• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

One year in, Trump's environmental agenda is already taking a measurable toll[W:78]

Professor2004 said:
When clean and renewable energy options become fiscally viable, they won't need the government to make industry change

Carbon emissions should be taken seriously, but the consequences of regulating us all back to the 1820s are probably going to have a worse impact on quality of life than carbon
Click to expand...

Coal IS the 1820s technology...The regulations are to reduce carbon emissions. We do that by transitioning to new cleaner technology currently available and by ramping up R&D of further advancement.

The argument here by conservatives is that they don't want the government involved..They don't want the government involved in most things. It's the free market for them come hell or high water.....pun intended.
 
Liberal answer to everything....more taxes. This brought to you by the people that claim to care about the poor and middle class.

Interesting, i didnt know targeting certain businesses and industries was a function of government. I must have missed the paragraph that says the government should treat people different and punish legal businesses they dont like. Weird
 
Russell797 said:
come hell or high water.....pun intended.
Click to expand...

Both fiction constructs designed for scaring people into a desired pattern of behavior.
While the sea level is raising, it appears to be disregarding whatever the CO2 level is in the process.
 
Russell797 said:
Coal IS the 1820s technology...The regulations are to reduce carbon emissions. We do that by transitioning to new cleaner technology currently available and by ramping up R&D of further advancement.

The argument here by conservatives is that they don't want the government involved..They don't want the government involved in most things. It's the free market for them come hell or high water.....pun intended.
Click to expand...

The wheel is also old technology, but we haven't invented anti-gravity yet.

Coal is more reliable and less expensive than solar or wind.
 
Professor2004 said:
Liberal answer to everything....more taxes. This brought to you by the people that claim to care about the poor and middle class.

Interesting, i didnt know targeting certain businesses and industries was a function of government. I must have missed the paragraph that says the government should treat people different and punish legal businesses they dont like. Weird
Click to expand...

What taxes? There is no cap and trade or carbon tax on the table. What are you talking about?

So the government shouldn't subsidize any industry? No tax breaks for anything?

Why do you consider requiring clean air and water from the coal industry to be punishment?
 
longview said:
Both fiction constructs designed for scaring people into a desired pattern of behavior.
While the sea level is raising, it appears to be disregarding whatever the CO2 level is in the process.
Click to expand...

You mean people would have to insert the electrical cord into the socket differently if we were to transition from fossil fuel to renewables? I get that we would have to plug in our cars rather than pumping gas into them, oh what the imposition.
 
Russell797 said:
Only if you deny AGW.
Click to expand...

I ting those of you who you call deniers, only deny the alarmist beliefs. We do not deny AGW, we just deny what is considered the "AGW Theory." You know, the one that claims we ouny humans have caused most the warning.

We do not deny greenhouse gasses have had a warming effect.

Disagreeing with the unproven quantification of CO2 sensitivity is not denial, it is part of the science process. That is why I call you, following that religious like cult, a denier of science!
 
Lord of Planar said:
The wheel is also old technology, but we haven't invented anti-gravity yet.

Coal is more reliable and less expensive than solar or wind.
Click to expand...

Not so, but even if it were, coal is still dirty as hell. Oh, but we have invented the equivalent of anti-gravity...planes, balloons, rockets, helicopters etc.

Coal, oil and natural gas are not humanities future fuels. The wheel is not obsolete but coal is, and is on it's way out. Trying to resurrect and maintain it while actively discouraging growing completion from renewabes is a waste of time and money. What may be temporarily good for West Virginia and Kentucky is not good in the long run for any of us.
 
Russell797 said:
Not so, but even if it were, coal iYour opinion is not fact.s still dirty as hell. Oh, but we have invented the equivalent of anti-gravity...planes, balloons, rockets, helicopters etc.

Coal, oil and natural gas are not humanities future fuels. The wheel is not obsolete but coal is, and is on it's way out. Trying to resurrect and maintain it while actively discouraging growing completion from renewabes is a waste of time and money. What may be temporarily good for West Virginia and Kentucky is not good in the long run for any of us.
Click to expand...

Your opiniuon is not fact.

We have improved the wheel several times over, and use everyday in our lives. It is always possible coal gets some great improvements as well. We have already reduced it's dirty nature significantly. Are you a denier of science and going to state it is impossible to make it clean to use?

Impossible...
 
Lord of Planar said:
I ting those of you who you call deniers, only deny the alarmist beliefs. We do not deny AGW, we just deny what is considered the "AGW Theory." You know, the one that claims we ouny humans have caused most the warning.

We do not deny greenhouse gasses have had a warming effect.

Disagreeing with the unproven quantification of CO2 sensitivity is not denial, it is part of the science process. That is why I call you, following that religious like cult, a denier of science!
Click to expand...

You speak for only yourself...Many deniers deny everything about the issue..from top to bottom and everything in between.

Disagreeing with the unproven quantification of CO2 sensitivity is not denial, it is part of the science process.
Click to expand...

Not so. Doing science which forces a change in thinking is the scientific process. Disagreeing means nothing.
 
Jack Hays said:

[h=1]Pentagon erases “climate change” from the National Defense threat list[/h]The Pentagon released a National Defense Strategy that for the first time in more than a decade does not mention manmade global warming as a security threat. An 11-page summary of the new National Defense Strategy makes no mention of “global warming” or “climate change”. The document makes no mention of “climate,” “warming,” “planet,” “sea…[/
Click to expand...


I think it is against forum rules to quote a source without any comment/discussion from said poster.
 
Russell797 said:
You speak for only yourself...Many deniers deny everything about the issue..from top to bottom and everything in between.
Click to expand...
And who would that be here?

Russell797 said:
Not so. Doing science which forces a change in thinking is the scientific process. Disagreeing means nothing.
Click to expand...
Yet you are inflexible to consider anything reasonable that you already disagree with. You treat it like catastrophic alarmism is written in stone, and religiously as many believe the 10 commandments were.

You, and the AGW pundits, deny the scientific process by trying to shut others down.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Your opiniuon[sic] is not fact.

Then you go on to offer nothing but opinion.

We have improved the wheel several times over, and use everyday in our lives. It is always possible coal gets some great improvements as well. We have already reduced it's dirty nature significantly. Are you a denier of science and going to state it is impossible to make it clean to use?

Impossible...
Click to expand...

Correct, LoP?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Your opiniuon is not fact.

We have improved the wheel several times over, and use everyday in our lives. It is always possible coal gets some great improvements as well. We have already reduced it's dirty nature significantly. Are you a denier of science and going to state it is impossible to make it clean to use?

Impossible...
Click to expand...

Not impossible, but economically untenable. The technologies enabling cleaner coal already exist....They have been establish in running plants in several countries, including one in the U.S.

Do you want to subsidize the retrofitting of those technologies into all our older generation plants..I would be my bottom dollar you wouln't.
 
Lord of Planar said:
And who would that be here?


Yet you are inflexible to consider anything reasonable that you already disagree with. You treat it like catastrophic alarmism is written in stone, and religiously as many believe the 10 commandments were.

You, and the AGW pundits, deny the scientific process by trying to shut others down.
Click to expand...

Don't just rattle on and on, show you have something to back your position that goes against the 97% of climate scientists world wide operating in this field say GW is man made.

Notice how big corporate interests have done what they always do, publish disinformation intended to do what they always do, mask the truth. Notice the last part of the link, only 16% of Americans know the consensus is above 90%.

Another dandy example of just how effective US propaganda is.

Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

...

climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support.

That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
Click to expand...
 
Lord of Planar said:
And who would that be here?


Yet you are inflexible to consider anything reasonable that you already disagree with. You treat it like catastrophic alarmism is written in stone, and religiously as many believe the 10 commandments were.

You, and the AGW pundits, deny the scientific process by trying to shut others down.
Click to expand...

BS...big time BS...

What science has been done. I'm not the inflexible one...Show me the science...and not science which may convince me, but change the entire scientific consensus. I am not qualified to address every relevant aspect of oceanography, glaciology or biology which you hope will be overturned by some revelation.

Catastrophic warming is not etched in stone...we don't know the exact outcome...so stop pretending otherwise.
 
Russell797 said:
BS...big time BS...

What science has been done. I'm not the inflexible one...Show me the science...and not science which may convince me, but change the entire scientific consensus. I am not qualified to address every relevant aspect of oceanography, glaciology or biology which you hope will be overturned by some revelation.

Catastrophic warming is not etched in stone...we don't know the exact outcome...so stop pretending otherwise.
Click to expand...

I have shown science, but you will not accept anything but the consensus view.

Consensus is not science.

You are a denier of science.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I have shown science, but you will not accept anything but the consensus view.

Consensus is not science.

You are a denier of science.
Click to expand...

You have shown me nothing but your own scribbling. At least Jack Hays presents some actual science, not that he understands what is contained within as evidenced by his inability to discuss the contents of Svensmark and Shaviv in detail.
 
Russell797 said:
You have shown me nothing but your own scribbling. At least Jack Hays presents some actual science, not that he understands what is contained within as evidenced by his inability to discuss the contents of Svensmark and Shaviv in detail.
Click to expand...

I at least read papers and understand their nuances. You go by what the preachers of AGW claim.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I at least read papers and understand their nuances. You go by what the preachers of AGW claim.
Click to expand...

I understand some of the large array of sciences which impacts on AGW, but far from all of it on any technical level. No one does. Not even you.
 
Russell797 said:
I understand some of the large array of sciences which impacts on AGW, but far from all of it on any technical level. No one does. Not even you.
Click to expand...

I understand more technical things than at least thousands of others. I understood how TTL's worked in 1968.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I understand more technical things than at least thousands of others. I understood how TTL's worked in 1968.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt about your abilities. You and countless other's who view AGW similarly. That includes many broadcast meteorologists, a field close to mine, who remain unconvinced. This has little to do with intelligence, aptitude or technical ability.

The issue is strongly polarized for reasons having nothing to do with science. We both know that. Some of it involves a trust in our institutions. A faith in their integrity. We have no choice..None of us know it all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom