But we HAVE begun the migration from oil and coal. The EPA is already up the wazzoos of everybody and everything, with LOTS more on the horizon. The United States has largely been leading the way on environmental concerns since we all saw the Indian cry back in that 70's commercial, and we've been making steady improvements ever since. You guys are acting like we're still living back in the industrial revolution, while largely ignoring China,India and other "developing" nations that actually ARE living (and poluting) like it's the industrial revolution.
MIL-DOT, first of all let me say thanks for the civility. This topic is polarizing and usually gets out of hand. As long as we are civil at least we can talk about it.
Along those lines, can you give me a better term to use than denier? That term has been used way too much and can be inflammatory. I know, I have used it, and maybe a little too loosely in the past. The term skeptic is reserved for the special case where the observer truly doesn't know and is investigating. Young scientists are skeptics. They are difficult to convince of anything. Would doubters work?
To your point 'But we HAVE begun the migration from oil and coal.' I think we mostly agree on your statement.
But let me offer further clarification. By WE I refer to mankind. WE used to conduct ourselves with a donkey and cart. Then we advance to a team with a wagon, the wagon having greased bushings. Then it was a huge advance to steam power. Civilization really expanded and industrialized at that point. But even within the steam era cities were beginning to legislate steam power out of existence for all the foul pollution it brought along. Next, along came petroleum, which works wonderfully. But petroleum too has it's limits. It is not sustainable. We keep burning it up while the source keeps dwindling. And now we find that the CO2 and H20 products of combustion are both green house gases. This situation has extinction potential for us. Not now in this century, but later on. Are we smart enough to deal with it.
There are other energy sources. Fusion, always seems to be down the road, but works well. And Mr. Sun. There is a vast amount of free energy streaming down upon us. Are we smart enough to make use of it? In some ways, a nomad in the desert with a solar cooker is more advanced than so many of us who are dependent upon the old ways.
It is time for mankind to take the next step.
To your point again 'But we HAVE begun the migration from oil and coal', perhaps so, but we really need a strong kick in the behinder and need to get going. The vendors of the old fuels are putting up a strong fight to prevent the advance. At the same time, their actions are dooming manking.
Um,physician,heal thyself
. You guys consistently ignore the growing number of respected,qualified scientists that have their doubts about AGW, as though they don't even exist, while also conveniently ignoring all of the legitimate SCIENTIFIC evidence that we are in a largely solar-driven weather change pattern.
On the other hand, we AGW skeptics have REPEATEDLY acknowledged at least the possibility that man's pollution is a factor in climactic conditions.
WE are the only one's displaying any open minded objectivity about the issue, it's YOU guys that are insisting there's no debate,as demonstrated by statements like this :
Actually, I would disagree with this one. If the doubting scientists could present valid science, that would be huge news. Keep in mind that nobody is cheering for global warming. We want it to go away as if it never happened. If certain scientists are being ignored, then they need to step up their research.
Among the scientists, there is no debate over the science. Your doubter scientists have provided nothing stronger than lists of petitions.
These two paragraphs cancel each other out !! First,you defend the Weather Channel's one-sided broadcasts, then cite the "hypocrisy" of Fox news and AM radio for presenting only one side. (Ya didn't think THAT one through,LOL) You're also ignoring the fact that Fox news and AM radio constitute a very small percentage of the global media, the same global media that is 95% pro-AGW.
So,given that irrefutable fact, who is it that's most likely "brainwashed by the media" ????
Sorry, but I disagree with this one. The Weather Channel presents real time events and discusses the possibility of a climate connection.
Making such a connection is a difficult thing. Scientists are working at it from a statistical perspective. 'What is the likelyhood that so many major freak weather events could have happened all together in just a couple of years?' Statistically, it points to climate change. But they are hard at work on it. Do you feel that the weather has been freaky and unusual the past couple of years?
I don't even want to dignify Fox by mentioning their name. It is their job and agenda to mock and discredit climate science. One of their principal owners is a Saudi Oil Prince. The same guy is a PR prince for the Saudi Oil industry.
