I guess that if your friend was a conservative you’d have more respect for him; does this not strike you as being extremely shallow and opinionated.
We live on a planet with finite resources, for centuries civilisation has relied upon fossil fuels but in decades they’re gone; what happens then? It makes absolute sense to try and preserve these resources and to consume less, thus your friend has a very valid point. Perhaps you don’t agree and see no reason to conserve what little we have.
Instead of allowing politicians to make your mind up for you, you may want to look into the subject of global warming yourself and conduct an impartial evaluation of the evidence.
Yes, global warming is a way for environmentalists to convert people to their religion. If the solution were building lots of nuclear power plants, suddenly lots of global warming believers would become skeptics.
Global Warming ended in 2012, confirmed by our Satelite reports 11/28/2012. All 4 seasons have returned to normal naturally. Maybe your not old enough to know how it was 36 years ago. Well this is wintertime, then spring, then summer, then fall. By the way My Global Teams from all walks of life found the true cause of Global Warming to be a ALIEN Organism, but My Triple Output solution implemented by a hostile Nation Turned Off Global Warming. (civilian) Global Command.
Like most deniers who comment here you seem tied up in left and right and politics (you left out communists).
This is about science, you say your friend is a teacher (of unknown field) but lets a say a general high school teacher what would qualify them as an expert to comment of AGW in any case, or better yet be "in on the conspiracy" deniers rather futilely keep trying to create around the science, how many different conspiracies is that I've lost count.
I know hundreds of scientists and many do follow politics some the left some the right, but many find both sides a waste of time, but all of science thinks AGW is happening.
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#g...
And frankly that you can't see the benefit of preserving our resources is a good thing says more about you than your friend. It is interesting to me that those who follow your line have a knee jerk reaction to things like recycling (things that mean you might have to put in a little effort) when the logic of energy saved is pretty obvious to everyone else. Something like Aluminium production is a multi-step process, recycling this material cuts out several of the first and most energy intensive processes in it's production.
As with AGW, corporate groups with a vested interest in mining, don't like the recycling process as it reduces need for their product, so they have funded decades worth of mis-information about things like aluminium recycling, with nonsense like documentaries from Penn & Teller, it says a lot about the people who believe this nonsense that they would rather believe stage magicians than scientists.
Just as climate deniers would rather believe mad English Lords and a weatherman on a blog than real scientists.
Equivalent to saying, "I'm sure this snake oil will do you SOME good!" In the meantime I will get rich and laugh at you all the way to the bank.
Quote by James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist: "Billions of dollars of grant money [over $50 billion] are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story."
Quote by Tom McElmurry, meteorologist, former tornado forecaster in Severe Weather Service: “Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat hole to solve a problem which doesn’t exist....Packs of rats wait in that [rat] hole to reap trillions coming down it to fill advocates pockets....The money we are about to spend on drastically reducing carbon dioxide will line the pockets of the environmentalists....some politicians are standing in line to fill their pockets with kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts....In case you haven’t noticed, it is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the horror warnings by government officials and former vice-presidents.”
He sounds just like this person.
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Justice and equality are code words for Communism. They really don't care what path they take to get us there they just want to take us there. If they have to lie, it matters not.
Notice Trevor: "What difference does it make...?" Now he is sounding just like Hillary.
Just for a moment consider that we may need to actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions for legitimate reasons. Can you think of a way that we could do that without the radical leftist taking over? Let's get creative....
Edit:
Then we have sagebrush (who frequently quotes Nazi's to further his cause) who tries to uses association fallacies [1] (often by misquoting and even outright fabrications) that because those people said something that sounds suspicious, that the whole scientific community is "bad"
So here are some quotes by Sagebrush:
"Execute all those who voted for OBAMA",
"Sustainability is a codeword for communism",
"Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch"'
"Justice and equality are codewords for communism",
"God has his hand on the thermostat".
So while it is obvious what kind of person Sagebrush is, if we were to use his "logic" [1] it would make ALL deniers, genocidal, Nazi loving, justice, equality and sustainability hating, religious extremists. Although it would not be unreasonable to assume that his fans [2] are.
And what are your friend's positions on abortion and gay marriage? That is what makes someone a leftist.
"even if we are wrong about Global Warming, what difference does it make!, It's still a good thing to make society conserve more! and consume less!"
What's wrong with that? As others have said, we live on a planet with limited resources.
Madd Maxx
Since the one good thing about YA's new format is that you can no longer hide your questions from those who will give you real answers
And why are you using RSS data. For all the ad homs you have against GISS, I have news for you. Ad homs are not scientific arguments. Nevertheless, UAH shows the same warming as GISS.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
And now, I wait for you to respond with ad homs against Roy Spencer.
Yes, but it's semantics for this reason. How is he "far left" for feeling this way? Shouldn't conservatives want to conserve? Are there not plenty of conservatives who are absolutely enraged by pro-growth monetary policies? Doesn't the whole "family values" crowd promote staying home and reading the Bible over going to the mall to buy more crap? Maybe they should make common cause with your pal.
Man made climate change is real AND burning as little fossil fuel is a good idea. You're wrong and he's right....
Uh, what? Do you sleep with a gun under your pillow so you can shoot the colored people who are clamoring to break into your home?
He is a teacher, and a radical leftist. I only associate with him because he is an old friend from college. I was a liberal in college, too. But then I grew up. He never did. He went the other way more extreme. We were exchanging emails about man-made global warming, and he got frustrated and blurted out, "even if we are wrong about Global Warming, what difference does it make!, It's still a good thing to make society conserve more! and consume less!
No, he was probably trying to get you to see reason.
Even if, somehow, we truly are wrong about AGW, even if emitting CO2 from fossil fuels isn't screwing up the planet, it is unquestionably the case that fossil fuels, at least on any reasonable time frame, are a *finite* resource. We will run out eventually, and are already running out of "easy" oil to drill for. So, *aside* from needing to stop burning fossil fuels because of AGW, we need to stop burning fossil fuels before we run out and throw our economy into chaos from the lack of alternatives.
Kind of like "If you won't quit smoking for your health, will you at least do it so you no longer smell terrible?" or whatever.
It's not a "secret agenda", it's more like "We should do this for this reason, and that reason, and this other reason over here, so even if that reason is false, we should still do it'...
So you basically want to comsume and/or destroy all the worlds resources and eliminate all life on earth. I think you just blurted out the truth about the denialist agenda.
There is nothing good about forcing people to live in austerity for no reason. And there is nothing good about spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on a SCAM. Your liberal friend has fallen back onto his liberal mindset that slavery for the masses is somehow better than freedom.
Climate Cultists are so desperate they are now pushing the idea that warming causes cooling. They are a sorry misguided lot.
-----------------------
If a friend were addicted to cigarettes, another friend might say to the first,
"Even if we are wrong about tobacco causing cancer, it's still good for your heart and cardiovascular system to smoke less."
But, of course, scientific reality does not depend on anyone's ability or inability to distinguish it from fossil fuel industry anti-science lies and deceptions. But anyone with an open might read this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
Or take note of this:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Climate-Chan...
Mike...Sorry, afraid you might have missed out on both the redistribution of weath and scientific knowledge??
No, but he did trick you into exposing yourself as someone too simple-minded to know the difference between physics and conservation.
>>I was a liberal in college<<
That is irrelevant. The important fact is that you have always been scientifically illiterate.
You should ask him about the wealth redistrubution part
