Sen. Jeff Sessions Tells Global Warming Alarmists To Cool It
And Sessions gives good reasons why.
I enjoy being able to keep this man in office as a voter in the Birmingham area.
I enjoy being able to keep this man in office as a voter in the Birmingham area.
That would interfere with the policy of "we have to pass the Bill, to find out what is in it".
When you get to be a Senator, the country has a right to expect you to research things, as he has done.
I guess we can hope.
Let's see the results of Sessions' presentation...
Did/Will Anything Change?
I agree that there are going to be some who will choose to support their biases and agendas over reality, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to influence those who really do want to do the right thing. If we do nothing, we will automatically fail.
--a quote from whoever said that.
Saw that quote in some movie, whatever that was.
The setting was in Africa.
Think Bruce Willis was in it but I may be wrong.
I could try to find that.
Naw!
What I'm saying is that I ALSO have grown to recognize that, not having discovered any 'silver bullets,' Believers are not swayed from their beliefs by pretty much ANY dose of logic, reasoning or facts. I was recently watching Christopher Hitchens' videos on YouTube, and he's essentially butting his head against the same 'billion-kilowatt dams' in his own way.
But maybe some of our "High Hopes" will bear fruit. For me, it's my second-favorite indoor sport.
Prediction of future stability is no more helpful than prediction of warming. Only the correlations in the paleo-records are worth studying.
The reality is that trying to predict the weather or climate has so many variables that it is nearly impossible. What we really ought to do is spend the next 1000 years gathering data so that we can put together a model. Maybe by that time we'll have enough information that we can actually correlate changes and attempt to explain what is going on.
The most important correlation is the link between CO2 and sea level. Not much else is relevant.
Gathering more data will not create a more accurate model. In any case, any model would just be joining the race to make another (worthless) prediction.
I agree with the science, but disagree with state controlled solutions. It is not necessary to deny the science just to object to the political motives.
Until there is actually evidence of a problem - or a substantially more supported hypothesis - I don't think any action is warranted - private or public. I can't necessarily rule out a public solution, but it is definitely a last resort in my book for just about any problem.
I love it when I start a thread.
Every word posted appears in my email.
http://patriotupdate.com/cartoons/follow...
Someone may want to repost it so it can be seen.
as fast as it should! -- j
Second, there are a plethora of professional climatologists who are AGW, and many more who are 'Lukewarmers' (think that there is a small amount of man-made GW but that it is doing more good than harm). If you would like to browse, please go to wattsupwiththat.com.
My personal position is that the temperature fluctuations that we are experiencing are part of the normal climate process and that our increased CO2 has virtually no effect. I am definitely not a Warmist; I am not an Icer - but I am keeping an eye on that possibility.
Jan
coal-burning utilities in the US).
#2 is Drummond... which is pretty slimey... 100% of their employees are former government employees, so half of the 'do what we want' thing is a guaranteed job if they lose their seat...
#6 is Vulcan Materials...
I'm not a global warming nut, but I've worked in the power industry, and its not a foreign concept to me. We can do a lot of things in a cleaner way, and often cheaper, we just let politics get in the way. Ever seen a 'coal ash pond'? Coal is only cheap because we don't make the utility deal with the byproducts and waste, they just build a pond and throw the crap in there, presumably in perpetuity, because they close a plant and leave it behind for the residents & taxpayers to deal with - billions to pump it out into trains and haul it away.
We have nuclear brain-damage here... we've never had a serious accident, but we've had plenty of problems with other technologies... but we shut all our nukes down for the most part. None were even close to the same poor designs of Chernobyl o or Fukashima. France is almost 100% nuclear, never had a problem. They even recycle their waste into more fuel for the reactor.
I've had solar on my house for a year, went for $400 a month in local utility cost to around $35 (all taxes) and a variable $70-$120 solar lease payment.
We have lots of hydro power we don't use out of fear that we'll kill the fish, so instead we buy hydro power from Canada (which has either figured out a way to not kill fish, or they kill the fish and we don't see it).
We can do things another way, in many cases we choose not to.
I'm less concerned about global warming, as I am about the pollution aspect of fossil fuels. I don't think there is anything wrong with using technology to build it better/faster/cheaper, but picking up the religious jihad on it on one side or the other seems foolish too. Whenever you look at the donors, you see pretty obviously that someone else has something to gain too... Think to coal & oil industry are 'thrilled' about renewable sources of fuel? Think the power utilities are happy if 20-40% of their customers go away and produce their own power on-site? It's foolish to think that those interest groups are not on the other side of the global warming debate either... Although its not so much about "global warming is a hoax" as "we need the revenue so distract the attention elsewhere".
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/04/laura-...
I read nothing about him being a third party distraction, though, which was what Perot became.
Now global warming advocates claim we've known for hundreds of years that climate demands sacrifice. I mean, right out of Atlas Shrugged...
http://twitchy.com/2015/02/01/science-se...
I was part of a "weather war" study some years ago, where we were calculating how to cause weather effects that could alter the environment in our favor during conflict. The distinguished panel of climatologists and nuclear weapons experts had use of the best modeling capabilities at hand (the ones used to establish the "nuclear winter" scenario). We quickly learned that humans couldn't produce enough climate-altering materials (by several orders of magnitude) to have even a minimal effect in temporary climate alteration, let alone long term effects.
Kidding aside...great comment and information!
Anything more lengthy than these sound bites will lose the lemmings' attention, and we need the lemmings' attention!