see - i knew i was doing my part for the environment when i ate that steak last night.
Printable View
see - i knew i was doing my part for the environment when i ate that steak last night.
Unfortunately, steak is a bit to expensive for me... The government should do it's part and enable me to save our poor environment by buying me a nice juicy steak. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity
does beef jerky count? mmmmmmm beef jerky
'Global Warming' is a bullshit term...the earth has been naturally cooling and heating for millions of years...
Climate Change, on the other hand, might make a small amount of sense. Even here in Canada..we don't even have fall or spring it seems anymore, just 8 months of winter and 6 months of summer...the "seasons" we all grew up learning about have gone from four to two. So the way our climate operates may be differing..places usually defined as "arctic" and "tropical" are displaying characteristics that don't correspond with their climate...its not a big deal as some would make it out to be. Not enough fear inducement to get people to buy in to it...so we have to go with 'global warming'...the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard.
I'm not sure as to my responsibility for it, but I'm sure as hell not prepared to let the government tell me that I'm responsible for it.
The atomic bombs, nuclear tests, etc. are a more likely culprit than me taking home groceries in a plastic bag...gimme a break. Not saying we should disrespect the planet, but i do think its ridiculous for the government to blame it on the people. Oh wait, they have to or we won't buy these carbon credit things!
Anyone who is foolish enough to listen to Al Gore should read a bit of info...and maybe discover that he owns the largest carbon credit company in the world...just waiting to cash in...
He uses more junk than the average person, but oh it's okay because he offsets it with carbon credits....
Silly!
So, we see that the problem isn't even defined, and the proposed remedy won't do shit all to help the environment...how are "carbon credits" going to make the grass greener and water cleaner?
Anyone else smell bullshit?
Oh and props to Jagged Edge for trying to be a minority voice. Its hard to say anything not mainstream, and people should be commended for trying. I for one agree with you man!
JaggedEdge, opening up debate is one thing....saying that you are right and factually enlightened and that everybody who disagrees is WRONG, end of story, is just plain arrogant and irritating. I'm not a scientist and I don't claim to know the truth about this one way or the other, but I do know that there are enough major scientists who DO maintain its existence for it to be just dismissed as ideological bullshit.
Both sides have valid points, and you can't just ignore the scientific minds who are concerned with the impact mankind is having on the earth. You accuse everybody else of close-mindedness and ideological filtering, and yet every issue is adjusted for your hardcore libertarian stance. I'm a libertarian myself in many ways, but I'd like to think that exercising a little pragmatism might be healthy every now and then.
You can find many distinguished scientists claiming it to be nothing but horseshit, and you can find many claiming the contrary. The issue is not simply a political fabrication, though I concede it has been exploited to a degree for political ends. Way I see it, if we go with the people who claim it's true, the worst-case scenario is we have a cleaner world and less money in the short term. If we bury our heads in the sand and it turns out to be true, the worst-case scenario is we have a shattered earth and a global populace that slowly descends into food rioting and massive turf wars where water and bullets are the only currency. That may sound dramatic, but it's not.
"No evidence"....what? By that you mean no evidence that you can accept, which differs from there in fact being no evidence. But nevermind, you're right....everything's fine. The biggest mass extinction of species also has nothing to do with us--it's been going on forever, right? If there's an apparent link between our explosion in population and deforestation and the deprecation of species, it's just political bullshit. Even if you're right and it is in fact a fabrication, come on....you must realize that sooner or later this will all catch up to us, even if it hasn't already. A pre-emptive detox doesn't sound so evil to me.
I asked specifically for them to provide specific sources. I have yet to see any. Why should I not dismiss it as pure bullshit when the supporters can't even bother to find facts that aren't easily repudiated?Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
Simply because some scientists conclude Al Gore isn't a loon doesn't make it true. Scientists have stated many things that simply aren't true and never came to be true. I'm not ignoring them, I looked at their "facts," looked at the oppositions "facts," and ultimately concluded there is NO empirical evidence to support global warming, much less man made global warming.Quote:
Both sides have valid points, and you can't just ignore the scientific minds who are concerned with the impact mankind is having on the earth.
Hell, if they can find scientists to back penis enlargement pills and techniques, why can't they find ones to back global warming. Penis enhancement, aside from out-patient surgery isn't currently available, yet there have been those who claim some bullshit product or another will increase your dick size by an inch.
Wrong. How many issues have I discussed on this board? Yes, I agree with Libertarian views on a majority of issues, hence classifying myself as a libertarian. My views are the reason I consider myself that, not the other way around.Quote:
You accuse everybody else of close-mindedness and ideological filtering, and yet every issue is adjusted for your hardcore libertarian stance. I'm a libertarian myself in many ways, but I'd like to think that exercising a little pragmatism might be healthy every now and then.
As I have said before, I have looked at both sides, and it is clear I AM RIGHT. If new "evidence" were to be presented to me I would view it with an open mind, however, seeing as their is no new evidence, I'm still right.
Isn't it? We have Al Gore as a figurehead. They use it as a means to make money through taxes as well as (in Gores case) their own Carbon Offset Companies, not to mention personal investments in other "green" companies. Read previous posts in this topic for the specifics on this.Quote:
The issue is not simply a political fabrication, though I concede it has been exploited to a degree for political ends.
Wrong. Worst case scenario is we run companies into the ground with this Cap and Trade bullshit while making non-industrial nations rich in the process, resulting in the prices of our goods going up.Quote:
Way I see it, if we go with the people who claim it's true, the worst-case scenario is we have a cleaner world and less money in the short term.
For something I might add (carbon) that isn't actually a problem!
Again, you are completely wrong. Your scenario is plausible for global cooling, unfortunately your logic is extremely flawed. Vegetation loves warm temperatures and survives off of carbon! How would increased temperatures cause food riots? As for water, if the ice caps were truly melting, wouldn't water be in more abundance? I love how water is suddenly this rare thing... 70% of our planet is water.Quote:
If we bury our heads in the sand and it turns out to be true, the worst-case scenario is we have a shattered earth and a global populace that slowly descends into food rioting and massive turf wars where water and bullets are the only currency. That may sound dramatic, but it's not.
No, it is virtually the same evidence for both sides. The global warming side however takes a portion of a graph to prove it's point. All evidence is not equal. Some is manipulated for a purpose, which is easily proven in this case.Quote:
"No evidence"....what? By that you mean no evidence that you can accept, which differs from there in fact being no evidence.
Again, I'm going to ask for sources, but don't expect to receive any. Considering we are continuously discovering new species and have been for years, is it not logical to assume we simply are more accurate in recognizing species going extinct? Species have been, and will continue to go extinct, the only reason it appears it's happening at a more rapid pace is because we have discovered far more of them. Someone else could articulate this point far better than I can, so please do.Quote:
The biggest mass extinction of species also has nothing to do with us--it's been going on forever, right?
Yup, your right, it's bullshit. The Native Americans saw the benefits in deforestation long before the white man began eradicating entire forests. The trees, in many places in North America are not native to the states in which they are found. The Native Americans burned forests in order to improve their grasslands as well as the hunting of game. Forests grow back. As to deforestation for construction, there are still vast parts of the earth that haven't been massively colonized, including a vast majority of the U.S.Quote:
If there's an apparent link between our explosion in population and deforestation and the deprecation of species, it's just political bullshit.
Again, I don't understand this argument in the least. If their assumptions were wrong and their evidence is illogical and/or manipulated, what reason is there to suggest the outcome they predict will ever occur? It is basic cause and effect, if you can't identify the correct cause, what credibility do you have to predict the effect?Quote:
if you're right and it is in fact a fabrication, come on....you must realize that sooner or later this will all catch up to us, even if it hasn't already. A pre-emptive detox doesn't sound so evil to me.
Oh no!
The greenies have hacked NASA's Satellite imagery!!!
The following can't be true!!!
NASA - Satellites Show Arctic Literally on Thin Ice
:thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldeSkule
Wow.
So....I guess this is conclusive proof, ice melts. Pat yourself on the back.:thumbsup: Explain how this in any way supports man made global warming?
I will not hold my breath waiting for an answer LOL, or one that makes sense. The arctic ice melts, every year. It says that in the article. The new ice is "thin", no shit! Do you realize their have been periods in earths history that there has been 0 arctic ice? This was prior to the combustion engines existence. I suppose that even then, it was due to man made global warming though LOL. OR, just maybe, it's part of natural cycles that our climate would be going through, whether we inhabited this planet, or there were millons of herds of alien cattle roaming the plains. It's funny how human nature tells us that we MUST have controll over our environment, it's all because of us.
Like I said, love to hear how that proves anything other than, yes, ice melts.:wtf:
Didn't NASA spend $38 million on a moon rover that had less parts than a Jeep... not a reliable source of information IMO :jointsmile:Quote:
Originally Posted by OldeSkule
But this is interesting... spraying the atmosphere to reduce global warming :thumbsup:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI[/YOUTUBE]
Again they are looking at satellites for the last 30 years, that isn't a large enough period of time to say what it means. If you can't look at 30 years of data and conclude we are causing it.Quote:
Scientists who track Arctic sea ice cover from space announced today that this winter had the fifth lowest maximum ice extent on record. The six lowest maximum events since satellite monitoring began in 1979 have all occurred in the past six years (2004-2009).
Taken from icecap.us
I don't think anyone is arguing ice caps in some regions are melting, we are simply saying it isn't the end of the world. It also isn't this global trend they want you to believe. Climate fluctuates differently throughout the planet.Quote:
Braithwaite in 2002 in a paper ??Glacier mass balance? in the Journal Progress in Physical Geography reveals ??there are several regions with highly negative mass balances in agreement with a public perception of ??the glaciers are melting,?? but there are also regions with positive balances.? Within Europe, for example, he notes that ??Alpine glaciers are generally shrinking, Scandinavian glaciers are growing, and glaciers in the Caucasus are close to equilibrium for 1980-95.? And when results for the whole world are combined for this most recent period of time, Braithwaite notes ??there is no obvious common or global trend of increasing glacier melt in recent years.?
That's scary, although I missed where they implied it was being used to reverse global warming. What ever the reason, I don't like the idea of the government testing chemicals on an unknowing populace.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtopsfinn
As to NASA, they are a huge waste of money. I'm not going to say they haven't come up with some very helpful inventions, but the amount of money they spend vs. the amount of success they have had is greatly disproportionate. These are the same people who made it to the moon, pated themselves on the back, and basically said, "thats enough for a half century."
Hell, we now have private companies entering into the space travel and exploration business. I'm anxious to see the things that come from the private sector, it is about time NASA had some competition.
Yeah sorry... maybe more appropriate for the Conspiracy forum, but since it's somewhat related I thought I'd share it anyways :jointsmile:
Here's the article connecting it: AP Newsbreak: Obama looks at climate engineering
Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.
John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.
"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."
Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.
Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."
At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.
Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously. The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program. The British parliament has also discussed the idea.
The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."
Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.
But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air??making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested??could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said.
Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added.
Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide??the chief human-caused greenhouse gas??out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Interesting read. Yes that is terrifying stuff, and it is why so many of us are so extreme in trying to enlighten people to the lies being fed to them. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtopsfinn
I doubt it would be hard to sell this to a good portion of the population. This is what fear mongering does, it makes people so afraid of something that they are likely to go along with something else that could potentially be more harmful in order to end their fears.
I would not want to risk them fucking up our climate in the long run while trying to fix a mythical problem. When something isn't actually broken, don't try and fix it. I don't think these people are knowledgeable to predict the long term effects of these practices, or the potentially harmful side effects from the chemicals. It sounds like a drastic action for a problem that doesn't need fixing.
Not to mention, doesn't this go against what the "greenies" believe. If man actually got us into this mess, why would we trust him to release things into our atmosphere to fix it?
JaggedEdge, how do you account for atmospheric methane having risen 145% in the last century? Fossil fuel production is a documented cause of this, and the past century has seen a steady explosion in human fussil fuel consumption, but there couldn't be any kind of link, right?
There's plenty of evidence, if you didn't immediately begin thinking of how to contradict it and instead considered it for thirty seconds. Anything's "easily refutable" if you have the right bias
May I ask what motive institutions would have for fabricating such an uncomfortable problem that will be so expensive to remedy? The corporate giants don't exactly benefit from the idea that their practices are doing the earth great harm. The conservative/Republican strategy is to pretend that there is no problem, and the libertarians tend to side with them on this one. Typically I'm for the libertarian view, but this is probably the lamest and most irrational conspiracy theory ever devised.
JaggedEdge, you can scream "I AM RIGHT" to the rafters; doesn't make it so. This is far too complex an issue to simply be dismised...I also have perused the evidence and have found at least significant portions of it to be solid.
My point about a pre-emptive cleanse was that unless I grossly overestimate your cognitive faculties, you can't possibly believe that humans can continue their vicious rape of the earth and its natural resources without consequences cropping up sooner or later, even if they haven't already. The Native Americans analogy is a seriously patchy one, because there is very little similarity between strategic, partial pre-colonial deforestation by peoples who had at least a vestige of respect for the earth, and the debacle we see now by profit-hungry industries who don't give a fuck if the earth goes up in flames so long as they can get some kind of monopoly on the fire-hoses.
I have never argued we are not the reason for the increase in CO2, methane, and other pollutants and compounds into our atmosphere. There simply is no evidence it affects our climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
See above for Gores motivations. Others are in clean energy fields or own their own carbon credit companies. There are certainly people who want to benefit from the promotion of this pseudo-science. Most of these clean energy companies get government subsidies. They can actually loose money but continue to get paid.Quote:
May I ask what motive institutions would have for fabricating such an uncomfortable problem that will be so expensive to remedy? The corporate giants don't exactly benefit from the idea that their practices are doing the earth great harm.
I have been begging for y'all to produce this evidence, until one of you actually does I will continue to assume it is nonexistent.Quote:
JaggedEdge, you can scream "I AM RIGHT" to the rafters; doesn't make it so. This is far too complex an issue to simply be dismised...I also have perused the evidence and have found at least significant portions of it to be solid.
That is the strangest logic. If we have natural resources, why should we not take advantage of them? Yes, eventually oil will run out and we will adapt and switch to an alternative source.Quote:
My point about a pre-emptive cleanse was that unless I grossly overestimate your cognitive faculties, you can't possibly believe that humans can continue their vicious rape of the earth and its natural resources without consequences cropping up sooner or later, even if they haven't already.
I love "vicious rape of the earth" though. I love the graphic imagery you use to describe our mining and extracting natural resources.
The problem with your solution is that this debate isn't about mining minerals and deforestation. It is about global warming, and in particular CO2's effect on our climate. What we are talking about with your "cleanse" is the destruction of our modern way of earth in a drastic effort to prevent what could someday happen. Completely force people to unwillingly change because our climate fluctuates and isn't very stable. It is however reliable.
Fair enough, you didn't like that analogy. Let's try another one, this time in regards to our thinking we can help the environment.Quote:
The Native Americans analogy is a seriously patchy one...
[align=center]"ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT FOREST FIRES."
[align=left]Most people felt Smokey Bear was a positive thing. He promoted responsibility,being respectful to the environment and not starting so many forest fires. Surely our intervention in this matter could not have any negative effects. We're saving millions of animals; their homes and lives. Unfortunately, as it turns out, fires are essential to the natural balance. Since people started putting out their fires and saving the forest, the forest has been becoming overly dense with growth, a lot of which is dead. This dead growth is highly flammable. Now, unlike in the past, when forest fires do occur, they tend to be far more intense. They now spread more easily from one tree to the next due to them being closer to each other. Where small fires would break out and only burn small portions of the forest, we now have major fires that last for weeks, if not months.
Turns out, forest fires were good. It was the natural order in which Mother Nature controls her minions in the forests. Where once they would be burned and later repopulated with new growth in small sections. We now have mass genocide of these trees.
I have to admit, it's actually kind of fun to use human violence to describe our treatment of nature...
The point is, we can't fully understand what all our actions will have on our environment. If their isn't solid evidence to support action, no action should be taken. This global warming fear mongering is causing stupid and potentially harmful solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.
[/align]
[/align]
You act like we are vicious creatures who want nothing more than to destroy everything beautiful nature has to offer. You couldn't be more wrong. The vast majority of us love nature and it's creatures as much as anybody. We simply want to harness everything natures has to offer in a peaceful and responsible way. Our making our mark on this planet is not exactly destroying it as you would like us to believe. Sure there are things we should fix, but global warming crazies are taking the focus away from actual problems. I don't see how this is hard to understand.Quote:
because there is very little similarity between strategic, partial pre-colonial deforestation by peoples who had at least a vestige of respect for the earth, and the debacle we see now by profit-hungry industries who don't give a fuck if the earth goes up in flames so long as they can get some kind of monopoly on the fire-hoses.
double post
To OP
Dude u said it urself, its too early to tell if we are having an impact, and odds are the byproducts hydrocarbons we burn and spew into the enviroment is going to fuck with it, and is in no way natural. Would you pipe car exause into your garden?... Perhaps they chose the least of the culprits in the whole mix, but more often then not CO2 is accompanied by shit loads of other bad stuff. Your belief that since we have natural resourses we should use them for unnatural things if fucking retarded, ignorant, and over looks the possible future concequences that you yourself have said is too early to tell. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Oh and as for proof CO2 and Temp are related, how about the fact plants are able to absorb higher amounts of CO2 at higher temps, and only at higher temps. Bam proven! CO2 lvls are related to temp levels.
Agreed that there are alternate motives behind the whole thing, Gore himself is invested in carbon credit companys and is going to be making mad coin from this.
Its a good idea in the sense that it will help nature, but its only going to line the pockets of the already rich.
And dude that shit about smokey the bear.. like come on... its about having a fire responsibly, common sense shit man. the fires still get started just as they have been for thousands of years, natural lightning.
JaggedEdge....Bombdig said it well--lightning has been causing forest fires for millenia and will continue to do so, providing, as you say, a healthy balance. Some dumbshit tossing his cigarette into dry leaves may be a little less natural and a little more harmful. I see the point you're trying to make, that deforestation and natural disasters are healthy and natural....true, when they are indeed natural or with, as in the native American example, the best interests of the forests at heart, or in moderation. The body needs fat, but I wouldn't recommend eating a stick of butter daily.
Your assertion that most people love and care about nature is both true and untrue. It is true in the sense that if you asked most people about nature they'd get a wistful look in their eye. If given the choice between the rabid consumption of cheap goods that hurt the environment, and something more costly or more inconvenient that is green, your average philistine will choose the former. And I very much doubt CEOs ponder the environmental consequences when they make a lucrative decision.
To be honest, I really do not care one way or the other whether our current activities are causing massive climate change. Either way, we could do to treat the earth with more respect, and the whole argument is basically irrelevent. Let's say it is, as you say, a political lie....so? Does that mean have fun, pollute? Common sense (which, as Voltaire tells us, is not so common) tells me that being nice to the earth is a good idea. Even if climate change isn't an issue (though I still believe it is--I don't have the evidence on hand, but I have read it), our current practices bode ill for the future, considering how we have limited resources and habitats for our species. Your argument on human-caused climate change may indeed have some merit to it, but your argument that we are not harming the planet is ridiculous. If you're all about the evidence, I'm sure a little research (and not from everything'sfineit'sallaconspiracy.org), will yield some disturbing results. So, this is a non-issue.
No, the point is man made forest fires have become an intricate part of the natural order as well. The forest are so thick that when lightning does cause a forest fire, it spreads more easily from one tree to the next destroying larger portions of forest and homes in the process. Now they are having to do control burns in the west in order to try and thin the forests out, sometimes they get out of control though, again due to the vast numbers of dry trees and brush, reeking havoc on the countryside.Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
They failed to see that simply preventing fires wasn't good enough. If they wanted to actually prevent fires, they should have had the foresight to do control burns in strategic areas. Instead they adopted an overly simplistic view that fire was harmful to nature. Instead of managing fires, they tried to reduce the number of fires started, which they succeeded in doing, only to cause more problems now!
As for the rest of what you have said, I'm done discussing it. I have asked for statistics, evidence, and support from several different members and every single one of you have failed to provide it.
Simply saying they may be right and it won't cause any harm to go green is not a valid argument. Of course people oppose paying higher prices for inferior products due to this irrational fear we are destroying our planet.
Take those new light bulbs for instance:
They aren't nearly bright enough, do not last as long as advertised, and the warning label says to evacuate the house if the fucking thing breaks. So, no, people don't want to substitute good products for crappy ones simply because of fear mongering!
Wouldn't that suggest our planet is self-regulating and self-healing? If higher temperatures are caused by increased CO2 and plants absorb more CO2 at higher temperatures, wouldn't that mean better ecological growth and a balancing act being preformed by mother nature. If they are absorbing more CO2, that means they are releasing more oxygen, and last I checked, oxygen was good for us. Also, if they were absorbing the excess CO2 would that not in itself stabilize the temperature?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bombdig
So basically you are saying. "Perhaps the global warming nuts are right and we are causing it, but we don't need to change anything because nature is handling it for us."
I can live with that.
One more thing. If they couldn't finger the correct culprit, doesn't that completely undermine their entire argument? I love how easy people are. Well maybe CO2 isn't the cause even though that is all they talk about, but we should still listen to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bombdig
See above. We are natural. Our accidently causing fires was part of the natural order! That's the entire point. Now when a "natural" fire starts from a lightning strike, it tends to burn more uncontrollably, because we failed to keep up our end of the bargain for the last 60 years.Quote:
And dude that shit about smokey the bear.. like come on... its about having a fire responsibly, common sense shit man. the fires still get started just as they have been for thousands of years, natural lightning.
ok well correct me if im wrong here but i remember learning a few years ago that before the last ice age there was a period of global warming that was caused by increased volcanic activity that raised CO2 levels in our atmosphere. so it seems that we call these green house gases for the reason that they act like a green house over our planet thereby warming it.
also as i said before who gives a shit whether or not its man made. i care about the air i breathe the water i drink and the food i eat. CO2 may be impotant for plant but they to cannot live suckin exhaust fumes from cars and trucks. i myself dont want to live in a stinky shit hole.
it not that we shouldnt use our natural resources but we should definatly be more responsible in theyre collecting and usage. look at strip mining today compared to 100 trys ago. its 1000 times claener and bettre for the enviroment.
Ignoring climate change for just a moment....
I live in the UK but, don't you think that reducing the U.S dependance on Fossil fuels and foreign imported oil has huge benefits?
Fossil fuels like Coal and Oil have a great many uses other than setting fire to them! From plastics to medicines this is a finite resource and we are utterly squandering it. This resource is finite and when its gone its gone - you don't even need to understand the carbon cycle fully to see we are upsetting the balance.
The U.S would benefit hugely by being independant of foreign imported oil - oil which comes from countries which are unstable and not exactly 'U.S' friendly. In the UK for example we are dependant now on imported Gas - and the Russians are cornering the market - not good imho.
Developing renewables is good for energy security - something the U.S and the U.K would definately benefit from.
I strongly suggest all of you read this book (it's a free online PDF) which covers the options we have with regard to Sustainable Energy - it makes sobering reading - but is very accessible:
David MacKay: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air: Download
Temperatures have been rising, for whatever reason you personally believe. This is a documented fact. As temperatures rise, permafrost melts and will release tons (speaking quantitatively here) of methane will be released. This is on top of the tons released because of feeding livestock corn rather than grass. Methane causes the greenhouse effect at a much higher magnitude than CO2, so as things get hotter, there will be feedback from many different sources that will increase the temperature. Another such one is carbonic acid created from rain + CO2 which will weather mountains around the world that are largely calcium carbonate... creating more CO2 in the environment. This type of acid is highly unstable, and will react quickly with rocks rather than just flowing off into pools or streams. The more CO2 in the air, the more rock weathering... leading to even more CO2 in the air. These are facts. I know this because my job, and my projects revolve around this subject. It's not a matter of the Earth's ability to self-regulate. If you're inputting to a system quicker than the system can output products, then you'll have a problem...
Despite the environmental reasons, there are several other reasons to transition from oil, like Delta9 says. We do a hell of a lot more with oil than transportation and energy. All plastics are made from oil, some cosmetics, skin care products, the list is fairly long. Are you prepared to give all that up? And should we really keep sending money to the Middle East, where part will just end up in jihadists hands? Personally, I find these reasons more compelling than the environmental side, but there ya have it.