Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[SoCalCoug]

But wasn't it already too late to solve the problem before we even recognized the problem? I'm talking practical solutions that wouldn't plunge us into a worldwide depression. Blaming this all on Republicans is asinine. I agree that the GOP has been opposed to a lot of mitigation measures, but the cost of those types of measures weighed against the benefit has never made sense.

Our time would have been much better spent working collectively to prepare for the possible effects of warming and at the same time funding research that has a potential to make a large impact (carbon sequestration, etc.) De facto outlawing of coal plants through regulation is counter productive because it creates cheaper coal that is used overseas by less efficient plants.

Regarding nuclear, I'm no expert by any means, but isn't their nuclear technology that produces much less waste and is much safer than our current system. It is my understanding that the only reason we use the current technology is that the byproduct can be used for nuclear weapons. Maybe someone who knows more than I can weigh in on this one.

Since we can't even agree that global warming is happening (thanks Republicans!) of course we're not at the point to see what can be done. Perhaps if people would get off their political platforms and put their puny brains working toward solutions, some would manifest themselves. As it is, one segment is so consumed with preserving Big Oil that it's likely not going to happen. It may be our great-grandchildren who suffer from our politically-driven intellectual dishonesty.

[Omaha 680]

I don't know about them, but I'm fine with nuclear power.

Then it sounds like if you and I were in charge, we could have a reasonable discussion and perhaps come to some compromise despite having different priorities. Too bad we aren't in charge.

[Omaha 680]

Then it sounds like if you and I were in charge, we could have a reasonable discussion and perhaps come to some compromise despite having different priorities. Too bad we aren't in charge.

Nevermind. It's hard for me to take someone seriously who uses the phrase Big Oil. Capitalized, no less!

[woot]

Then it sounds like if you and I were in charge, we could have a reasonable discussion and perhaps come to some compromise despite having different priorities. Too bad we aren't in charge.

Doubtful. A politician can't demand change in the face of public opinion. It does no good and lowers the approval rating. That's one of the reasons why nobody governs on the same platform they ran on. In this political climate, someone whose opinions perfectly matched my own would still have a decent chance of my disapproval.

I also don't know how "reasonable discussion" can even happen anymore. The people in charge of policy seem more likely to be in the pocket of lobbyists, and there seem to be absolutely no consequences for spouting off the most insanely ignorant anti-science bullcrap I've ever heard in the service of one's financial masters. Even republicans should be up in arms at the ignorance on display every time a congressional committee addresses a scientific issue. Regardless of what you think about global warming, everybody knows the arguments used in those hearings are batshit.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Since we can't even agree that global warming is happening (thanks Republicans!) of course we're not at the point to see what can be done. Perhaps if people would get off their political platforms and put their puny brains working toward solutions, some would manifest themselves. As it is, one segment is so consumed with preserving Big Oil that it's likely not going to happen. It may be our great-grandchildren who suffer from our politically-driven intellectual dishonesty.

The ol' Big Oil canard. Do you honestly think Big Oil has been worried about wind and solar projects?

Big Oil didn't cause these these researchers to ignore the benefits of nuclear power. They did that themselves. Big Oil has laughed all the way to the bank while the federal government has been pissing money away on the likes of Solyndra. Natural gas used to be deemed a very good alternative to coal, then when it became abundant due to fracking it wasn't so great and the loons focused on more wind power and solar boondoggles. Even choosing natural gas over nuclear would be a huge improvement, but natural gas wasn't good enough.

The Global Warming crowd are useful idiots for Big Oil. The only thing that could put a dent in Big Oil is a massive upgrade of the power grid and an infrastructure that makes electric cars an economic alternative. The only way to make it economical without dumping a ton of carbon into the atmosphere is by committing all resources to natural gas and nuclear power plants instead of these idiotic wind and solar projects.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

There is common ground and a rationale for a nuclear and/or natural gas power infrastructure in this country aside from global warming goals. Cleaner air and putting the screws to the Middle East and Russia and keeping more money within the country are things that would command support from a massive majority of Americans.

Eisenhower was impressed by the autobahns and built the interstate system and its paid massive dividends for our economy over the past 50-60 years. Obama could have concentrated the stimulus on improving our power plants and power infrastructure. It would have been a lasting legacy and it would have been enormously popular. Instead he frittered it away to his green donors and on spendthrift state governments.

[byu71]

Instead he frittered it away to his green donors and on spendthrift state governments.

If he hadn't done this he would have never got elected to have a legacy anyway.

[old_gregg]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us...Hock-Soon.html

[SandYFan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us...Hock-Soon.html

1. This is a definite conflict of interest and I don't like the Koch brothers in the first place.

2. This does nothing to prove the reality of climate change theory.

3. This is not unique to either side of this debate.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us...Hock-Soon.html

Lol.

1.2 million dollars? Yeah, a real smoking gun compared to the billions the powerless US federal government pours in to the other side.

This is apparently the best the likes of Greenpeace can come up with to bolster the argument that big oil is funding the skepticism.

[old_gregg]

Lol.

1.2 million dollars? Yeah, a real smoking gun compared to the billions the powerless US federal government pours in to the other side.

This is apparently the best the likes of Greenpeace can come up with to bolster the argument that big oil is funding the skepticism.

it's one thing to get funding, it's another to consistently fail to disclose

[woot]

Lol.

1.2 million dollars? Yeah, a real smoking gun compared to the billions the powerless US federal government pours in to the other side.

This is apparently the best the likes of Greenpeace can come up with to bolster the argument that big oil is funding the skepticism.

What does this mean? The federal government is paying scientists to support AGW? Or are you just talking about the normal grant process?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Lol.

1.2 million dollars? Yeah, a real smoking gun compared to the billions the powerless US federal government pours in to the other side.

This is apparently the best the likes of Greenpeace can come up with to bolster the argument that big oil is funding the skepticism.

Typical false logic. Federal funding for GW research does not come with an expectation to spin the data to fit a certain narrative.

EDIT: Whoops. Woot beat me to it.

[cowboy]

Typical false logic. Federal funding for GW research does not come with an expectation to spin the data to fit a certain narrative.

EDIT: Whoops. Woot beat me to it.

I don't know the, extent, but it would be misleading to say the scientific community and the grant process are completely unbiased. For example, get a grant studying the economic feasibility of organic farming, and publish an article that shows organic farming cannot feed the country, let alone provide the exports the world has come to depend on. Then try to get funded for further research in the area and see how far you get. Maybe it depends on the discipline, but I know for certain that grants are more attainable in some areas if they have the focus de jour.

[old_gregg]

Maybe it depends on the discipline, but I know for certain that grants are more attainable in some areas if they have the focus de jour.

the soup lobby in this country must be stopped