Comments on: Global Warming: Its True, Get Used To It

By: Wilkerson

Wilkerson — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:54:13 +0000

The best way to survive climate change is to prevent it. 1. Reduce your climate by 1˚C Dimming down your heaters during the winter period by just 1˚C will save us from 225 kilograms of CO2 emissions per year cut your heating bills by 4%. 2. Change a lightbulb If every home in the UK would switch one bulb to an energy-saving bulb we could shut down one entire power plant rightaway. 3. Stop leaving equipment on Stand By mode Did you know that if you left your radio or TV on Stand By for a day, they'd still consume energy. Turn them completely off or even unplug them and you'll save 10% of your energy bill. Global Warming Survival Center

By: Churl

Churl — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 03:41:54 +0000

Cargo net? More like a cargo cult.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:44:14 +0000

petty boozshwa: In the case of Saddam "possibly" giving WMD to terrorists, the Bush Admininstration acted on that, to launch a 6 year war that cost over a trillion dollars and thousands of lives, all on the slim probability that Saddam would give his WMD to terrorists. Some 90% of conservatives approved of that judgment call.

Now many of those same conservatives are opposing doing anything about global warming, until we are 100% sure that it is for real.

Why was it OK to launch a war on Saddam for a slim probability of the Saddam-WMD-terrorist threat being real, but not OK to do anything about global warming where the probability of it being real is much larger than "slim"?

Or conversely, if you want to postpone doing anything about global warming till we're 100% sure the threat is real, shouldn't we have also postponed doing anything about Saddam till we were 100% sure that threat was real?

Why the disparity?

By: petty boozshwa

petty boozshwa — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:18:17 +0000

sinz54 I agree that the working family’s lot has eroded since a husband/breadwinner could support the family – now the wife has to earn approximately 45% of the family income to cover tax obligations. Don’t know how this relates to my post, though. When Lester Thurow was writing his warnings the real estate value of Emperor Hirohito’s 300 acre palace grounds in downtown Tokyo was appraised higher than the value of all the real estate in the entire state of California — sometimes things change direction, weather patterns, 401(k)s, etc.On David Frum’s posting on this issue I saw your full-throated endorsement of Bush’s justification for the war against Saddam Hussein; while I welcome your conversion I don’t think it logically follows we should endorse a war against climate change the same way.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:07:28 +0000

petty boozshwa: In case you haven't noticed, the standard of living of working families in America *has* been steadily eroded in our lifetimes.

I'm old enough to remember when a husband could earn enough money to support his entire family (including 3 or 4 children), without his wife having to work too. In recent decades, this decline in the standard of living has been masked, by having both husband and wife work, and by having fewer children or even no children to support.

But, as Mark Steyn has pointed out incessantly, a society that tries to get along by not having enough children to keep its population growing is going to be in serious trouble eventually.

By: petty boozshwa

petty boozshwa — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:04:57 +0000

A couple of points I'd like to throw into the discussion:

The Global Warming crowd, starting with Al Gore, would be a lot more credible if their passion caused them to rethink some of their preferred positions, like opposition to nuclear power or let-'er-rip immigration policies. All the coercive regulation in the world won't help if we keep doubling our population every thirty years.

I'm old enough to remember when economists like Lester Thurow were predicting Americans would be carting the Japanese around in rickshaws by now, and their computer models, anecdotes, statistical charts and data were a lot more complete and compelling than the proof of global climate change - scientists still can't build a model that takes the inputs from 1966 and predicts what happened in 1986 - the earth's ecology is just to dynamic and self regulating.

Isn't fresh water the most precious commodity on earth? Even assuming, for argument's sake, that Gore's predictions are correct, we live in a world that can't stop a nut in North Korea from firing a missile, how are we going to regulate the global economy. Taxing jobs away from the west and driving them to the developing world doesn't make sense. Why not develop long-term projects for replenishing aquifers and watersheds that could store the fresh water released?

By: barker13

barker13 — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:53:11 +0000

Re: Sinz54; 1:29 PM --

"The Dems aren't entirely innocent either:"

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

See... I knew you could say it, Sinz!

(*WINK*)

"And science depends on objectivity--which seems to be an increasingly rare commodity these days."

Fair enough... but it seems we see different "sides" as being the truly objective ones.

(*SHRUG*)

BTW... V=IR (*THUMBS UP*) (*CHUCKLE*)

Re: Ryan; 2:44 AM --

Hmm... sounds like "Ryan's way or the highway," folks; and they call *us* the extremists!

(*LAUGHING MY ASS OFF*)

Ryan... dude... save the faith based certitude for Church.

Re: Ryan; 2:47 AM --

Ahh...!!! And obnoxious too!

(*CHUCKLING*)

Re: Sinz54; wrote 12 minutes ago --

Sinz... dude or dudette... we're talking climate change, not evolution.

But, yeah... in your defense I can see why you'd rather talk Coulter than Ehrlich.

(*SMIRK*) (*SNORT*)

As to the college "educated" young... the problem is that for the average liberal arts student (who *is* the average college student) is mainly being exposed only to one perspective re: climate change.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Like it or not, Ryan, there are two sides (lots of sides in fact) regarding what's fact and what's not regarding climate change.

BILL

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:23:57 +0000

Ryan: Even worse than global warming is how popular conservatives like Ann Coulter attack Darwin's theory of evolution. The flirtation of social conservatives with creationism is the most anti-science aspect of modern conservatism.

It makes the conservative movement appear like backward ignoramuses in the eyes of the college-educated young. And if we lose the younger generation, inevitably we will lose the nation.

Part of the problem is that the GOP base seems to have written off the younger generation as hopeless. The few times that young conservatives have written articles on Townhall.com about the need to appeal to young voters, the response they get from the embittered GOP base is that today's young people are too soft and too naive and too idealistic, and they do immoral things like binge drinking and having sex, and we didn't behave like that when we were younger, and it was a mistake to give 18 year olds the right to vote, so who cares about them. (I asked: If today's young people are so hopeless, why do we allow them to enlist in our armed forces? No answer.)

One more thing: Please don't engage in personal attacks on "Chekote." He has a right to believe anything he wants without being insulted.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 06:44:00 +0000

I would just like to rescind my hopeful comments at the beginning about the prospect of a new, more science-friendly Republican party. Its clearly a long ways away.

By: Chekote

Chekote — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:04:25 +0000

"barker13: The Dems aren't entirely innocent either:"

OMG, sinz is posting this? Naaaah...