Global Warming Update
Tags: Global Warming Hoax.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Longest cold spell since 1895:
KNOXVILLE – Wishing for warmer days? Think Monday.
The harsh cold that’s threatening to tie an 1895 cold-snap record is expected to last through Sunday, according to the National Weather Service’s latest forecast.
The low tonight will dip to about 13 degrees, and Saturday’s high is only expected to reach 23, with a 20 percent chance of scattered snow showers.
On Sunday, we can expect a mostly sunny day with a high in the upper 20s. Assuming we stay below freezing, we will have matched the existing record of nine consecutive days – set in February 1895 – during which highs failed to top 32 degrees.
Someone find me the global warming model which predicted this…
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
36 Responses to “Global Warming Update”
Caucus of Corruption
I picked another tomato from our garden yesterday.
It’s cold today – so much for global warming. Somebody give me a high five – that sure showed those liberals!
Sad.
Sorry, but my computer didn’t show the evident subtitle of this post, which is obviously “Non Sequiter Contest”.
We are used to the RRL trolls being irrelevant, but it is interesting to see them so eager to strut their irrelevancy.
In fact, the very slight uptick in global temperature ended about a decade ago, and for the past decade we have been sliding into a distinct cooling period. This was predicted by true scientists, who understand the role of solar activity on earth’s climate. It is what it is.
Now, according to Warmer Theology, rico’s freak tomato harvest is the result of WEATHER in his area. And the rest of us shiver as as the overall CLIMATE cools and we head into a long cooling cycle.
This was predicted by true scientists, who understand the role of solar activity on earth’s climate…Amazona
—————————–
Are these the 30,000 scientists who are suing Al Gore for fraud, Amazona?
This case needs to be speeded up; it’s taking too bloody long to see Gore raked over the coals in a court of law.
What’s the hold up, anyway?
CO
for your answer see page 101 of ARGUING with IDIOTS (you)
FUBO
ricorun,
As a complete aside, I have this tomato plant which just refuses to die – and it keeps putting out tiny tomatoes. And I mean tiny – like cherry tomatoes are the equivalent of beefsteak. Its all very weird and I’m curious to see if it makes it to Spring, and then what it does.
CO,
You’re eventually going to have to face up to the fact that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is a hoax – and not only a hoax, but known to be such all along by its strongest proponents (with the possible exception of Al Gore who is just unintelligent enough to have believed it).
Amazona: Now, according to Warmer Theology, rico’s freak tomato harvest is the result of WEATHER in his area. And the rest of us shiver as as the overall CLIMATE cools and we head into a long cooling cycle.
Did you say that right? It seems to me that if you’re going to subscribe to a climate theology, every instance of weather conforming to that theology would would be evidence of CLIMATE change, not WEATHER, whereas every instance of weather not conforming to the same theology would be evidence of WEATHER, and not CLIMATE change. And allow me to be so bold as to suggest that it works both ways — i.e., there are both “Warmer” theologians and “Cooler” theologians that make the same mistake in confusing weather with climate, albeit in opposite directions.
In actuality, there is every indication that the predominant proximal cause of both my unusual bounty and your shivering are results of weather anomalies, not climate change. Global warming or not, weather is going to vary, with short term trends predominantly driven by oceanic oscillations, e.g., ENSO, PDO, NAO, SOI and AO. These oscillations differ both in terms of their period (e.g., the ENSO period is on the order of 1/2-1 1/2 years whereas the PDO is on the order of 2-3 decades, with a possible second or third order harmonic) and in terms of the regions they affect (e.g., the NAO and AO predominantly affect weather patterns in the northern hemisphere only, whereas the ENSO and PDO have more global effects).
As pointed out on WattsUpWithThat at the end of December, the AO has gone strongly negative of late. Typically, when the AO goes negative you tend to get periods of abnormally cold weather in the mid-lattitudes of the northern hemisphere. Given that, the current cold snap is not entirely surprising. Is it evidence of global cooling? No, not in and of itself. Is it evidence of global warming? No, obviously not. To make that kind of determination one has to filter out the shorter term effects of oceanic oscillations, et. al., and examine the underlying trend. And when you do that, the evidence for the notion that we’re entering into a long-term cooling cycle isn’t at all compelling.
In the 1920’s, there was hysteria the polar glaciers would disappear.
.
In the 1970’s, there was hysteria that the new ice age was upon us.
In the 1990’s there an increase in temperatures and liberal hysteria of global warming. Now it’s been ten years since temps have increased, and this winter could very well be one of the coldest on record.
.
Does anyone else denote any kind of pattern emerging there?
weather & climate r different but baby it’s cooold outside…burrrr
AGW is open to legimate scientific dissent & healthy skepticism.
Mark Noonan says:
January 9th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
“the theory of anthropogenic global warming is a hoax”
—————————–
This is why it is essential, Mark, that legal proceedings against this hoax get under way. A court date needs to be set so the matter can be settled once and for all.
I don’t care if Gore believes it or not, those 30,000 scientists have iron clad facts to back up their case and will make minced meat out of his wild-eyed theories.
Let’s get this show on the road!
rico, you make my point for me. The issue is so muddled as various factions reinvent facts and redefine terms to fit their own agendas that it is now difficult to even discuss the matter, what with the terminology being so inaccurate.
I think the general idea is that while the climate does change, warming and cooling, creating various hot and cold weather patterns, the assignment of man’s existence and activities as the cause of such changes has been nothing but the creation of a massive fraud designed to generate the transfer of both wealth and power.
Gore, while being ignorant and coming across as having the IQ of a box of hair, has been smart enough to parlay the invented hysteria into a billion-dollar fortune, with much more to come if the watermelons in the administration manage to get the tax and trade scam put in place.
And when you do that, the evidence for the notion that we’re entering into a long-term cooling cycle isn’t at all compelling.
I guess it depends on what you mean by “long-term cooling”. Do you mean as long term as the warming trend that appears to have ended in the late 90s after approximately a 20-year run? Or do you mean “longer term” as in the cooling trend that lasted from the early 1940’s to the late ’70’s? Or are you referring to even longer term events like the Maunder or Dalton Minimums?
Just for the sake of argument, if the average global temperature is lower 10 years from now than it is today, but the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has continued to increase at the same linear rate of the last half century, to what will you attribute the cooling? Is it possible that all of the mechanisms you note are tied to solar phenomena that we don’t fully understand yet?
And, of course, most importantly, what will be made of Algore’s hysterical claim in 2006 that we only have 10 years left before we reach a point-of-no-return? Will the agenda media simply say, “Oh, well, his intentions were noble”, and move on?
CO
go to page 37 of Arguing with Idiots, for your answers
CO
Common Sense, has stumbled upon the secret formula to winning arguments against people with big mouths but small minds: knowing the facts.
And this book is full of them.
The next time your Idiot Friends tell you how gun control prevents gun violence, you’ll tell them all about England’s handgun ban (see page 53). When they tell you that we should copy the UK’s health-care system, you’ll recount the horrifying facts you read on page 244. And the next time an idiot tells you that vegetable prices will skyrocket without illegal workers, you’ll stop saying “no, they won’t” and you’ll start saying, “actually, eliminating all illegal labor will cause us to spend just $8 a year more on produce.” (See page 139.)
Idiots can’t be identified through voting records, they can be found only by looking for people who hide behind stereotypes, embrace partisanship, and believe that bumper sticker slogans are a substitute for common sense. If you know someone who fits the bill, then Arguing with Idiots will help you silence them once and for all with the ultimate weapon: the truth.
You know, it’s fascinating how the seasons change.
When the earth tilts away from the sun in the winter, for some reason there is this complex phenomenon that occurs over the northern hemisphere, in that, large domes of very high pressure tend to settle just north of Maine around Quebec and over Greenland, hence, meteorologists call this a “Greenland Block.” When Greenland Blocks are in place, this tends to alter the course of the Northern Jet Stream such that it buckles and goes South dipping down into the United States, and with it, it brings very cold temperatures, temperatures from off the barren ice-fields of the North Pole and around Alaska and those areas. Ha. I was watching some videos about these areas, people actually live up there in the wilderness areas of Alaska, back in the woodlands away from civilization, and they have planes that come in every-so-often that bring in necessities and supplies – mail, some food, educational material, ammunition, etc. Anyway, I recall hearing one person say that it’s not unusual for the temperature there in the winter to go well below the -60 degrees mark, yes, that’s 60 degrees below zero, and we think sometimes of 0* or 10* being cold, why that would be a heatwave compared to 60 below, good gracious.
Anyway, getting back to my point … if the global temperatures are rising, it looks like when a Greenland Block gets into place and the Jet Stream buckled South that it would not bring with it, and we wouldn’t experience those extreme temperatures that we do in the winter.
To me, it would seem that the ice-caps would naturally re-establish themselves, because no amount of heat that we humans put off could stay on earth for an extended period of time, it is released through the upper layers of the atmosphere into space.
Also, one last point, we should be so thankful that the Sun is not any closer, or any father away.
God is in control. Amen?
We can face UNCERTAIN DAYS because HE (JESUS) LIVES!
Jer
because no amount of heat that we humans put off could stay on earth for an extended period of time, it is released through the upper layers of the atmosphere into space.
You are 100% correct.
If the sun were extinguished tomorrow, all the CO2 and “man made” pollution could not keep the earth from being a sub zero ice cube in a matter of days.
It is laughable!
What about the fact that rises in CO2 follow temperature rises, indicating that the Warmers have reversed the relationship?
Spook: I guess it depends on what you mean by “long-term cooling”. Do you mean as long term as the warming trend that appears to have ended in the late 90s after approximately a 20-year run?
What warming trend ended? According to two of the three agencies measuring global surface temperatures, 2005 was the hottest year on (the instrumental) record (only HCRU has 1998 as the hottest year). According to all three, the 2000 decade (2000-2009) was far and away the hottest decade on record. According to NOAA, the top 10 warmest years on record are, in order: 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2009, 2006, 2007, 2004, 2001, and 2008.
One could argue that all of the aforementioned data do not necessarily indicate that global warming is man-made. Other information would have to be added before you could try to do that. They do, however, make it essentially impossible to argue that the globe is cooling.
Just for the sake of argument, if the average global temperature is lower 10 years from now than it is today, but the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has continued to increase at the same linear rate of the last half century, to what will you attribute the cooling?
That’s an awfully big if. But IF it were to occur (and assuming you’re not really talking about any selected day ten years hence, but rather a more or less on-going cooling trend that lasted that long), then I would say it would be very hard for the AGWers to explain — at least assuming there wasn’t a significant and unexpected rise in known negative forcers like aerosols. Absent that or something like it, then I assume some sort of heretofore unexplained phenomena would have to come into play.
Now for the sake of argument, let’s turn the argument around: if the average global temperature is higher 10 years from now than it is today, to what will you attribute the warming?
neocon: If the sun were extinguished tomorrow, all the CO2 and “man made” pollution could not keep the earth from being a sub zero ice cube in a matter of days.
Well, no shit Sherlock! Clearly there is precious little difference between your mind and a steel trap.
ricorun,
According to all three, the 2000 decade (2000-2009) was far and away the hottest decade on record.
Out of curiosity, how far back do those records span? Are they even greater than 50 years?
observer20, my understanding is that the instrumental record goes back to about 1880, although obviously more recent years are more accurate. Various proxy measures go back much further than that, but they are less accurate still.
Just as a reminder though, the question at issue is what evidence is there for stating the earth has been in a cooling phase since the late 90s — and if so, whether it will continue. My contention is that there’s precious little evidence of a cooling phase, and it’s similarly unlikely that it will continue.
One thing I haven’t mentioned yet is that, to me at least, whether the earth is currently warming or cooling is largely irrelevant to whether we should be aggressively pursuing “green” technologies. The latter makes sense either way.
ricorun,
Of course we should try to be environment friendly, but the question is if CO2 is really a “non-green” substance. If it doesn’t prove to affect the atmosphere all that much, what point is there in reducing it? It would be like banning forks to reduce the risk of salmonella.
The difference between watermelons and reasonable people is that conservatives want to pursue alternative energy sources for a variety of reasons, ranging from intellectual curiosity to a desire for less polluting and/or more efficient forms of energy to a desire not to have all of ones’ eggs in one basket. The watermelon wants an elite ruling cadre to make decisions for the rest of us, and to impose restrictions and mandates upon us, too often to promote increased government control and power more than to actually achieve a measurable change in things like efficiency or pollution.
Now for the sake of argument, let’s turn the argument around: if the average global temperature is higher 10 years from now than it is today, to what will you attribute the warming?
It depends on how much warmer. The whole issue could be riding on how long the current solar minimum lasts. We’re entering uncharted waters WRT the level of solar geomagnetic activity.
Right now, from everything I’ve read, I’m as confident that it will be cooler in ten years as you are that it will be warmer. Ten years really isn’t that long to wait to see who’s right. The last decade went awfully fast.
BTW, it’s currently so cold in northern Indiana that I saw a Democrat the other day with his hands in his own pockets.
Spook: Right now, from everything I’ve read, I’m as confident that it will be cooler in ten years as you are that it will be warmer.
That’s not saying much! Be that as it may, is your apparent assumption that solar geomagnetic activity will continue at a low level for many years to come the sole basis upon which your confidence lies? If so, then it would appear that your confidence is based on something akin to a crap shoot because, as you yourself indicated, “we’re entering uncharted waters”. Keep in mind that we’re entering uncharted waters in another respect as well: atmospheric GHG concentrations haven’t been as high in a very long time — many hundreds of thousands of years at minimum, and perhaps millions. So not only do you have to bet that an extended geomagnetic minimum will take place, you also have to bet that if it happens its effect will swamp the other — and will continue to do so for a very long time. And just for the sake of argument, if it comes to pass that an extended geomagnetic minimum does occur but cooling doesn’t follow… how will you explain that?
observer20: Of course we should try to be environment friendly, but the question is if CO2 is really a “non-green” substance. If it doesn’t prove to affect the atmosphere all that much, what point is there in reducing it?
Again, that’s a big if. After all, lots of very smart, very knowledgeable people seem to be pretty convinced CO2 really does affect the atmosphere. Be that as it may, the fact remains that it’s very hard to burn most types of fossil fuels without emitting a variety of other junk in addition to CO2. Things like catalytic converters help, but they aren’t perfect. And in the case of coal, you also have to worry about the sludge that is left behind after the coal is burned. In the case of oil, a major problem is that most of what we consume is obtained from foreign sources. And no matter how aggressive we are about exploiting our remaining domestic oil reserves, we can’t significantly affect the balance if we don’t significantly destroy our demand. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t aggressively exploit our remaining reserves — every little bit helps — but that’s the reality of things. Add to that the fact that approximately 80% of the known global reserves are under the control of national, not private, interests. And many of those are not particularly friendly to the US. Consequently, if we don’t significantly destroy our oil demand we will remain at the mercy of unfavorable political interests as much as (or more than) unfavorable market forces. Finally, many other countries, particularly developed ones (along with China and India), find themselves confronting a combination of concerns similar to our own, and who are thus working on solutions. The result is a huge and growing market for those solutions. Unfortunately for us, most of the other players have already realized that if you reduce the capital risks associated with developing, producing, and deploying said solutions (e.g., cap and trade, FITs, ITCs, PTCs, etc.), you will pretty much assure yourself a bigger piece of the pie in the long run.
So perhaps you can see why there are numerous national interests at stake besides just CO2 abatement, and why we don’t have the luxury of waiting.
rico
Well, no shit Sherlock! Clearly there is precious little difference between your mind and a steel trap.
Or your mind and a horses hind end!
But we do have the luxury of inhibiting commerce and industry, taxing the populace into poverty, and oh by the way enriching a handful of “educated class” elites along the way?
Watermelons all the way……….
ricorun,
Again, that’s a big if. After all, lots of very smart, very knowledgeable people seem to be pretty convinced CO2 really does affect the atmosphere.
Well, it is certainly now a lot smaller if than it was just half a year ago.
And I’m not saying that there aren’t good reasons to address the energy/oil problems. I fully support the active pursuit of those solutions in as efficient a way as possible. What I contest is both 1) the reason for investing in proven inefficient forms of energy and 2) the ethics of some institutions for insisting that the CO2 issue is already “settled.” I fully support alternative energies such as nuclear when appropriate.
Amazona: But we do have the luxury of inhibiting commerce and industry, taxing the populace into poverty, and oh by the way enriching a handful of “educated class” elites along the way?
Inhibiting commerce? Taxing the populace into poverty? Enriching a handful of “educated class” elites? What are you talking about? Could you be more specific? As it stands your comment, though loaded with ideologically correct rhetoric, falls far short of the standards of facts and logic I thought you demanded of yourself and your colleagues.
Inhibiting commerce-by lacing these ridiculous Cap And Trade standards on industry, and the main reason is being proven a hoax, production is going to drop. When production drops, the amount of goods available lessens. That causes the price to go up, as the industry must meet its financial goals to stay in business. Likewise, with less money, more people will be losing their jobs.
Taxing the populace into poverty-it’s not just taxes on poor people that causes problems. Overtaxing the wealthy does too. Which economic group do you think creates jobs, the poor or the rich? Overtaxing the rich (and promoting class warfare) will do two things. One, the rich aren’t going to have as much money for investments and for starting or expanding businesses. That means fewer jobs and most certainly increases poverty. Second, eventually, you are going to run out of rich people, so to maintain the level of tax revenue to feed all these Obama projects, people who are earning less will be taxed more to make up the difference.
Enriching a handful of educated elites- People like Gore are going to be the ones who benefit from all this. Not the average Joe, not the environment, not our economy and certainly not our country. These carbon credits are little more than the old Papal Indulgences, purchased by the wealthy elite to absolve themselves of sin. They have no other real function than to suck money from the economy and redistribute it in a socialist ponzi scheme. And like the rest of Obama’s plans, they are competely unsustainable.
observer20: Well, it is certainly now a lot smaller if than it was just half a year ago.
Really? How so?
What I contest is both 1) the reason for investing in proven inefficient forms of energy and 2) the ethics of some institutions for insisting that the CO2 issue is already “settled.” I fully support alternative energies such as nuclear when appropriate.
The national security argument against nuclear power goes like this: if we start building them, how can we demand that other, unfriendly, nations don’t? The economic argument against them goes like this: they’re freakin’ expensive! More to the point, there has never, EVER been a nuclear plant constructed anywhere on earth, including the US, which did not require government subsidies. So, considering your opposition to “inefficient forms of energy” on the one hand and your advocacy of nuclear power on the other, how would you respond to those criticisms?
BTW, if anyone else besides observer20 wants to offer their opinion, please feel free. His attitude seems to be quite common among self-described “conservatives”, despite the fact that it’s hard to reconcile the logic with the ideology.
I think they can be accomplished, but I’d like to hear what you have to say about it. And if anyone else besides observer20 wants to chime in, please feel free. His attitude seems to be quite common among self-described conservatives, despite the fact that it contains some glaring logical and/or ideological inconsistencies. So I am very curious as to how not only he, but others, reconcile them.
To observer20 in particular: I’ve noticed that you continue to respond even after a thread drops off the front page. I just wanted you to know that I will redouble my efforts to follow you if you are so willing. One of the things I miss about the old days on this site is the ability to have a respectful, substantive conversation with interested parties, even if those involved didn’t always agree in whole or in part.
tfmo: Inhibiting commerce-by lacing these ridiculous Cap And Trade standards on industry, and the main reason is being proven a hoax, production is going to drop.
Aside from the fact that the second point is irrelevant to the first, the evidence indicates that establishing a price floor for carbon is likely to unleash a level of innovation that is at least considerable, and at best unprecedented. One could argue about the best way to do that. But that’s different than denying it’s important. If you disagree, provide some evidence beyond mere talking points (and cartoons).
Taxing the populace into poverty-it’s not just taxes on poor people that causes problems. Overtaxing the wealthy does too.
Point taken. But I argue that what you should be advocating is destruction of the corporate status quo in favor of the forces promoting innovation. This is not a Dem vs Rep issue, but a large business vs small business issue, an economically entrenched vs entrepreneur issue. My advice is: be careful of your talking points. And keep in mind that there is nothing in any of the proposed energy bills that targets wealthy individuals. What they target is fossil fuel hogs. The two are very different.
Enriching a handful of educated elites- People like Gore are going to be the ones who benefit from all this. Not the average Joe, not the environment, not our economy and certainly not our country.
Again, there are a multitude of studies that contradict your talking point. In fact, most of them indicate that clean technologies will enhance both the economy and “the average Joe”. If you disagree, what can you offer to support your contention beyond talking points (and, again, cartoons)?
Aside from the fact that the second point is irrelevant to the first, the evidence indicates that establishing a price floor for carbon is likely to unleash a level of innovation that is at least considerable, and at best unprecedented. One could argue about the best way to do that. But that’s different than denying it’s important. If you disagree, provide some evidence beyond mere talking points (and cartoons).
I think that bankrupting our economy and killing our country for the sake of a hoax is pretty damn relevant.
Innovation costs money, Rico. And between Cap and Trade, and the increased costs to businesses for ObamaCare, there isn’t going to be enough available cash to risk on innovation. Unless you mean the government is going to be taking that money in the form of new taxes and fees, which, again, further increases the amount of poverty.
This is not a Dem vs Rep issue, but a large business vs small business issue, an economically entrenched vs entrepreneur issue.
Which becomes a fascism vs free market issue. Given the government’s abysmal track record, do we really want MORE government involvement in the economy? Is there something wrong with having a large business? If so, then what is the incentive to succeed at a small business, if not to someday make it larger, therefore more profitable? Which of the two do you think can more readily afford innovation and experimentation, a large business or small?
Again, there are a multitude of studies that contradict your talking point. In fact, most of them indicate that clean technologies will enhance both the economy and “the average Joe”. If you disagree, what can you offer to support your contention beyond talking points (and, again, cartoons)?
Yes, the Green Job initiatives worked so well in Spain, didn’t they? And every other country they’ve been tried in. Green Jobs are a dodge, Rico. Just another way for the government to insert itself into places it has absolutely no business. Take the hybrid vehicle dilemma. The government wants them, insists that automakers produce them, offer all kinds of lovely incentives (at tax payer expense, of course) and yet people are STILL wanting trucks and SUVs more.
The only green energy that is comes close to the cost efficiency and effectiveness of fossil fuels is nuclear, and the Dems flat out refuse to expand that. Solar is worthless on any realistic scale. The cost of the kit is more than you will ever make back on your electric bill in your lifetime. Wind is likewise useless; most of the energy is lost in transfer, and the constant sound from them has caused health problems in neighboring residences. Hydro only works if you have a huge body of water, like the Hoover Dam, but the tree huggers will NEVER go for it. Corn ethanol is only 2/3 as efficient as gas, and the transportation costs for it further reduce the cost effectiveness, as well as the fuel needed for the tractors to harvest the corn, etc.
Forcing us away from an energy source when we have no viable replacement is suicide. When these technologies match or exceed what fossil fuels provide us, then, and only then, will we be able to safely transition to it.
You got a problem with cartoons?
I am rather intolerant of left-leaning platitudes and generalities like rico’s vague “.. there are a multitude of studies that contradict your talking point..” when faced with the fact that the current AGW panic will only enrich some elites who are behind it all.
We can do large-scale solar electricity generation but it is useless if we can’t move the electricity from the generation point, and the same psuedo-enviros who bleat about the need for more renewable energy come back and block desert installations and increased transmission lines. Ditto for large scale wind generators.
So when you peel the onion of so-called environmental, so-called ‘green’, promotions, what you end up with is that some people want to dictate how other people live by limiting their options, limiting their access to energy, and imposing elitist standards on them. It’s really much more about social engineering that finding alternative sources of energy.
Really? How so?
Increasing rates of skepticism in the population against modern theories of AGW, as well as certain scandals involving certain rather influential figures prominent in the AGW debate have not done anything to make modern theories seem more grounded in reality. In fact, they have made it seem less so. I take it your stance is that these problems do not really change the central premise at all, but I guess our views differ here because we calculate differently how to interpret the available data and the probability that other facets of the AGW-theory supporting community have been equally corrupted.
The national security argument against nuclear power goes like this: if we start building them, how can we demand that other, unfriendly, nations don’t?
They seem to be intent to pursue those technologies even when we do not ourselves. Furthermore, if UN inspectors and the like have the ability to tell when nuclear research is being conducted for energy or war purposes, as has been spouted during this whole Iran fiasco, then I do not have any problem with it. I think I said somewhere earlier in here that if it could be guaranteed that Iran was only researching for energy purposes I would be in full support.
The economic argument against them goes like this: they’re freakin’ expensive! More to the point, there has never, EVER been a nuclear plant constructed anywhere on earth, including the US, which did not require government subsidies. So, considering your opposition to “inefficient forms of energy” on the one hand and your advocacy of nuclear power on the other, how would you respond to those criticisms?
Ah, but I am not one of those conservatives who is a complete libertarian: I support limited government involvement. Yes, they may be expensive, but if they are correctly utilized, and this oil problem will be as dire as you predict, the short-term costs will be out-weighed by the long-term benefits of efficiency. The difference between nuclear and solar/wind alternatives is that nuclear has been proven to be very efficient. If the government is going to collect money to fix a problem, they may as well use something already tried and tested.
I’ve noticed that you continue to respond even after a thread drops off the front page. I just wanted you to know that I will redouble my efforts to follow you if you are so willing.
Haha, it’s because I’m actually kind of stubborn. Feel free to continue our conversations to your leisure, as you are one of the few people that bothers to try and honestly challenge my preconceptions here. However, sad to say that it may become difficult for me to visit here in the future. I will be moving to the other side of the world in a couple of months, you see, and it may become difficult to keep up communications.