Saturday, February 03, 2007

So it's decided, right?

UN report: human activity very likely causes global warming.

No surprise here. The UN has been on board with the global warming hysteria for a while. My position is that there is too much evidence disputing this claim to make drastic changes that would adversely affect the economy. I guess that makes me a denier. Whatever.

Much of my suspicion is the fact that the global warming hysteria has targeted America. It seems everyone points a finger at us and says we’re killing the earth. But the evidence shows China and India are responsible for more carbon output than us, so why aren’t they being attacked as well? The US is taking action on this arena. We are making efforts to reduce carbon emissions, but that doesn’t seem to be enough. Is that because part of the motivation of the global warming alarmists is to bring us down a notch? Basically, until the UN focuses the majority of its pressure on China and India to reduce carbon emissions, I will consider their true motives questionable at best and will have a very hard time accepting human-induced climate change. If the key to this problem was simply reducing carbon emissions than it makes sense to pressure those most responsible.

On the same level at home, converting to nuclear power would go a long way in reducing our own carbon emissions. Wind power, solar power and hydro power simply can’t meet the demand of the consumer. Nuclear power can. It’s clean and it’s safe, and in some degrees it’s actually healthy. But the alarmists won’t go for that. Which again leads me to question their motives. Seems to me they’re more interested in societal and scientific regression than actually saving the earth. Their resistance to nuclear power and demands that we “change our ways” in regards to our lifestyle is again simply unrealistic. Thus the standoff we now face.

And what about the conflicting evidence? Did this report address that? From what I see, No. It seems like the UN basically is saying "those people are wrong" without offering an explanation as to why they are wrong. Folks, there is some significant scientific evidence out there that directly conflicts with what the UN is saying about climate change. Shouldn't that be explained? If we debunk that evidence, shouldn't we explain why we debunk it? There are some questions out there the scientific community has not answered. For instance, if this has been ongoing for 50 years, why haven't the sea levels risen already? In study after study, there is zero evidence of increasing sea levels. And even though surface temps have increased (which could be explained by urbanization), the temps in the troposphere (which is a major player in earth's climate) have not. These are just 2 questions worth addressing, and the UNs report doesn't seem to have done that.

So that’s part of the reason, aside from the conflicting evidence, why I don’t buy human-induced climate change as a reality. There are obvious ways to solve the problem without harming our economy – ways that we could ALL agree on without much resistance, but the alarmists aren’t agreeable to those. With that in mind, how much of a problem can this really be? The only reason I see for the alarmists resistance to nuclear power is the likely presence of other motives. If we were really on the verge of disaster, wouldn’t it be wise to do whatever we could to avert that disaster, even if that means agreeing to more nuclear power? That’s just applying simple logic to a complex problem.

7 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

"If we were really on the verge of disaster, wouldn’t it be wise to do whatever we could to avert that disaster, even if that means agreeing to more nuclear power?"

Just as many people look at the great evidence and think that there is evidence to suggest that human activity is contributing to global warming, many people look at the evidence and don't think nuclear power is a valid solution.

So, no, we don't think it wise at all.

Robert M. said...

You know, no one is going to stop driving gasoline cars. Not even liberals and enviromentalists. Why don't they try to deal with this problem (who cares what causes it) instead of trying to implement stupid ideas?

Dan Trabue said...

You know, no one is going to stop abortions - not even conservatives and preachers. Why don't they deal with the problem instead of implementing stupid ideas.

You know, no one is going to stop murders - not even talk show hosts and right wingers. Why don't the deal with the problem instead of implementing stupid ideas....

Perhaps implementing regulations is a way of dealing with the problem?

John The Patriot said...

It's amazing to me that we face this global crisis, and I propose a very reasonable solution that just gets cast aside. One side wants to reduce greenhouse emissions, the other side does not want the economy to be adversely effected. So a perfect compromise is nuclear power - yet it gets swept aside as "invalid" without an actual explanation of why. That's why I don't buy this garbage. When we face real problems, then we're willing to listen to real solutions. This is all about politics like everything else.

Dan Trabue said...

"I propose a very reasonable solution that just gets cast aside."

We don't accept nuclear power as reasonable. And let's set aside the dangerous radioactive waste issue for a minute.

Nuclear power can't replace all the fossil fuels we are using - there'd quickly be a fuel shortage issue there if we tried. For another thing, nuclear power can't replace the petroleum we are using in our cars at the rate we are using it at a price we can afford.

You can't just say, "here's a solution, now quit complaining" when your solution isn't a solution at all.

The only real solution we'll have is to reduce our consumption - and we'll get there either
1. by being painfully forced into it when fossil fuels are so far gone they're no longer cheap, or
2. when we deliberately choose to reduce our usage.

That IS the "real solution," we can't overextend ourselves, it's not responsible, wise or even possible.

John The Patriot said...

Maybe this isn't such a big problem after all. You really don't seem interested in reaching a solution. Yes, nuclear power may have it's limitations, but what's attractive about it is its cleanliness and its availability. We have the technology to reduce our coal burning power plants considerably RIGHT NOW, why not do it? At the very least it would buy us time to allow for research into hydrogen based fuels or take a step towards converting the automative industry to grain-based.

That just seems logical to me. What doesn't sound logical is saying that we need to regress as a society and quit using so much energy. That's realistic to you? That's a better, more viable solution to you? What about the population? More people means more energy demand. Are we to stop multiplying? Or maybe we should impose a China-like cap on children in the household.

I don't get this "the only answer is to change our ways" attitude, because if that's the ONLY answer, then we are truly doomed. Again, man has never gone backwards scientifically, yet that's what the environuts are asking now. Scientists seem to think that we have 50 years at best before the damage is permanent - so do we have a better chance "changing" our ways to what they were 100 years ago, or advancing to more evolved ways of life?

Dan Trabue said...

"What doesn't sound logical is saying that we need to regress as a society and quit using so much energy. That's realistic to you? That's a better, more viable solution to you?"

I'm saying quite clearly that this is the reality. Fossil fuels will be going away eventually, cheap petroleum almost certainly in the next 10-100 years.

There is not a replacement available out there to allow us to continue to live beyond our means as we have been living. We use nearly 100 million barrels of oil a day globally. Can you tell me what is out there that can match that amount of energy on a daily basis?

If not, then we must assume that we WILL be cutting back to a less energy dependent lifestyle. Not necessarily because we like it but because that's the reality.

This is not going "backwards scientifically", it's living within our means. Science will still be around. Opportunities for technological advancement and business enterprise will still be around. It's just that we won't be using the same amount of energy.

That's just a mathematical reality, not a backwards step.