Hysteria on climate change has clouded thinking

C

Cancel 2020.1

Canceled
I'm a committed environmentalist. I would like to see mankind switch to renewable energy sources over a reasonable timeframe for a wide variety of reasons - including reducing pollution and getting off of Mideast oil.

But stopping climate change? Rubio had a great answer last night:

“As far as a law that we can pass in Washington to change the weather, there’s no such thing,” Rubio said Thursday in Miami. “On the contrary ... there are laws they want us to pass that would be devastating for our economy.”

Spot on. Scientists who fully believe & promote the idea of AGW readily acknowledge that there isn't much we can do to actually stop climate change. The 'consensus' (if you will) is that even if the entire globe went cold turkey on emissions tomorrow, it would have no discernible effect for centuries, and possibly over 1,000 years.

Think about that. And the current measure Rubio and others are being asked to support would reduce emissions 32% in just one country. And people are willing to sacrifice thousands of jobs for this.
 
A couple of the liberal leaning writers/economists I follow on Twitter were drilling Rubio over those statements last night. They essentially argued he expects America to be a world leader in everything except climate change.

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this subject but I lean to your position as there are people who want to radically change the global economy in the name of global warming. No Bueno.
 
cawacko said:
A couple of the liberal leaning writers/economists I follow on Twitter were drilling Rubio over those statements last night. They essentially argued he expects America to be a world leader in everything except climate change.

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this subject but I lean to your position as there are people who want to radically change the global economy in the name of global warming. No Bueno.
Click to expand...

That's what prompted the thread. I saw a few articles out there really slamming Rubio, and read some of the comments sections. It was the comments that really got me - so much scientific superiority, until it came to the big question of what cutting emissions would actually do to "stop" or even slow climate change.
 
Thing1 said:
I'm a committed environmentalist. I would like to see mankind switch to renewable energy sources over a reasonable timeframe for a wide variety of reasons - including reducing pollution and getting off of Mideast oil.

But stopping climate change? Rubio had a great answer last night:

“As far as a law that we can pass in Washington to change the weather, there’s no such thing,” Rubio said Thursday in Miami. “On the contrary ... there are laws they want us to pass that would be devastating for our economy.”

Spot on. Scientists who fully believe & promote the idea of AGW readily acknowledge that there isn't much we can do to actually stop climate change. The 'consensus' (if you will) is that even if the entire globe went cold turkey on emissions tomorrow, it would have no discernible effect for centuries, and possibly over 1,000 years.

Think about that. And the current measure Rubio and others are being asked to support would reduce emissions 32% in just one country. And people are willing to sacrifice thousands of jobs for this.
Click to expand...

Michael Crichton had an interesting take on this. He said that earlier forms of fuel and transportation (horses and hay) were replaced by cars and fossil fuels. There was no government action, no special taxes, no trillions spent on green energy. The market was ready for a new fuel and it came into being. He says that at some point when fossil fuels get too expensive, the business community and the free market will make the adjustment. It will be gradual and it will be logical.

Dr. Dixie Lee Ray once said this about cars and fossil fuel: At one time, transportation was made possible only by horses. They polluted streets with manure. It took hundreds of acres to produce the fuel to feed them. When the automobile came along, it's fuel was extracted from deep within a small area of land at a time. Interesting note that automobiles were a cleaner and less polluted form of transportation than what they replaced.
 
religious warmers believe that anthropogenic warming is driving climate change. They used to argue that the rate of climate change was unprecedented due to anthropogenic emissions. Instead, natural variability has led to the rate of climate change slowing down (hiatus / pause(). It is still warming, but not at the rate predicted/forecast by alarmist models. Instead of accepting that anthropogenic emissions do not drive climate change, they continue to hold their religious belief that humans can stop climate change.

believers gonna believe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top