Yep, that is more or less how I feel. Our leaders seem more interesting in yelling about why the other side is wrong than in solving anything.

The Republicans and Democrats appear to have given up trying to work together. Government will remain a mess until that changes.

You feel a rise of 0.12 inches a year? So in 10 years, oceans should be 1.2 inches higher?

I don't know about you, but that doesn't strike me as something that 99.9% of anyone would notice, unless told about.

You must have a different definition of "experiencing the effects" than everyone else does.

Ok, so you're saying that global warming started 115 years ago? So that MUST make it all man-made, no chance that it could be anything else, right?

I'm sorry that your mind is so closed as to have missed the point. First, you make the assumption that life will become very, very difficult. You don't know that.

Second, you don't know that any climate change can be avoided anyway, so all your efforts might amount to a fly trying to move an elephant.

When you use words like denier, you show yourself to be closed as well. You assume AGW is proven fact and that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Except, it isn't proven, many disagree, and you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.

You don't know that... actually, I think you're wrong. The "doing something" part has to be enough to make a change, and from what I've read, the changes proposed wouldn't do that.

But you're ignoring that part. Bailing water out of the Titanic is in fact "doing something NOW", but it doesn't change the outcome of the ship sinking.

But you aren't open and honest enough to accept that possibility, you assume that if you DO SOMETHING NOW, then all will be right. In the process you want to create a mess of another kind, without any assurance that your actions change anything.

I don't think anyone really knows how fast it is being made, or what the total amount really is...

People were claiming in the 70s that we'd run out of oil by... now... yet we have more known reserves of oil today than we did in the 70s.

People, even experts, like to think they know more than they do. The truth is, we simply don't know.

---

The funny thing is, if you posed the question another way, "Do you think we should burn every last pound of coal and every last gallon of oil in the ground", I suspect you'd get VERY few people to say yes to that.

So then we come to, "How much SHOULD we burn?" That is a much more reasonable question, one that neither side wants to discuss because they are both too busy bashing and blaming the other.

I'm much more of a centrist and moderate than I ever used to be. I also find that I listen more and respect other viewpoints more than I used to. Strange what age and maturity does to you. :)

True...

But at least with nuclear, you can burn the left overs in another reactor or you can at least put them in a box.

Yes, we haven't had the best record of that in the past, but that doesn't mean we can't change that, we just have to be willing to do so. You can't put the output of a coal or natural gas power plant in a box, no matter how hard you try.

Keep in mind that if the "waste" from nuclear is radioactive, then it also can be used to make power. The only time nuclear anything is really "spent" is when it is no longer radioactive.

We have VERY old reactor designs dating back 40 years, we have not been keeping up with technology. If we really wanted to, I imagine we could build some much better reactors, but the NIMBY and "oh my god the nuclears!" people won't have it.

Neither am I... I live in Texas and we're now one of the largest wind producers in the US, making some 9% of our power from wind last time I looked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Now... Wind DOES cost more than coal and natural gas, no matter what the AGW people want to say. I buy my power from a competitive marketplace, I can pick from dozens of different power suppliers, and wind costs more than coal does.

To be specific, I just signed a new contract for power for my business, I'm paying 6.2 cents per kWh for the first 2,000 kWh and 6.8 cents after that. That is the total delivered price and it is a fairly even mix of coal, natural gas, and nuclear, with about 6% of the total being "renewable".

If I wanted all wind power, then the price goes to 9.1 cents per kWh for the first 2,000 kWh and 9.6 cents after that.

Of course, a nice carbon tax could fix that in a hurry, if that is what we as a country wanted to do.

I have actually... and more people do every day...

I spent a few hundred dollars to replace all my incandescent bulbs in my home with LED bulbs. And I was ranting a few years ago against government over reach when they wanted to ban incandescent bulbs. I still am, it isn't their job to pick winners.

LED bulbs did get down to a price point where they make sense, now it comes down to education to make people aware of how much money they save. My payback period on those bulbs is just over a year, maybe 15 months. That is a no-brainer if there ever was one. People talk about solar systems having 7 to 10 year paybacks, yet ignore the one that has less than 2 years of payback.

I also recently purchased a car for the first time in almost 20 years. My primary vehicle is a 2015 Yukon XL Denali, a wonderful vehicle that burns crap loads of gas, but is very useful for moving my family, their friends, and stuff. However, if it is just me, or just me and my wife, it is overkill... So now I also own a 2014 Ford Taurus that gets 29 MPH on the highway. It is still comfortable and filled with nice stuff, but it burns almost half the fuel of my big truck and I make a point to drive it instead of the truck when I don't need the truck.

Now I'm thankfully in the position that I can afford to buy another vehicle, not everyone is. I figure that the gas savings pays for the insurance on it, so it isn't "free" or even "cheap", but it does reduce my carbon and pollution footprint.

And I'm a Republican! So not all of us want to just "drill, baby drill" until it is all gone. But the solutions should be reasonable and take into account everyone, not just top down central planning.

Not at all, that is the second group of "drill baby drill" people.

Of course, don't forget the extreme libs in San Fran who are as equally deluded as the people in West Virginia are... just in the other direction... They think if everyone just drove a Prius and lived in a little 1,000 sqft eco home the world would be a happy place...

Both groups are wrong...

""We're the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it," Obama said on Monday."

---

While that sounds nice when he is giving a speech, there are two problems with the above sentence.

First, we aren't feeling the impact of climate change. For all the fear mongering, the oceans haven't risen, the weather is fine, and life has been carrying on.

Second, we aren't the last generation who can do something about it. Depending on who you listen to, either we have already passed the point of no return, or we have a long time to worry about it.

If AGW supporters are correct, then the changes being proposed won't change the outcome by enough to matter. We had to do all this 30+ years ago and get the world on board as well. A few cuts here and there will be swamped by the growth in the global economy and the number of new power plants being built every year. China alone is building a new coal plant every month.

At this point, we're just moving the deck chairs around the Titanic, or perhaps put another way, we using a bucket brigade to try and get the water out of the ship. Nice idea, but pointless when the ship is still going to sink.

So if the AGW people are right (and they might be, I wouldn't discount smart people so easily), then we need to start adapting to the change that is coming regardless of what we do.

If the AGW people are wrong, then this is just a wealth transfer and overreaching power grab from big government.

Expect the first half of the posts from the, "the world is ending, fix global warming/climate change/AGW down!" crowd.

Expect the second half of the posts from the, "drill, baby drill, economy and jobs, save the middle class, solar is too expensive, burn more coal" crowd.

And nothing will be changed, resolved, or decided.

^ This... thank you, someone who gets it...

I'm afraid you're misinformed...

My transmission costs are paid to one company, my power generation costs are paid to another, and I have many to pick from.

I can buy my power from dozens of different unregulated companies, but my power delivery comes from a regulated utility that can't change rates without the government's permission. There is also no markup on those rates and none of the money goes to the power generator.

That was more true in the past, but the business has changed.

15 years ago you had a dozen or more chipset makers for motherboards. Now you really have 2, AMD and Intel.

Lets be honest, there is little difference between various Z97 and 990FX motherboards these days, even more so from the point of view of Windows.

Video cards? Do you remember 15 years ago? I do, nVidia and AMD didn't own the whole market once, now they do. Well, Intel too, but they aren't hard to account for.

Most desktop and notebook PCs these days aren't that unique.

Motherboards, you have Intel and AMD chipsets.

Video cards, you have Intel, AMD, and nVidia.

Network you have Intel and RealTek (more, but they are the main ones).

Sound, you largely only have RealTek left.

What else is there? You could make OS X work on your average modern Intel or AMD machine without much trouble. There is a middle ground between supporting everything and supporting 5 machines.

Besides, I never said they had to support everything, I said they needed to offer more choices. For less than $2k, you really have two choices, a Mac Mini or an iMac, both of which are expensive and limited.

My first computer was an Apple II, I love Apple stuff, but I don't like the limits which is why I run Windows.

Fair enough... I disagree with you on that example, but fair enough. :)

That's fine, but it ignores the reality that ACA turned insurance upside down...

More than 20% of my wife's existing patients had their insurance change all at once.

It was ACA, even if you don't want to hear that.

Ha! That is sad, funny, and probably true all at the same time.

Perhaps, but what if it is a good idea?

Also, I pointed out that he wouldn't become King (despite what Obama has been trying), he has to deal with Congress and the SCOTUS.

Yes I have... I also have considered that a whole lot of Americans are tired of the same-old, same-old...

At some point, people get sick of it and want change... and not the "hope and change variety" which is what we got with Obama, and nothing changed.

So... leading a very large company of many diverse people... is very different than leading a very large nation of many diverse people?

I have to disagree, I think they are a very compatible skill set. Leadership is leadership, be it in the military, a company, or a nation...

No one can do it all themselves, you must be able to build groups of people up and get them to work together. This is true in the military, in companies, and in nations.

Right now we're a nation divided, nothing Obama says is anything but dividing in nature.

Trump may well kick out half the illegals, then put the other half to work.

It is a fair point... No, it isn't insulting, it is a real concern. Of course, it would also be real for Hillary and Biden as well.

---

They are all too old, vote for me, I'm 40... old enough to have some wisdom, young enough to be willing to change.

My political viewpoints would combine Kirk, Spock, and Bones. How so?

Simple:

You need Bones for his heart, for his compassion towards others. You need him for his very human side that looks at everyone with care and love. He cares for the sick, the infirm, the weak. He believes in all life being special. His speech in the TOS episode "Balance of Terror" sums up the importance of every person.

You need Spock for his very practical outlook. His fact based approach to everything is summed up perfectly in Star Trek II when he realizes the Enterprise will never survive the Genesis blast without Warp Drive. Someone has to go into the reactor to fix it, but will die in the process. Since he'll die anyway if someone DOESN'T fix it, it is an easy decision to do it, knowing that both choices involve his death, but one choice involves saving everyone else. In other words, he has figured out that he is going to die, rather than fight it, he decides to go out the best way possible.

You need Kirk for his leadership, his focus, and because sometimes you just need someone punched in the face. His solution to the Kobayashi Maru training exercise is why you need him. As he once said, "I don't believe in the no-win scenario", and "I don't like to lose".