brenthutch 388 #1 December 30, 2011 Would you support a Geoengineered solution to the "problem" of climate change? What if we could burn all of the coal and oil we wanted and than counter the effects to the planet with a variety of scientific approaches? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trafficdiver 8 #2 December 30, 2011 QuoteWould you support a Geoengineered solution to the "problem" of climate change? What if we could burn all of the coal and oil we wanted and than counter the effects to the planet with a variety of scientific approaches? The green movement is a billion dollar a year scam, that will become a trillion dollar a year scam if cap and trade is passed. That's just too much money to lose if the "problem" was solved. Much like racism, if it were to go away, most democrats would lose their power. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #3 December 30, 2011 No. It's a stupid question. It's like asking if you'd think it was ok if I shot and killed your wife as long as I knew how to bring her back to life.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TKoontz 0 #4 December 30, 2011 First, let me just make sure I understand your terminology: "warmist" being someone who subscribes to the idea that the emmissions of CO2, HOx NOx and VOCs are contributing to a global increase in temperature? Now, to your question. If there was a way to combat the emmissions from burning fossil fuels that still made them financially viable, then absolutely. I think they would end up being cost prohibitive at that point but assuming the solutions weren't then burn baby burn. ETA: I think that the best option would be to give the new 'clean-able' fuels to developing countries and move on to alternatives in places like oursFind your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #5 December 30, 2011 Of course, if science found a way to negate the effects of carbon in a cost effective manner. Look how much the Government did to impact the smog in California? http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/history.htm Care to take a guess what side the right would be on in California in the sixties and seventies when it came to the smog? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trafficdiver 8 #6 December 30, 2011 Quote Of course, if science found a way to negate the effects of carbon in a cost effective manner. Look how much the Government did to impact the smog in California? http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/history.htm Care to take a guess what side the right would be on in California in the sixties and seventies when it came to the smog? The right would say that it would probably wreck the economy of California leading to IOU's being paid and the states once great credit rating to go in the shitter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #7 December 30, 2011 QuoteNo. It's a stupid question. It's like asking if you'd think it was ok if I shot and killed your wife as long as I knew how to bring her back to life. I'm thinking you would have a real moneymaker there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #8 December 30, 2011 Fascinating thread. You might find this one of interest, too: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4248010;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TKoontz 0 #9 December 30, 2011 I don't really get the purpose of this question. You're offering a non-detrimental option here "Would you like fossil fuels if there were no negative consequences that came from using them?" Any person on the planet will agree to this. (And yes, I am ignoring resource competition for this example) This sounds more like you're just trolling for haterade on fossil fuels and you're looking to get an argument going on waming/climate changeFind your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #10 December 30, 2011 >The right would say that it would probably wreck the economy of California leading to >IOU's being paid and the states once great credit rating to go in the shitter. Ah, so they were just plain wrong, then. A good lesson for deniers to learn, methinks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #11 December 30, 2011 "Any person on the planet will agree to this. (And yes, I am ignoring resource competition for this example) This sounds more like you're just trolling for haterade on fossil fuels and you're looking to get an argument going on waming/climate change " No the point is a bit more sophisticated than that. It seems that on many forums on the matter, that cap and trade is the goal, no matter what. There is a large lobby that is against things like clean coal, and carbon sequestration because it would negate the need for cap and trade; a tool that could be used to influence human behavior across the world. That is why you see a shifting lexicon, from "global warming" to "climate change" to "climate chaos" to "ocean acidification". Anything to justify cap and trade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #12 December 30, 2011 QuoteNo. It's a stupid question. It's like asking if you'd think it was ok if I shot and killed your wife as long as I knew how to bring her back to life. Wow dude, can I get some of what you are on?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #13 December 30, 2011 QuoteThis sounds more like you're just trolling for haterade on fossil fuels And he got it, too - look at post 3 where the comparison was made to murder.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #14 December 30, 2011 QuoteWould you support a Geoengineered solution to the "problem" of climate change? What if we could burn all of the coal and oil we wanted and than counter the effects to the planet with a variety of scientific approaches? bit vague here. Would this be a plan where we detonate a bunch of nukes in the Sahara so the particulate matter would block out the sun? A mini nuclear winter. Unfortunately, the hot elements would mean 80 some years of hiding if I recall Dr. Strangelove's lecture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #15 December 30, 2011 Not talking specifics, although the thought has occored to me. Just in principle. Lets say we could put an additive in jet fuel that would create an exahust that would reflect energy back but not trap it down here. But I digress. Do you think that cap and trade is a laudable goal in and of its self? "so what if it doenst lower global temps we should do it anyway" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #16 December 30, 2011 QuoteNo. It's a stupid question. It's like asking if you'd think it was ok if I shot and killed your wife as long as I knew how to bring her back to life. Well, some wouldn't care if you knew how or not.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TKoontz 0 #17 January 1, 2012 Quote No the point is a bit more sophisticated than that. It seems that on many forums on the matter, that cap and trade is the goal, no matter what. There is a large lobby that is against things like clean coal, and carbon sequestration because it would negate the need for cap and trade; a tool that could be used to influence human behavior across the world. That is why you see a shifting lexicon, from "global warming" to "climate change" to "climate chaos" to "ocean acidification". Anything to justify cap and trade. Cap and Trade wasn't mentioned anywhere in your OP. All you asked is "A question for warmists" Which automatically sets the field for a partisan attack based on your wording. You asked a simple question that was designed to rile up people against fossil fuels. I replied with a simple answer and called you on your trolling. So what is it you want to debate here?Find your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #18 January 2, 2012 Here is what I am asking: Is cap and trade a means to control the worlds weather or the worlds people? The reason I ask is that as the case for man made global warming collapses, the clamor for cap and trade increases, and its justification becomes more diverse. Cap and trade will stop global warming, oops cap and trade will stop climate change, cap and trade will create jobs. Cap and trade will make me a ton (tonne for you Brits) of money. (did I say that out loud?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #19 January 2, 2012 >Is cap and trade a means to control the worlds weather or the worlds people? Well, we have a cap and trade program for SOx. It in fact did reduce SOx emissions (and thus acid rain.) It in fact did not "control the world's people." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #20 January 3, 2012 Quote>Is cap and trade a means to control the worlds weather or the worlds people? Well, we have a cap and trade program for SOx. It in fact did reduce SOx emissions (and thus acid rain.) It in fact did not "control the world's people." SOx science is based on a solid research foundation CO2 alarmism is not"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #21 January 3, 2012 QuoteQuote>Is cap and trade a means to control the worlds weather or the worlds people? Well, we have a cap and trade program for SOx. It in fact did reduce SOx emissions (and thus acid rain.) It in fact did not "control the world's people." SOx science is based on a solid research foundation CO2 alarmism is not Back in the 70s and 80s there were deniers who claimed that SOx science was bogus. I know, my brother was prominent among them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #22 January 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote>Is cap and trade a means to control the worlds weather or the worlds people? Well, we have a cap and trade program for SOx. It in fact did reduce SOx emissions (and thus acid rain.) It in fact did not "control the world's people." SOx science is based on a solid research foundation CO2 alarmism is not Back in the 70s and 80s there were deniers who claimed that SOx science was bogus. I know, my brother was prominent among them. Well good for him Doesn't change the point however S0x science is much simpler, with known variables that are measurable Just last week another report out on the another variable unaccounted for in the alarmist story line. But alarmists need simple 1 CO2 is a green house gas 2 We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate that will 3 Increase global temps Got a couple small problems with that however 1 I do not think we know even half of the variables yet 3 We do know that planet has had higher levels of atmospheric C02 than we are seeing today (hmm) 3 we do not even understand the the total effects of the known variable. Example http://notrickszone.com/2011/12/30/the-suns-impact-on-earths-temperature-goes-far-beyond-tsi-new-paper-shows/ and NO, I do not want a dirty planet"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #23 January 3, 2012 Quote>Is cap and trade a means to control the worlds weather or the worlds people? Well, we have a cap and trade program for SOx. It in fact did reduce SOx emissions (and thus acid rain.) It in fact did not "control the world's people." As you already know Bill, SOx is not an inevitable result of combustion of a hydrocarbon, CO2 is. So your analogy is faulty, and your point is moot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #24 January 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote>Is cap and trade a means to control the worlds weather or the worlds people? Well, we have a cap and trade program for SOx. It in fact did reduce SOx emissions (and thus acid rain.) It in fact did not "control the world's people." SOx science is based on a solid research foundation CO2 alarmism is not Back in the 70s and 80s there were deniers who claimed that SOx science was bogus. I know, my brother was prominent among them. Really?!?! This is what you have been reduced to? "My brother" I wish I had been able to use that on a research paper when getting my MBA. "Even though Milton Friedman would disagree, by brother says the government should run everything" That is priceless! RAOTFLMAO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #25 January 3, 2012 Quoteyour point is mute. If his point was mute none of us would know what it is. QuoteReally?!?! This is what you have been reduced to? "My brother" I wish I had been able to use that on a research paper when getting my MBA. "Even though Milton Friedman would disagree, by brother says the government should run everything" That is priceless! RAOTFLMAO. Congratulations on missing (and twisting) his point so completely that you've made yourself look silly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
