Lets Hear Your Ideas....

[ScienceRocks]

We could sell fusion reactors for 30-40 billion a piece to all the worlds countries...We'd probably only have to invest 100 billion to make it work.

America's economy would grow with this investment.

 

[westwall]

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.

No we're not. You folks want to expend 76 trillion dollars in the vain hope of lowering the global temperature by one degree in 100 years but you FAILED utterly to show how that would benefit ANYONE other than the rich corporate fat cats you claim to despise.

 

[MaryL]

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.

No we're not. You folks want to expend 76 trillion dollars in the vain hope of lowering the global temperature by one degree in 100 years but you FAILED utterly to show how that would benefit ANYONE other than the rich corporate fat cats you claim to despise.

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ever see a Whippet, dingleberry?

Is a dingleberry part of a whippet, or is that a new breed for eco-whacks living in yurts?

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Global warming is not caused by pollutants. The concentration of CO2 in your lungs right now is 5 times higher than fresh air.... Pollution is a different issue.

 

[westwall]

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.

No we're not. You folks want to expend 76 trillion dollars in the vain hope of lowering the global temperature by one degree in 100 years but you FAILED utterly to show how that would benefit ANYONE other than the rich corporate fat cats you claim to despise.

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.

 

[Dante]

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?

Let's do nothing. I don't like kids and feel like future generations are owed nothing.

true story?
maybe
D

 

[Crick]

Governments do spend lots of money developing armaments. That's because defense is their most critical and most expensive responsibility. Our government has also accomplished tremendous progress in medical science, agriculture, theoretical physics, transportation and others. Accusing bureaucracies of being inefficient is pursuing the lowest of low hanging fruit but what US bureaucracy dedicated to climate alarmism do you believe has replaced the space program?

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.

vast majority of fusion research taking place now and for the past several decades has been funded almost entirely by governments. Whatever and whenever a workable fusion system appears, it will owe that much of its existence to government research.

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.

 

[percysunshine]

1. Invest 100 billion into fusion. This would be a good idea rather global warming is true or not.
2. Support nuclear and find lower carbon replacement for current oil based goods.
3. Plan ahead for protecting our cities from the realities of sea level rise. We all know there's enough ice to flood most coastal cities that could melt. Have a plan to protect them.
4. Invest more in science in order to understand these charges.

1...We spend trillions on worthless war, but this would be spending it for the benefit of our country.

Dang Matthew. Those suggestions don't involve making Al Gore richer by trading carbon credits.

Kudos.

 

[mamooth]

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?

 

[mamooth]

You were asked for ideas that don't result in the deaths of poor people....clearly you don't have any.

But I do. Stop genocidal tyrants like you from being genocidal tyrants.

Isn't this great, trading accusations of genocide? Not my style, of course, but since Westwall is forbidding any criticism of the tactic, we all better get used to it.

Oh, the northeast USA has been doing carbon credits with RGGI since 2008. Since then, electricity costs in the region are down about 10% in the region. So SSDD, you theory it will raise prices and harm poor people has been disproven by the real world, meaning you'll have to find a reason to ignore the real world again.

 

[sameech]

I'm a free market guy myself. Carbon credits.

But being it's about the free market, most deniers won't be able to understand it.

How exactly do carbon credits prevent pollution? All they have ever been shown to do is enrich corrupt corporate fat cats, and raise the prices on everything people buy.

...and while you are at it mamooth, how exactly is a carbon tax "free market"?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Plant more trees. Stop cutting down the ones we have.

if the foolishness persists

i plan to make a buck or two

by selling carbon offset credits

over the Internets

 

[flacaltenn]

Governments do spend lots of money developing armaments. That's because defense is their most critical and most expensive responsibility. Our government has also accomplished tremendous progress in medical science, agriculture, theoretical physics, transportation and others. Accusing bureaucracies of being inefficient is pursuing the lowest of low hanging fruit but what US bureaucracy dedicated to climate alarmism do you believe has replaced the space program?

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.

vast majority of fusion research taking place now and for the past several decades has been funded almost entirely by governments. Whatever and whenever a workable fusion system appears, it will owe that much of its existence to government research.

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 **** out of the way of the process...

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm a free market guy myself. Carbon credits.

But being it's about the free market, most deniers won't be able to understand it.

How exactly do carbon credits prevent pollution? All they have ever been shown to do is enrich corrupt corporate fat cats, and raise the prices on everything people buy.

...and while you are at it mamooth, how exactly is a carbon tax "free market"?

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...

 

[Crick]

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It does not have a safe and normal level. Therefore the "value" is completely arbitrary and it's effects unquantized. What worked for SOx and NOx is now a money making scheme for govt and industry instead of a closed system that was guided by market forces and technology..

 

[Mr. H.]

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.

 

[Manonthestreet]

World grain reserves are as low as they have ever been in my lifetime. Might want to keep growing something on them.

 

[Old Rocks]

No we're not. You folks want to expend 76 trillion dollars in the vain hope of lowering the global temperature by one degree in 100 years but you FAILED utterly to show how that would benefit ANYONE other than the rich corporate fat cats you claim to despise.

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.