4 ms·

1. Temperatures are clearly rising. 2. CO2 concentrations are clearly rising. 3. Well-understood physics suggests that rising CO2 should lead to rising temper

by miloshh 17y ago

1. Temperatures are clearly rising. 2. CO2 concentrations are clearly rising. 3. Well-understood physics suggests that rising CO2 should lead to rising temperatures. Does this make it 100% certain that we're causing global warming? Maybe not, but if you want to disprove the link, you're going to need better arguments than "41% of laypeople think global warming is exaggerated".

mynameishere 17y ago
1. The left has sought control of the means of production and distribution from day one. 2. The fight against global warming allegedly requires just that. 3. Follow the money. It's just a hunch, of course. But any discussion of the problem should focus on three things: 1) Nuclear plants, 2) China, and 3) Proactive solutions. I don't see any of that. The bulk of the solutions offered seem designed to impoverish the developed world.
- roc 17y ago
  The fight against global warming allegedly requires certain chemicals and compounds to be -regulated as pollutants-. That's hardly the same as controlling the means of production and distribution. Unless you're willing to argue in the abstract sense, in which case the FDA and EPA -already- control the means of production and distribution. But that would seem to obviate your further concern about possible regulation of carbon and such. Certainly regulation -can- be corrupted into control. But so can legislation, privatization and every other human organization. The last I heard the DOE's new director flatly stated the new course is, and can only be, many more nuclear plants. And not the ancient designs that truck 'waste' (fuel) to Yucca. Oh, and also killing the bad-science feel-good handouts like fuel cell automotive grants. So if you "don't see any of that" being discussed then perhaps you need to add additional news sources?
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Wow. It's that easy? <sarcasm> Then it's completely amazing that so many senior scientists get so befuddled about it, huh? I mean, you'd have to be paid off by somebody or not right in the head to find fault with something that rests on such solid physical principles. </sarcasm>

by miloshh 17y ago

mynameishere 17y ago

1. The left has sought control of the means of production and distribution from day one. 2. The fight against global warming allegedly requires just that. 3. Follow the money. It's just a hunch, of course. But any discussion of the problem should focus on three things: 1) Nuclear plants, 2) China, and 3) Proactive solutions. I don't see any of that. The bulk of the solutions offered seem designed to impoverish the developed world.

roc 17y ago
The fight against global warming allegedly requires certain chemicals and compounds to be -regulated as pollutants-. That's hardly the same as controlling the means of production and distribution. Unless you're willing to argue in the abstract sense, in which case the FDA and EPA -already- control the means of production and distribution. But that would seem to obviate your further concern about possible regulation of carbon and such. Certainly regulation -can- be corrupted into control. But so can legislation, privatization and every other human organization. The last I heard the DOE's new director flatly stated the new course is, and can only be, many more nuclear plants. And not the ancient designs that truck 'waste' (fuel) to Yucca. Oh, and also killing the bad-science feel-good handouts like fuel cell automotive grants. So if you "don't see any of that" being discussed then perhaps you need to add additional news sources?

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

Wow. It's that easy? <sarcasm> Then it's completely amazing that so many senior scientists get so befuddled about it, huh? I mean, you'd have to be paid off by somebody or not right in the head to find fault with something that rests on such solid physical principles. </sarcasm>