Thank God! A Voice of Reason! Czech President Klaus ready to debate Gore on climate c

#101
#101
TennTradition said:
Climate change may cause stronger hurricanes/cyclones...that one is still an active area of research/debate. It is generally accepted that warmer temperatures do not lead to more frequent hurricanes. As far as earthquakes and ocean-floor-event-driven tsunamis...I'm with you.
Click to expand...

I was out of my league with China and Phuket. Side note - there's a good bit of science regarding climate change and rising water levels, no? And that would affect a large portion of the world.

My main point is that when Mother nature gets sick, we suffer. If we're at all responsible for the sickness, we should figure it out. I'd rather be conscientious than just believe that we'll be fine.
 
#102
#102
OrangeEmpire said:
No one could prevent these things from happening.

Governments failed these people.......... by not preparing and or reacting to these events.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that governments failed in these instances...and in some cases people placed themselves in danger as well. However, if ocean temperatures do rise, though, hurricanes will carry more water and cause more flooding....
 
#105
#105
Fine Vol said:
You mean like Katrina?
Click to expand...

That would be a super yes!

That would be Federal, State and Local...........

Ask those New Orleans officials, especially the New Orleans Levee District/Board, how much money was laundered away from the levee system over the past 20 years.
 
#107
#107
OrangeEmpire said:
That would be a super yes!

That would be Federal, State and Local...........

Ask those New Orleans officials, especially the New Orleans Levee District/Board, how much money was laundered away from the levee system over the past 20 years.
Click to expand...
agreed
 
#109
#109
OrangeEmpire said:
That would be a super yes!

That would be Federal, State and Local...........

Ask those New Orleans officials, especially the New Orleans Levee District/Board, how much money was laundered away from the levee system over the past 20 years.
Click to expand...

... or aky the mayor why all those busses just sat there.

Anyway, reading this thread is going to make a blood vessel pop in my head.
 
#110
#110
TennNC said:
I was out of my league with China and Phuket. Side note - there's a good bit of science regarding climate change and rising water levels, no? And that would affect a large portion of the world.

My main point is that when Mother nature gets sick, we suffer. If we're at all responsible for the sickness, we should figure it out. I'd rather be conscientious than just believe that we'll be fine.
Click to expand...

If temperatures continue warming then, yes, this will lead to rising sea level, but we haven't seen enough of that to really speak of it as an issue.

As for your last comment, I tend to agree with this. It seems that many are very quick to argue that "we'll be fine" ... and I'm pretty sure that there isn't *always* a basis for this argument. I tend to lean toward caution...but realistic caution, weighing the impact of action against the potential consequences of inaction.
 
#112
#112
TennTradition said:
As for you last comment, I tend to agree with this. It seems that many are very quick to argue that "we'll be fine" ... and I'm pretty sure that there isn't *always* a basis for this argument. I tend to lean toward caution...but realistic caution, weighing the impact of against against the potential consequences of inaction.
Click to expand...

Do you also weigh the impact of doing something where nothing is needed?
 
#114
#114
allvol123 said:
Do you also weigh the impact of doing something where nothing is needed?
Click to expand...

Of course, but that is an easy decision if as you state there is 100% certainty that nothing is needed...because the potential consequences of inaction would be zero. That is not the case here.
 
#115
#115
TennTradition said:
If temperatures continue warming then, yes, this will lead to rising sea level, but we haven't seen enough of that to really speak of it as an issue.

As for you last comment, I tend to agree with this. It seems that many are very quick to argue that "we'll be fine" ... and I'm pretty sure that there isn't *always* a basis for this argument. I tend to lean toward caution...but realistic caution, weighing the impact of against against the potential consequences of inaction.
Click to expand...

That is the difference, you are practical when you talk about this. You talk about practical solutions and problems.

My blood boils when I read stuff about a carbon card which could be blanketed under any thing and every thing, which would include food and the government is going to tell me how much I can use.......

That is crazy!

Why doesn't any one try the practical approach with Climate Change?
 
#116
#116
A bunch of chicken littles in here.

images
 
#117
#117
TennTradition said:
Of course, but that is an easy decision if as you state there is 100% certainty that nothing is needed...because the potential consequences of inaction would be zero. That is not the case here.
Click to expand...

Easy decision on the environment. You don't also take into consideration economic consequences of doing something where nothing is needed.

Also, using your thoughts and determining something is needed, what if do the wrong thing or too much or too little of the right thing. What is this exact point or window we are trying to hit. If after all, man can cause the climate to change as you suggest surely it is possible in his effort to "fix" he could conceivably make an incorrect decision and harm it more?
 
#118
#118
OrangeEmpire said:
That is the difference, you are practical when you talk about this. You talk about practical solutions and problems.

My blood boils when I read stuff about a carbon card which could be blanketed under any thing and every thing, which would include food and the government is going to tell me how much I can use.......

That is crazy!

Why doesn't any one try the practical approach with Climate Change?
Click to expand...

What is the practical approach?

If the science were perfect (and we were 100% certain climate change will occur and what the effects would be) then we would know what each pound of CO2 would cost our country..and then tax it at that level...or design a cap and trade system around that information. I've studied the economics and policies of this some - but I will admit that I get in over my head quickly. With the imperfect knowledge we have of the system and what the true cost of CO2 emissions are...then it becomes difficult to know what the right thing to do is....
 
#119
#119
allvol123 said:
Easy decision on the environment. You don't also take into consideration economic consequences of doing something where nothing is needed.
Click to expand...

I don't quite understand what you mean. What I meant was that it is an easy decision when you weight action against inaction if there is cost of action and no cost of inaction.
 
#120
#120
TennTradition said:
What is the practical approach?

If the science were perfect (and we were 100% certain climate change will occur and what the effects would be) then we would know what each pound of CO2 would cost our country..and then tax it at that level...or design a cap and trade system around that information. I've studied the economics and policies of this some - but I will admit that I get in over my head quickly.
Click to expand...

Your approach is practical......... you don't mention the extreme views that many hold. ( Carbon cards, carbon footprints, reducing the speed limit, heating cooling our houses... not eating as much.)

Why not talk about the matter in a practical form?
 
#121
#121
You know, I've read thorugh a lot of this, and it seems to me the one thing is lacking here that no one has mentioned is a little common sense. No one here is for littering, etc but to say that we have so much of an impact that we can destroy the planet thus making all life extinct is a little absurd. My problem with the politicians pushing this is it really reflects on their socialist agenda, and greater government control. I also think a lot of them simply want to punish corporations, and once again that goes back to socialism. It is cycles, and what's said is I really would like to read all these links that everyone provides, but you have to consider the source and their agenda. EVERYTHING is agenda driven.
 
#122
#122
TennTradition said:
I don't quite understand what you mean. What I meant was that it is an easy decision when you weight action against inaction if there is cost of action and no cost of inaction.
Click to expand...

I claim there is no cost for inaction on the issue of climate, I thought you were arguing for action and that it should not bother me since I believe man does not affect climate and thus the greenies can "act" all they want and it will not harm the climate.
 
#123
#123
volsforever27 said:
You know, I've read thorugh a lot of this, and it seems to me the one thing is lacking here that no one has mentioned is a little common sense. No one here is for littering, etc but to say that we have so much of an impact that we can destroy the planet thus making all life extinct is a little absurd. My problem with the politicians pushing this is it really reflects on their socialist agenda, and greater government control. I also think a lot of them simply want to punish corporations, and once again that goes back to socialism. It is cycles, and what's said is I really would like to read all these links that everyone provides, but you have to consider the source and thier agenda. EVERYTHING is agenda driven.
Click to expand...
agenda driven is correct
 
#125
#125
OrangeEmpire said:
Your approach is practical......... you don't mention the extreme views that many hold. ( Carbon cards, carbon footprints, reducing the speed limit, heating cooling our houses... not eating as much.)

Why not talk about the matter in a practical form?
Click to expand...

I think that the discussion in this country hasn't elevated about the "what can you do" of conservation because we haven't seen serious discussions in our government about limiting CO2 emissions. I think that we will likely see a cap and trade system here in the states at some point, if there is no significant turn of events. I think that is certainly the better approach over a tax .. but it will have consequences and will filter down into costs. The problem is that the average American will not be hurt as much by a changing climate as many other people in the world...yet we will be affected by solving the problem. It is really an interesting moral issue if the climate truly is warming because of human influence...we can easily pay to alleviate the problem we create...but certain areas cannot and they are often not contributing to the problem. This is not a hate-America rant by me...I like consuming...and I'm happy to be able to do it. I'm happy to be an American, and I don't argue that we're evil. However, these facts about my view of the world don't change the reality that if climate is changing...we're hurting others more than we will hurt ourselves...which is why we will be very slow to act...practically speaking.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top