Lets Hear Your Ideas....

[Old Rocks]

No, government has purchased those things mostly from the private sector...again, the only government program that has advanced science beyond weaponry has been supplanted by an inefficient bureaucracy dedicated to climate alarmism.

You've yet to identify that bureaucracy, but the space program has involved private contractors right from the get go. It still does.

Which explains why we don't have it. Had private enterprise felt that there was profit to be made and had that much money been spent by the private sector, it would exist today.

Wrong. The people our government governs will benefit from fusion power. It is worth us spending money that we won't recover in profits. The reason we band together to form tribes and communities and states and nations is that the benefit of human society is the caring we express for each other - we do better together than we would apart.

We couldnt decide on lunch collectively. If thats what you are waiting for Bunky, thats not gonna happen. I dont need collectively designed autos or energy systems. People of talent invent and innovate and society acquiesces out of need. There could be innovators as political leaders, but we insist on hiring useless clowns. The only value added from govt should be as a patron of difficult or strategic innovation, and they should get the fuck out of the way of the process...

Hiring useless clowns. Guess your boss has a problem, then

 

[westwall]

Ah yes, the ever popular progressive need to eliminate people rears it's ugly head yet again.

The only one talking about killing people is you, you sick twisted genocidal wanker. That seems to be all you think of, every waking moment of your life.

So what is the root of your obsessive love of genocide? That is, what drives your emotional need to fantasize about genocide all day long? And do the people around you know you think that way?

Nice attempt at deflection there admiral. Unfortunately for you, you just aren't smart enough to pull it off. POPULATION CONTROL is a mantra of you progressives. As Jacques Cousteau once famously said....


"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day."

Jacques Yves Cousteau

Read more at In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day. - Jacques Yves Cousteau at BrainyQuote


That's YOUR mantra admiral. Not ours. So tell us...why DO YOU think that brown people should be killed?

 

[mamooth]

You're getting more pathetic, Westwall, now using out-of-context quotes from random people to make blanket accusations. But then, given how badly you've always sucked balls at all forms of logic, it's quite possible you're simply too 'effin stupid to understand how stupid you're being. That is, you're not actively malicious, you're just a flaming retard.

People who aren't supremely stupid or dishonest can put forth an argument other than "GENOCIDE! GENOCIDE!". You can't. 'Nuff said. It's why you're considered a joke now.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A small nuclear war between Pakistan and India would save the world from global warming.

 

[Flopper]

All you warmers seem to want to do something about climate change but are remarkably short on ideas when you are asked what.

Lets hear your ideas....what do you want to do? Do any of you have any ideas that would actually reduce CO2 without killing millions of poor people across the globe? Or, is killing millions of poor people perhaps, part of the plan?

Lets hear it...whatcha got?

I use to labor under the assumption that nations of the world could actually do something about global warming. Now I'm convinced that there isn't going to be any major progress in dealing with the problem. The planning horizon for most people is at best about 20 years and most people can't handle that. People don't make the sacrifices needed for their own retirement or their kids college education in 15 or 20 years, yet we expect people to make sacrifices today to avoid a catastrophe that they will never see.

A disaster that occurs over hundreds of years allows time for people to adjust and removes the urgency of any action. If oceans rose 3 feet over next 6 months, there would unprecedented response. Tell people they will rise 3 feet over next hundred years or so and there will be practically no response.

I think the only real viable plans are those where reduction of CO2 is considered a secondary benefit. People like to buy into products and ideas that reduce global warming as long as there is a much more immediate benefit without any real sacrifice.

 

[Crick]

Yup

 

[SSDD]

The way it worked for REAL pollutants, is that everyone agrees on the COST of producing a class of pollutants and a LIMIT was set on emissions. The government wasnt playing the banker and taking a huge cut. But with GW and the uncertainty of the value of its containment, they substitute mandated value and risks, and instead of setting limits, the govt now penalizes emissions for profit, and the market has to buy favors to stay out of jail.. They took a working free market concept, and bastardized it into a govt revenue scheme...

Care to explain how an agreed upon cost (agreed upon by whom?) is guaranteed to be any more accurate than a mandated cost?

The scheme was designed to allow businesses to deal on a level playing field with something like the true cost of the pollution they've been producing scot-free up till now. It was a means to use free market capitalism to control emissions. It was designed to make folks like you happy. That it doesn't just tells me you don't want to be happy under any circumstances. You just want your money and you don't care who you hurt getting it.

I dont have a problem with sending food to hungry people

Replace the 92 million acres of ethanol-dedicated corn with trees


Sent from my ass using USMessageBoard.com

Or keep the corn and stop burning it for fuel. Corn is a grass and grass fixes CO2 more efficiently than trees. It is a much more dense biomass than trees and processes much more air.

A study some years back found that a project which resulted in covering prairie land with trees resulted in less efficient absorption of CO2 than had they left the prairie grasses intact.

I din't know dat.

But, no... let's not "keep the corn". Let's restore those 92 million acres back to forest, prairie, and wetlands from whence they came. Screw the freakin' farmers. We already export tens of millions of tons of grains every year.

Oh... and guess what, kiddies... we also export ETHANOL!

What a goddamn joke.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[SSDD]

Ah yes, the ever popular progressive need to eliminate people rears it's ugly head yet again.

The only one talking about killing people is you, you sick twisted genocidal wanker. That seems to be all you think of, every waking moment of your life.

So what is the root of your obsessive love of genocide? That is, what drives your emotional need to fantasize about genocide all day long? And do the people around you know you think that way?

Nice attempt at deflection there admiral. Unfortunately for you, you just aren't smart enough to pull it off. POPULATION CONTROL is a mantra of you progressives. As Jacques Cousteau once famously said....


"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day."

Jacques Yves Cousteau

Read more at In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day. - Jacques Yves Cousteau at BrainyQuote


That's YOUR mantra admiral. Not ours. So tell us...why DO YOU think that brown people should be killed?

Warming isn't a problem. What do you think the ideal temperature is on this rock? Ice age cold or a more normal climate?

All you warmers seem to want to do something about climate change but are remarkably short on ideas when you are asked what.

Lets hear your ideas....what do you want to do? Do any of you have any ideas that would actually reduce CO2 without killing millions of poor people across the globe? Or, is killing millions of poor people perhaps, part of the plan?

Lets hear it...whatcha got?

I use to labor under the assumption that nations of the world could actually do something about global warming. Now I'm convinced that there isn't going to be any major progress in dealing with the problem. The planning horizon for most people is at best about 20 years and most people can't handle that. People don't make the sacrifices needed for their own retirement or their kids college education in 15 or 20 years, yet we expect people to make sacrifices today to avoid a catastrophe that they will never see.

A disaster that occurs over hundreds of years allows time for people to adjust and removes the urgency of any action. If oceans rose 3 feet over next 6 months, there would unprecedented response. Tell people they will rise 3 feet over next hundred years or so and there will be practically no response.

I think the only real viable plans are those where reduction of CO2 is considered a secondary benefit. People like to buy into products and ideas that reduce global warming as long as there is a much more immediate benefit without any real sacrifice.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Crick]

The problem isn't the absolute temperature. It's the rate of temperature change.

 

[flacaltenn]

A small nuclear war between Pakistan and India would save the world from global warming.

There ya go Mamooth. No random quote there. And we KNOW how Matthew votes don't we?
Any other closeted endorsers of genocide want to come out? We'll have a party for the occasion..

 

[SSDD]

The problem isn't the absolute temperature. It's the rate of temperature change.

A fraction of a degree (mostly fabricated) in a century? What's the probldm?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Crick]

Is this supposed to demonstrate your superior grasp of thermodynamics?

 

[mamooth]

A small nuclear war between Pakistan and India would save the world from global warming.

There ya go Mamooth. No random quote there. And we KNOW how Matthew votes don't we?

I don't. Can you enlighten me?

I do recognize his ongoing satire routine. Which is more than can be said for you. Holy shit, you're stupid.

 

[jc456]

You know, this isn't going to end well your way. Humanity has painted itself into a corner. The solution? We die as species or we limit our numbers, I don't know if there is a third choice. We Colonize mars? We find a another dimension to inhabit? The choice is up to you, ironically.

Ah yes, the ever popular progressive need to eliminate people rears it's ugly head yet again. Here's a dose of reality for you. The carrying capacity of this planet is 40 BILLION.
That's with modern technology and efficient methods of distribution (which we currently don't have). As it stands we can feed 10 billion.

Demographers are already stating with high confidence that the Earths population will top out at 9 billion and then drop back down to 6 billion based on current birth rates. See, you didn't have to kill a single person and the population will drop just fine.

Given the environmental degradation with just 7 billion, that 40 billion figure is bullshit.

And your insistance that we who recognize the limitations of this planet for billions of humans desire to kill people is another lie you continually mouth. Yes, we will probably peak at 9 billion. Provided nature doesn't intervene. And then, hopefully, gradually decline to 6 billion or less. That would be the ideal.

and yet there you are talking about losing population and liking it. right francis.

 

[jc456]

All you warmers seem to want to do something about climate change but are remarkably short on ideas when you are asked what.

Lets hear your ideas....what do you want to do? Do any of you have any ideas that would actually reduce CO2 without killing millions of poor people across the globe? Or, is killing millions of poor people perhaps, part of the plan?

Lets hear it...whatcha got?

I use to labor under the assumption that nations of the world could actually do something about global warming. Now I'm convinced that there isn't going to be any major progress in dealing with the problem. The planning horizon for most people is at best about 20 years and most people can't handle that. People don't make the sacrifices needed for their own retirement or their kids college education in 15 or 20 years, yet we expect people to make sacrifices today to avoid a catastrophe that they will never see.

A disaster that occurs over hundreds of years allows time for people to adjust and removes the urgency of any action. If oceans rose 3 feet over next 6 months, there would unprecedented response. Tell people they will rise 3 feet over next hundred years or so and there will be practically no response.

I think the only real viable plans are those where reduction of CO2 is considered a secondary benefit. People like to buy into products and ideas that reduce global warming as long as there is a much more immediate benefit without any real sacrifice.

See for me you should probably prove something is bad before you start eliminating it. Don't you think that's a smart thing to do? What if you needed it someday?

BTW, since you're all for reducing CO2, how much CO2 do we need? Do you have those numbers? Where is that experiment at?

 

[Flopper]

All you warmers seem to want to do something about climate change but are remarkably short on ideas when you are asked what.

Lets hear your ideas....what do you want to do? Do any of you have any ideas that would actually reduce CO2 without killing millions of poor people across the globe? Or, is killing millions of poor people perhaps, part of the plan?

Lets hear it...whatcha got?

I use to labor under the assumption that nations of the world could actually do something about global warming. Now I'm convinced that there isn't going to be any major progress in dealing with the problem. The planning horizon for most people is at best about 20 years and most people can't handle that. People don't make the sacrifices needed for their own retirement or their kids college education in 15 or 20 years, yet we expect people to make sacrifices today to avoid a catastrophe that they will never see.

A disaster that occurs over hundreds of years allows time for people to adjust and removes the urgency of any action. If oceans rose 3 feet over next 6 months, there would unprecedented response. Tell people they will rise 3 feet over next hundred years or so and there will be practically no response.

I think the only real viable plans are those where reduction of CO2 is considered a secondary benefit. People like to buy into products and ideas that reduce global warming as long as there is a much more immediate benefit without any real sacrifice.

See for me you should probably prove something is bad before you start eliminating it. Don't you think that's a smart thing to do? What if you needed it someday?

BTW, since you're all for reducing CO2, how much CO2 do we need? Do you have those numbers? Where is that experiment at?

Increasing the amount CO2 in the atmosphere should be no problem.

 

[SSDD]

Is this supposed to demonstrate your superior grasp of thermodynamics?

No answer? Unsurprising.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[SSDD]

All you warmers seem to want to do something about climate change but are remarkably short on ideas when you are asked what.

Lets hear your ideas....what do you want to do? Do any of you have any ideas that would actually reduce CO2 without killing millions of poor people across the globe? Or, is killing millions of poor people perhaps, part of the plan?

Lets hear it...whatcha got?

My solution? You, and people LIKE you get an open mind on the subject. That might work wonders. How is reckoning with the effects of human pollution "killing" anyone? dealing with this now will save billions of lives and dollars. You are making the wrong people the boogieman here.

I am afraid that it is you who needs to get the open mind...or at least open enough to acknowledge the amount of death already caused by environmentalism gone wild. Do you really need for someone to explain to you how environmentalism has killed millions and millions already?

 

[SSDD]

Is this supposed to demonstrate your superior grasp of thermodynamics?

No, it demonstrates the level of your gullibility.

 

[SSDD]

So our crop of warmers have no ideas which would not result in the death of poor people in the non industrial world. Why am I not surprised?