When climate change believers let the conversation get dragged down by climate change deniers into counting polar bear drownings, the believers have already lost. This how the deniers win these arguments.
Nobody's winning anything here. There's no argument about this on a real level to be won or lost. Everybody knows that the denialist crowd will do or say pretty much anything no matter how ridiculous or inconsistent - some purposefully, some becuase they're not very educated - to justify denialism. Be it conspiracy theories, multiple contradictory viewpoints, whatever - it's all on the table. The only sport is making them admit it in the most absurd terms possible, and even that is pretty tiresome and boring these days.
not really, it's going to happen 1.2 billion Indians just decided to fire up the CO2 machine like the 1.2 billion Chinese already have And evolution will just roll on with or without us
Not really. About all I can hope for is to lead you by the nose down silly street, with you eventually bludnering into making some dumb statement about how Polar bears like living in jungles just fine based on the principle of Lost - and frankly i'm just not sure that the net gain there is worth it .
Don't know what you're talking about; I'm not a big fan of bibles as anything other than a piece of literature, though Song of Fire & Ice/Game of Thrones is much better and features less incest and rape.
The Market will save us. Big corporations and rich individuals will figure out how to maximize their profits every quarter while doing so. Relax. Don't need any government action.
Bill Maher said it best: "Progressives need to stop using the term 'believe.' There's no such thing as 'believing' in climate change or 'evolution.' These things are facts, whether we believe them or not."
In 1998, 190 countries of 192 countries signed the Kyoto Protocol. I can't see if it was very effective, but at least it had worldwide recognition of the possibility. It's odd Afghanistan didn't sign being so conspicuously close to the Caspian Sea and the United States. We disagreed with the entire world? Really? Whether man is contributing or not isn't the biggest issue to me. Gasoline and coal have to be the oldest inventions without significant upgrades in the past 130 years. Why aren't solar panels on the rooftops of every department store in the country? Is solar really that inefficient that to not pay for itself in electricity costs, something, in a few years? Someone has to build them. Install them. Maintain them.
Meanwhile in Germany... Interesting how the kinks of renewables are being met in Germany, coupled with a general reluctance towards nuclear and urgent desire to ween away from Gazprom. No easy solution but good progress of a sort.
Very simplistic article. Please compare and contrast prices in the US vs. Germany. Also, you have to remember that solar and wind are not always available. That's why the article used CAPACITY data. In my opinion Germany was unwise to move away from nuclear power. They are suffering because of it.
Compare and contrast the value of todays jobs and today's prices with a future of rising temp and rising sea levels. Or do you not think CO2 levels will result in that?
Just an FYI, Sam. It's The Song of Ice and Fire. Don't feel bad. I missed the question last week at the trivia contest my team plays in every Wednesday night at a 6th Street pub, "What's the title of the series by George R. R. Martin that HBO's Game of Thrones is based on." I said what you just said, and I've read those novels, each about the size of the Bible (no joke intended), twice. Crazy.
Son? that would make you like, 85. Short term, short sighted, self-interested thinking using "cost" figures that don't include environmental costs will hurt the next generation's standard of living. You kids deserve better.
Who in their right mind would do the following: 1. Believe that raising taxes will change the weather. 2. Believe in a thesis underpinned by climate forecasting models that have been wrong, wrong and wrong for decades 3. Believe a story that relies on scare tactics and emotional arguments, all of which have been debunked 4. Agree to reduce economic growth and agree to lower standards of living in order to change the weather decades in the future The global warming movement may have started out with good intentions, but now, decades later, it has proven to be flawed and disproved by the data. It's now just a political football, as the proponents are left with nothing to offer but insults to those who question their disproved theories.
The data supporting global warming has held up exceedingly well. What has been proven has been the "data" and "facts" about it that you've presented in this thread. The forecasting models were wrong, but not in a way that shows there is no global warming, but in ways that show global warming was worse than they had suspected. Those wrong models don't help your case at all.
