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

[ClosedCaption]

Thats because you cant pass laws on sexual behavior but you can create laws to say dont pee in the drinking water. Thats a form of "control" and for good reason.

So far no one has said what this "control" will be and how its not worth a cleaner earth.

The thing is we have been reducing emissions already it's just a natural form of progress as processes become more efficient

And the controls will be in the form of taxes and huge money grabs all in the name of saving the planet,

The funny thing is all you save the earth types always say no to the one thing that will provide abundant emission free power; nuclear

Reducing emissions is a good thing, right?

How do these money grabs happen? The answer is you don't know but it sounds scarey.

Yes, reducing pollution (not CO2 though, which is plant food) is always a good thing. How about we work on that.

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

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

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

 

[Pete7469]

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

Good "work" bed wetter, you've just earned a trophy for the most asinine response of the day.

 

[CultureCitizen]

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

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

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

I think it's quite obvious ....don't you? The specific point is maximum government control. They have basically told you this already. The general public is not to be trusted to manage their lives so in the interest of saving the planet (which the propagandists go to great pains to show every single day) the freedom of the people to live their lives and do as they wish must be severely curtailed. How many middle class people do you think will be able to travel overseas when the cost to fly coach jumps up to 5,000 a ticket to pay for the bio fuel used to fly those planes?

Every utterance of the powers that be is an order to spend less, travel less, produce less, live a sustainable life (which is in the long run never sustainable. Every civilization that has merely been sustainable existed till the first natural disaster and then lo and behold those sustainable countries....weren't.

I did not express miself correctly : what I meant is that the AWG is not really what matters, but rather the laws which empower the government and the large corporations ( specially those who engage in the revolving door ) .

If a set of measures / technologies empower households with little market distortion they should be embraced.
On the other hand one should be wary of measures wich achieve the oposite.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

Good "work" bed wetter, you've just earned a trophy for the most asinine response of the day.

Sad, that's all you got. Did you draw it yourself?

 

[westwall]

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

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

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

I think it's quite obvious ....don't you? The specific point is maximum government control. They have basically told you this already. The general public is not to be trusted to manage their lives so in the interest of saving the planet (which the propagandists go to great pains to show every single day) the freedom of the people to live their lives and do as they wish must be severely curtailed. How many middle class people do you think will be able to travel overseas when the cost to fly coach jumps up to 5,000 a ticket to pay for the bio fuel used to fly those planes?

Every utterance of the powers that be is an order to spend less, travel less, produce less, live a sustainable life (which is in the long run never sustainable. Every civilization that has merely been sustainable existed till the first natural disaster and then lo and behold those sustainable countries....weren't.

I did not express miself correctly : what I meant is that the AWG is not really what matters, but rather the laws which empower the government and the large corporations ( specially those who engage in the revolving door ) .

If a set of measures / technologies empower households with little market distortion they should be embraced.
On the other hand one should be wary of measures wich achieve the oposite.

We are in agreement. The government though has a history of rewarding those who donate large sums the their re election campaigns. Solyndra is an excellent case. Far better would be for government to not be in a position to steal money from the public to pay their friends and the way to ensure that is to limit the power of government to regulate.

 

[westwall]

Control!

Control what?

Controlling...control!

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





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

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

3. Purchase “green electricity“

4. Make your home and household energy efficient.

5. Buy energy and water efficient appliances.

6. Walk, cycle or take public transport.

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

8. Telecommute and teleconference.

9. Buy local produce.

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



Top 10 ways to reduce your CO2 emissions footprint

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

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

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

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

 

[Crick]

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

You are just sssstttuuupppiiiddd beyond belief.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Control!

Control what?

Controlling...control!

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





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

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

3. Purchase “green electricity“

4. Make your home and household energy efficient.

5. Buy energy and water efficient appliances.

6. Walk, cycle or take public transport.

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

8. Telecommute and teleconference.

9. Buy local produce.

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



Top 10 ways to reduce your CO2 emissions footprint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[westwall]

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

You are just sssstttuuupppiiiddd beyond belief.

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

 

[westwall]

Control!

Control what?

Controlling...control!

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





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

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

3. Purchase “green electricity“

4. Make your home and household energy efficient.

5. Buy energy and water efficient appliances.

6. Walk, cycle or take public transport.

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

8. Telecommute and teleconference.

9. Buy local produce.

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



Top 10 ways to reduce your CO2 emissions footprint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[CultureCitizen]

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

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

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

That is easy as well.

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

Mostly #1 and #2.

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

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

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

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

 

[PredFan]

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

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

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

That is easy as well.

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

Mostly #1 and #2.

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

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

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

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

1) Bull shit. 100% bull shit.
2) You are wrong.
3) Deflection
4) No, they get harmed a lot.
5) of course it would seem like that to you. To destroy companies, cripple the economy, and lie to the American People, well that's a small price to pay for paying back DNC supporters isn't it?

You asked my for clarification, I gave it to you. You are a left wing nut, and an AGW cultist. Of course you disagree. All of your points have been debunked many times over. I answered your question, good bye.

 

[jc456]

what is it I am supposedly trolling?

This thread you dubious asshole

what is it I'm supposedly trolling, your response is no answer.

 

[jc456]

Control!

Control what?

Controlling...control!

Control!!! spot on.

 

[jc456]

Control!

Control what?

Controlling...control!

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





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

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

3. Purchase “green electricity“

4. Make your home and household energy efficient.

5. Buy energy and water efficient appliances.

6. Walk, cycle or take public transport.

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

8. Telecommute and teleconference.

9. Buy local produce.

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



Top 10 ways to reduce your CO2 emissions footprint

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

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

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

why is anyone making the statement to eat less red meat? What is the purpose?

 

[jc456]

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

You are just sssstttuuupppiiiddd beyond belief.

who claims those are healthier meals? so parents need someone to tell them they don't raise their children healthy, is that what you're saying? Some government punk has better knowledge? really, i challenge any meal you post up as healthy.

 

[jc456]

The thing is we have been reducing emissions already it's just a natural form of progress as processes become more efficient

And the controls will be in the form of taxes and huge money grabs all in the name of saving the planet,

The funny thing is all you save the earth types always say no to the one thing that will provide abundant emission free power; nuclear

Reducing emissions is a good thing, right?

How do these money grabs happen? The answer is you don't know but it sounds scarey.

Yes, reducing pollution (not CO2 though, which is plant food) is always a good thing. How about we work on that.

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

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

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

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

 

[ClosedCaption]

Reducing emissions is a good thing, right?

How do these money grabs happen? The answer is you don't know but it sounds scarey.

Yes, reducing pollution (not CO2 though, which is plant food) is always a good thing. How about we work on that.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, reducing pollution (not CO2 though, which is plant food) is always a good thing. How about we work on that.

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

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

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

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

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

^ Scientific evidence collected over a 5 week period showing the Equatorial Rain Forest produce the most CO2. The Warmers have Faith that my SUV is the culprit

 

[jc456]

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

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

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

That is easy as well.

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

Mostly #1 and #2.

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, reducing pollution (not CO2 though, which is plant food) is always a good thing. How about we work on that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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