Okay, time for me to put on my big boy pants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketsci4
It's so easy to do what you guys do. Just call someone a liberal and other names.
|
When have I called believers in "global warming" liberals? I call them dupes, acolytes, or sometimes fools, and definitely poor thinkers, but not necessarily liberal.
Quote:
|
Then disparage the science with half truths,
|
Give examples. What is a piece of "science" that I've disparaged, and what is the "half truth" I've used? Is it half true that Mars has warmed? Is it half true that the Sun has gone through what we believe to be its most active period in millenia? Is it half true that there is no mechanism that has been proven to link industrial emissions with global temperature?
Quote:
|
It doesn't take a genius for anyone to realize that we are dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere
|
So what? There is no demonstrable or proven link between industrial CO2 and global climate.
Quote:
|
while at the same time we are destroying the very things that can balance that out -- things like the rain forest in Brazil.
|
The "lungs of the planet" garbage was sad and trite when it was trotted out decades ago. You want to process CO2, talk to an ocean, not a forest.
Quote:
|
It is easier to calll someone a tree hugger or whatever than it is to admit the need for change.
|
There is no proven need for change though. You get called a tree hugger because your position is not intellectually rigorous - it's purely emotional and therefore not inherently respectable,
certainly not important enough to base social policy upon.
Quote:
|
Conservation iyt isn't easy it's difficult and damned inconvenient.
|
Very true. And often counterproductive and unneeded.
Quote:
|
Meanwwhile we burn fossil fuels blindly, not only feeding CO2 into the atmosphere but paying for both ends of the war on terror.
|
It works better if you say it in a spooky voice. You know - "OooOooooo, FOooOOooSSSillLLL FuUUuueeeEEEllllsssssS!!!"
And your WoT link is silly anyway, because you don't really care about that aspect. If you did you'd be screaming for more nuke plants, drilling in ANWR, and for getting the jump on the oil sands and oil shale that Canada and us have.
Bottom line is that NOTHING besides nuclear power is capable of producing energy as efficiently (economically and physically) as fossil fuels today. Nothing. So can we build more fission plants?
Quote:
|
Instead of looking at alternative energy as a problem let's look at it as an opportunity -- an opportunity for the US top create new technologies and new industries and jobs here in the US.
|
Sure, just come up with a technology that's viable and we'll jump. But squeezing high Octane out of turkey poop just isn't going to cut the mustard, and unless you want to replace your lawn with corn, ethanol isn't going to make much of a dent either.
Quote:
|
I'm a member of the baby boomer generation and I fear that we will be the first American generation in which the succeeding generations -- my kids and grandkids-- will not have it better than I did. I fear for them and I fear our future because we have closed our minds and decided that driving our SUVs and trucks are more important than our kids' and grandkids' future.
|
So buy a pogo stick and stop worrying about it. Seriously, the only way you could let your environmental concerns affect your kids' future economically is if you forced them to stop consuming energy the way you want to. Based on nothing but irrational and ungrounded fear.
-dale