![]() |
#361 |
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,647
Local Time: 12:48 AM
|
![]() That's .17%, in case you're wondering. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#362 | ||||
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 10:48 PM
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The only money government should be putting in is research and development. The market will take care of itself precisely because things have to get cheaper in order for the public to adopt it in a widespread way. We know that if trillions get put into the U.N., as was proposed before and rejected by both the GOP and Democrats, it will be wasted with corruption and do nothing about CO2 increasing. Quote:
Maybe you should charge energy taxes but instead of wasting it in Solyndra type companies how about reducing the deficit? At least they did that in New Jersey. Maybe California (which is oh-so green ![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#363 | |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,669
Local Time: 12:48 AM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#364 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 10:48 PM
|
It's a partisan issue precisely because of the word "striving". To stop CO2 from increasing you would need more than a depression. Secondly there are rent seekers who want to make money off of it while the economy shrinks. Thirdly CO2 is not a pollutant and is a building block of photosynthesis. Fourthly people are living longer than ever before. I would like to have perfectly clean air too with no ACTUAL pollutants, but this situation is preferable to an eternal depression. If green energy was cheaper than fossil fuels and businesses were balking to make money off of it (why would that happen?) then I would agree with all of you.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#365 |
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,647
Local Time: 12:48 AM
|
So we shouldn't try to make our environment cleaner because... it would take a lot to change it, lots of CO2 is actually good for us, some people might take advantage of it and it's not as cheap as doing nothing?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#366 | |||||
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 11:48 PM
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I do find it funny that you have very little respect of science, but you believe without doubt that the market will "take care of itself" ![]() Research, development, and mass production will eventually bring the costs down, but it takes time. Think about all the technologies we own today and where they started; most were only affordable to the very rich when first developed. This is why I say you don't understand the point above; you keep repeating ad nauseum that there is no technology that can compete with fossil fuels but this is incorrect. There are plenty of technologies that can but they've been thwarted by markets, or ignored for so long that we're at an infancy stage when we could have been at the adult stage. Quote:
Quote:
![]() This was the plan all along, scientists were hoping no one caught on, but you cracked the code. All science is a sham, it was developed to turn the people into sheep and collect taxes. |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#367 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 11:48 PM
|
Wait, so let me get this straight. So if BUSINESSES were "balking to make money off of it" then you would agree too much CO2 is harmful? Is that what I'm hearing?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#368 |
Self-righteous bullshitter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,899
Local Time: 02:48 AM
|
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#369 | |||||||
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 10:48 PM
|
Climatology definitely has AGW believers outsizing skeptics but if you include geologists then it isn't as bad. Also science isn't really about a the number of people on each side. What matters is if your right or wrong. Since there is so much funding going into AGW it's not a surprise that people will align their careers with the point of view that gets the most funding.
Also: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/1...oo/#more-75591 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
..the 30 to 40% is much harder to do. Hard even for treehuggers. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() ![]() Quote:
I'm not sure I understand this question. Are you sarcastically saying that the end of the world scenarios (which I don't think are true) makes it more cost effective to put our economies under energy starvation? I don't buy that premise at all. Also I don't put CO2 as a pollutant because it's not. I also think some environmental goals are cheaper to achieve than what cap and trade purports to achieve. A recycle program isn't going to cost as much as energy taxes that force the West to use 40% less energy. |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#370 | ||
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 10:48 PM
|
Quote:
Quote:
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#371 | ||||||||
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 11:48 PM
|
Quote:
The only time you MIGHT get a bump in your direction is if you include political scientists in your pool of "scientists". There's funding on both sides, if you look back just recently the Koch brothers threw millions of dolloars into funding only to have THEIR scientists state the opposite of what they were hoping for. You're right though, it does come down to being right or wrong, but part of science is consensus, part of logic, reason, anything outside of faith comes down to the numbers. Quote:
Quote:
This STILL doesn't answer the real point, which you stated several posts back: Quote:
Quote:
You're what I call a "shit thrower", you establish a view first, either based on a market or party affiliation, and THEN you go out and find "science" that fits your agenda. You throw what ever shit you can at the wall and see what sticks. I've seen you throw, the more CO2 the better at the wall. I've seen you throw, yes it's warming but it's just a natural cycle and we have no impact. I've seen you throw, it's a complete hoax, there is no warming or change in climate. THIS is not a respect for science. Quote:
![]() I sometimes think you go out of your way not to understand a point. Now, you're finally understanding the reasonable side of this debate. Quote:
And if disgruntled Patrick Moore says it, it MUST be true. Quote:
You have an irrational fear of a UN world government, therefore you're going to take that stance first and then find the reasons and the "science" to deny it second. |
||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#372 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,362
Local Time: 03:18 PM
|
Wow, three declared socialists who love Karl Marx.
Must have been the most frightening thing in the world. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#373 |
War Child
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 897
Local Time: 01:48 AM
|
Karl Marx didn't really analize poverty from an environmental perspective.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#374 | ||||||||||
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 10:48 PM
|
Quote:
There's much more funding on the U.N. side. Koch brothers could hardly narrow the gap. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() |
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#375 |
Self-righteous bullshitter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,899
Local Time: 02:48 AM
|
The new normal?
Wall of sand whipped up by Tropical Cyclone Narelle hits Onslow, Western Australia | Mail Online I really hope those pictures are photo-shopped.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#376 |
Self-righteous bullshitter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,899
Local Time: 02:48 AM
|
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#377 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:48 PM
|
US Headed For The Coldest Spring On Record | Real Science
At the two-thirds mark for meteorological spring, 2013 was the second coldest spring on record – slightly warmer than 1975. Darn facts. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#378 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 01:48 AM
|
Do yourself a favour and don't use that kinda stuff for an argument. It makes you 'look' foolish and like you don't know what you're talking about
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#379 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 01:48 AM
|
Hey guys, look at my graph where I cherry picked temperatures in the most moderate months of the year to prove how global warming isn't happening.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#380 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 01:48 AM
|
Wow, this wasn't very difficult to find
__________________Warmest U.S. spring on record: NOAA | Reuters For those who don't want to click (or if you're Indy, don't want to know), it was 2012. simpleton |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|