lazn

Yep, and just like a high school teacher, a geologist, and a meteorologist, an admiral has no time travel device to tell us the honest truth of what is going to happen.

RK1

The US military "prepares" for everything, as well they should. They spent 40 years planning for the Soviets coming through the Fulda Gap to invade Europe. They planned to meet a Soviet/ChiCom/Cuban invasion through Mexico. Now they're planning to protect the assets of the Rockefeller's, Rothchild's and the House of Saud if the turd world is destabilized by "global warming". Doesn't mean it's gonna happen. Doesn't mean they BELIEVE it's gonna happen. It's their job to plan for every possibility.

And what if this tiny portion of the human race called "America" stops producing CO2 while 1.3 billion Indians and 1.4 billion Chinese Communists keep pumping it out? Should we draft Redone and 25 or 40 million others and go teach them a lesson? How would we pay for it? With windmills and solar panels? Breeze powered beanie copters?

Redone

Completely agree with you here. That won't work. China seems to get it that global warming will not be good for business. 90+ % of Indian citizens support government action on this, and they have a pretty good democracy.

We'll all see whether that translates to real cooperation at the global climate meeting at the end of the year.

But my main point in posting here was to discuss science, not politics. There's a lot of nonsense out there on both sides, from "we're all gonna die" to "we're not warming". From Greenpeace to Bob Carter. I just want to support the scientific community, since I used to be one (not a climatologist). To show people the data. That's not to say that everything is settled, or that there aren't real issues about exactly what to do about it.

CentralCoaster

China made it quite clear at the last summit that they don't give a damn.

RK1

Neither the Indians or the ChiCom have anything but contempt for anything resembling Kyoto. It makes no sense for us or the Euros to sign on unless and until they do. You say Bob Carter is an "embarrassment", what about the other world class, world recognized scientist he mentioned. Are they an "embarrassment" too?

Have you noticed that any half *** scientist who kneels down and sucks on the 'global warming' theory gets goobermint funding and praise in the NYT while world class and world recognized "skeptics" get jack ****? What's up with that?

What do you think about Al Gore's world wide private jet excursions with an SUV motorcade, V8 engines running, AC on high, waiting for His Environmental Majesty on the tarmac?

RK1

Barak Obama, who cares oh so deeply about "climate change", uses Air Force One to fly his wife and kids to Paris France for lunch. Serfs like me are supposed to trade in our F150s for a Prius Hybrid? Try buying a f*cking clue.

RK1

Liquidogged

It is not in any way the military's job to prepare for everything, otherwise why bother collecting data? They have a finite amount of resources, which they are realizing more and more as these wars drag on. They have the ability to prepare for many things because of how much of the budget goes to defense funding, but they can't prepare for every possible eventuality. It's simply not possible to do so.

The point of them collecting all this data is so that they can prepare for circumstances that are MORE LIKELY than others. And what they're talking about in the article is not a "what if global warming happens" scenario. They are talking about the actual climate change effects they EXPECT to see based on the data they have. Go back and read it again. They are not debating a damn thing about climate change. Their data says it's happening and they are preparing for the direct effects of that on national security. Melting ice = new lanes of travel that must be defended/monitored, drought = famine = mass migration = border security problems, and so on. They are not debating whether or not the climactic events will occur - that is a forgone conclusion for them. They are planning how to respond to the security challenges that these climactic events will cause.

And RK1, you're contradicting yourself when you mention the huge populations of China/India compared to the states. On the one hand, you talk about how our population is too small to mean anything when it comes to emissions, but on the other hand you argue that all the illegal immigrants coming in to our country are going to mean something when it comes to emissions. Even if a hundred million more showed up we'd still be dwarfed by China or India. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either America (illegals included) is a "tiny portion of the human race" or it ain't. Which is it?

And anyways, saying we're not going to stop shitting where we eat because those other guys won't stop is as dumb as it gets, in my view. Being the first among developed nations to seriously cut back C02 emissions isn't showing some kind of weakness or stupidity - it's showing the courage and foresight to lead. Leaders don't look at everyone else around them and say, "well if they aren't doing it, then neither am I." And no, we won't have to send any soldiers to enforce our views on anyone - look where that's gotten us recently. We can lead as we've done in the past: by setting an example that inspires the rest of the world to follow.

That definitely applies to technology. Look at the car, an invention which came of age in America. The world raced to utilize this technology not because we forced it down their throats at gunpoint, but because it was obviously useful. The same will go for any improvements and innovations we make in the green tech field. If it's good, people around the world will want it, and they'll be willing to pay for it. Sounds a hell of a lot better than just grabbing all the oil we can and holing up in our bunkers.

RK1

CentralCoaster

Come on guys, if you're gonna let this thread die, you have to start something else. Maybe we can talk about drowning polar bears or something.


RK1, You're pissing into the wind. The environmentalists aren't saying illegal immigration here doesn't contribute, they're saying there's bigger fish to fry with other 3rd world countries. You're also assuming that they wouldn't breed like rabbits if we had good border policy, which is at best only partially true.

And then you're saying you don't think it's contributing to climate change. So it seems like you're asking people to subscribe to your cause for reasons you yourself don't even agree with?

Anyhow, drive safe and watch for roadkill!

VTRsurfer

Sorry I haven't posted on this thread lately. I've been too busy bludgeoning Harp Seals.

lazn

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...-climate_N.htm
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/08/gl...2-in-2008.html
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2349/D...ource-scarcity

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ind...1-fc38ed4f85e3
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-EE9098538277
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doo.../walter-starck

On a side note, the ICE is good:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feat...e-environment/

I am heading out of town tomorrow so won't be responding for a while. But perhaps some of these links can stir up some more conversation.

RK1

Butter fried baby seal on whole wheat with lettuce, tomato and pepper jack cheese. A side of B&M Baked Beans. Yummy!

RK1

My opinion about CO2/man made "global warming" would be utterly beside the point to any real environmentalist, even if they believed in man cause global warming.

They would have no reason whatever to object to anything I've said, claimed or advocated.

But for massive third world immigration, our population would have stabilized a bit over 200 million. We currently have over 300 million. Projected to exceed 400 million within a generation.

Forget about CO2 for a minute.

How much forest must be leveled to provide housing for 200 million more people? How much oil must be pumped, refined and burned to provide transportation? How many rivers dammed for reservoirs and water supply?

How much more coal burned to provide the electricity? How many more plastic bags and bottles?

Back to CO2;

Which society will produce more CO2? The one with 200 million people or the one with 400 million and growing exponentially?

Thirty years ago the environmental movement cared about such questions, realized even if you hoped to "save the planet" you had to start with yourself/family/neighborhood/city/state /country. If you don't have the moral courage to save your own people/culture/country, what friggin' use are you to "the planet"?

The movement has been co-opted, purchased and corrupted by the elite's World Wide Church of Climate Change. It's about money, power and control of ordinary people. People who say otherwise are either fools or liars.

Moto Man

The Pope needs to get clue and tell people it's NOT ok to not to breed like rabbits.

autoteach

Tsk Tsk

CentralCoaster

Again, those 200 million more people are going to consume that whether or not they're born in Mexico or as anchor babies in the U.S.
Failed border policy doesn't cause people to breed like rabbits, stupidity does. Even if you send them all back and build a 100-ft tall electrified fence with heat sensing miniguns every 500 feet, those people are still going to breed, consume, and produce CO2.

You will only reduce or maintain current CO2 levels by convincing people to consume less, or by taxing them, or killing them, or producing goods and energy more efficiently, or planting more trees.

RK1

The 200 million are a combination of those we let in and the children who we encouraged them to have by subsidizing their birth, health care, education etc. Encouragement not available where they came from.

You get more of what you subsidize.

There are roughly 350 million white people in the Americas and 350 million in Europe. If Europeans had not come to the Americas, do you think there would be 700 million people in Europe? It doesn't work that way.

And by accepting tens of millions of people from a place like Mexico you force America to be the safety valve allowing Mexico to avoid dealing with its own social pathologies, injustice and birthrate.

Once again, and I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand;

I'm not interested in trying to save "The Planet". I'm not interested in trying to save Mexico. I'm trying to keep my own country from being dragged down to third world status.

If as you say, "...those people are going to breed, consume and produce CO2." in any case, excuse me for asking but, why would you want them doing it here instead of their own nation?

If you can't save a planet full of Mexicos, at least consider trying to protect and save our own country.

If we can't fix the whole third world it isn't "fair" for us to live well and protect what we've built?

They're gonna breed anyway so we might as well let 'em breed here? What the hell kind of thinking is that?

Liquidogged

I think the point being made here is that America and Mexico both exist on the same planet. Whether you like it or not, we're in this together. Go ahead, shut down the border and kick all the illegals out. Climate change doesn't give a damn.

Also, am I supposed to be offended, or are my arguments supposed to be nullified, by talk of how the environmentalist movement has been co-opted or diluted? Have I ever identified myself as an environmentalist? No, partly because then I'm associated with a movement that I sometimes agree with and sometimes don't, both in theory and in methods. I'm just a thoughtful human, or I try to be. Looking at my arguments and saying the environmentalist movement sucks is a waste of everyone's time. Doesn't disprove anything anyone has said here, especially the mountains of data posted by ReDone and others.

Ditto on the talk of eating baby/harp/any other kind of seals. What, am I supposed to go crying into my PETA brochures?

Anyways, if you're not interested in trying to save the planet, then I'm not sure how you intend to leave a better planet to your children. Or I guess you don't.

RK1

Yeah, we live on the planet with Mexicans and 5.5 billion other people, 4 billion of whom are dirt poor. About 3.9 billion of them would like to move here. How many do you want?

The world is organized into nation states. Mine is called America. I want to leave a better America for my children. I hope Mexicans want to leave a better Mexico for theirs, etc. etc.

Tens of millions of poor Mexicans have come here in the past 20 years. Is the portion of the planet called Mexico a better place for Mexicans and their children now?

Why do you think allowing America to be flooded with tens off millions third world poor will result in "a better planet" for your children? How does that work?

CentralCoaster

It is a problem, but it isn't very relevant to an environmental discussion.

I do think its stupid to be investing all this time and tax subsidies into alternative energies and pollution control if 96% of the world doesn't care. Were supposed to believe its an investment because in 5 years China is going to pay us billions of dollars for this technology and become dependent on us? Uh no. We'll just be poor, overtaxed, and will never get out of it what we put into it economically.

The only way we can force them to care is by requiring their imports meet our same environmental standards (and labor rights too). This will also increase their production costs so they won't be able to undercut American businesses in as many ways. China is laughing at us with all these self-imposed restrictions we have which increases our cost of doing business, all for the sake of unproven "science" and soothsayers.

RK1

Gotta disagree with you there. Assume for argument that man caused warming is reality and will continue. Which society is better prepared to survive and maintain itself? The one with a well educated and stable sized population or one twice as large, same geographical space, same resources and with a huge welfare dependent underclass? Which society will have the ability to invest in new tech and which will struggle to fund underclass dependency?

I agree with everything you said below this point. And whether the world destabilizes because of global warming or over population (which I think much more likely) what you stated below re; 96% don't care, is all the more reason for you to agree with I've said above. Don't understand why you wouldn't.

[/QUOTE]I do think its stupid to be investing all this time and tax subsidies into alternative energies and pollution control if 96% of the world doesn't care. Were supposed to believe its an investment because in 5 years China is going to pay us billions of dollars for this technology and become dependent on us? Uh no. We'll just be poor, overtaxed, and will never get out of it what we put into it economically.

The only way we can force them to care is by requiring their imports meet our same environmental standards (and labor rights too). This will also increase their production costs so they won't be able to undercut American businesses in as many ways. China is laughing at us with all these self-imposed restrictions we have which increases our cost of doing business, all for the sake of unproven "science" and soothsayers.[/QUOTE]

Liquidogged

It doesn't work AND ALSO I NEVER SAID THAT. Don't put words in my mouth.

I made that comment in response to your statement that you don't care about the planet. Never, ever did I say that flooding this country with poor immigrants is good for the planet. I do think that bringing a couple hundred million more is trifling compared to population growth in the developing world, but that's not the same thing.

Liquidogged

Where is the evidence that we're not going to get good returns on investment in green tech? I'm supposed to believe that? Why?

RK1

Good. Up until now you've seemed pretty hostile to the notion that border security and a pro sustainability immigration policy has any value.

Increasing the population from 300 to 400 million might seem trifling to you now, but what if you are correct about global warming?

What if the result is a nation of 400 million with enough fresh water for 350 million of them?

RK1

Speaking of putting words in others mouths;

I never said "I don't care about the planet".

I said I'm not interested in trying to save "The Planet". Note the quotation marks. I'm poking a little fun here. Saving the whole planet is a pretty tall order.

We can only do the best we can with our piece of the planet. There are over 200 sovereign nations. If you go to any of them and demand they start saving the planet, most of them will put you in prison.

happytrack44