My Conversion: We must do something about Climate Change

I never thought I'd be uttering these words, and for my part: I still don't think we have conclusive proof that man is primarily responsible for the weather patterns of the 21st century. But that doesn't matter to me right now. It doesn't matter who or what is responsible, what is important is that we get a handle of the situation as fast as possible.

So, what changed this conversion? What makes me take a position that I once thought laughable, in that mother nature is a random beast that hoping to control it or maintain it isn't really realistic? It was my trip to Detroit, Michigan that opened my eyes to the very real dangers of Climate Change. While our car was traversing the path through Pittsburgh, Ohio and finally Detroit we met with the toughest driving conditions imaginable. Rain to Snow, back to Rain and then Snow again. Countless blizzards faced us just minutes after a rain storm, and it was quickly evident that even Mother Nature shouldn't be that bipolar.

Then as we finally arrived in Detroit, I saw the dirtiest, most unimaginable power plant imaginable. It was like a sight of China, and I thought to myself: Is that acceptable? Surely there must be ways to acquire energy in the 21st century without being China 2.0. Now, the real issue is is that I don't have even the rudimentary knowledge to give solutions.

Other than that I still oppose cap-and-trade as a non-starter. That's not a solution. If programs need funds, they'll get funds, but funds in of itself is not a strategy. But what I am committing to, is a dedicated study on the issue and what I want to find are two things: What are the commonly concurred reasons for climate change, and then 2) What reasonable, real approaches are there.

Those reasonable, real approaches will be publicly endorsed by me as we take real steps to address real issues. Climate Change isn't a political issue for me, it isn't a Democratic or Republican problem, it's a humankind problem. We must put our differences aside, and make sure we leave a safe, habitable planet for our children and grandchildren, while maintaining our standard of living.

 

I'm glad to hear someone change their position on this and change it to one for sincere concern. Something is definitely wrong with the atmosphere and humans can do something about it.

The issue is the reaction to any proposals that suggest solutions to this problem. I believe there is so much pushback because solutions mean more competition and less profit in the marketplace. People will have to get around industry leaders to push the needed message to do something about the climate.

 

I'm not going to hassle you man, but you do realize that all of that which "convinced" you is purely anecdotal. Coincidence is not causality, so just because the weather did what weather does and then you saw a dirty power plant does not mean that said Dirty Power Plant caused the odd weather.

You should live down here in Texas. Last Thursday it was warm and calm, and on Friday morning we had rain and snow, and on Saturday it was Warm and Calm again. But that's just what the weather is like in Texas.

 

I would agree that cap and trade is b.s.

The simplest solution would just be to raise emission standards on power plants. We could help offset the cost of retrofitting plants via tax incentives and such.

Also, we need a trade policy with China that forces them to clean up their emissions.

 

Climate change is real. It ALWAYS has been...

It is NOT caused by CO2. The Only significant atmospheric gas involved in Nitrogen, not CO2.

The primary driver for Climate Change is the Solar Cycle, and the Blue or Red Shift of the Solar Spectrum, and its impact on Nitrogen Rayleigh Scattering of radiant energy back out into space.

A given power plant may be very dirty, and cause local pollution problems, but it is NOT the primary, or even a measurable driver to Climate Change.

CO2 Green House Effect is a third order radiant energy retention mechanism at best.

Most CO2 comes from natural sources, particularly volcanism.

The impact of man-made-CO2 is a sixth order radiant energy retention mechanism at best.

The Lefties pursue AGW as a justification for seizing control of every facet of our lives. They know that it is propaganda lie, and extremely bad, faked, illogical "Science", but has been very useful politically.

-

 

I didn't say that Dirty Power Plant caused the odd weather, but that it certainly didn't help and I think we need to have better standards for safer and cleaner emissions. I like Serfing's idea of using tax incentives to encourage companies to move ahead in the 21st century, and reworking things with China so that they do better themselves.

The US isn't the biggest polluter, we're actually middle of the pack. But I'm now of the belief that if we can do something, without jeopardizing the economy(as the one breaking news post shows that we have done exactly that), then we should do it.

 

My advice to help. Change your diet. Agriculture is the leading cause of climate change and is unsustainable with the current American diet.

And 2, get involved in green energy projects. I recommend smart city projects.

My husband and I have started a green energy business. We both left very lucrative careers to do it. Best thing I ever did...

 

How about ya stop clear cutting forest the size of England, Wales and Scotland every year.

 

I agree, I am against cap and trade, but we definitely need to do more research on this and come up with ways for science to address it

 

Sorry to hear that the carbon bogeyman got to you.

My position? I hope global warming is real. I really do. The left hopes to destroy Western society and blend my race from existence. What better revenge than to set the Earth on a path to become Venus in the distant but not too distant future, especially in the pursuit of profit! This has to infuriate them, so I'm in favor of it. It's probably the best weapon the right has left in its arsenal against the left.

Europe is going to be an extension of the Arab world, and the US is going to be part of the Hispanic world. Overpopulation is going to make life unlivable as resources get scarcer and scarcer. It's going to get really, really ugly. Maybe scientific discovery can keep things afloat for a while, but barring a completely revolutionary breakthrough, this world isn't going to be worth saving, anyway. I wouldn't worry too much about it, man. Make as much money as you can, have as much fun as possible, stymie your enemies whenever you get an opportunity. Nothing else matters.

 

Okay. Your "conversion" seems rather capricious but believe as you want.

 

I wish your conversion had occurred 12 years ago when the scientific consensus was reached.

A lot of damage has occurred in those 12 years...but at least it's a start.

 

America has been lucky - it has been least affected by climate change. This is one of the reasons why you have few there believing in it

However it is imperative we stop messing in our own backyard but we cannot do it with only one initiative - it has to be a lot of different things

 

No most of what you saw was 50 years of democratic rule.

 

Best post of the year.

 

Your obviously drunk. It happens to the best of us. Just delete your post and no one will know anything.

If we get asked, we will just say you had a weak moment.

 

I sympathise with what you are trying to do, but believe me it is impossible. People are not going to believe it until the water is in the streets of New Orleans and Galveston...and probably not even then.

The only thing you can do is promote measures that have the side effect of producing less greenhouse emissions. Nuclear or natural gas power plants plus as much solar and wind as we can build. More efficient autos, appliances, and buildings. Even that won't do much though. Nobody is going to tell China to stop burning coal like there's no tomorrow. Same for the rest of the developing world.

The fact is that we are going to have to prepare for a hotter more humid world with more extreme weather events. You can throw away the 100 year flood plains - they won't mean a thing. A 100 year flood today will be a 10 year flood tomorrow. Most of the coastal cities will either be abandoned or gradually migrate inland.

This part is doable. What we don't know yet is the ultimate effect on US food production, and that will be the number one security concern. The number two security concern will be the American southwestern states. The water supply for large cities like Phoenix could be threatened and martial law or other extreme security measures may be necessary.

The Pentagon is gaming this all out.

 

12 years ago, I was a 12 year old kid. Suppose it did happen, what could I have done about it?

 

We kind of already do. The food production has already increase, as production of chlorophyll increases due to more photons (photosynthesis) being absorbed more rapidly. This translates to better crops and better tasting food.

Now your assumption is that mother nature doesn't have other processes in which the effect of too much greenhouse gas will cause equal and opposite reactions in the ecosystem. Like for example the same gas that blocks the photons from escaping also blocks the photons from entering the first place.

But hey, as long as the scientists continue to agree that CO2 is the cause of temperature rises, and not other effects, which agrees with agenda 21. The left will continue to fight for people to get taxed more because its part of their globalization agenda.

I believe in climate change (of course the climate changes), however whether we are the cause and that a tax is the only solution is another story.

I believe we should be planting more trees, one of the results of photosynthesis is O2 (carbon dioxide + water + light energy → carbohydrate + oxygen + water), i.e Oxygen. As the oxygen rises it is combined with hydrogen in the atmosphere to form water. This then turns into clouds and starts raining again, then the cycle repeats itself. This is why it rains over forests more often than a desert. So the solution is to plant more trees to soak up the CO2. Nature itself produces far more CO2 than we do. We are only attributed to 5% of global emissions and of that only 10% is actually as a result of fossil fuel burning ( http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/nitrous-oxide-sources ).

I don't believe anything I read, I look at the facts, and the facts tell me that something's not quite right about the whole global warming debate. Considering we have not had any rise in temp in over 18 years despite us emitting more in that period, then ever before.

The final point I would like to make, is that we have trouble predicting the tomorrows weather, let alone 100 years in advance.

 

The weather is fine here and I could care less about Libya , Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and the Countries that are hot all the time . Do you think China and India care ?

 

Consensus has never been reached. The science is not settled, as a matter of fact, it would be absolutely UN-scientific to say so. Get some new propaganda, you guy's have worn this one out!

 

Ayuh,... I'm with ya man,..... I need 256' more feet of ocean to make my waterfront property to become ocean front property,.....

Up here in the Kingdom of Coumo, natural gas is greener, yet they banned drillin' for it,.....
Natural gas is greener, yet they're tryin' to stop the pipelines to move it,....
Nuclear is Green, yet they're shuttin' down perfectly good reactors,....

At the rate we're goin', the lights will go out in a couple more years of King Cuomo,...

 

The Japanese will build floating cities and save themselves, but because they are racist as hell will refuse entry to all but the best and brightest, leading to a golden city among rubble.

 

Scientific Consensus is not the same as settled science
It is, for instance, settled science that the earth is round, not flat
Before that became settled science, it was a scientific consensus
Newtonian physics was a scientific consensus that was not settled science, and ultimately was revised

Agw is a scientific consensus but is not settled science
Although parts of agw are in fact settled science
Like increasing atmospheric concentrations of co2,
Rising sea levels, etc

 

It's a shame that Fukashima happened and nuclear got such a bad rap.

France has something like 75% of their energy from nuclear and like 20% (I think) from hydro plants making them the setup I look to most.

Start with nuclear and slowly transition to more and more renewable energy as the tech gets better.

I mean, how many nuclear plants are there in the world and how many have failed? I am willing to bet more people die per year from pollution than from nuclear emissions.

Gotta take a gamble somewhere

- - - Updated - - -

You see them as racist because they want to keep their society homogeneous?

I think Tokyo especially is a modern marvel of a city, it is SLAMMED with people though. I wouldnt accept immigrants either, you basically are saying you are ok with hurting Japanese citizens because there WILL be an economic drain on letting mass immigration in.

Also, there are far worse countries that are what you claim to be "racist" than Japan....