Any republican believers?

A child fest has broken out on the right.

Need any more evidence daphillenium?

Conservatives CAN'T believe global warming is occurring, it would cause their dogma to be questioned.

Don't worry, the 'invisible' hand to salve the climate.


As usual..........connect the dots issues for Bf..........


So what if it is? Are you chipping in 76 trillion to cure it??:D
 
A child fest has broken out on the right.

Need any more evidence daphillenium?

Conservatives CAN'T believe global warming is occurring, it would cause their dogma to be questioned.

Don't worry, the 'invisible' hand to salve the climate.


As usual..........connect the dots issues for Bf..........


So what if it is? Are you chipping in 76 trillion to cure it??:D

We already are 'chipping in'...the term is 'cost externalization' to the tune of $4 trillion dollars per year. If you 'free marketeers' had any understanding of environmental law, you would know that all of the federal environmental laws, every one of the 28 major environmental laws, were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market.
 
A child fest has broken out on the right.

Need any more evidence daphillenium?

Conservatives CAN'T believe global warming is occurring, it would cause their dogma to be questioned.

Don't worry, the 'invisible' hand to salve the climate.

The globe is warming.

Mere humans just do not have the effect you think we do
 
This turned out to be quite the interesting thread. I do apologize. My original intention was to see what others thought. But then I got caught up in the back and forth. Anyways, good points on both sides.
 
A child fest has broken out on the right.

Need any more evidence daphillenium?

Conservatives CAN'T believe global warming is occurring, it would cause their dogma to be questioned.

Don't worry, the 'invisible' hand to salve the climate.


As usual..........connect the dots issues for Bf..........


So what if it is? Are you chipping in 76 trillion to cure it??:D

We already are 'chipping in'...the term is 'cost externalization' to the tune of $4 trillion dollars per year. If you 'free marketeers' had any understanding of environmental law, you would know that all of the federal environmental laws, every one of the 28 major environmental laws, were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market.


meh

Got news for you s0n........25 years from now in 2035, oil and coal will still be dominant. Renewables? Not so much.........10% maximum and probably less than that as the taxpayer $$ to support this nonsense runs out. No environmental laws were designed to "restore free market capitalism"...........only mental cases would fall for that line of crap. Without government support, solar and wind would fall flat on their face in about a year. All of Europe has recently been finding out that wind and solar are laughable.

The environmental dopes are stuck in 2006..........but its 2012 now.............

Should the EU give up on green energy? | GlobalPost
 
Last edited:
As usual..........connect the dots issues for Bf..........


So what if it is? Are you chipping in 76 trillion to cure it??:D

We already are 'chipping in'...the term is 'cost externalization' to the tune of $4 trillion dollars per year. If you 'free marketeers' had any understanding of environmental law, you would know that all of the federal environmental laws, every one of the 28 major environmental laws, were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market.


meh

Got news for you s0n........25 years from now in 2035, oil and coal will still be dominant. Renewables? Not so much.........10% maximum and probably less than that as the taxpayer $$ to support this nonsense runs out. No environmental laws were designed to "restore free market capitalism"...........only mental cases would fall for that line of crap. Without government support, solar and wind would fall flat on their face in about a year. All of Europe has recently been finding out that wind and solar are laughable.

The environmental dopes are stuck in 2006..........but its 2012 now.............

Should the EU give up on green energy? | GlobalPost

Without government support, via taxpayers dollars, coal would fall flat on their face.

Kentucky taxpayers PAY more than they take in cowering to big coal.


coal-header_02.gif


The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget
Executive Summary

Rapid and dramatic changes in the world’s approach to energy have major implications for Kentucky and its coal industry. Concerns about climate change are driving policy that favors cleaner energy sources and increases the price of fossil fuels. The transition to sustainable forms of energy is becoming a major economic driver, and states are moving aggressively to develop, produce and install the energy technologies of the future. Long reliant on coal for jobs and electricity, Kentucky faces major challenges and difficult choices in the coming years.

These energy challenges come in the midst of Kentucky’s state fiscal crisis and sluggish economic performance. The gap between Kentucky’s revenues and expenditures makes it increasingly difficult to sustain existing public services. A recent University of Kentucky report notes that Kentucky ranks 44th among states in per capita income, just as in 1970, while other southern states like North Carolina and Georgia have out-performed the Commonwealth in recent years.1 Eastern Kentucky still includes 20 of the 100 poorest counties in the United States measured by median household income.2

In this critical energy, fiscal and economic context, it is increasingly important for Kentuckians to understand the role and impact of coal in our state. Coal provides economic benefits including jobs, low electricity rates and tax revenue. But the coal industry also imposes a number of costs ranging from regulatory and public infrastructure expenses to environmental and health impacts.

Coal and the Budget

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget tells one aspect of the story of coal’s costs and benefits. The report provides an analysis of the industry’s fiscal impact by estimating the tax revenues generated by coal and the state expenditures associated with supporting the industry. We estimate for Fiscal Year 2006 Kentucky provided a net subsidy of nearly $115 million to the coal industry (see Figure 1).

Fiscal-Impact-Summary.gif


Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures. The $528 million in revenues includes $224 million from the coal severance tax and revenues from the corporate income, individual income, sales, property (including unmined minerals) and transportation taxes as well as permit fees. The $643 million in estimated expenditures includes $239 million to address the industry’s impacts on the coal haul road system as well as expenditures to regulate the environmental and health and safety impacts of coal, support coal worker training, conduct research and development for the coal industry, promote education about coal in the public schools and support the residents directly and indirectly employed by coal. Total costs also include $85 million in tax expenditures designed to subsidize the mining and burning of coal.

More
 
Hilarious their theory is that a 40% increase will cause a 5 degree increase in temperature and they post an "experiment" that shows a 1000% increase cause a 1.5 degree change, not in increase mind you but it decreases slower
 
Last edited:
We already are 'chipping in'...the term is 'cost externalization' to the tune of $4 trillion dollars per year. If you 'free marketeers' had any understanding of environmental law, you would know that all of the federal environmental laws, every one of the 28 major environmental laws, were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market.


meh

Got news for you s0n........25 years from now in 2035, oil and coal will still be dominant. Renewables? Not so much.........10% maximum and probably less than that as the taxpayer $$ to support this nonsense runs out. No environmental laws were designed to "restore free market capitalism"...........only mental cases would fall for that line of crap. Without government support, solar and wind would fall flat on their face in about a year. All of Europe has recently been finding out that wind and solar are laughable.

The environmental dopes are stuck in 2006..........but its 2012 now.............

Should the EU give up on green energy? | GlobalPost

Without government support, via taxpayers dollars, coal would fall flat on their face.

Kentucky taxpayers PAY more than they take in cowering to big coal.


coal-header_02.gif


The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget
Executive Summary

Rapid and dramatic changes in the world’s approach to energy have major implications for Kentucky and its coal industry. Concerns about climate change are driving policy that favors cleaner energy sources and increases the price of fossil fuels. The transition to sustainable forms of energy is becoming a major economic driver, and states are moving aggressively to develop, produce and install the energy technologies of the future. Long reliant on coal for jobs and electricity, Kentucky faces major challenges and difficult choices in the coming years.

These energy challenges come in the midst of Kentucky’s state fiscal crisis and sluggish economic performance. The gap between Kentucky’s revenues and expenditures makes it increasingly difficult to sustain existing public services. A recent University of Kentucky report notes that Kentucky ranks 44th among states in per capita income, just as in 1970, while other southern states like North Carolina and Georgia have out-performed the Commonwealth in recent years.1 Eastern Kentucky still includes 20 of the 100 poorest counties in the United States measured by median household income.2

In this critical energy, fiscal and economic context, it is increasingly important for Kentuckians to understand the role and impact of coal in our state. Coal provides economic benefits including jobs, low electricity rates and tax revenue. But the coal industry also imposes a number of costs ranging from regulatory and public infrastructure expenses to environmental and health impacts.

Coal and the Budget

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget tells one aspect of the story of coal’s costs and benefits. The report provides an analysis of the industry’s fiscal impact by estimating the tax revenues generated by coal and the state expenditures associated with supporting the industry. We estimate for Fiscal Year 2006 Kentucky provided a net subsidy of nearly $115 million to the coal industry (see Figure 1).

Fiscal-Impact-Summary.gif


Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures. The $528 million in revenues includes $224 million from the coal severance tax and revenues from the corporate income, individual income, sales, property (including unmined minerals) and transportation taxes as well as permit fees. The $643 million in estimated expenditures includes $239 million to address the industry’s impacts on the coal haul road system as well as expenditures to regulate the environmental and health and safety impacts of coal, support coal worker training, conduct research and development for the coal industry, promote education about coal in the public schools and support the residents directly and indirectly employed by coal. Total costs also include $85 million in tax expenditures designed to subsidize the mining and burning of coal.

More



more nonsensical drivel................

In 2010, Solar, wind and biofuels got 13 billion. Coal got 1.4 billion. :D:D:D

INCENTIVES AT EVERY TURN - USATODAY.com




lOsE
 
We already are 'chipping in'...the term is 'cost externalization' to the tune of $4 trillion dollars per year. If you 'free marketeers' had any understanding of environmental law, you would know that all of the federal environmental laws, every one of the 28 major environmental laws, were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market.


meh

Got news for you s0n........25 years from now in 2035, oil and coal will still be dominant. Renewables? Not so much.........10% maximum and probably less than that as the taxpayer $$ to support this nonsense runs out. No environmental laws were designed to "restore free market capitalism"...........only mental cases would fall for that line of crap. Without government support, solar and wind would fall flat on their face in about a year. All of Europe has recently been finding out that wind and solar are laughable.

The environmental dopes are stuck in 2006..........but its 2012 now.............

Should the EU give up on green energy? | GlobalPost

Without government support, via taxpayers dollars, coal would fall flat on their face.

Kentucky taxpayers PAY more than they take in cowering to big coal.


coal-header_02.gif


The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget
Executive Summary

Rapid and dramatic changes in the world’s approach to energy have major implications for Kentucky and its coal industry. Concerns about climate change are driving policy that favors cleaner energy sources and increases the price of fossil fuels. The transition to sustainable forms of energy is becoming a major economic driver, and states are moving aggressively to develop, produce and install the energy technologies of the future. Long reliant on coal for jobs and electricity, Kentucky faces major challenges and difficult choices in the coming years.

These energy challenges come in the midst of Kentucky’s state fiscal crisis and sluggish economic performance. The gap between Kentucky’s revenues and expenditures makes it increasingly difficult to sustain existing public services. A recent University of Kentucky report notes that Kentucky ranks 44th among states in per capita income, just as in 1970, while other southern states like North Carolina and Georgia have out-performed the Commonwealth in recent years.1 Eastern Kentucky still includes 20 of the 100 poorest counties in the United States measured by median household income.2

In this critical energy, fiscal and economic context, it is increasingly important for Kentuckians to understand the role and impact of coal in our state. Coal provides economic benefits including jobs, low electricity rates and tax revenue. But the coal industry also imposes a number of costs ranging from regulatory and public infrastructure expenses to environmental and health impacts.

Coal and the Budget

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget tells one aspect of the story of coal’s costs and benefits. The report provides an analysis of the industry’s fiscal impact by estimating the tax revenues generated by coal and the state expenditures associated with supporting the industry. We estimate for Fiscal Year 2006 Kentucky provided a net subsidy of nearly $115 million to the coal industry (see Figure 1).

Fiscal-Impact-Summary.gif


Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures. The $528 million in revenues includes $224 million from the coal severance tax and revenues from the corporate income, individual income, sales, property (including unmined minerals) and transportation taxes as well as permit fees. The $643 million in estimated expenditures includes $239 million to address the industry’s impacts on the coal haul road system as well as expenditures to regulate the environmental and health and safety impacts of coal, support coal worker training, conduct research and development for the coal industry, promote education about coal in the public schools and support the residents directly and indirectly employed by coal. Total costs also include $85 million in tax expenditures designed to subsidize the mining and burning of coal.

More

BullCrap...

""......promote education about coal in the public schools and SUPPORT RESIDENTS DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY employed by coal"""

""" Conduct research and development for the industry?""

"" Maintain the roads and access"" that OBAMA bragged about being providing as an EXPECTED contribution to the effort?

Have they added the ANIMAL CONTROL budget to this fudged analysis?

YA THINK MAYBE the people who constructed this mathematical WEAPON WANTED to prove that Govt spends more than it's worth? YA THINK???

Take this nebulous agiprop and shove it back into the mine captain.. And maybe ponder it's veracity BEFORE you post???

BTW --- I've not seen any poster in USMB that can lead a thread FARTHER OFF TRACK -- and QUICKER than you can... There's a pattern here that indicates you want to discuss stuff you think will WIN points for your causes, rather than what the topic really is...
 
Last edited:
How the denialists' train of thought (and we use that term loosely) works:

1. "Solutions to global warming would require collective solutions."

2. "My political cult leaders have declared nothing can ever require a collective solution."

3. "Therefore, global warming can not exist. Evidence be damned, my cult's dogma takes precedence."

Yes, they really are that much of a group of gibbering political cultists. And they insist on demonstrating it with every post.
 
meh

Got news for you s0n........25 years from now in 2035, oil and coal will still be dominant. Renewables? Not so much.........10% maximum and probably less than that as the taxpayer $$ to support this nonsense runs out. No environmental laws were designed to "restore free market capitalism"...........only mental cases would fall for that line of crap. Without government support, solar and wind would fall flat on their face in about a year. All of Europe has recently been finding out that wind and solar are laughable.

The environmental dopes are stuck in 2006..........but its 2012 now.............

Should the EU give up on green energy? | GlobalPost

Without government support, via taxpayers dollars, coal would fall flat on their face.

Kentucky taxpayers PAY more than they take in cowering to big coal.


coal-header_02.gif


The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget
Executive Summary

Rapid and dramatic changes in the world’s approach to energy have major implications for Kentucky and its coal industry. Concerns about climate change are driving policy that favors cleaner energy sources and increases the price of fossil fuels. The transition to sustainable forms of energy is becoming a major economic driver, and states are moving aggressively to develop, produce and install the energy technologies of the future. Long reliant on coal for jobs and electricity, Kentucky faces major challenges and difficult choices in the coming years.

These energy challenges come in the midst of Kentucky’s state fiscal crisis and sluggish economic performance. The gap between Kentucky’s revenues and expenditures makes it increasingly difficult to sustain existing public services. A recent University of Kentucky report notes that Kentucky ranks 44th among states in per capita income, just as in 1970, while other southern states like North Carolina and Georgia have out-performed the Commonwealth in recent years.1 Eastern Kentucky still includes 20 of the 100 poorest counties in the United States measured by median household income.2

In this critical energy, fiscal and economic context, it is increasingly important for Kentuckians to understand the role and impact of coal in our state. Coal provides economic benefits including jobs, low electricity rates and tax revenue. But the coal industry also imposes a number of costs ranging from regulatory and public infrastructure expenses to environmental and health impacts.

Coal and the Budget

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget tells one aspect of the story of coal’s costs and benefits. The report provides an analysis of the industry’s fiscal impact by estimating the tax revenues generated by coal and the state expenditures associated with supporting the industry. We estimate for Fiscal Year 2006 Kentucky provided a net subsidy of nearly $115 million to the coal industry (see Figure 1).

Fiscal-Impact-Summary.gif


Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures. The $528 million in revenues includes $224 million from the coal severance tax and revenues from the corporate income, individual income, sales, property (including unmined minerals) and transportation taxes as well as permit fees. The $643 million in estimated expenditures includes $239 million to address the industry’s impacts on the coal haul road system as well as expenditures to regulate the environmental and health and safety impacts of coal, support coal worker training, conduct research and development for the coal industry, promote education about coal in the public schools and support the residents directly and indirectly employed by coal. Total costs also include $85 million in tax expenditures designed to subsidize the mining and burning of coal.

More

BullCrap...

""......promote education about coal in the public schools and SUPPORT RESIDENTS DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY employed by coal"""

""" Conduct research and development for the industry?""

"" Maintain the roads and access"" that OBAMA bragged about being providing as an EXPECTED contribution to the effort?

Have they added the ANIMAL CONTROL budget to this fudged analysis?

YA THINK MAYBE the people who constructed this mathematical WEAPON WANTED to prove that Govt spends more than it's worth? YA THINK???

Take this nebulous agiprop and shove it back into the mine captain.. And maybe ponder it's veracity BEFORE you post???

BTW --- I've not seen any poster in USMB that can lead a thread FARTHER OFF TRACK -- and QUICKER than you can... There's a pattern here that indicates you want to discuss stuff you think will WIN points for your causes, rather than what the topic really is...

Off track? The topic is: Any republican believers? (in regards to global warming)

You right wing worshipers of the opulent polluters on this planet not only don't believe global warming, you don't even believe pollution is a threat.

You have ZERO comprehension of cost externalization, regulatory capture or the corruption that goes on in your beloved private sector. Scum bags like Don 'Coal Baron' Blankenship who should be arrested for the murder (yes murder) of miners.

In 100 percent of the situations, good environmental policy is identical to good economic policy. Especially if we measure our economy based upon its jobs and the dignity of jobs over the generations, over the long term and on how it preserves the value of the assets of our communities.

Coal has been around for 100 years, and for that same 100 years, the poorest counties in America are in coal country. Can any of you free marketeers figure it out?

But you right wing turds who preach 'individual responsibility' fall all over yourselves to clean up after and defend your beloved opulent polluters on this planet. They are all big boys now, they should PAY to clean up THEIR mess. But they have mommies like you to clean up after them.
 
Global warning exists.

The CAUSE of it is attributed to humankind by the AGW Faithers.

The CAUSE of it is attributed to a variety of mostly OTHER factors by those who place value on actual honest science.

AGW Faithers are generally either ignorant or dishonest.
 
Global warning exists.

The CAUSE of it is attributed to humankind by the AGW Faithers.

The CAUSE of it is attributed to a variety of mostly OTHER factors by those who place value on actual honest science.

AGW Faithers are generally either ignorant or dishonest.

The denier is threatened by global warming, deeply threatened, because it means that markets have failed and governments -- including global governments -- have to step in to fix the problem.

And all the denier's 'science' can be traced to funding by the major polluters on the planet.

Here are the 'experts' we should believe...

12340-Clay-Sculpture-Clipart-Meteorologist-Weather-Man-And-Five-Day-Forecast-Royalty-Free-3d-Illustration.jpg


And here is who we should trust on climate decisions...

Air-Pollution.jpg


It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus
 
Without government support, via taxpayers dollars, coal would fall flat on their face.

Kentucky taxpayers PAY more than they take in cowering to big coal.


coal-header_02.gif


The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget
Executive Summary

Rapid and dramatic changes in the world’s approach to energy have major implications for Kentucky and its coal industry. Concerns about climate change are driving policy that favors cleaner energy sources and increases the price of fossil fuels. The transition to sustainable forms of energy is becoming a major economic driver, and states are moving aggressively to develop, produce and install the energy technologies of the future. Long reliant on coal for jobs and electricity, Kentucky faces major challenges and difficult choices in the coming years.

These energy challenges come in the midst of Kentucky’s state fiscal crisis and sluggish economic performance. The gap between Kentucky’s revenues and expenditures makes it increasingly difficult to sustain existing public services. A recent University of Kentucky report notes that Kentucky ranks 44th among states in per capita income, just as in 1970, while other southern states like North Carolina and Georgia have out-performed the Commonwealth in recent years.1 Eastern Kentucky still includes 20 of the 100 poorest counties in the United States measured by median household income.2

In this critical energy, fiscal and economic context, it is increasingly important for Kentuckians to understand the role and impact of coal in our state. Coal provides economic benefits including jobs, low electricity rates and tax revenue. But the coal industry also imposes a number of costs ranging from regulatory and public infrastructure expenses to environmental and health impacts.

Coal and the Budget

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget tells one aspect of the story of coal’s costs and benefits. The report provides an analysis of the industry’s fiscal impact by estimating the tax revenues generated by coal and the state expenditures associated with supporting the industry. We estimate for Fiscal Year 2006 Kentucky provided a net subsidy of nearly $115 million to the coal industry (see Figure 1).

Fiscal-Impact-Summary.gif


Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures. The $528 million in revenues includes $224 million from the coal severance tax and revenues from the corporate income, individual income, sales, property (including unmined minerals) and transportation taxes as well as permit fees. The $643 million in estimated expenditures includes $239 million to address the industry’s impacts on the coal haul road system as well as expenditures to regulate the environmental and health and safety impacts of coal, support coal worker training, conduct research and development for the coal industry, promote education about coal in the public schools and support the residents directly and indirectly employed by coal. Total costs also include $85 million in tax expenditures designed to subsidize the mining and burning of coal.

More

BullCrap...

""......promote education about coal in the public schools and SUPPORT RESIDENTS DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY employed by coal"""

""" Conduct research and development for the industry?""

"" Maintain the roads and access"" that OBAMA bragged about being providing as an EXPECTED contribution to the effort?

Have they added the ANIMAL CONTROL budget to this fudged analysis?

YA THINK MAYBE the people who constructed this mathematical WEAPON WANTED to prove that Govt spends more than it's worth? YA THINK???

Take this nebulous agiprop and shove it back into the mine captain.. And maybe ponder it's veracity BEFORE you post???

BTW --- I've not seen any poster in USMB that can lead a thread FARTHER OFF TRACK -- and QUICKER than you can... There's a pattern here that indicates you want to discuss stuff you think will WIN points for your causes, rather than what the topic really is...

Off track? The topic is: Any republican believers? (in regards to global warming)

You right wing worshipers of the opulent polluters on this planet not only don't believe global warming, you don't even believe pollution is a threat.

You have ZERO comprehension of cost externalization, regulatory capture or the corruption that goes on in your beloved private sector. Scum bags like Don 'Coal Baron' Blankenship who should be arrested for the murder (yes murder) of miners.

In 100 percent of the situations, good environmental policy is identical to good economic policy. Especially if we measure our economy based upon its jobs and the dignity of jobs over the generations, over the long term and on how it preserves the value of the assets of our communities.

Coal has been around for 100 years, and for that same 100 years, the poorest counties in America are in coal country. Can any of you free marketeers figure it out?

But you right wing turds who preach 'individual responsibility' fall all over yourselves to clean up after and defend your beloved opulent polluters on this planet. They are all big boys now, they should PAY to clean up THEIR mess. But they have mommies like you to clean up after them.

Hey nice rant.. What does POLLUTION have to do with Global Warming?

As a dedicated environmentalist -- I RESENT pulling attention and resources from REAL pollution issues. And as a science/engineering practioner -- I'm APPALLED at lumping CO2 in with stuff that WILL hurt you and make you sick.. Like I said -- all your gloomy pictures and rhetoric dont fit correctly here. Since the CO2 in your lungs is 100 times the concentration that it is in the air you breathe..

What you're doing lumping CO2 in with pollution is EXACTLY the dishonesty and deflection you accuse me of.. CO2 THEORY of Global Warming is a THEORY... And CO2 is NOT a pollutant. ((and I'm not even gonna fall for your next gambit -- but go ahead -- quote the EPA and the courts.. That's STILL NOT SCIENCE on your side -- that's just tyranny of power...

Coal does not raise local economies like oil does, because it's so plentiful and easy to extract. Kentucky / West Va produces some of the HIGHEST QUALITY coal in the world.. That's why they are still in business at US labor prices. YOU and your Dear Leader are gonna soon put them out of work (for their own good) anyway... So WTF do you care??
 
Last edited:
Global warning exists.

The CAUSE of it is attributed to humankind by the AGW Faithers.

The CAUSE of it is attributed to a variety of mostly OTHER factors by those who place value on actual honest science.

AGW Faithers are generally either ignorant or dishonest.

The denier is threatened by global warming, deeply threatened, because it means that markets have failed and governments -- including global governments -- have to step in to fix the problem.

And all the denier's 'science' can be traced to funding by the major polluters on the planet.

* * * *

Nah. The AGW Deniers are the ones, unlike you, who embrace real science.

You AGW Faithers substitute false data when you can't get that pesky science stuff to give you the results you politically seek.

You are frauds and charlatans.

But it's ok. Hockey sticks are cool, even if they have nothing in the real world to do with the "A" in the fraud known as AGW.
 
BullCrap...

""......promote education about coal in the public schools and SUPPORT RESIDENTS DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY employed by coal"""

""" Conduct research and development for the industry?""

"" Maintain the roads and access"" that OBAMA bragged about being providing as an EXPECTED contribution to the effort?

Have they added the ANIMAL CONTROL budget to this fudged analysis?

YA THINK MAYBE the people who constructed this mathematical WEAPON WANTED to prove that Govt spends more than it's worth? YA THINK???

Take this nebulous agiprop and shove it back into the mine captain.. And maybe ponder it's veracity BEFORE you post???

BTW --- I've not seen any poster in USMB that can lead a thread FARTHER OFF TRACK -- and QUICKER than you can... There's a pattern here that indicates you want to discuss stuff you think will WIN points for your causes, rather than what the topic really is...

Off track? The topic is: Any republican believers? (in regards to global warming)

You right wing worshipers of the opulent polluters on this planet not only don't believe global warming, you don't even believe pollution is a threat.

You have ZERO comprehension of cost externalization, regulatory capture or the corruption that goes on in your beloved private sector. Scum bags like Don 'Coal Baron' Blankenship who should be arrested for the murder (yes murder) of miners.

In 100 percent of the situations, good environmental policy is identical to good economic policy. Especially if we measure our economy based upon its jobs and the dignity of jobs over the generations, over the long term and on how it preserves the value of the assets of our communities.

Coal has been around for 100 years, and for that same 100 years, the poorest counties in America are in coal country. Can any of you free marketeers figure it out?

But you right wing turds who preach 'individual responsibility' fall all over yourselves to clean up after and defend your beloved opulent polluters on this planet. They are all big boys now, they should PAY to clean up THEIR mess. But they have mommies like you to clean up after them.

Hey nice rant.. What does POLLUTION have to do with Global Warming?

As a dedicated environmentalist -- I RESENT pulling attention and resources from REAL pollution issues. And as a science/engineering practioner -- I'm APPALLED at lumping CO2 in with stuff that WILL hurt you and make you sick..

Coal does not raise local economies like oil does, because it's so plentiful and easy to extract. Kentucky / West Va produces some of the HIGHEST QUALITY coal in the world.. That's why they are still in business at US labor prices. YOU and your Dear Leader are gonna soon put them out of work (for their own good) anyway... So WTF do you care??

Can you name one industry that emits only CO2?

No one is being 'put out of work'. Your desperation reveals that you are not an environmentalist.

West Virginia has some of the poorest counties in America. All in the belly of 'some of the HIGHEST QUALITY coal in the world'... Why is that?

You folks on the right have no understanding of how an economy must work for STAKEholders...We, the People. You only understand the way capitalism works for the benefit of shareholders.

If we want to treat the planet as if were a business in liquidation, to convert our natural resource to cash as quickly as possible, to have a few years of pollution-based prosperity, then we can generate an instantaneous cash flow and the illusion of a prosperous economy. But our children are going to pay for our joyride. They're going to pay for it with muted landscapes, poor health, and huge cleanup costs that are going to amplify over time, and that they will never, ever be able to pay off. Environmental injury is deficit spending. It's a way of loading the cost of our generation's prosperity onto the backs of our children.

The free market is the most efficient and democratic way to distribute the goods of the land, and that the best thing that could happen to the environment is if we had true free-market capitalism in this country, because the free market promotes efficiency, and efficiency means the elimination of waste, and pollution of course is waste. The free market also would encourage us to properly value our natural resources, and it's the undervaluation of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully. But in a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

But what polluters do is they make themselves rich by making everybody else poor. They raise standards of living for themselves by lowering the quality of life for everybody else, and they do that by evading the discipline of the free market. You show me a polluter; I'll show you a subsidy. I'll show you a fat cat using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay his production costs. That's what all pollution is. It's always a subsidy. It's always a guy trying to cheat the free market.
 
Global warning exists.

The CAUSE of it is attributed to humankind by the AGW Faithers.

The CAUSE of it is attributed to a variety of mostly OTHER factors by those who place value on actual honest science.

AGW Faithers are generally either ignorant or dishonest.

The denier is threatened by global warming, deeply threatened, because it means that markets have failed and governments -- including global governments -- have to step in to fix the problem.

And all the denier's 'science' can be traced to funding by the major polluters on the planet.

* * * *

Nah. The AGW Deniers are the ones, unlike you, who embrace real science.

You AGW Faithers substitute false data when you can't get that pesky science stuff to give you the results you politically seek.

You are frauds and charlatans.

But it's ok. Hockey sticks are cool, even if they have nothing in the real world to do with the "A" in the fraud known as AGW.
But what he lacks in scientific fact he makes up for with goofy images, dreary flood-the-zone text walls full of opinion, half-truths, outright lies and pop culture fantasy, know-it-all central planner condescension and irrelevant quotations.

For what that may be worth.
 
The denier is threatened by global warming, deeply threatened, because it means that markets have failed and governments -- including global governments -- have to step in to fix the problem.

And all the denier's 'science' can be traced to funding by the major polluters on the planet.

* * * *

Nah. The AGW Deniers are the ones, unlike you, who embrace real science.

You AGW Faithers substitute false data when you can't get that pesky science stuff to give you the results you politically seek.

You are frauds and charlatans.

But it's ok. Hockey sticks are cool, even if they have nothing in the real world to do with the "A" in the fraud known as AGW.
But what he lacks in scientific fact he makes up for with goofy images, dreary flood-the-zone text walls full of opinion, half-truths, outright lies and pop culture fantasy, know-it-all central planner condescension and irrelevant quotations.

For what that may be worth.

He has not figured out how to be brief or how to persuade -- at all.

He compensates with that "wall of words" thing he resorts to so much.

Meanwhile, he does tend to spew a lot of repetitious silly shit.
 

Forum List

Back
Top