Phydeaux -> RE: The conservatives are right, there is no climate change happening.... (1/5/2014 12:56:14 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Y'know, the wife had the TV on for background noise earlier today, and I thought I heard this then, so please clarify if you can. Is it really the latest position of the AGW social activist wing that we ought to be starting our next ice age, and aren't? NOT having glaciers march down to destroy every work of man above the 45th parallel is going to be a bad thing? Honestly, according to ice cores, the planet should be starting to cool down, with an ice age beginning in about 1500 years. My point that seems to have been missed is that while I dont agree that mankind is the only culprit in the global climate shift, we have had a big part in it. What I am suggesting is that we switch to carbon neutral fuels, bio fuels that are made from non food crops or crops like soy beans. Also it seems that cannabis oil makes a perfect bio fuel, and sorry for the pot smokers, the fumes will not get you high. And finally, in all honesty, CO2 is not considered the main culprit anymore, Perfluorotributylamine is, and it is about 7000 times more potent than CO2 ever was. new green house gas. So my question is, what is wrong with changing what we put into the air? Oh, and here is a kick in the teeth, back in the 70's some botanist created a fast growing hard wood tree that would be ready to be harvested for lumber in 7 to ten years, would grow great in areas that had been clear cut, however when the lumber company he was working for planned to start a test plot, a bunch of tree huggers filed an injunction since the tree could not reproduce naturally. Lets face it, some things are changing like never before. It may be human caused or it may be something else. Hell considering the expansion of the cattle industry world wide, it could be all the cow farts. If people come up with ways to significantly cut greenhouse gas production by humans, that wont bankrupt an industry to use it, why not use the system? Of course, from what I have seen, scientists are screaming climate change, and not a damn one of them is working on a cost effective way to cut or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, they want the polluters to do it, which is kind of like suggesting that pilots design aircraft, and I mean down to the last nut and bolt. Wind farms take too much land for little return, solar power generating stations take up more land to produce what a small power plant does on fifty acres. Fusion is the best bet in the nuclear power field, but it is at least 50 years away, so build more nuke plants. As for cars, yeah a hydrogen fuel cell sounds great, until it gets really cold then it is next to useless. Electric cars are useless for long trips, and most of them take a long time to charge. NASA wants to go back to the moon, let em, they can haul the nuclear waste up there and we wont have to worry about it. (sarcasm) I guess what I am trying to get across is lets quit fighting about the pollution problem and work to solve it, forget climate change. Of course if one of the super volcanoes around the planet decides to blow, this is all a moot point. My spam box gets 20 of the "this volcano is going to blow and destroy civilization" a day. So here, I have quite a lot of agreement with you. I support nuclear reactors completely; as well as the opening of Yuca -which harry reid accepted the jobs (for 20 years ors so) and then killed the opening. In fact he also has attempted to seal yuca mountain - so it could never be used. I don't agree that pert is the threat you think it is (since ir absorption from the earth is already essentially saturated - adding additional CO2 does not increase absorption)- but I do agree with better air polution controls. The US has probably had the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions of any country - due to fracking. So. Lets agree to do the things that work. Nuclear. Natural Gas. And ditch all the rest of the crap that is expensive idiocy. Ethanol. Electric car subsidies, (not opposed to electric cars, am opposed to taking $7500 from middle class people to pay for rich people to buy $75000 cars). War on coal. Lets do the things that we agree on, and that work.
|
|
|
|