Posted on 02/14/2007 10:10:11 AM PST by Unmarked Package
I bet we can. It doesn't cost that much to help a cloud form, which then reflects up to 95% of sunlight and heat out to space. The Sun is the primary source of all weather. Unlike sulfur aerosols, clouds are nontoxic and can be more localized eliminating the need for UN control. Much of the energy used can be reclaimed as hydro power and free delivery of fresh water to crops.
Leftists have visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads forcing envy-driven Luddite solutions onto Americans. Those visions will soon turn to nightmare as the evil white men start inventing cost effective technology solutions.
The present situation is a re-run of nuclear power. At first leftists were for it to fund a life of lazy mirror gazing. Then they saw the employment and big money going to evil white men. They couldn't stand that so they quickly turned against it. And conservatives, normally adverse to taking on risks that have huge costs of failure, came to see it as a lucrative technical challenge.
Whether it exists or not conservatives stand to benefit the most from the global warming scare. We should be for it. Don't worry about the Luddites. They always lose.
"Where is our Reagan?"
Start here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1784681/posts?q=1&&page=1
You got a point there, while we're at it - let's forget Thomas Jefferson too, since he's long dead & gone. It's a whole new era - right?
Sorry, but the past is history that we need to constantly be learning from - not something my cat tries to bury in her litterbox.
GO DUNCAN HUNTER!!!
Once again, the extent, if any, to which global warming is caused by man is a SCIENTIFIC question. It has a scientific, factual answer, but the current state of science does not permit us to know it with any certainty.
Regardless, since it is a SCIENTIFIC issue, there should not be pressure on scientists from EITHER SIDE to adopt a certain position. It is wrong when liberals try to bully scientists into saying that it is caused by man, and it is wrong when conservatives try to bull scientists into saying that it is not.
Science and politics should be kept separate. I'd also note that there's an almost hysterical need on the part of some people to be seen as being part of their political team on this issue. I approach science as science- I have not yet made up my mind on global warming, but it bothers me to see people on our side engaging in the same pressure tactics that the liberals use. Show a little maturity and intellectual honesty.
"He will come back and demand that Rudy support Kyoto-type approaches."
Where have you been? That's what the libs have been saying for ages. I have yet to hear Rudy promote the Kyoto plan and based on what he has said to date, I doubt he ever will be an advocate because it clearly would hurt the economy. Being a fiscal conservative, Rudy would never take that approach, but you already know that.
If beginning today we instituted a catastrophic pull back in all modern human activities and began a massive crash program of building nuclear reactors to stop human contributions of CO2 into the atmosphere, the impact on "global warming" (or global cooling) could barely be measured at all.
Don't be fooled - Follow the money.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1784650/posts?page=7#7
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1784650/posts?page=17#17
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1784650/posts?page=19#19
And Rudy gives them credence now.
Question...How mank planks from the RNC platform would we need to remove to give Rudy the nomination?? Answer: So many, there'd be nothing left to stand on.
"Significant means substantial."
That's certainly not what significant means in science. Significant means measurable beyond an expected level of statistical variance. A contribution of about 5% can be significant because it can produce a measurable change above the exected background noise of variance. Unless you understand the terminology used by scientists and the context of how the terminology is used, you will misinterpret scientific studies.
"That's the funniest thing I've read all week." _______________________________
Hah! I admit, those weasel words are my desperate attempt to stay out of the flame wars that accompany Rudy threads. :-)
In my defense, you'll find my posts about Rudy are exceedingly rare and tame in comparison to all others.
Yes he did not explicitly state that it was his belief that there is significant man made global warming.
He stated that he believed global warming is real.
He stated his personal opinion really isn't that significant in the debate because he isn't a scientist.
He thing stated that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in man made global warming.
The logical interpretation of those statements is that he personally believes in man made global warming because the "vast majority of scientists" believe in it.
However, let us assume that is not what he meant. Let's assume that he personally doesn't believe in man made global warming.
He states that most of the things we would do to combat global warming are related to cleaning up pollution as well. Efforts to clean up pollution that would also reduce what many scientists believe possesses a threat of global warming makes more sense than the hysteria over global warming alone. However, CO2 is not a pollutant, and Rudy goes on to criticize Gore's movie for not offering solutions, but not for its goal of reducing CO2.
Rudy sure appears to be supporting efforts directed at the fear of man made global warming through CO2 emissions.
So I have to ask you. What is your point in making the distinction that Rudy doesn't explicitly say he personally believes in man made global warming?
Based on what he said, he either believes it, or he's a hypocrite that supports taking actions that will adversely effect our country for the sake of something he doesn't actually believe.
He later even takes the liberal stance that the reason why the reduction CO2 emissions and alternative fuels haven't made more progress is because of the special interest groups that are fighting such efforts. It's not that such things are not economically feasible. It's not that drastically reducing CO2 emissions would be devastating to our economy. It's simply because there are special interest groups that want things to remain the way they are.
No mention of the special interest groups pursing for the reduction of CO2 emissions. No opposition to those wanting to use CO2 emissions as an excuse for even greater wealth redistribution. No mention of cleaning up the EPA so that they start funding objective scientific research instead of only funding research which matches their preconceived conclusions.
The only place where Rudy varied from the liberal script is that he criticized Gore's movie for not providing detailed solutions or options.
Bye Bye Rudy
Very, very well stated. Thanks.
I'm not a scientist, but I do know the Engish language. I thought 5% in the world of science was called, a theory.
Hear are the two dictionary meanings I found for "significant". While you're at it, you may want to look the word, obfuscate. It too is in the dictionary and it too has a specific meaning in the English language.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says:
1 : having meaning; especially : SUGGESTIVE
2 a : having or likely to have influence or effect : IMPORTANT ; also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount b : probably caused by something other than mere chance
Encarta Dictionary says:
1. meaningful: having or expressing a meaning
2. communicating secret meaning: having a hidden or implied meaning a significant nod of the head
3. momentous and influential: having a major or important effect a significant idea
4. substantial: relatively large in amount Her work was a significant contribution to the project.
5. statistics occurring not merely by chance: relating to the occurrence of events or outcomes that are too closely linked statistically to be mere chance
That statement right there is so Rudy-esque. Do you see how he is trying to appease both sides?
He does believe in global warming - but he's not sure it's ALL man-made. That's like having your cake & eating it too! That's like trying pot - but not inhaling!
I read the other day - that while glaciers may be shrinking in the Arctic - they are actually growing in Antarctica. Not only that, even the planet MARS is experiencing global warming - Mars' ice caps are getting smaller too!
OOOHHHH NNOOOOOOO!!!!!! What are we going to do???? We're even killing the rest of the universe too with our pollution!!!!!!
But, back to Rudy- still trying to be all things to all people.
GO DUNCAN HUNTER!!!
LOL...
I was looking at a graph posted this morning... humans produce 0.28% of the "effective" greenhouse gasses. And with that you have to consider that sun cycles and orbital variances account for something like nine-tens or so of the global-heating/cooling cycles.
I doubt if all humanity tried for a year they could raise the temp 1ºf...
Yeah.
Leaders stand up to ill winds instead of reaping the whirlwind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.