Scientists say they have proved clima...

Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus...

There are 7942 comments on the Hartford Courant story from Dec 9, 2008, titled Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus.... In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

Scientists studying the changing nature of the Earth's climate say they have completed one crucial task - proving beyond a doubt that global warming is real.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#8263 Aug 11, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we have.
This is what you wrote on 3/28/13:
“Using fossil fuel helps free ancient carbon back into the atmosphere where it can do some good. Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling; the well known ice age climate scenario.“
You already believe in mitigation. You said you did. You named a process and pointed to an example. You have no argument anymore, if you ever had one.
Unless you are lying....
Yes GCAVEMAN, that truly is reasoning. Please, when listening to the AGW propaganda, apply the same mental exercises. You are rational enough to recognize false logic when you see it!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8265 Aug 11, 2013
Clear Dharma wrote:
I'm sure Brian G would suppress ten more, if it meant he could burn more gas to move his ass closer to the TV without using his legs.


If you want to invest in cold fusion or 'chronovisors', I won't stop you. They are hoaxes, just like climate change mitigaiton. Take a look at the cited video link if you doubt.

BTW, I don't watch television.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8266 Aug 11, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
...You already believe in mitigation. You said you did. You named a process and pointed to an example. You have no argument anymore, if you ever had one. Unless you are lying....
Thanks for letting me repeat:

Climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.

I based the statement quoted above on an assumption, "If man made greenhouse gas changes climate..."; that's never been experimentally demonstrated. I can't force gcaveman to learn to read or understand the concept of using assumptions to test a statement's validity; that's something he'll have to learn on his own.
Clear Dharma

Hove, UK

#8267 Aug 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=zlE_Tgt8LiAXX
If you want to invest in cold fusion or 'chronovisors', I won't stop you. They are hoaxes, just like climate change mitigaiton. Take a look at the cited video link if you doubt.
BTW, I don't watch television.
So what's wrong with creating efficient use of machines that burn less of the precious and irreplaceable fossil fuels. The more this generation uses, the less available for future generations, right? Does your attitude not sound just a tad egocentric, Brian?

For example, what's wrong with investing money to design and build automobiles that do 60 mpg instead of 15 mpg? How does your hard done by ass suffer in that example?

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#8268 Aug 12, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
PK, choose your bias, bunny.
PK?

I've made a effort to read both sides of the debate and don't get my science from headlines, 20 second sound bites or web sites. I have to admit, I do like google graphics, but google is not unbiased.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#8269 Aug 12, 2013
Clear Dharma wrote:
<quoted text>
So what's wrong with creating efficient use of machines that burn less of the precious and irreplaceable fossil fuels. The more this generation uses, the less available for future generations, right? Does your attitude not sound just a tad egocentric, Brian?
For example, what's wrong with investing money to design and build automobiles that do 60 mpg instead of 15 mpg? How does your hard done by ass suffer in that example?
Nothing is wrong with developing technology that uses less energy. What's wrong is demanding the public be forced to use energy that is more expensive and delivers less efficacy.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#8270 Aug 12, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing is wrong with developing technology that uses less energy. What's wrong is demanding the public be forced to use energy that is more expensive and delivers less efficacy.
That's why I don't force my television to display Faux News, Kardashians or shopping channels.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#8271 Aug 12, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing is wrong with developing technology that uses less energy. What's wrong is demanding the public be forced to use energy that is more expensive and delivers less efficacy.
The fallacy is the nebulosity of an imagined power called the "market". We have heard, "let the market decide". The market decides nothing. Industry decides. What we are doing is letting those who profit decide how to make more profit for themselves. It is not working very well today as we see the profits go to the top few percent and the rest of us hold the bag. Folks, we are being duped. It isn't trickling down. Why shouldn't all of us share in the bounty? I know, this will bring out the "S" word, the "C" word or even the "L" word. The fact is the powerful have played a psychological trick on us making us condemn ourselves into poverty.

Capitalism has moved into a new phase. It helped build our great country when resource were plentiful and environmental concerns were much smaller. Our country is past the expansion and building phase. Resources are not as plentiful. There are many environmental problems ahead of us. Capitalism has no mechanism to consider these things, it is simply a wealth machine for the affluent. That is why we must depend upon the government. If we do not get a handle on these problems and find a way for all to share in the Earth's bounty there will be declining living conditions and consequent social upheaval.

If the only way to slow environmental damage and global warming is for restrictions to be placed upon fossil fuels, then we must do it. The "market" is not going to solve the problem.
dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#8272 Aug 12, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The fallacy is the nebulosity of an imagined power called the "market". We have heard, "let the market decide". The market decides nothing. Industry decides. What we are doing is letting those who profit decide how to make more profit for themselves. It is not working very well today as we see the profits go to the top few percent and the rest of us hold the bag. Folks, we are being duped. It isn't trickling down. Why shouldn't all of us share in the bounty? I know, this will bring out the "S" word, the "C" word or even the "L" word. The fact is the powerful have played a psychological trick on us making us condemn ourselves into poverty.
Capitalism has moved into a new phase. It helped build our great country when resource were plentiful and environmental concerns were much smaller. Our country is past the expansion and building phase. Resources are not as plentiful. There are many environmental problems ahead of us. Capitalism has no mechanism to consider these things, it is simply a wealth machine for the affluent. That is why we must depend upon the government. If we do not get a handle on these problems and find a way for all to share in the Earth's bounty there will be declining living conditions and consequent social upheaval.
If the only way to slow environmental damage and global warming is for restrictions to be placed upon fossil fuels, then we must do it. The "market" is not going to solve the problem.
Dear Mr. AKA Bozo,
Without a doubt! This is your finest post. Organized and extremely articulate. KUDOS!
Sincerely,
koolaid
Clear Dharma

London, UK

#8273 Aug 12, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing is wrong with developing technology that uses less energy. What's wrong is demanding the public be forced to use energy that is more expensive and delivers less efficacy.
Fossil fuels are expensive. The cost of fossil fuels coupled with carbon reduction legislation are the two main factors driving innovative technology to make more efficient use of them.
I presume you mean sustainable energy is more expensive. Wind power for example. It is part of the solution, and nobody forces anyone to use electricity powered by wind, although most would not be averse to it.

Efficiency is relative. If wind power or solar power is free, then what's it matter if the technology is only 5% efficient? Its a completely different story if you pay $100 per bbl of oil and only get 50% out of it.

Expensive is also a relative term - what do you think will happen to the cost of fossil fuels when they become even more depleted? I've not seen the price of gas going down. Then are we pricing in the effects of pollution correctly? Why should I suffer the fumes from an coal burning power station just because you want the cheapest possible electricty to power your tv? That social cost needs to be accounted for in the price of fossils right?
SpaceBlues

United States

#8274 Aug 12, 2013
ff posted efficacy, lol.

Since: Apr 13

Moscow, Russia

#8275 Aug 12, 2013
Clear Dharma wrote:
<quoted text>
Fossil fuels are expensive. The cost of fossil fuels coupled with carbon reduction legislation are the two main factors driving innovative technology to make more efficient use of them.
I presume you mean sustainable energy is more expensive. Wind power for example. It is part of the solution, and nobody forces anyone to use electricity powered by wind, although most would not be averse to it.
Efficiency is relative. If wind power or solar power is free, then what's it matter if the technology is only 5% efficient? Its a completely different story if you pay $100 per bbl of oil and only get 50% out of it.
Expensive is also a relative term - what do you think will happen to the cost of fossil fuels when they become even more depleted? I've not seen the price of gas going down. Then are we pricing in the effects of pollution correctly? Why should I suffer the fumes from an coal burning power station just because you want the cheapest possible electricty to power your tv? That social cost needs to be accounted for in the price of fossils right?
Dumb Polaks certainly don`t know how much solar batteries cost. lol.

“ I'm proud”

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#8276 Aug 12, 2013
Russian Ubermensch wrote:
<quoted text>
Dumb Polaks certainly don`t know how much solar batteries cost. lol.
You make Russians look like RuSSkie retards with all your anti-Polish Bigotry and hatred.

“I wants yer gold teefs”

Since: Nov 12

Raritan, NJ

#8277 Aug 12, 2013
Russian Ubermensch wrote:
<quoted text>
Dumb Polaks certainly don`t know how much solar batteries cost. lol.
Polaks don't care about batteries! If something stops working, we steal another one!

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#8278 Aug 12, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
ff posted efficacy, lol.
Look it up.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#8279 Aug 12, 2013
Clear Dharma wrote:
<quoted text>
Fossil fuels are expensive. The cost of fossil fuels coupled with carbon reduction legislation are the two main factors driving innovative technology to make more efficient use of them.
?
You are correct that when fossil fuels get too expensive then other technologies will fill the gap. Better improvements in existing technology will also happen, and in fact are happening today. What car maker do you think doesn't want to make a car that gets high gas mileage. Think of what they could sell if they did. Going to have to be bigger than a shoe box, but it's a start.

I am in favor of eliminating subsidies for all. Gas, coal, wind, solar, oil, ethanol, none should be subsidized. Rockefeller made it selling fuel oil, Edison knocked him out of business. It didn't happen overnight, and it didn't happen with subsidies. It's driving force was innovation and good old fashion competition.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#8280 Aug 12, 2013
Clear Dharma wrote:
<quoted text>

I presume you mean sustainable energy is more expensive. Wind power for example. It is part of the solution, and nobody forces anyone to use electricity powered by wind, although most would not be averse to it.
?
Well, not true. There are many places that require electric companies to purchase a percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. That energy costs more money.

Here we have wind and I thought I might try to harness some of that energy. I discovered that they make windmills for homes. It's very expensive.

Everything cost money and you will not get energy from the wind without paying for it.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#8281 Aug 12, 2013
Clear Dharma wrote:
<quoted text>
Efficiency is relative. If wind power or solar power is free, then what's it matter if the technology is only 5% efficient? Its a completely different story if you pay $100 per bbl of oil and only get 50% out of it.
Expensive is also a relative term - what do you think will happen to the cost of fossil fuels when they become even more depleted? I've not seen the price of gas going down. Then are we pricing in the effects of pollution correctly? Why should I suffer the fumes from an coal burning power station just because you want the cheapest possible electricty to power your tv? That social cost needs to be accounted for in the price of fossils right?
We have 300 years of coal that we know of in the US. Natural gas and oil are found here as well as many other places on earth. I'm not worried, before we run out of fossil fuels we will discover how to make energy cheaper to produce and transmit. Our machines will become more efficient long before the energy runs out. Just look at history, mankind is actually pretty amazing when he spends his time in industry.

I'm all for clean coal plants, no one should have to see the air they breathe. But I am not for eliminating coal plants.
SpaceBlues

United States

#8282 Aug 12, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
Look it up.
You look it up, LOL.
SpaceBlues

United States

#8283 Aug 12, 2013
FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct that when fossil fuels get too expensive then other technologies will fill the gap. Better improvements in existing technology will also happen, and in fact are happening today. What car maker do you think doesn't want to make a car that gets high gas mileage. Think of what they could sell if they did. Going to have to be bigger than a shoe box, but it's a start.
I am in favor of eliminating subsidies for all. Gas, coal, wind, solar, oil, ethanol, none should be subsidized. Rockefeller made it selling fuel oil, Edison knocked him out of business. It didn't happen overnight, and it didn't happen with subsidies. It's driving force was innovation and good old fashion competition.
Look up Civil War, monopoly.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min John Galt 1,383,515
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 6 min mdbuilder 59,510
last post wins! (Apr '13) 22 min Retired SOF 997
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 26 min Joe Balls 214,479
News Barber shop shooting leaves 1 dead, 1 injured; ... 33 min They cannot kill ... 3
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 48 min They cannot kill ... 2,435
Word (Dec '08) 50 min They cannot kill ... 6,167
Observations 5 hr Angelique770 27
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 12 hr Sublime1 102,009
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages