Conspiracy theory confirmed

[deadeye]

Darn! Looks like suicide is the answer. However, not until I pollute the Earth further with my store of lead ammo! I just wish they would come out with "green" wood ammo. Who knows" I might get a billion dollar grant to pursue the idea? I could call them "Obullets"?

[JohnR]

It actually doesn't matter if she was talking about capitalism or fossil fuels, either way the global warming part is a lie to cover a hidden agenda. GW is not happening, they've lied about the temperatures and falsified other data, and gotten all the useful idiots to join them in bullying the rest of us into silence. Facts don't matter when you carry the bigger stick.

If an alternate fuel is discovered, natural capitalist market forces will prevail and it will pick up where oil leaves off. But there's plenty of oil in the ground, don't worry about it.

[ScottM]

Darn! Looks like suicide is the answer. However, not until I pollute the Earth further with my store of lead ammo! I just wish they would come out with "green" wood ammo. Who knows" I might get a billion dollar grant to pursue the idea? I could call them "Obullets"?

Sorry, suicide is illegal and your body contains arsenic and cyanide, so you might be fined for pollution if you dare die!

[knkali]

It actually doesn't matter if she was talking about capitalism or fossil fuels, either way the global warming part is a lie to cover a hidden agenda. GW is not happening, they've lied about the temperatures and falsified other data, and gotten all the useful idiots to join them in bullying the rest of us into silence. Facts don't matter when you carry the bigger stick.

If an alternate fuel is discovered, natural capitalist market forces will prevail and it will pick up where oil leaves off. But there's plenty of oil in the ground, don't worry about it.

yes if an alt energy source is used, the same economic forces would be applied to it.

However, there is no free ride when it comes to energy use. No matter what energy you use. All we are doing is ultimately problem shifting. Just me 2 centavos.

[ScottM]

It actually doesn't matter if she was talking about capitalism or fossil fuels, either way the global warming part is a lie to cover a hidden agenda. GW is not happening, they've lied about the temperatures and falsified other data, and gotten all the useful idiots to join them in bullying the rest of us into silence. Facts don't matter when you carry the bigger stick.

If an alternate fuel is discovered, natural capitalist market forces will prevail and it will pick up where oil leaves off. But there's plenty of oil in the ground, don't worry about it.

I knew I could depend on you John! [emoji23]. I'll dare not tell you to research the data first-hand instead of reading conspiracy sites, because you'll just say that scientists with decades of training, centuries of method and millennia of data are far less reliable than the interwebs. [emoji17]

You can choose to pop your head in the sand about finite non-renewable energy sources - that's your right.

[Armybrat]

Am I the only one here who watched the History Channel's extensive series called "Life Without People"?

Google that up - maybe you could stream it from one of those newfangled web-whatevers.

[Bawanna]

Am I the only one here who watched the History Channel's extensive series called "Life Without People"?

Google that up - maybe you could stream it from one of those newfangled web-whatevers.

I think we speak the same puter language, although stream is a new word on me. I'm familiar with the newfangled web whatevers though.

[muggsy]

According to the scientific experts we were supposed to be in serious trouble long ago due to over population. We were headed into the next ice age in the middle 70's. The next the curse of mankind was global warming. When that proved to be wrong they changed the name to global climate change. The only thing that these predictions all have in common is that they are all wrong. To date green energy isn't cost effective. If not for government subsidies green energy wouldn't exits. It may be viable in the future when technology catches up, but not until then. Coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power is the energy of today and it probably will be for the next 100 years or more.

[Longitude Zero]

The earth warms and cools based upon its own schedule. During the Age of the Dinosaurs it was much, much warner and that was way before fossil fuels. We have also had numerous Ice Ages. The Human Caused GW crowd has NO CLUE how to explain the earths natural cycles. It is pure hubris and arrogance coupled to abject stupidity to thin we have much of an effect on the global climate. Miniscule effect at best.

[knkali]

According to the scientific experts we were supposed to be in serious trouble long ago due to over population. We were headed into the next ice age in the middle 70's. The next the curse of mankind was global warming. When that proved to be wrong they changed the name to global climate change. The only thing that these predictions all have in common is that they are all wrong. To date green energy isn't cost effective. If not for government subsidies green energy wouldn't exits. It may be viable in the future when technology catches up, but not until then. Coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power is the energy of today and it probably will be for the next 100 years or more.

modern man has been on this planet for approx. 200000 years and civilization as we know of it approx. 6000 years. To say that we are not in trouble based on the approx. 45 years that you cited above as the qualifier from when the scientific community earnestly started to say we are seem cavalier? Could it be that we are in trouble but not enough time has gone by until the average Joe is impacted enough to realize it? While I do not hold GW as an absolute, I do believe that we are a species, like many before us, who are at the risk of over utilizing their natural resources and thereby go extinct. Laws of nature seem to be absolute in this regard--no?

[SlowBurn]

Conspiracy theory confirmed

According to the scientific experts we were supposed to be in serious trouble long ago due to over population. We were headed into the next ice age in the middle 70's. The next the curse of mankind was global warming. When that proved to be wrong they changed the name to global climate change. The only thing that these predictions all have in common is that they are all wrong. To date green energy isn't cost effective. If not for government subsidies green energy wouldn't exits. It may be viable in the future when technology catches up, but not until then. Coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power is the energy of today and it probably will be for the next 100 years or more.

+1
Also, if they were really serious about reducing "greenhouse gasses" and "carbon footprints" they would be pushing nuclear power like mad. But as JohnR points out, that's not the agenda it's just the latest excuse.

[ScottM]

The earth warms and cools based upon its own schedule. During the Age of the Dinosaurs it was much, much warner and that was way before fossil fuels. We have also had numerous Ice Ages. The Human Caused GW crowd has NO CLUE how to explain the earths natural cycles. It is pure hubris and arrogance coupled to abject stupidity to thin we have much of an effect on the global climate. Miniscule effect at best.

Sorry but that's not true. Natural cycles are easy to spot in the core samples. It's the accelerated change deltas occurring in the last hundred years that widely diverge from those cycles.

[knkali]

+1
Also, if they were really serious about reducing "greenhouse gasses" and "carbon footprints" they would be pushing nuclear power like mad. But as JohnR points out, that's not the agenda it's just the latest excuse.

Nuke is the way to go....best bang for the buck by far. I agree, if we are serious about carbon foot print and greenhouse gases there should be more nuke plants coming on line.

[ScottM]

+1
Also, if they were really serious about reducing "greenhouse gasses" and "carbon footprints" they would be pushing nuclear power like mad. But as JohnR points out, that's not the agenda it's just the latest excuse.

Actually several climatologists and environmentalists ARE pushing for nuclear. Take James Lovelock - he's the one who came up with the "Gaia" concept of the earth being an integrated life system after working for NASA in the 60s. He believes that Nuclear energy is an inevitable part of the environment, though he has also expressed concerns about man's ability to safely manage the level of nuclear infrastructure required to make enough of a difference. Well-known meltdowns at Fukashima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island didn't help. Plus, reactors are exceedingly expensive and few companies, not even Haliburton or GE are willing to fund them themselves - they want the public to pay and/or guarantee coverage against losses, which tells you something important about the business model of Nuclear power - it's not the holy grail we wish it to be, even when you set aside the serious issues of waste management, security and operational risk.

[knkali]

Sorry but that's not true. Natural cycles are easy to spot in the core samples. It's the accelerated change deltas occurring in the last hundred years that widely diverge from those cycles.

Understood, but still not a definitive cause and effect. Anecdotal at best.