Need to know????

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Nah, I gave up caring about what Mike thinks, long ago....

Yep it looks like it ??????????

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by rcooke

Yep it looks like it ??????????

Thanks.

[klott]

Originally Posted by rwand1

K.L. posted,



So you are and others are allowed your opinion, but Jason can't have an opinion? My opinion is much cheaper than his, like you say, we Americans like cheap products.

Take your blinders off.Gladly, help me to do so, in your opinion, who do you think was responsible for the Mastodons that were found buried in ice in Siberia, was it GM or Exxon Mobile? The trade imbalance is growing,every day the fact is America is running a huge trade deficit with third world nations, such as China, India, Mexico.Why are you changing the subject? Why? Because they will not let us export as much to them as they do to us.Because you Americans and yes Canadians like cheap products.Name 1 country who doesn't. To suggest these third world nations are the biggest polluters out of their own free will is nonsense. Show me where I said this.Its driven by consumerism. Agreed. Why shouldn't third world countries have the same economic opportunities as North America? Same maybe, privledged no.Or is it because you value cheap gas and consumer goods over that of the planets health? No I don't, but the countries I named do.

If you don't think bad air travels and affects everyone, then come sit next to me while I smoke and we will discuss it.

[Michael Larson]

Now I know that there is probably too much common sense in the paragraphs below for those convinced of the need to combat global warming but just give a some thought.

In fact, if it comes, global warming, in the projected likely range, will bring major benefits to much of the world. Central Canada and large portions of Siberia will become similar in climate to New England today. So too, perhaps, will portions of Greenland. The disappearance of Arctic ice in summer time, will shorten important shipping routes by thousands of miles. Growing seasons in the North Temperate Zone will be longer. Plant life in general will flourish because of the presence of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Strangely, these facts are rarely mentioned. Instead, attention is devoted almost exclusively to the negatives associated with global warming, above all to the prospect of rising sea levels, which the report projects to be between 7 and 23 inches by the year 2100, a range, incidentally, that by itself does not entail major coastal flooding. (There are, however, projections of a rise in sea levels of 20 feet or more over the course of the remainder of the present millennium.)
Yes, rising sea levels may cause some islands and coastal areas to become submerged under water and require that large numbers of people settle in other areas. Surely, however, the course of a century, let alone a millennium, should provide ample opportunity for this to occur without any necessary loss of life. MORE

[Michael Larson]

I came across theese thoughts today and edited them a bit to apply to this thread. ML
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments(points of view buttressed with reasons) are one of the principal means we use to separate fact from fiction.

But often rational appeals fail to persuade for other reasons.
Maybe one of these reasons is lurking in the shadows:

1. An emotional reason to resist
2. A prejudice to reject
3. Too stubborn to concede

[Brian E. Kelly]

If one values the benefits provided by industrial civilization above the avoidance of the losses alleged to result from global warming, it follows that nothing should be done to stop global warming that destroys or undermines industrial civilization. That is, it follows that global warming should simply be accepted as a byproduct of economic progress and that life should go on as normal in the face of it.

That article is retarded Michael, it assumes that technology will stand still in the fields of power production and emissions control. It is the same argument used in the 50's and 60's by many to thwart air pollution control, it was a lame argument then and has gotten lamer as time goes on.

Science moves on weather you like it or not.
http://www.americanenergyindependenc...ecycleco2.html

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

That article is retarded Michael, it assumes that technology will stand still in the fields of power production and emissions control. It is the same argument used in the 50's and 60's by many to thwart air pollution control, it was a lame argument then and has gotten lamer as time goes on.

That's a gross mischaracterazation Brian.

The point is technology(ie.power generation) solves a lot of problems and increases the general welfare of all. Without advances in technology we would not have been able to clean up air and water in this country. As other countries develop they will also be able to clean their environment and improve the lot of their people. But it can't happen if they don't modernize and consume more power. This will indeed mean more CO2 emissions and increased use of fossil fuels until technology finds a better more efficient and cleaner way.
Safe Nuclear power alone could advance these societies but the "greens" just won't have any of that. They have demonized Nuclear power to the point of irrelevance in far too may countries.

The proposed solutions to solving "global climate change problem" would doom countless billions to continued misery. IMHO

[Brian E. Kelly]

Michael the article said that man made global warming is real, pick a side.

The article was really really really lame.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

Michael the article said that man made global warming is real, pick a side.

The article was really really really lame.

Did you read the whole thing?

What are you disputing?

What facts are in error?

Bashing it as lame is not discussion Brian. What do you take issue with?

I never said man wasn't a contributor. the questions remain
- How Much?
- What should be done about?
- What will it cost
- Who pays?
- Is the money spent better somewhere else?

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Did you read the whole thing?

What are you disputing?

What facts are in error?

Bashing it as lame is not discussion Brian. What do you take issue with?

I never said man wasn't a contributor. the questions remain
- How Much?
- What should be done about?
- What will it cost
- Who pays?
- Is the money spent better somewhere else?

What facts were presented?

[Michael Larson]

Brian that weak. You are the one bashing the article who's major premise is

-Global warming is not a threat. But environmentalism's response to it is.

[Brian E. Kelly]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/...ess/carbon.php

[Brian E. Kelly]

Even those greenies on the US Supreme Court have it figured out.
http://environment.about.com/od/envi...greenhouse.htm

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/...ess/carbon.php

Are you avoiding discussion Brian?

I love the following quote from your link.

"Some experts have estimated that nearly a third of a power plant's energy output might be needed to pull carbon dioxide from the waste stream. Alstom wants to hold it to 15 percent.
The cost must be kept as low as possible if the technology is to be used on a wide scale. The U.S. Congress is seen as unlikely to impose enormously expensive restraints on emissions. And under proposals to cap emissions in the United States and let companies trade credits for extra reductions, only the cheapest methods of cutting greenhouse gases would work in the market."

Guess what that will do your rates? What a waste for little if any benifit.

[Brian E. Kelly]

Life is not all about your rates Michael.

This could be promising http://www.llnl.gov/nif/