You cannot use Free Market and Carbon Tax in the same sentence.
How can you believe the drivel you are preaching?
THERE AREN'T ANY GOOD OPTIONS AVAILABLE.
Taxing the crap out of middle class america is definitely not the solution.
How about the governments stop funding BS AGW studies to the tune of billions of dollars worldwide and put that money towards research for alternative fuels, energy and better engines - Electrical vehicles.
This whole cap and trade and carbon (not a pollutant) tax is NOT about the environment.
They could have started funding research 20 years ago. But they dont want to save the environment, they want to line their pockets.
"How is ti rational to instead believe the only possible alternative conclusion; that 98.5% of Catholic theologists priests must be deliberately falsifying their conclusions in a global conspiracy to mislead the public for nefarious but unstated purposes?"
You are free to believe in any religion you want. Just dont try to pass it on as scientific evidence of the end of days.
All tv is full of propaganda. However American TV is worst than Canadian TV. CBC is shit, but then... you only took the time to mention 1 tv station for the whole country.
On the other hand you conveniently skipped over the fact that I dont rely on news for my information. CRTC is a Bell puppet, its unfortunate to say the least. However it isnt uniquely corrupt in the world.
I have been to many countries. I have been all over the USA, twice. Do not presume to know who I am or what I've seen just because I am Canadian and you hate your own heritage.
The education system is good. Not great, it needs reform. However there are great examples like McGill, which people come to from around the world. About tuition, you are full of self-righteous, lying horseshit. Even TODAY, tuition is less than what you mentioned for UCLA.
And yes, they dont allow community college credits transfers... BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH FUCKING THING AS A COMMUNITY COLLEGE IN CANADA. They are ALL basically community colleges, dimwit.
Now if you pull out the price for foreigners for tuition, I'll have to tell you, "I dont give a shit". They dont pay taxes in my country, so they pay full price. And even then, its not that expensive.
Moon landings? WTF, how many moon landings has most of the FUCKING world dont? Thats how you measure a country? Moon landings? Canadian Space program didint HAVE to make moon landings. It was designed to support the American one. And it does, very well thank you.
Canadian health care system is not perfect, we all known that. However is is better than the American one. Period. Only for the fact that EVERYONE IS COVERED.
Look, anyone who can read your wall of uneducated drivel, which is full of lies, ignorance, self-hatred and misplaced hatred, can tell that you're an idiot without a clue.
Enjoy your new home. I never said it was a bad place to live, only that your narrow minded left vs right idiotic debate is retarded.
However, you show you are weak willed by acknowledging your single side herd mentality.
Seems to me Slashdot has lost its way. Its no longer necessary to be a real geek, as in , doing your own research and knowing what you actually talk about. Whats important is to pretend like the subject is a right vs left matter, bash the right (for no good reason), blame it all on big oil and Lumbaugh, and you are insightful.
Shit, I should mode this idiot Informative... I mean... it makes just as much sense.
Honestly. What you say seems logical at first glance.
But you know very well who pays those research grants for climate research. The govt.
Also, who has been pushing for the climate change studies? The govt. You only have to look as far back as the late 80's with Margaret Thatcher and other political figures pushing for those studies.
Its disingenuous to say that the politicians are using scientists findings to push their agenda AFTER the fact. Its much more accurate to state that they have been pushing the scientists in the direction they would like to then use those findings as they see fit.
The science folks didn't find a problem. They where asked to look into a problem before it could possibly even be assessed as a problem (I'm talking in the 80's). Doesn't that seem fishy?
I do hate the solutions. Because the only solutions being proposed is serfdom.
Stop the fucking wars. Stop the bullshit research grants (i.e. Mann's Malaria/Climate change research), stop spending money on the AGW propaganda and actually fund alternative energy research.
What a novel idea? ACTUALLY FUCKING FUND RESEARCH INTO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES.
Not 10 million, 10 billion.
Its not like we dont have the money for Christ sake, the govt has been wasting 10 times that amount on frivolous endeavors.
I share your thoughts on the barriers to nuclear power.
However, if the government would just put up to the money for the loan guarantees instead of throwing it away at useless AGW related studies (billions of dollars worth), then that problem would be non existent.
Now, about the "overwhelming majority", thats a made up propagandist term, used in the media and by those who are set to profit from these cap & trade schemes.
Seriously, since when do we use the terms overwhelming... so often when talking about science? You know when a scientific organisation makes a statement in support of AGW, do you honnestly think all 2500 (for example) scientists in that field (which usually isnt related at all to climatology) actually support AGW or isnt it possible that half a dozen to a dozen of people on the board of directors make the decision for the rest?
You make it sound like there are no dissenters. There are plenty, the problem is they have been shut out.
Without going into the details of the climategate e-mails (I dont like that name either btw), they do demonstrate a willingness to shutout dissenting views, to control the peer review process and to discredit those who would challenge the AGW theory.
Science is supposed to welcome scrutiny, not shun it. THAT is when science turns down the dangerous path of ideology. When it is used as a scepter of power and not as a tool for discovery.
Your simplified explanation of Cap & Trade is disingenuous at best. "merely a market based solution to reducing CO2 emissions"?
How about a new trading scheme to generate money from every market sector on the planet and transfer it into the pockets of the traders (aka bankers).
If you cant see that, I think I can honestly call you blind. It is fraught with corruption. We know because its happening RIGHT NOW IN EUROPE. Sorry for the caps, but it seems people aren't paying attention.
Its a trillion dollar fraud.
Let me put your last sentence in perspective.
Increasing the cost of using fossil fuels will force energy companies to offload the those costs of doing business onto the consumers, who will have no way of avoiding said costs. Thus everyone will be in effect "taxed" for consuming, when the whole westernized world is pushing everyone into being super-consumers.
If you really want to encourage development of alternative technolgies, how about taking all the money that was, is and will be spent pushing the alarmist propaganda of AGW, the cap & trade schemes and other related useless ventures and poring that money into alternative energy research.
I keep hearing we need to do something, but I dont see the government actually doing something. Take a couple of billion dollars and do research.
Heck, they've been throwing billions here and there around, pretending to try to save the economy. Why not actually do something with it.
I'm sorry (or maybe not) but your attempt to deflect my concerns by oversimplifying and using kinder garden rationalization concerning Cap & Trade, as well as playing the " I defer to the intelligent scientists" card, does not make a point. It just goes to show, you have no idea what this is all about, you have not researched it at all, and you are just angry (I dont know why) that we dont trust without questioning, what we are being told.
Here is a post from a friend that expresses pretty much the same thing I have come to realise after looking at the AGW theory closely.
By blqysmg:
---
I get beat up regularly for doubting the church of global warming. It tends to make me try to put my actual beliefs in writing. So many people accuse me of believing whatever big oil tells me. I started off completely believing the IPCC and global warming. I just wanted to understand the mechanism by which they claimed the world was heading into runaway warming that would cause so much harm.
They said manmade CO2 was the culprit. Then I read that the effects of CO2 were logarithmic in nature, with the largest effect happening in the very low levels of CO2. In fact, more than, I believe 90% of the warming effect that can be caused by CO2 has already been caused. Don't quote me on that one, it's done out of memory.
CO2 is responsible for around 5% of the greenhouse effect. Some sources put it as much as 10%. If we go with the 10% figure, that leaves 90% of the warming due to something else, right? Most of that something else is water vapor.
So, I started looking at the charts. They often start the charts at just before the year 1900, since reliable thermometers weren't invented much before then. When we look at the amount of CO2 mankind was producing and the amount of warming that happened between 1910 and 1945, the two don't square up.
If man is the ONLY rational explanation for the warming we've had since 1975, then what was the explanation for the VERY similar warming we had in 1910? Every time I ask that question, Greenfyre or Archisteel or another of the AGM cheerleaders calls me names and tells me I don't understand science.
Since that's the case, I've started reading. I read both sides. It's clear that we are burning WAY too many fossil fuels, and maybe upsetting the balance of CO2 in the world. It's also true that we have experienced warming, and we're at the top of the historical record.
The only problem is that in 1945 they could have said the same thing about the historical temperature record. We had just climbed six tenths of a degree in thirty short years. Did we cause that with the little bit of CO2 we were putting into the air? The IPCC does not make that claim, I don't think. They claim that rise was natural, but don't attempt to explain it.
We have two events that look very, very much alike. One of those events is coincidental with significant human impact on CO2 levels. The IPCC scientists point to the CO2 levels and say, "Smoking gun!" When we look at the earlier event and say, "What about that one?" they say, "Oh, that one? I don't know. It doesn't matter."
If this were an event in my home, say the house heats up to uncomfortable levels three days apart, with comfortable days in between, and on the second day my sister came to visit, I would not automatically blame her for the heat. My wife might well ask, "wasn't it this hot three days ago?" I could answer, "No, it was two tenths of a degree cooler!" She could say, "but your sister wasn't here three days ago." to which I'd reply, "she wasn't the cause of THAT time. She obviously is the cause, this time, because she's another person, and people produce heat. She's adding 98.6 degrees to the room."
I know, Greenfyre will eviscerate me for that one. It's just a silly example to show why I don't understand why the six tenths of a degree rise from 1910 to 1940 doesn't matter at all. Or why any other climate change doesn't matter.
They keep saying, "we've risen over a degree since the 1900" or whatever, but when you start talking about carbon emissions, they all want to start talking about carbon emissions in the last 30 years or so.
I keep asking questions, they keep telling me how I don't understand. They don't try to explain, mind you. Greenfyre will spam with with 150 pro global warming websites that "prove" everything. Most of them go into huge amounts of detail proving that the increase in CO2 is all, 100% m
The fact that their are pushing for carbon taxes or cap and trade shows me that something is wrong, yes.
Those 2 things are the worse possible solutions to a non problem or even a problem if there was one.
Its basically a tax on EVERYTHING.
Do you honestly think companies care about this? They'll pass on costs to us. And we'll just go on consuming because thats what they push us to do.
I am all for renewable energy, but not at any cost. I dont think we are nearing the end of days, so I think it is blatantly irresponsible to turn our economy and way of life upside down to find solutions to a problem that isnt really a problem.
Lets switch when we actually have the technology to switch.
In the meantime, Americans need to switch to nuclear, as its the only green solution available to you right now which has the capacity to replace coal as a base for your energy demands.
Wind and solar are good supplements, but just arent there yet.
Then tell those "scientists" to stop going to political conferences, stay off the tv, newspapers and radio's and tell them to stop spreading their alarmist views.
Because it certainly isn't the "deniers" as you guys call them (not you personally, I have no idea if you do) that are spreading this doom and gloom end of days bullshit.
Because the scientific papers dont show that its the end of the world. Hell, not one of them is even certain as they are all based on bs computer models.
There is no actual measured data supporting their predictions.
Seems you have the lingo down to a T, the reply is pristine.
Either: a. you've used it many times before b. you are paid to say those things. c. You are just repeating what you have seen others reply, thus following an ideology and being a sheep.
I'm inclined to say c. with a splash of a.
Denialist?
And we are supposed to take you seriously?
Its a sad situation we are in, when the geeks are getting the wool pulled over their eyes and they cant even realize it.
Point to one alternative, that is ready to be deployed right now, which could replace oil immediately and a timely fashion without requiring we replace every single gasoline or diesel using engine on the planet NOW.
There isnt.
The fact is, even if money wasnt an option, there is no current quick replacement for oil.
And even if there is a quick way of doing it, there is no replacement for fossil fuels that could sustain or energy uses.
Furthermore, if BP and Shell are smart enough to have their hands in alternative energies, Exxon is as well.
To think Exxon would sit on the sidelines, throw a couple of millions to its lobby machine and hope they come out ahead is down right, im sorry to say, ignorant.
And who is investing in the alternatives? The energy companies (aka oil companies).
You think they arent ready for the shift if it every happens? They just want to make a killing in that in-between phase where prices are high and alternatives arent viable.
THEY ARE RESEARCHING ALTERNATIVES. The fact that you dont know about it, doesnt make it untrue.
Your whole last paragraph is your own view of how you think the energy business players think.
What you think up in your head or between you and your friends does not reflect reality. Stop watching Mad Max and pay attention to the real world.
Energy companies arent stoopid, they are thinking ahead, while wanting to make a killing in the interim.
There is a base amount of oil consumption that just cannot go away.
I agree, oil consumption would go down slightly at a price raise. But you are living in a dream world if you think it'll go down enough to destroy oil companies.
Just compare the price of oil in Europe to America. Its mostly taxes, but still, there is a VERY long way to go before people decide oil isnt viable anymore.
About the energy company lobbies... it is peanuts compared to the billions being injected by all governments, the UN, IMF and other special interests. Besides almost every energy company out there has ALSO aligned itself with interest for carbon trading.
It suprising that people dont realise oil companies are oil companies no more. They are energy companies and they have their hands in fossil and green energies.
They want the prices to go through the roof, they'll make a killing and once it runs out or technology catches up and finds alternatives... they'll be right there to exploit that too.
This falsehood that Exxon and other oil companies would loose billions to policies enacted because of AGW is ludicrous.
How the hell is Exxon going to loose money from Cap and Trade or a Carbon tax?
Do you honestly think companies loose money when they are taxed ? That they dont factore ALL expenses in their selling price?
If cap and trade or a carbon tax increases their cost of doing business by 25%, you can bet your life they will increase the cost of their products by 25%.
With no viable alternatives to sustain our current economy and way of life, those who will pay are normal citizens, not Exxon shareholders.
The scare will propel energy prices through the roof and said energy companies will make HUGE profits.
Are you actually implying there are 2 climate scientists by the name of Michael Mann?
Because thats really what you seem to be saying.
Directly in your first link to wiki about Michael E. Mann, it talks about the hockey stick.
I think your whole wall of text is based on... nothing of substance.
And your last point is NOT the point. The point is, his research is pseudo science. And the proof is right there in your own words. Starting a graph with 2 sets of data and changing the data sets after the 60s because the proxy doesn't fit, is wrong. Its just plain old wrong in every way. Especially considering the nature of his research and what its "supposed" to demonstrate.
You know, I wish Climate Scientists would understand this.
Because to them, AGW science is settled.
If they actually took them time to quantify there error margins it would look like:
95% Certainty +- 25 for computer modeling +- 20 for temperature stations 1000km away. +- 50 because tree ring data diverged form actual readings about 30 years ago +- 30 because thermometers 100 years ago are far from being accurate to.1 degree celcius +- 25 for pretending to take into effect the UHI effect +- 25 for not being able to predict el nino and el nina effects into the future
Dishwashers just make life easier. There is nothing fun about washing dishes. The is no reason not to use a dishwasher unless you think yours makes streaks or doesn't clean well.
But a stick shift isn't an old technology that needs to be gotten RID of.
There is no way an automatic transmission can give you the same control as a stick shift.
NONE.
Its better control and it isn't difficult. It doesn't even require constant thinking of, it become second nature after a few days.
As I mentioned elsewhere here though, if you have an injury or a problem with your left leg... I do understand where that can cause a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Though I agree with your assessment, the 944 was 208hp up to 1991.
You seem to be confused.
You cannot use Free Market and Carbon Tax in the same sentence.
How can you believe the drivel you are preaching?
THERE AREN'T ANY GOOD OPTIONS AVAILABLE.
Taxing the crap out of middle class america is definitely not the solution.
How about the governments stop funding BS AGW studies to the tune of billions of dollars worldwide and put that money towards research for alternative fuels, energy and better engines - Electrical vehicles.
This whole cap and trade and carbon (not a pollutant) tax is NOT about the environment.
They could have started funding research 20 years ago. But they dont want to save the environment, they want to line their pockets.
1 third of the total greenhouse effect is due to CO2?
REALLY??!!!
Prove it.
Reference, quotes, science.
I dare you.
So you admit you base your views on faith!
"How is ti rational to instead believe the only possible alternative conclusion; that 98.5% of Catholic theologists priests must be deliberately falsifying their conclusions in a global conspiracy to mislead the public for nefarious but unstated purposes?"
You are free to believe in any religion you want. Just dont try to pass it on as scientific evidence of the end of days.
You obviously have some sort of agenda.
You come out of nowhere with your comments.
What is all this bs about religion?
Pipe down. You dont have a patent on history. You aren't the only one who can read.
But your comment are defiantly all over the place, and you cant stick to a subject.
Try to hold a coherent conversation. Until then, you can continue with your monologues... on your own.
Nice little rant you got there.
All tv is full of propaganda. However American TV is worst than Canadian TV. CBC is shit, but then... you only took the time to mention 1 tv station for the whole country.
On the other hand you conveniently skipped over the fact that I dont rely on news for my information. CRTC is a Bell puppet, its unfortunate to say the least. However it isnt uniquely corrupt in the world.
I have been to many countries. I have been all over the USA, twice. Do not presume to know who I am or what I've seen just because I am Canadian and you hate your own heritage.
The education system is good. Not great, it needs reform. However there are great examples like McGill, which people come to from around the world. About tuition, you are full of self-righteous, lying horseshit. Even TODAY, tuition is less than what you mentioned for UCLA.
And yes, they dont allow community college credits transfers... BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH FUCKING THING AS A COMMUNITY COLLEGE IN CANADA. They are ALL basically community colleges, dimwit.
Now if you pull out the price for foreigners for tuition, I'll have to tell you, "I dont give a shit". They dont pay taxes in my country, so they pay full price. And even then, its not that expensive.
Moon landings? WTF, how many moon landings has most of the FUCKING world dont? Thats how you measure a country? Moon landings? Canadian Space program didint HAVE to make moon landings. It was designed to support the American one. And it does, very well thank you.
Canadian health care system is not perfect, we all known that. However is is better than the American one. Period. Only for the fact that EVERYONE IS COVERED.
Look, anyone who can read your wall of uneducated drivel, which is full of lies, ignorance, self-hatred and misplaced hatred, can tell that you're an idiot without a clue.
Enjoy your new home. I never said it was a bad place to live, only that your narrow minded left vs right idiotic debate is retarded.
However, you show you are weak willed by acknowledging your single side herd mentality.
Your post just shows your narrow minded ignorance.
You are just as bad as those you are trying to paint into a corner.
I'm Canadian, and dont believe in religion.
Your Jesus, Christians, republicans, Limbaugh, Obama, right or left wing, Thomas Jefferson, Texas and Bush all mean fuck all to me.
I use research, reason and dont rely on the news, not even Canadian news which is leaps an bounds above your left and right propaganda TV stations.
Keep thinking like a small minded simpleton. Thats how those in power want it.
The truth does hurt, and your truth is that you are ignorant.
Insightful?
Really?
Seems to me Slashdot has lost its way. Its no longer necessary to be a real geek, as in , doing your own research and knowing what you actually talk about.
Whats important is to pretend like the subject is a right vs left matter, bash the right (for no good reason), blame it all on big oil and Lumbaugh, and you are insightful.
Shit, I should mode this idiot Informative... I mean... it makes just as much sense.
The defense department creates wealth?
Please explain that one.
Honestly. What you say seems logical at first glance.
But you know very well who pays those research grants for climate research. The govt.
Also, who has been pushing for the climate change studies? The govt. You only have to look as far back as the late 80's with Margaret Thatcher and other political figures pushing for those studies.
Its disingenuous to say that the politicians are using scientists findings to push their agenda AFTER the fact. Its much more accurate to state that they have been pushing the scientists in the direction they would like to then use those findings as they see fit.
The science folks didn't find a problem. They where asked to look into a problem before it could possibly even be assessed as a problem (I'm talking in the 80's). Doesn't that seem fishy?
I do hate the solutions. Because the only solutions being proposed is serfdom.
Stop the fucking wars. Stop the bullshit research grants (i.e. Mann's Malaria/Climate change research), stop spending money on the AGW propaganda and actually fund alternative energy research.
What a novel idea? ACTUALLY FUCKING FUND RESEARCH INTO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES.
Not 10 million, 10 billion.
Its not like we dont have the money for Christ sake, the govt has been wasting 10 times that amount on frivolous endeavors.
I share your thoughts on the barriers to nuclear power.
However, if the government would just put up to the money for the loan guarantees instead of throwing it away at useless AGW related studies (billions of dollars worth), then that problem would be non existent.
Now, about the "overwhelming majority", thats a made up propagandist term, used in the media and by those who are set to profit from these cap & trade schemes.
Seriously, since when do we use the terms overwhelming... so often when talking about science? You know when a scientific organisation makes a statement in support of AGW, do you honnestly think all 2500 (for example) scientists in that field (which usually isnt related at all to climatology) actually support AGW or isnt it possible that half a dozen to a dozen of people on the board of directors make the decision for the rest?
You make it sound like there are no dissenters. There are plenty, the problem is they have been shut out.
Without going into the details of the climategate e-mails (I dont like that name either btw), they do demonstrate a willingness to shutout dissenting views, to control the peer review process and to discredit those who would challenge the AGW theory.
Science is supposed to welcome scrutiny, not shun it. THAT is when science turns down the dangerous path of ideology. When it is used as a scepter of power and not as a tool for discovery.
Your simplified explanation of Cap & Trade is disingenuous at best.
"merely a market based solution to reducing CO2 emissions"?
How about a new trading scheme to generate money from every market sector on the planet and transfer it into the pockets of the traders (aka bankers).
If you cant see that, I think I can honestly call you blind. It is fraught with corruption. We know because its happening RIGHT NOW IN EUROPE. Sorry for the caps, but it seems people aren't paying attention.
Its a trillion dollar fraud.
Let me put your last sentence in perspective.
Increasing the cost of using fossil fuels will force energy companies to offload the those costs of doing business onto the consumers, who will have no way of avoiding said costs. Thus everyone will be in effect "taxed" for consuming, when the whole westernized world is pushing everyone into being super-consumers.
If you really want to encourage development of alternative technolgies, how about taking all the money that was, is and will be spent pushing the alarmist propaganda of AGW, the cap & trade schemes and other related useless ventures and poring that money into alternative energy research.
I keep hearing we need to do something, but I dont see the government actually doing something. Take a couple of billion dollars and do research.
Heck, they've been throwing billions here and there around, pretending to try to save the economy. Why not actually do something with it.
I'm sorry (or maybe not) but your attempt to deflect my concerns by oversimplifying and using kinder garden rationalization concerning Cap & Trade, as well as playing the " I defer to the intelligent scientists" card, does not make a point. It just goes to show, you have no idea what this is all about, you have not researched it at all, and you are just angry (I dont know why) that we dont trust without questioning, what we are being told.
Ok.
Here is a post from a friend that expresses pretty much the same thing I have come to realise after looking at the AGW theory closely.
By blqysmg:
---
I get beat up regularly for doubting the church of global warming. It tends to make me try to put my actual beliefs in writing. So many people accuse me of believing whatever big oil tells me. I started off completely believing the IPCC and global warming. I just wanted to understand the mechanism by which they claimed the world was heading into runaway warming that would cause so much harm.
They said manmade CO2 was the culprit. Then I read that the effects of CO2 were logarithmic in nature, with the largest effect happening in the very low levels of CO2. In fact, more than, I believe 90% of the warming effect that can be caused by CO2 has already been caused. Don't quote me on that one, it's done out of memory.
CO2 is responsible for around 5% of the greenhouse effect. Some sources put it as much as 10%. If we go with the 10% figure, that leaves 90% of the warming due to something else, right? Most of that something else is water vapor.
So, I started looking at the charts. They often start the charts at just before the year 1900, since reliable thermometers weren't invented much before then. When we look at the amount of CO2 mankind was producing and the amount of warming that happened between 1910 and 1945, the two don't square up.
If man is the ONLY rational explanation for the warming we've had since 1975, then what was the explanation for the VERY similar warming we had in 1910? Every time I ask that question, Greenfyre or Archisteel or another of the AGM cheerleaders calls me names and tells me I don't understand science.
Since that's the case, I've started reading. I read both sides. It's clear that we are burning WAY too many fossil fuels, and maybe upsetting the balance of CO2 in the world. It's also true that we have experienced warming, and we're at the top of the historical record.
The only problem is that in 1945 they could have said the same thing about the historical temperature record. We had just climbed six tenths of a degree in thirty short years. Did we cause that with the little bit of CO2 we were putting into the air? The IPCC does not make that claim, I don't think. They claim that rise was natural, but don't attempt to explain it.
We have two events that look very, very much alike. One of those events is coincidental with significant human impact on CO2 levels. The IPCC scientists point to the CO2 levels and say, "Smoking gun!" When we look at the earlier event and say, "What about that one?" they say, "Oh, that one? I don't know. It doesn't matter."
If this were an event in my home, say the house heats up to uncomfortable levels three days apart, with comfortable days in between, and on the second day my sister came to visit, I would not automatically blame her for the heat. My wife might well ask, "wasn't it this hot three days ago?" I could answer, "No, it was two tenths of a degree cooler!" She could say, "but your sister wasn't here three days ago." to which I'd reply, "she wasn't the cause of THAT time. She obviously is the cause, this time, because she's another person, and people produce heat. She's adding 98.6 degrees to the room."
I know, Greenfyre will eviscerate me for that one. It's just a silly example to show why I don't understand why the six tenths of a degree rise from 1910 to 1940 doesn't matter at all. Or why any other climate change doesn't matter.
They keep saying, "we've risen over a degree since the 1900" or whatever, but when you start talking about carbon emissions, they all want to start talking about carbon emissions in the last 30 years or so.
I keep asking questions, they keep telling me how I don't understand. They don't try to explain, mind you. Greenfyre will spam with with 150 pro global warming websites that "prove" everything. Most of them go into huge amounts of detail proving that the increase in CO2 is all, 100% m
The fact that their are pushing for carbon taxes or cap and trade shows me that something is wrong, yes.
Those 2 things are the worse possible solutions to a non problem or even a problem if there was one.
Its basically a tax on EVERYTHING.
Do you honestly think companies care about this? They'll pass on costs to us. And we'll just go on consuming because thats what they push us to do.
I am all for renewable energy, but not at any cost. I dont think we are nearing the end of days, so I think it is blatantly irresponsible to turn our economy and way of life upside down to find solutions to a problem that isnt really a problem.
Lets switch when we actually have the technology to switch.
In the meantime, Americans need to switch to nuclear, as its the only green solution available to you right now which has the capacity to replace coal as a base for your energy demands.
Wind and solar are good supplements, but just arent there yet.
Then tell those "scientists" to stop going to political conferences, stay off the tv, newspapers and radio's and tell them to stop spreading their alarmist views.
Because it certainly isn't the "deniers" as you guys call them (not you personally, I have no idea if you do) that are spreading this doom and gloom end of days bullshit.
Because the scientific papers dont show that its the end of the world. Hell, not one of them is even certain as they are all based on bs computer models.
There is no actual measured data supporting their predictions.
Well, we can all see you've drunk the coolaid.
Seems you have the lingo down to a T, the reply is pristine.
Either:
a. you've used it many times before
b. you are paid to say those things.
c. You are just repeating what you have seen others reply, thus following an ideology and being a sheep.
I'm inclined to say c. with a splash of a.
Denialist?
And we are supposed to take you seriously?
Its a sad situation we are in, when the geeks are getting the wool pulled over their eyes and they cant even realize it.
I think we both agree they are liars.
However, I think they are playing both sides of the fence equally hard.
Perpetuating the alarmist lies about global warming plays into their plans as well.
:) No there are not.
Point to one alternative, that is ready to be deployed right now, which could replace oil immediately and a timely fashion without requiring we replace every single gasoline or diesel using engine on the planet NOW.
There isnt.
The fact is, even if money wasnt an option, there is no current quick replacement for oil.
And even if there is a quick way of doing it, there is no replacement for fossil fuels that could sustain or energy uses.
Furthermore, if BP and Shell are smart enough to have their hands in alternative energies, Exxon is as well.
To think Exxon would sit on the sidelines, throw a couple of millions to its lobby machine and hope they come out ahead is down right, im sorry to say, ignorant.
And who is investing in the alternatives? The energy companies (aka oil companies).
You think they arent ready for the shift if it every happens? They just want to make a killing in that in-between phase where prices are high and alternatives arent viable.
THEY ARE RESEARCHING ALTERNATIVES. The fact that you dont know about it, doesnt make it untrue.
Your whole last paragraph is your own view of how you think the energy business players think.
What you think up in your head or between you and your friends does not reflect reality. Stop watching Mad Max and pay attention to the real world.
Energy companies arent stoopid, they are thinking ahead, while wanting to make a killing in the interim.
There is a base amount of oil consumption that just cannot go away.
I agree, oil consumption would go down slightly at a price raise. But you are living in a dream world if you think it'll go down enough to destroy oil companies.
Just compare the price of oil in Europe to America.
Its mostly taxes, but still, there is a VERY long way to go before people decide oil isnt viable anymore.
About the energy company lobbies... it is peanuts compared to the billions being injected by all governments, the UN, IMF and other special interests. Besides almost every energy company out there has ALSO aligned itself with interest for carbon trading.
It suprising that people dont realise oil companies are oil companies no more. They are energy companies and they have their hands in fossil and green energies.
They want the prices to go through the roof, they'll make a killing and once it runs out or technology catches up and finds alternatives... they'll be right there to exploit that too.
This falsehood that Exxon and other oil companies would loose billions to policies enacted because of AGW is ludicrous.
How the hell is Exxon going to loose money from Cap and Trade or a Carbon tax?
Do you honestly think companies loose money when they are taxed ? That they dont factore ALL expenses in their selling price?
If cap and trade or a carbon tax increases their cost of doing business by 25%, you can bet your life they will increase the cost of their products by 25%.
With no viable alternatives to sustain our current economy and way of life, those who will pay are normal citizens, not Exxon shareholders.
The scare will propel energy prices through the roof and said energy companies will make HUGE profits.
They WANT AGW policy to go through.
How this is not obvious to everyone is beyond me.
Are you actually implying there are 2 climate scientists by the name of Michael Mann?
Because thats really what you seem to be saying.
Directly in your first link to wiki about Michael E. Mann, it talks about the hockey stick.
I think your whole wall of text is based on ... nothing of substance.
And your last point is NOT the point. The point is, his research is pseudo science. And the proof is right there in your own words. Starting a graph with 2 sets of data and changing the data sets after the 60s because the proxy doesn't fit, is wrong. Its just plain old wrong in every way. Especially considering the nature of his research and what its "supposed" to demonstrate.
I have no idea how you got moderated so high.
You know, I wish Climate Scientists would understand this.
Because to them, AGW science is settled.
If they actually took them time to quantify there error margins it would look like:
95% Certainty .1 degree celcius
+- 25 for computer modeling
+- 20 for temperature stations 1000km away.
+- 50 because tree ring data diverged form actual readings about 30 years ago
+- 30 because thermometers 100 years ago are far from being accurate to
+- 25 for pretending to take into effect the UHI effect
+- 25 for not being able to predict el nino and el nina effects into the future
etc... etc...
Thats the thing.
Dishwashers just make life easier.
There is nothing fun about washing dishes.
The is no reason not to use a dishwasher unless you think yours makes streaks or doesn't clean well.
But a stick shift isn't an old technology that needs to be gotten RID of.
There is no way an automatic transmission can give you the same control as a stick shift.
NONE.
Its better control and it isn't difficult. It doesn't even require constant thinking of, it become second nature after a few days.
As I mentioned elsewhere here though, if you have an injury or a problem with your left leg... I do understand where that can cause a problem.
What a beautifull spin job.
Context or no context, every word I quoted came from your longwinded post.
You call my points neither here nor there, re-read your first one. Its a mess of points going in all sorts of directions.
99%... another statistic that is completely pulled from out of your ass.
You are a nice weaver of words, but that is it.
Ice melts, its what it does. And then it forms again.
Your whole melting ice theory is currently falling appart in current news.
You are back to square one. With 99% of the other beleivers.
Maybe you should get a machine that walks for you. An "Automatic Walking Machine".
Because you obviously do not see the benefits of doing things yourself.
Comparing manual shifting to OpenBSD is like comparing cooking your own food to using OpenBSD.
WTF is wrong with you lazy ass people.