Global Warming Debate

[ssneade]

os, you're a riot!

[ssneade]

here we go....

[craigimass]

No doubt!
Look at that chart.
You fools, doubting the stats again.

You can look at bathing suits too. Even shorts.....well, if we go by shorts they got shorter in the 70's, but a little longer now. Just a blip on the charts though.

[ssneade]

IF YOU ARE AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING ...

... then you are against the world! Yep, this is the new line from liberals and Democrats. If you are against this climate change, cap-and-trade legislation that is making its way through Congress, then you are basically immoral.

Let's start with Henry Waxman, who is one of the chief architects of this cap-and-trade scheme. In response to the Republicans who voted against his plan, he says: "They [Republicans] want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Democrats. They're rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global warming."

Then, we get this from Paul Krugman in The New York Times. He writes, "A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases. And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason -- treason against the planet. To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research."

Treason ... rooting against the world ... immorality ... wow, do these guys have a high opinion of their fraudulent cause or what? ......

[camaraderie]

No worries SSneade....they get more SHRILL as they feel themselves losing control and supporters and public opinion turns away from their "settled" "science".

[ssneade]

Patrick Moore Wisely Questions Global Warming Alarmism and Advocates Nuclear Energy

Speaking before an audience in Boise, Idaho last week, Greenpeace Founder Dr. Patrick Moore confirmed that there is no proof that humans are causing global warming, and he wisely advocated a dramatic shift toward reliance upon nuclear power.

In light of the fact that Greenpeace was originally established for the very purpose of opposing underground nuclear testing, it is refreshing that someone in our current “gotcha” political culture acknowledges the facts when they contradict his previous policy agenda. In other words, perhaps even Al Gore will ultimately see the light and disown his silly and self-serving global warming crusade.

Dr. Moore, who today represents the Clean Air and Safe Energy Coalition, believes that the only viable way to reduce America’s reliance upon fossil fuels and foreign energy sources is to add hundreds of safe nuclear power plants in upcoming decades. Although he acknowledges that solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and other renewable energy sources can assist in this transition, they simply don’t possess the enormous potential that nuclear energy does, in his opinion.

Naturally, radical environmentalists reflexively accused Dr. Moore of selling out, because their other arguments against nuclear power have evaporated during recent years. So how does Dr. Moore respond to these accusations? He merely points out that his professional and educational backgrounds are in actual science, whereas people whose backgrounds lie in political activism dominate Greenpeace.

And Dr. Moore is correct. The simple fact is that nuclear power provides America’s cleanest, safest, most reliable, cheapest and most independent source of future energy.

Nuclear energy emits none of the so-called “greenhouse gases” that environmentalists claim warm the globe, so one would assume that they would enthusiastically embrace it. But alas, environmentalists continue to irrationally oppose nuclear energy at every turn, oblivious to their contradictory positions.

With 103 reactors in operation across the United States, nuclear power today provides twenty percent of America’s electricity, our second-largest source. By the year 2030, this is expected to expand to twenty-five percent, even as American energy consumption increases. Even France, a nation that those on the left typically wish to imitate, generates over 76% of its electricity through nuclear energy. Despite this, the environmentalist lobby remains unpersuaded.

Additionally, the uranium from which nuclear energy plants obtain their power exists in abundance within the United States, as well as Canada and Australia. Accordingly, nuclear energy allows Americans to reduce reliance upon the Middle East, Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and other undependable nations such as Nigeria.

Moreover, unlike other renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and hydropower, nuclear reactors do not depend upon unreliable weather or fluctuating natural conditions, rendering it far more reliable. It is also less-subject to skyrocketing commodity prices and foreign suppliers than other energy sources, such as oil or natural gas.

And in terms of safety, a person would have to live next to a nuclear plant for over 2,000 years to receive the amount of radiation created by a single medical x-ray. Nuclear generators are also better-protected against terrorism and other calamity than other plants, as the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that nuclear plants “are probably our best-defended targets.” And despite such overhyped media creations as Three Mile Island, not a single life in America has ever been lost due to a nuclear malfunction or accident.

Nuclear energy also has the lowest production cost of the major sources of electricity, which helps lower everyday Americans’ monthly energy bills.

It thus becomes clear that nuclear power can help alleviate many of America’s increasing energy difficulties. It provides clean, reliable, safe and lower-cost energy, and can greatly reduce America’s dependence upon foreign sources.

Dr. Moore, Greenpeace’s Founder, has seen the light. The only question is when liberals and the rest of the obstructionist environmental lobby will do the same.

[JohnRPollard]

I was in New England recently and can confirm that the water was indeed very swimmable. Not necessarily more so than some other recent years, but I don't remember too many instances during my childhood when it was this warm.

In hot water: World sets ocean temperature record

[ssneade]

well, john as you get older, the circulation in your legs gets poorer creating a slightly more tolerant to cold syndrome. it's still cold, ya just can't feel it....

[JohnRPollard]

Originally Posted by ssneade

well, john as you get older, the circulation in your legs gets poorer creating a slightly more tolerant to cold syndrome. it's still cold, ya just can't feel it....

Nah, it was definitely warm by New England standards. It was great!!

[ssneade]

Originally Posted by JohnRPollard

Nah, it was definitely warm by New England standards. It was great!!

glad you were able to enjoy the ocean for a change. don't bother me a bit it's warmed up a little....

spent some time earlier this year at chincoteague island, talk about shrinkage!