what's your take on america's energy future?

Because there's a ban on private pesticides and herbicides come this September around here. No more round-up and equivalents being sold as it's illegal to use it on private property. That means city limit ditches are going to be dirty with weeds next season and there won't be as much supply - so the farmers as well as every home owner is over-spraying and I figure it'll get bootlegged.

But I'm not twisting your words, and I am paying attention. I like to get your goat - you know.

Anyway, I do not understand some thing. What do you mean when you say that you "don't believe in the notion of climate change being caused by humans"?

It's that whole concept that I feel conflicts with your argument that REAL, and oh, I mean REAL environmental concerns "can be attributed to human activity, such as chemical pollution, GMO's, deforestation, overfishing, genetic engineering, etc."

Seems paradoxical that you think REAL environment issues as you mentioned above are manmade, but REAL changes to climate are not even close.

EDIT: You don't have to answer tonight. It's late and I don't feel like pushing each other around.

 

Well, Roundup is a very nasty and dangerous toxin made by Monsanto. It is highly carcinogenic and it should not be used, period.

I think I made it clear that when I referred to climate change, I was referring to global warming. Sure, I believe the planet is warming. But my belief (along with thousands of scientists) is that this is caused by the sun, which would also explain why other planets in the solar system are also warming up. I could go on and on, but to me the evidence speaks for itself. There have been times in the not so distant past when CO2 levels were much higher, but the temperatures were much lower. Even ice core samples show that CO2 lags behind temperature increase by as much as 800 years.

I do believe there are some manmade reasons for the exacerbation of this global warming, along with the extreme weather we've been witnessing, but I won't get into that tonight because it's a whole different area and has nothing to do with manmade climate change as most people view it.

 

Thanks. I guess I needed a clear distinction between your view on the causes of "climate change" vs. theories of "global warming" as I think we were both using those terms inter-changeably, but I understand now.

I have to be at work by 7am tomorrow, so I'm off for a good dream. Good night.

 

This thread turned into a fucking Barnes and Noble publication.

Might as well add to it.

Nuclear energy is the immediate solution.

Solar might be a bad idea because you're taking light that would otherwise be reflected into space and it's being absorbed by Earth and will heat the planet unless counter measures are taken like painting mad shit white to be more reflective.

Wind power might be a bad idea because we might alter the wind patterns of the world.

Geothermal is bad because it's taking heat from the core and putting it into the atmosphere.

Oil is bad because it's taking oil and turning it into heat in the atmosphere.

You cats don't get it, this planet is being heated by people harnessing it's energy from one form and turning it into electricity.

Electricity is hot, electrical devices generate heat.

 

Talk about hot, Nuclear (devices) generate some heat wouldn't you say?

These run off heat, or cold. Not much potential but still neat.

We might actually have to do something like this, as all the Natural white stuff is gone or soon will be

 

Meow?

*bangs head on desk*

 

Ari this the part of Rat's arguments you need to pay attention to. The energy moguls are opening a whole new market which they plan on manipulating for gain. I am not against consumers waking up and and living a more environmentally sound life style, but I am against being hoodwinked into hysteria in order to facilitate a new bogus market and more legislation that threatens to rule all of our lives. Ask yourself why Gore is involved in this market, it should be seen as a conflict of interest:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2008/07/outfront-turning-carbon-into-gold.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/carbon-offsets/2007/04/19/

Ask yourself why some are getting rich buying and selling their rights to pollute. We used to have environmental laws based on what was healthy (If it was safe you were allowed to do it. If not you weren't.) Now they are proposing that you be allowed to buy permission to pollute by buying credits from some company that supposedly isn't polluting as much as you are.), We are supposed to let yet another market based pipe dream solve our problems. We've been conned!

 

FFS. I refuse to reason with articles from WND. Could there be any shittier media source claiming to be independent??

 

Rat, simply because Carbon Dioxide is an important chemical in the atmosphere, doesn't mean that dumping massive amount of new carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is ecologically benign.

The scientific information which is readily available leaves no doubt within the legitimate scientific community that carbon dioxide and methane are contributing to the warming trend.


Anyway, my thoughts are that this will be the way we produce power late in this century.

http://www.iter.org/

And PEM cells will likely fuel pistonless engines in the future, all over the world.

 

We call that heat thermal energy.

 

The price of oil has tripled in a decade because demand has outstripped supply. Theres no hoodwinking about it. We need alternatives.

Gore's not the czar of energy policy. Asking yourself why he does something is not critical to the argument. It's a petty distraction.

 

But there have been higher concentrations of Co2 in the past than there is today, without any drastic changes in climate. And regardless of what you say, I have seen no scientific evidence that CARBON DIOXIDE contributes to global warming, other than for unverified, oversimplified computer models designed to come to the desired conclusion that humans are evil. As I have said before, ice core samples show that Co2 lags behind temperature increase by 800 years, so if anything, temperature increase causes a rise in Co2 levels -- not the other way around, as people like Al Gore would have you believe.

What you do not understand is that the West has already been significantly deindustrialized (one of the goals behind the manmade global warming hoax), so therefore the "carbon emissions" from industry is much less than it was 30 years ago, when the Western nations were still producer nations. The only thing that has happened to these factories is that they have been sent over to China, where there are no environmental laws.

That is one of the big deceptions of the environmental movement when it comes to this notion of manmade climate change.

 

Again, you show how well you can parrot whatever the media tells you. Do you EVER think for yourself and maybe question that what they're feeding you is bullshit? It has NOTHING to do with supply and demand. The oil prices are the result of manipulation through the deliberate devaluation of the dollar, combined with artificial scarcity that we are running out of oil when we are in fact not.

No, but oil man Al Gore is a liar and a fraud who is being promoted by his buddies high up in the United Nations, like Maurice Strong, to instill fear in the ignorant public over something that has never been proven and is actually contested by tens of thousands of scientists. Now Gore, on behalf of his handlers, is busy promoting the scam of a global carbon tax and carbon credits, which is exactly what the globalists have wanted for decades. I know because I have read the publications from the Club of Rome that talk about how they would use the environmental threat to further their one world plans and issue a global tax via the UN. None of this is a conspiracy theory if you just open your eyes and read and stop assuming that everything not spewed from the lips of lying Katie Couric must be some joke.

No it won't. It's a scam from the very start, considering that Co2 is contributing to global warming, which is unproven and contested by over 31,000 scientists. And even if it was contributing to global warming, it won't do anything to stop these carbon emissions because you still have China, which is the biggest polluter when it comes to industry. All this will do is send even more US factories over to China while the West sinks further into a fourth world cesspool of unemployment and poverty. But that's exactly their game plan you see.

 

I for one, am not convinced global warming's necessarily a negative. I do like polar bears.

You're right that there have been higher concentrations of carbon dioxide during ice ages. That's not an argument against CO2 causing an increase in global temperatures.

Furthermore, the fact that increasing global temperatures cause a release of more CO2 from the soil is well documented in the scientific community. It is not something that 'Al Gore' has hidden to deceive you.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6324/pdf/351304a0.pdf

The data behind carbon dioxide causing an increase in global temperatures is very extensively documented and available to anyone curious. I can review and post this data if you are interested, but I'm certain you aren't.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v315/n6014/pdf/315045a0.pdf

Furthermore, the increase in carbon dioxide affecting global climate is a concern of the world, not a whodunit caper. The data of carbon emitting nations is also readily available, and we're roughly equal in carbon emissions with China. Some estimates predict slightly higher or lower.

Claiming that the west has been deindustrialized is simply wrong. It is more of your CT tripe.

 

To claim the the West HASN'T been deindustrialized is like saying the moon is made of cheese. I mean, even a ten year old can tell you that over the past several decades the US has went from a producer nation to a largely consumer nation. We are seeing a massive transfer in jobs from the manufacturing industry to the service industry. Yes, this is a post-industrial era. China produces most of the goods that Americans consume.

 

We spoke of this last night, where I mentioned the inflation of the dollar being largely responsible for the increase in oil prices. I don't believe everything the media tells me. I simply realize how supply and demand works.

Yes Rat, we are running out of oil, we have a limited amount of it. Even if it wasn't the case, we need to find alternatives in any case.

It does contribute to climate change. I can find 30,000 scientists who believe in creationism. That doesn't mean it's sound science.

Science is not a matter of consensus.

The Gore thing is irrelevant to the discussion and makes you look obsessive. This is not an Al Gore thread. Al Gore is not a scientist. The Club of Rome and the Freemasons don't control the world. It's not an issue here. Stop trying to make it one.

 

That's exactly it. We are post industrial, not deindustrialized. Big difference.

You've completly ignored the important parts of the post.

 

But we're not running out of oil. There are massive untapped reserves all around this planet. On the north slope of Alaska alone there is enough oil to supply the US for the next 200 years at least.

I am not saying that burning oil is a good thing. I think REAL alternatives that would completely end all dependence on oil are a good thing. I am simply trying to dispell some of the lies that are being put out there about how we're running out of oil and that the sky is falling and we must pay six dollars a gallon so the CEOs of these oil companies can retire with a $400,000,000 retirement package.

The American public is being fleeced, and it's by design.

 

No, there isn't a big difference. The two are interchangeable. When a nation is deindustrialized, it becomes a post-industrial nation. That doesn't mean every single industry has packed up and left. It just means we're no longer an industrial nation as we now consume far more than we produce.

I also didn't ignore the important parts of your post. The things you provided really did not tell me anything I don't already know. I have looked at enough evidence to be set in my opinion about manmade climate change.

I have also read the books from think tanks going back 30 years that talk about how they would exploit the environment to engineer a crisis where they could then justify the solution with more control.

 

Like I suggested, you aren't interested in evidence.

You simply suggest, if only I knew what as well as thee.

200 years? That's optimistic. Look, I'm not saying it's a crisis. It's simply a resource which isn't viable on a long term, and we need to look for alternatives.