2/3 of Americans refuse to pay one hundred dollars per year, to prevent global warming

[Flopper]

The libs claim the public is concerned about globull warming. The public more concerned about dandruff than they are about globull warming, as this poll demonstrates.

A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports reveals that 2/3 Americans are unwilling to pay even $100 / annum additional costs to prevent global warming.


According to Rasmussen;

Most voters still aren’t ready to pay much, if anything, to fight global warming, but a slightly higher number are willing to spend more for the cause.


A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of Likely U.S. Voters say they are willing to pay nothing more in higher taxes and utility costs annually to to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming. But that’s down from 48% last August and the lowest level measured in regular tracking since January 2013. Another 24% are willing to spend only $100 more per year, unchanged from earlier surveys. Twenty-six percent (26%) are ready to spend $300 or more a year to combat global warming, with six percent (6%) who are ready to spend at least $1,000 more annually. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

​

If you do the calculations, I think you'll find that if we actually increased taxes in accordance with the percentages in the survey we would double what we are currently spending on global warming.

 

[Mustang]

The libs claim the public is concerned about globull warming. The public more concerned about dandruff than they are about globull warming, as this poll demonstrates.

A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports reveals that 2/3 Americans are unwilling to pay even $100 / annum additional costs to prevent global warming.


According to Rasmussen;

Most voters still aren’t ready to pay much, if anything, to fight global warming, but a slightly higher number are willing to spend more for the cause.


A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of Likely U.S. Voters say they are willing to pay nothing more in higher taxes and utility costs annually to to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming. But that’s down from 48% last August and the lowest level measured in regular tracking since January 2013. Another 24% are willing to spend only $100 more per year, unchanged from earlier surveys. Twenty-six percent (26%) are ready to spend $300 or more a year to combat global warming, with six percent (6%) who are ready to spend at least $1,000 more annually. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

​

You can only prevent something that either hasn't yet happened or isn't in the process of already happening. Global warming/Climate change IS happening. There is no way to prevent it. What MIGHT be possible is to minimized it, or mitigate it. It's simply too late to prevent it.

The point is nobody cares or believes your scary stories.

The same progression has played out throughout history from the introduction of the heliocentric theory of the solar system which threw the church into fits (murderous fits, I should add) of spiritual apoplexy to the first postulation of continental drift which was originally laughed at until underwater sonar mapping showed how and where it was happening. Today that's the science of plate tectonics.

 

[bripat9643]

The libs claim the public is concerned about globull warming. The public more concerned about dandruff than they are about globull warming, as this poll demonstrates.

A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports reveals that 2/3 Americans are unwilling to pay even $100 / annum additional costs to prevent global warming.


According to Rasmussen;

Most voters still aren’t ready to pay much, if anything, to fight global warming, but a slightly higher number are willing to spend more for the cause.


A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of Likely U.S. Voters say they are willing to pay nothing more in higher taxes and utility costs annually to to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming. But that’s down from 48% last August and the lowest level measured in regular tracking since January 2013. Another 24% are willing to spend only $100 more per year, unchanged from earlier surveys. Twenty-six percent (26%) are ready to spend $300 or more a year to combat global warming, with six percent (6%) who are ready to spend at least $1,000 more annually. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

​

You can only prevent something that either hasn't yet happened or isn't in the process of already happening. Global warming/Climate change IS happening. There is no way to prevent it. What MIGHT be possible is to minimized it, or mitigate it. It's simply too late to prevent it.

The point is nobody cares or believes your scary stories.

The same progression has played out throughout history from the introduction of the heliocentric theory of the solar system which threw the church into fits (murderous fits, I should add) of spiritual apoplexy to the first postulation of continental drift which was originally laughed at until underwater sonar mapping showed how and where it was happening. Today that's the science of plate tectonics.

The problem with your theory is that the AGW cult claims to be in the position of the geologists who insisted continents didn't move and the sceptics are in the position of the geologists who claimed they did. The AGW cults claims to represent scientific orthodoxy.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Global Warming=snake oil BS

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Global Warming=snake oil BS

Not according to the U.S. Military.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

The libs claim the public is concerned about globull warming. The public more concerned about dandruff than they are about globull warming, as this poll demonstrates.

A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports reveals that 2/3 Americans are unwilling to pay even $100 / annum additional costs to prevent global warming.


According to Rasmussen;

Most voters still aren’t ready to pay much, if anything, to fight global warming, but a slightly higher number are willing to spend more for the cause.


A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of Likely U.S. Voters say they are willing to pay nothing more in higher taxes and utility costs annually to to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming. But that’s down from 48% last August and the lowest level measured in regular tracking since January 2013. Another 24% are willing to spend only $100 more per year, unchanged from earlier surveys. Twenty-six percent (26%) are ready to spend $300 or more a year to combat global warming, with six percent (6%) who are ready to spend at least $1,000 more annually. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

​

i will pay 50.42 to watch al gore fart real flames from his ass.

 

[bripat9643]

Global Warming=snake oil BS

Not according to the U.S. Military.

What are there qualifications to do climate science?

 

[eagle1462010]

Global Warming=snake oil BS

Not according to the U.S. Military.

What are here qualifications to do clime science?

They are practicing attacking a tornado under the leadership of their CNC...............

 

[Rexx Taylor]

19 trilion in debt, so really, 100 dollars per person will make a dent? this is like making a 1.00 down payment on a new rolls royce.

 

[bripat9643]

The libs claim the public is concerned about globull warming. The public more concerned about dandruff than they are about globull warming, as this poll demonstrates.

A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports reveals that 2/3 Americans are unwilling to pay even $100 / annum additional costs to prevent global warming.


According to Rasmussen;

Most voters still aren’t ready to pay much, if anything, to fight global warming, but a slightly higher number are willing to spend more for the cause.


A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of Likely U.S. Voters say they are willing to pay nothing more in higher taxes and utility costs annually to to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming. But that’s down from 48% last August and the lowest level measured in regular tracking since January 2013. Another 24% are willing to spend only $100 more per year, unchanged from earlier surveys. Twenty-six percent (26%) are ready to spend $300 or more a year to combat global warming, with six percent (6%) who are ready to spend at least $1,000 more annually. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

​

If you do the calculations, I think you'll find that if we actually increased taxes in accordance with the percentages in the survey we would double what we are currently spending on global warming.

The $100 includes the cost of increases in the price of electric power. When you take that into consideration, there is no money left for any additional spending.

 

[Mustang]

The libs claim the public is concerned about globull warming. The public more concerned about dandruff than they are about globull warming, as this poll demonstrates.

A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports reveals that 2/3 Americans are unwilling to pay even $100 / annum additional costs to prevent global warming.


According to Rasmussen;

Most voters still aren’t ready to pay much, if anything, to fight global warming, but a slightly higher number are willing to spend more for the cause.


A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of Likely U.S. Voters say they are willing to pay nothing more in higher taxes and utility costs annually to to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming. But that’s down from 48% last August and the lowest level measured in regular tracking since January 2013. Another 24% are willing to spend only $100 more per year, unchanged from earlier surveys. Twenty-six percent (26%) are ready to spend $300 or more a year to combat global warming, with six percent (6%) who are ready to spend at least $1,000 more annually. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

​

You can only prevent something that either hasn't yet happened or isn't in the process of already happening. Global warming/Climate change IS happening. There is no way to prevent it. What MIGHT be possible is to minimized it, or mitigate it. It's simply too late to prevent it.

The point is nobody cares or believes your scary stories.

The same progression has played out throughout history from the introduction of the heliocentric theory of the solar system which threw the church into fits (murderous fits, I should add) of spiritual apoplexy to the first postulation of continental drift which was originally laughed at until underwater sonar mapping showed how and where it was happening. Today that's the science of plate tectonics.

The problem with your theory is that the AGW cult claims to be in the position of the geologists who insisted continents didn't move and the sceptics are in the position of the geologists who claimed they did. The AGW cults claims to represent scientific orthodoxy.

People who challenge conventional thinking don't represent scientific orthodoxy.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

its the liberals running the country who are the primary cause for the average american share of the debt to be 50/75,000 each. and now they want 100.00 from them? why not just call Soros? he can pay for it.

 

[bripat9643]

The libs claim the public is concerned about globull warming. The public more concerned about dandruff than they are about globull warming, as this poll demonstrates.

A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports reveals that 2/3 Americans are unwilling to pay even $100 / annum additional costs to prevent global warming.


According to Rasmussen;

Most voters still aren’t ready to pay much, if anything, to fight global warming, but a slightly higher number are willing to spend more for the cause.


A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of Likely U.S. Voters say they are willing to pay nothing more in higher taxes and utility costs annually to to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming. But that’s down from 48% last August and the lowest level measured in regular tracking since January 2013. Another 24% are willing to spend only $100 more per year, unchanged from earlier surveys. Twenty-six percent (26%) are ready to spend $300 or more a year to combat global warming, with six percent (6%) who are ready to spend at least $1,000 more annually. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

​

You can only prevent something that either hasn't yet happened or isn't in the process of already happening. Global warming/Climate change IS happening. There is no way to prevent it. What MIGHT be possible is to minimized it, or mitigate it. It's simply too late to prevent it.

The point is nobody cares or believes your scary stories.

The same progression has played out throughout history from the introduction of the heliocentric theory of the solar system which threw the church into fits (murderous fits, I should add) of spiritual apoplexy to the first postulation of continental drift which was originally laughed at until underwater sonar mapping showed how and where it was happening. Today that's the science of plate tectonics.

The problem with your theory is that the AGW cult claims to be in the position of the geologists who insisted continents didn't move and the sceptics are in the position of the geologists who claimed they did. The AGW cults claims to represent scientific orthodoxy.

People who challenge conventional thinking don't represent scientific orthodoxy.

The AGW cult is the new orthodoxy. Your belief that you are "challenging conventional thinking" is utterly hilarious. the last hing people who go around shouting "the debate is over" and "we have a scientific consensus" are doing is challenging conventional thinking.

 

[Mustang]

You can only prevent something that either hasn't yet happened or isn't in the process of already happening. Global warming/Climate change IS happening. There is no way to prevent it. What MIGHT be possible is to minimized it, or mitigate it. It's simply too late to prevent it.

The point is nobody cares or believes your scary stories.

The same progression has played out throughout history from the introduction of the heliocentric theory of the solar system which threw the church into fits (murderous fits, I should add) of spiritual apoplexy to the first postulation of continental drift which was originally laughed at until underwater sonar mapping showed how and where it was happening. Today that's the science of plate tectonics.

The problem with your theory is that the AGW cult claims to be in the position of the geologists who insisted continents didn't move and the sceptics are in the position of the geologists who claimed they did. The AGW cults claims to represent scientific orthodoxy.

People who challenge conventional thinking don't represent scientific orthodoxy.

The AGW cult is the new orthodoxy. Your belief that you are "challenging conventional thinking" is utterly hilarious. the last hing people who go around shouting "the debate is over" and "we have a scientific consensus" are doing is challenging conventional thinking.

For years (decades really) the idea that humans could affect the climate through the introduction of greenhouse gases wasn't even on the radar. However, a tiny group of scientists were taking measurements of gas levels and speculating on the effects. Virtually nobody paid any attention. Even after levels started rising appreciably, the idea seemed outlandish to many people.

By my recollection, it wasn't until about the late 1970s that it started gaining more attention. What prompted it was the probes to Venus which revealed an incredibly hot and inhospitable world where greenhouse gases were many times our levels. That's actually what led James Hansen, who was involved in the Venus probes, to switch his studies to Earth.

But even today, countries and corporations are mostly tinkering around the margins for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is the whole mantra of economic growth, materialism, and the human desire to have more and more of what they want. The simple fact is that people want what they want, and they're rarely satisfied regardless of how much they have. Even when people have bounty, they want more. Then there's the fact that the population is increasing, and all those billions of additional people have wants and desires. That's no small matter when one realizes that the Earth's population probably only reached 1 billion about 200 years ago, and it's now estimated to have reached 7 billion in 2012 and is slated to reach 8 billion 10 years from now. All those people will use natural resources, and put increasing amounts of CO2 into the air.

But none of that changes the fact that the nations of the world aren't really doing much about the problem because people tend to put things off until there's a crisis in their midst. Unfortunately, like most things, people and nations will find excuses to wait until the 11th hour. What's also unfortunate is this isn't the kind of problem that can be turned around quickly because additional new gases in the atmosphere can affect the climate for another hundred years if not more. What I'm saying is that it won't be orthodoxy until people take real action, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. Hell, I'd be surprised if it happens in the next 50 years. In my personal opinion, it's going to take one or more cataclysms (like massive crop failures, famines, water shortages, and social upheavals, before people realize that they can't wait any longer. Today's moneymen and decision makers will be long dead by that time, and they'll be off the hook as far as being held accountable.

 

[Flipper]

"Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management , co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll

Blood And Gore Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype - Forbes

"You kids just aren't bright enough to understand that your "Prophets" are taking you to the cleaners.

That's not money, that's chump change. Show me the real money?

Translation: "Nuh-Uh and I think you are a poopy head".

I handed you your ass and the best you can come up with?

Your ability to pat yourself on the back is noted. Now, show us the real money of this world-wide scam? That would be in billions and trillions, not millions...

LOL, I get it, you get decide what "real" money is, pardon me for not um...bowing my knee to your obvious self proclaimed superior intelligence.

218 million between 2 or 3 investors is indeed a "windfall"

As I said you'll have to better than that.

So you can't show us who makes out in this giant global scam then? Well, okay.

Does this sort of thing usually work for you?

You've been shown, the fact that you want to deny th

"Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management , co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll

Blood And Gore Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype - Forbes

"You kids just aren't bright enough to understand that your "Prophets" are taking you to the cleaners.

That's not money, that's chump change. Show me the real money?

Translation: "Nuh-Uh and I think you are a poopy head".

I handed you your ass and the best you can come up with?

Your ability to pat yourself on the back is noted. Now, show us the real money of this world-wide scam? That would be in billions and trillions, not millions...

LOL, I get it, you get decide what "real" money is, pardon me for not um...bowing my knee to your obvious self proclaimed superior intelligence.

218 million between 2 or 3 investors is indeed a "windfall"

As I said you'll have to better than that.

So you can't show us who makes out in this giant global scam then? Well, okay.

You look very stupid here kid, do you honestly think that you get to decide what is a lot of money and what isn't?

You've been shown son.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That's not money, that's chump change. Show me the real money?

Translation: "Nuh-Uh and I think you are a poopy head".

I handed you your ass and the best you can come up with?

Your ability to pat yourself on the back is noted. Now, show us the real money of this world-wide scam? That would be in billions and trillions, not millions...

LOL, I get it, you get decide what "real" money is, pardon me for not um...bowing my knee to your obvious self proclaimed superior intelligence.

218 million between 2 or 3 investors is indeed a "windfall"

As I said you'll have to better than that.

So you can't show us who makes out in this giant global scam then? Well, okay.

Does this sort of thing usually work for you?

You've been shown, the fact that you want to deny th

That's not money, that's chump change. Show me the real money?

Translation: "Nuh-Uh and I think you are a poopy head".

I handed you your ass and the best you can come up with?

Your ability to pat yourself on the back is noted. Now, show us the real money of this world-wide scam? That would be in billions and trillions, not millions...

LOL, I get it, you get decide what "real" money is, pardon me for not um...bowing my knee to your obvious self proclaimed superior intelligence.

218 million between 2 or 3 investors is indeed a "windfall"

As I said you'll have to better than that.

So you can't show us who makes out in this giant global scam then? Well, okay.

You look very stupid here kid, do you honestly think that you get to decide what is a lot of money and what isn't?

You've been shown son.

If it's in millions, don't bother posting it, that's chump change in a multi-trillion dollar game.

 

[BluesLegend]

The warmers are looking more stupid with each passing decade of no warming. Why are they such gutless cowards why don't they just admit climate change is just a strategy for attacking corporations that make money off fossil fuels, because that's at the root of this. That and the pile of government grant money and carbon taxes they would love to slam on the poor and middle class.

 

[Politico]

There's no such thing as global warming.

Of course there is is. Nature happens. Don't be an idiot.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Fine, then I want to pay 100.00 to take CNN and MSNBC off the air, then we can all watch Fox News at the airport.

 

[Politico]

The only thing being watched at airports is Wold Blitzer and that Manboy Maddow.