Fitty Moronic Trumps

like i said, companies who are spending money moving towards less emissions, less waste, etc should get a tax break, not increase. yeah, there has to be a balance but as time goes on we should be moving towards more "green' technology rather than sitting still or going backwards.

I am not surprised. If the EPA continues to exist, it will just be a placemat. All really important regulations are about to be wiped out. Scary.

Grow up.


Climate change deniers are lazy. There's no convincing them they are wrong, and they won't think for themselves.

Even 2 months will be amazing. Scary, and amazing.


We can't remove ALL of the CO2. We need it for life of course. What we need to do is reduce CO2, and other greenhouse gasses like Methane, really, really quickly. Tougher emmission standards and less reliance on fossil fuels are great first steps that lots of progressive countries are doing. The US was well on its way too but I see these very positive first steps about to turn and go backwards now. sad.

No dude, no. No one else should do your homework for you. The evidence is out there already. If you can't get it yourself, then at least read what NASA and NOAA have to say as they have all of the tools and spent all of the time to gather the evidence for you. It is YOUR responsibility to educate yourself.

Here is a good place to start. https://earthengine.google.com/timelapse/

If you are certain that NASA and NOAA, and 98% of scientists are wrong (and that oil companies are right), then it doesn't matter what anyone else has to say about it, because you won't believe it. Therefore, no one should waste their time trying to convince you.


[QUOTE=wehateporn;21364843]True, it's a globalist tax grab/QUOTE]

No, it's not.

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup


:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup


Really good point, and something that alot of people don't understand. Here's how I like to phrase it.

Imagine that a litre of gasoline costs $1.00. This includes the oil removed from the ground, refining and transportation and all kinds of other costs. $1.00.

The problem is that there is still another cost that is not included: The cost of the damage to the environment. The burned Gas goes into the air that we breathe, increasing medical costs. Other chemicals in the burned gas cause the warming of the planet, and damage to the ocean (ocean acidification). Etc.

So when we pay $1.00 today for a litre of gas, the true cost of that gas, is charged to us later, in the form of medical expenses and damage to the Earth. We won't pay it maybe, but our kids will.

The idea of a Carbon Tax, is to move the cost of the future damage, to today. By paying a little more, that money can be invested into source of energy that cause less damage, or hopefully no damage, to the earth and future generations. At the same time, we get cleaner air, cleaner water, and a choice when it comes on where we can get our energy.

No dude, not even close. But it doesn't matter now. Trump and his boys will be telling you exactly what you want to hear from now on, and help make gasoline as cheap as possible. You did hear what just happened with Trump, Russia, and the CEO of Exxon, right? Look it up.

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

I am beyond saving... it's time to get science involved and dump Hollywood and the API:2 cents:

The global warming 'science' believes that correlation = causation, this is a schoolboy error :upsidedow

No. That is the last thing that any scientist believes. Whoever told you that is wrong or lying.

Weather and climate are not the same thing. The illustration is the scientist desperately trying to warn us of problems, and that little kid not understanding the problem, is the climate change denier.

A weak short-term correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature proves nothing about causation, the alarmists gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a 100 years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history.

that's true, but
a. it's impossible to calculate this "externality"
b. you are assuming government will actually use the funds for intended purpose
c. you are assuming that what government decides is really the best use of the $$

so imagine you use 1000 liters of gas per year, and liter of gas costs $1 and you think that all the damage costs another $1 = $2 total

with no government involvement you would spend $1000/year on gas, with your plan you would spend $2000/year... so you have $1000/year less that you know for a fact would be spent well, cause you are the one deciding...

maybe you will take that $1000 and spend it on planting trees in the backyard? maybe you will invest that in a solar panel company? maybe you will put it towards a purchase of an electric car?

on the other hand who knows how the government would spend it? more likely than not, it would be spent foolishly or stolen through cronyism...:2 cents:

The kid is teaching the scientist

'Climate change denier' is a term of propaganda

So many morons.

Must be nice not to give a shit about future generations.

OP please be careful about treating climate change like a fundamentalist religion. you sound like george bush, when he said, you are either with us, or with the terrorists.

most of my own personal skepticism of the topic involves the political tactics of people in the climate change camp. The academic community, think tanks, donors, & activists all assert tremendous pressure on science to achieve a specific conclusion, & anyone that questions this dogma is treated poorly.

These tactics reflect poorly on the integrity of climate change dogma, if people that may have alternative ideas are demonized so outrageously. your comment being an example.

Groupthink, & demonizing scientists, is dangerous to science.

:2 cents:

one more thing OP...the best scientists cant forecast the weather 5 days out. nevermind 1 year out, or 100.

the best economists cant forecast the national debt 10 years out. predictions from the 80s & 90s are wayyyy off.

the best pollsters & pundits could not forecast the 2016 election. they totally missed the voters that decided the election.

in 91, when the kuwaiti oil wells burned, the green people said it would be an environmental apocalypse. a couple years of cleaning, all good. & wasnt a polar ice cap supposed to be gone by now?

people who do long range forecasting, are almost always grossly wrong, when forecasting systems with dynamic inputs.

:2 cents:

Americans have been systematically dumbed down to make them easy to control. For fuck sake most moronic Americans believe in God and have no concept of even the most basic fundamentals of how their own bodies work...much less how a planet works.

Women are taught to worry about 2 things...make sure your look "pretty" and your pussy doesn't smell. If they manage to get those 2 things accomplished then they feel complete.

Men are taught not to act like a fag and to love sports, guns, and the government (in that order).

There you go...a basic breakdown of the American educational system and just look around you to see the results. :Oh crap

LOL. Sheep.

http://rochardsbunnyranch.com/rock/sheep.jpg

Linda Mcmahon for small business admin...lol the hits keep coming

What company has a worse track record for crushing small business and abusing workers?

Oh but she donated 6M to a Trump supporting super pac

They literally loaded this people up with pills and worked them to an early death

DEAD WWE WRESTLERS UNDER 50

That's right, it doesn't.

Fortunately, there's alot more to go on that correlation: Evidence.

His EPA pick is the worst, but I'm sure he will top that... Giuliani will be the icing on the cake - devil incarnate

Climate & weather are not the same.

"The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time."

Check the News.

The appointee for the Department of McLabor ...

Good jobs for all :upsidedow

Maybe not calcuate, but there's certainly enough data to base highly accurate models on.

Yes of course. Might there be corruption? Sure. Might it be spent elsewhere? I hope not. We can hope it gets spent right. But right now, there is none at all, and the cost is our future, of future generations, rising tides, damage, storms, loss of animal and human life, etc etc. All of this can be measured now, and it is extremely expensive.


No. I'm assuming that the scientists know whats best, and that the governments will listen to the people when it comes to spending it in the right way.

Ok.

Well, no really, no. Right now, your taxes are spent on schools, infrastructure, Police, Fire, etc. This new tax would be spent on the environment in 2 ways : 1, cleaning up the existing mess, and 2, helping to fund clean energy alternatives. If done right, and assuming there's little or no corruption etc, it can make a big difference.


Yes! All of those things can be good too and in fact they are already in place. You might pay that extra $1000, but the government might give you a tax break or refund for investing in solar, planting trees, or buying an EV.

Of course, and this is a legitimate concern. So if the governments impose a carbon tax and demand that we pay it, its up to us to make sure its spent in the right way.

Cheers!

Unlike religion, Climate Change is a real thing. It's observable, and its measurable.


So then ignore the politics. Start with Science, and end with Science. Try not to read news reports about science if you can. Skip the interpretation and go right to the source.

You know what's really ironic about this asshole Scott Pruitt? He actually has a pending lawsuit against the EPA, and will now inherit that lawsuit once he's in charge of it. Wow.

He's been heralded by conservatives as a crusader against "the EPA's activist agenda", and now he's in charge of it. It's shit that could only be in a movie. There literally is not a worse choice to put in charge of the organization who tries to keep big business from polluting everything they can as long as it makes them a buck.

OMG shut the fuck up you are so goddamn stupid. Stop having thoughts.

Truth is the world is full of stupid people...so if the government is supposed to represent the people I guess they got it right

You got it right. I feel like we're about to get the government we deserve.

that would be like reading "realtor magazine" to find out when is a good time to invest in real estate, or reading wall street journal to learn if there is money to be made in the stock market, or watching CNN to find out if Tump has any chance of winning the election, etc... :error

ever heard of "peak oil"? it was a big thing few decades ago, very similar to the current climate predictions actually... here are 36 predictions by "experts" published in peer reviewed journals, how many of them came true? all those predictions turned out to be so wrong that no one even talks about it any more...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Production.jpg

coming from you :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Google image search shows that image only coming up on consiracy, & fake news sites.

same information here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_o...ns_of_peak_oil

I don't see it there anywhere.

I do see the 1962 prediction in the graph you provided. 50 year old prediction then others taking guesses every few years.

Apple's & oranges to climate change.

If global warming why is cold outside?

Checkmate, LIEberals

there is a table there:

Pub. Made by Peak year/range Pub. Made by Peak year/range
1972 Esso About 2000 1999 Parker 2040
1972 United Nations By 2000 2000 A. A. Bartlett 2004 or 2019
1974 Hubbert 1991–2000 2000 Duncan 2006
1976 UK Dep. of Energy About 2000 2000 EIA 2021–2067; 2037 most likely
1977 Hubbert 1996 2000 EIA (WEO) Beyond 2020
1977 Ehrlich, et al. 2000 2001 Deffeyes 2003–2008
1979 Shell Plateau by 2004 2001 Goodstein 2007
1981 World Bank Plateau around 2000 2002 Smith 2010–2016
1985 J. Bookout 2020 2002 Campbell 2010
1989 Campbell 1989 2002 Cavallo 2025–2028
1994 L. F. Ivanhoe OPEC plateau 2000–2050 2003 Greene, et al. 2020–2050
1995 Petroconsultants 2005 2003 Laherrère 2010–2020
1997 Ivanhoe 2010 2003 Lynch No visible peak
1997 J. D. Edwards 2020 2003 Shell After 2025
1998 IEA 2014 2003 Simmons 2007–2009
1998 Campbell & Laherrère 2004 2004 Bakhitari 2006–2007
1999 Campbell 2010 2004 CERA After 2020
1999 Peter Odell 2060 2004 PFC Energy 2015–2020
A selection of estimates of the year of peak world oil production, compiled by the United States Energy Information Administration



point is that what "experts" predict should be taken with a grain of salt, they all failed miserably at predicting peak oil, so it's quite likely they aren't any more accurate this time around either...

Global Warming is Beyond a HOAX... It's Asinine

Climate change is REAL... we get 4 seasons here and I love it

.

As I've already stated I grew up during the first attempt "global cooling"


I've already done my research. It's a myth to push an agenda. That's it, nothing more. 98%? Where did you pull that figure from? Your ass?

I don't need Trump to tell me shit.. I made my determination that it's a scam long before Trump decided to run for President.

None of you will post your proof or "empirical evidence" because you know that I or others will debunk it. Since every bit of it has already been debunked.

^^ global warming denier meltdown ^^


"It snowed! Global warming is a hoax"

Are you done reading all of those articles and watching all of those videos from the 70's? Let me guess. You didn't read or watch one..

Dude. You don't believe it's getting warmer every year. You don't believe the ice caps are melting. You don't believe the sea levels are rising.

Proven facts.

The Phony War Against CO2
Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide has helped raise global food production and reduce poverty
The Phony War Against CO2 - WSJ

He cant go only with his closest associates

That's too bad. I expected more from you.

Who's facts? You do realize that more than half of the temperature data used is admittedly "estimated" > fake rather than actual readings. Most of the other half is readings in hot zones. One was actually placed next to AC condensers and a blacktop parking lot.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...site_small.jpg

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/...ture-data-set/

Fake news climate change denier blog :1orglaugh

I trust NASA over your conspiracy blogger

http://climate.nasa.gov

Whatever Happened to the Ozone Hole?

But WTF do the troublemaker leftard scientists know ...

Point is; the problem was identified and the reversal has been proven effective -- had we done nothing -- there may or not have been consequences. Cancers have increased anyway -- did less radiation exposure limit the increases?

By the time you prove or disprove this theory of global warming to your satisfaction the effects may not be reversible. I am 751 feet above sea level -- a bit close for comfort -- this land was underwater in prehistory. The land probably will not be underwater in my lifetime -- so who cares?

That's the thing.

Global warming is happening, whether it's man-made or not, it's happening, and it has happened before, just at a much slower rate.

Climate change: it?s all happened before? | University of Cambridge

thank you for addressing my main concerns. I still don't feel complete though. I am concerned as to the impact of my hair color on my political stance. and yes whether that dye will make me smell.

could you please s'il vous plait por favor not bring logic and reason into this? the conspiracy only works if we're all on board

:disgust

CO2 is called a greenhouse gas because of the the greenhouse effect. Stop spreading false information. If you understand photosynthesis then understand the system enough to know you are distorting the truth.