Welcome to PatsFans.com

Christie: Climate change is real

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Aug 21, 2011.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Huntsman is no surprise. After all, I have little doubt that if he gets traction, the right wing will simply call him an Obama plant.

    But, Christie is considered an intellectual of the Tea Party, and is generally quite popular among Tea Party members. Given what he's done in NJ, his Tea Party credentials are quite strong and compared with other Tea Party governors he's relatively popular (42% for, 49% in New Jersey).

    Christie: Climate change is real - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com

    Chris Christie made clear he falls in the Jon Huntsman camp as opposed to the Rick Perry camp on the scientific-political issue of the week in the Republican primary:

    In vetoing a bill (S2946) that would have required New Jersey to stay in a regional program intended to curb greenhouse gases — a program Christie plans to leave by the end of the year — the governor said "climate change is real."

    He added that "human activity plays a role in these changes" and that climate change is "impacting our state."

    Christie's words are his strongest to date in regards to climate change, a hot-button issue among the same conservatives nationwide who are clamoring for the governor to enter the 2012 presidential race.
  2. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    <<crickets>>

    cons as a group will never admit they were dead wrong on such a major issue... .they have too much invested in their narrative, and are far too arrogant to show humility.... Afterall, climate change and global oil depletion are two major threats to their "consume everything" ideology.
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2011
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3

    Well my post got swallowed up because it took too long to assemble let's try again:

    First why should anyone care what politicians 'believe' that has nothing to do with what is IOW reality. Science is about reality, not the pronouncements of politicians.


    The climate is a complex chaotic process that has been ongoing and changing for billions of years, if humans and their activities ceased tomorrow the climate would continue to change for another few billion years. The idea that if people would modify their behavior that the climate would miraculously stabilize and not change is an illusion to mislead the ignorant.

    Whether climate is warming or cooling is a matter of observation, usually there can be agreement although you have to pay attention to the measurement methods ( a lot of issues have come up with respect to the siting of temperature stations the set of stations used (some stations are discontinued and others added ect) and example would be say a station located on Cape Cod .25 miles from the ocean being 'replaced' by a station in downtown Springfield, it would skew the data.

    There are a number of papers issued in the past few months that are beginning to correlate empirical observation to what is being predicted by the Computer Climate models. This is important since the climate models make an array of assumptions that would have to be verified by actual observations of the climate system.


    So let's review some of the more recent studies and information is some peer reviewed papers and some articles that are not yet in the form of submitted publications ( but will be in the near future). Unfortunately the CERN Cloud Chamber Experiment paper has not yet been released (it should be out int he nest month or two).

    First up is a primer on Greenhouse Gases from Hopper a physicist from Princeton, nice intro for those not familiar with the subject and especially for those who are misinformed. It is only about 14 pages of material and isn't real technical anyone should be able to understand the writing here.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/happer-the_truth_about_greenhouse_gases.pdf

    Next is the recent peer reviewed paper by Lindzen & Choi the title is:

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications


    Climate Sensitivity in this context refers to how sensitive the climate is to variations in greenhouse gases specifically CO2. The Computer modelers assumed a high sensitivity if the sensitivity is low then humans and CO2 effects are marginal and not important.

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
    The abstract for the paper:
    continued next post.... ;)
  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3

    Now the Spenser & Braswell paper:

    On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from
    Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance


    http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
    The abstract for the paper:


    Next an article about a speech by Salby, previewing a paper scheduled for print at the end of Sept. Salby was a reviewed for the IPCC, he was a AGW proponent, before his new research... is causing him to change his position, at the article is a link to a podcast of the talk:

    Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans

    Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    continued next post... ;)
  5. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3

    Next up a couple of articles the first one I expect will become another peer reviewed paper in the Climategate emails Trenberth worried about the 'missing heat' that the computer models predicted and that wasn't showing up in the atmosphere, the crew at Real Climate said it would show up in the oceans, this article deals with the predictions of the Computer Models and how they compare with the Empirical data being collected from the Oceans.

    Deep Ocean Temperature Change Spaghetti: 15 Climate Models Versus Observations

    Deep Ocean Temperature Change Spaghetti: 15 Climate Models Versus Observations « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

    [​IMG]

    The above will probably be the subject of a peer reviewed paper.

    Next up from Spenser an article on the MET office backtracking trying to explain away the cooling data that contradicts the predictions of the Computer Models:

    A Step in the Right Direction: Backing off of Anthropocentrism in Climate Research

    A Step in the Right Direction: Backing off of Anthropocentrism in Climate Research « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

    [​IMG]
  6. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3

    Now an interesting article by Girma Orssengo posted at wattsupwiththat:

    Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data as a Pendulum

    Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data as a Pendulum | Watts Up With That?

    [​IMG]

    The observed rate of warming is well within the levels expected from purely natural causes. this is .6/century well below the levels predicted by the MMGW believers.

    the conclusion:

    [​IMG]
  7. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    Ponzi scheme imo. The planet way well be warming. Just like its warmed and cooled at different points in the past. However, the idea that man is both responsible, and able to alter these natural changes by way of taxation, screams ponzi scheme.
  8. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    How would it be a ponzi scheme?

    I think it's clear that the earth is warming, and I believe that the influence man has is questionable at best.

    but I don't see the ponzi scheme aspect of it.
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3



    When governments have organized and financed research to the tune of billions of dollars to promote the idea that man is driving the climate through his activities, with the goals of taxing that activity and redistributing the $$$$ and empowering government to have greater control of economic activity it is theft under a false pretense.

    Don't know I would call it a ponzi scheme except in the aspect of 'selling' something that doesn't exist.
  10. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    for anyone swayed by 13's latest blog-tastic wall of text, simply because it's a wall of text, and seems like it must all be true... please apply critical analysis. ... usually when you lift the rock of a wild RW claim, rest assured its all a load of crap.

    Below is a complete listing of the articles in "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic," a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming.

    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | A Grist Special Series | Grist
    Stages of Denial
    Scientific Topics
    Types of Argument, and
    Levels of Sophistication.
    Individual articles will appear under multiple headings and may even appear in multiple subcategories in the same heading.

    Stages of Denial
    ((pf13 is most learned on this section))

    There's nothing happening
    Inadequate evidence
    There is no evidence
    One record year is not global warming
    The temperature record is simply unreliable
    One hundred years is not enough
    Glaciers have always grown and receded
    Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
    Mauna Loa is a volcano
    The scientists aren't even sure
    Contradictory evidence
    It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
    Antarctic ice is growing
    The satellites show cooling
    What about mid-century cooling?
    Global warming stopped in 1998
    But the glaciers are not melting
    Antarctic sea ice is increasing
    Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
    Sea level in the Arctic is falling
    Some sites show cooling
    No consensus
    Global warming is a hoax
    There is no consensus
    Position statements hide debate
    Consensus is collusion
    Peiser refuted Oreskes
    We don't know why it's happening
    Models don't work
    We cannot trust unproven computer models
    The models don't have clouds
    If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
    Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
    Prediction is impossible
    We can't even predict the weather next week
    Chaotic systems are not predictable
    We can't be sure
    Hansen has been wrong before
    If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
    The scientists aren't even sure
    They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
    Climate change is natural
    It happened before
    It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
    The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
    Greenland used to be green
    Global warming is nothing new!
    The hockey stick is broken
    Vineland was full of grapes
    It's part of a natural change
    Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
    Mars and Pluto are warming too
    CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
    The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
    Climate is always changing
    Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
    The CO2 rise is natural
    We are just recovering from the LIA
    It's not caused by CO2
    Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
    Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
    There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
    Mars and Pluto are warming too
    CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
    What about mid-century cooling?
    Geological history does not support CO2's importance
    Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
    It's the sun, stupid
    Climate change is not bad
    The effects are good
    What's wrong with warmer weather?
    Climate change can't be stopped
    Too late
    Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
    It's someone else's problem
    Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven't?
    The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
    Economically infeasible
    Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster

    Scientific Topics

    Temperature
    There is no evidence
    The temperature record is simply unreliable
    One hundred years is not enough
    Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
    What's wrong with warmer weather?
    It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
    Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
    The satellites show cooling
    Global warming stopped in 1998
    They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
    Some sites show cooling
    Atmosphere
    Extreme events
    Temperature records
    One record year is not global warming
    It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
    Cryosphere
    Glaciers
    Glaciers have always grown and receded
    But the glaciers are not melting
    Sea ice
    Antarctic sea ice is increasing
    Ice sheets
    Antarctic ice is growing
    Greenland used to be green
    Oceans
    Sea level in the Arctic is falling
    Modeling
    Scenarios
    Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
    Hansen has been wrong before
    Uncertainties
    We can't even predict the weather next week
    Chaotic systems are not predictable
    We cannot trust unproven computer models
    The models don't have clouds
    Climate forcings
    Solar influences
    Mars and Pluto are warming too
    It's the sun, stupid
    Greenhouse gases
    Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
    Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
    There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
    CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
    CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
    What about mid-century cooling?
    Geological history does not support CO2's importance
    Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
    Mauna Loa is a volcano
    The CO2 rise is natural
    Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
    The US is a net CO2 sink
    Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
    Aerosols
    What about mid-century cooling?
    If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
    Paleo climate
    Holocene
    It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
    The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
    Greenland used to be green
    The hockey stick is broken
    Vineland was full of grapes
    We are just recovering from the LIA
    Ice ages
    CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
    Global warming is nothing new!
    Geologic history
    What's wrong with warmer weather?
    Geological history does not support CO2's importance
    Climate is always changing
    Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
    If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
    Scientific process
    Global warming is a hoax
    There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
    There is no consensus
    The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
    Position statements hide debate
    If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
    The scientists aren't even sure
    Consensus is collusion
    Peiser refuted Oreskes
    Types of Argument​
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2011
  11. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    (continued)...

    Uninformed
    There is no evidence
    One record year is not global warming
    One hundred years is not enough
    There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
    What's wrong with warmer weather?
    Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
    There is no consensus
    We cannot trust unproven computer models
    Misinformed
    It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
    The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
    Antarctic ice is growing
    CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
    Greenland used to be green
    The satellites show cooling
    Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
    It's the sun, stupid
    The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
    But the glaciers are not melting
    Antarctic sea ice is increasing
    They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
    Vineland was full of grapes
    Cherry Picking
    It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
    Antarctic sea ice is growing
    The satellites show cooling
    Global warming stopped in 1998
    Antarctic sea ice is increasing
    Vineland was full of grapes
    Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
    The sea level in the Arctic is falling
    Some sites show cooling
    Urban Myths
    The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
    CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
    Greenland used to be green
    Hansen has been wrong before
    They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
    Vineland was full of grapes
    FUD
    The temperature record is simply unreliable
    Glaciers have always grown and receded
    Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
    Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
    Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
    Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
    Mars and Pluto are warming too
    It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
    CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
    There is no consensus
    Antarctic ice is growing
    Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
    We can't even predict the weather next week
    Chaotic systems are not predictable
    What about mid-century cooling?
    The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
    Geological history does not support CO2's importance
    Climate is always changing
    Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
    Mauna Loa is a volcano
    Global warming is nothing new!
    The CO2 rise is natural
    The hockey stick is broken
    Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
    The models don't have clouds
    Global warming stopped in 1998
    If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
    If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
    The scientists aren't even sure
    Antarctic sea ice is increasing
    Peiser refuted Oreskes
    Vineland was full of grapes
    Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
    Sea level in the Arctic is falling
    We are just recovering from the LIA
    Non Scientific
    Global warming is a hoax
    Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
    Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven't?
    Hansen has been wrong before
    Position statements hide debate
    The scientists aren't even sure
    Consensus is collusion
    They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
    Levels of Sophistication

    Silly
    There is no evidence
    Global warming is a hoax
    One record year is not global warming
    Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
    Mars and Pluto are warming too
    Mauna Loa is a volcano
    Naive
    One hundred years is not enough
    Glaciers have always grown and receded
    Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven't?
    It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
    CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
    We can't even predict the weather next week
    We can not trust unproven computer models
    The satellites show cooling
    Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
    The models don't have clouds
    Global warming stopped in 1998
    It's the sun, stupid
    If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
    The scientists aren't even sure
    Vineland was full of grapes
    Some sites show cooling
    Specious
    The temperature record is simply unreliable
    Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
    There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
    Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
    It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
    The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
    What's wrong with warmer weather?
    Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
    CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
    There is no consensus
    Antarctic ice is growing
    Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
    Greenland used to be green
    What about mid-century cooling?
    The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
    Geological history does not support CO2's importance
    Climate is always changing
    Global warming is nothing new!
    The CO2 rise is natural
    Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
    Hansen has been wrong before
    Position statements hide debate
    But the glaciers are not melting
    If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
    Antarctic sea ice is increasing
    Consensus is collusion
    They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
    Peiser refuted Oreskes
    Vineland was full of grapes
    Scientific
    Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
    Chaotic systems are not predictable
    The hockey stick is broken
    Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
    Sea level in the Arctic is falling
    We are just recovering from the LIA​
  12. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    Have you ever read Kyoto, or parts of it? Tax developed nations, exempt up and coming nations, take taxed dollars (after the juice has been skimmed) and hand them to the poorer nations of the world. All in the name of climate.
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3

    Poor Titus reduced to a lame sophomoric post since he can't deal with data and the difference between a computer model that doesn't work and empirical data.



    Typical, empty, nonsensical, post.


    :D
  14. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    And an ad hominen attack by a moderator, which is in direct violation of the rules that are supposed to be enforced by said moderator..

    The spirit of this board is that you are supposed to respond with a corresponding point of view, not just attack the person, as is done here..

    Rule #1



    And of course rule #6, if anyone cares. Guess you did completely violate it, as you forgot the 8" by 10" glossies..



    :confused2::confused2::confused2::confused2:
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2011
  15. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    What is the basis for thinking it's questionable? An handful of prominent deniers? Do you think the huge number of scientists who believe in global warming are simply dishonest people who are trying to get government grants from politicians who want camp and trade? Do you count yourselves among those who don't trust the scientists? The anti-intellectualism of the right is infuriating, but I don't understand by what basis you are part of it. PF, at least subscribes, on an intellectual basis to some of the specific arguments of the deniers. But, if you research his points (which I have done many times in the past), you invariably find that those who believe in global warming have ready responses.

    To me, common sense alone suggests that man is contributing to global warming. Further, the fact that publication I trusted prior to global warming being a political hot button, pulbications like Scientific American, National Geographic, and Discovery Magazine, also clearly tilt towards a MMGW model. The reality is that most models show that global warming is increasing more rapidly over the last 150 years than at other times in earth's history. The famous hockey stick chart, disputed by a handful of deniers, stands up pretty well even when other data (more friendly to the deniers) is used.

    The bottom line for me is that in the very worst case, by addressing global warming we end up with a cleaner world. I think the only ones who have an interest in opposing steps to address global warming are certain groups of capitalists, people who care more about taxes than their children, right-wing political opportunists, and a handful of scientifically minded individuals.
  16. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3

    Well Patters the empirical data from satellite observation is not supporting the premise of the computer models of a high sensitivity for CO2 in the atmosphere. IF the data continues to indicate that then the premise of MMGW due to human activity is proven false.
  17. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,029
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    The question is: to what precise degree? That's the argument.
  18. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    I didn't say global warming is questionable.


    Again, I didn't question the existence of global warming. As for human influence v contributing. Maybe it's semantics, but I'm sure our activities to contribute to it, but I don't know if there's any real influence. Our influence may be a drop in the bucket compared to, say, the influence of the sun.


    It depends on how you want to address it. As with any tradeoff of economic activity versus environmental impact, you need to weigh the pros and cons.
  19. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,029
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    So any counter-argument is invalid just because it is a counter-argument? Cute.

    If your team has got such a rock-solid case, why do they continue to make stuff up? (Polar Bears, disappearing glaciers in the Himalayas)
  20. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    This is exactly how I feel. I'll add that not being in the MMGW crowd, doesn't mean that one is anti-environment.
  21. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Agree.

    If you're pro environment and peace, you are necessarily opposed to the continued use of fossil fuel and complete lack of national energy policy, though.
  22. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    I think being "opposed" to fossil fuel use is a little bit of a catch 22 because we all want cleaner air, etc. but we also realize that it's those energies that power the world. So I think we'd all like to see a better alternative, but accept their use as a matter of practicality, if not reality. The energy policy issue I'm 100% in agreement. It would be one of the first items on my agenda if I were ever president. It's a joke that we haven't had an energy policy, or identity, for as long as I can remember.
  23. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Yeah, well, that train of thought wasn't fleshed out very well.

    By opposition to fossil fuel, I meant continued dependence on it almost exclusively and without developing better ways (even if it does cost more up front) of controlling the pollutants from its use. That includes regulations regarding dumping and spewing particulates and compounds harmful to the biosystems (including us) in the pathway. It includes stricter mandates about conservation and emission standards. This is about conservation and conservatives should naturally be as on-board as liberals. This also includes massive reduction of the use of petroleum by-products like fertilizers and disposable plastics. Unfortunately, my 89 GMC runs lousy on grill grease or corn oil.

    That's what I meant.
  24. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    You'll get no argument from me on any of this. All I'll do is echo something along the lines of what chico said, with respect to weighing the pros and cons of any prospective policy or regulation. In my line of work it's sometimes beneficial to invest in something a little more costly up front, because of the benefits felt long term.

Share This Page