I am glad he is certain. The problem remains that the only evidence of man's impact on climate change is from simulation models and they can't reliably indicate how important man's activities are on the naturally occurring climate change. By the way, papers are peer reviewed.

The only proposals are to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. It doesn't matter what the US does because China and India are the long poles in the tent.

You have no idea what the impact on our economy will be from the only solution being put forward. A "tiny hit"? Seriously, where do you come up with this? If you want to put up solar panels then go ahead. Nobody is stopping you. In fact, the Federal Government will give you a fat tax credit (i.e. my tax dollars will subsidize it). I can only assume that you are upset that Florida doesn't also want to subsidize, through my tax dollars, your solar panels. Do you have any idea how clueless you sound? You are the perfect left winger: uninformed.

Dear guest that is the typical alinsky indoctrinated liberal response answer with an insult and avoid the debate. How convenient

Personal Best Regards:

Ask the citizens in Nepal if they have a concern about climate change because climate change had nothing to do with 4000 people dying.

Fossile fuels provide economical energy around the world and by interfering with its production only the poorest or poorer will suffer the consequences.

Renewals should be developed but in conjunction with fossil fuels. Renewables to date have proven to be unreliable and/or too expensive and if the greenies get their way will create shortages that could wreak havoc on our way of life.

I posted an article on TOTV about 6 months ago where a computer expert went in detail how data can be manipulated to result in the wanted outcome. He said it is often applied because of invested interests both economically and vanity wise.

The green movement is about control and profit from the likes of people like Obama, Gore Bloomberg

Such individuals also operate on conceit. One natural event like an earthquake, valcano eruption can create collective more damage in one event than climate change.

Yes we should be mindful and responsible to protect our natural resources but these doomdayers are trying to mandaciously panic the masses.



Personal Best Regards

So as I understand you are using the death of over 4000 in Nepal to prove that human climate change is a non-concern. I looked to see what Nepal thinks about climate change. Turns out they are very concerned. But the likelihood is their scientists are capable of seeing the difference between climate policy and earthquakes, unlike you.

From the Government of Nepal

I'm surprised ... you usually post well researched and/or well informed responses. However, in response to my question of what you would actually DO about climate change, you essentially punt.

We might take a "tiny hit?" In other words, you don't have any idea what the impact would be, but because you’re really smart friend says it’s a problem we need to then “do something??” We do this even if no other major country (China, India, Russia etc), where most of the coal and other hydrocarbon emissions stem from, will do anything except guilt trip gullible leaders like Obama into screwing ourselves economically. How can someone as smart as you possibly take a position like that?? … I mean it’s quite mystifying.

The real economy under Obama, unlike the stock market, is still very depressed. Thus, it makes no sense to me to take an unknown level of risk regarding economic damage to satisfy what sounds more like a religious belief that a bonafide, empirically based threat that has a quantifiable, economic risk reward tradeoff. In addition, the working man will take the hit even more so that well-to-do affluent liberals like yourself. Or, think about the hopeless underclass in places like Baltimore. Their lives are already horrible … so a “tiny hit” may be actually quite large in impact, and probably larger as it usually is.

Your concern is clear but your recommend solution is not in the least persuasive. I don’t really care all that much about environmentalists’ intentions …. I only care about the likely results and impact from their policies on peoples’ lives.

Very informative post. People who want to ban, get rid of or whatever regarding fossil fuels have NO IDEA what they are talking about. They do not understand basic physics and thermodynamics.

As one of many examples, just do the calculation for power required to “lift” a large airliner and then try to get an airliner airborne on solar power, Or, figure out the energy needed to get a container ship underway on battery power, and have it haul 100,000 tons of cargo around the world.

For liberals who have swallowed the anti-fossil fuel ideology, here’s what getting rid of fossil fuels means for everyone … massive poverty and learning to live how people did it in the 18th century. It would also mean shortened life spans, increase in crime and no doubt war to squabble over what was left.

In sum, it’s just plain f***ing crazy to argue for elimination fossil fuels (especially while opposing nuclear), and another reason why many people increasingly believe full throated liberalism is a genuine mental illness.