Glenn
I'D Rather Be Skiing
Premium
join:2000-10-05
Wallingford, CT
| reply to pandora
Re: [INFO] Carbon emissions bill
There was a wonderful editorial in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks back about cutting emissions. They stated that one of the proposals would have attempted to put as back to emissions levels that this country couldn't met in the 1700's.
I can't wait until people start taking a real, logical, scientific, non hyped look at "global warming." I have a feeling there will be a lot of egg on faces. Kinda like how everyone was hailing ethanol...but "oops! Drives up food prices!"
--
Legal ATVing in Connecticut? |
|
pleekmo
Triptoe Through The Tulips
Premium
join:2001-09-14
Manchester, CT
clubs:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by Glenn  :I can't wait until people start taking a real, logical, scientific, non hyped look at "global warming." I hate to tell you this, but the logic of the situation is this:
The best belief of many (most) of the world's scientists is that at current levels of increase in carbon dioxide the Earth will soon experience a runaway moist greenhouse (that is, the Earth would end up with a climate similar to Venus'), after which THERE WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WE COULD DO TO STOP IT.
So the point of the matter is that we can act now to ensure by reducing our greenhouse emissions to a safe level that we do not reach this point. I repeat, after we reach the point of runaway greenhouse there will be absolutely nothing we could do about it.
We can act now to make sure we never have this happen or we can do nothing and possibly extinquish most, if not all, life from Earth.
Are you willing to bet that we will not reach a runaway greenhouse or are you willing to do something to make certain that it never happens?
--
HCN: Because you deserve a rest!
Proud member of the Free Omelas Liberation Front. |
|
gregamy
join:2003-05-22
Middletown, CT
edit:
May 8th, @04:04PM
| said by pleekmo :Are you willing to bet that we will not reach a runaway greenhouse...? Yes.
Someone pass me a beer? I need to release me some more carbon dioxide... |
|
gregamy
join:2003-05-22
Middletown, CT
| Very few people can say it as well as Dr. Williams...
Environmentalists' Wild Predictions
»www.townhall.com/columnists/Walt···dictions
"It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong..." |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
 ·Comcast
|  reply to pleekmo
said by pleekmo :I hate to tell you this, but the logic of the situation is this: The best belief of many (most) of the world's scientists is that at current levels of increase in carbon dioxide the Earth will soon experience a runaway moist greenhouse (that is, the Earth would end up with a climate similar to Venus'), after which THERE WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WE COULD DO TO STOP IT. So the point of the matter is that we can act now to ensure by reducing our greenhouse emissions to a safe level that we do not reach this point. I repeat, after we reach the point of runaway greenhouse there will be absolutely nothing we could do about it. We can act now to make sure we never have this happen or we can do nothing and possibly extinquish most, if not all, life from Earth. Are you willing to bet that we will not reach a runaway greenhouse or are you willing to do something to make certain that it never happens? With all due respect.
1) Global warming has caused the inter-glacial period we are enjoying. Without it, there would be virtually no life in Connecticut and it would be uninhabitable. Global warming has been one of the greatest gifts humanity has received.
2) I seriously doubt there is a scientific consensus Earths climate is headed toward that of Venus. CO2 is one of the weaker global warming gases, and while increases in it may very well be human caused to a large extent the full ramifications of increased CO2 into our atmosphere are mostly the science fiction work of computer models. The models get more money if they make increasingly dire predictions.
3) Connecticut by itself cannot possibly resolve global warming. It can however, cause great harm to its citizens by acting unilaterally on this issue.
4) Per capita energy consumption in the U.S. over the past generation is down. Only via immigration is our energy consumption up. We have been unable to control immigration into the U.S. until we do so, it will be impossible to stabilize our energy consumption.
5) The taxes which will be imposed on citizens of Connecticut will be regressive, affecting those who are poorest or on fixed incomes most. The result will be catastrophic for those with the least voice in Hartford.
6) Energy rates in Connecticut are already a disaster. This proposal will only compound our energy problem, and will preclude any industry from considering our state as a place to do business if there are any alternatives.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
bennor
join:2006-07-22
New Haven, CT
| And while reducing our carbon footprint/greenhouse emissions is a good idea it won't do much good (gasp) if there is no one left in the state of Connecticut other than the politicians in Hartford due to the taxes and fees they assess to try and reduce greenhouse emissions. There needs to be a realistic balance that can bring business into CT (so you know those guys up in Hartford can bring tax us more so they can continue to spend more) and to satisfy the "greenies" and tree huggers in this state.
Also we in the US can reduce all of our greenhouse gas emissions all we'd like but it won't do much good if other countries surpass us. Oh wait, China already has. »www.physorg.com/news127495011.html |
|
Glenn
I'D Rather Be Skiing
Premium
join:2000-10-05
Wallingford, CT
| reply to pleekmo
said by pleekmo :said by Glenn :Are you willing to bet that we will not reach a runaway greenhouse? Yep!
In the 1970's, we were scared into thinking the entire Northeast would be a treeless moonscape due to acid rain by the 1990's (or thereabouts).
In the 1980's we were told the hole in the ozone layer was going to create a giant microwave effect and we'd all be cooked by the year 2000 (or thereabouts).
How's that saying go? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Try to fool me a third time....don't bother because I'm not listening. 
--
Legal ATVing in Connecticut? |
|
disconnected
@snet.net
| reply to Glenn
It's rather simple: I stopped trying to find any logical reason for this nation's self-destructive legislative choices. The answer is that environmentalists simply hate America, Capitalism, science and the betterment of mankind. They want to see us living in caves, once again. Only now, does "global warming" make sense. |
|
