Posted on 09/07/2010 11:20:19 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
He does seem to subscribe to the “central planning myth” that is characterist of commies. The concept that a wise government could develop a long term plan and carry it out and somehow “save” our species from extinction is nuts. The government has never been “wise” and the government has never carried out a plan efficiently. If there is a catastrophy coming, the government will not be the corrective agent. It will be the “rugged individualist” who has planned for his smaller community of survivors.
BTW, the species will not be extinguished by global warming, peak oil, or economic collapse. Many people will suffer and die with the collapse of civilization, but humans are at least as adaptable as the insect shown above.
That is, some humans.
Of course as I say this, I realize at my age (65) I don’t have as much to fear about all this.
KC
To think man has caused the non-existent global warming is foolish. The reason many people think we can't control the climate is because, wait for it, we can't. To think you can "fix the leak" as you put it is purely frickin' ridiculous. CO2 never caused anything to heat up, it is a plant food and necessary to the health of the planet and the life on the planet. We are carbon based life forms and we need carbon. To claim we need to eliminate carbon from out lives in order to save the world has got to be among, if not THE, stupidest statements ever uttered by humans.
And you seem so overjoyed that we are so powerless.
God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
The courage to change the things I can;
And the wisdom to know the difference.
Those who speak out of specialty are simply fools with fancier titles. There's no evidence Laughlin knows any more about biological processes than I do. If a ignoring a physicist babbling about biodiversity is what this jacka$$ thinks is an example of "few care what scholars say about anything," then count me among the Philistines.
What I see is someone without the assurance that the earth was created by a Creator that is sovereign and reserves the right to Himself to destroy and remake it at the time of His choosing.
It has been proven that CO2 levels rise 400 to 800 years after atmospheric temps rise, caused by heating of the oceans (warmer water can hold less gas). Algore’s graph in his stinkin movie does not have the two overlapping (”that’s complicated” he says) for this reason.
I’m scared!! Scared, I tell you!!
“Forecast for tonight...dark, with scattered light in the early morning hours.”
If the JellyStone cauldera lets rip again.. it’ll make Mt. St. Helena look like a pimple that pops now and then.. be a shame too,, I like the Tetons and Rockies ..
but ya never know ‘When Heavenly Objects Might Collide’
seen some pretty good sized chunks burning up in the atmosphere lately,, more than normal? I don’t know. ;-]
So?
Are you claiming that CO2 was forced into the atmosphere in the past?
Here’s what is being suggested by others:
CO2 follows temperature when the temperature is the forcing (as you noted) and the CO2 adjusts to the new temperature. When you pump CO2 into the atmosphere, the temperature adjusts to go into equilibrium with the CO2 concentration.
Of course, it’s in quasi-equilibrium.
His twist on the usual Gore themes is that he says it is too late top prevent global catastrophe, that humans will be wiped from the planet and that The Earth will ultimately survive.
Since the universe is meaningless, why does he care what happens? And how can anything that happens on one insignificant dust mote among zillions qualify as a "catastrophe?" Is the universe gonna start bawling or something?
Ah, the ideal liberal scenario. Paradise without people.
Yes, and a bawling universe is to be feared more than a woman scorned.
Is the universe gonna start bawling or something?
Yes, and a bawling universe is to be feared more than a woman scorned.
That must be why the libs are so persistent about "social justice." Obviously it will keep the universe from bawling.
oldie (2001) from Popular Mechanics:Time to throw out 'myth' of recyclingThrow away the green and blue bags and forget those trips to return bottles -- recycling household waste is a load of, well, rubbish, say leading environmentalists and waste campaigners. In a reversal of decades-old wisdom, they argue that burning cardboard, plastics and food leftovers is better for the environment and the economy than recycling. They dismiss household trash separation -- a practice encouraged by the green lobby -- as a waste of time and money... The Swedes' views are shared by many British local authorities, who have drawn up plans to build up to 50 incinerators in an attempt to tackle a growing waste mountain and cut the amount of garbage going to landfills... The use of incineration to burn household waste -- including packaging and food -- "is best for the environment, the economy and the management of natural resources," they wrote in an article for the newspaper Dagens Nyheter. Technological improvements have made incineration cleaner, the article said, and the process could be used to generate electricity, cutting dependency on oil... Recycled bottles cost glass companies twice as much as the raw materials, and recycling plastics was uneconomical, they said. "Plastics are made from oil and can quite simply be incinerated."
by David Harrison
London Daily Telegraph
March 4, 2003
The Tree SolutionAs Greenpeace expanded to become the world's largest international environmental organization, Moore's star steadily rose and he eventually became vice president of research. Then he did something even more unexpected than joining the organization in the first place. He packed up and quit... In the months before his departure, Moore had begun talking heresy. "The environmental movement had gone astray and lost its perspective on forests," Moore says. "Rather than cutting fewer trees and using less wood, we should be growing more trees and using more wood." Greenpeace branded him an eco-Judas. Now comes the biggest surprise of all. Recently published research suggests that Moore is right. Cutting down old trees could be the best way to thwart global warming.
by Jim Wilson
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.