People Do Not Have A Hand In Global Warming!

You really couldn't be any more wrong.

The source of energy that will replace oil is not one thing, but it is a diversified network of renewable energy sources, including solar, wind, conservation, geothermal, biomass and many more, backed up by natural gas as a transition fuel.

I assure you that environmentalists are not connected to nuclear power. The fact that you would even say that shows how little you understand. Nuclear power cannot compete, because it is by far the most expensive way to generate electricity. The capital costs are so daunting that Wall Street won't invest in it without massive taxpayer subsidies. The only reason that nuclear plants are not being closed now is that the NRC is corrupt and instead of protecting the environment, it promotes the industry by pretending that the Fukushima multiple meltdowns couldn't happen here. And finally, there is the Price-Anderson Act, which is probably the biggest example of corporate welfare there is. If there is a disastrous meltdown in the US, our government will make the taxpayers pay for the damages. So, basically, the government gives them free insurance at our expense.

If we removed all energy subsidies and giveaways for all energy sources and let all the forms compete in a free market, while enforcing strong environmental regulations, I am quite sure that the renewables will win. But of course the free-market Republicans would never go along with such an idea even tho it is completely in line with what they say are their principles.

We have known we must move away from oil since the 1970's. The fact that we've barely started is completely due to the political corruption of campaign contributions from the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries.

 

...*sigh*

You have such a beautiful mind. But stupid doesn't listen, and this forum is evidence enough of that

Finally, I've found a thread where I didn't think I'd have to disagree with you on anything. Maybe some day...

ElEyeJaw...

I honestly wasn't planning on responding, but you've managed to push the right buttons. And since it's obvious you don't have an IQ above 70, here, allow me to enlighten you just a little bit. Maybe you can prove the_dope right after all. I'd love to see that, to be honest with you

Yes, it's called yearly climate change, and it causes fluctuations. You are using pseudoscience, and not even approaching the scientific method properly. There's a difference between weather and climate; weather being yearly change, climate being the average over a period of many years. You're trying to prove a point about climate change using weather statistics. That's a death sentence right there for any credibility you may present of yourself being at all knowledgeable of climate change, or... well, science in general, really. The scintific method, after all, states that one must gather multiple points of evidence. You have provided me with one, and one over a short period of time. Give me an average, and I'll be happy. But... oh, wait, the averages as have been collected by international climatologists, some of whom owe no affiliation to any sort of government, others with no company.... they all seem to suggest it is real. So, you might as well ignore that, like you ignored the 2,200 documents I mentioned in my first post. But why bother stopping here?

Yes, I've looked at dissenting data. Most of it is bullshit, coming from internet conspiracy theorist tough guys (like yourself). Actual scientific sources is not Joe Shmoe set up with amateur weather instruments in has back yard, no research, and then writing about it in a blog page that makes him look certified because he wants to take down the Illuminati. Not all of this was government approved - climate research is paid for by several different industries, private firms, environmentalists with money, world organizations that transcend governments, and other countries. Much of it is also reliable. And, as I said, much of it points to the fact that ought to be common sense - anything we do has a minute impact on the environment. Multiply that times industry, and again by 8 billion people, and you have a massive ecological power.

You're even more cynical than my worst - that's impressive. Truly, it is. It isn't very admirable, though.
Again, you provide ​one ILLEGITIMATE source, nothing to back up your theory besides "hacked emails" which in and of itself could very well have been a hoax, or misinterpreted by freak-out conspiracy theorists. And there is no way that many sources could be manipulated - there are concerned people all over the world, people who are legit concerned for the climate - there would be no global way to silence them. Something on the scale that size would be enormous, and couldn't possibly go undetected.

You're making things up, scaring yourself, and believing it. Typical. I figure I should throw one more science based idea into the mix (the_dope, you should get a kick out of this one )

Perhaps, since you're so scientific, you're aware of the concept of Occam's Razor? Simply put, it means that the fewer assumptions made, the better. And that the simplest explanation tends to be the most accurate. You are doing nothing but assuming. And you are proposing something that is by no means simple - it would be a cover-up on a global scale, and would go completely against common sense and the scientific method.

So...

Why don't you grow up, stop white-knighting your ridiculous idea about a giant hoax, get off your computer-ridden ass and do something sensible with your time?

 

You obviously haven't read anything Walter Russel wrote, you resort to an insult, therefore you have zero idea how to actually debate someone. Says a lot about your character, or rather lack there of. Try reading what Walter russel wrote before you criticise him, or me for that matter. He was certaihnly farmore educated and a hell of a lot smarter than you could ever hope to be, he was a modern rennaisance man. By the way, when you learn to discern the difference between your and your are, then you can attempt to call me uneducated.

 

Go eat somemore grass sheep, you and people like you went on attack mode immediately and childishly used labels like conspiracy theorist, when you haven't disproved anything anyone here has actually said. The fact is alarmists like yourself bought into global warming and the actual weather patterns have proved global warming wrong,it'smodenr day snake oil salesmanship and politici9sing at its worst. I'm not assuming, I'm observing and looking at data

 

You just proved me right about modern environmentalism being guilty of polticising. The only way these alternative energy sources which are not practical in all areas would ever take off, is through tax payer subsidies, hence why ethanol blends can be found at gas stations now. Guess what? it's a scam too, it doens't get near the gas mileage as petrol does. Do you know why we haven't moved away from oil yet?Because oil is far more cost effective and practical tan anything you suggest is. Not only that, but once anything you suggest should take off, big industry will do as it always does, buy it out and monopolise on it. The only alternative energy I've seen up close that I was impressed enough with are rocket stoves, notice how nobody is getting any carbon credits from their use either under the current administration? Which by the way like a class a moron, ypou probably voted for. Tired of self righteous liberals who live in their own heads talking shit and pretending to be better than anyone else is

 

I actually let you make the first move.

Oh, and prove it. Did you honestly read any of my post? Why don't you respond and counter? Go on and prove your theory. Only use actual information

 

Well there you go. Had I known stupid was in the thread I might have had a different opinion.

 

I'd say visual maps showing increase of ice more than disproves global warming, especially when it comes from a scientific institution like NASA. I guess they are conspiracy theorists as well?

 

Well, that's the kind of thing poorly educated people say. I presented a sensible vision of how we can get off oil (and we must some day -- there's only so much of it) and you got nothing.

 

Oil companies have gotten tax exemptions for exploration and such.

 

You presented a lot of impractical ideas that would alas require even more subsidies in order to take off. Have you ever considered that perhaps assuming we will run out of oil sometime soon, that it will be the only way we could ever get around to using alternative forms of energy in any sort of practical or feasible manner?

 

No, it;'s based on my observations of them, and it's usually aimed towards those they disagree with. For people who dislike elitism so much, liberals all too often are guilty of it themselves.

 

What do you think about oil getting very expensive?

 

I don't deny that, then again if someone provides something of value in large quantity? I see no real harm in giving them slight elbowroom. Is oil perfect? No, but getting it domesticly is far better than paying some foreign countries a higher cost for their oil.

 

You know, just because I know way more than you do, doesn't make me an elitist. That's the kind of thing stupid rednecks say, not that you are one of course.

By the way, you say impractical, but I presented a vision that involves a lot fewer subsidies than we presently have. You don't seem to have picked that up.

 

...really? I just told you everything you need to know about those maps. Did you even read past the first sentence directed at you?

Quote:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZYEkdK5Gfc

 

I think it shows that government is in bed with energy companies, yes including the Obama administration, but that sure didn't stop environmentalists from voting for him. Voting every four years clearly solves nothing.

 

I highly doubt you took the time out to read thousands of documents for yourself

 

It has not occurred to you that it's getting more expensive because it is not a renewable resource? Do you know what renewable means?