AGW & The People Responsible For It

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
According to the IPCC, and the majority of climate scientists, the rise of CO2 due to burning of fossil fuels is the direct cause of Global Warming(Climate Change...w/e).

Whether or not this is true does not matter at this point. The people behind this rise in CO2 can be easily traced throughout history to a few groups.

Who are these amazing and smart people? The Anti-Nuclear Movement.

I realized that rather than fighting over whether AGW is real, we can prove who is responsible for it, and that is clearly environmentalists/liberals/democrats.

The anti nuclear movement just in the US alone consists of over 80 groups. The Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Abalone Alliance, Plowshares movement, and the Women Strike for Peace are just a few. These anti-nuclear groups have been delaying and stopping the building of nuclear plants all over the US for the last 50+ years.

Even though it took them 50+ years, most environmentalists/democrats/liberals are starting to actually understand the science, and that nuclear is the ANSWER not the PROBLEM.

Fast forward to the year 2000, and the same group of democrats/liberals/environmentalists believe they are the answer to the problem. They drive hybrid cars, and think happy thoughts which make them better than us.

Regardless of science then or now, they insist WE are the problem, when in reality they are too ignorant to realize they have been the root cause all along.

Looking for the liberals/democrats/environmentalists to prove me wrong on this.

P.S. -- I am an Independent and logical environmentalist.




posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Euphem


I am an Independent and logical environmentalist


If you where an Independent and logical environmentalist I do not think you would have a beef with trying to keep our air clean.

You sound more like a spokesperson to an oil company to me..

Really it is difficult to discern the facts and that being said I would suggest erring on caution. The problem being restricting the flow of c02 has a direct effect on industry that is a big no no to capitalism. Capitalism and sustainability do not go hand in hand you cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet..

s/f

purp..



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

I have nothing against keeping our air clean. Sadly, I have probably done more volunteering to keep the earth clean than all of ATS combined.

So I ask again, prove me wrong?

Don't attack me, prove me wrong okay?
edit on 24-6-2014 by Euphem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Euphem

I am sure you are not the only one ATS that has done a lot to protect the environment..

Prove you wrong in what respect..



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

The reason for AGW is due to liberals/environmentalists of the past 50 years preventing nuclear energy proliferation thus INCREASING the amount of fossil fuels needed to keep our world running.

Simple. Basic.

Can you read?



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Euphem

It is no good blaming these people on those people. There is only us.

Nuclear energy is not the answer. Changing the relationship we have with ourselves and the planet is. We need to learn to reduce our energy consumption not continue to increase it. We need to change the type of systems we have in place if we as a species are to survive on this planet



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Euphem

Well if you are looking for a flaw in your idea it would be cost per kilowatt.



There is enough untaped geothermal energy in this country to run everything 10 times over and it is expected to cost even less in the future based on new technological developments that some countries already employ.

Same goes for solar however I like that geothermal can produce energy both night and day.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: purplemer

The reason for AGW is due to liberals/environmentalists of the past 50 years preventing nuclear energy proliferation thus INCREASING the amount of fossil fuels needed to keep our world running.

Simple. Basic.

Can you read?


No the reason for global warming is because we have uncontrollable growth. Control the system and control global warming.

very simple really anything short is simply a band aid. Let Fukishima be a lesson to you it is a lesson we cannot afford to have again..



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

How very ignorant of you.

If only I could have stayed 18 and oblivious my whole life.

Let me explain this to you. The world you live in, requires energy to exist.

Thinking happy thoughts doesn't produce that energy.

Would you rather freeze to death instead of using nuclear energy? Or have "AGW"?
edit on 25-6-2014 by Euphem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yeah solar energy technology from the 60's - 00's was really ground breaking stuff. Your lack of historical context is mind numbing.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Euphem

Oh I see you just want to play a blame game. You are not offering any solutions for right now you are only concerned with the past.

Got it. I do disagree with you on the bases of nuclear technology from the 60s was far riskier than it is now. But you are not arguing for nuclear now just looking to blame someone.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Umm look at the thread title smart guy.

Was I posting the miracle solutions for mankind? NO.

I was posting the reason behind AGW which is anti nuclear libs/environmentalists.

Please go away and leave this to the more intelligent adults on ATS. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Euphem

If only your intelligence was as overflowing as your insults seem to be.

I will wind up going away though as I don't see any value to your thread.

BTW In 1960, Pacific Gas and Electric began operation of the first successful geothermal electric power plant in the United States so make sure you blame all the conservatives that blocked further development in that field. Because you are so smart and all.
edit on 25-6-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
These groups could have been infiltrated by corporate contracted people to cause conflict. I will say that there is is actually probable, but to what extent. Liberals jump and things turn out bad, then they point their fingers and blame someone, shifting our focus. We should have been more conservative on these nuclear plants and really overbuilt them and only allowed them in very stable areas.....but that is not what happened.

Proper risk assessment should have been going on all along and these groups should have opened their eyes to infiltration instead of getting riled up right away. I know what people would do to protect their livelihood and lifestyle.

The problem is that consumption increased when we increased the nuclear, everyone has lots more electric stuff in their house. Microwaves do not save money, everyone heats food up more instead of just eating things cold. We actually cut our electric use down a tad when we got rid of our microwave. Unplugging lots of gadgets we rarely use helped also, but the cost of power rose and cut out the savings anyway.

The contrails on jets effect on the atmosphere is bad also, they are looking at trying to fix that problem a little.

Trying to deny that we have no effect on weather is what we have been doing all along. It was a lie, we can effect the weather. We don't have to give up everything, we just need to be more reasonable, combining trips saves us money and also helps to stop the altering or destruction of our environment. We can't keep our heads buried in the sand and say we are not doing it, the evidence is there, the proof is in the weather. Limiting this to CO2 is not going to work, consumerism needs to be altered and products need to be made to last longer. Planned obsolescence and death dating of products needs to be outlawed worldwide.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Until we figure out a way to deal with waste, other than just burying it and waiting for a nice earthquake to crack the cask and make a mess, I think it's better to find more efficient ways to get electricity from the abundance of natural energy around us. Wind, geothermal, ocean and river currents etc etc. My biggest problem with hydro, it seems to be messing with a lot of fishes that live in the rivers, they don't seem to like the vibes given off by the passthrough dams.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

This has nothing to do with political party..only that environmentalists tend to be liberals/democrats.

One last time I will ask you. Other than fossil fuels, what energy source did we have access to that would have maintained our energy needs from the 60's - 00's?

Please enlighten me.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Euphem

It is no good blaming these people on those people. There is only us.

Nuclear energy is not the answer. Changing the relationship we have with ourselves and the planet is. We need to learn to reduce our energy consumption not continue to increase it. We need to change the type of systems we have in place if we as a species are to survive on this planet



I agree we need to change many of our current systems, especially our financial one, there in no reason a guy behind a desk deserves to bring home more than thousands of hourly workers that actually produce all the goods and services that make all of the money for the company in the first place.

As far as energy goes, we cannot use less, we have to use more, as this is the only way for billions not to starve.

We do not need more nuclear IMHO either though, how is chernobl or fukishima doing?

That is right, these 2 places alone have released more radioactivity in our atmosphere than naturally occurs over millions of years.

More nuclear reactors, more accidents point blank.

I prefer my kids not glow in the dark.

So we have only fossil fuels to use at present, as alternatives are BS gimmicks, not actual alternatives.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: oblvion

LOL!! Well for one it is spelled Chernobyl.

I thought I could have a serious intelligent conversation here, but I was wrong.

Mods feel free to close this. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Euphem
So far all you have done is made sarcastic snide remarks, and correct some spelling. It doesn't seem like you are here for any discussion at all....



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Euphem




One last time I will ask you. Other than fossil fuels, what energy source did we have access to that would have maintained our energy needs from the 60's - 00's?


For someone claiming to have such intelligence you sure haven't comprehended what I have already wrote. And FYI rising economic costs for nuclear was one of the largest factors as to why nuclear didn't take off, but you should already know that.

Anyway I am off to more interesting threads.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join