grear videos

Funny before DS was haranguing Exxon for being too profitable. Anyway I’m surprised nobody has called out DS on his alternate fuels. Wind, solar, geothermal, batteries? etc. (note no mention of nuclear) All of this presently is a lib pipedream.

None of DS’s prefered fuels are viable at this time or in the forseeable future, and they certainly can’t displace fossil fuels. Not that I buy into the idea that we need to immediately abandon fossil fuels.

For myself I have never belived in AGW, because I read history and knew about the medieval warm period years ago.

It was a help to me to have my instinct confirmed by investigating the real science from the Climate Realists (i reject the term denier as it is loaded, and skeptic seems to indicate a congenital nay sayer)

AS far as I am concerned the science in the debate is settled – i said the real science, not the consensus nor the agitprop by IPCC and its cohorts: there is no human induced global warming, there never was, and now the world is cooling.

But the debate must be resolved soon, for continuing to take arable land out of food production for the sake of bio fuels so good liberals can feel good about driving their SUV’s will continue to force the price of food up and it will be the third world poor who will starve.

forcing conservation of fossil fuels to happen before its time is the height of absurdity, because as I said, solutions must themselves be sustainable, otherwise they simply won’t take.

Continued reliance on fossil fuels is demonstrably unsustainable. Without subsidies, we would have moved much farther away from fossil fuel, probably to a sustainable fuel source like solar power.

I believe AWG has a lot of fraud in it, and you don’t have to follow the data trail very long before you realize it’s not so much a trail, but a prediction.

You may believe there is a lot of fraud, and undoubtedly there is some fraud, as in any field of science. However, the evidence on the whole is pretty convincing. Of course, as a scientific hypothesis it is subject to revision as the data comes in. So far, each additional piece of data supports AGW.

tell me: do you honestly think socialism is anything other than the poison of all human achievement? Do you honestly think that socialism increases good for the masses, as opposed to the opposite? And last, do you believe socialism would permit the likes of you the luxury of being able to peacefully contemplate the evils of fossil fuel industry and post about same? Or wouldn’t you instead be worried about the stock in your pantry and whether there is going to be a run on bread?

I believe socialism is already a force in our economy. It is not a poison, and can improve conditions for the masses, although like any system it can also be manipulated to do the opposite. I do think that limited democratic socialism would permit plenty of time to contemplate the evils of the fossil fuel industry, and might even make reducing these evils easier.

I’m not arguing to keep anyone down, but I do think it’s way past time that we address the global consequences of an economy reliant on cheap and limitless supplies of fossil fuel which don’t exist. I think it best to be proactive, rather than reactive, and to prepare for the eventual shift that will need to be made.

And, isn’t comrade spelled with a “CHE”?

Not in my dictionary, chum.

Peace.

DS

Gary, the debate is whether CO2 is in fact pollution, or if it’s just what polar bears exhale. Is C02 pollution? It’s always been here. It’s part of the life cycle. It’s invisible, odorless, and plants love it.

POLLUTION.

Despite all the safeguards and regulations that are supposedly in place, we still produce millions of tons of garbage annually. Some of it biodegrades, but much of it does not. We dump it into the oceans, we shove it under the earth, but it’s still there. Just because we can’t see it, smell it, or taste it, doesn’t serve as proof of non-existence.

The foundation of AGW is that mankind is producing too much carbon for the environment to swallow. It might be minuscule. It might be significant. There are different agendas. Some people are genuinely concerned about the environment. Some want to start a new career for themselves. And others fear a cost impact to their business and will fight against any measures that cause it, no matter what the reasons.

The fact is… we need to cut back on pollution. PERIOD. If we do and global warming slows down/reverses, we’ve done the right thing. If we do and global warming seems unaffected, we’ve still done the right thing. The key is keeping our environment clean, so that future human beings and other life forms can exist without the constant threat of free radicals. Our pollution kills other life, at levels the average citizen has no clue about. Our pollution is responsible for instigating many forms of cancer. It’s simply not healthy.

So let’s focus on what really matters. STOP POLLUTING. Engineer better products that last and disposable ones that easily biodegrade. And cut back on the clutter. We generate SO MUCH JUNK, it’s not funny. Lets conserve our resources and use them wisely. And maybe we’ll have a chance at living for many eons to come.