re: #449 gnargtharst

I asked “What temperature do you propose that the Earth should be?”

Ludwig replied:

“This is a talking point kind of question… [Actually no — it was a specific and simple question; I’d like to know at what specific worldwide mean temperature I’ll stop being harangued by church-lady-type greens wagging their armed fingers at me for the sin or paying for the energy I use. It’s not lost on me that you’ve punted.]

“…The proper answer is that the Earth should be at a temperature that does not cause massive loss of arable land, change of habitat and loss of coastline.”

So, as soon as climate is completely static — something it has never been in 4 billion years — we can start enjoying our light bulbs again? Great.

Well, at least the Global Warming Church Ladies don’t have the power of armed government behind th… oh… never mind.

No I didn’t punt, I went to another thread.

You are not interested in looking at this rationally. You assume that because I am a physicist who actually has the expertise to make real comments about this stuff that I am some church lady green and that I want to take away all of your toys, simply because I have the audacity to point to real data and not play sophomoric debating games.

Step one: Acknowledging the problem is separate from the proposed solution.
Step two: My proposed solution - drastically increasing nuclear plants, is hardly what the hippie crowd would like.