Another Global Warming defector

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Adam

Why is it that those to deny Al Gore's assertion that man has a significant impact on global warming also oppose Al Gore's assertion that we should switch to renewable source electricity production within 10 years.

Source? I'm all for aggressively pursuing alternative energy solutions. Should the government mandate that it happens in 10 years? That would be insanity.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Adam

Why is it that those to deny Al Gore's assertion that man has a significant impact on global warming also oppose Al Gore's assertion that we should switch to renewable source electricity production within 10 years.

Even taking the global warming impact of man argument off the table, isn't it wise to stop enriching Arab dictators and start harnessing the free domestic sources?

I have a couple of quibbles with your assertions.

First, U.S. electricity is 100% domestically produced and it's one of our larger exports. Coal powered electricity does nothing to enrich Arab dictators. Rather, it provides well-paying jobs to lower skilled rural Americans.

Second, renewable isn't free. It will come at the cost of shutting down entire industries, though hopefully there would be an equal transfer of labor. It may also come at an overall higher price than we currently have. Though I do realize that we will eventually have to make the transition, it does come with a cost.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Adam

Why is it that those to deny Al Gore's assertion that man has a significant impact on global warming also oppose Al Gore's assertion that we should switch to renewable source electricity production within 10 years.

Even taking the global warming impact of man argument off the table, isn't it wise to stop enriching Arab dictators and start harnessing the free domestic sources?

Why is it that those who think Gore gives a damn about the environment rather than making a ton of money refuse to dispute the points made in this article?

And what makes you think those of us who see Gore's bullshit for what it is oppose renewable energy sources?

I'd much rather see you address the content of that article than change topics.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Adam

Why is it that those to deny Al Gore's assertion that man has a significant impact on global warming also oppose Al Gore's assertion that we should switch to renewable source electricity production within 10 years.

Even taking the global warming impact of man argument off the table, isn't it wise to stop enriching Arab dictators and start harnessing the free domestic sources?

If not for global warming, why the need to switch to renewable energy?

If your answer is energy independence, why not drill more and build nuke plants?

Yes, explore renewable sources, but why the desperate need to DO IT NOW! if not for the perceived threat of global warming?

[Venkman]

Not to get all psychological, but the root of this whole deal with the left is a hatred of oil and the freedom, mobility and prosperity it has afforded Americans. They hate cheap energy. They want us poorer, living in apartments in the city, riding around in bikes with cushiony granny seats. That way they figure we'll be more likely to accept their socialist bullshit. They want us more like "englightened" Europe.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'll tell you what I'll stack the hundreds of thousands of scientists who fall into the "We Should Do Something" Gore camp against the hundreds who fall into the "We Should Do Nothing" Bush camp and lets let the experts duke it out. Citing an article towards your side is not an argument. If I cite 10 on my side, is that an appropriate response? I let the scientists rebut his scientific arguments and provide a link for you when they do.

And you favor moving into renewable energy sources? Great. What actions do you propose the government take to encourage that move?

The thing that makes your side look like complete Neanderthals in this argument is that even if man has nothing to do with the cause of global warming, even if pollution does not raise the temperature a single degree there are compelling reasons to switch to solar, wind and geothermal--as you seem to agree. So why not spend your time promoting solar, wind and geothermal and stop fighting an irrelevant fight?

If there is no compelling need to supplant market mechanisms, why not wait for the market to make alternative sources economically viable?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Not to get all psychological, but the root of this whole deal with the left is a hatred of oil and the freedom, mobility and prosperity it has afforded Americans. They hate cheap energy. They want us poorer, living in apartments in the city, riding around in bikes with cushiony granny seats. That way they figure we'll be more likely to accept their socialist bullshit. They want us more like "englightened" Europe.

This is indeed the root of the problem. Oil is a vehicle of liberal socialist wrath.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

This is indeed the root of the problem. Oil is a vehicle of liberal socialist wrath.

THis is as ideological as anything the 'left' ever says.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

If there is no compelling need to supplant market mechanisms, why not wait for the market to make alternative sources economically viable?

I think the recent spike in oil prices has incentivized a lot of companies to pour in more capital for alternative energy R&D. Let's give them a few years to see what shakes out from that added investment.

The government can give those companies tax incentives, fund their own research and whatever else towards that end. The last thing they need to do, however is dictate a transition to alternative energy with mandated timelines and quotas.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

THis is as ideological as anything the 'left' ever says.

Go talk to the environmentalist who wants gasoline to be $10/gal and you'll find a closet anti-capitalist, guaranteed.