Stimulus failing miserablyFollow

If this be true, where did all the conservatives with MBA's come from?

Mars?

I was incredibly dubious after the first two paragraphs, where the author was unable to understand that NASA was an acronym and not called "Nasa." The entire idea seemed, at the most, applicable to evolution and not contrary to it. Latent characteristics in existing genes come out in certain circumstances is quite less impressive than entirely new genes evolving over multiple generations.

I didn't dismiss D'Aleo as a climate change skeptic, because he's not. He believes in climate change & that the earth is warming, he just doesn't think CO2 is the primary cause. Again, his data suggests that Solar fluctuations & ocean temperature osculations may be a factor & I agreed in my previous post that there is some data to support this. Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about solar fluctuations. However, ocean temperature osculations could potentially be effected by a reduction of green house gasses, which is all the more reason to do so.



You know the NAS only gives reports that Congress requests, right? They didn't reach a consensus on global warming to do "something fun", but because congress asked them to investigate it. The NAS' funding has little to do with their results & much more to do with how many reports Congress has commissioned from them at any given time.



What data is that again? Remember, even the source you linked agrees warming is happening, he just disagrees as to why.



I looked at your data, because believe it or not I respect you as the more rational of our conservative posters. I even acknowledged in this post & my previous one that there's some merit to D'Aleo's data. I have no trouble acknowledging this, but your "data" doesn't support that global warming is "all a hoax" nor that we'll be in a mini ice age anytime soon. Sorry?

My...what, exactly?

And yet you must be able to see how I could make a mistake when the line you used was "You can continue to post "sources" that are by a retired meteorologist whose a CO2 caused global warming skeptic if you like, though." To me that reads as dismissive.


I do. And if they say "It's all peachy!" how does Congress justify commissioning more studies on it? They read political winds and colour their findings accordingly. It is no different than suggesting a report funded by an oil company is biased because of where the money comes from.


I don't even disagree that climate change is occurring. It's another one of those things like evolution that you really have to be one of the most hardcore ideologues to deny. There is no way to look at the history of the global climate and not see that it is a fluid and malleable thing.


We have an issue that boils down to two choices. We either a) trust spotty science and spend a couple trillion dollars on minimizing CO2 emissions, placing undue burden on a great many people while enriching a very select few or we can adapt to a naturally changing climate like humans have been doing for millennia. Personally, I don't like the idea of destroying the global economy because some feel-good report based on consensus and the need for more funding says something that can't be proven.

Well said Sir!

Theres a start. And we could spend all those trillions on alternative power sources rather than trying to pretend we can just carry on as we are, as long as we are trading carbon back ad forth, and all that other expensive nonsense that the governments are telling us that is the answer to all the worlds problems.

Eliminating domestic cattle will remove a gazillion tons of cow farts from the atmosphere!

It does sound good. Until you realize that every one of those solutions comes with their own environmental issues. Not better or worse necessarily. But different than say burning coal or oil. At some point, when you look a bit closer than the 10,000 foot high "wouldn't this be great" angle, you realize that we don't currently have the ability to generate nearly enough power from those sources to replace coal and oil (and nuclear). And I don't mean "we don't have sufficient plants and whatnot", but that we don't currently have the technology to build enough solar, wind, and water powered systems for energy production to meet the need. Not even close.


So until we do, we have to keep using non-renewable sources of energy. And we can't develop those solutions unless we use enough to be able to keep technological progress moving forward. It's just not as simple as saying "let's build a green economy". That's a nice buzz phrase, but other than working well on a bumper sticker, or a campaign slogan, it doesn't actually get us anywhere.


And that's really my main issue with this whole thing. We need less rhetoric and more rational decisions.