Don't lecture me on global warming rant

[bigsky]

Hey all you warmmunists, out there lecturing the rest of us about global warming; how about if I see YOU live the dream. "Sell all that you have, give it to poor..." and live in a yurt using only certified organic locally produced animal friendly products.

Because I don't see you cutting your standard of living by 90%. When you're living like its the Middle Ages, roasting bits of rat over a dung fire, dying at 45, then I'll be impressed with your commitment.

I don't doubt there has been some impact to the climate of billions of people having the temerity to exist, and then to want shelter and food and a family and then all that modern living has to offer.

And that overpopulation is a problem. What are you personally, willing to do that will have an impact on those problems?

Or is it just politics, or is it more tyranny you're after?

[KeithKSR]

It's all about the politics for most, for a few it is about the tyranny.

[badrose]

Put this on FB and I'll share it!

[Jeeepcat]

Thanks for sharing it John - I saw it on FB :)

[dan_bgblue]

It's all about the politics for most, for a few it is about the tyranny.

Actually, imo, it is all about the Benjamins, and how they need to be distributed world wide. The side bar to that is, while this redistribution is going on, the people (politicians and power brokers) are making personal billions off the political decisions that force failed green technology on the tax paying citizens of the Earthship. But then, that is a redistribution of the Benjamins.

As to the OP...............:sHa_clap2:

The wild eyed tree huggers really believe in AGW, and will spend days and nights in their warm, well lit home making posters and slogan signs, tie their well fed butts to a tree, with nylon rope or hot forged steel chains, or a bulldozer for a day or two, charge the batteries of their cell phones, hybrid autos, emergency radios, and survival latte machines off the grid that uses coal, natural gas, or nuclear power to stay electrified.

btw, I love the fried bits of rat and dung fire comment.:winking0011:

[badrose]

Thanks for sharing it John - I saw it on FB :)

I didn't mean to share it. I hit LIKE up at the top but changed my mind. I thought it needed a confirmation, guess I was wrong. I'm gonna delete it. This should be bigsky's call.

[KeithKSR]

Actually, imo, it is all about the Benjamins, and how they need to be distributed world wide. The side bar to that is, while this redistribution is going on, the people (politicians and power brokers) are making personal billions off the political decisions that force failed green technology on the tax paying citizens of the Earthship. But then, that is a redistribution of the Benjamins.

As to the OP...............:sHa_clap2:

The wild eyed tree huggers really believe in AGW, and will spend days and nights in their warm, well lit home making posters and slogan signs, tie their well fed butts to a tree, with nylon rope or hot forged steel chains, or a bulldozer for a day or two, charge the batteries of their cell phones, hybrid autos, emergency radios, and survival latte machines off the grid that uses coal, natural gas, or nuclear power to stay electrified.

The tree huggers believe it because it fits into their concept that man is destroying Earth; but for the Al Gore's it is not only about the money, but also the ability to use the tree huggers to increase power.

I liked the not so subtle hint about how energy unfriendly all of those things are that have been seen as being "green" and energy friendly. The electric car is not even economically feasible, which is why there is a huge taxpayer funded subsidy on each one that is sold. Same goes for ethanol, there is a huge subsidy on each gallon produced, which emits more CO2 in production than gasoline emits when used. The ethanol also keeps the price of gasoline artificially inflated and is a big reason the price of gasoline has remained high even with current oil prices. The ethanol production has also increased the price of grains that farmers need to purchase in order to feed milk and meat producing animals, which makes our grocery bill higher.

[bigsky]

Yeah I rant here, am political on Facebook.

[bigsky]

And the young man went away sadly for he was very rich...and used a lot of energy on ski trips and concerts and living somewhere that would be unsustainable without fossil fuels.

[BigBlueBrock]

Hey all you warmmunists, out there lecturing the rest of us about global warming; how about if I see YOU live the dream. "Sell all that you have, give it to poor..."

I'm confused. Are we talking about econuts or Jesus?

[badrose]

I'm confused. Are we talking about econuts or Jesus?

I think he's talking about econuts who are hypocritical and use biblical quotes out of context.

[bigsky]

I'm using the lesson for the modern world. The young man was very rich, as are the people who constantly harp about global warming, relative to much of the world, and they won't give up their wealth any more than he did. But they love to tell me that I should.

I'm sure I know the context of Luke 18; it is a series of lessons. Especially since I spent so many years collecting property taxes for the county.

[badrose]

I'm using the lesson for the modern world. The young man was very rich, as are the people who constantly harp about global warming, relative to much of the world, and they won't give up their wealth any more than he did. But they love to tell me that I should.

I'm sure I know the context of Luke 18; it is a series of lessons. Especially since I spent so many years collecting property taxes for the county.

I hope you know I wasn't referring to you as being out of context. I've heard Al Gore use biblical references to promote his schtick.

[bigsky]

Hey I'm all good. Just establishing my bona fides

[CitizenBBN]

Limousine ecologists. This movement reminds me of when Marie Antoinette milked cows to get back to nature on the inspiration of the Rousseau whose primitivist ideal had become all the rage in a society that wouldn't know nature or simplicity if it walked up and snatched their poofy white wigs.

They think putting in fluorescent bulbs and driving a hybrid is equivalent to living on Walden Pond, meanwhile we need to shut down all those nasty jobs they don't have and stop production of all those things they don't know how are made.

Just like Marie walked back from her fake home and barn to the Palace of Versailles, they leave their little events and speeches and hop back on their private jets back to their California estate which is sitting in a desert that only survives b/c of the diversion of trillions of gallons of fresh water and construction of dams.

[KeithKSR]

Limousine ecologists. This movement reminds me of when Marie Antoinette milked cows to get back to nature on the inspiration of the Rousseau whose primitivist ideal had become all the rage in a society that wouldn't know nature or simplicity if it walked up and snatched their poofy white wigs.

They think putting in fluorescent bulbs and driving a hybrid is equivalent to living on Walden Pond, meanwhile we need to shut down all those nasty jobs they don't have and stop production of all those things they don't know how are made.

Just like Marie walked back from her fake home and barn to the Palace of Versailles, they leave their little events and speeches and hop back on their private jets back to their California estate which is sitting in a desert that only survives b/c of the diversion of trillions of gallons of fresh water and construction of dams.

They are hypocritical as Al Gore is with his luminescent mansion aglow with wasted kilowatts while his private jet belches CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate that would make the IPCC's collective heads spin.

[cattails]

Global warming is real, ice caps melting away, ice land peaks in Africa shrinking, it is happening. Truth of the matter is that there is little to nothing we can do about it. One of my best friends is a UPS pilot, flys all over the world, he sees it first hand what is happening in other countries. We live in an industrial global economy, the countries that want to do something about it are just pissing in the wind. Do you think China gives a crap? So the debate of is it real means little and what are you doing about it means little. It is what it is no matter what you think, it is simple evolution of our planet for better or worse. To sum it up I'm not wasting my time pissing in the wind.

[BigBlueBrock]

I don't question the validity of global climate change (it's hard for me to argue cold hard data), but I most certainly question the quantitative impact man has had on it.

[bigsky]

I question that every tornado or hurricane or hot day presages the end of the world as we know it. But even if it does, what is it the guy bleating about on Facebook thinks he's doing about it? The calculation is very simple; for the situation to be reversed every American's standard of living needs to decrease 90%. When I say that, the knowledgeable greens say, " so you don't want to do anything?" Consumption has to be cut using tyranny. I've heard the warming scientists lament that the aren't in control and challenge "the idea of...freedom". That's the end, IMO, not the means.

[cattails]

I question that every tornado or hurricane or hot day presages the end of the world as we know it. But even if it does, what is it the guy bleating about on Facebook thinks he's doing about it? The calculation is very simple; for the situation to be reversed every American's standard of living needs to decrease 90%. When I say that, the knowledgeable greens say, " so you don't want to do anything?" Consumption has to be cut using tyranny. I've heard the warming scientists lament that the aren't in control and challenge "the idea of...freedom". That's the end, IMO, not the means.

There's no question things are changing, that much is clear, there is no debate there. Your statement "situation to be reversed every American's standard of living needs to decrease 90%." is not true, not even close. Let's all do it and there would be little to no change. This is a global issue, the US is such a very small part on a global scale, it's like putting a cup of sand in front of a fast moving train and expecting it to slow down, not going to happen. Now would we have cleaner air, sure!! Would our water be safer and cleaner, sure!! Would we stop global changes, not a chance.

[KeithKSR]

I don't question the validity of global climate change (it's hard for me to argue cold hard data), but I most certainly question the quantitative impact man has had on it.

I'm with you, BBB. Global climate change has failed to live up to computer models and has coincided with increased solar activity. The sun is the primary driver in our climate, not considering increased solar activity as a huge factor is a mistake these people are making, IMO.

I also think this is hugely media driven, as they often do not tell both sides of the climate change debate.

[KeithKSR]

I question that every tornado or hurricane or hot day presages the end of the world as we know it. But even if it does, what is it the guy bleating about on Facebook thinks he's doing about it? The calculation is very simple; for the situation to be reversed every American's standard of living needs to decrease 90%. When I say that, the knowledgeable greens say, " so you don't want to do anything?" Consumption has to be cut using tyranny. I've heard the warming scientists lament that the aren't in control and challenge "the idea of...freedom". That's the end, IMO, not the means.

If the planet becomes more tropical there are actually a lot of advantages, per some scientists. Droughts hardly seem climate driven, more than likely weather driven. If ice sheets are melting at the rate they claim, and they are not, then there would be an increased amount of water in the water cycle, not less.

[BigBlueBrock]

If the planet becomes more tropical there are actually a lot of advantages, per some scientists. Droughts hardly seem climate driven, more than likely weather driven. If ice sheets are melting at the rate they claim, and they are not, then there would be an increased amount of water in the water cycle, not less.

Well, that depends. Melting ice caps change the temperature of the oceans. Those changes in ocean surface temperature can alter, sometimes drastically, weather patterns. Altered weather patterns can, as you said, cause droughts.

[KeithKSR]

Well, that depends. Melting ice caps change the temperature of the oceans. Those changes in ocean surface temperature can alter, sometimes drastically, weather patterns. Altered weather patterns can, as you said, cause droughts.

As would naturally occurring oceanic current cycles. Ocean temps are very susceptible to solar activity, which then impacts weather patterns.

What I always found to be more than a bit goofy is the total lack of consideration given to the reality that scientists have long considered the earth as still exiting the last ice age. It would only stand to reason that temperatures would generally trend upward as we exit that ice age. It is also flawed logic to think that these glaciers have always been in existence.

[CitizenBBN]

The system is largely self regulating, which is why it exists. Systems that aren't don't last a few hundred million years and they certainly don't recover from global mass extinctions from asteroid impacts. Who here thinks we've done more to cause the system to go linearly or geometrically in a single unrelenting direction than an asteroid as big as Texas causing a nuclear winter big enough and long enough to wipe out 80% of all species on Earth?

How much more obvious can it be that the ecosystem returns to a steady state and also fluctuates over time based on not one but a series of overlaid interacting patterns of behavior?

Of course the climate is changing. It's constantly getting warmer or cooler, moreover due to the interactions and overlapping patterns it can be getting warmer overall while being cooler along the way and vise versa. Those various patterns have different intervals, so it depends on your time interval what conglomerated pattern you see.

So OK, it's getting warmer. I'm not convinced 100% b/c I've seen the data, and things like measuring pollen counts in ice cores in Greenland is still a ways from reliably reading a thermometer running through time and declaring 100% accuracy. Nonetheless, even if it is warming it's not clear the interval, and it's most certainly not clear what may be driving it. Even if we accept man is doing it, a far bigger leap than certain agenda driven groups would want you to think, it's charcoal black as to whether the system will correct and if so how and how soon.

Remember, the system has corrected for CO2 concentrations 10s of times higher than what we've produced. Corrected for massive airborne particulates, massive ice ages, greenhouse warming far higher than anything projected by these groups.

So where in these studies is the analysis of counteractions? They have to exist if we've survived meteor impacts, yet these studies conclude they are insignificant? Really?

Then there's the question of the impact. As BBB and Keith have laid out well, there is a nearly endless series of response and counter response. I ran across some stuff we argued in the 80s about how warming = higher ag production, the counter was it increases insect populations, there were counters to that one.

So we're:

1) Not positive we're long term warming (don't know the intervals, various study issues)
2) Don't know how we will warm or how the system will correct (why the doomsayer projections are all failing)
3) Don't know what is driving it or how much weight to give to things driving it
4) Dont' know if warming will kill us all or what it will mean exactly

Put that on top of the fact that US production is a declining share of overall emissions and yet somehow we're supposed to run around making knee-jerk policies based on that case? As has been said we could go back to the stone age and it won't make a ton of impact.

Sorry but this is just the latest doomsayer mass hysteria, calculated to get the country to hug more trees and eat more granola. I'm old enough now to have lived through the species extinction one, the overpopulation one (a recurring one since Malthus' time), the deforestation one, and now the greenhouse one.

Meanwhile the real environmental threats, like our clear cutting of the ocean shelfs with drag net fishing, go unaddressed. You know, things we could actually fix without wrecking the nation.

[bigsky]

Dont forget the 70's global ice age.

Asteroids would fix global warming.

[CitizenBBN]

Asteroids could solve it.

Like BBB and I were discussing on another thread, it would be the ultimate practical joke.

Yep, giant asteroids and massive volcanic eruptions can't break the climate system, but incandescent light bulbs can succeed where they failed. Uh huh.

[BigBlueBrock]

I should say, and you can disagree if you want, just because the measurable impact of man-made pollutants is questionable, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work on alternative fuel and energy sources. If, for no other reason, than because there is only so much oil and coal in the world, so running out is a question of "when," not "if." Even if it's just stop-gaps for now, weening ourselves off fossil fuels is prudent.

[bigsky]

I should say, and you can disagree if you want, just because the measurable impact of man-made pollutants is questionable, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work on alternative fuel and energy sources. If, for no other reason, than because there is only so much oil and coal in the world, so running out is a question of "when," not "if." Even if it's just stop-gaps for now, weening ourselves off fossil fuels is prudent.

That is a different proposition altogether. I'd save ours, burn theirs and keep our powder dry. Also reducing the money flow to violently evangelical monotheists is a priority for me.

And nuclear has to be a wedge of the solution pie.

[CitizenBBN]

I should say, and you can disagree if you want, just because the measurable impact of man-made pollutants is questionable, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work on alternative fuel and energy sources. If, for no other reason, than because there is only so much oil and coal in the world, so running out is a question of "when," not "if." Even if it's just stop-gaps for now, weening ourselves off fossil fuels is prudent.

I agree completely and I think most would agree. No pollution is "good", we should always try to reduce the damage we do to the environment. Like bigsky said that's a very different policy approach from the draconian global warming policies of Kyoto and billions spent to build "green" product factories that never produce anything.

We need to move to newer fuels. The problem is when you do that by doing everything possible to raise the price of oil, the fuel that drives our entire economy so as to make completely economically nonviable sources a possible alternative. Meanwhile China is burning cheap coal and oil and we're wondering why we can't compete in the global economy.

So I agree with you completely. We need to move away from fossil fuels, but we need to do so largely as the market dictates not as a bunch of enviro-fascists would like.

[KeithKSR]

I should say, and you can disagree if you want, just because the measurable impact of man-made pollutants is questionable, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work on alternative fuel and energy sources. If, for no other reason, than because there is only so much oil and coal in the world, so running out is a question of "when," not "if." Even if it's just stop-gaps for now, weening ourselves off fossil fuels is prudent.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the need to move to alternative fuels. What is foolish is to proclaim it is to limit CO2 production and then fund competing energy sources that produce more CO2 and claim they are "green" energy solutions.

[Catonahottinroof]

I don't think anyone disagrees with the need to move to alternative fuels. What is foolish is to proclaim it is to limit CO2 production and then fund competing energy sources that produce more CO2 and claim they are "green" energy solutions.

Or forcing additives in fuels that harm the environment worse the the CO2 emissions. MTBE will never completely leave ground water sources.