Another Global Warming defector

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

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

Not guaranteed, but maybe it is true, but this is no reason to disregard their arguments, which might still be accurate.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

Not guaranteed, but maybe it is true, but this is no reason to disregard their arguments, which might still be accurate.

I only agreed with Venkman that it's the driving force behind this anti-oil crusade they are on.

How did you get "disregard their arguments" out of that?

[il Padrino Ute]

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?

Your refusal to answer my question speaks volumes, as SU would say. And just like SU, you're refusing to admit when you're wrong.

As for renewable sources, I like the idea of solar and wind power, if it can be as reliable or efficient as coal or oil for less money. I also believe we should go nuclear.

I am not fighting an irrelevant fight - that may be your opinion and if so, fine. I just want to know why you won't dispute the point of that article - that man made CO2 isn't as big of a problem as Gore and his cronies say it is. It's either because you think man mad CO2 is the main reason for warming or you are to damned proud to admit you are wrong about it.

Again, are you going to actually answer the question? Do you dispute what is in the article?

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Tex

I only agreed with Venkman that it's the driving force behind this anti-oil crusade they are on.

How did you get "disregard their arguments" out of that?

Yes, it's not the only motivation, but we have enough of their own words to know that this is more about socialism than anything else. The environment is their vehicle to transform our society. And it's an effective one, after all, who want pollution? Hard to argue against that.

No one discounts environmental concerns. I like clean air, water, or natural surroundings as much as the next guy. But it's not the only consideration in the equation.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

I only agreed with Venkman that it's the driving force behind this anti-oil crusade they are on.

How did you get "disregard their arguments" out of that?

I am not going to get into a calicoug back and forth here and i mean it. So I will tell you why I said that and then you can say whatever you wnat, as th efloor will be yours.

Venkman posts a very interestin article. There is a back and forth about the merits of the claims fo global warming. Venkman then says that leftist hate of the oil economy is the root of the problem (I am obviously paraphrasing here), the problem being the left's insistence on the reality of man-caused global warming. You then agreed, saying:

This is indeed the root of the problem.

The implication of both your and Venkman's posts is that this ideology undermines the legitimacy of their position. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't is my point. Sometimes biased ideologues are correct.

btw, I also think you and Venkman are both exaggerating the depth and content of 'left' approaches to the issue.

Ok, all yours.

[Mars]

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.

Because anything greater than a small percentage of our country's power coming from renewable energy is impossible currently and a major head-in-the-ground pipe dream.

We need to drill, go nuclear, and use hydro power from our oceans.

[MikeWaters]

Texas is at 5% windpower, and with a new transmission line that was recently approved will be moving towards 25% wind power.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Texas is at 5% windpower, and with a new transmission line that was recently approved will be moving towards 25% wind power.

That will be an interesting test case of how viable and affordable wind power is on a large scale.