|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock
On Jun 26, 8:14*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:42:35 -0400, SteveP wrote: The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may come too late. If you don't already find the evidence compelling, it means you don't understand the science. Yes, but proof convincing to the majority of the electorate *will* come too late. That has nothing to do with _my_ understanding of the science. And I can't blame people for insisting on ironclad proof before they'll accept going back to the Stone Age, with minor relief from windmills and solar power. On the other hand, jobs and energy independence from a massive expansion of nuclear power would go down so well, that there would be no particular impulse to question global warming as a part of the rationale for that... except for the small anti-nuclear fringe. John Savard |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock
On Jun 26, 11:30*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Steve P wrote: (I don't have to be convinced. I see no downside to taking action.) That's because you don't own an oil company, or think that corporations are more important than people. Given the kind of action that needs to be taken, if one doesn't see nuclear power as an option, you just have to belong to the working class to see major downsides in taking action that will severely impact the economy. Notwithstanding the assertion to the contrary from Pierre Elliot Trudeau, jobs and money *do* matter very much to a lot of real human beings. John Savard |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock
On Jun 27, 10:09*am, "Chris.B" wrote:
There has been no economic empire (yet) which has not destroyed itself through blind overexploitation, overindulgence and becoming completely riddled with corruption from top to bottom. I think that the United States of America is still one of the good guys and it is wicked and invidious to compare them to exploitative ancient empires like the Roman Empire, or ancient Babylon, or the Toltecs, the Egyptians, or the Maya. Some believe there may yet be... oh, sorry... the Cylons aren't coming, nor are Atlantis and Lemuria additional examples to cite. But it is indeed true that civilization have had a bad record. The cause, though, is not hard to see. There is only so much arable land on the planet. Agriculture doesn't improve in efficiency at Moore's Law speeds even with the help of a Norman Borlaug now and then. If people didn't have quite so many children, things would be different, but the natural fate of a population - of any living creature - is to expand until it reaches the limits of available resources. A new species which reproduced less copiously would die out before becoming established. So every society reaches the point at which it has to start stealing from its neighbors to feed all its kids. Margaret Sanger found half the solution - the other half is a world order that doesn't let people get away with it. But I think we would be in strong disagreement about what such a world order would look like, and how to achieve it. John Savard |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock
On Jun 26, 11:08*pm, bjacoby wrote:
I trust everyone here is smart enough to recognize that the above is a POLITICAL statement and has nothing to do with the scientific method. No it's a true statement of fact, and it is the attempt to evade it that's being driven by politics. John Savard |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock
On Jun 27, 2:34*pm, Mark Storkamp wrote:
If your definition of climate scientist excludes all those with differing views, Well, it may do so for contingent reasons. Presumably, if one believes that the field of climate science is still healthy, and those whose papers don't get published are victims of their own incompetence, not some vast conspiracy... either one is believing something reasonable, or, if one is in error... the error is understandable. John Savard |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock
On 7/15/2012 3:54 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 23, 3:39 pm, Sam Wormley wrote: The prospect of mutually assured destruction has kept the world safe from atomic bombs for nearly 67 years. Why hasn't it protected us from the reckless insanity of climate change? Because we actually believe that if the Soviets had launched their missiles at us with hydrogen warheads, we would get killed. After all, it was proven at Bikini Atoll that hydrogen bombs do work. When it comes to global warming, though, the uncomfortable reality is easy to deny. When it seems like the only other choice would be to reduce our energy use to an extent that would have catastrophic economic consequences, one has to be sure in order to accept so painful a remedy - and to most people, that kind of certainty won't come until it's too late. My answer is nuclear power: the remedy that is not painful but which instead gives us more energy to enjoy instead. John Savard You came to the right conclusion. Shame all those people warning of us global warming are NOT interested in nuclear power WHY ? |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock
On Jun 28, 1:11*am, Martin Brown
wrote: What is being done? Almost nothing. Using tobacco industry tactics and prostitute scientists the oil and coal companies have persuaded the public that they can just ignore it. This is sort of true for our generation but the next will pay dearly for our intransigence. And the deniers' solution is for the few who are aware of the problem, like Al Gore, to stop being "hypocrites", and live in a cave growing their own food, so that the rest of us will no longer hear what they have to say. But the public reaction, although it is influenced a _little_ by the shills hired by the oil companies, hasn't really been molded by them. Instead, the green movement is its own worst enemy, because their solution is a world of bicycles and windmills. It's obvious even to the average Joe that if we give up our current level of energy consumption to that kind of extent, about half of us will have to stop eating. Which is worse than anything that global warming will throw at us for a while yet. Nuclear power is the only thing that could save us that has any hope of happening in the real world. As long as the bulk of those speaking out about global warming are greens to whom nuclear power is evil and toxic, though, the only real alternative will not be presented to the public in the mass media. John Savard |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock
On Jun 28, 5:56*am, "Bob C." wrote:
It had better be a gallon of urine or sea-water, given the dozens of electric car models now available... Not necessarily, as long as the electricity is made from burning coal or natural gas. Either we all move to places that get their electricity from hydroelectric dams... or we start building nuclear power plants. John Savard |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock
On Jul 2, 8:25*pm, wrote:
If all of the dry land were to be equally divided among everyone, each person would have only a few acres! * Boasting about running one's car with only solar energy is almost as arrogant as claiming that one has a "small carbon footprint" if they use only firewood to heat their home. Yes, indeed. John Savard |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock
On Jun 30, 12:43*pm, bjacoby wrote:
Bottom line is that solar panels are great for running a radio or thermometer or garden light out in the middle of nowhere. As a real solution to replacing fossil fuels, it's all just made up stories. Yes, indeed. Unless, of course, the idea is to largely do without fossil fuels... to such an extent that the occasional radio is the only thing we'll need electricity for. We'll use *horses* to ship food to the more human-sized urban areas in which people will live in the reformed, green society. It worked in the 19th century, so why can't it work now? At least after we've had a one-child policy for a few generations... John Savard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No drivel like the drivel which BG spews. | Chris.B[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | May 22nd 10 02:19 PM |
No other drivel matches the drivel which Wretch spews | Chris.B[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | May 21st 10 08:21 PM |
The Prophet of Climate Change: James Lovelock | kT | Policy | 14 | October 31st 07 07:30 PM |
Solar warming v. Global warming | Roger Steer | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | October 20th 05 01:23 AM |
Global warming v. Solar warming | Roger Steer | UK Astronomy | 1 | October 18th 05 10:58 AM |