How much should we pay to stop the Earth from warming? - Page 3 - Political Forum

Shiva_TD · 10-22-2007, 08:13 PM

It doesn't need to "cost" anything but, in fact, reducing greenhouse emissions can be highly profitable. We just don't want the profit to come from the taxpayers.

There are a couple of key issues. First of all we need a LOT of non-polluting energy production. On the order of 1600 more Hoover Dams. People better be thinking nuclear because nothing else will work. With that kind of power we can go to electric cars for most purposes. Both nuclear electrical generation and the development of electric cars for general transportation with both privately funded is the key to cutting GH gases. And there is money to be made in both!!

Sotired · 10-22-2007, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

You're just speaking now from denial. I have posted several times in other debates on this forum regarding the proof behind GW, if you need me to, I can post it again. There is no proof that the warming we are experiancing is natural, while there is evidence that it isn't natural and is caused by humans. There isn't a huge dollar amount that you think there will be to switch from a high oil and coal dependency to alternative fuels and/or nuclear power.

please enlighten me how man has been the cause of global warming when the entire solar system , mars , jupiter's moons, even pluto show comparable rates of global warming.

I am not quite sure how my car's tailpipe is reaching these places.

also why is the ice on antarctica getting thicker?

Oregon Elephant · 10-23-2007, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotired

please enlighten me how man has been the cause of global warming when the entire solar system , mars , jupiter's moons, even pluto show comparable rates of global warming.

I am not quite sure how my car's tailpipe is reaching these places.

also why is the ice on antarctica getting thicker?

The entire solar system isn't warming, just some of it while some is cooling, Saturn is cooling, most of the outer planets, (Neptune and Uranus) have not notibly changed. Venus is unchanged, and Mercury (which would recieve the greastest amount temp change if it truely came from the sun) is also remaining unchanged. Pluto, being so far from the sun, doesn't recieve hardly any effects from the sun. On Pluto, the sun just looks like another star.

What info do you have that the ice is getting thicker? But that is regardless, because as the rest of the cap gets warmer and the ice around the edges melts, that makes more water in the atmosphere to make the ice caps thinker at the polars.

Sotired · 10-23-2007, 08:39 PM

USATODAY.com - Researchers find Antarctic ice is thickening

West Antarctic ice sheet is thickening - 17 January 2002 - New Scientist

Report: Antarctic Ice Sheet Thickening - Science - RedOrbit

The Scotsman - Global warming: the cold facts

Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report - by James M. Taylor - The Heartland Institute

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s......5c7f723&k=0

http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/gl...n-and-jupiter/

Shiva_TD · 10-23-2007, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotired

I am not quite sure how my car's tailpipe is reaching these places.

Please explain to me how your car's tailpipe doesn't contribute to CO2 emissions or how it is healthy for people to breath. Please explain to me how sending out US dollars to the Middle East is advantageous to the United States? Please explain to me why we shouldn't replace gasoline as a motor fuel with electricity that is produced by nuclear powerplants without any greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, please explain.

Sotired · 10-23-2007, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Please explain to me how your car's tailpipe doesn't contribute to CO2 emissions or how it is healthy for people to breath. Please explain to me how sending out US dollars to the Middle East is advantageous to the United States? Please explain to me why we shouldn't replace gasoline as a motor fuel with electricity that is produced by nuclear powerplants without any greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, please explain.

Oh I am all for clean renewable energy production that end oil dependence.
and i am all for cleaner air

I am just not buying the sham that man had anything to do with causing , or can "correct " global warming

colourislast · 10-23-2007, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Please explain to me how your car's tailpipe doesn't contribute to CO2 emissions or how it is healthy for people to breath.

You breathe CO2 every breath you take. It is part of the mix on this planet that makes "air", you also exhale it. You may be confusing it with CO, which was a real pollutant and replaced with CO2 after installing catalytic converters on cars. Mandated by environmentalists at the time swearing CO2 would not harm anything, being benign.

Please explain to me how sending out US dollars to the Middle East is advantageous to the United States?

We were getting tired having to paint our military vehicles multiple colors, and we had surplusses of tan. Plus, they took Micheal Jackson, didn't they? What more do you want?

Please explain to me why we shouldn't replace gasoline as a motor fuel with electricity that is produced by nuclear powerplants without any greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, please explain.

Now this you can't really go against too much. If we COULD build more nuclear facilities, that would be great, but that is a bad thing according to greenies. They have been blocking that idea since "The China Syndrome" came out at the drive in's. Electric cars are not the answer from nuclear power though. Hydrogen production is much more viable. Waste from nuclear facilities happens when you slow down the energy production of the plant from down times on the grid. Weekends, night time causes a lower demand for electricity and the reactors need the energy production to go somewhere else. Instead of slowing production by creating waste, produce hydrogen for fuel cells. A beautiful clean cycle. Until we find out that burning hydrogen causes free radicals in the ionosphere causing global cooling.

colourislast · 10-23-2007, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainMike

I won't be so politically incorrect to suggest that we sacrifice Bush and Cheney to the ancient nature spirits (perhaps air dropped on one of the remaining icebergs with the remaining polar bears). And lets not forget all of their corporate billionaire employers!!!

Careful now, your tinfoil hat might slip off.

MysticPhD · 10-23-2007, 11:58 PM

YouTube - Stossel- GMAB - Al Gore Global Warming Myth

Slartibartfas · 10-24-2007, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colourislast

Now this you can't really go against too much. If we COULD build more nuclear facilities, that would be great, but that is a bad thing according to greenies.

Nuclear power is economically not feasable. Even today and even in Europe the subsidizing for nuclear power far exceeds the one for alternative energy.

Furthermore the largest part of the costs is created after the power plants went out of business again. So it gets even worse afterwards in regards to feasibility.

Nuclear power is not a solution, its at best a credit we have to pay back. Maybe we need that credit, but its an illusion that it will be a cheap one.