America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 3 months ago by Ewok126. 371 replies replies.
8 Pages<12345678>
Climate Change & The Paris Agreement
jjanecka Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 3,185
Climate change in the capacity that our current technology has to actually monitor is a flawed theory. We don't understand the whole process; there needs to be more research.

With that being said, I disagree with it being used as a political stunt to merely try and corral industries into streamlining and becoming more efficient. If the process were more intuitive businesses would just simply make the transition because it would be good business. If it's not good business then adopting the change is not worth the merit and no government should intervene unless we're talking real and actual irresponsibility like dumping caustic wastes into streams et cetera.

We know this to be a complete farce as even oil companies are claiming to be "sustainable" and "eco-friendly."

The only reason governments support it is because it is a new way to levy tax.
MACS Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 61,672
DrafterX wrote:
we could even ponder what ethanol is really doing for us..... Think


Nothing. Nothing but making our gasoline less efficient, and gumming up our internal combustion engines.

F*** ethanol.
dstieger Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 7,622
My (step) FIL is a Midwest corn crop consultant....I tried to have a rational discussion about ethanol with him....I'd have rather been trying to reason with Brew and Fuzz.....FIL wasn't exactly swayed by my eloquent, scientific and economic based arguments
victor809 Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 13,447
Something you're missing is the "commons" problem.

Air... climate... streams... these are common resources. We all use them and benefit from them. The damage done to any part of the environment is spread across a population. While the benefits/ profit of not being environmentally conscious are reaped by one organization. This is a well studied business effect, there is zero reason to think that businesses will autonomously act in a manner that reduces the impact on common resources at the expense of their own resources. That would be dumb . They will only do it if there is a political requirement.

Just think for a minute who you elected president. He's a walking, tweeting, most divisive example of a need for regulations (if you want something done) ever. He was applauded for his "good business sense" for doing as much as possible to screw others in order to maximize profit or reduce costs.

To say businesses will do something if there's "good business sense" misses completely the fact that the environmental cost of businesses is not realized by the business.
tailgater Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 20,039
MACS wrote:
Nothing. Nothing but making our gasoline less efficient, and gumming up our internal combustion engines.

F*** ethanol.


Spoken like a true boating enthusiast.

jjanecka Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 3,185
Victor, the initial point was that other governments were all bandwagoning together over climate change and that since so many governments are doing so means that it must be true. Additionally, based on the interpretation of the data we really only have recorded over the past 300 years, I really think that our input into the situation is a bit limited. While it may be true that our involvement may directly accelerate the speed in which the earth warms or cools, we definitely shouldn't be so great an impact as to be the singular cause of the issue.

Once again, this is an issue that the government can utilize to expand its authorities and tax the people.
victor809 Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 13,447
Of course it can jj... but just because it's an opportunity for govt to tax doesn't mean it shouldn't.... (?)

There are certain things government control and taxes are well suited for... ensuring a user of a common resource realizes the cost of that resource is one of them, and governing the exploitation of common resources is another.

The amount of taxation and control is debatable... but air... moving water... the long term use of the planet... these are arguably common resources.
bgz Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 4,745
After reading all this (who am I kidding, I didn't read it all)...

I think we need to ramp up our space exploration technology so we can go conquer ... er I mean inhabit other planets.

We need to figure out how the aliens do it, but do it better!

We'll have the best star-fighters, we'll have the best planet warmers and, and with our gay community... we'll have the best alien probers of all time!

Let's make our galaxy great again.
Covfireman Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 806
MACS wrote:
Nothing. Nothing but making our gasoline less efficient, and gumming up our internal combustion engines.

F*** ethanol.



+1

You leave out driving the price of groceries up . The ethanol requirements moves food production to energy production . It also effects national security by increasing our demand for imported food .

Drafter for president certainly a better choice than we were presented this year . Herfing
Covfireman Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 806
victor809 wrote:
Of course it can jj... but just because it's an opportunity for govt to tax doesn't mean it shouldn't.... (?)

There are certain things government control and taxes are well suited for... ensuring a user of a common resource realizes the cost of that resource is one of them, and governing the exploitation of common resources is another.

The amount of taxation and control is debatable... but air... moving water... the long term use of the planet... these are arguably common resources.



I agree we should tax pollution but let's start by taxing imports from foriegn countries that pollute ie China , India , Mexico et al . That would help keep us companies competitive and allow for more pollution controls .

One example Iknow of is the paper industry. 25 years ago my uncle who sells paper to everything from printers, to box manufacturers almost any industry that uses paper sold 95 % domestic paper the imported paper was usually specialty paper made in Europe for food and medical uses . Now almost 50 % of the paper is imported because the paper can't be made here as cheap . Not because of the labor but the environmental regulations made the companies here less profitable than Chinese imports . We can produce the paper here with better productivity ( ie more production per employee ) but not as economically due to the cost of the environmental control . I'd love to see more environmentally made paper here but not at the cost of importing paper from countries that can just dump the pollution into the rivers . Dioxin ,chlorine, carbon ( atmospheric and organic l )and acids all by products of paper . In the us we control how much they can emit and some of the byproducts have been converted to salable commodities. From activated carbon hydrogen sulfide . That's an example of environmental on troll that produced economic benifits but it still doesn't cover the cost of complying. . Why use the carrot of free trade when the stick of economic tariffs ? If the us andt EU Britain also would stick together then those countries would pollute less .
tailgater Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 20,039
victor809 wrote:
Of course it can jj... but just because it's an opportunity for govt to tax doesn't mean it shouldn't.... (?)

There are certain things government control and taxes are well suited for... ensuring a user of a common resource realizes the cost of that resource is one of them, and governing the exploitation of common resources is another.

The amount of taxation and control is debatable... but air... moving water... the long term use of the planet... these are arguably common resources.


We can have regulations and taxes on "common resources" without a non-debatable climate pandemic threatening us.
In fact, I agree with most efforts to maintain a cleaner environment. From litter, to toxic waste, to better emissions and clean energy. There are a multitude of valid reasons to push these programs without the algore hockey stick being shoved up our collective azzes.



tailgater Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 20,039
Covfireman wrote:
I agree we should tax pollution but let's start by taxing imports from foriegn countries that pollute ie China , India , Mexico et al . That would help keep us companies competitive and allow for more pollution controls .

One example Iknow of is the paper industry. 25 years ago my uncle who sells paper to everything from printers, to box manufacturers almost any industry that uses paper sold 95 % domestic paper the imported paper was usually specialty paper made in Europe for food and medical uses . Now almost 50 % of the paper is imported because the paper can't be made here as cheap . Not because of the labor but the environmental regulations made the companies here less profitable than Chinese imports . We can produce the paper here with better productivity ( ie more production per employee ) but not as economically due to the cost of the environmental control . I'd love to see more environmentally made paper here but not at the cost of importing paper from countries that can just dump the pollution into the rivers . Dioxin ,chlorine, carbon ( atmospheric and organic l )and acids all by products of paper . In the us we control how much they can emit and some of the byproducts have been converted to salable commodities. From activated carbon hydrogen sulfide . That's an example of environmental on troll that produced economic benifits but it still doesn't cover the cost of complying. . Why use the carrot of free trade when the stick of economic tariffs ? If the us andt EU Britain also would stick together then those countries would pollute less .


This.

victor809 Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 13,447
I heard tail wants Al Gores to stick a hockey stick up his.... tail...
dstieger Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 7,622
sounds like a very reasonable 'want'
tailgater Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 20,039
victor809 wrote:
I heard tail wants Al Gores to stick a hockey stick up his.... tail...


No.
But I'd like to take his wife and "tipper" over...
Brewha Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,130
tailgater wrote:
Nice deflection.
You rant on in dozens of posts, laying down facts and figures to make your point. You've done this in two different threads.
But when asked for specific details that might justify the government intervention, you determine that I won't consider it credible.


In fairness I asked WHO you would believe, since the agencies and countries sited so far have not passed the sniff test.

You didn't like the data from NOAA, who would you trust?
Brewha Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,130
gummy jones wrote:
you get off on being as condescending as you can
even when unprovoked

must be quite the burden to be that much smarter than everyone else

It's my manner.
It seems condesending but it really isn't.


....I supposed I could be wrong.....
Brewha Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,130
dstieger wrote:
My (step) FIL is a Midwest corn crop consultant....I tried to have a rational discussion about ethanol with him....I'd have rather been trying to reason with Brew and Fuzz.....FIL wasn't exactly swayed by my eloquent, scientific and economic based arguments

Not sure where you think I stand on Ethanol - but this seems to give it a thumbs down in a reasonable manner:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-final-corn-ethanol-is-of-no-use/#2e538fb22ca2

ZRX1200 Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 45,985
For Immediate Release:
April 19, 2016

Contact:
Craig Richardson
Richardson@eelegal.org
703-981-5553

E&E Legal Releases Updated ‘Energy Poverty’ Video to Remind World Leaders Gathering at the UN on ‘International Mother Earth Day’ to Sign the Paris Treaty that ‘Climate’ Policies Contained in the Agreement Hurt and Kill the Most Vulnerable

Washington, D.C. (April 19, 2016) – This Friday, April 22nd, in a signing ceremony scheduled to coincide with the day that a 2009 UN Resolution declared as ‘International Mother Earth Day’, nearly 150 political leaders will meet in New York City at the United Nations to sign the Paris Climate Treaty. The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) has released an updated video (below) to help the public understand the terrible consequences for the poor and most vulnerable of this treaty, which replaces the failed Kyoto Protocol.

Falsely described as “not a treaty” in the U.S., as a dare to the Senate in hopes of avoiding the constitutional treaty process, the Paris Climate Treaty is being ratified by legislatures in other countries around the world as the treaty that it is
. It demands policies that are in fact already killing the most vulnerable by the tens of thousands.

“The cruelest and most hypocritical aspect of the ‘climate change’ policies advocated by the Paris treaty — outside of the millions of dollars in jet fuel, gasoline, electricity, and other precious resources being expended to attend the event by those screaming the loudest for energy scarcity — is that these policies are understood to offer no detectable impact on the earth’s temperature, even by their proponents” said E&E Legals General Counsel David Schnare, a thirty-three year veteran of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Worse still is that these ‘climate’ policies have already been tried in Europe, resulting in skyrocketing electric bills, devastating and in far, far too many cases killing the most vulnerable as documented in our video.”

The video features news coverage from Europe, where President Obama used to tell Americans to look if they want to see how these policies will work, yet whose experiences he curiously no longer suggests we examine. That change-of-strategy notwithstanding, we echo Mr. Obama’s now-abandoned call: look to Europe if you want to see the U.S.’s future should the Paris Climate Treaty get U.S. Senate approval and actually become law.

These headlines, from newspapers of all stripes, left-wing groups and social service organizations decry what they acknowledge is the “scandal” of these many premature deaths, generally from hypothermia. Unlike computer-prophesied scenarios of the future, these deaths are real, they are occurring now in dramatically increasing numbers each winter. They are a direct, disgraceful result of government policies in the name of a fashionable cause that we know cannot rationally be what it purports to be, given these policies have no projected climate impact.

This campaign to promote the environmentalists’ energy agenda turns morality on its head, and the public needs to know what, it seems, many advisers are apparently unwilling to let on. The evidence is clear and continued ignorance of the truth should no longer be tolerated.

“It’s appropriate that the promoters of such a cruel, yet somehow fashionable agenda are meeting in New York City on ‘International Mother Earth Day,'” said Craig Richardson, E&E Legal’s Executive Director. “New York City is also the home of the Rockefellers, who have been bankrolling some form of ‘climate’ scare for at least 30 years with their vast fortunes ironically made in petroleum, as well as Michael Bloomberg and native son Tom Steyer, who join with others whose billions are now (surprise!) aligned with the biggest winners from these failed and heartless ‘climate policies, like the renewable energy industries.”

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is a 501(c)(3) organization engaged in strategic litigation, policy research, and public education on important energy and environmental issues. Primarily through its petition litigation and transparency practice areas, E&E Legal seeks to correct onerous federal and state policies that hinder the economy, increase the cost of energy, eliminate jobs, and do little or nothing to improve the environment.
Brewha Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,130
E&E are energy industry mouth pieces. These are the guys who are paid by the Koch brothers to think up mis-information like "clean coal".

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Energy_%26_Environment_Legal_Institute


So, when their article refers to "Left wing extremist", are they talking about China or Russia?


LOL
tailgater Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 20,039
Brewha wrote:
In fairness I asked WHO you would believe, since the agencies and countries sited so far have not passed the sniff test.

You didn't like the data from NOAA, who would you trust?


You seem well learned.
Why don't you provide basic percentages:
How much climate change is caused by man.
How much of man's influence is fossil fuels.

Nobody seems willing to address this.
Which means we either don't know, or the percentage is low.

And even if it's low, it begs an honest discussion.

But asking for these figures, which should form the entire foundation for all discussion, one gets labeled as a denier.

Brew, this is ALL about the money. The ability to tax A, but not B. So they chase A as the cause.
And A most certainly is one of the causes, which makes data manipulation easy.

Only a preconceived conclusion would so readily dismiss the steady ice levels in the antarctic.
Only a paid-for tax-friendly conclusion would ignore ice core data that didn't match the Temp/CO2 sequence.

I don't believe in conspiracy. But I do know that money talks. And government money is the best at it.

victor809 Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 13,447
Tail... why do you assume it's all about money? Coincidentally the aspects a government tax are also the aspects which it has the ability to effect change.

You can make the claim "it's just about money " on anything a government tries to implement a change, because that's how governments influence behavior.

ZRX1200 Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 45,985
Doesn't change the fact they're trying to avoid the treaty process homeslice.
tailgater Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 20,039
victor809 wrote:
Tail... why do you assume it's all about money? Coincidentally the aspects a government tax are also the aspects which it has the ability to effect change.

You can make the claim "it's just about money " on anything a government tries to implement a change, because that's how governments influence behavior.



There are at least 100 things that contribute to climate change. Natural and man induced.
Only one of these can successfully be taxed.
I don't believe in coincidence.



victor809 Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 13,447
Again. My point would be... and how many of those can be impacted by government?

Gonna guess the answer you have is 1.

tailgater Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 20,039
victor809 wrote:
Again. My point would be... and how many of those can be impacted by government?

Gonna guess the answer you have is 1.



It's funny how you and Brew have attacked me with questions rather than addressing mine. Especially since the "settled science" and world wide consensus should have a very identifiable and clear cut figure to show man's fossil fuel impact on mother nature.

This thread has become a microcosm of the climate debate.

And in response to your question above, the answer is 1 significant thing (fossil fuel use). Taxing fossil fuels is easy peazy.
Carbon credits is a case study in follow-the-money.
Government can control this, regardless of whether fossil fuels can control climate change, or to what degree.
Which has been my point all along.

opelmanta1900 Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 5,826
You made good points tail... it is disturbing that people who consider themselves scientifically minded don't feel like they need scientific evidence to back up scientific claims...
victor809 Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 13,447
Note what I'm saying...
Tails assertion that it's only about $$ is unsupportable simply because a venn diagram of things a government can change and things a government can tax is a single circle. This has nothing to do with climate change itself... more to do with claims that simply cannot be substantiated.
tailgater Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 20,039
victor809 wrote:
Note what I'm saying...
Tails assertion that it's only about $$ is unsupportable simply because a venn diagram of things a government can change and things a government can tax is a single circle. This has nothing to do with climate change itself... more to do with claims that simply cannot be substantiated.


Single circle?

First you can't provide a general pie chart (well, it was Brewha, but you two are interchangeable pieces for the sake of argument. Although Brew doesn't kick homeless dudes that we know of).
Now you use venn diagrams to confuse a simple point.

Things that are taxable that the government CAN'T change (or control):
Death
Profits
Loss
Marriage
Chldren
etc.

Single circle? In a myopic world, perhaps.

What you meant to say (if I may be so bold) is that of the hundreds of factors that impact climate, the government will only tax those that can be controlled to some extent.
And on this I agree. So it might be a circle within a circle.

Either way, if the circle of things under our control is just a dot within the climate change circle, then it shouldn't be treated like it's the entire circle. Which you obviously do, else you wouldn't have made that sciency fopar.



tailgater Offline
#80 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 20,039
And I think I just helped Victor win a bet with TW, on who was going to get into a circle jerk with me first...

victor809 Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 13,447
Dude... you agree with me. You said so yourself.

The entire list of things the government can affect (relating to climate change) is the same list of things the government can tax (relating to climate change).

Why are you surprised that taxation is then the method of implementing that change? And why do you pretend that this is evidence that it's about $$? You'd have a point if there were something not taxable, but within the government's power to change, that they ignore. But as you said, the set is the same, so that evidence can't exist. Your assertion is neither provable nor disprovable so is kind of meaningless. You can rail about it being due to the money but you have no evidence as the same evidence you would use to proceed your statement is the same evidence someone would use to prove that the government is trying to fix climate change the only way they can.

Additionally it seems funny that you've built this argument in your head that individuals who want to fix climate change (i don't know why you include me in this group) treat the things which can be affected as the entirety of the things impacting it. Pretty sure I've never heard of that. Seems to be an argument you like to have in your head. Would it make you feel better if brewha said things like "to fix climate change I'm considering two options... plan a will work the best... that involves killing 90% of the earth's population. I'm pretty sure that will fix the problem... but in the off-chance they don't go for that, plan by is to focus on emissions in 1st world countries... it won't have nearly the impact as plan by, but might get government support "... I mean, that's what you're asking him to say right?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#82 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 46,863
I have an agreement with Paris.

Paris Hilton that is.

tailgater Offline
#83 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 20,039
victor809 wrote:
Dude... you agree with me. You said so yourself.

The entire list of things the government can affect (relating to climate change) is the same list of things the government can tax (relating to climate change).

Why are you surprised that taxation is then the method of implementing that change? And why do you pretend that this is evidence that it's about $$? You'd have a point if there were something not taxable, but within the government's power to change, that they ignore. But as you said, the set is the same, so that evidence can't exist. Your assertion is neither provable nor disprovable so is kind of meaningless. You can rail about it being due to the money but you have no evidence as the same evidence you would use to proceed your statement is the same evidence someone would use to prove that the government is trying to fix climate change the only way they can.

Additionally it seems funny that you've built this argument in your head that individuals who want to fix climate change (i don't know why you include me in this group) treat the things which can be affected as the entirety of the things impacting it. Pretty sure I've never heard of that. Seems to be an argument you like to have in your head. Would it make you feel better if brewha said things like "to fix climate change I'm considering two options... plan a will work the best... that involves killing 90% of the earth's population. I'm pretty sure that will fix the problem... but in the off-chance they don't go for that, plan by is to focus on emissions in 1st world countries... it won't have nearly the impact as plan by, but might get government support "... I mean, that's what you're asking him to say right?




If we agree, then why are you arguing?
I'll keep this short:
If the government couldn't tax it, there would be no global climate pandemic.

tailgater Offline
#84 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 20,039
DrMaddVibe wrote:
I have an agreement with Paris.

Paris Hilton that is.



You agree to leave her alone and she agrees not to press charges.

?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#85 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 46,863
tailgater wrote:
You agree to leave her alone and she agrees not to press charges.

?



Close.


I agree to not read any of the tabloid trash with her on it.
victor809 Offline
#86 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 13,447
Tail. You have no evidence to support that claim. It may or may not be true. But there is no way you can prove it either way.
Brewha Offline
#87 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,130
tailgater wrote:
You seem well learned.
Why don't you provide basic percentages:
How much climate change is caused by man.
How much of man's influence is fossil fuels.

Nobody seems willing to address this.
Which means we either don't know, or the percentage is low.

And even if it's low, it begs an honest discussion.

But asking for these figures, which should form the entire foundation for all discussion, one gets labeled as a denier.

Brew, this is ALL about the money. The ability to tax A, but not B. So they chase A as the cause.
And A most certainly is one of the causes, which makes data manipulation easy.

Only a preconceived conclusion would so readily dismiss the steady ice levels in the antarctic.
Only a paid-for tax-friendly conclusion would ignore ice core data that didn't match the Temp/CO2 sequence.

I don't believe in conspiracy. But I do know that money talks. And government money is the best at it.


Nice of you to to say - about the well learned that is.

My opinion is that we - humans - are causing the current climate change that we are seeing above the 95% mark.

While this is admittedly an opinion piece, it does site some perfectly adequate data from sources that would otherwise be reliable.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/15/97-vs-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing

And money is absolute near the center of the debate. Energy production needs to change - read $$. This was true when we got rid of leaded gasoline - but it was worth it to get the lead out of the air.

As to the steady ice levels - there don't appear to be any. At least outside of an oped article.
Brewha Offline
#88 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,130
tailgater wrote:
If we agree, then why are you arguing?
I'll keep this short:
If the government couldn't tax it, there would be no global climate pandemic.


I donno Tail. By that rational cigarettes are only a health risk so the govmut can tax them. No I love me some cigar - but a health food they are not.

Also, they banned the production of incandescent light bulbs because they waste energy. So just like banning CFC's we can make changes without taxes.
Brewha Offline
#89 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,130
tailgater wrote:
If we agree, then why are you arguing?
I'll keep this short:
If the government couldn't tax it, there would be no global climate pandemic.


I donno Tail. By that rational cigarettes are only a health risk so the govmut can tax them. No I love me some cigar - but a health food they are not.

Also, they banned the production of incandescent light bulbs because they waste energy. So just like banning CFC's we can make changes without taxes.
Brewha Offline
#90 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 8,130
Wow - guess I really ment that!
ZRX1200 Offline
#91 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 45,985
Because "wasting energy" is so much better than the schit inside those pigtails.
bgz Offline
#92 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 4,745
Well, if all the liberals are right, and Trump goes nuke happy, it can trigger a nuclear winter!

Global warming problem solved.
tailgater Offline
#93 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 20,039
Brewha wrote:
I donno Tail. By that rational cigarettes are only a health risk so the govmut can tax them. No I love me some cigar - but a health food they are not.

Also, they banned the production of incandescent light bulbs because they waste energy. So just like banning CFC's we can make changes without taxes.


Good point on the smokes.
But then you lose me with the lightbulbs.
That was a money making scheme (new technology in the compact flourescents) that didn't pan out entirely due to regulations in this country vs. outside the US.
We close US manufacturing to force the sale of foreign produced bulbs. Not by design, but a complete failure.
tailgater Offline
#94 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 20,039
Brewha wrote:
Nice of you to to say - about the well learned that is.

My opinion is that we - humans - are causing the current climate change that we are seeing above the 95% mark.

While this is admittedly an opinion piece, it does site some perfectly adequate data from sources that would otherwise be reliable.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/15/97-vs-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing

And money is absolute near the center of the debate. Energy production needs to change - read $$. This was true when we got rid of leaded gasoline - but it was worth it to get the lead out of the air.

As to the steady ice levels - there don't appear to be any. At least outside of an oped article.


95%?
That's higher than I expect you to say but it's a discussion point.

How much of this 95% is from fossil fuels?

And as for ice levels, there are many articles and photos and facts (including from NASA) that show the antarctic has held steady for the past 100 years (algore's hockey stick be damned).
opelmanta1900 Offline
#95 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 5,826
victor809 wrote:
Tail. You have no evidence to support that claim. It may or may not be true. But there is no way you can prove it either way.


if this is true, aren't you an idiot for arguing with him? if there is "no way you can prove it either way" then why are you trying to prove it your way?
victor809 Offline
#96 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 13,447
I'm not. My entire point has been that his claim the entire thing is about tax money is unprovable and therefore a poor claim.

I'm not arguing the opposite of his claim. I'm just saying his claim is unprovable based on a logical assessment
tailgater Offline
#97 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 20,039
More to the point, I may not be able to "prove" that there wouldn't be a climate pandemic, but a reasonable case can be presented for unbiased consideration.

The earth is at least as likely to die off from an asteroid hit as it is from climate change. (for instance).

Where is the pandemic?

Now, if someone could associate human activity with the propensity to attract large asteroids?? Then we'd be taxed to avoid the looming catastrophe.
Even though the asteroids were coming (or not coming) anyhow.

Maybe Bruce Willis can be the spokesperson in place of algore and Leonardo.



gummy jones Offline
#98 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 5,876
can we all just agree that if it wasnt for fred flnstone inventing the first stone wheeled suv we would still be trapped in an ice age
tailgater Offline
#99 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 20,039
For the record, I find it extremely naive to think that tax dollars are not a driving force in this.


tailgater Offline
#100 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 20,039
gummy jones wrote:
can we all just agree that if it wasnt for fred flnstone inventing the first stone wheeled suv we would still be trapped in an ice age


The ice caps melted because Betty and Wilma were HOT.

Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
8 Pages<12345678>