Letter: Not everyone ...

Alan Keller, Naples

Not everyone ...

Despite an assertion by letter writer E.L. Bud Ruff, not all conservatives disbelieve climate science.

Fortunately many of them join all national academies of science and as many as 97 percent of scientists worldwide who actually are involved in climate research in acknowledging the virtual certainty, based on rapidly accumulating evidence, that human-generated fossil fuel emissions are pushing us rapidly toward global temperatures never before experienced during the human era — a mere one degree centigrade higher than those today.

Lamentably, another bloc of conservatives, especially prevalent among Republicans in Congress, avoids even glancing at the science and thus falls victim to myths peddled by politically driven commentators and a handful of "scientists" hired by fossil fuel interests such as the easily disproved notions that warming ceased after 1998, that recent climate change is merely an extension of past natural cycles and that volcanoes (a force for cooler rather than warmer temperatures) emit more greenhouse gases than human activities.

So with almost all active climate scientists telling us that our activities are leading to significant sea level rise, ocean acidification, salt intrusion in drinking water, increased drought and flood cycles, and possible food insecurity, and with economists demonstrating that combating warming would be far less expensive than dealing with the consequences of non-action, wouldn't the true economically driven conservative response be to take action?

For many conservatives the answer is yes, but unfortunately too many others, including many congressional Republicans, prefer to evade that obvious conclusion by pretending that the problem does not exist.

© 2012 Naples Daily News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 41

colinkelly2 writes:

There are forces- sunspot cycles, irregularity in the Earth's orbit, and others- that melted glaciers two miles thick 100,000, 40,000, 25,000 and 12,000 years ago and ended those Ice Ages. Those forces still exist, and dwarf any produced by human acitivity by orders of magnitude. But you think you will "save the planet" by driving a Prius.
Good luck.

pmz writes:

The truth about climate change is available to all and well publicized. Each of us has different abilities and background in understanding the detail behind the science. Those with more can evaluate for themselves. Those with less can merely accept that fact and rely on the experts to do what they are trained for.

So where does the neo-republican resistance to the truth come from?

Given the magnitude of this ignorance it must come from a pretty substantial source. What could that source be? What's the motivation behind it?

There is no possibility that comes to me other than big oil pursuing more record profits by maintaining enough permission to dump their waste in our atmosphere until the last drop of oil is consumed.

Of course with that permission comes our responsibility to the people harmed or killed by the extreme weather that our permission to dump allows. Hundreds of lives, billions of dollars every year. Much more to come.

So, the whole cycle is merely another financial windfall for big oil. They make the profits, we the people pay their bills.

Just like it would have been if President Obama hadn't take the strong stand that he did in the gulf against BP. He didn't let them off the hook for their damages. But, because of big oils muti-million dollar AGW obfuscation campaign, they are off the hook for their damages and we are on.

Way to go neo-republicans!

CarpeVeritas writes:

Gigantic meteors hitting Earth cause more climatic change than anything, including natural warming/cooling cycles.

What have meteorites and ice ages have to do with our current, documented climate change?

trader9 (Inactive) writes:

in response to pmz:

The truth about climate change is available to all and well publicized. Each of us has different abilities and background in understanding the detail behind the science. Those with more can evaluate for themselves. Those with less can merely accept that fact and rely on the experts to do what they are trained for.

So where does the neo-republican resistance to the truth come from?

Given the magnitude of this ignorance it must come from a pretty substantial source. What could that source be? What's the motivation behind it?

There is no possibility that comes to me other than big oil pursuing more record profits by maintaining enough permission to dump their waste in our atmosphere until the last drop of oil is consumed.

Of course with that permission comes our responsibility to the people harmed or killed by the extreme weather that our permission to dump allows. Hundreds of lives, billions of dollars every year. Much more to come.

So, the whole cycle is merely another financial windfall for big oil. They make the profits, we the people pay their bills.

Just like it would have been if President Obama hadn't take the strong stand that he did in the gulf against BP. He didn't let them off the hook for their damages. But, because of big oils muti-million dollar AGW obfuscation campaign, they are off the hook for their damages and we are on.

Way to go neo-republicans!

The Propagandist-in-Chief moves to yet another set of talking points he won't defend. Kind of like yesterday with your Fairleigh Dickinson BS.

Neo-blah-blah. Check.
Big Oil. Check.
Rush. Hmmmm. Wait for it...

pmz writes:

in response to trader9:

The Propagandist-in-Chief moves to yet another set of talking points he won't defend. Kind of like yesterday with your Fairleigh Dickinson BS.

Neo-blah-blah. Check.
Big Oil. Check.
Rush. Hmmmm. Wait for it...

What is your explanation for your ignorance?

I'll give you another chance to avoid exposure to the learnings from the testing that Fairleigh Dickinson did on Fox addicts.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/1...

trader9 (Inactive) writes:

in response to pmz:

What is your explanation for your ignorance?

I'll give you another chance to avoid exposure to the learnings from the testing that Fairleigh Dickinson did on Fox addicts.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/1...

As pointed out on another thread where you again avoided the fallacy of your position (or the transparency of your propaganda), here is the explanation for your intentional lie:

"Fox News Does Not Make You Dumb: Researchers Respond to Critics"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-j...

Even the HuffPo demonstrates some occasional objectivity.

SSDD. Keep it up Peter. We know the nurses are all proud of you for trying.

pmz writes:

From your reference:

"The re-study produced the same result as the original, but attracted few headlines. The news aggregators had already had their fun."

"Fox came out on the bottom, even below "no news exposure." NPR came out on top, along with The Daily Show. Responses to the question about Egypt, now rephrased to specifically name Mubarak, were no different. We concluded again that NPR is one of the "most informative news outlets," while "exposure to partisan sources, such as Fox and MSNBC, has a negative impact." But perhaps that latter phase was misleading."

"We never said, nor meant to say, that Fox viewers are dumb -- or MSNBC viewers for that matter. They're no better or worse than the average respondents. Clearly, anyone who is dumb and watching TV was dumb when he or she sat down in front of the tube. Some news sources just don't help matters any."

I'm sure that there are Fox and Rush addicts that are not dumb. But, they are misinformed voluntarily.

Why someone who is not dumb chooses to act that way is a matter of speculation.

trader9 (Inactive) writes:

Redirecting the issue. So you're admitting you intentionally lied...

pmz writes:

in response to trader9:

Redirecting the issue. So you're admitting you intentionally lied...

Is this the answer to why neo-republicans choose to look dumb or a redirection? What did I intentionally lie about?

trader9 (Inactive) writes:

in response to pmz:

Is this the answer to why neo-republicans choose to look dumb or a redirection? What did I intentionally lie about?

Now you're simply falling back on being obtuse...again Your usual MO along with talking points, lies, misrepresentations and namecalling.

You're nothing if not predictable. It's obviously all you've got Peter. What a sad life searching for the last word.

pmz writes:

Here's a short but great presentation of the basis of the neo-republican ignorance that is passing on to the next American generations $16T in debt.

A short, entertaining but informative watch for everyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5...

PAREIDOLIA (Inactive) writes:

Due to the number of variables in the mix, there is no exact science which can show that man is directly responsible for Global Warming.

That's how the Rush Limbaughs of the world can claim that man is not a factor in global warming.

However, we do know this:
1. The Earth is primarily a “closed system”.
2. CO2 DOES cause the Earth to heat up.
3. Vast amounts of CO2 have entered the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.
4. CO2 does not escape to outer space.

A REASONABLE conclusion is that man can cause the planet to heat up and affect climate change.
It makes more sense, therefore, to limit the amount of CO2 which we inject into the atmosphere.

Heraclitus writes:

Contact your favorite political organization, whether it be Move On, the Tea Party, the 99%, the Moral Majority, or whatever, and tell them to support the idea of a Presidential Science Debate:

http://www.sciencedebate.org/

Aren't you curious about how ignorant they really are, or maybe aren't?

Maybe we can filter that idea down to the local level too?

ruf462 writes:

“What about global warming? I've spent about three years with almost no pay working on how to forge policies that will work to curb global warming—unlike Kyoto and cap-and-trade, which were sure-fire political failures from the start. IN SPITE OF THAT, I'M STIL A SKEPTIC. CLIMATE SCIENCE IS STILL UNSETTLED.” [Emphasis Added.]

Who wrote this?
.............

............. Answer Below...... vvvvv

ruf462 writes:

in response to ruf462:

“What about global warming? I've spent about three years with almost no pay working on how to forge policies that will work to curb global warming—unlike Kyoto and cap-and-trade, which were sure-fire political failures from the start. IN SPITE OF THAT, I'M STIL A SKEPTIC. CLIMATE SCIENCE IS STILL UNSETTLED.” [Emphasis Added.]

Who wrote this?
.............

............. Answer Below...... vvvvv

Steve Stoft, the founder of zfacts.com.

Really?

Hmmm.

That's interesting.

Anyone care to call him names, given the amount of coverage that his website gets on NDN from the radical-left-apologist-in-chief? Keep in mind that Stoft is not labeled as being anything near a neoconservative, baby killing, vampire capitalist, etc.

ruf462 writes:

in response to trader9:

Redirecting the issue. So you're admitting you intentionally lied...

Perhaps his position is "evolving". Keep in mind that you must have a very limited, specially sanctioned DNC license to label other people with negative terms like "redirecting", "lied", "flip-flopped", "dodging", "dancing", "plutocracy", "Rush", "Koch Bros.", "more for me less for you", "capitalism is the new communism", etc.

pmz writes:

in response to ruf462:

“What about global warming? I've spent about three years with almost no pay working on how to forge policies that will work to curb global warming—unlike Kyoto and cap-and-trade, which were sure-fire political failures from the start. IN SPITE OF THAT, I'M STIL A SKEPTIC. CLIMATE SCIENCE IS STILL UNSETTLED.” [Emphasis Added.]

Who wrote this?
.............

............. Answer Below...... vvvvv

He's apparently changed his mind.

http://zfacts.com/p/49.html

pmz writes:

in response to ruf462:

“What about global warming? I've spent about three years with almost no pay working on how to forge policies that will work to curb global warming—unlike Kyoto and cap-and-trade, which were sure-fire political failures from the start. IN SPITE OF THAT, I'M STIL A SKEPTIC. CLIMATE SCIENCE IS STILL UNSETTLED.” [Emphasis Added.]

Who wrote this?
.............

............. Answer Below...... vvvvv

Here's the entire quote:

"What about global warming? I've spent about three years with almost no pay working on how to forge policies that will work to curb global warming—unlike Kyoto and cap-and-trade, which were sure-fire political failures from the start. In spite of that, I'm stil a skeptic. Climate science is still unsettled. But we know one thing for sure, there's a 50/50 chance, more or less, that it's going to be bad. That's all we need to know right now. It's idiotic to take that kind of a risk with our only planet and do nothing. With a 1/200 chance that your house will catch fire this year, you buy insurance, so don't be an idiot."

ruf462 writes:

in response to pmz:

Here's the entire quote:

"What about global warming? I've spent about three years with almost no pay working on how to forge policies that will work to curb global warming—unlike Kyoto and cap-and-trade, which were sure-fire political failures from the start. In spite of that, I'm stil a skeptic. Climate science is still unsettled. But we know one thing for sure, there's a 50/50 chance, more or less, that it's going to be bad. That's all we need to know right now. It's idiotic to take that kind of a risk with our only planet and do nothing. With a 1/200 chance that your house will catch fire this year, you buy insurance, so don't be an idiot."

The 50-50 odds analysis is incorrectly modeled on a coin toss analogy.

Heads = correct assumption.
Tails = incorrect assumption.

First, the "coin toss" statistical model is applied as if we are dealing with a single "GUESS" in getting a right/wrong answer.

Second, even if it were appropriate to use the coin toss model, the analysis does not properly apply the 50-50 odds when multiple assumptions (steps) must be correctly GUESSED. For example, a scenario which calls for 5 successive guesses (i.e. steps) to occur in order to reach a certain correct conclusion, with a 50-50 chance of correctly GUESSING each successive "yes" answer, yields a 3% chance that the answer is correct. Since we are dealing with a complex, multi variable system, any one of which MAY have an impact, and if we DON'T KNOW whether any one is more likely to be the cause of an event, then if we use the coin toss model, we must apply the 50-50 split to each potential variable. [ 5 variables; correct answer = 0.5 X 0.5 X 0.5 X 0.5 X 0.5 = 3%] Arguably, the number of variables is much more than 5, and the "odds" would therefore, be much lower.

Here's a thought. If you're really worried about the human impact, pick the lowest cost alternative solution to reducing atmospheric CO2. For example, plant trees and stop the approx. 3 billion Asians who use outdoor cooking fires from putting soot + CO2 up into the atmosphere.

ruf462 writes:

in response to pmz:

He's apparently changed his mind.

http://zfacts.com/p/49.html

Or more accurately, he contradicted himself, assuming he wrote the article you're citing.

pmz writes:

in response to ruf462:

The 50-50 odds analysis is incorrectly modeled on a coin toss analogy.

Heads = correct assumption.
Tails = incorrect assumption.

First, the "coin toss" statistical model is applied as if we are dealing with a single "GUESS" in getting a right/wrong answer.

Second, even if it were appropriate to use the coin toss model, the analysis does not properly apply the 50-50 odds when multiple assumptions (steps) must be correctly GUESSED. For example, a scenario which calls for 5 successive guesses (i.e. steps) to occur in order to reach a certain correct conclusion, with a 50-50 chance of correctly GUESSING each successive "yes" answer, yields a 3% chance that the answer is correct. Since we are dealing with a complex, multi variable system, any one of which MAY have an impact, and if we DON'T KNOW whether any one is more likely to be the cause of an event, then if we use the coin toss model, we must apply the 50-50 split to each potential variable. [ 5 variables; correct answer = 0.5 X 0.5 X 0.5 X 0.5 X 0.5 = 3%] Arguably, the number of variables is much more than 5, and the "odds" would therefore, be much lower.

Here's a thought. If you're really worried about the human impact, pick the lowest cost alternative solution to reducing atmospheric CO2. For example, plant trees and stop the approx. 3 billion Asians who use outdoor cooking fires from putting soot + CO2 up into the atmosphere.

"there's a 50/50 chance, more or less, that it's going to be bad."

We are already seeing much evidence of extreme weather costing us millions of dollars and hundreds of lives per year just in the US. Why would anybody bet that won't get worse? Lots worse.

What do you think that a 20' rise in sea level is going to cost us? Trillions is an easy guess. How about wars over inadequate food.

Can we stop it? No. Can we mitigate those huge costs. What if 10% of the US bought high mileage cars the next time that they bought a new car.

Zero impact on people. We could cut our carbon from transportation in half.

People like you won't do that until the cost is out of control and completely kicked down the road.

So, we will pay the highest possible price for our greed.

The typical result of conservative thinking.

trader9 (Inactive) writes:

in response to pmz:

"there's a 50/50 chance, more or less, that it's going to be bad."

We are already seeing much evidence of extreme weather costing us millions of dollars and hundreds of lives per year just in the US. Why would anybody bet that won't get worse? Lots worse.

What do you think that a 20' rise in sea level is going to cost us? Trillions is an easy guess. How about wars over inadequate food.

Can we stop it? No. Can we mitigate those huge costs. What if 10% of the US bought high mileage cars the next time that they bought a new car.

Zero impact on people. We could cut our carbon from transportation in half.

People like you won't do that until the cost is out of control and completely kicked down the road.

So, we will pay the highest possible price for our greed.

The typical result of conservative thinking.

Is this a panic attack or simply more talking points?

What "much evidence"?

ruf462 writes:

in response to pmz:

"there's a 50/50 chance, more or less, that it's going to be bad."

We are already seeing much evidence of extreme weather costing us millions of dollars and hundreds of lives per year just in the US. Why would anybody bet that won't get worse? Lots worse.

What do you think that a 20' rise in sea level is going to cost us? Trillions is an easy guess. How about wars over inadequate food.

Can we stop it? No. Can we mitigate those huge costs. What if 10% of the US bought high mileage cars the next time that they bought a new car.

Zero impact on people. We could cut our carbon from transportation in half.

People like you won't do that until the cost is out of control and completely kicked down the road.

So, we will pay the highest possible price for our greed.

The typical result of conservative thinking.

It didn't take long for you to resort to "people like you" ... and... "typical result of conservative thinking."

Your response today also correlates well with 70 years of underperformance.

"Now that's a record." **

** Maureen OHara in McClintock.

pmz writes:

in response to ruf462:

It didn't take long for you to resort to "people like you" ... and... "typical result of conservative thinking."

Your response today also correlates well with 70 years of underperformance.

"Now that's a record." **

** Maureen OHara in McClintock.

Why do you keep coming here trying to sell neo-republican misinformation hoping that someone beside you will believe it, get invariably proven wrong, than have to make up things about me to compensate?

It's nuts. Just keep your hands in your pockets when that compulsion hits you.

You too Traitor9.

ChiDem writes:

in response to pmz:

Why do you keep coming here trying to sell neo-republican misinformation hoping that someone beside you will believe it, get invariably proven wrong, than have to make up things about me to compensate?

It's nuts. Just keep your hands in your pockets when that compulsion hits you.

You too Traitor9.

I thought the whole thing had turned into a massive fraud months ago that slowed the money flow. They need more research money?

Here is the most objective source I have found to date.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=...

Anyone have a better one?

I'll become concerned when people begin euthanizing their pets. The crazy people screaming about something they know nothing about while they have their little puffy dogs and cats in the billions with a massive carbon footprint they complain about.

I think we should develop a massive carbon footprint developing a system to destroy asteroids that will intercept our orbit. That is the most likely end.

When I no longer hear those little yappy dogs going down the channels, I'll consider looking for an honest report.

The money is what drives the movement. There is tons of money to try and prove agw or whatever the latest designer term is. There is little money available for those who would have a goal to disprove it.

A friend of mine is a PhD in mathematics at one of the California Schools. He was asked to run some numbers for a group that had some grant money. After he gave them the numbers that disproved their desired outcome, they requested he massage the numbers to see if the outcome would change. He walked away from a steady flow of grant money. They are still receiving money trying to create results that gives the desired results of the people with the grant money.

George has the most believable analysis.

pmz writes:

in response to ChiDem:

I thought the whole thing had turned into a massive fraud months ago that slowed the money flow. They need more research money?

Here is the most objective source I have found to date.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=...

Anyone have a better one?

I'll become concerned when people begin euthanizing their pets. The crazy people screaming about something they know nothing about while they have their little puffy dogs and cats in the billions with a massive carbon footprint they complain about.

I think we should develop a massive carbon footprint developing a system to destroy asteroids that will intercept our orbit. That is the most likely end.

When I no longer hear those little yappy dogs going down the channels, I'll consider looking for an honest report.

The money is what drives the movement. There is tons of money to try and prove agw or whatever the latest designer term is. There is little money available for those who would have a goal to disprove it.

A friend of mine is a PhD in mathematics at one of the California Schools. He was asked to run some numbers for a group that had some grant money. After he gave them the numbers that disproved their desired outcome, they requested he massage the numbers to see if the outcome would change. He walked away from a steady flow of grant money. They are still receiving money trying to create results that gives the desired results of the people with the grant money.

George has the most believable analysis.

Their are two kinds of neo-republicans. Only two kinds.

The s----- and the liars.

It's very hard to tell them apart from any distance at all.

The liars live their lives with one objective. Take no responsibility for anyone else. A corollary of that is to shift all expenditures to other people no matter the ultimate cost. It doesn't matter who. Future generations, other countries, friends, family, debt, neighbors. The bottom line? More for me, less for everyone else. As most people abhor those who feel that way it needs to be a carefully hidden agenda. Well disguised. Obscured in every way. So, they lie at every opportunity to reel the suckers in that are gullible enough.

The s----- belong to the same cult but for a different reason. They just do not have what it takes to figure the world out for themselves. They attach themselves to folks who will tell them what is unavailable through their own intellect and merely accept what comes in.

Notice that they both are incapable of benefitting society. One is not interested the other not capable.

So they take. From everybody and anybody that they can. Relentlessly. They recruit others to the same goal. They become extreme.

These are the people who deny all of the evidence of big oil's assault on our only planet. Simply because it's cheaper, they feel, for themselves. And that's the end of any further consideration.

There is no doubt that AGW will be a cost that will absorb most of the planets ability to pay. Human and financial. It's already started. It will be 100 years in the solving.

Every day that they can delay contributing to a solution is another day of more for me, less for you.

Neo-republican victory a day at a time.

MiguelSangria writes:

in response to trader9:

Now you're simply falling back on being obtuse...again Your usual MO along with talking points, lies, misrepresentations and namecalling.

You're nothing if not predictable. It's obviously all you've got Peter. What a sad life searching for the last word.

Your accusations and name calling have not answered his direct questions to you.
No answers?
His explanations and examples have answered you, yet, you have no reasoning or evidence to refute pmz answers.
And, again, to make a point, you refuse to answer the questions put to you.
You are the one who appears pathetic...

MiguelSangria writes:

in response to ccwoody58:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Your oversimplified explanation has been included in the climate science that has already proven the effects of fossil fuels on the atmonsphere.

pmz writes:

in response to ccwoody58:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

"As the earth naturally warms it naturally releases quadrillions of tons of co2 in a short period of time, even if man were not here"

Here's something that demands some evidence.

trader9 (Inactive) writes:

in response to MiguelSangria:

Your accusations and name calling have not answered his direct questions to you.
No answers?
His explanations and examples have answered you, yet, you have no reasoning or evidence to refute pmz answers.
And, again, to make a point, you refuse to answer the questions put to you.
You are the one who appears pathetic...

Perhaps you're brain was clouded at 2 a.m., but you really should try reading rather than interjecting random lame comments in support of your fellow idealogue.

Other than his own opinion and a 5 minute video by another brilliant (unqualified) liberal, he provided nothing...as always.

pmz writes:

in response to trader9:

Perhaps you're brain was clouded at 2 a.m., but you really should try reading rather than interjecting random lame comments in support of your fellow idealogue.

Other than his own opinion and a 5 minute video by another brilliant (unqualified) liberal, he provided nothing...as always.

Traitor9 again demonstrates his mastery of content less posts in support of Rush Limbaugh's content less broadcasts, and neo-republican content less platform.

We all, I guess, do what we can.

He apparently has perfected the rejection of thought as it gets inthe way of more for me, less for you.

What do you think? Liar or s-----?

trader9 (Inactive) writes:

in response to pmz:

Traitor9 again demonstrates his mastery of content less posts in support of Rush Limbaugh's content less broadcasts, and neo-republican content less platform.

We all, I guess, do what we can.

He apparently has perfected the rejection of thought as it gets inthe way of more for me, less for you.

What do you think? Liar or s-----?

Point to evidence, proof, broadly support research, documentation,... something other than your opinion or one website that you regurgitated.

Otherwise, it's your usual propaganda BS (or, more likely somebody else's).

SSDD

trader9 (Inactive) writes:

in response to pmz:

Traitor9 again demonstrates his mastery of content less posts in support of Rush Limbaugh's content less broadcasts, and neo-republican content less platform.

We all, I guess, do what we can.

He apparently has perfected the rejection of thought as it gets inthe way of more for me, less for you.

What do you think? Liar or s-----?

Never mind. Why bother asking. You've demonstrated you don't have it in you.

pmz writes:

The last time that most of the carbon on earth was in the atmosphere, our climate was hostile to all but the simplest life. Good fortune came along and sequestered most of it in what would turn out to be fossil fuels.

The climate cooled and life thrived. Especially human life.

Another turn of good fortune occurred when man discovered the easy energy to be had in burning those fuels.

But, won't the return of all of that carbon to the atmospheres recreate the climate that was hostile?

Yes. Why would anybody expect otherwise?

Another stroke of good fortune. The technology that man has developed in the ensuing years can free us from destroyng the planet, our only home.

Will we be smart enough to make the transition in time to save our home?

Maybe. The jury is out. There's a ton of money to be made by the few in avoiding responsible behavior.

pmz writes:

The question is, should we bet civilization on unlikely good fortune or avoid likely misfortune?

MiguelSangria writes:

in response to trader9:

Perhaps you're brain was clouded at 2 a.m., but you really should try reading rather than interjecting random lame comments in support of your fellow idealogue.

Other than his own opinion and a 5 minute video by another brilliant (unqualified) liberal, he provided nothing...as always.

Let's see,

Name calling?
Check.
Illogical opinion?
Check.
Answered or refuted with evidence?
NAH!
Check...

trader9 (Inactive) writes:

in response to MiguelSangria:

Let's see,

Name calling?
Check.
Illogical opinion?
Check.
Answered or refuted with evidence?
NAH!
Check...

Let's see...

Mindless drivel? Check.

Substanceless? Check.

Disproved my statemnet? NAH! Check.

You might as well go play in traffic on 41. At least we don't have to watch.

ruf462 writes:

in response to pmz:

Why do you keep coming here trying to sell neo-republican misinformation hoping that someone beside you will believe it, get invariably proven wrong, than have to make up things about me to compensate?

It's nuts. Just keep your hands in your pockets when that compulsion hits you.

You too Traitor9.

"Neo-republican misinformation"?

Why would you call Mr. Stoft and www.zfacts.com sources of "neo-republican misinformation"?

Anyone who has followed your posts over the past several months will have noticed how frequently you quote Mr. Stoft and his website. Are you the only one who can agree with some of what Mr. Stoft writes?

I have agreed with two of his key points. I too am skeptical. And yes, despite what you would like us to believe, the science is unsettled. But I did not stop there. I've also noted the problem with Mr. Stoft's statistical modeling - something which you obviously missed.

Now you're upset because I have pointed out the problems with your unquestioning reliance on the opinions of others. Your response? Name calling. If anything, that simply means that you have yet again exposed yourself as a self-loathing "registered republican" in name only.

Any one can see that you're angry because I have exposed you and the flaws in your arguments, including Mr. Stoft's use of the outcome of a 50-50 coin toss to influence national policy. It is embarassing to think that both of you claim to have science backgrounds and yet fail to provide a more convincing argument.

As for my "coming here", it's obvious that you need help. And I'm here to help you even though I am not from the govt.

P.S. Calling someone else a "traitor" as part of a childish play on names is unbecoming for a 70 yr old.

ruf462 writes:

in response to wonderfuI:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Ahhhh, an equal opportunity imposter.

RichMKing writes:

in response to Damyankee:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

That is a very good question.Especialy the "why" part of it.

cgbexec writes:

The earth is not a closed system as the above poster points out. We depend on our Sun for energy and our Moon to create ocean currents and tides. Our gas system is somewhat closed which is perhaps what the above poster was trying to convey. They left out one very important point. Our Oceans scrub CO from the air. All plant life including the algae in our Oceans take the CO and break it down releasing Oxygen into the atmosphere.

The Earth has been going through heating and cooling cycles for millions of years. There are many theories as to why these cycles take place. Those theories range from solar cycles, volcanic activity and meteorites striking the earth. All affect the system; the debate is how much each affects our climate. The burning of fossil fuels and the deforesting of our planet most certainly affects our climate, but just how much is in the real debate.

Do we have the ability without collapsing the world’s financial systems to reduce the burning of fossil fuels in any meaningful way? Solar and Wind energy are in their infancy. The cost is much greater and the life span is much less which has kept both of these technologies from wide spread use. I am certain they will become more viable, but how soon is another debatable question. Nuclear energy is viable and as we learned last year, dangerous if not managed correctly. Hybrid vehicles after you factor in the pollution and toxic metals used to produce them are a net loss in my book. Short of thrusting us back into the dark ages, I’m not sure we can put the genie back in the bottle.

I am skeptical when governments hold their hands out for a problem that no one can really define with solutions that are not fully developed. We all know that governments have a propensity for great waste when given an open checkbook. What is the solution? How much is it going to cost? We are already paying the price in the way of higher energy costs due mostly to our incisiveness on the matter.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features