A Tennessee Fireman's Solution to Climate Change

[myrobbins7]

We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.

A Tennessee Fireman's Solution to Climate Change - Forbes

 

[milohimself]

Cue gs with lameass pictures in 3...2...

 

[myrobbins7]

*sigh*.....Please delete thread then.

 

[trevols81]

Climate change has happened throughout the known history of the earth. Is the relative recent trend of global warming due to or aided by human activity? I have no idea.

But both extremes to this argument are divisive and don't help us reach an answer.

 

[BenGrimm]

Climate change has happened throughout the known history of the earth. Is the relative recent trend of global warming due to or aided by human activity? I have no idea.

But both extremes to this argument are divisive and don't help us reach an answer.

There is enough evidence to support that man is escalating the problem. Even if its not 100% accurate we only have one Earth so why risk it?

 

[volinbham]

holy crap is this guy serious?

But they can tell us how many extreme events would happen each year on average without manmade greenhouse gasses, so we can see what percentage of the damage is caused by man and what percentage is caused by nature. This gives us a global amount of damage that can be attributed to man. We combine this with our transparent reckoning of who the bad guys are, and we have the beginning of our Tennessee fireman’s solution to climate change.

Are only the "liars" contributing green house gases? What does this guy breathe?

 

[volinbham]

An interesting rebuttal also from Forbes

A Vivid Reminder of How The Climate Debate is Broken - Forbes

 

[trevols81]

There is enough evidence to support that man is escalating the problem. Even if its not 100% accurate we only have one Earth so why risk it?

So your solution is to regulate industry? Gotcha.

 

[T-TownVol]

Article could have been written by LG. That tells you how screwed up the logic is.

 

[BenGrimm]

So your solution is to regulate industry? Gotcha.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth...

When it comes to the environment industry regulation would be one small step but by no means the final solution. History has proven that when money is involved industry won't always do what is best. History has also shown that regulation can spur innovation.

More importantly the consumer needs to take more responsibility too. First in their own day-to-day actions and second by demanding industry to adapt. This is happening somewhat but time is off the essence.

The biggest thing is it needs to be dropped it as a political issue. Like i said above, we only have ONE EARTH so why risk it?

 

[T-TownVol]

I agree that it is not a political issue.....it is an economic one for the people pushing GCC.

 

[hog88]

What caused the ice to melt at the end of the last ice age? Hasn't it been proven the polar region (north) was temperate at one time thousands of years ago? Could it be we are truly only now comming out of the last ice age and the earth is warming up on its own?

Nah!!!! It all has to be man made so Al Gore can make millions trading carbon credits.

 

[BenGrimm]

Objection: Current warming is just part of a natural cycle.

Answer: While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural — or even mostly natural — have two challenges.

First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause.

Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?

The mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed, internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions. Where is the skeptic community’s model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich cycles that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?[\quote]

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Again, I ask ONE AND ONLY PLANET EARTH why risk it?

 

[T-TownVol]

and I ask you....why try to profit off it?

 

[BenGrimm]

and I ask you....why try to profit off it?

I guess the the same reason people want to profit off the "freedom" to pollute, capitalism. Unfortunately that's just the way it is.

I've never even watched An Inconvenient Truth but I laugh every time it snows and some clown says "Al Gore is an @$$ hole". Funny I didn't hear people saying things like that this past winter.

And regardless of your feeling toward Al Gore or any politician who promotes enviromental conservation, or simply green marketing campaigns by larger companies, that doesn't make the science behind climate change wrong.

 

[JayVols]

and I ask you....why try to profit off it?

Are you anti-Capitalism or something?

 

[T-TownVol]

Are you anti-Capitalism or something?

when it is government forced, yes

 

[JayVols]

when it is government forced, yes

Commie.

 

[T-TownVol]

I guess the the same reason people want to profit off the "freedom" to pollute, capitalism. Unfortunately that's just the way it is.

I've never even watched An Inconvenient Truth but I laugh every time it snows and some clown says "Al Gore is an @$$ hole". Funny I didn't hear people saying things like that this past winter.

And regardless of your feeling toward Al Gore or any politician who promotes enviromental conservation, or simply green marketing campaigns by larger companies, that doesn't make the science behind climate change wrong.

we disagree there, the Earth going to change no matter what man does or does not do on it, GCC is a scare tactic for profit and I guess if a person is dumb enough to fall for it it is on them

 

[T-TownVol]

Commie.

redneck thank you

 

[JayVols]

redneck thank you

lol

 

[TennTradition]

[/B]

we disagree there, the Earth going to change no matter what man does or does not do on it, GCC is a scare tactic for profit and I guess if a person is dumb enough to fall for it it is on them

So, the science behind GCC is wrong because there are also natural forcings on climate? You sure about that?

I would think one would argue that the model predictions (which are not the science, but an output when the science is accounted for *to the extent that it can be*) or that any policy acting on the science could be flawed before it means the science itself is wrong. Radiation theory is radiation theory, whether or not there are natural forcings.

 

[tim]

What does a chimney/foundation saver know about the climate?

 

[T-TownVol]

Man does not have near the influence/if any on the climate as is proclaimed by science.

 

[T-TownVol]

What does a chimney/foundation saver know about the climate?

not enough to make money off of it evedently