best new website

[10sun]

because it is at the bottom and Chlorine is heavier than air. Duh.

[Diekan]

Give it up, guys. These republican wanna bes are true to form. Narrow-minded, anti-science, big money business loving, brown people hating, Neanderthals.

True republicans are ultra wealthy. No one on this board, I am willing to bet, is a "true" republican. They're "wanna be" republicans.

Now, there are three types of wanna be.

You have:

A. The tobacco chewing, NASCAR watching, trailer dwelling, hicks.
B. The chruch going, middle class, Limbaugh sheep.
C. The military man/women.

So, let's break them down even further - and see "why" they want so dearly to be a republican, shall we?

Let's start with the rednecks. We've all seem them. Driving around in their oversized, to-big-for-the-road truck, while tossing their cigarette butts out their windows. When WWF or NASCAR isn’t on, they busily beating their wives and sitting round the trailer telling nigger jokes. They like republicans because most of them are racists and the GOP has a propensity for hair trigger bombing anyone who isn’t white. Most are lucky if they completed the 4th grade, and while not high on meth they’re looking for another roofing job for which they’ll work for a week or two until they get fired. Then it’s back to the trailer, kick the pit bull, smack the wife and down a 12 pack of Old Milwaukee.

Now, my favorite type – B. They sit in church on Sundays then go back to cheating on their wives and husbands on Monday, but I digress. They love the republicans because they’ve been completely sold by the Grand Old Party into believe they actually support Christian values. After all “W” was put in office by Jesus himself, no? Funny thing is, these idiots don’t realize, or see, or perhaps willing to see that the republican party is no more “Christian” than the atheists they claim to hate so much. They [the GOP] do not worship God… they worship MONEY. Thumping their chests as the champions of Christianity makes for great sound bites and pulls in a bunch of votes from these dolts every election day. They hate science and anything related to science because their pastor tells them to. They hate science and anything related to science because their favorite talk radio show host tells them too. Of course they don’t mind using their cell phones (thanks science!), watching Fox news on their TVs (thanks science!), or sending their jokes back and forth on IM while at work (thanks again science!).

So, what’s a day like in the life of one these jackasses? Let’s take a peek! Up in the morning and ready their 14 kids (cause the bible says be fruitful and multiply!!), pack the kids in the SUV and off to the private school (they can’t really afford) they go. Then it’s off to the office to their lower to middle management jobs – on the drive to work, of course they turn on talk radio to begin their day of brainwashing. During the commercial breaks they dream of being at the corporate level when they then too can afford an even bigger house and trips to Europe. So, while at work, instead of actually DOING anything, it’s coffee break after coffee break, and of course standing around gossiping about who’s fucking who for raises and promotions, sprinkled with a little political talk here and there. Generally, this small talk consists of topics like: killing the sand nigs, fucking stupid liberals, and of course the republicans and the wanna bes one true God… money. After work its time for more talk radio while picking up the kids and then to the grocery store to put a week’s worth of groceries on the already maxed out credit cards (hey – they gotta at least LOOK like they’re rich!). While at home its time for sending and receiving secret text messages from that the really hot guy in accounting while their husbands are in the garage texting that fine chick from his office. Very Christian-like, I know. While at church on Sunday their pastor tells them that science is the devil and all scientists are evil demons sent here to destroy their faith.

Most of these imbeciles are too stupid to know just how stupid the really are. What’s worse is they THINK they’re really really smart and enlightened. You know, that magic word they like to accuse liberals of being?

Ok, enough of those morons – now it’s time for the last type… the GI’s.

More or less they just don’t know any better. They know the GOP gives them raises and that’s good enough for them.

So, what’s the point to all this?

Simple.

The wanna bes aren’t very smart. They have no concept of the science behind global warming. They’re far to close-minded to even ATTEMPT to understand it. They call “us” sheep, yet they so easily take the word of talk radio’s hosts, of their pastors and of the Fox news anchors… but “we’re” the sheep. Oh, sorry, “enlightened” sheep.

You can point out all the science in the world to them – they don’t care. Most of them are too stupid too understand it anyway. They hate science – even though they gladly use the fruits of it on a daily basis. After all, without science how would they get to church on Sunday to ask for forgiveness for screwing around on their spouse?

Big Business HAS A MOTIVE for denying and rejecting global warming. Big Business owns the GOP. The GOP HAS AN AGENDA to deny and reject global warming. The GOP has also done a solid job of selling themselves as something the average wanna bes associate themselves with. So, when the GOP says global warming is a lie, the sheeplike wanna bes clamor around screaming fraud on the part of science!

Too bad these people are too stupid to see what the real motives for rejecting the science of global warming is.

You’re wasting your time. Trying to convince them global warming is real, is like trying to convince them black people are human too… they aint gonna buy it. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

[Gaazy]

Hahaha holy shit, you need to leave again, your going to give yourself a fucking stroke if you arent careful

[Lueyen]

Drem the reason for the "hole" argument was to point out that things do get misrepresented in an effort to "sell" environmental causes. I find it quite interesting that many here who have talked about various parts of our government using fear of terrorism to accomplish some form of legislation absolutely refuse to believe that very same tactic is used in this arena as well.

In the end there can't be any serious discussion regarding global climate when thoughts and questions that don't tow the line are met not with consideration and discussion, but with condescension and name calling.

[Martrae]

My question actually was a serious one. Why is the hole over Antarctica and not somewhere else?

[Arlos]

Leuyen, the reason we get so frustrated over the debate is so much of the science is VERY clear, and yet people like you seem to ignore its existence. The vast majority of scientists with disciplines involved in studying the problem agree that it IS going on, it is only a small fringe that keeps braying against it, ever more shrilly. Not coincidentally, most of those bleating that humans are blameless have direct monetary ties to companies with financial incentives for declaring it to be invalid. So really, there shouldn't *BE* a debate. The science is crystal clear, it is only those with a vested intrest of ostrich-head-in-sanding about it that are claiming it doesn't exist.

The problem is, we've already seen a direct parallel to this situation, with tobacco. How long did politicians, swayed by big donations from big tobacco keep "believing" the reports from tobacco company "scientists" that said tobacco was harmless, while the vast majority of independent scientists said it caused cancer? The SAME rhetoric about "liberal science with an agenda" was used against the people saying it caused cancer back then, too. Now it's a different issue that runs counter to big business profits, and we're right in the same kind of situation.

Most scientists are not in the government, and stand to make no money whatsoever if they're right. Nor are they going to be held up on a pedestal or be up for a nobel prize. They believe in human-caused Global Warming because that's what their data shows them. Funny that I'll believe independent research scientists over ones run by the power and/or Oil lobbies or tobacco lobby.

You know, it amuses me that we seem to have a group of anti-science people on the right for some reason. Because it's the same side that doesn't believe Global Warming science that also doesn't believe in Evolution. Wonder how directly those two are tied together.

As for your question, Martrae, I don't know the answer, I am not by any means a PhD climatologist. I suspect if you looked at high altitude wind patterns that you might find at least the beginnings of an answer, because I know there's a huge wind pattern around the south pole that just keeps circling it. Remember, the problems aren't until these chemicals get VERY high up. The ozone layer is hard to measure, but averaging from a number of sources, it looks like it is at it's most concentrated from about 80,000ft to 120,000 ft or so, and goes all the way up to 300,000 ft. The well-known Jet Stream, for example, is at 30,000 feet, well below the ozone layer.

Remember, these chemicals diffuse up, like a slower version of a bad fart in a closed room. They don't rise straight up, etc. Even if they did, CFCs were used globally, by no means just here in America. They were one of the most common industrial chemicals around, used in everything from car air conditioners to hair spray and deodorant spray cans. So, CFCs were being produced and released on every continent on the planet, not just here in the US.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

The short answer is that Antarctica's atmosphere is in general colder which is more conducive to ozone depletion.

[Diekan]

Drem the reason for the "hole" argument was to point out that things do get misrepresented in an effort to "sell" environmental causes. I find it quite interesting that many here who have talked about various parts of our government using fear of terrorism to accomplish some form of legislation absolutely refuse to believe that very same tactic is used in this arena as well.

In the end there can't be any serious discussion regarding global climate when thoughts and questions that don't tow the line are met not with consideration and discussion, but with condescension and name calling.

Tactic for what? For being more responsibile with the planet we live on?

What would the "secret agenda" of the left be for wanting a cleaner planet? I know what the agenda for the right and big business is...

What many people don't understand is that the majority of the people screaming for something to be done about global warming are NOT insisting we return to grass huts and granola. It’s more about holding people and companies accountable for their actions, or lack there of in taking care of the only home we have.

Your comparison of the global warming movement to terrorism is poor and weak. We have mountains of scientific evidence backing up global warming. The Bush administration had nothing but hearsay when the launched this laughable “war” on terrorism in Iraq. BIG difference.

Again, I want you to tell me what the agenda is for the environmentalists warning us to do something about our actions before it’s too late is.

And, please don’t insult our collective intelligence by parroting Limbaugh with his “attack on capitalism” bullshit. Because that’s exactly what it is… bullshit. I can assure there is no calculated, worldwide, secret conspiracy to destroy capitalism. You have scientists from ALL OVER THE WORLD, in DIFFERENT fields all saying the same thing. Geologists, meteorologists, physicists, biologists, engineers, chemists, and so on, form all around the world saying the same thing, coming up with the same results, gathering the same data. Yeah, they all got together one night over a bottle of Bud and decided to work together to bring down the big bad West.

So, now that, that idiotic reason has been dispelled before it was used (which it most assuredly would have been)… let’s hear it. Let’s hear what [they] are up to.

Exxon is making billion dollar profits each quarter. So, they can’t “afford” to institute more efficient and cleaner technologies for their refining process? The power industry, also a billion if not collectively a trillion dollar industry can’t use some of those moneys to implement cleaner, renewable energy? Why does the American auto industry REFUSE to build vehicles with higher MPG ratings?

Why are the US and Australia the only two countries to refuse to sign Kyoto? Why does the United Sates refuse to remove the crude oil needle from our vein?

You’re willing to jeopardize the health and wellbeing of the only place we have to live so that companies can save money?

Do you really think Ford will go out of business because they’re forced to make cars that get 20% more MsPG? Do you really think Exxon is going to go out of business because they’re forced to implement clean technologies in their refining process? Do you really think huge companies like American Electric are going to shut down if they’re forced to install scrubbers in all their plants?

Give me a break – they’ll be just fine.

Therein lies the point. No one with any sense on the global warming side is trying to SHUT down these types of companies. They simply want them to accept that a problem exists and then do their part to help correct it before it’s too late.

At this point in time, does it really matter “who” is to blame? Oil? Coal? Cars? All the above? No. At this point it really doesn’t matter. The fact of that matter is a problem exists and we all need to collectively do something about it.

I guess we’ll all just have to wait for Manhattan to be underwater before you wake up and say “wow there really was a problem, Rush was wrong!”

[Martrae]

All political topics boil down to one thing, Diekan. Power. Everybody is simply trying to foist their opinions on others in an attempt to control them.

[Arlos]

I disagree with you, at least on the part of most scientists. Your statement may possibly apply to politicians in general, but I disagree heartily when it comes to academics. Most stand to gain NOTHING in this debate. Their positions are already accepted scientific doctrine, they will gain no additional funding, influence, power or position. All they get out of a policy shift is a greater chance to live on a healthy and not utterly fucked-up planet.

It is, if you want to look at it that way, a global case of NIMBYism, from those of us who give a shit about the environment. It is just in this case, what's being done has a GLOBAL impact, so our "back yard", as it were, covers the entire planet. MY life will be negatively impacted if nothing is done, so damn right I have a stake in this. I am not involved because I want to "control" people, I am involved because I don't want the city I live in to be under 30 feet of water in 50 years. I want whatever kids or grandkids I have (or if I don't have any, my brother's kids) to have the chance of experiencing some of the beauty of this planet like I have, and not have it all turned to crap by the unchecked emission of our own industrial filth.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

Arlos I don't dispute that there is a global warming trend, I also do not dispute that mankind's actions affect it. I do question the degree to which human action and byproducts contribute to it. Not unlike your scepticism surrounding issues of the past and correlations to the present, I see similarities in GWT as we've seen with past environmental concerns in both over dramatization and in knee jerk responses before we have a clear view of the situation.

For sake of argument though lets say that mankind's CO2 emissions are the sole cause of global warming trend. I have an issue with many of the prescribed solutions, and I think we can do better and should look for more proactive avenues. Instead of doing things like levying carbon credit taxes we should focus on developing technologies that offer incentives in both cost and efficiency.

Take halogen light bulbs for example, there is no need to enforce technology use when that technology is superior in efficiency, lifetime and cost. You want Americans to be more energy efficient, don't mandate it to them with laws and taxes, better technology that directly relates to their pocketbook not because of artificial incentives but because of real technology driven efficiency will have a much greater impact.

In short we should look for methods for dealing with the problem that are a positive reinforcement instead of negative, and in the end regardless of the degree to which we affect global temperature mean, it will be a win win situation.

Probably the area that needs the most work and would have the greatest impact is to look for alternatives to vehicles that use petroleum. Global warming aside there is already a huge economic incentive to get away from oil burning vehicles, it really shouldn't be that hard to sell pursuit of alternative technologies, especially if technology is developed that is superior both in cost and performance.

Look at hybrid vehicles at the moment. The sticker price is general higher then comparable non hybrid vehicles. This cost is offset generally by tax break incentives, but the goal here is to only bring the cost in line with traditional vehicles which imho falls short. We need to set the bar higher if you will and look for ways to make the savings immediate and go beyond just breaking even. Also the tax credits have a cap based on numbers sold, which will eventually phase out tax credits of this nature as car manufactures reach that threshold of sales. While in the future when the idea of buying a traditional car will be laughable we won't want to be offering tax incentives on hybrids, the current danger is that the tax incentives will fall short before this point... simply put the 2005 Energy Policy act needs to be amended to remove this limitation and we can cross that bridge when we actually get there.

Ethanol based fuel looks positive in some aspects, but it's no where near ready for prime time, and appears at this point to be a dead end. In areas like this we need to be very careful. The problem that is already occurring with the emergence of ethanol is the resources it takes to create the fuel. Aside from the amount of raw product it takes to generate a gallon of ethanol there is another huge issue that isn't in the spot light.

The price of Corn is being driven higher by the ethanol demand. There is a two fold problem with this. The first is that virtually every foodstuff you buy in the grocery store has some form of corn basis. As demand for ethanol increases the value of corn and raises the price, it's also going to raise your grocery bill. This is not a good solution economically because in the end we end up with a trade off of lowering fuel expense but raising grocery expense. This is also very counter productive in that everyone buys food, and what you end up with is not only diverting economic costs to other areas instead of reducing it, but you also dump that cost on everyone, even those people who find methods to avoid vehicle related costs through mass transit or alternative transportation... which is pretty counter productive if your goal is to use economic incentive to push energy efficiency.

Then there is the irrigation issue, which due to being more region oriented many people are not aware of, but the consequences have a huge environmental impact. The central United States where the majority of farming occurs sits on top of a giant underground water table. It is the primary source for irrigation, but it's not in exhaustible. There is a huge concern in the heartland states regarding the replenishment of the aquafire. The evidence that more water is being drawn out then is being replenished is pretty obvious in that above ground water systems that feed the underground water table are diminishing. Increased corn production intensifies the drain, which was already strained.

In areas such as this we need to be careful that the side effects of the prescription don't include drastic new and possible worse problems then we already face. It will do us little good to take measures that will avoid global climate change that will make it impossible to grow crops if that same solution causes the same problem in a different way. In the end if a method we choose avoids temperature problems that would make it difficult to grow food, on the other side of the equation creates another situation that hampers the same we've done nothing but transfer the problem, not resolved it.

[Lyion]

Scientists are some of the most political and polarized of the lot. As someone in a masters program, and who works with many in Academia, their political games are extraordinary. The fact many are tenured means they can be radical or political with no qualms or offsets. Hell, even the scientists employed by the fed are political to either side.

Conservationism is good. However left wing politicians running companies selling Carbon Offsets and with other goals of moneymaking going on based on being green is profiteering and not conservation. Nobody is arguing that conservation is not something needed, but the silly partisan rhetorical hatred that so many display does nothing good and turns people off.

The problem is instead of having a rational debate and looking at implementing good solutions, we have the left wing and Academics again trying to institute another level of socialism and a wave of hysteria that is not grounded in reality, but based on propaganda. This has nothing to do with corporate America. They will get away with whatever they want, and we should have fair and good regulations and rules in place. However, to get those rules this needs to be a valid debate without the rhetoric and bullshit. Also, without schewing the facts which has been done time and again.

We see this with every subject nowadays. Abortion, Gun Control, etc. There is little grounded in common sense in reality, and the argument is based on propaganda. Global Warming is no different and a lot of what is being presented, especially in this thread is very dodgy.

[Drem]

Why Antartica? Logically, wouldn't it be over the US since we've supposedly the cause of it or even the North Pole since it's closer?

i hate to have to explain something twice or even three times (lueyen basically said it too) in any single thread, but it's because antarctica has a polar vortex. all the air in an area the size of antarctica is completely isolated from the rest of the world for the entire polar winter and this lets cold temperatures persist to -80Celcius and polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) form. PSCs allow all kinds of unusual chemical reactions that can only happen on the surface of PSCs. this in turn depletes the ozone at an alarming rate in comparison with the arctic or the rest of the world because it's the only place on planet earth that it can happen.

and as i also said in one of my posts, there's a loss of ozone around latitudes 30-60N

jeez you're like the second or third person in this thread alone that hasn't read any of the posts. it's like you guys read a post until you find a sentence that sparks your interest and you forget to read the rest

[Diekan]

That's exactly what they do.

[Diekan]

Scientists are some of the most political and polarized of the lot. As someone in a masters program, and who works with many in Academia, their political games are extraordinary. The fact many are tenured means they can be radical or political with no qualms or offsets. Hell, even the scientists employed by the fed are political to either side.

Conservationism is good. However left wing politicians running companies selling Carbon Offsets and with other goals of moneymaking going on based on being green is profiteering and not conservation. Nobody is arguing that conservation is not something needed, but the silly partisan rhetorical hatred that so many display does nothing good and turns people off.

The problem is instead of having a rational debate and looking at implementing good solutions, we have the left wing and Academics again trying to institute another level of socialism and a wave of hysteria that is not grounded in reality, but based on propaganda. This has nothing to do with corporate America. They will get away with whatever they want, and we should have fair and good regulations and rules in place. However, to get those rules this needs to be a valid debate without the rhetoric and bullshit. Also, without schewing the facts which has been done time and again.

We see this with every subject nowadays. Abortion, Gun Control, etc. There is little grounded in common sense in reality, and the argument is based on propaganda. Global Warming is no different and a lot of what is being presented, especially in this thread is very dodgy.

Yes, Lyion... hard scientific data is just "propaganda."

Yes, Lyion... Scientists from all over the world, in every possible field, are all secretly collaborating together to play some mega-geopolitical game.

Yes, Lyoin… the left trying to hold companies accountable for their lack of environmental stewardship is all about inching toward some euphoric socialized society.

YOUR party turned this into a political issue. It wasn’t the liberals, it wasn’t the democrats, it wasn’t the libertarians… it was the GOP who manipulated this into a politically charged issue. Specifically designed to keep the general public confused on the issue.

The main job of the Republican Party is to protect the monetary interests of their campaign contributors and the lobbyists who line their collective pockets. Why you wont accept or even recognize this is beyond me.

The GOP stands behind that which is good for big business and denounces that which is bad for big business.

So, let me ask you… how is working toward a healthier, cleaner planet an act of socialism?

How is forcing big oil, big energy and auto industry into being cleaner, more responsible for their emissions “socialist?”

We impose regulations on the insurance industry… if we didn’t your health and auto insurance would cost half your annual salary. We impose regulations on power… if we didn’t your power bill would 1,000 dollars more per month than it is now. No? Just ask the Californians how effect deregulation was for them.

We impose all sorts of regulations on food and drink manufacturers, restaurants, hospitals, schools, and anything you can possibly think of. So, why the resistance to forcing stricter regulations on environmental abusers? Why the resistance to forcing these companies into implementing cleaner technologies? Why the resistance to forcing the auto industry into building more fuel efficient cars?

Oh, that’s right… all the science behind global warming is just mindless propaganda. All the scientists warning us of our errs all just a bunch of whackos all working together on a singular political agenda.

Or, is just because Sean Hanity told you it’s a bunch of shit and therefore you don’t buy it?

[Drem]

a lot of what is being presented, especially in this thread is very dodgy.

wtf? i hate it when people come through and say semi-mysterious things like that after contributing nothing but political rhetoric to an scientific debate. and don't extrapolate at all. it's like you heard a good phrase on TV so you had to use it and i'm afraid i can't let you end a post with a statement like that. you're constantly saying things like that and things like "schewing the facts time and time again." well okay then, back up your claim instead of just throwing the statement out at the ends of your otherwise-subjective paragraphs and then running away

[Martrae]

Why Antartica? Logically, wouldn't it be over the US since we've supposedly the cause of it or even the North Pole since it's closer?

i hate to have to explain something twice or even three times (lueyen basically said it too) in any single thread, but it's because antarctica has a polar vortex. all the air in an area the size of antarctica is completely isolated from the rest of the world for the entire polar winter and this lets cold temperatures persist to -80Celcius and polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) form. PSCs allow all kinds of unusual chemical reactions that can only happen on the surface of PSCs. this in turn depletes the ozone at an alarming rate in comparison with the arctic or the rest of the world because it's the only place on planet earth that it can happen.

and as i also said in one of my posts, there's a loss of ozone around latitudes 30-60N

jeez you're like the second or third person in this thread alone that hasn't read any of the posts. it's like you guys read a post until you find a sentence that sparks your interest and you forget to read the rest

Yup...I had no interest in wading thru multiple 1000 word posts for the answer to a simple question.

Thank you for answering me.

[Drem]

well if everyone knew how to write persuasively instead of indulgently they'd know they should be writing simply. but everyone feels the need to be grammatically prolific and write short stories about something that otherwise would only take a couple of sentences to convey

if you wanna just read science and not politics, check those posts i made earlier and you should learn everything you need to about the recipe for ozone depletion. that's why i posted it. for education's sake

[Lueyen]

Tactic for what? For being more responsibile with the planet we live on?

What would the "secret agenda" of the left be for wanting a cleaner planet? I know what the agenda for the right and big business is...

What many people don't understand is that the majority of the people screaming for something to be done about global warming are NOT insisting we return to grass huts and granola. It’s more about holding people and companies accountable for their actions, or lack there of in taking care of the only home we have.

Again, I want you to tell me what the agenda is for the environmentalists warning us to do something about our actions before it’s too late is.

And, please don’t insult our collective intelligence by parroting Limbaugh with his “attack on capitalism” bullshit. Because that’s exactly what it is… bullshit. I can assure there is no calculated, worldwide, secret conspiracy to destroy capitalism. You have scientists from ALL OVER THE WORLD, in DIFFERENT fields all saying the same thing. Geologists, meteorologists, physicists, biologists, engineers, chemists, and so on, form all around the world saying the same thing, coming up with the same results, gathering the same data. Yeah, they all got together one night over a bottle of Bud and decided to work together to bring down the big bad West.

My concern is not with the majority of people who are concerned about the environment, but with a certain segment that uses environmental concerns to push political agendas and in doing so blows the issues out of proportion and clouds effectively dealing with the problem. Promoting things like carbon offset taxes when the actual offset of such programs is well below proportional is the sort of thing that concerns me. What it amounts to for most is feel good action, that doesn't really solve anything, but it does benefit someone with money and or power.

Your comparison of the global warming movement to terrorism is poor and weak. We have mountains of scientific evidence backing up global warming. The Bush administration had nothing but hearsay when the launched this laughable “war” on terrorism in Iraq. BIG difference.

Actually my comparison was in relation to homeland security legislation and policy where supposed fear mongering is used to justify actions. In this I wasn't even thinking about Iraq, but about things like border security and internal defense against terrorism.

So, now that, that idiotic reason has been dispelled before it was used (which it most assuredly would have been)… let’s hear it. Let’s hear what [they] are up to.

Exxon is making billion dollar profits each quarter. So, they can’t “afford” to institute more efficient and cleaner technologies for their refining process? The power industry, also a billion if not collectively a trillion dollar industry can’t use some of those moneys to implement cleaner, renewable energy? Why does the American auto industry REFUSE to build vehicles with higher MPG ratings?

Why are the US and Australia the only two countries to refuse to sign Kyoto? Why does the United Sates refuse to remove the crude oil needle from our vein?

You’re willing to jeopardize the health and wellbeing of the only place we have to live so that companies can save money?

Do you really think Ford will go out of business because they’re forced to make cars that get 20% more MsPG? Do you really think Exxon is going to go out of business because they’re forced to implement clean technologies in their refining process? Do you really think huge companies like American Electric are going to shut down if they’re forced to install scrubbers in all their plants?

Give me a break – they’ll be just fine.

Therein lies the point. No one with any sense on the global warming side is trying to SHUT down these types of companies. They simply want them to accept that a problem exists and then do their part to help correct it before it’s too late.

At this point in time, does it really matter “who” is to blame? Oil? Coal? Cars? All the above? No. At this point it really doesn’t matter. The fact of that matter is a problem exists and we all need to collectively do something about it.

See my previous post, the solutions to environmental issues can coexist without having to punish or force unpopular solutions, we need only to commit to finding solutions that sell themselves and therefore do not need to be legislated or forced on businesses or people.

I guess we’ll all just have to wait for Manhattan to be underwater before you wake up and say “wow there really was a problem, Rush was wrong!”

While I understand you have the whole angsty Diekan rep to uphold here, your attempted characterization of me as a "ditto head" here is wrong, I can't even tell you the last time I even heard Limbaugh on the radio, much less made an effort to listen to his show ect. Anyone who knows me personally can tell you I don't fit into any of the molds from your previous post either.

A.) I don't use chewing tobacco, don't care for NASCAR, don't live in a trailer, and I'm not a hick.

B.) It's Sunday morning, I'm not in church and that is the norm not an exception. I suppose I'd be characterized as middle class so maybe that part fits, but as I said I don't really follow what Limbaugh says.

C.) I've never been in the military

Despite all that I tend to agree more with Republican platforms then with Democrats. I'm really not wanting to be anything more then I am, I'm pretty happy with life as it is. I'm not some rich cooperate executive who wants for nothing, nor am I some trailer trash Jerry Springer type. In short I don't fit any of your stereotyping molds.

[Lyion]

Sorry, Diekan. You know this isn't a GOP, class warfare issue, even though I know you hate big business and 'The Man'©

Let me simplify the points for you, and others who seem to want to look at spreadsheets and pontificate without seeing the big picture:

Fact: Global warming is a theory we should all be worried about
Fact: Reducing emissions is a great goal.
Fact: Scientists, like any others are subject to the whims of politics and popular movements.
Fact: Global warming is caused by man and will cause catastrophe is an unproven and very dodgy theory, that has few facts and is heavily disagreed upon
Fact: The environmental movement has become a sounding board, or soap box for those who really wish to make social changes.

The bottom one is the biggest issue some of us have.

[Diekan]

My concern is not with the majority of people who are concerned about the environment, but with a certain segment that uses environmental concerns to push political agendas and in doing so blows the issues out of proportion and clouds effectively dealing with the problem. Promoting things like carbon offset taxes when the actual offset of such programs is well below proportional is the sort of thing that concerns me. What it amounts to for most is feel good action, that doesn't really solve anything, but it does benefit someone with money and or power.

That is exactly what the republicans are doing. Again, I’ll say democrats aren’t bringing up global warming every chance they get. When you DO hear a democrat / liberal talking about it, it’s typically in retort to something idiotic said by a republican. They [GOP] are the culprits in turning global warming into a political issue. And, they’ve done so simply to keep the general, voting segment of the public confused. However, I do agree that carbon offset taxes are not the way to go.

See my previous post, the solutions to environmental issues can coexist without having to punish or force unpopular solutions, we need only to commit to finding solutions that sell themselves and therefore do not need to be legislated or forced on businesses or people.

No one is trying to “punish” these companies. It isn’t about giving them a good ass kicking and sending them to the bankruptcy courts. It’s about making them comply. You are sadly mistaken if you think finding self-selling solutions are going to work. Something on this scale has to be legislated, there’s no other way. You can’t leave corporations to their own devices. If people and or companies did the right thing, do you think we’d be forced to regulate them? There’s a very good reason the government has to, time and time again, step in to regulate the actions of companies.

The only way to get American companies to do the right thing is to force them with legislation. It’s the only way to get to set aside their greed and react. Otherwise, they’ll take no action that doesn’t increase their bottom line.

Again, this isn’t about “punishing” it’s about forcing responsibility on companies who would otherwise continue down the path of denial.

Big tobacco got owned… (now that was punishment)… but guess what? They’re still in business. They’re still making a profit.

Big energy is regulated. Guess what? They’re still turning out megawatts and making a profit.

Do I need to go on?

Forcing them to take action is not going to bankrupt them. Sure, it may cause a short term reduction in their precious profits, but it’s short term and they’ll be just fine. Meanwhile the rest of us can look forward to healthier, brighter future for our planet.

[Diekan]

Sorry, Diekan. You know this isn't a GOP, class warfare issue, even though I know you hate big business and 'The Man'©

Let me simplify the points for you, and others who seem to want to look at spreadsheets and pontificate without seeing the big picture:

Fact: Global warming is a theory we should all be worried about
Fact: Reducing emissions is a great goal.
Fact: Scientists, like any others are subject to the whims of politics and popular movements.
Fact: Global warming is caused by man and will cause catastrophe is an unproven and very dodgy theory, that has few facts and is heavily disagreed upon
Fact: The environmental movement has become a sounding board, or soap box for those who really wish to make social changes.

The bottom one is the biggest issue some of us have.

What social changes? Give me an example.

Where are you tying social change into the environmental movement?

I don't see it. I don't see how forcing, lets say... all energy companies to install scrubbers on ALL their coal fired generating systems leads to "social change."

So, fill me in with an example.

[Arlos]

Lyion's next-to-last "Fact" is nothing of the sort. Perhaps he missed the news, but it has been accepted as fact at the UN climate conference, despite the best efforts of the US administration and mega-polluter countries like China. Outside the political arena it is even more highly agreed on.

The element that "heavily disagrees" in the theory is no larger than the one that "heavily disagrees" with Evolution theory. i.e. A tiny fringe minority, no matter how much Lyion would like you to believe differently. The intellectual dishonesty necessary to believe it HIMSELF is staggering, but rest assured in both cases, those who disagree are either doing so out of monetary or ideological interest, neither of which have anything to do with scientific reasons to discount the theory.

As for environmentalism, in order to make real change some social changes are going to be necessary. We already found one area where we felt it was important enough to enact social change for the environment: the aforementioned CFC ban. That caused radical changes in companies production methods, consumer products, etc. Funny, we seem to have survived that one without all spontaneously carrying around copies of Mao's little red book or subscribing to Pravda. The right likes to run up the "SOCIALISM! FEAR! FEAR" flag any time such an issue is discussed, I am sure it was done about the CFC change too. The accusation & insinuation are baseless, warrantless, and quite frankly highly silly, but since it might help keep the sheep in line, it gets trotted out every time.

How is it any more "socialist" to demand that coal power plants install modern pollution scrubbers than it is to tell chemical companies that they can't dump tankerfull of dioxins into our drinking water? How is it "socialist" to provide incentives for companies to develop new energy solutions that they could then sell to the public? How is it "socialist" to suggest investment into Biodiesel? I could continue indefinitely. So please, spare me your "social change" fearmongering nonsense.

-Arlos

[Martrae]

Lyion's next-to-last "Fact" is nothing of the sort. Perhaps he missed the news, but it has been accepted as fact at the UN climate conference, despite the best efforts of the US administration and mega-polluter countries like China. Outside the political arena it is even more highly agreed on.

Again....you're mixing politics with 'facts'. I wouldn't trust any politician from any nation to touch a 'fact' without bending it to their agenda.

[Arlos]

It was first accepted at the scientific conference. That was a meeting of scientists, not politicians. And again, no such meeting was necessary for the scientific community to be overwhelmingly in agreement that it is occuring, humans are the cause, and that it is a problem.

-Arlos