House Directs Pentagon To Ignore Climate Change

originally posted by: eriktheawful

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: eriktheawful

I agree with everything you posted. Before this thread I did think that the sun was warming all the planets in the solar system. I also think human emissions also contribute and things in our climate vary. One volcano eruption can lower earth temp for months or even years. This makes me think it even more important to control what we can. If human emission tip the balance and we see the worst effects of global climate change and we did nothing the end results can be the end of civilization to extinction. But if we invest and use cleaner energy how can it harm us? Research and upgrading old energy plants to run more clean and efficient seems to have the potential of lots more jobs and a cleaner ecosystem.

I just feel the opposition is driven by profits and they don't want the regulations or the taxes needed to retool the industry.

There should be absolutely nothing wrong with humans switching over to cleaner forms of energy use, cleaning up or stopping pollution, and just generally being better stewards of our planet.

Regardless of whether or not humans are making a significant impact on the Earth's climate. We should be doing that in any case.

The problem is that our civilization and infrastructure is very dependent upon the energy we use in today's world. Those that provide those things need to change what they are doing and what they provide.

Car manufacturers need to make their hybrids/highly fuel efficient cars easier for the consumers to get (availability and price), and stop making and providing those that guzzle gas.

Power companies need to switch away from using coal and gas fired plants to something that is more green and environmental friendly.

Solar panel companies need to provide highly efficient solar panels....that do not cost an arm and leg to install.

Manufacture companies need to stop polluting our air, water and environment.

People need to stop clearing away our rain forests. Plant more trees, not destroy more.

A carbon tax will not change that or force those things to happen.

Doom Porn about the Earth's climate will not help. I'm sure you've seen it on here, but people tend to ignore the doom porn, especially if it is something that they are not seeing or is not affecting them. The climate here where I live has pretty much not changed over the last 25 years that I've lived here. And while climate change might take a long time, your average person is busy looking at the here and now.

I think we should do things and clean up our act, but not because I think humans are responsible for climate change.

I think we should do it simply because it makes sense and is the right thing to do period.

I agree, like I said earlier the time for debate about climate change is over,that ship have already left port,the question before "us" meaning all of humanity is how do we manage what's coming, look we are as smart as we are incredibly stupid , I don't know if this will pan out but this is the kind of out side the box thinking I am talking about

I do not know the politics of this couple nor do I care ,but this is just two people with a seemingly great idea,if folks know me by writings/threads they know that I am not exactly a tree hugger I am totally urban in nature,I am also a capitalist I believe in making money for my efforts..although not at any and all cost ,what I am saying is we can do both,if you have investments in old destructive energy sell them and reinvest in something that could work to our collective benefit,don't worry about old energy companies that based profits off dinosaur remains (oil) and pre-historic dead forests (coal) they will be just fine they already made their money just like the horse and carrage gave way to the automobile they too have had their time in the sun lettem go!! it's time for a new beginning .

I just got through watching this wk's episode of Cosmos ..The World Set Free,here is what I did not know.
1 that scientist have been tracking the changes in climate since the late 1800.
2 that by 1930 some recognized that we may have something to do with it.
3 that solutions were offered up in the form of solar energy over 100yrs ago in 1878 and again just before WW1 in 1913 by a man called Frank Shuman.
4 by 1958 we were being warned again,see clip below as shown in the Cosmos series.


We had our warnings along with solutions almost at the same time before any of us reading this were even an after thought In our grand or great grand parents minds,I was of the belief we became aware of this problem along with the solutions within the last 30yrs or so,but as always OIL put blinders on people.
Pls watch this episode of Cosmos.

True but Nixon was the one who put the EPA in place,so at onetime they were actually good at this.

a reply to: Phage

From Tadaman's Post

When the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide increases, the strong absorption lines become saturated. Thereafter its absorptivity increases logarithmically not linearly or exponentially; consequently, carbon dioxide convective heat transfer capacity decreases considerably.

According to the article, written by Professor Nasif Nahle, when a CO2 molecule absorbs its infrared wavelength it can lose the ability to reemit it because of the energy gained or lost in molecular collisions, microstates. CO2 could also get energy from a collision and emit a photon of infrared that it did not absorb, but this is only one microstate, (and a specific energy level), of a very large number of possible microstates and energy levels. So usually after CO2 absorbs infrared, it cannot reemit infrared.

When the concentration of CO2 is high, the CO2 en mass absorbs all of the local infrared photons (saturation), but loses temperature (kinetic energy) due to the higher number of microstates which results from a larger number of adjacent molecules.

Thereafter the CO2 molecules cannot move heat energy upward -- cannot perform convection.

Like H2O, which is lighter in its solid compared to liquid state, CO2 has a unique property, that of converting heat into microstates.

And all atoms and molecules that absorb radiation lose that specific energy level to collisions.

a reply to: Spider879

Constitutionally, the Army is supposed to be a cadre only. The Army should make plans and be ready to take volunteers.
And the population should be up to speed on the situation, ready to take a station.

Like before WW1, in Europe.

Except the training would be homeschooling, because the training would be life long.

There is a good orientation for education.

For whatever reason, the House did the right thing.

a reply to: xuenchen

Alabama Evicted ICLEI 26 May 2012

Earlier in the day, House members passed and sent to the governor a measure aimed to protect Alabama from a world government. Senate Bill 477 was developed and passed to counter United Nations Agenda 21. The bill reads, “The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21,’”

Hurrah Alabama!

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Spider879

Constitutionally, the Army is supposed to be a cadre only. The Army should make plans and be ready to take volunteers.
And the population should be up to speed on the situation, ready to take a station.

Like before WW1, in Europe.

Except the training would be homeschooling, because the training would be life long.

There is a good orientation for education.

For whatever reason, the House did the right thing.

Yes but we are organized for a professional standing army today,we don't just disband and wait for the next conflict,that's just too impractical, in any case preparedness means training and adopting to new realities on the battle field the consequences of climate change will task our military organizations.
Btw if Congress were consistent in reeling in wasteful military spending then I could see your point,but this issue smacks of political ill will and l dare say corruption over a subject they don't like because it may affect their donors.."The Oil People's " ability to ignore their industry's damaging effect on the environment.