AOC states we haven't seen Co2 levels like this since the Pliocene period

[Hutch Starskey]

That only serves to show how much work is yet to be done.

Don't know how to read charts yet, huh?

What is shows is that nobody is doing more than us when it comes to Green. That's why other places have our jobs now.

LOL...
Our jobs?

Yep. When it becomes cheaper to make stuff out of this country and ship it in, companies move out and take the jobs with them. The greener we get, the more expensive it is to produce products here.

LOL...
Oh, I see. So now your new dopey line is that American jobs moved offshore due to climate regulations.

When you have to make shit up in an attempt to remain relevant, you've already lost.

You're better off just sticking to the sibject at hand.

No, what I said is environmental regulations add costs to businesses, and that's why they move out. Even if the business has nothing to do with the environment, they still have to pay electric and natural gas costs. Then when unions were big, that was a factor, plus we once had the highest corporate taxes in the industrialized world.

As a driver, I know the hundreds of thousands of additional dollars my boss has to pay out thanks to environmental costs every year, and we are a very small company. It started during the Bush administration where they made a maximum sulfur content for diesel fuel. Since then, the price of diesel fuel accelerated way beyond gasoline, whereas before, it was about a dollar a gallon cheaper than gasoline.

Because of all the pollution gadgets on a truck, they are much more expensive to purchase or lease. And nearly every time a truck experiences a problem, it usually has something to do with those gadgets. As you mentioned, DEF is another one. My employer has a tote for the stuff just so he can get it a little cheaper. We go through gallons of it every week.

So this all costs money, and we have to pass on those costs to our customers. Our customers manufacture products you and I buy all the time. However when it's made cheaper overseas, then the business has to close up and move overseas themselves.

No, what I said is environmental regulations add costs to businesses, and that's why they move out.

That's what I just said in the post you responded to, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Ummm what? The claim was that CO2 levels haven’t been this high in the history of ... read this slowly... humans.

The fact that they may have been higher at some time when humans didn’t exist is meaningless .

The point is that CO 2 levels this high affect human life in ways we are not going to like

If nature caused CO2 to be much higher than before humans, then what is to say that very same nature isn't the cause of it today?

What you'd then be admitting to is all of the past promises by the global warming crowd was a lie. They told us we'd save the earth with CAFE standards. They told us we'd save the earth by making fuel burn cleaner. They told us we'd save the earth by eliminating the burning of our garbage in incinerators, getting lead out of all our products, and adding ethanol to our gasoline.

We did it all, and ten times more. And now we find out after all the trillions of dollars we've spent, it was all a lie? Not that I'm surprised mind you.

If nature caused CO2 to be much higher than before humans, then what is to say that very same nature isn't the cause of it today?

Uff...
Our ability to measure the output of CO2 shows us it isn't nature, dope.

No, it doesn't show anything of the sort. If there were any correlation between what we are doing and actual climate, our levels would be going down, wouldn't they? If you fix your leaky pipes under your kitchen sink, but still mopping up water all the time, obviously it must be something else, correct?

No, it doesn't show anything of the sort. If there were any correlation between what we are doing and actual climate, our levels would be going down, wouldn't they? If you fix your leaky pipes under your kitchen sink, but still mopping up water all the time, obviously it must be something else, correct?

No, not correct at all.
The measurements don't show any natural sources of carbon emissions that even come close to human emissions.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by 50% since the industrial revolution.

The correlation is obvious. Children all over the world understand this.

But if we are decreasing our human made Co2 all the time, and it's not working, then obviously the additional CO2 is coming from somewhere else.

But if we are decreasing our human made Co2 all the time, and it's not working, then obviously the additional CO2 is coming from somewhere else.

We aren't decreasing it, dope. That's the point.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Make sure to install those side pipes to blast cyclists with your diesel soot. You don't want to look weak.

I don't suppose you know about diesels and DEF now.
Just another example of how stupid you are.

Obviously I do as I just mentioned them, dope.

No you didn't, you talked about diesels and blasting soot on cyclists.
If you knew what DEF is, and that pretty much all diesels use it, you would know there isn't any soot, dope.

Double down on stupid if you want to though.

you would know there isn't any soot, dope.

Rolling coal !........

 

[Hutch Starskey]

...
The correlation is obvious. Children all over the world understand this.

A lot of children all over the world still believe in Santa Clause, unicorns and pixies too.
Hell, there's some kindergartners that could probably tell you we are all going to burn to death in the next 10 years, but still might have a little trouble spelling their name (not that important in the classroom anymore).

Great.
You still don't have the basic understanding of the world as a grown man that children have.

 

[Hiryuu]

Great.
You still don't have the basic understanding of the world as a grown man that children have.

I am willing to agree you have the same understanding as a child.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So we should allow more SO2 emissions to make diesel cheaper.?

According to you and others, it did absolutely no good. We've had lower sulfur diesel fuel for over 10 years now. You and your ilk are saying it's worse now than ever. So we spent Lord knows how many hundreds of billions to make environmentalists happy, and it didn't work. In fact, you say it did just the opposite.

Therefore the only conclusion that a reasonable person can come to is the fact we don't control CO2 or the climate.

That's right we do a lousy job of controlling the CO2 level.

Oh right, that must be it.

View attachment 261496

Considering the climate problems that can result due to CO2 increases, we are doing a terrible job of limiting CO2. I doubt we every be able to control climate. We may be able influence it but not really control it.

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

So given the trillions that were already spent on this farce, and it's proven to be a failure, how much more should we spend?

This all reminds me of what happened (and is still happening) here. Years ago the feds said our air was unacceptable. So they forced us into this E-check program. Ten years later, they once again tested the air with no change in the quality of air. And keep in mind, during that time, our steel mills shutdown. They reopened again later, but with much more green initiatives.

The billions we spent in that decade of E-cehck could have went to better things such as the homeless, our roads, reducing taxation, a number of things. But even after the negative results of this failed program, the feds insisted we continue it.

So all this goes to support my point. Combating global warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the country could never fill it.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, but expecting different results each time."

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

LOL....
So god is fucking us and not humans?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's an odd claim. Let's say for the sake of argument that what she said is true.

Then the earth has lived through previous periods like this. So why worry about it?

Her claim undercuts her own apocolyptic arguments

Humans have never had to live through this. That's her point.

Humans live everywhere from the Antarctic to Death Valley.

I think we'll be just fine.

LOL.....

Right over your head. Surprising.
Never with CO2 levels as high as they are currently, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL...

Again?

I already schooled you on this, dope.

School who?

You were to stupid to comprehend what it said you stupid fuck

LOL...
Tell us how living plants emit CO2, dope

didnt you graduate from the 2nd grade yet?

didnt you graduate from the 2nd grade yet?

^ This is a grown man. Uff.

You just told someone to kill himself. You need to shut the fuck up.

Because he stated people needed to die, dope.

 

[Hiryuu]

Rolling coal !........

Why am I not surprised that is in your line-up?
In case your hillbilly ass is still in the past century and if you need even the most simple explanation of DEF ... Diesel exhaust fluid - Wikipedia

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Great.
You still don't have the basic understanding of the world as a grown man that children have.

I am willing to agree you have the same understanding as a child.

Yes. I understand the basics.
You're free to enlighten us at any time rather than trolling. Unfortunately you've proven yourself to be incompetent on the subject.

 

[RealDave]

So we should allow more SO2 emissions to make diesel cheaper.?

According to you and others, it did absolutely no good. We've had lower sulfur diesel fuel for over 10 years now. You and your ilk are saying it's worse now than ever. So we spent Lord knows how many hundreds of billions to make environmentalists happy, and it didn't work. In fact, you say it did just the opposite.

Therefore the only conclusion that a reasonable person can come to is the fact we don't control CO2 or the climate.

That's right we do a lousy job of controlling the CO2 level.

Oh right, that must be it.

View attachment 261496

Considering the climate problems that can result due to CO2 increases, we are doing a terrible job of limiting CO2. I doubt we every be able to control climate. We may be able influence it but not really control it.

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

So given the trillions that were already spent on this farce, and it's proven to be a failure, how much more should we spend?

This all reminds me of what happened (and is still happening) here. Years ago the feds said our air was unacceptable. So they forced us into this E-check program. Ten years later, they once again tested the air with no change in the quality of air. And keep in mind, during that time, our steel mills shutdown. They reopened again later, but with much more green initiatives.

The billions we spent in that decade of E-cehck could have went to better things such as the homeless, our roads, reducing taxation, a number of things. But even after the negative results of this failed program, the feds insisted we continue it.

So all this goes to support my point. Combating global warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the country could never fill it.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, but expecting different results each time."

So, our pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is controlled by God.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Rolling coal !........

Why am I not surprised that is in your line-up?
In case your hillbilly ass is still in the past century and if you need even the most simple explanation of DEF ... Diesel exhaust fluid - Wikipedia

Yep....that's not soot on your retarded dude's face at all.

 

[RealDave]

Isn't it pathetic that these same stupid Moon Bats that believe that Socialism will work in the US if we just give it a chance are the same idiots that believe this silly AGW scam?

Then they wonder why we ridicule them so much.

Stupid people tend to mock intelligent people.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Isn't it pathetic that these same stupid Moon Bats that believe that Socialism will work in the US if we just give it a chance are the same idiots that believe this silly AGW scam?

Then they wonder why we ridicule them so much.

Stupid people tend to mock intelligent people.

Exactly.
Their incompetence on the subject has left them with nothing to offer but trolling.

 

[RealDave]

Scientists can work for corporations, universities, research firms, Fossil Fuel companies, think tanks, etc.

Universities get federal funding along with grants from private organizations.

Now, who has the most to lose as we go green. What do the scientists they fund say?

"Follow the money!", you say?

Let's do just that.

I noted that “In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”

...

How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.

That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.

Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.

For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.

The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.​

unlike the 4.65 trillion dollar fossil fuel market.

The rerally funny part with you deniers is that going green can save you money.

Buying higher MPG vehicles save you monet

Installing geothermal HVAC saves you money.

EVs can save you money.

Ignoring AGW & you will pay big time for the results like higher food costs, addressing coastline higher sea levels, more storm damage from storm surges, addressing more droughts, redoing HVAC systems to address higher temperatures . increasing our electrical grid, etc ertc etc.

So your plan is more expensive.

Let's see your math...and not bullshit opinions


Do you have 45 trillion dollars to go green?


How Much Does It Cost to Go Green? The Answer is $45 trillion

Globally 45 trillion over what time frame?

What is the cost to ignore AGW?

Just sea level rise: "If warming is not mitigated and follows the RCP8.5 sea level rise projections, the global annual flood costs without adaptation will increase to $14 trillion per year for a median sea level rise of 0.86m, and up to $27 trillion per year for 1.8m. This would account for 2.8 per cent of global GDP in 2100."

Rising sea levels could cost the world $14 trillion a year by 2100

Per year. Compare that to your 435 trillion over whst 50 years?

Now look at the costs of beefing up our electric grid to handle the more electricity to run lots more air conditioning.

Then consider food costs. What happens when our bread basket can no longer effectively grow wheat & corn?

How about water for the droughts?

So yea, you keep running in circles screaming about the costs of doing something while you totally ignore the costs of your plan which is doing nothing.

 

[RealDave]

It's like I posted earlier. Global Warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the US couldn't fill it up. The more we spend on it, the worse the supposed problem gets, and the more they want.

The real problem in the US is consumers have no idea how much of their money goes towards green. That's why every product should have a label by law that states how much money goes towards green to produce that product. If Americans actually knew how much all this is costing them, they wouldn't be so anxious for more regulations and costs in the future.

They go out and ask people if they want a cleaner environment? Well duh, HTF do they think people will answer? Now go out and ask them if they'd like a cleaner environment if government sends them a bill for $1,000 a year and see what they say.

So anybody that tells you our country wants to be greener, tell them they are F.O.S.

Man, you are still looking in the rearview mirror, you better watch the road.
They want to get rid of the Electoral College so New York City can tell folks in Tennessee to put a windmill in their front yard and send them the juice.

Marxism 101

View attachment 261545

So renting an apartment in the city is producing all that pollution?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

According to you and others, it did absolutely no good. We've had lower sulfur diesel fuel for over 10 years now. You and your ilk are saying it's worse now than ever. So we spent Lord knows how many hundreds of billions to make environmentalists happy, and it didn't work. In fact, you say it did just the opposite.

Therefore the only conclusion that a reasonable person can come to is the fact we don't control CO2 or the climate.

That's right we do a lousy job of controlling the CO2 level.

Oh right, that must be it.

View attachment 261496

Considering the climate problems that can result due to CO2 increases, we are doing a terrible job of limiting CO2. I doubt we every be able to control climate. We may be able influence it but not really control it.

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

So given the trillions that were already spent on this farce, and it's proven to be a failure, how much more should we spend?

This all reminds me of what happened (and is still happening) here. Years ago the feds said our air was unacceptable. So they forced us into this E-check program. Ten years later, they once again tested the air with no change in the quality of air. And keep in mind, during that time, our steel mills shutdown. They reopened again later, but with much more green initiatives.

The billions we spent in that decade of E-cehck could have went to better things such as the homeless, our roads, reducing taxation, a number of things. But even after the negative results of this failed program, the feds insisted we continue it.

So all this goes to support my point. Combating global warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the country could never fill it.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, but expecting different results each time."

So, our pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is controlled by God.

Not very smart, are you? I explained it as simply as I could.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

According to you and others, it did absolutely no good. We've had lower sulfur diesel fuel for over 10 years now. You and your ilk are saying it's worse now than ever. So we spent Lord knows how many hundreds of billions to make environmentalists happy, and it didn't work. In fact, you say it did just the opposite.

Therefore the only conclusion that a reasonable person can come to is the fact we don't control CO2 or the climate.

That's right we do a lousy job of controlling the CO2 level.

Oh right, that must be it.

View attachment 261496

Considering the climate problems that can result due to CO2 increases, we are doing a terrible job of limiting CO2. I doubt we every be able to control climate. We may be able influence it but not really control it.

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

So given the trillions that were already spent on this farce, and it's proven to be a failure, how much more should we spend?

This all reminds me of what happened (and is still happening) here. Years ago the feds said our air was unacceptable. So they forced us into this E-check program. Ten years later, they once again tested the air with no change in the quality of air. And keep in mind, during that time, our steel mills shutdown. They reopened again later, but with much more green initiatives.

The billions we spent in that decade of E-cehck could have went to better things such as the homeless, our roads, reducing taxation, a number of things. But even after the negative results of this failed program, the feds insisted we continue it.

So all this goes to support my point. Combating global warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the country could never fill it.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, but expecting different results each time."

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

LOL....
So god is fucking us and not humans?

Fucking us because the earth is not meeting your expectations? Don't worry about trying to control the climate. It's out of your pay grade.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If nature caused CO2 to be much higher than before humans, then what is to say that very same nature isn't the cause of it today?

What you'd then be admitting to is all of the past promises by the global warming crowd was a lie. They told us we'd save the earth with CAFE standards. They told us we'd save the earth by making fuel burn cleaner. They told us we'd save the earth by eliminating the burning of our garbage in incinerators, getting lead out of all our products, and adding ethanol to our gasoline.

We did it all, and ten times more. And now we find out after all the trillions of dollars we've spent, it was all a lie? Not that I'm surprised mind you.

If nature caused CO2 to be much higher than before humans, then what is to say that very same nature isn't the cause of it today?

Uff...
Our ability to measure the output of CO2 shows us it isn't nature, dope.

No, it doesn't show anything of the sort. If there were any correlation between what we are doing and actual climate, our levels would be going down, wouldn't they? If you fix your leaky pipes under your kitchen sink, but still mopping up water all the time, obviously it must be something else, correct?

No, it doesn't show anything of the sort. If there were any correlation between what we are doing and actual climate, our levels would be going down, wouldn't they? If you fix your leaky pipes under your kitchen sink, but still mopping up water all the time, obviously it must be something else, correct?

No, not correct at all.
The measurements don't show any natural sources of carbon emissions that even come close to human emissions.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by 50% since the industrial revolution.

The correlation is obvious. Children all over the world understand this.

But if we are decreasing our human made Co2 all the time, and it's not working, then obviously the additional CO2 is coming from somewhere else.

But if we are decreasing our human made Co2 all the time, and it's not working, then obviously the additional CO2 is coming from somewhere else.

We aren't decreasing it, dope. That's the point.

We are dope, others are not.

From the June 2018 BP Statistical Review of Global Energy (67th edition) here are some details on C02 emissions in 2017:

1. Global CO2 emissions from energy in 2017 grew by 1.6% (and 426.4 million tons, see data here), rebounding from the stagnant volumes during 2014-2016, and faster than the 10-year average of 1.3%.

2. Declines in CO2 emissions in 2017 were led by the US (-0.5% and 42 million tons, see chart above). This is the ninth time in this century that the US has had the largest decline in emissions in the world. This also was the third consecutive year that emissions in the US declined, though the fall was the smallest over the last three years.

3. Carbon emissions from energy use from the US are the lowest since 1992, the year that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came into existence. The next largest decline was in Ukraine (-10.1% and 28.1 tons).

Chart of the day: In 2017, US had largest decline in CO2 emissions in the world for 9th time this century - AEI

 

[Third Party]

More CO two usually makes plants and insects bigger as witnessed by earth's past. I haven't seen either get bigger.