"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Ya, so if someone tells me that I did not experience something that I
experienced, I must not have experienced it.
It is true that the clamor over "global cooling" didn't begin to approach
the current levels of concern over "global warming. There are many reasons
for that. But to suggest that the reason is that they were wrong then, and
are right now, based solely upon the differences in concern, is ridiculous.
And to deny that the science existed then is an attempt to rewrite history.

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.

KLC Lewis wrote:

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.



At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an
economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That
conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should
be studied.

"katy" wrote in message
. com...
KLC Lewis wrote:

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.



At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an
economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That
conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should be
studied.


Not at all. It's a reality-based approach. Environmental Science is
integrally linked to economics. Wasn't that an argument in this thread? If
you take the money away, the problem will go away, right?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"katy" wrote in message
. com...
KLC Lewis wrote:

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.



At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an
economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That
conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should
be studied.


Not at all. It's a reality-based approach. Environmental Science is
integrally linked to economics. Wasn't that an argument in this thread? If
you take the money away, the problem will go away, right?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com


That is partially my point, yes, but not entirely. Remove the "boondoggle"
aspect, including all the government handouts, corporate welfare, grants,
etc., and the clamor over "We've go to act NOW!" will likely diminish
significantly. None of this is about "Saving the Planet," as it is being
touted. Rather, it's about keeping the planet static -- which is an
impossibility.

In the course of human history, we have adapted to an ever-changing planet.
That is what has allowed us to thrive. The most rational reaction to coastal
flooding is to move further inland -- not to attempt to keep the oceans from
rising. If Las Vegas runs out of water, it's not a national disaster, but
chickens coming home to roost. The human ability to modify our environment
only goes so far -- in the end, we have to accept that the Earth itself is
far more powerful than we are, and adapt to its changes.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"katy" wrote in message
. com...
KLC Lewis wrote:

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's
see just how much "concern" remains.



At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an
economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That
conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should
be studied.


Not at all. It's a reality-based approach. Environmental Science is
integrally linked to economics. Wasn't that an argument in this thread?
If you take the money away, the problem will go away, right?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com


That is partially my point, yes, but not entirely. Remove the "boondoggle"
aspect, including all the government handouts, corporate welfare, grants,
etc., and the clamor over "We've go to act NOW!" will likely diminish
significantly. None of this is about "Saving the Planet," as it is being
touted. Rather, it's about keeping the planet static -- which is an
impossibility.

In the course of human history, we have adapted to an ever-changing
planet. That is what has allowed us to thrive. The most rational reaction
to coastal flooding is to move further inland -- not to attempt to keep
the oceans from rising. If Las Vegas runs out of water, it's not a
national disaster, but chickens coming home to roost. The human ability to
modify our environment only goes so far -- in the end, we have to accept
that the Earth itself is far more powerful than we are, and adapt to its
changes.



Interesting way to look at the disaster that's our own making... I think we
need to fix our problems, urgent problems that affect the hordes of people
who would move away from the coasts (for example) but are unable to do so.
There's an economic issue that is being swept under the rug with this sort
of argument. Not only are the vast numbers of poor unable to "just move,"
but the cost of relocating them and/or populations centers is non-trivial,
and would make the currect financial debacle look like a zit on a flea's
butt.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"katy" wrote in message
. com...
KLC Lewis wrote:

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's
see just how much "concern" remains.


At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an
economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That
conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should
be studied.

Not at all. It's a reality-based approach. Environmental Science is
integrally linked to economics. Wasn't that an argument in this thread?
If you take the money away, the problem will go away, right?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

That is partially my point, yes, but not entirely. Remove the "boondoggle"
aspect, including all the government handouts, corporate welfare, grants,
etc., and the clamor over "We've go to act NOW!" will likely diminish
significantly. None of this is about "Saving the Planet," as it is being
touted. Rather, it's about keeping the planet static -- which is an
impossibility.

In the course of human history, we have adapted to an ever-changing
planet. That is what has allowed us to thrive. The most rational reaction
to coastal flooding is to move further inland -- not to attempt to keep
the oceans from rising. If Las Vegas runs out of water, it's not a
national disaster, but chickens coming home to roost. The human ability to
modify our environment only goes so far -- in the end, we have to accept
that the Earth itself is far more powerful than we are, and adapt to its
changes.



Interesting way to look at the disaster that's our own making... I think we
need to fix our problems, urgent problems that affect the hordes of people
who would move away from the coasts (for example) but are unable to do so.
There's an economic issue that is being swept under the rug with this sort
of argument. Not only are the vast numbers of poor unable to "just move,"
but the cost of relocating them and/or populations centers is non-trivial,
and would make the currect financial debacle look like a zit on a flea's
butt.




It's somewhat ironic, the people who should be embracing this concept,
that is that we should try to do something about global warming, man
made or not, are the same who are saying "nothing can be done". There
exists opportunity for making great gobs of money here. Just look at
wind turbine production in the US.

In 2006, there were only two blade production facilities in the US, by
the end of 2008 there were eight. By 2011 the US is expected to exceed
Germany in installed wind energy conversion plant. These things are not
cheap, about a dollar a watt installed cost, and we are talking about
thousands of megawatts, somebody is making money. That they are
coincidently doing something positive for the environment is nice, but
is certainly not the motive driving these installations.

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think
tree huggers are providing the capital for these?

Cheers
Martin

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think
tree huggers are providing the capital for these?

-

yep cause there are more of us than of you and we pay taxes just like
you do.
we also volinteer to clean up trash, mitigate dump sites, replant
trees, make parks, keep trials clear, fight wild fire, tend forests,
clean up creeks and rivers, teach kids how to do for themselves, and
several hundred other things.

while you conservitives dump **** in all the lands and waters and
build **** hole houses and in general pursue your god the doller.

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:58:20 -0500, Marty said:

In 2006, there were only two blade production facilities in the US, by
the end of 2008 there were eight. By 2011 the US is expected to exceed
Germany in installed wind energy conversion plant. These things are not
cheap, about a dollar a watt installed cost, and we are talking about
thousands of megawatts, somebody is making money. That they are
coincidently doing something positive for the environment is nice, but
is certainly not the motive driving these installations.

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think
tree huggers are providing the capital for these?

So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?

So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.

Cheers
Martin

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Interesting way to look at the disaster that's our own making... I think
we need to fix our problems, urgent problems that affect the hordes of
people who would move away from the coasts (for example) but are unable to
do so. There's an economic issue that is being swept under the rug with
this sort of argument. Not only are the vast numbers of poor unable to
"just move," but the cost of relocating them and/or populations centers is
non-trivial, and would make the currect financial debacle look like a zit
on a flea's butt.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

By saying "just move," you trivialize the logistics of the problem, which is
something I haven't done. I didn't say it would be easy, I didn't say it
would be cheap. But there are many, many examples of former cities which are
now under lots of water. Those who refused to move either grew gills or
drowned. Probably doesn't matter a whole lot now, since they'd have died a
few thousand years ago anyway, but my point remains.

Building Pompeii and Herculaneum near the foot of Mt. Vesuvius was a reall
bad idea, as it turned out. Those who moved before the blast got to live
longer lives than those who were trying to build a big cork.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Interesting way to look at the disaster that's our own making... I think
we need to fix our problems, urgent problems that affect the hordes of
people who would move away from the coasts (for example) but are unable
to do so. There's an economic issue that is being swept under the rug
with this sort of argument. Not only are the vast numbers of poor unable
to "just move," but the cost of relocating them and/or populations
centers is non-trivial, and would make the currect financial debacle look
like a zit on a flea's butt.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

By saying "just move," you trivialize the logistics of the problem, which
is something I haven't done. I didn't say it would be easy, I didn't say
it would be cheap. But there are many, many examples of former cities
which are now under lots of water. Those who refused to move either grew
gills or drowned. Probably doesn't matter a whole lot now, since they'd
have died a few thousand years ago anyway, but my point remains.

Building Pompeii and Herculaneum near the foot of Mt. Vesuvius was a reall
bad idea, as it turned out. Those who moved before the blast got to live
longer lives than those who were trying to build a big cork.



Like Venice and the Netherlands? My argument was that instead of spending
trillions to move those who can't move on their own, why not spend far less
dealing with the pollution, expanding sustainable energy technology, etc.?
Makes sense to me, but oh-my-god the government might have to make it a
priority. How terrible.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com