Global Warming Debate

[Rockter]

10,000 years ago, 57 deg north here in Scotland was under a mile of solid ice.

Lets have the facts as to why that hapened.

GW was GC then.

Why?

Did someone get their hockey stick the wrong way round?

I am all ears.

Tell me, ye warmists.

Tell me.

[chucklesR]

Gee Rocketer, doesn't that PROVE that GW has melted that ice away?

Look at the bright side, soon you'll have cabana boys bringing drinks to bikini clad women - that's a far cry from the Scotland I remember (Holy Loch and Faslane in the 80's)

[camaraderie]

This article is remarakable in that it exposes the REAL agenda of the global warming crowd. This discussion is about air CO2 capture and conversion/storage as a tehnological means of reducing atomospheric CO2:

"Many individuals, including a large portion of environmentalists, believe that a purely technological approach to stabilizing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could lead to social apathy towards climate change.

Ted Parson, a professor at the School of National Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan, writes that the promises of air capture could carry a “moral hazard” because political pressure for near-term efforts to curtail climate change may be reduced.

Air capture also only addresses one of many factors adversely affecting the environment. The climate crisis is a powerful tool to motivate change - like checking the ever-expanding global population and excessive resource consumption - and if the urgency of climate change is compromised, other environmental projects may fall by the wayside."

Full article: Colorado Daily News

So...it is not about fixing global warming. It is about fixing human behavior to conform with what radical greens think is important.

[chucklesR]

It's always been about that, oh, and sending money to your favorite scientist so he can study it some more, the occasional politician to champion the cause, and your average industrialist so they can redistribute 'carbon' credits by not producing anything.
Somewhere it the 90's industrialist realized that farmers got paid to produce nothing, a very risk free method of profit making - they decided they wanted their share of something for nothing. Now they have it and the world is right again.
Why ya'll want to upset that is beyond me.

[majorm]

[QUOTE=camaraderie;279268]This article is remarakable in that it exposes the REAL agenda of the global warming crowd.

Cam- Please don't confuse the "global warming crowd" with the rather far out "environmental crowd", some of whom just set fire to several luxury homes because they were being touted as environmentally friendly, while not meeting the strict criteria of the environmentalists. While I may be in the "global warming crowd", I certainly am not one of the far left environmentalists. The main person quoted in the article as supporting the technology is in the global warming crowd.

Richard Branson is a well known businessman who clearly is not an "environmentalist", but who still is in the global warming crowd and has offered up a tidy sum for just this kind of technology: Alternative . Renewable . Energy: Richard Branson offers $25 million global warming prize

The issue of global warming is not simply one of environmentalists vs mankind.

[Sapperwhite]

You can all stop arguing (debating) now, I've just finished my perpetual motion machine. Soon all energy will be free to all and free of all emissions! I can't release all the details at this moment because I have some patents pending, but lets just say it involves some of these items:















I hope I didn't give too much away.

[wind_magic]

Agree with some of these things you are saying Cam.

Anytime you mix romanticism in with an agenda you can head down a dark road, and there are definitely a lot of romantic ideas associated with global warming. It isn't so much about fact, it's this whole subculture of beliefs mixed with glossy advertising, outdoor stores to get your ultralight gear, now 50 year old hippie ideas that are coming back into vogue, etc. It's not even based on any reality anymore, it's just a package, an idea that people buy into, a whole dogmatic philosophy and lifestyle that is very closed minded.

Romantic thoughts that aren't based on reality can get you into trouble. Here is a famous example, in this case of a group of people who had a romantic vision of returning to the simple life and bringing all of society with them back to the farm. Great thought, communal living, fresh air, etc, they wanted to return society back a time of greatness when it was simpler, more innocent - a social experiment that became better know around the world as the Killing Fields.

[denby]

We're doomed, We're all going to die.

[camaraderie]

Majorm...you're right, I shouldn't paint with too broad a brush. What I mean to say is that there is a large contingent of GW's who PRIMARILY are environmental activists (and I don't mean the lawbreaker wackos), and are using the GW "crisis" to advance their real agenda. Solving the CO2 "problem" by technical means would only solve GW and not advance their other agendas. Of course, other GW's have no connection to the environmental movement and simply believe the UN reports and what Al Gore and the MSM told them.

[chucklesR]

Warming is caused by the sun far more than anything else, in fact everything else 'warming' wise is a byproduct of the sun.
Simple proof is available, go stand outside on a sunny day. Move into shade. Dispute the fact that you were warmer in the sun. Science is science folks, nothing up my sleeve , no magic.
A cloud of CO2 above you would not have made it warmer in the sun, or colder in the sun. Prove it to yourself. Get a garbage bag and fill it with Co2, put it over your head and stand in the sun, then come back and read the rest of this post..

Now that those idiots are gone:

We should be building big umbrellas and launching them at the Sun. Putting solar panels on the umbrellas solves the energy problem as well.

There, problem solved. Debate over.