Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/us/politics/survey-of-republican-voters-shows-a-majority-believe-in-climate-change.html?referer=

Their headline: Many Conservative Republicans Believe Climate Change is a Real Threat.

They are also supporting renewable energy such as wind and solar.

What do two men do when wandering around the city with a sign "The World Will End Tomorrow" they happen to encounter each other? One of them changes his sign to "today", just to be more au courant.

Real Missle such as cloud shaped missle ..... I think the argument is a bit more substantive than hot air and water vapor.

I haven't kept up much with this thread, so sorry if this was brought up already. I doubt it!

You can't help but notice that this climate change phenom. has brought out some of the screwiest ideas of fighting it that can be imagined. This is not related to whether you "believe" humans are the main cause of climate change or not. In fact, once something becomes a belief system, look out! It's not going to be science anymore.

Proper scientific ideas could not have led to the problem identified in the article [see link]. European energy companies are being saddled with ridiculous regulations, clearly, and now there is a claim it is causing over-logging in this country. I live in an area with a surprising amount of logging going on [while the construction of houses has slowed] and now I am starting to wonder if this material isn't going to Europe to ... can you believe it? ... be burned. Oh, yeah, that'll be good for the environment!

Logging is always dubious environmentally. I would like to see less of it, and none of it for this purpose.

http://enewspf.com/latest-news/science/science-a-environmental/64992-southern-forests-at-risk-new-report-identifies-three-southern-forest-regions-in-immediate-crosshairs-of-wood-pellet-industry.html

Quote: odiousgambit

Logging is always dubious environmentally. I would like to see less of it, and none of it for this purpose.

Great article! Shows what happens when we try to "control" too much. People complain about coal, but they forget we used coal because we were cutting all the forests down and running out of wood. While a certain amount of cutting is needed for a healthy forest, this is very wasteful.

Once again, close the door and they crawl through the window, close the window and they crawl through the door..........

It is even crazier than that. Not only are they burning wood to be green since it is seen as a renewable fuel. In northern BC carbon credits from Europe are being used to buy 10's of thousands of acres of farmland and plant it with trees. These trees can't be harvested for 99 years as part of the covenant on the land since they are being sold as a carbon storage medium.

Quote: kenarman

It is even crazier than that. Not only are they burning wood to be green since it is seen as a renewable fuel. In northern BC carbon credits from Europe are being used to buy 10's of thousands of acres of farmland and plant it with trees. These trees can't be harvested for 99 years as part of the covenant on the land since they are being sold as a carbon storage medium.

Meanwhile some dope buys the "carbon credits" the trees are producing.

Tell me again *I* am crazy for calling it a huge racket?

I am sure I will just love the next few years now that Canada has a relatively young hipster Prime Minister. One of his campaign promises was to get tough on climate change.

I don't think there is a real manmade climate change debate. Not in the science community anyway. If a consensus is 97%, that is not a debate, that is one side getting crushed.

I guess you could say there is a debate on evolution happening and on whether gambling probability is working for the casinos based on a small percentage of people. Look at all the stuff that goes on the other board. In most cases I would be ashamed to say there is a real debate in some of those topics, but that doesn't stop some people from their winning sessions at baccarat from improbable means, or something else.

I don't think 3% is much above the actual disbelief you get on practically anything. So is that really much of a debate? If I discount some on each side of the debate as clueless, and some as paid-off experts, the "NO" side gets hurt even worse. Is there even a credible 1% left?

But just my opinion. Maybe the 3% are going to have the last laugh. Why would I bet on that though?

Quote: rxwine

I don't think there is a real manmade climate change debate. Not in the science community anyway. If a consensus is 97%, that is not a debat

Yeah, no. Man made climate change is not
science, it's political.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

The creator of the Weather Channel has a degree in journalism and it not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. Most weather folks you see on the air do not have credentials as meteorologists nor do they have degrees in science.

Nice try.