Assuming it was a hoax, what would be the goal of the global warming hoax?

[jc456]

The point here is that for some regions less sweet water is available.

huh? based on what?

Done trolling ?

what is it I am supposedly trolling? Your artificial posts of stupidity? Perhaps you should stick to your OP. You still haven't answered the questions I asked back a few posts ago. Hoax? You know there is one, or you wouldn't have started this dumb fk thread.

What ?
1) Asking where did glaciar water went ... kind of abvious
2) Asking the basis for my previous statement : that melting glaciers diminish the amount of water available around them.
Now , if you didn't learn the hydrological cycle in highschool , it is not my fault , but just stop trolling .
Evenmore this is all unrelated to my OP, or the rather civilized discussion I was having with WestWall.

however, you are on a message board and not have a private conversation. And you are trolling by posting the OP. either you do or you don't believe in a hoax. What say you?

There is water underground, always has been except in most desert regions. Second, you have to have evidence that glaciers are gone. You have zip on that.

Glaciers advance and recede, have been for eons.

and will as long as the earth rotates

 

[Dot Com]

Kids forced to eat healthier school lunches. Reduced obesity. Starting a lifetime of healthier diet choices. God, that's awful.

You are just sssstttuuupppiiiddd beyond belief.

I know right? Obesity & related illnessness are the leading cause of admission to hospitals BUT he is against curtailing it because a Democrat suggested addressing it. He claims to be a Democrat too lol

As to the OP, one would think the deniers would be for repeal of Citizens United given all the spooky pronouncements of corporate control of gubmint. They do have immense power (NRA, Koch Bros, etc...) but deniers don't want to do anything about it whilst simultaneously arguing their undue influence in this thread .

Ask any denier here if they are for public funding of campaigns/campaign finance reform

 

[ClosedCaption]

Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?

To push the left wing agenda. I can't see how that is hard to see or understand.

But then the question is WHAT specific point of the agenda will be pursued and how AGW will help pursue them.

That is easy as well.

1. Electing Democrats. Villainize the GOP for opposing it, create panic and worry over AGW, tell the sheeple that only electing Democrats will prevent DOOM.
2. Take control over people's lives, tell them what they can and cannot do or eat.
3. Taxes taxes taxes.
4. Damage oil and coal industries, promote "green" industries.
5. Appease major factions of the Democrat Party; environmentalists, Animal Activists, etc.

Mostly #1 and #2.

1) The GOP is villanizing itself for not admitting global warming ( even without the anthropogenic part). And while we are far from being at a life or death situation there are clear signs of warming: just try to take a look at the glaciers, also , sea level seems to have risen about 10 cm in the last 40 years or so. Again this is not an immediate threat, but something to keep an eye on.

2) I think that's unrelated to AWG, specially in the US, where there is a clear tendency to overeating: mostly everyone can get whatever food he likes, even if it is a receipe for early diabetes. The "doing" part is even less clear to me. What is it that the government doesn't allow you to do which is not a criminal activity ?

3) Taxes , yea , taxes are a pain in the ass. But the three bigest expenses are healthcare, defense and pensions, Both healthcare and defense can be optimized in many ways ( but discussing that would require a separate thread). Whatever grants or subsidies have been granted in renewables are not significant compared to healthcare and defense, so I find this argument weak.

4. Well, yes, they do get harmed , slightly , but so far the greatest harm has not come from green industry but from the Saudi kingdom. Many fracking companies are going south because of low oil prices, and the same goes for tar sands companies. You can't truly blame it on green industries.
I don't like nuclear very much , but if I had to choose between nuclear and tar sands or fracking , I would pick up nuclear.
5. That seems a legitimate motive to me, not a perverse agenda.

so to summarize, it is only ok to have your point of view and any other falls short of discussion? I see.
how many folks care that a glacier is melting or not?
Prove the fear there that is top on a list. prove sea level rise, still not accomplished by anyone.

Well, won't someone make money from that? I understand that if someone makes money is a hoax.

I have no problem with people making money so long as they don't use the power of government to legislate their competition out of existence. Government should never be the determiner of which company is successful or not. Government has a shitty track record of accomplishing anything well.

Awesome, I agree. So tell these other wackos that making money from something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't real.

I want the tax money back, the empirical evidence has never been provided. So, the money made was spent badly and was abused by those cheating the tax payer. So I want the money returned.

If science isnt evidence then you're evidence is based in spirituality.

dude I have asked and still no empirical evidence that human CO2 is dangerous. Can you post something up that can refute my statement? Just saying, Herr Koch in 1901 is the only experiment that proves it doesn't. So feel free to post up the challenge experiment.

IPCC already stated the pause for 15 years in their AR5 report, ouch, that sucks for you there, the scientist and organization already documented that fact. So CO2 went up, yet temperature did not. Closes the page that CO2 drives temps. Now please always feel free to post up any material that opposes the IPCC report.

I have a simple test for you to make you a believer. Put a garden hose in your tailpipe and into your window. Close all other windows and start up the car.

Then tell me if CO2 is dangerous...if you wake up

 

[Dot Com]

Kids forced to eat healthier school lunches. Reduced obesity. Starting a lifetime of healthier diet choices. God, that's awful.

You are just sssstttuuupppiiiddd beyond belief.

Come again moron? The point was that government is ordering people to do something against their will. Thank you for reinforcing my point. Idiot.

The gov't doesn't give out free cigarettes in high schools for a reason. They can distribute things that are beneficial to one's health. See how that works?

 

[Dot Com]

Control!

Control what?

Controlling...control!

Oh please. Don't eat red meat because the cows fart etc. Get a fricking clue dude..... Please note the usage of the word penance. If ever you needed a clue that these people are religious fanatics there you go....





1. Make climate-conscious political decisions. Some commentators said that the 2007 Australian Federal election was the first to be strongly influenced by the stance made by competing political parties on climate change. Regardless of how true this may be, it is obvious that the strong and urgent action needed to combat climate change will require a healthy dose of political will, and the courage to make tough choices. This willpower comes from voters, who consistently demand real action and can see through ‘greenwashing’ (pretend ‘solutions’ and half-measures that do not do the job). Climate change should be a totally non-partisan issue since it affects all people and all countries. If climate change is not perceived by both sides of politics as a ‘core issue’, it will inevitably be marginalised by apparently more immediate concerns. So assess policies clearly, and make your vote count towards real climate solutions – each and every election. This is the only way a global solution can be put in place, in time.

2. Eat less red meat. Traditional red meat comes from ruminant livestock such as cattle and sheep. These animals produce large amounts of methane, which is a greenhouse gas that packs 72 times the punch of CO2 over a 20 year period. Other types of meat, such as chicken, pork or kangaroo, produce far less emissions. At average levels of consumption, a family’s emissions from beef would easily outweigh the construction and running costs of a large 4WD vehicle, in less than 5 years. There is no need to cut out red meat entirely, but fewer steaks and snags mean far less CO2.

3. Purchase “green electricity“

4. Make your home and household energy efficient.

5. Buy energy and water efficient appliances.

6. Walk, cycle or take public transport.

7. Recycle, re-use and avoid useless purchases. We throw too much away and still re-cycle too little of what we must discard. Large amounts of energy and water go into producing endless amounts of ‘stuff’, much of which we don’t really need or end up using. So be sure to use your local recycling service, for plastics, metals and paper. Try to get appliances and tools fixed rather than replaced – the carbon footprint of fixing things is far lower than making them from scratch. Avoid the temptation to buy useless trinkets and knick-knacks, just because it feels good to accumulate things. There are limits to everything, including, most importantly, the ability of the planet to supply people with an ever burgeoning supply of raw materials. Think sustainability.

8. Telecommute and teleconference.

9. Buy local produce.

10. Offset what you can’t save. Avoiding the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, in the ways described above, is by far the best and most direct way or reducing our climate change impact. Yet some emissions are unavoidable. For those, offsetting is a worthwhile option. This is done by purchasing ‘carbon credits’ from accredited companies which offer this service, who will then invest those dollars in (for instance) renewable energy projects or planting trees. Carbon offsets should definitely not be seen as the solution, or as a relatively pain-free way to expel your carbon guilt. There is nowhere near enough offsetting potential in the world for this to be an option for most of the world’s population. But in conjunction with other methods of kicking the CO2 habit, offsets can help make a difference and allow you to pay a small penance.



Top 10 ways to reduce your CO2 emissions footprint

First yiu realize that it says eat LESS red meat, not that you can't eat it.

Second this isn't an edict or demand to eat less red meat. Know how I know, because I'm eating chili right now. And no one will ever stop cow birth or eating them.

To believe you won't be able to get a burger because of global warming is one of the sillier things I've heard.

tell that to the kids forced to eat the Michelle obama school lunches. Your blind following does you no credit at all. Nor does your profound ignorance of the facts, and the desires of the governments to MANDATE the rules that the website I provided merely suggests.

School lunches have nothing to do with whether or not meat will be available for purchase. They still sell meat there anyway.

See, it's easy for you to throw on the towel and proclaim I'm ignorant of the facts. Except you aren't presenting facts. And when you do you say stuff like Stop eating read meat is the same as you CAN'T eat red meat.

Again, that's a suggestion. But if you think someday cows will be extinct you're stupid.

It is the first step in the door, along with the various sin taxes and of course Bloomie deciding that soda pop is bad for people so they can't be allowed to buy Big Gulps. Ignore the fact that they can just buy more so the net result is merely to raise the cost of their drinks. I wonder how much stock Bloomie has in the various soda bottlers? But, once again, my observation was that government was using the power of anti climate change legislation to force people to d things the way the government wants them too. And you quite ably reinforced my point yet again. You're not too bright are you...

You almost figured out what sin taxes are for. I'll tell you- they disincentivize harmful behavior especially when it has a negative consequence on the population as a whole such as avoidable hospital admissions. Extreme amounts of sugar (like those present in a big gulp) lead to diabetes, diabetes leads to hospital admissions, hospitals admissions lead to ginormous unpaid bills that are foisted onto the taxpayer. See where I'm going w/ this?

THINK!!!!

 

[jc456]

To push the left wing agenda. I can't see how that is hard to see or understand.

But then the question is WHAT specific point of the agenda will be pursued and how AGW will help pursue them.

That is easy as well.

1. Electing Democrats. Villainize the GOP for opposing it, create panic and worry over AGW, tell the sheeple that only electing Democrats will prevent DOOM.
2. Take control over people's lives, tell them what they can and cannot do or eat.
3. Taxes taxes taxes.
4. Damage oil and coal industries, promote "green" industries.
5. Appease major factions of the Democrat Party; environmentalists, Animal Activists, etc.

Mostly #1 and #2.

1) The GOP is villanizing itself for not admitting global warming ( even without the anthropogenic part). And while we are far from being at a life or death situation there are clear signs of warming: just try to take a look at the glaciers, also , sea level seems to have risen about 10 cm in the last 40 years or so. Again this is not an immediate threat, but something to keep an eye on.

2) I think that's unrelated to AWG, specially in the US, where there is a clear tendency to overeating: mostly everyone can get whatever food he likes, even if it is a receipe for early diabetes. The "doing" part is even less clear to me. What is it that the government doesn't allow you to do which is not a criminal activity ?

3) Taxes , yea , taxes are a pain in the ass. But the three bigest expenses are healthcare, defense and pensions, Both healthcare and defense can be optimized in many ways ( but discussing that would require a separate thread). Whatever grants or subsidies have been granted in renewables are not significant compared to healthcare and defense, so I find this argument weak.

4. Well, yes, they do get harmed , slightly , but so far the greatest harm has not come from green industry but from the Saudi kingdom. Many fracking companies are going south because of low oil prices, and the same goes for tar sands companies. You can't truly blame it on green industries.
I don't like nuclear very much , but if I had to choose between nuclear and tar sands or fracking , I would pick up nuclear.
5. That seems a legitimate motive to me, not a perverse agenda.

so to summarize, it is only ok to have your point of view and any other falls short of discussion? I see.
how many folks care that a glacier is melting or not?
Prove the fear there that is top on a list. prove sea level rise, still not accomplished by anyone.

I have no problem with people making money so long as they don't use the power of government to legislate their competition out of existence. Government should never be the determiner of which company is successful or not. Government has a shitty track record of accomplishing anything well.

Awesome, I agree. So tell these other wackos that making money from something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't real.

I want the tax money back, the empirical evidence has never been provided. So, the money made was spent badly and was abused by those cheating the tax payer. So I want the money returned.

If science isnt evidence then you're evidence is based in spirituality.

dude I have asked and still no empirical evidence that human CO2 is dangerous. Can you post something up that can refute my statement? Just saying, Herr Koch in 1901 is the only experiment that proves it doesn't. So feel free to post up the challenge experiment.

IPCC already stated the pause for 15 years in their AR5 report, ouch, that sucks for you there, the scientist and organization already documented that fact. So CO2 went up, yet temperature did not. Closes the page that CO2 drives temps. Now please always feel free to post up any material that opposes the IPCC report.

I have a simple test for you to make you a believer. Put a garden hose in your tailpipe and into your window. Close all other windows and start up the car.

Then tell me if CO2 is dangerous...if you wake up

that isn't CO2 so perhaps you should learn science dumb fk. Holy crap, you can't make this stuff up.

 

[jc456]

Oh please. Don't eat red meat because the cows fart etc. Get a fricking clue dude..... Please note the usage of the word penance. If ever you needed a clue that these people are religious fanatics there you go....





1. Make climate-conscious political decisions. Some commentators said that the 2007 Australian Federal election was the first to be strongly influenced by the stance made by competing political parties on climate change. Regardless of how true this may be, it is obvious that the strong and urgent action needed to combat climate change will require a healthy dose of political will, and the courage to make tough choices. This willpower comes from voters, who consistently demand real action and can see through ‘greenwashing’ (pretend ‘solutions’ and half-measures that do not do the job). Climate change should be a totally non-partisan issue since it affects all people and all countries. If climate change is not perceived by both sides of politics as a ‘core issue’, it will inevitably be marginalised by apparently more immediate concerns. So assess policies clearly, and make your vote count towards real climate solutions – each and every election. This is the only way a global solution can be put in place, in time.

2. Eat less red meat. Traditional red meat comes from ruminant livestock such as cattle and sheep. These animals produce large amounts of methane, which is a greenhouse gas that packs 72 times the punch of CO2 over a 20 year period. Other types of meat, such as chicken, pork or kangaroo, produce far less emissions. At average levels of consumption, a family’s emissions from beef would easily outweigh the construction and running costs of a large 4WD vehicle, in less than 5 years. There is no need to cut out red meat entirely, but fewer steaks and snags mean far less CO2.

3. Purchase “green electricity“

4. Make your home and household energy efficient.

5. Buy energy and water efficient appliances.

6. Walk, cycle or take public transport.

7. Recycle, re-use and avoid useless purchases. We throw too much away and still re-cycle too little of what we must discard. Large amounts of energy and water go into producing endless amounts of ‘stuff’, much of which we don’t really need or end up using. So be sure to use your local recycling service, for plastics, metals and paper. Try to get appliances and tools fixed rather than replaced – the carbon footprint of fixing things is far lower than making them from scratch. Avoid the temptation to buy useless trinkets and knick-knacks, just because it feels good to accumulate things. There are limits to everything, including, most importantly, the ability of the planet to supply people with an ever burgeoning supply of raw materials. Think sustainability.

8. Telecommute and teleconference.

9. Buy local produce.

10. Offset what you can’t save. Avoiding the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, in the ways described above, is by far the best and most direct way or reducing our climate change impact. Yet some emissions are unavoidable. For those, offsetting is a worthwhile option. This is done by purchasing ‘carbon credits’ from accredited companies which offer this service, who will then invest those dollars in (for instance) renewable energy projects or planting trees. Carbon offsets should definitely not be seen as the solution, or as a relatively pain-free way to expel your carbon guilt. There is nowhere near enough offsetting potential in the world for this to be an option for most of the world’s population. But in conjunction with other methods of kicking the CO2 habit, offsets can help make a difference and allow you to pay a small penance.



Top 10 ways to reduce your CO2 emissions footprint

First yiu realize that it says eat LESS red meat, not that you can't eat it.

Second this isn't an edict or demand to eat less red meat. Know how I know, because I'm eating chili right now. And no one will ever stop cow birth or eating them.

To believe you won't be able to get a burger because of global warming is one of the sillier things I've heard.

tell that to the kids forced to eat the Michelle obama school lunches. Your blind following does you no credit at all. Nor does your profound ignorance of the facts, and the desires of the governments to MANDATE the rules that the website I provided merely suggests.

School lunches have nothing to do with whether or not meat will be available for purchase. They still sell meat there anyway.

See, it's easy for you to throw on the towel and proclaim I'm ignorant of the facts. Except you aren't presenting facts. And when you do you say stuff like Stop eating read meat is the same as you CAN'T eat red meat.

Again, that's a suggestion. But if you think someday cows will be extinct you're stupid.

It is the first step in the door, along with the various sin taxes and of course Bloomie deciding that soda pop is bad for people so they can't be allowed to buy Big Gulps. Ignore the fact that they can just buy more so the net result is merely to raise the cost of their drinks. I wonder how much stock Bloomie has in the various soda bottlers? But, once again, my observation was that government was using the power of anti climate change legislation to force people to d things the way the government wants them too. And you quite ably reinforced my point yet again. You're not too bright are you...

You almost figured out what sin taxes are for. I'll tell you- they disincentivize harmful behavior especially when it has a negative consequence on the population as a whole such as avoidable hospital admissions. Extreme amounts of sugar (like those present in a big gulp) lead to diabetes, diabetes leads to hospital admissions, hospitals admissions lead to ginormous unpaid bills that are foisted onto the taxpayer. See where I'm going w/ this?

THINK!!!!

i love dumb fks like you. there is no evidence that eating sugar leads to diabetes. fk you dumb fks have no clue. I supposed you'll tell us that eating fat off of beef makes one fatter. too right? hahahahhahahaha you fks have no fking clue at all. Just believe the religion. everyday on here, it is hysterical.

 

[ClosedCaption]

But then the question is WHAT specific point of the agenda will be pursued and how AGW will help pursue them.

That is easy as well.

1. Electing Democrats. Villainize the GOP for opposing it, create panic and worry over AGW, tell the sheeple that only electing Democrats will prevent DOOM.
2. Take control over people's lives, tell them what they can and cannot do or eat.
3. Taxes taxes taxes.
4. Damage oil and coal industries, promote "green" industries.
5. Appease major factions of the Democrat Party; environmentalists, Animal Activists, etc.

Mostly #1 and #2.

1) The GOP is villanizing itself for not admitting global warming ( even without the anthropogenic part). And while we are far from being at a life or death situation there are clear signs of warming: just try to take a look at the glaciers, also , sea level seems to have risen about 10 cm in the last 40 years or so. Again this is not an immediate threat, but something to keep an eye on.

2) I think that's unrelated to AWG, specially in the US, where there is a clear tendency to overeating: mostly everyone can get whatever food he likes, even if it is a receipe for early diabetes. The "doing" part is even less clear to me. What is it that the government doesn't allow you to do which is not a criminal activity ?

3) Taxes , yea , taxes are a pain in the ass. But the three bigest expenses are healthcare, defense and pensions, Both healthcare and defense can be optimized in many ways ( but discussing that would require a separate thread). Whatever grants or subsidies have been granted in renewables are not significant compared to healthcare and defense, so I find this argument weak.

4. Well, yes, they do get harmed , slightly , but so far the greatest harm has not come from green industry but from the Saudi kingdom. Many fracking companies are going south because of low oil prices, and the same goes for tar sands companies. You can't truly blame it on green industries.
I don't like nuclear very much , but if I had to choose between nuclear and tar sands or fracking , I would pick up nuclear.
5. That seems a legitimate motive to me, not a perverse agenda.

so to summarize, it is only ok to have your point of view and any other falls short of discussion? I see.
how many folks care that a glacier is melting or not?
Prove the fear there that is top on a list. prove sea level rise, still not accomplished by anyone.

Awesome, I agree. So tell these other wackos that making money from something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't real.

I want the tax money back, the empirical evidence has never been provided. So, the money made was spent badly and was abused by those cheating the tax payer. So I want the money returned.

If science isnt evidence then you're evidence is based in spirituality.

dude I have asked and still no empirical evidence that human CO2 is dangerous. Can you post something up that can refute my statement? Just saying, Herr Koch in 1901 is the only experiment that proves it doesn't. So feel free to post up the challenge experiment.

IPCC already stated the pause for 15 years in their AR5 report, ouch, that sucks for you there, the scientist and organization already documented that fact. So CO2 went up, yet temperature did not. Closes the page that CO2 drives temps. Now please always feel free to post up any material that opposes the IPCC report.

I have a simple test for you to make you a believer. Put a garden hose in your tailpipe and into your window. Close all other windows and start up the car.

Then tell me if CO2 is dangerous...if you wake up

that isn't CO2 so perhaps you should learn science dumb fk. Holy crap, you can't make this stuff up.

CO2 doesnt come from your tailpipe?

You should tell that to CNET

CO2ube filters out carbon dioxide from your tailpipe - CNET

 

[jc456]

That is easy as well.

1. Electing Democrats. Villainize the GOP for opposing it, create panic and worry over AGW, tell the sheeple that only electing Democrats will prevent DOOM.
2. Take control over people's lives, tell them what they can and cannot do or eat.
3. Taxes taxes taxes.
4. Damage oil and coal industries, promote "green" industries.
5. Appease major factions of the Democrat Party; environmentalists, Animal Activists, etc.

Mostly #1 and #2.

1) The GOP is villanizing itself for not admitting global warming ( even without the anthropogenic part). And while we are far from being at a life or death situation there are clear signs of warming: just try to take a look at the glaciers, also , sea level seems to have risen about 10 cm in the last 40 years or so. Again this is not an immediate threat, but something to keep an eye on.

2) I think that's unrelated to AWG, specially in the US, where there is a clear tendency to overeating: mostly everyone can get whatever food he likes, even if it is a receipe for early diabetes. The "doing" part is even less clear to me. What is it that the government doesn't allow you to do which is not a criminal activity ?

3) Taxes , yea , taxes are a pain in the ass. But the three bigest expenses are healthcare, defense and pensions, Both healthcare and defense can be optimized in many ways ( but discussing that would require a separate thread). Whatever grants or subsidies have been granted in renewables are not significant compared to healthcare and defense, so I find this argument weak.

4. Well, yes, they do get harmed , slightly , but so far the greatest harm has not come from green industry but from the Saudi kingdom. Many fracking companies are going south because of low oil prices, and the same goes for tar sands companies. You can't truly blame it on green industries.
I don't like nuclear very much , but if I had to choose between nuclear and tar sands or fracking , I would pick up nuclear.
5. That seems a legitimate motive to me, not a perverse agenda.

so to summarize, it is only ok to have your point of view and any other falls short of discussion? I see.
how many folks care that a glacier is melting or not?
Prove the fear there that is top on a list. prove sea level rise, still not accomplished by anyone.

I want the tax money back, the empirical evidence has never been provided. So, the money made was spent badly and was abused by those cheating the tax payer. So I want the money returned.

If science isnt evidence then you're evidence is based in spirituality.

dude I have asked and still no empirical evidence that human CO2 is dangerous. Can you post something up that can refute my statement? Just saying, Herr Koch in 1901 is the only experiment that proves it doesn't. So feel free to post up the challenge experiment.

IPCC already stated the pause for 15 years in their AR5 report, ouch, that sucks for you there, the scientist and organization already documented that fact. So CO2 went up, yet temperature did not. Closes the page that CO2 drives temps. Now please always feel free to post up any material that opposes the IPCC report.

I have a simple test for you to make you a believer. Put a garden hose in your tailpipe and into your window. Close all other windows and start up the car.

Then tell me if CO2 is dangerous...if you wake up

that isn't CO2 so perhaps you should learn science dumb fk. Holy crap, you can't make this stuff up.

CO2 doesnt come from your tailpipe?

You should tell that to CNET

CO2ube filters out carbon dioxide from your tailpipe - CNET

nope, it's carbon monoxide you should learn what a fossil fuel engine discharges.
BTW, we have monoxide monitors in our homes now. see when fuel burns it discharges monoxide ,not dioxide.

 

[ClosedCaption]

1) The GOP is villanizing itself for not admitting global warming ( even without the anthropogenic part). And while we are far from being at a life or death situation there are clear signs of warming: just try to take a look at the glaciers, also , sea level seems to have risen about 10 cm in the last 40 years or so. Again this is not an immediate threat, but something to keep an eye on.

2) I think that's unrelated to AWG, specially in the US, where there is a clear tendency to overeating: mostly everyone can get whatever food he likes, even if it is a receipe for early diabetes. The "doing" part is even less clear to me. What is it that the government doesn't allow you to do which is not a criminal activity ?

3) Taxes , yea , taxes are a pain in the ass. But the three bigest expenses are healthcare, defense and pensions, Both healthcare and defense can be optimized in many ways ( but discussing that would require a separate thread). Whatever grants or subsidies have been granted in renewables are not significant compared to healthcare and defense, so I find this argument weak.

4. Well, yes, they do get harmed , slightly , but so far the greatest harm has not come from green industry but from the Saudi kingdom. Many fracking companies are going south because of low oil prices, and the same goes for tar sands companies. You can't truly blame it on green industries.
I don't like nuclear very much , but if I had to choose between nuclear and tar sands or fracking , I would pick up nuclear.
5. That seems a legitimate motive to me, not a perverse agenda.

so to summarize, it is only ok to have your point of view and any other falls short of discussion? I see.
how many folks care that a glacier is melting or not?
Prove the fear there that is top on a list. prove sea level rise, still not accomplished by anyone.

If science isnt evidence then you're evidence is based in spirituality.

dude I have asked and still no empirical evidence that human CO2 is dangerous. Can you post something up that can refute my statement? Just saying, Herr Koch in 1901 is the only experiment that proves it doesn't. So feel free to post up the challenge experiment.

IPCC already stated the pause for 15 years in their AR5 report, ouch, that sucks for you there, the scientist and organization already documented that fact. So CO2 went up, yet temperature did not. Closes the page that CO2 drives temps. Now please always feel free to post up any material that opposes the IPCC report.

I have a simple test for you to make you a believer. Put a garden hose in your tailpipe and into your window. Close all other windows and start up the car.

Then tell me if CO2 is dangerous...if you wake up

that isn't CO2 so perhaps you should learn science dumb fk. Holy crap, you can't make this stuff up.

CO2 doesnt come from your tailpipe?

You should tell that to CNET

CO2ube filters out carbon dioxide from your tailpipe - CNET

nope, it's carbon monoxide you should learn what a fossil fuel engine discharges.
BTW, we have monoxide monitors in our homes now. see when fuel burns it discharges monoxide ,not dioxide.

CO2 is not cardon dioxide?

 

[westwall]

Oh please. Don't eat red meat because the cows fart etc. Get a fricking clue dude..... Please note the usage of the word penance. If ever you needed a clue that these people are religious fanatics there you go....





1. Make climate-conscious political decisions. Some commentators said that the 2007 Australian Federal election was the first to be strongly influenced by the stance made by competing political parties on climate change. Regardless of how true this may be, it is obvious that the strong and urgent action needed to combat climate change will require a healthy dose of political will, and the courage to make tough choices. This willpower comes from voters, who consistently demand real action and can see through ‘greenwashing’ (pretend ‘solutions’ and half-measures that do not do the job). Climate change should be a totally non-partisan issue since it affects all people and all countries. If climate change is not perceived by both sides of politics as a ‘core issue’, it will inevitably be marginalised by apparently more immediate concerns. So assess policies clearly, and make your vote count towards real climate solutions – each and every election. This is the only way a global solution can be put in place, in time.

2. Eat less red meat. Traditional red meat comes from ruminant livestock such as cattle and sheep. These animals produce large amounts of methane, which is a greenhouse gas that packs 72 times the punch of CO2 over a 20 year period. Other types of meat, such as chicken, pork or kangaroo, produce far less emissions. At average levels of consumption, a family’s emissions from beef would easily outweigh the construction and running costs of a large 4WD vehicle, in less than 5 years. There is no need to cut out red meat entirely, but fewer steaks and snags mean far less CO2.

3. Purchase “green electricity“

4. Make your home and household energy efficient.

5. Buy energy and water efficient appliances.

6. Walk, cycle or take public transport.

7. Recycle, re-use and avoid useless purchases. We throw too much away and still re-cycle too little of what we must discard. Large amounts of energy and water go into producing endless amounts of ‘stuff’, much of which we don’t really need or end up using. So be sure to use your local recycling service, for plastics, metals and paper. Try to get appliances and tools fixed rather than replaced – the carbon footprint of fixing things is far lower than making them from scratch. Avoid the temptation to buy useless trinkets and knick-knacks, just because it feels good to accumulate things. There are limits to everything, including, most importantly, the ability of the planet to supply people with an ever burgeoning supply of raw materials. Think sustainability.

8. Telecommute and teleconference.

9. Buy local produce.

10. Offset what you can’t save. Avoiding the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, in the ways described above, is by far the best and most direct way or reducing our climate change impact. Yet some emissions are unavoidable. For those, offsetting is a worthwhile option. This is done by purchasing ‘carbon credits’ from accredited companies which offer this service, who will then invest those dollars in (for instance) renewable energy projects or planting trees. Carbon offsets should definitely not be seen as the solution, or as a relatively pain-free way to expel your carbon guilt. There is nowhere near enough offsetting potential in the world for this to be an option for most of the world’s population. But in conjunction with other methods of kicking the CO2 habit, offsets can help make a difference and allow you to pay a small penance.



Top 10 ways to reduce your CO2 emissions footprint

First yiu realize that it says eat LESS red meat, not that you can't eat it.

Second this isn't an edict or demand to eat less red meat. Know how I know, because I'm eating chili right now. And no one will ever stop cow birth or eating them.

To believe you won't be able to get a burger because of global warming is one of the sillier things I've heard.

tell that to the kids forced to eat the Michelle obama school lunches. Your blind following does you no credit at all. Nor does your profound ignorance of the facts, and the desires of the governments to MANDATE the rules that the website I provided merely suggests.

School lunches have nothing to do with whether or not meat will be available for purchase. They still sell meat there anyway.

See, it's easy for you to throw on the towel and proclaim I'm ignorant of the facts. Except you aren't presenting facts. And when you do you say stuff like Stop eating read meat is the same as you CAN'T eat red meat.

Again, that's a suggestion. But if you think someday cows will be extinct you're stupid.

It is the first step in the door, along with the various sin taxes and of course Bloomie deciding that soda pop is bad for people so they can't be allowed to buy Big Gulps. Ignore the fact that they can just buy more so the net result is merely to raise the cost of their drinks. I wonder how much stock Bloomie has in the various soda bottlers? But, once again, my observation was that government was using the power of anti climate change legislation to force people to d things the way the government wants them too. And you quite ably reinforced my point yet again. You're not too bright are you...

You almost figured out what sin taxes are for. I'll tell you- they disincentivize harmful behavior especially when it has a negative consequence on the population as a whole such as avoidable hospital admissions. Extreme amounts of sugar (like those present in a big gulp) lead to diabetes, diabetes leads to hospital admissions, hospitals admissions lead to ginormous unpaid bills that are foisted onto the taxpayer. See where I'm going w/ this?

THINK!!!!

No, they don't. They lead to black markets and the corresponding loss of income, and for those who can't afford the sin tax they resort to criminal activity to support their habit. All one need do is look at the failed war on drugs, the failed war on alcohol from the 1930's and every other morality BS law that has ever been passed. It is YOU who needs to think. Historical fact tells us that sin taxes do nothing but harm the poor and incentivise crime.

 

[jc456]

so to summarize, it is only ok to have your point of view and any other falls short of discussion? I see.
how many folks care that a glacier is melting or not?
Prove the fear there that is top on a list. prove sea level rise, still not accomplished by anyone.
dude I have asked and still no empirical evidence that human CO2 is dangerous. Can you post something up that can refute my statement? Just saying, Herr Koch in 1901 is the only experiment that proves it doesn't. So feel free to post up the challenge experiment.

IPCC already stated the pause for 15 years in their AR5 report, ouch, that sucks for you there, the scientist and organization already documented that fact. So CO2 went up, yet temperature did not. Closes the page that CO2 drives temps. Now please always feel free to post up any material that opposes the IPCC report.

I have a simple test for you to make you a believer. Put a garden hose in your tailpipe and into your window. Close all other windows and start up the car.

Then tell me if CO2 is dangerous...if you wake up

that isn't CO2 so perhaps you should learn science dumb fk. Holy crap, you can't make this stuff up.

CO2 doesnt come from your tailpipe?

You should tell that to CNET

CO2ube filters out carbon dioxide from your tailpipe - CNET

nope, it's carbon monoxide you should learn what a fossil fuel engine discharges.
BTW, we have monoxide monitors in our homes now. see when fuel burns it discharges monoxide ,not dioxide.

CO2 is not cardon dioxide?

it says so right here thanks wikipedia:

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Excerpt:

"Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a colorless, odorless gas vital to life on Earth. This naturally occurring chemical compound is composed of a carbon atom covalently double bonded to two oxygen atoms. Carbon dioxide exists in the Earth's atmosphere as a trace gas at a concentration of about 0.04 percent (400 ppm) by volume."

BTW, they don't claim it comes out a tailpipe.

 

[jc456]

you should stop quoting yourself. You come off not know chemical make up of burning fuel.

here dumb fk, more from wikipedia;

"Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, and tasteless gas that is slightly less dense than air. It is toxic to hemoglobic animals (including humans) when encountered in concentrations above about 35 ppm, although it is also produced in normal animal metabolism in low quantities, and is thought to have some normal biological functions. In the atmosphere, it is spatially variable and short lived, having a role in the formation of ground-level ozone."

 

[mamooth]

Poor jc can't grasp that an IC engine produces both CO2 and CO, but mostly CO2. Hilarious. It's the most basic chemistry of all, but he flubs it. His logic actually assumes that if an engine produces CO, it can't produce CO2.

And back on page one, Pete posted a faked Time magazine cover.

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com

Pete, you might want to consider just why your leaders lied to you like that, and why you fell for it. But you won't. You'll run right back to the same people and beg for more lies, because that's what cultists do.

 

[jc456]

Poor jc can't grasp that an IC engine produces both CO2 and CO, but mostly CO2. Hilarious. It's the most basic chemistry of all, but he flubs it. His logic actually assumes that if an engine produces CO, it can't produce CO2.

And back on page one, Pete posted a faked Time magazine cover.

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com

Pete, you might want to consider just why your leaders lied to you like that, and why you fell for it. But you won't. You'll run right back to the same people and beg for more lies, because that's what cultists do.

nope, sorry ole confused one. you're still confused.

here from wikipedia again:

"In 2000, the United States Environmental Protection Agency began to implement more stringent emissions standards for light duty vehicles. The requirements were phased in beginning with 2004 vehicles and all new cars and light trucks were required to meet the updated standards by the end of 2007.

United States Light-Duty Vehicle, Light-Duty Truck, and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle—Tier 2 Exhaust Emission Standards (for Bin 5)[10]
Component Emission Rate Annual pollution emitted
NMOG (Volatile organic compounds) 0.075 grams/mile (0.046 g/Km) 2.1 pounds (0.95 kg)
Carbon Monoxide 3.4 grams/mile (2.1 g/Km) 94 pounds (43 kg)
NOX 0.05 grams/mile (0.0305 g/Km) 1.4 pounds (0.64 kg)
Formaldehyde 0.015 grams/mile (0.0092 g/Km) 0.41 pounds (0.19 kg)"

 

[mamooth]

jc, everyone on your side wishes you'd be quiet and stop embarrassing them. It takes a special degree of stupid to declare that IC engines don't emit CO2.

 

[PredFan]

Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?

To push the left wing agenda. I can't see how that is hard to see or understand.

But then the question is WHAT specific point of the agenda will be pursued and how AGW will help pursue them.

That is easy as well.

1. Electing Democrats. Villainize the GOP for opposing it, create panic and worry over AGW, tell the sheeple that only electing Democrats will prevent DOOM.
2. Take control over people's lives, tell them what they can and cannot do or eat.
3. Taxes taxes taxes.
4. Damage oil and coal industries, promote "green" industries.
5. Appease major factions of the Democrat Party; environmentalists, Animal Activists, etc.

Mostly #1 and #2.

1) The GOP is villanizing itself for not admitting global warming ( even without the anthropogenic part). And while we are far from being at a life or death situation there are clear signs of warming: just try to take a look at the glaciers, also , sea level seems to have risen about 10 cm in the last 40 years or so. Again this is not an immediate threat, but something to keep an eye on.

2) I think that's unrelated to AWG, specially in the US, where there is a clear tendency to overeating: mostly everyone can get whatever food he likes, even if it is a receipe for early diabetes. The "doing" part is even less clear to me. What is it that the government doesn't allow you to do which is not a criminal activity ?

3) Taxes , yea , taxes are a pain in the ass. But the three bigest expenses are healthcare, defense and pensions, Both healthcare and defense can be optimized in many ways ( but discussing that would require a separate thread). Whatever grants or subsidies have been granted in renewables are not significant compared to healthcare and defense, so I find this argument weak.

4. Well, yes, they do get harmed , slightly , but so far the greatest harm has not come from green industry but from the Saudi kingdom. Many fracking companies are going south because of low oil prices, and the same goes for tar sands companies. You can't truly blame it on green industries.
I don't like nuclear very much , but if I had to choose between nuclear and tar sands or fracking , I would pick up nuclear.
5. That seems a legitimate motive to me, not a perverse agenda.

so to summarize, it is only ok to have your point of view and any other falls short of discussion? I see.
how many folks care that a glacier is melting or not?
Prove the fear there that is top on a list. prove sea level rise, still not accomplished by anyone.

Well, won't someone make money from that? I understand that if someone makes money is a hoax.

I have no problem with people making money so long as they don't use the power of government to legislate their competition out of existence. Government should never be the determiner of which company is successful or not. Government has a shitty track record of accomplishing anything well.

Awesome, I agree. So tell these other wackos that making money from something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't real.

I want the tax money back, the empirical evidence has never been provided. So, the money made was spent badly and was abused by those cheating the tax payer. So I want the money returned.

If science isnt evidence then you're evidence is based in spirituality.

dude I have asked and still no empirical evidence that human CO2 is dangerous. Can you post something up that can refute my statement? Just saying, Herr Koch in 1901 is the only experiment that proves it doesn't. So feel free to post up the challenge experiment.

IPCC already stated the pause for 15 years in their AR5 report, ouch, that sucks for you there, the scientist and organization already documented that fact. So CO2 went up, yet temperature did not. Closes the page that CO2 drives temps. Now please always feel free to post up any material that opposes the IPCC report.

Glaciers advance and recede all the time, ice melts in some areas, and it grows in others. Anyone who lives on the coast can attest that sea levels have not changed in any amount that is significant. I go to Cocoa Beach regularly and have been since I was a teen in the 70s. The water level there is EXACTLY the same as it was.

Man made global warming is a scam. No rational intelligent person believes in that nonsense.

 

[PredFan]

jc, everyone on your side wishes you'd be quiet and stop embarrassing them. It takes a special degree of stupid to declare that IC engines don't emit CO2.

You are wrong. I am on his side, and I like what he is saying. Look at his last post.

How do you tolerate being wrong on everything all the time? I know I wouldn't tolerate it.

 

[Old Rocks]

To push the left wing agenda. I can't see how that is hard to see or understand.

But then the question is WHAT specific point of the agenda will be pursued and how AGW will help pursue them.

That is easy as well.

1. Electing Democrats. Villainize the GOP for opposing it, create panic and worry over AGW, tell the sheeple that only electing Democrats will prevent DOOM.
2. Take control over people's lives, tell them what they can and cannot do or eat.
3. Taxes taxes taxes.
4. Damage oil and coal industries, promote "green" industries.
5. Appease major factions of the Democrat Party; environmentalists, Animal Activists, etc.

Mostly #1 and #2.

1) The GOP is villanizing itself for not admitting global warming ( even without the anthropogenic part). And while we are far from being at a life or death situation there are clear signs of warming: just try to take a look at the glaciers, also , sea level seems to have risen about 10 cm in the last 40 years or so. Again this is not an immediate threat, but something to keep an eye on.

2) I think that's unrelated to AWG, specially in the US, where there is a clear tendency to overeating: mostly everyone can get whatever food he likes, even if it is a receipe for early diabetes. The "doing" part is even less clear to me. What is it that the government doesn't allow you to do which is not a criminal activity ?

3) Taxes , yea , taxes are a pain in the ass. But the three bigest expenses are healthcare, defense and pensions, Both healthcare and defense can be optimized in many ways ( but discussing that would require a separate thread). Whatever grants or subsidies have been granted in renewables are not significant compared to healthcare and defense, so I find this argument weak.

4. Well, yes, they do get harmed , slightly , but so far the greatest harm has not come from green industry but from the Saudi kingdom. Many fracking companies are going south because of low oil prices, and the same goes for tar sands companies. You can't truly blame it on green industries.
I don't like nuclear very much , but if I had to choose between nuclear and tar sands or fracking , I would pick up nuclear.
5. That seems a legitimate motive to me, not a perverse agenda.

so to summarize, it is only ok to have your point of view and any other falls short of discussion? I see.
how many folks care that a glacier is melting or not?
Prove the fear there that is top on a list. prove sea level rise, still not accomplished by anyone.

I have no problem with people making money so long as they don't use the power of government to legislate their competition out of existence. Government should never be the determiner of which company is successful or not. Government has a shitty track record of accomplishing anything well.

Awesome, I agree. So tell these other wackos that making money from something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't real.

I want the tax money back, the empirical evidence has never been provided. So, the money made was spent badly and was abused by those cheating the tax payer. So I want the money returned.

If science isnt evidence then you're evidence is based in spirituality.

dude I have asked and still no empirical evidence that human CO2 is dangerous. Can you post something up that can refute my statement? Just saying, Herr Koch in 1901 is the only experiment that proves it doesn't. So feel free to post up the challenge experiment.

IPCC already stated the pause for 15 years in their AR5 report, ouch, that sucks for you there, the scientist and organization already documented that fact. So CO2 went up, yet temperature did not. Closes the page that CO2 drives temps. Now please always feel free to post up any material that opposes the IPCC report.

Glaciers advance and recede all the time, ice melts in some areas, and it grows in others. Anyone who lives on the coast can attest that sea levels have not changed in any amount that is significant. I go to Cocoa Beach regularly and have been since I was a teen in the 70s. The water level there is EXACTLY the same as it was.

Man made global warming is a scam. No rational intelligent person believes in that nonsense.

Adapting to Global Warming

Abstract
Summary


Although people often develop close to the coast, shorelines constantly change due to erosion, sedimentation, and sea level rise. During the last century, sea level has risen approximately 6-9 inches worldwide and 9 inches along the coast of East Central Florida. There is estimated to be a 90 percent probability of over a 1 foot rise in sea level by 2150 along the Florida coast. However, there is a 50 percent probability that this rise could be seen by the year 2075.

This study is the first comprehensive attempt to assess the likely response to sea level rise in East-Central Florida. The study area contains the (ocean) coastal areas of Brevard and Volusia counties, approximately 14.5 percent of the combined area of the two counties); We omitted the portion of these coasts counties along the St. John's River. According to the 2000 census, the population in the coastal census tracts is approximately 503,000 in 260,000 dwelling units. The coastal population is expected to grow to roughly 550,000 residents in 287,000 dwelling units by 2020. Major tourist destinations such as Daytona Beach, Cocoa Beach, and Melbourne Beach are included in the study area. Therefore, the effects of sea level rise will affect not only the residents, but may have a major effect on tourist destinations as well, which may result in dramatic effects on the economic well being of the counties. The study focused on the lowest 240 square miles, using a common mapping benchmark for defining low coastal land: the 10-foot contour. More than 141,000 acres of uplands and almost 96,000 acres of wetlands are in this area and would be directly affected by a continued rise in sea level. Wetlands and water comprise 65% of the study area.

In Volusia County, the majority of coastal lands are developed and almost certain to be protected. Nevertheless, there is a substantial amount of preserve areas along both sides of the lagoon at the northern and southern ends of the county, as well as the middle of county along Sebastian Inlet. At the northern end of the county there are also three forested islands that are not formally part of a preserve but whose development would be difficult and hence shore protection is unlikely. And at the southern end of the county, there are some low-lying agricultural lands where coastal development with planned low and moderate density, with wetlands situated around them and hence shore protection are unlikely, .as well as an even greater area of undeveloped land where development is expected but not necessarily inevitable.

Regionwide, land in which shore protection is almost certain accounts for 65,000 acres (102 square miles), 15% of the study area. Single family residential lands account for 46,000 acres. The maps show that for all practical purposes, past and planned development have already made it inevitable that property will be protected and the inland migration of wetlands will be blocked and eventually eliminated along 30% of Brevard and 60% of Volusia County shores. Existing conservation lands, however, ensure that wetlands will be able to adjust to rising sea level along the shores of about 45% and 15% of the two counties, respectively. Perhaps most importantly, we still have a realistic opportunity to choose between wetland migration and coastal development for approximately 25% of the land in each county. (See the summary table).

Brevard and Volusia coastline is an important ecological and economical resource for the region and state. Land use is a state and local responsibility and decisions should be made concerning the protection of developed and undeveloped land before it becomes too expensive or impossible to protect the shoreline and property. The counties and cities are presented, through this study, with options for decision making concerning land use and the protection of common infrastructure, property, resources, and the economic base of the community from sea level rise. In some cases, it is reasonable to wait and respond as the sea rises. However, infrastructure changes may require a lead time of a few decades, and land use decisions last centuries. If we want to preserve more than half of our coastal environment as sea level rises, policies should be developed to ensure such a preservation before the remainder of our coastal zone is developed. Doing so need not impair property values; but a failure to act soon would preclude opportunities to preserve the coastal environment in a cost-effective manner.

LOL. Predfan, you are definately showing us what a dumb ass you are. A measured 9" rise is significant on a very flat beach.

 

[Old Rocks]

jc, everyone on your side wishes you'd be quiet and stop embarrassing them. It takes a special degree of stupid to declare that IC engines don't emit CO2.

You are wrong. I am on his side, and I like what he is saying. Look at his last post.

How do you tolerate being wrong on everything all the time? I know I wouldn't tolerate it.

Good God, You are a special kind of stupid. The primary product of any hydrocarbon burned with air is CO2.