okay because it was a good idea to stop burning so much coal, oil, wood, etc... Which basically tells us that they really don't believe in Global Warming, but simply use it as a ruse to accomplish their agenda of social engineering.

 

 

Saying there are multiple reasons to stop burning coal and oil is not the same thing as saying that one of those reasons isn't true.

Meanwhile, you're saying that if they actually didn't believe in Global Warming, then this was all just a ruse to accomplish their agenda of social engineering - referring to the other reasons they quote for burning less fuel. Polluting the air less is not an agenda of social engineering, it saves lives and makes the world a much more pleasant place to be in. What "kick" are you suggesting anybody gets out of people burning less fuel?

Edited March 29, 2011 by mustang_sallad

[mustang_sallad]

why is it so that when we basically show there IS climate change, it is a normal happening; and has been happening for a very long time.....

Please give me a link to the peer-reviewed, internationally recognized body of work that asserts that humans have not had any impact on the climate.

 

the left comes in and says without any CREDIBLE models from them that work, "it is human created."

 

Here is a body of work, recognized at the international level, compiled by over 600 experts in the field of CLIMATE SCIENCE. Please show me a peer-reviewed analysis by a reputable and internationally-recognized expert in the field of climate science that debunks the conclusions of this report.

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

[mustang_sallad]

I only carried your arguments to their logical conclusion. If my post was "ridiculous" it was because of the original material.

 

If it there is a crisis - please remember that you are the one claiming that there is - then you need to take decisive action to prevent it. Otherwise, you've pretty much confirmed the views of those who say that manmade global warming is happening, but is nothing to get alarmed about, and may even be beneficial in the long run. As you need to learn, actions speak louder than words. If there is a real crisis, then stop worrying about what type of light bulbs your neighbor uses, and start taking immediate action to set an example for the rest of us. You can start by walking everywhere and turning off the computer for good.

More garbage. Its not a black and white issue. I do take concrete actions. I do reduce my energy consumption wherever possible, I rarely drive a car, I rarely eat meat, I bike to work, and my place of work just happens to be a company that designs, builds, and sells electric vehicles. The fact that I still do consume energy doesn't mean that I don't believe people should generally reduce the amount of energy they consume. How is that even a remotely logical conclusion?

 

 

 

You mean the wind farms that the Kennedy family is against? The dams that environmentalists have lobbied to remove (or prevent from being constructed in the first place)?

Some people claim to care about the environment, so they all automatically get lumped in together? There isn't one large group of "Environmentalists" that all have to agree on every idea. Just last month I wrote a letter to my city's paper, arguing against a community that is fighting against (-edit) a new wind farm in my area. I'm all for wind farms. A few whacko people who claim to care about the environment but really only care about their view don't de-validate any of my arguments.

Edited March 30, 2011 by mustang_sallad

[mustang_sallad]

Salad, once again, being right and being in the majority are not synonymous.

The problem is that we don't know what is right. There's a lot of science that suggests that humans are likely having an impact on climate. There's a lot less science suggesting that humans aren't affecting the climate.

 

There are many organizations that reject parts of the greater global warming hoax. You simply chose to selectively ignore that.

 

Please provide a list of these organizations and what aspect of anthropogenic climate change they reject.