Global Warming (ignore the thread if you don't like the topi

One thing that's rather amazing to those of us who were around in the 60's and 70's: Air pollution has been reduced to virtually nothing since that time. I remember when you drove into Denver, all you would see would be a "brown cloud" hanging over the city.



A lot of work has been done to reduce this pollution, and we are living in a much cleaner country (the same can't be said for countries like China).



Since the air is so much cleaner than it used to be, and many of the toxic substances that we used to be forced to breathe have been removed, what are the activists going to do? I know - let's make people themselves be the pollution (carbon footprint)! We'll make people feel guilty for breathing (carbon dioxide)!



Maybe the ultimate solution would be to eliminate animal life altogether, including humans. That would solve the CO2 problem.



Anyone ever read "Rainbow Six"?

Thanks Boid for all that. Clearly, I haven't spent the time researching this like you and you have some great points. I wonder if you can explain how such an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on such a baseless and science-less premise?



There will always be dissenting opinions, but rather than focus on the few, however prominent, that disagree, why is there such a consensus on those that do support it? If it's so baseless as you say, why would those who study it for a living all be virtually unified?



and I read Rainbox Six. The Tom Clancy novel right? in this context, rainbow six sounds more like a climate novel rather than a military one. lol

CougarClaw wrote:
Thanks Boid for all that. Clearly, I haven't spent the time researching this like you and you have some great points. I wonder if you can explain how such an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on such a baseless and science-less premise?

Here's a great premise:



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HUGvSlFrEaI/TEjRHHCGhLI/AAAAAAAAACQ/Lp4uJPJUIr8/s1600/MoneyTree2.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



If you don't understand what I'm trying to say, let me put it another way.



http://theragingsquism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Gold-Bar.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

So you're saying that climate scientists whose sole means of earning a living is based on them convincing us that global warming is real might be inclined to ensure their job security? But those same scientists have told me that they are honest, and only scientists who work for oil companies are dishonest.

hawkwing wrote:
So you're saying that climate scientists whose sole means of earning a living is based on them convincing us that global warming is real might be inclined to ensure their job security? But those same scientists have told me that they are honest, and only scientists who work for oil companies are dishonest.

Dang Hawkwing, you just might have a point there. What the heck was I thinking .... or was I even thinking?

CougarClaw wrote:
I wonder if you can explain how such an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on such a baseless and science-less premise?



There will always be dissenting opinions, but rather than focus on the few, however prominent, that disagree, why is there such a consensus on those that do support it? If it's so baseless as you say, why would those who study it for a living all be virtually unified?

The fact is that the reason there are many scientists that support man-made global warming really doesn't matter. But the fact that they are banding together and making a political push rather than a scientific research reveals their agenda. Science does not need nor does it rely on consensus... unless of course it is fraudulent.



There is a good life lesson here. It is a fact that the magnitude of a falsehood is in direct proportion to the number of people and their aggression in supporting it. In other words, the more people that are lined up to support mmgw by demonizing or alienating dissenters, the greater the likelihood that they are wrong. History proves it.



This is very similar to Intelligent Design. Anyone in the teaching or scientific community that mentions intelligent design or counters mmgw is immediately attacked, ostracized, and persecuted.



Truth needs no consensus, budget, or censorship.

IowaCougar wrote:
One thing that's rather amazing to those of us who were around in the 60's and 70's: Air pollution has been reduced to virtually nothing since that time. I remember when you drove into Denver, all you would see would be a "brown cloud" hanging over the city.



A lot of work has been done to reduce this pollution, and we are living in a much cleaner country (the same can't be said for countries like China).



Since the air is so much cleaner than it used to be, and many of the toxic substances that we used to be forced to breathe have been removed, what are the activists going to do? I know - let's make people themselves be the pollution (carbon footprint)! We'll make people feel guilty for breathing (carbon dioxide)!



Maybe the ultimate solution would be to eliminate animal life altogether, including humans. That would solve the CO2 problem.



Anyone ever read "Rainbow Six"?

Thanks for bringing this up. It seems a majority of people think the good old days were nothing but fresh air, clean water, and sunshine. No pollution today can compare with a city a hundred and fifty years ago. In the winter every chimney would be constantly (day and night) spewing smoke from burning coal or wood for power, heat and cooking. Sewers ran open, often directly into the water source for the city. Back then, pollution was just a part of life and much more deadly.

CougarClaw wrote:
Thanks Boid for all that. Clearly, I haven't spent the time researching this like you and you have some great points. I wonder if you can explain how such an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on such a baseless and science-less premise?



There will always be dissenting opinions, but rather than focus on the few, however prominent, that disagree, why is there such a consensus on those that do support it? If it's so baseless as you say, why would those who study it for a living all be virtually unified?



and I read Rainbox Six. The Tom Clancy novel right? in this context, rainbow six sounds more like a climate novel rather than a military one. lol

Yeah - Rainbow Six, the Tom Clancy novel, where a group of "ecologists" decided that they were the only people intelligent enough to take care of the earth, so they schemed to kill all the human population except for themselves. When I see some of the extreme points-of-view out there, this doesn't seem as far-fetched as we might think.

I fear to tred further...I do not think that my view is not very well received, But here goes. While there are fringes on both sides, virtually all responsible scientists agree that we are in a warming trend. Equally most all scientists agree that CO2 levels are at very high levels, much of that attributable to our use of fossil fuels. The debate is whether man's actions and the spewing of these fossible fuels into our atmosphere are the cause of our warmer climate or not. For some the proof already is sufficient; for some much more proof is needed before they think some or even any of man's lifestyle practices should change. The problem of course is that for those who want more proof, by the time adequate proof is obtained it might be too late. Even now the warth is going to continue to warm no matter what we do. For those who want to make changes, the costs could be great and a big waste if the proof never does come in. So what to do? I think God made us stewards of this earth and a steward makes choices to preserve and protect. So I would take steps to internalize the costs of fossil fuel usage and CO2 dispersal. Carbon taxes and credits make great sense to me. As the cots of fossil fuel are more aligned with their true costs to our world, market forces will drive new technologies of conservations, renewable energy and reduced CO2 emmissions. It won't change things overnight, indeed over some decades and it won't stop any time soon a warmer and warmer world, but the alternative is to gamble our descendants and their chance for a meaningful life on this earth on the hope that the proof never comes in. We all will be dead as to this earth, but we will still be held accountable, at least I so believe. I respect your views and know that I could be wrong. It is a challenging issue to say the least. But that is where I come from.

BoiseBYU wrote:
I fear to tred further...I do not think that my view is not very well received, But here goes. While there are fringes on both sides, virtually all responsible scientists agree that we are in a warming trend. Equally most all scientists agree that CO2 levels are at very high levels, much of that attributable to our use of fossil fuels. The debate is whether man's actions and the spewing of these fossible fuels into our atmosphere are the cause of our warmer climate or not. For some the proof already is sufficient; for some much more proof is needed before they think some or even any of man's lifestyle practices should change. The problem of course is that for those who want more proof, by the time adequate proof is obtained it might be too late. Even now the warth is going to continue to warm no matter what we do. For those who want to make changes, the costs could be great and a big waste if the proof never does come in. So what to do? I think God made us stewards of this earth and a steward makes choices to preserve and protect. So I would take steps to internalize the costs of fossil fuel usage and CO2 dispersal. Carbon taxes and credits make great sense to me. As the cots of fossil fuel are more aligned with their true costs to our world, market forces will drive new technologies of conservations, renewable energy and reduced CO2 emmissions. It won't change things overnight, indeed over some decades and it won't stop any time soon a warmer and warmer world, but the alternative is to gamble our descendants and their chance for a meaningful life on this earth on the hope that the proof never comes in. We all will be dead as to this earth, but we will still be held accountable, at least I so believe. I respect your views and know that I could be wrong. It is a challenging issue to say the least. But that is where I come from.

I do not understand why you think this issue is so challenging. It sounds to me what you are saying is that a possible forecast of warmer weather and you are willing to go completely socialist. I cannot think of circumstances that would cause me to turn socialist or choose a king over God. Someone once proposed a plan to save us all by simlar tactics to what you propose. God rejected it.



By the way, Utah just recorded the fourth wettest winter on record and the coming one looks to follow the pattern.

tww wrote:

I fear to tred further...I do not think that my view is not very well received, But here goes. While there are fringes on both sides, virtually all responsible scientists agree that we are in a warming trend. Equally most all scientists agree that CO2 levels are at very high levels, much of that attributable to our use of fossil fuels. The debate is whether man's actions and the spewing of these fossible fuels into our atmosphere are the cause of our warmer climate or not. For some the proof already is sufficient; for some much more proof is needed before they think some or even any of man's lifestyle practices should change. The problem of course is that for those who want more proof, by the time adequate proof is obtained it might be too late. Even now the warth is going to continue to warm no matter what we do. For those who want to make changes, the costs could be great and a big waste if the proof never does come in. So what to do? I think God made us stewards of this earth and a steward makes choices to preserve and protect. So I would take steps to internalize the costs of fossil fuel usage and CO2 dispersal. Carbon taxes and credits make great sense to me. As the cots of fossil fuel are more aligned with their true costs to our world, market forces will drive new technologies of conservations, renewable energy and reduced CO2 emmissions. It won't change things overnight, indeed over some decades and it won't stop any time soon a warmer and warmer world, but the alternative is to gamble our descendants and their chance for a meaningful life on this earth on the hope that the proof never comes in. We all will be dead as to this earth, but we will still be held accountable, at least I so believe. I respect your views and know that I could be wrong. It is a challenging issue to say the least. But that is where I come from.

I do not understand why you think this issue is so challenging. It sounds to me what you are saying is that a possible forecast of warmer weather and you are willing to go completely socialist. I cannot think of circumstances that would cause me to turn socialist or choose a king over God. Someone once proposed a plan to save us all by simlar tactics to what you propose. God rejected it.



By the way, Utah just recorded the fourth wettest winter on record and the coming one looks to follow the pattern.

You trivilaize what I said and pull out the dreaded socialist word to try and score a few more points...and then sneak in more wet weather in Utah this year as if that means anything. It means little just like Idaho had the warmest September in its history. Does that mean much? The science of course says no...so why engage in that demagougery when it suits your fancy? The issue is of great import because man is reaching or has reached a point that his actions can affect our climate globally to the harm of future generations. That bothers me greatly. We have a duty to them, a moral duty. It is NOT socialistic for people to enact laws to regulate matters of the environment and health. It just is not.

I keept thinking there was something else in this matter. It is the East Anglia University emails that someone discovered. This university was hired by the government to prove global warming and emailed each other to see how they could convince people to believe it.



The Lord told Adam to be Lord over the Earth. That to me implies being careful in the use or her resources, but not ceasing that use. Wind and solor are nowhere near where we can rely on them and many of the enviromentalists have protested nuclear to where we are too scared of it. I do not feel at this time it is wrong, or against the Lord to use petroleum and natural gas. Without them we may be going back to the 1800s.

tww wrote:

I fear to tred further...I do not think that my view is not very well received, But here goes. While there are fringes on both sides, virtually all responsible scientists agree that we are in a warming trend. Equally most all scientists agree that CO2 levels are at very high levels, much of that attributable to our use of fossil fuels. The debate is whether man's actions and the spewing of these fossible fuels into our atmosphere are the cause of our warmer climate or not. For some the proof already is sufficient; for some much more proof is needed before they think some or even any of man's lifestyle practices should change. The problem of course is that for those who want more proof, by the time adequate proof is obtained it might be too late. Even now the warth is going to continue to warm no matter what we do. For those who want to make changes, the costs could be great and a big waste if the proof never does come in. So what to do? I think God made us stewards of this earth and a steward makes choices to preserve and protect. So I would take steps to internalize the costs of fossil fuel usage and CO2 dispersal. Carbon taxes and credits make great sense to me. As the cots of fossil fuel are more aligned with their true costs to our world, market forces will drive new technologies of conservations, renewable energy and reduced CO2 emmissions. It won't change things overnight, indeed over some decades and it won't stop any time soon a warmer and warmer world, but the alternative is to gamble our descendants and their chance for a meaningful life on this earth on the hope that the proof never comes in. We all will be dead as to this earth, but we will still be held accountable, at least I so believe. I respect your views and know that I could be wrong. It is a challenging issue to say the least. But that is where I come from.

I do not understand why you think this issue is so challenging. It sounds to me what you are saying is that a possible forecast of warmer weather and you are willing to go completely socialist. I cannot think of circumstances that would cause me to turn socialist or choose a king over God. Someone once proposed a plan to save us all by simlar tactics to what you propose. God rejected it.



By the way, Utah just recorded the fourth wettest winter on record and the coming one looks to follow the pattern.

Woah there tww. I gotta say that was a pretty extreme reply. Choosing a king over God? Wet winter? Socialist?

What does any of that have to do with being a good steward over the Earth?



Just my $0.02, I think the global warming (now being called by a more ambiguous name, Climate Change) is probably a little overblown by environmentalists and activist groups and whatnot, but that doesn't mean I don't support the movement to using cleaner, more reusable energy. It's that whole, being good stewards argument.



I also think that nuclear power is being way underutilized. Just to throw that out there

tmoney35 wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:
I fear to tred further...I do not think that my view is not very well received, But here goes. While there are fringes on both sides, virtually all responsible scientists agree that we are in a warming trend. Equally most all scientists agree that CO2 levels are at very high levels, much of that attributable to our use of fossil fuels. The debate is whether man's actions and the spewing of these fossible fuels into our atmosphere are the cause of our warmer climate or not. For some the proof already is sufficient; for some much more proof is needed before they think some or even any of man's lifestyle practices should change. The problem of course is that for those who want more proof, by the time adequate proof is obtained it might be too late. Even now the warth is going to continue to warm no matter what we do. For those who want to make changes, the costs could be great and a big waste if the proof never does come in. So what to do? I think God made us stewards of this earth and a steward makes choices to preserve and protect. So I would take steps to internalize the costs of fossil fuel usage and CO2 dispersal. Carbon taxes and credits make great sense to me. As the cots of fossil fuel are more aligned with their true costs to our world, market forces will drive new technologies of conservations, renewable energy and reduced CO2 emmissions. It won't change things overnight, indeed over some decades and it won't stop any time soon a warmer and warmer world, but the alternative is to gamble our descendants and their chance for a meaningful life on this earth on the hope that the proof never comes in. We all will be dead as to this earth, but we will still be held accountable, at least I so believe. I respect your views and know that I could be wrong. It is a challenging issue to say the least. But that is where I come from.

I do not understand why you think this issue is so challenging. It sounds to me what you are saying is that a possible forecast of warmer weather and you are willing to go completely socialist. I cannot think of circumstances that would cause me to turn socialist or choose a king over God. Someone once proposed a plan to save us all by similar tactics to what you propose. God rejected it.



By the way, Utah just recorded the fourth wettest winter on record and the coming one looks to follow the pattern.

Woah there tww. I gotta say that was a pretty extreme reply. Choosing a king over God? Wet winter? Socialist?

What does any of that have to do with being a good steward over the Earth?



Just my $0.02, I think the global warming (now being called by a more ambiguous name, Climate Change) is probably a little overblown by environmentalists and activist groups and whatnot, but that doesn't mean I don't support the movement to using cleaner, more reusable energy. It's that whole, being good stewards argument.



I also think that nuclear power is being way underutilized. Just to throw that out there

Wherein have I trivialized and how have I been extreme? Guys, I am not trying to score points, be contentious or play games, I don't work that way. This is a serious subject for me, though I am sure it is not for the same reasons it is for you.



In the last forty years the subject as related to climate has gone from a coming ice-age, to global warming to climate change. The proposed solution has always been the same— Tyranny. So I do not see the problem as one of stewardship over the planet but rather an abandonment of the divine agency of man. As we know this is not a new struggle. But what is always new is the latest reason to override God given rights and agency.



I confess I am a bit baffled when people continue to support the latest "findings" with an amnesia for yesterday's "undeniable evidence" that proved to be either a hoax, a lie, or very bad science. In other words, every climate researched induced hysteria that has been allowed to stand the test of time and scrutiny has turned out to be false. So, I do not understand the readiness and willingness to jump back on that band wagon every time some bold climate claim is made by the most respected, recognized, agreed on or whatever.



I believe the "good steward" argument is being misused here as well. Stewardship is personal and NEVER gives license to apply tyranny over someone else. The argument given seems to be that tyranny is acceptable in some circumstances. Please show me in the scriptures where God makes that an option.



There is a certain amount of hubris to say I know better than everyone else and therefore I will tell you what you have to do. Who is to say that more CO2 isn't the best thing for the planet?



The real debate here is not about climate change. It is about rights and freedom vs. Tyranny. Regardless of whatever model you want to use to try to project climate trends there is only one certainty and that is tyranny is the most destructive and deadly force the world has ever known not climate change.



We also know that everyone that has tried to prophesy about the future of the worlds climate has turned out at best to be wrong, at worst to be a liar. Algore does not even know how to tell the truth therefore he automatically discredits everything he says and everything to which he is attached.



The fact is there is no scientific knowledge that CO2 is harmful to the planet. On the contrary vegetation thrives in it. So the good steward argument is not only misapplied but moot.



If I appear to trivialize anything it is the very silly climate doomsday prophecies. They are baseless and have ulterior motives.



If you want to discuss climate and be taken seriously, you must do it in a politically neutral context without any proposal to to attempt to alter climate by political means. You may not realize this but if you allow yourself to project where a political oriented solution ultimately goes it is to eugenics. The argument is not even anti-fossil fuels, it is anti- humanity.



As far as the use of weather to sustain either side of the debate, I find that when it is applied as counter evidence to warming it is ridiculed with the statement that weather is not the same as climate and yet the pro-warming crowd is all to ready to became hysterical with every piece of weather that they can get their hands on be it a "deadly" heatwave or "devestating" trend in hurricanes, floods, etc.

30-ish years ago it was global cooling, and heading for the ice age. Now we humans have done the geopolitical over correction of the ages, and caused the seas to melt. Whoops!!!!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko

tww wrote:

I believe the "good steward" argument is being misused here as well. Stewardship is personal and NEVER gives license to apply tyranny over someone else. The argument given seems to be that tyranny is acceptable in some circumstances. Please show me in the scriptures where God makes that an option.



There is a certain amount of hubris to say I know better than everyone else and therefore I will tell you what you have to do. Who is to say that more CO2 isn't the best thing for the planet?



The real debate here is not about climate change. It is about rights and freedom vs. Tyranny. Regardless of whatever model you want to use to try to project climate trends there is only one certainty and that is tyranny is the most destructive and deadly force the world has ever known not climate change.

That argument is exactly what the original Gore article argues - that the debate has changed FROM Climate change TO power and tyranny questions.



I'm also going to disagree with your stewardship definitions on a number of levels, the first is the very term means to manage something owned by someone else. I agree that a steward doesn't manage tyrannically since they are not the owner, but to call "stewardship personal" ignores the very counter-party arrangement that makes up a stewardship (unless of course the counter-party is God, but even then two people).



But what about a common stewardship like the planet? Same thing with Defense of a nation, police forces, or roadbuilding. It's not something you can't just divide into individual little pieces and hope that a cross-country highway gets built if everyone builds their little section. That just doesn't work! Same problem with global climate change, my tree-hugging, solar panel, hybrid-driving ways won't change a thing if you're burning oil and spilling Uranium on your property for a living. It affects everyone and if limiting that behavior is tyranny, then so is conscription, so is a police force and virtually every government limitation on personal action. i for one, support governmental interaction on those cases! you and others may not like it, but I suppose many people who break a given law would disagree with it. But that's where we are right now. Should it even be a law. It's a good debate.



If it does become a law, the argument is everywhere in the scriptures, we believe in being subject to Kings,rulers, magistrates and we support the voice of the people in government for the betterment of the common good. We believe in laws, rules and punishment for rule-breakers. and yes, we even believe in violence to maintain a certain standard of morality, civility and yes, cleanliness. Is that Tyranny? Not in my book!



You're right that I can't know how much CO2 is harmful for the environment, but most of the people who's JOB it is to know, tell me it's harmful. I'm not completely sold and there's a lot of points to be made(Hawkwing) about why they might not be a good source to rely on. So what if they're wrong? Going back to Boise's point. Then I've spent lots of money, and cleaned up the place. Ive set up some undeserving people in positions of power and limited economic development. All bad things. But what if (This time) they're right about climate change and we do nothing? We will have destroyed our planet, caused irreparable harm with our then solutions falling into the "stop all economic development altogether" category.



Seems like the latter consequences are worse. And sense you don't know, and I don't know, why not stay on the safe side and at least make steps in that direction?

tww wrote:

tww wrote:

I fear to tred further...I do not think that my view is not very well received, But here goes. While there are fringes on both sides, virtually all responsible scientists agree that we are in a warming trend. Equally most all scientists agree that CO2 levels are at very high levels, much of that attributable to our use of fossil fuels. The debate is whether man's actions and the spewing of these fossible fuels into our atmosphere are the cause of our warmer climate or not. For some the proof already is sufficient; for some much more proof is needed before they think some or even any of man's lifestyle practices should change. The problem of course is that for those who want more proof, by the time adequate proof is obtained it might be too late. Even now the warth is going to continue to warm no matter what we do. For those who want to make changes, the costs could be great and a big waste if the proof never does come in. So what to do? I think God made us stewards of this earth and a steward makes choices to preserve and protect. So I would take steps to internalize the costs of fossil fuel usage and CO2 dispersal. Carbon taxes and credits make great sense to me. As the cots of fossil fuel are more aligned with their true costs to our world, market forces will drive new technologies of conservations, renewable energy and reduced CO2 emmissions. It won't change things overnight, indeed over some decades and it won't stop any time soon a warmer and warmer world, but the alternative is to gamble our descendants and their chance for a meaningful life on this earth on the hope that the proof never comes in. We all will be dead as to this earth, but we will still be held accountable, at least I so believe. I respect your views and know that I could be wrong. It is a challenging issue to say the least. But that is where I come from.

I do not understand why you think this issue is so challenging. It sounds to me what you are saying is that a possible forecast of warmer weather and you are willing to go completely socialist. I cannot think of circumstances that would cause me to turn socialist or choose a king over God. Someone once proposed a plan to save us all by similar tactics to what you propose. God rejected it.



By the way, Utah just recorded the fourth wettest winter on record and the coming one looks to follow the pattern.

Woah there tww. I gotta say that was a pretty extreme reply. Choosing a king over God? Wet winter? Socialist?

What does any of that have to do with being a good steward over the Earth?



Just my $0.02, I think the global warming (now being called by a more ambiguous name, Climate Change) is probably a little overblown by environmentalists and activist groups and whatnot, but that doesn't mean I don't support the movement to using cleaner, more reusable energy. It's that whole, being good stewards argument.



I also think that nuclear power is being way underutilized. Just to throw that out there

Wherein have I trivialized and how have I been extreme? Guys, I am not trying to score points, be contentious or play games, I don't work that way. This is a serious subject for me, though I am sure it is not for the same reasons it is for you.



In the last forty years the subject as related to climate has gone from a coming ice-age, to global warming to climate change. The proposed solution has always been the same— Tyranny. So I do not see the problem as one of stewardship over the planet but rather an abandonment of the divine agency of man. As we know this is not a new struggle. But what is always new is the latest reason to override God given rights and agency.



I confess I am a bit baffled when people continue to support the latest "findings" with an amnesia for yesterday's "undeniable evidence" that proved to be either a hoax, a lie, or very bad science. In other words, every climate researched induced hysteria that has been allowed to stand the test of time and scrutiny has turned out to be false. So, I do not understand the readiness and willingness to jump back on that band wagon every time some bold climate claim is made by the most respected, recognized, agreed on or whatever.



I believe the "good steward" argument is being misused here as well. Stewardship is personal and NEVER gives license to apply tyranny over someone else. The argument given seems to be that tyranny is acceptable in some circumstances. Please show me in the scriptures where God makes that an option.



There is a certain amount of hubris to say I know better than everyone else and therefore I will tell you what you have to do. Who is to say that more CO2 isn't the best thing for the planet?



The real debate here is not about climate change. It is about rights and freedom vs. Tyranny. Regardless of whatever model you want to use to try to project climate trends there is only one certainty and that is tyranny is the most destructive and deadly force the world has ever known not climate change.



We also know that everyone that has tried to prophesy about the future of the worlds climate has turned out at best to be wrong, at worst to be a liar. Algore does not even know how to tell the truth therefore he automatically discredits everything he says and everything to which he is attached.



The fact is there is no scientific knowledge that CO2 is harmful to the planet. On the contrary vegetation thrives in it. So the good steward argument is not only misapplied but moot.



If I appear to trivialize anything it is the very silly climate doomsday prophecies. They are baseless and have ulterior motives.



If you want to discuss climate and be taken seriously, you must do it in a politically neutral context without any proposal to to attempt to alter climate by political means. You may not realize this but if you allow yourself to project where a political oriented solution ultimately goes it is to eugenics. The argument is not even anti-fossil fuels, it is anti- humanity.



As far as the use of weather to sustain either side of the debate, I find that when it is applied as counter evidence to warming it is ridiculed with the statement that weather is not the same as climate and yet the pro-warming crowd is all to ready to became hysterical with every piece of weather that they can get their hands on be it a "deadly" heatwave or "devestating" trend in hurricanes, floods, etc.

TWW, I respect your view; I simply disagree. To say there is no evidence that CO2 is harmful to the planet is incomplete. It is understood by all thatCO2 traps heat. If too much CO2 is in the air and this traps too much heat, this will warm the planet. And if the planet gets too warm, the ice sheeets melt to the detriment of hundreds of millioins of people, many too poor to address the issue. The artic ice cap and Greenland are melting at unprecedented rates. Is it because of man and his CO2? Many scientiests say yes; a number say no. I am not qualified to identify which for sure is right. But I do know that the globe is warming; that is undeniable. Also, it is not tyrannical to adopt laws governing our health and well being. Do you think it is tyrnanical that your neighbor can't invite and establish a toxic dump next door to your house and children? Surely you would not defend your neighbor's right to do such a thing....Assuming you support such a law, then actions similarly taken to protect the global neighborhood are not, in and of themselves, tyrannical.

Hydrocarbons get a bad rap. Greenpeace and the other eco-freaks forget to mention that it was the development of petroleum for energy that saved the whales. But hey.....whale oil is renewable if you manage it properly, so maybe they really DO want to kill the oil industry.



Next time you see an eco-freak, ask them "who saved the whales?"

snoscythe wrote:
Hydrocarbons get a bad rap. Greenpeace and the other eco-freaks forget to mention that it was the development of petroleum for energy that saved the whales. But hey.....whale oil is renewable if you manage it properly, so maybe they really DO want to kill the oil industry.



Next time you see an eco-freak, ask them "who saved the whales?"

I once saw a T shirt that said ban all gay loving whales who underwrote subprime mortgages and I think the dude about caught it all....Not really on point, but your reference to whales made me think of it. By the way I am glad the whales are saved but it was not oil the saved them....the whalers had over harvested for years and the yields were plummeting....The price of whale oil exploded and except for the norweigians and japanese, whaling went away....Unfortunately, the Japaneses continue, in the name of "research" to harvest whales irresponsibly and immorally....I hope that view does not make me an eco-freak.

Rockefeller almost single-handedly saved the whales. Now he is being "boycotted" by hippies, on wall street (they are actually 2 streets over, on cedar street) because he saved them to well. Go figure. Irony at it's best.



http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/how-capitalism-saved-the-whales/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;