... In the misnamed "global warming" debate, both sides agree that the government ought to "do something" about climate change. This fundamental premise is almost never questioned or even named.

But laymen all over the place are arguing themselves blue in the face over whether climate change is occurring and, if so, how. Unfortunately, this second debate would remain (properly) confined to scientists if more people understood the proper role of government, namely the protection of individual rights. Not setting the Earth's thermostat.

... [T]he real purpose of the loudest faction in this debate is to extend government controls over the lives of ordinary citizens using any expedient excuse. The excuse du jour happens to be called "global warming".

HallsOfMandos: 100 Watt Walrus: Norad Yep, cause all these worthless high-profile expenditure concerts will eliminate global warming.

Nobody thinks they will, asshat. It's about raising awareness. The concerts don't make a difference, but if more people learn about reducing their carbon footprints as a result of the PR, that can make a difference. If you can't figure that out, it's you who belongs on the edge of the very tall building.

What is it with all these idiots who are anti-climate awareness? I mean, there are only 3 scenarios here:

1) Global warming isn't happening. People organize to help make the environment cleaner. Nothing bad happens.

2) Global warming is happening. People organize to help make the environment cleaner. We possibly save future generations from a very ugly world.

3) Global warming is happening. People do nothing. Result: Some degree of ugly world - described often enough elsewhere that I won't bother here.

So please tell me, what's so terrible about #1? Why NOT try to make the planet cleaner and greener?

Probably already been pointed out...but I didn't want to read 300 comments and forget to post this. Pascal's Wager (new window) See any similarities in the logic there?

God may or may not be real. The environment is real. Hopefully I don't need to direct you to a new window to point out how retarded you are.

"Live [your favorite cause]" concerts are through. They have been for quite some time.

I bet Tipper said to Al: "Hey honey, remember when I was wagging my finger at rock music? And my ass got pwned by Frank Zappa?" "...well, I was getting to that honey. What I'm saying is that we now have a chance to look hip again! Let's use those pop people for TEH GOOD!"

/ok Al, we all aware of global warming and all...but don't be a stupid, pompous ass with this worldwide suck fest. Plz return home and tend to your useless aswipe of a son.

If only gay marriage caused global warming.

I'm an electrical engineer working on energy efficiency projects, the idea being, by reducing energy consumption you reduce one of the major causes of CO2, Power generation and industrial processes. The other being transportation, these three accounts for 60% of GHG.


I go to industrial sites and advise on how to reduce energy costs.
Being a hypocrite, I fly and then drive from the airport; I should of course row a boat and bicycle. That way I would be able to do maybe one factory per year instead of twelve. But despite my hypocrisy, the factory managers put up with it.


It's very easy.
All motors everywhere are over sized, ( no one is sacked for putting 20% to much power, put if you haven't got enough.....big problem. )
We fit inverters to match the load exactly. Typical savings of 50% of your elect bill.
The cost of inverters in high, so the payback is about 2/3 years.

Example of payback
Cost of inverter for motor = $500.
Energy saved per year = $250
Payback = 2 yrs.

The same with heat, we exhaust heat thro' stacks, but it is possible to reclaim that heat, and put it back into the process saving gas bills. Again 3/4 year payback.

There is a very high cost at the start, but the payback is there, it's not wasted, the oil, gas and coal bills slump, that money says in your pocket. The reduced consumption means the biggest source of CO2, power generation is cut.
it's worth doing even if you believe GW is a myth.
We made a living out of it before GW.
The long-term pain is for the Coal, oil and Gas providers, their business will not expand, and should be reduced over the next 2 decades. The short term pain is the initial cost

It's happened before under Carter (I'm told that was a boom time for energy conservation implementation) and electronics have moved on hugely since then. It can happen again.
Its happening in Europe right now, 90% of the work is in Europe. They have a CCL (Climate Change Levy), and if industries don't reach target savings they are fined. Industries have do better than their target can sell there "over save" to those that do not to prevent them from getting fined.

It is not Anti-Industrial, Anti-capitalist, It is anti waste. By increasing efficiency we reduce pollution, and lower costs, even without Global warming, it's worth doing.
Its not rocket science either

Comrade438 responds with,

Yes. Muammar al-Gaddafi is on the line. Something about Libya.

Would that be the very same Muammar al-Gaddafi that conforms to everything the US tells him to do - you know, ever since we bombed him and killed one of his children?

I do appreciate you helping prove my point.
I'm not sure I could have done as well as you have.

AgentOrangeDrink:
God may or may not be real. The environment is real. Hopefully I don't need to direct you to a new window to point out how retarded you are.

I'm glad you ASSume that I am denying climate change simply because I pointed out a logical fallacy posted by someone else.

p.s. see you down in arizona bay

HallsOfMandos: AgentOrangeDrink:
God may or may not be real. The environment is real. Hopefully I don't need to direct you to a new window to point out how retarded you are.

I'm glad you ASSume that I am denying climate change simply because I pointed out a logical fallacy posted by someone else.

p.s. see you down in arizona bay

Touche. My apologies. See you there.

The extreme makes an impression.

The shoddy math that the cons toss out seems to leave out any measurement of the actual impact.

It's like pointing out how expensive Transformers was to make, so the studio shouldn't have made it... not taking ticket sales after release into account. If 80 percent profits went to charitable causes and 20 percent went into procuring the sequels funding, you basically have a self-perpetuating money making machine.

Movies don't go to charitable causes, even Sicko is going to make that fatman posing as middle class fatter and richer. Benefit concerts do try to make things better though.

Gore was robbed of his chance to be president and instead of being a bitter little twerp about it, he's going out and trying to change the world. Changing the world takes motivation, and if his facts are fuzzy to hook the mindless masses, I personally don't give a damn. The world he wants everyone to work towards is far more optimistic than the world our current leaders are trying to get us to settle for and put up with. Bush lies, people die in a desert. Gore lies, more people buy CFL's which actually SAVES those people money in the long run.

His heart is in the right place, even if he is a total douchebag. I'm not worried about "terrorists" personally. I'm not really worried about climate change. I'll fight to my last breath if there is a terrorist attack in my community, but I don't see a point in going to the middle east. We can vaporize the Middle East if they go too batshiat crazy.

We don't own terrorism. We don't pay a monthly terrorism prevention fee. We do pay a monthly electric bill, and we do pay at the pump if we want to go to the beach on Sunday. I'm more concerned about where MY after tax cash goes because I'm already convinced that my tax cash is being squandered. If my neighbor saves 200 bucks a year, that's a helluva BBQ we could have that I can actually go to and I can actually enjoy. My blood doesn't get as pumpin when I hear about the latest Al-Quida Number 2 as it does when I peel a porterhouse off a grill and wash it down with a Guinness.

I have a huge philosophical problem with people who are unable to see things from my point of view. Disagree all you want, but my stance is pretty solid. If my fate involves gunfights in the streets against "terrorists" who hate me because, and want to destroy my "freedoms" then that's how it goes. I'll be damned if I'm going to snivel about that possibility, I'll gut as many as I can like fish if it comes to that... and screw anyone that is going to bash a movement that is attempting to make the world more aware of how good it could be if we go a different way than we are... the way we are going is shiat, and will ultimately fail if we keep letting money grubbing boobs seize power. Those bastards will sell us out to the highest bidder... they already have.

/Yes, Gore is a money grubbing boob too.
//Pumpkins first song was awesome... over 9 million people agree... and he was followed by Waters... awesome.

It always strikes me as interesting when I see people who blindly believe in a cause rather than analyzing the facts and making sound decisions. The problem in this case it seems, is that too few of the general public have sufficient education in sciences to make an informed opinion. The other problem, naturally, is that there is so much data, much of it conflicting, that the average layperson would be at wits end to figure it all out.

The data I have seen seems to indicate there is a very slight warming trend (less than 1C) over the last 100 years. The underlying issue is that this change is being heavily carried by dense urban areas, where populations have dramatically increased in the last century. In contrast outlying areas in many cases have seen a decline in temperature. A good example is New York City, which has seen an increase, but just a short while away Albany has seen a decrease in temperature. This is only one example, but you need to ask yourself is it possible that the increase of urbanization is having a local impact on ambient temperature?

In addition there are many areas that have shown no increase or a decrease in temperature over the last century. That sorta takes the global bit out of Global Warming. In addition, patently contradictory notions to the Global Warming phenomenon, like the Antarctic ice getting thicker, give me added skepticism.

Do I have enough evidence to conclude that global warming is or is not happening? No, but there is enough evidence that keeps me from drinking the Kool-Aid and jumping on bandwagons. Do I live a green life? Not strictly, but I have taken several measures to use less resources and cause less pollution. I drive a small diesel car (52 mpg and no public transit is not an option where I live, since not only does it not exist, but I work 40 km from home and I travel for my job), I use compact florescent lighting, we recycle everything (plus we have organic compost programs where we live) and so on.

Basically I'm controlling my impact on the environment and using less resources. I do this without being a believer in Global Warming, but rather that I see much of what I do as money savers or common sense. Plus less pollution is never a bad thing. Clean air and water are good.

And for the record, I'm classically educated in sciences (physics and computer science), atheist, conservative (is a conservative atheist a contradiction?), pro gay, pro choice, pro fiscal responsibility kinda guy.

I think that many people like me who have some skepticism about Global Warming are in my boat, where we're happy to do environmentally helpful stuff to reduce pollution and such not, but we're not eager to pay extra taxes that may add up to a bunch of nothing. Plus, as a Canadian I don't think I'd be too sad to see a bit milder winters and longer growing seasons. I think my other concern is that people have good intentions about the environment, but may be taking action that is contradictory to their efforts because they lack understanding of why they should or should not take that action.