Public Opinion on Climate Just Tipped - Protests & Arrests

Don't worry SC.
China has already offered, and a deal is being talked about now- for China to buy all that Tar Sand oil from Canada. Every drop we don't buy will be bought by China.

And guess what- they will use every drop of it to build their economy and provide jobs for the hungry hard working people in China.

None of it will go to waste- not one drop. I guess we can keep buying our oil from places like Iran, Saudi and Lybia- yea. They need our money more than Canada.

And hey- China won't even bother trying to burn up that oil in a clean efficient way.

So good on all you global warming believers- if you block the pipeline - will you have stopped even one single drop of that oil from becoming that deadly greenhouse gas?

Even one drop? HUH.

You greenies are geniuses, geniuses I tell ya.

towermonkey wrote: More and more frequent extreme weather worldwide, drought and the decimation of farmlands will soon decide the issue whether or not everyone believes it.

That's right, there was no such thing as droughts or decimation of farmland due to climate changes before the industrial revolution so it must be the fossil fuels that are 100% responsible for the ones we have today.

PrintSmith wrote:

towermonkey wrote: More and more frequent extreme weather worldwide, drought and the decimation of farmlands will soon decide the issue whether or not everyone believes it.

That's right, there was no such thing as droughts or decimation of farmland due to climate changes before the industrial revolution so it must be the fossil fuels that are 100% responsible for the ones we have today.

Well, I didn't go as far as to say 100%, but if that's what you want to believe...

Great job opportunities at the oil sands, and the first $75,000 is tax exempt I believe.

Science Chic wrote: BearMtn, guess you didn't read my links. The issue of other countries getting access to that is tied up in litigation and they won't be getting it anytime soon. Not to mention they have plenty of their own coal, and now more of ours so them going after more expensive tar sands makes no economic sense.

PS, not Once have climate scientists denied that past changes have occurred, nor do they currently deny that there aren't also natural forces at work now - just that our effects are over-riding them. And now, we have an exponentially larger amount of people on the planet than in previous millennia so the effects are going to be much more devastating in terms of human suffering and death. Tens of millions are facing displacement, island nations are being swallowed, extreme weather events are on the rise, and food shortages will become more prevalent. Would you rather focus on prehistoric climate, or do something about what we face now? Me, I'm a proactive kind of girl!

Let's be honest with each other SC, the climate is beyond our ability to control regardless of what we wish to believe. We are not the cause of the climate warming and completely abandoning all fossil fuel usage would not stop the CO2 ppm from going up because 96% or so of the CO2 entering the atmosphere has nothing to do with human activity. You can't stop it from happening unless you are willing to put the world into a state of nuclear winter or engage in wholesale reductions of the earth's human population to lower the demand for energy necessary to sustain an animal that is no longer part of the hunter/gatherer kingdom in areas of the world that they would otherwise be unable to live in. We are not polar bears, or seals, or penguins, or whales, or snakes or scorpions, or rodents that have an ability to sustain ourselves in otherwise inhospitable environments without consuming large amounts of energy to make our environment one in which we can live. We are not migratory to the point of being able to pick up and go south for the winter to avoid the cold and north in the summer to avoid the heat.

All of the changes that you are talking about will make it more and more likely that the exponentially larger human population will be drastically decreased, which is the only way our contribution of CO2 actually goes down from what it is now. Billions of humans need energy to heat their homes, cook their foods, transport them from place to place, manufacture their goods and that energy needs to be plentiful and relatively inexpensive if we are to continue to live as we do today instead of as we did before we started building cities. Cutting the CO2 emissions per person isn't going to make a bit of difference so long as we keep adding people at a rate of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people per year to the total population of the planet. The population is going to double from what it is right now in the next 40 years and there is no possible means of halving our current per capita carbon footprint within that time frame so that the amount of carbon added each year becomes less than what it is today. When deer overpopulate, they starve. When the winter is too severe, the other animals of the planet die off at higher than normal rates. When drought comes and the animal population either can't or won't leave, they perish. The same is true for the human animal. We will fight each other to the death for resources long before we perish from starvation - which might just result in that nuclear winter after all.......

I don't live in Utopia SC, I choose reality. Even if this nation, the entire globe for that matter, returns to its total carbon footprint of the 1950's we will still be adding carbon at an unsustainable rate and there is no possibility that this nation with double that population (roughly 152 million in 1950, and 308 million today), let alone the rest of the planet, is going to be putting out half the amount of carbon per capita necessary to reach that goal. It simply isn't going to happen without a drastic reduction of our current standard of living. We would have to go back to an agrarian economy where everyone was growing their own food and there is no way that NYC can sustain the current population of Manhattan Island on the amount of open space the island has today. We don't have enough arable land in this country for everyone to have 40 acres and a mule to sustain themselves on anymore - we have to expend energy growing the food to feed the swollen population of our urban centers that abundant and inexpensive energy have made possible in the first place and then more energy still to get that food to them. When you use energy, you generate heat - that is simple physics SC - even someone who never finished college knows this.

I can control the climate .... I just flip the channel to the next weather man. It's amazing how three different channels have three different forecasts and not a single one can predict greater than seven days out..... yet the climate change knuckleheads are forecasting fifty plus years out. rofllol rofllol

Hold on, I need to close a window...it's getting cool outside.

Newflash from the Huffington Post-Hurricane Irene 2011: Climate Change To Blame?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/2 ... 39233.html

It's been one of the most hotly debated questions this week: Is climate change driving Hurricane Irene?

"No one is going to point to Irene and say this is climate change," Kim Knowlton, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, told The Huffington Post. "But we can say that we are seeing the fingerprint of climate change this year."

So here is the rule as I see it. If it's an exceptionally cold and snowy series of winters....then that's weather. However, if the US HAPPENS to have a relatively weak, Category 1 or 2 hit it for the first time in say 5-6 years. That's climate change. Hmmmm. Now I understand.

I knew the Huffpo or some other liberal rag would blame global warming on a hurricane that wasn't anything new to the planet, it just happened to hit a larger population of liberals this time. What the hell is a "fingerprint of climate change"?

She first says "nobody is going to point at Irene and say this is climate change" then she hedges her bet with the fingerprint comment.

Of course it's climate change you twit, it's always changing and always will. If this hurricane went east of the coast and missed us, there would be zero talk about climate change....but it's not wise to let a crisis go to waste...right?

I wonder if she was one of the morons who predicted a big increase in hurricanes in the years following Katrina (that never materialized)?