Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I see my remarks soared over your head. 'Climate Change' does not mean humans are causing it. It just means Earth's climate changes....duh. Know what the biggest and most influential GHG is? You must answer this before proceeding.If you're worried about Karl Marx, you're in the wrong forum. Your comment concerning humans changing the climate is simply ignorant.
There are no proofs in the natural sciences. There is evidence. Mountains of evidence indicate that humans have altered the climate by way of GHG emissions and deforestation.
And few people have been receiving subsidies for anyone's EVs. The 200,000 unit limit on most brands was already exhausted. The IRA will bring some back.You are stating you belong to the club of hypocrites and are welcoming, me. Cardinal is that dumb!
I am speaking of EV's. Nobody received a subsidy, a tax credit, to buy those first Oldsmobiles.
We are also speaking of what you ignorantly think is a new technology, which receives subsidies at what you are calling it's infancy? Correct?
Show us where the Oil industry in 1855 received subsidies? 1865? 1900?
Show us where the government paid states to build gas stations.
Oil initially replaced whale oil used in lamps. Oil was naturally much more efficient. All the tax money, billions, if not trillions, which is proposed and being spent, is for inefficient, intermitten, green renewable energy. Green Energy, Renewable Energy is worst by a factor of 10,000 by what it claims it can replace.
Oil, unsubsidized, was cheaper and more efficient than what it replaced. You can not say that about Green Renewable energy.
And, I know you get really upset, sorry about bringing attention to your glaring error, I was speaking about EV's, not oil companies. Hence you should of drawn parallel to the early car industry, not oil companies.
Can you not read? THERE ARE NO PROOFS IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES. And, yes, there are mountains of evidence. Peruse "The Scientific Basis" from AR6 or AR5 if you'd like to see some of it.mountains of evidence?
yet, you can not prove, in theory, with computers, by simpling reading the temperature, that any change has occurred at all yet you have mountains of evidence that humans caused the change that nobody has seen, the change you dictate that we must believe.
humans are insignificant, this old planet will do what it wants with or without us, and that is not opinion, that is the science
Fuck off Leo. I've been active on this forum for several years. You're the one that needs to do some catching up. Global warming has been taking place at an accelerating pace since the Industrial Revolution and its primary cause is human GHG emissions.I see my remarks soared over your head. 'Climate Change' does not mean humans are causing it. It just means Earth's climate changes....duh. Know what the biggest and most influential GHG is? You must answer this before proceeding.
Answer the question first. What is the most influential GHG? I'm starting to feel you really don't understand what you are attempting to prove.Fuck off Leo. I've been active on this forum for several years. You're the one that needs to do some catching up. Global warming has been taking place at an accelerating pace since the Industrial Revolution and its primary cause is human GHG emissions.
What is the problem they created?If you're worried about Karl Marx, you're in the wrong forum. Your comment concerning humans changing the climate is simply ignorant.
There are no proofs in the natural sciences. There is evidence. Mountains of evidence indicate that humans have altered the climate by way of GHG emissions and deforestation.
For the fourth time, how do you make them then?Renewable energy is NOT inefficient. Given that it requires no fuel
He has never proved or backed up a postAnswer the question first. What is the most influential GHG? I'm starting to feel you really don't understand what you are attempting to prove.
According to the 'greenies' the problem is that humans have created safe places for us to live. Greenies can't have that because to them humans are only destructive....even though they themselves claim to be human. Of course THEY are always holier than thou.What is the problem they created?
Renewable energy, wind that did not blow all summer on Europes wind turbines, beginning a massive energy crisis, you stating that wind is infinite? And that all those turbines that have broke, been buried, those wind turbines that have been replaced three times now, the tens of thousands of broken wind turbines are infinite?Renewable energy is NOT inefficient. Given that it requires no fuel, it can be argued that its efficiency is essentially infinite. Your "factor of 10,000" comment is simply pulled from your ass. The primary value of such technologies is that because they do not burn fuel they do not produce harmful emissions. You deniers always ignore that point when making this argument and apparently think yourselves clever doing so. Sorry, but no.
He certainly doesn't know much about the climate influencers. He thinks it's humans......He has never proved or backed up a post
I can’t figure out why they all want their families dead!He certainly doesn't know much about the climate influencers. He thinks it's humans......
Renewable energy is NOT inefficient. Given that it requires no fuel,
Subsidies for the oil industries began in 1916. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/restore-clean-energy-incentives-big-oil-FS.pdf
No subsidies?????And few people have been receiving subsidies for anyone's EVs. The 200,000 unit limit on most brands was already exhausted. The IRA will bring some back.
No change in our climate.Can you not read? THERE ARE NO PROOFS IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES. And, yes, there are mountains of evidence. Peruse "The Scientific Basis" from AR6 or AR5 if you'd like to see some of it.
By empirical observations we can most certainly prove that changes have taken place. Your comment here is simple idiocy.
No subsidies?????
At the corporate level there certainly is. Those subsidies are still pouring out. You can even here the democrat president bragging that he is spending more than anyone else on renewables and ev's.
You need links to the latest spending bill that contains billions for renewables to include ev's
The democrat president just announced, in detroit at the auto show that ev's will recieve billions
Solyndra.No subsidies?????
At the corporate level there certainly is. Those subsidies are still pouring out. You can even here the democrat president bragging that he is spending more than anyone else on renewables and ev's.
You need links to the latest spending bill that contains billions for renewables to include ev's
The democrat president just announced, in detroit at the auto show that ev's will recieve billions
Taxing profits at 0.00% isn't a subsidy ... directly ... it's a tax break ... and not funding EPA oversight of fracking operations is a budget-cutting operation ... saving taxpayer dollars ...
Prince William Sound fishermen had to wait 20 years to get $30,000 for their lost boats ... that's not a subsidy ... that's protecting America's economy ...
[sigh] ...
We live in a world where PG&E can murder it's customers without effecting their share prices ... they were trading at $80 when the rains returned to California and shorted out the grid ...
Then why don't you just step right up and prove me wrong. If the theory of AGW is false, it should be a simple matter to disprove it.Answer the question first. What is the most influential GHG? I'm starting to feel you really don't understand what you are attempting to prove.
