IntenseDebate - JIG2010

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Credibility is what’... · 0 replies · +1 points

minaka, the interesting thing about the $30 billion spent by the US government from 1989 to 2007 is that the first 4 years were under G.W.H Bush and the last 6 were under G.W. Bush. "W" didn't publically accept the facts of climate change until sometime in 2006. The two Presidents Bush had control of that much money over that long a time and they could refute the reality!

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Credibility is what’... · 1 reply · +1 points

I hear ya. It's hard to think that, maybe for the first time in generations, our kids could be economically worse off than we are.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Credibility is what’... · 1 reply · +1 points

I repeat: greenhouses are not pressurized. Pressure is not a requirement for a greenhouse effect.

Of course you need an “object” (i.e., a planet and an atmosphere) to be heated.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Credibility is what’... · 2 replies · +1 points

Can't refute the message, so you have to attack the messenger.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Credibility is what’... · 0 replies · +1 points

"Greens hate nuclear with a passion" - I support nuclear power (and have said so several times on the thread). Does that make me "Green" or not?

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Credibility is what’... · 3 replies · +1 points

I guess I hit a nerve!

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Credibility is what’... · 10 replies · +1 points

So Wakefield Tolbert, as a defender of the “world’s most vulnerable”, you would embrace the following policy:

The rich countries of the world embark on a rapid move away from fossil fuels which will remove our demand from the free market for carboniferous fuels and relieve the upward pressure on the cost of those fuels. This allows the developing nations to accelerate the growth of their economies, freeing billions of people from the bonds of poverty. This would no doubt have an economic impact on rich countries; but, even if the US per capita GDP were cut in half, it would still be greater than the current per capita GDP of Portugal’s; it would be 50% greater than Russia, 75% greater than Mexico, 2 times the world GDP, 3 times China’s GDP and 7 times the current per capita GDP of India.

Surely the lives of billions of people would be worth the sacrifice?

If you’re going to present a holier-than-thou argument, you should be prepared to back it up.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Credibility is what’... · 1 reply · +1 points

I don’t doubt that there are people who oppose capitalism. My concern is the attempt to turn a scientific debate into an American-style, partisan issue. It’s like the McCarthy Era all over again. “Look, that guy replaced his incandescent light bulbs! He’s a traitor and wants to see the poor suffer!”

It’s ridiculous.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Credibility is what’... · 4 replies · +1 points

“tremenous MASS in this Venusian atmosphere that in turn (as you said elsewhere) is far more efficient in trapping heat “ – I don’t think I said mass has anything to do with the greenhouse effect.

Consider this: an actual greenhouse is not pressurized; the atmosphere inside one isn’t massive.

Mass or pressure is not the factor. It’s the ability of the “greenhouse” to trap the solar energy, to prevent it from radiating away, and thus to cause heat to build up in the “greenhouse”.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Credibility is what’... · 4 replies · +1 points

No, I believe I quoted the NASA article ( http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction... ) correctly. It does mention that "throughout the last three decades, the GISS [Goddard Institute for Space Studies] surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.4°F) per decade." And also, "Since 1880 — the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely — a clear warming trend is present, though there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s."

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with JIG2010

People I'm following

JIG2010