CrackerJax
New Member
So ... no more CARBONated water? 
HACKERS REVEAL!! Climate change scientists have been manipulating and fixing data
- Thread starter Big P
- Start date
doc111
Well-Known Member
Well don't they want to tax soda as well?So ... no more CARBONated water?
SarcasticHobbes
Well-Known Member
Whats your point with this post? Jim Webb is a conserva-dem. And all the "links" you posted are from the Washington Times, a well known conservative paper that just created an agreement with The Heritage Foundation to create a website for conservatives. Of course they will publish all they can to deny any claims of human made climate change.
When you come back to me with actual peer reviewed statistics and facts--not claims based with hacked e-mails selectively shown and or edited to prove a point of view, or so called "experts" paid by oil industries, auto industries or the like.
I'll still take 97% of the actual CLIMATE scientists in this field showing actual results and proof vs a bunch of idiots running their mouths off.
Post all the hacked e-mails and bizzare theories you conspiracy nuts on this board can think of. I'll take it apart like I did earlier
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
You really must hand it to the Democrats because they almost pulled it off. A way to tax air. Thank heaven for whistle blowers.
Thankfully, when the Messiah prances over to Europe with his wife, Pickles, to collect an unearned prize, it will be an exercise in futility. In Copenhagen, he will make one more promise he cannot keep. Any agreement he reaches there must be ratified here and that ain't happening.
Anyone who seriously questions the cost implications of the Cap & Trade fiasco have not been paying attention. Anything anybody does that is connected to energy at any level will be affected. The embedded costs of this proposal will be blamed on greedy companies rather than greedy politicians.
Look at gasoline, the oil companies make ten cents profit on each gallon of gas they sell. Democrats freaked out when oil company profits hit record levels, but nothing was said about the government's taste which was all revenue.
The federal government gets 18.4 cents for every gallon of gasoline sold. The states get their cut, too. It varies state by state. My state gets 38.4 cents per gallon. 56.8 cents per gallon revenue to the government compared to 10 cents profit per gallon for the company that produced it; that is pure greed.
That's just the end product. The profits are taxed as well. Twice if you count capital gains taxes.
Some people wonder why diesel used to be cheaper than gasoline and it's not now. It's all taxes and regulation. My state taxes diesel at 44.4 cents per gallon, six cents per gallon higher than gasoline. And the EPA's ultra-low sulfur diesel requirement in 2006 marks the turning point when diesel surpassed gasoline in price at the pump.
And let's talk about experts. Warmers are quick to point out their now discredited experts when trying to shout down Man Made Climate Change skeptics. Funny how they ignore the 31,478 scientists, including the 3,803 who specialize in climate research; all of whom debunk Man Made Climate Change.
And I wonder what Democrats will say when manufacturing, as a sector a heavy consumer of energy, continues to stream out of the country when companies can no longer afford to do business here opting instead for some third world shithole not encumbered by Cap & Trade.
Government: The cause of, and solution to; all our problems.
Democrats win when you lose.
Thankfully, when the Messiah prances over to Europe with his wife, Pickles, to collect an unearned prize, it will be an exercise in futility. In Copenhagen, he will make one more promise he cannot keep. Any agreement he reaches there must be ratified here and that ain't happening.
Anyone who seriously questions the cost implications of the Cap & Trade fiasco have not been paying attention. Anything anybody does that is connected to energy at any level will be affected. The embedded costs of this proposal will be blamed on greedy companies rather than greedy politicians.
Look at gasoline, the oil companies make ten cents profit on each gallon of gas they sell. Democrats freaked out when oil company profits hit record levels, but nothing was said about the government's taste which was all revenue.
The federal government gets 18.4 cents for every gallon of gasoline sold. The states get their cut, too. It varies state by state. My state gets 38.4 cents per gallon. 56.8 cents per gallon revenue to the government compared to 10 cents profit per gallon for the company that produced it; that is pure greed.
That's just the end product. The profits are taxed as well. Twice if you count capital gains taxes.
Some people wonder why diesel used to be cheaper than gasoline and it's not now. It's all taxes and regulation. My state taxes diesel at 44.4 cents per gallon, six cents per gallon higher than gasoline. And the EPA's ultra-low sulfur diesel requirement in 2006 marks the turning point when diesel surpassed gasoline in price at the pump.
And let's talk about experts. Warmers are quick to point out their now discredited experts when trying to shout down Man Made Climate Change skeptics. Funny how they ignore the 31,478 scientists, including the 3,803 who specialize in climate research; all of whom debunk Man Made Climate Change.
And I wonder what Democrats will say when manufacturing, as a sector a heavy consumer of energy, continues to stream out of the country when companies can no longer afford to do business here opting instead for some third world shithole not encumbered by Cap & Trade.
Government: The cause of, and solution to; all our problems.
Democrats win when you lose.
Big P
Well-Known Member
dude whats your point with your post?? im posting stories comming out relative to the thread I started. Im not really sure what your point its besides spreading lies.
hay brainiac, why was the head of the UN climate research forced to step down last week?
im tired of arguing with people who are not informed about what they speak, just go back to watching american idol
SarcasticHobbes
Well-Known Member
Great post Organic, except your smattering of bullshit isnt true.
In the reality of business deductions, loopholes, and special tax breaks, it's clearly not the rate being paid by corporate America -- not even close.
SarcasticHobbes
Well-Known Member
dude whats your point with your post?? im posting stories comming out relative to the thread I started. Im not really sure what you point it besides spreading lies.
hay brainiac, why was the head of the UN climate research forced to step down last week?
im tired of arguing with people who are not informed about what they speak, just go back to watching american idol
He gave up his position only temporary. Any more half truth statements you would like to throw around?
Big P
Well-Known Member
why dont you answer the question, fact remains what i said is true, he was forced to step down last week.
so stop trying to spin and answer the question. why was he forced to step down smart guy?
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
that's news to me, braniachay brainiac, why was the head of the UN climate research forced to step down last week?
im tired of arguing with people who are not informed about what they speak, just go back to watching american idol
Big P
Well-Known Member
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
well then maybe you should do your homwork
I've done my homework. After you do yours, you can rejoin the conversation. Until then, you might want to quit making foolish remarks.
Big P
Well-Known Member
follow the munty boys and you will find 8 women sucking a married tigers dick
'Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants
The professor at the centre of the 'Climategate' affair has successfully received more than £13 million in research funding.
By Robert Mendick
Published: 8:15PM GMT 05 Dec 2009
Prof Jones has stood aside as head of the CRU while an independent inquiry investigates thousands of emails and other documents stolen from the university's computer server and published on the internet
The figure is disclosed in a leaked, internal document posted on the internet by climate change sceptics who have seized upon it as evidence of a funding "gravy train" for scientists conducting research into the area.
The grants were awarded following successful applications made by Professor Phil Jones, who headed up the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
Related Articles
Prof Jones has stood aside as head of the CRU while an independent inquiry investigates thousands of emails and other documents stolen from the university's computer server and published on the internet.
Climate change sceptics point to an email written by one scientist in November 1999 as evidence of manipulation of the figures to mask falling global temperatures.
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," the email said.
In another email, the death of a leading climate change sceptic is described as "cheering news".
The emails are being used by climate change sceptics to allege that attempts were made to manipulate data to "prove" the existence of man-made climate change.
They also allegedly point to efforts to block Freedom of Information requests by sceptics. Allegations that data was altered and FOI requests blocked have been vigorously denied.
The spreadsheet listing all successful grant applications made by Professor Jones was part of the batch of leaked documents. It shows Professor Jones, along with other academics at the university, received more than 50 separate grants with a value of £13.7 million from a number of funding bodies including the European Union, Nato, and the US department of energy.
Several British bodies also gave substantial sums including the Met Office, the Environment Agency, the National Rivers Authority and the Department for the Environment.
Prof Jones' name appears alongside all the grants, which range in value from as little as £730 for work carried out on Scottish temperature indices for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to £6.6 million given by the Higher Education Funding Council for England for the establishment of the Zuckerman Institute for Connective Environmental Research at UEA, an award wining research facility which includes the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change.
According to the spreadsheet, Prof Jones's first successful grant application was made in 1991 to the Department of Environment and was worth £179,484 for 'climate change detection'.
Other grants appear more obscure such as a European Union grant for £42,464 for a project entitled: "Assessing the impact of future climatic change on the water resources and the hydrology of the Rio de la Plata Basin."
Several grants, totalling more than £3 million, are made by the National Environment Research Council, a quango based in Swindon. They include research for "Exploring the potential for dendroclimatological analysis in Northern Ethiopia" which was worth £18,639.
Besides Prof Jones, many of the leading academics past and present at CRU are also named on the spreadsheet, including Prof Trevor Davies, who is now pro-vice-chancellor at UEA but who once headed up the CRU.
Professor Ross McKitrick, visiting professor of environmental economics at the University of Buckingham and an arch sceptic who was subject of some of the leaked emails, said: "Climate sceptics are always accused of taking money from industry but it is now clear the money is on the other side.
"There is a huge amount of money on the global warming side. Institutions like the CRU have a very large budget but that would disappear if global warming ceased to exist.
"Scientists are enjoying a funding gravy train; there is so much money in climate research. Lots of areas of science are short of money but not climate change."
The CRU has come under scrutiny since the emergence of the emails which have been hugely damaging to the climate change lobby ahead of the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen. It has been reported the CRU database was hacked into some time ago but the emails released to maximise the impact ahead of Copenhagen which begins tomorrow.
The CRU dismisses suggestions that data has been manipulated and points to a huge body of evidence which back up the fundamental principle that man is responsible for a rise in global temperatures which will have catastrophic consequences if unchecked.
Funding bodies are sticking by the CRU. A spokeswoman for the NERC said: "We do fund climate change research at UEA.
Whenever research grants are applied for, academics go through a very rigorous peer review system. We have every confidence in the British and international climate research being undertaken at CRU."
The CRU refused to comment on the leaked spreadsheet.
A spokesman said: "The university has made it clear that all issues arising from allegations as a result of emails stolen from the CRU and published without permission on the web will be considered by an independent review."
'Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants
The professor at the centre of the 'Climategate' affair has successfully received more than £13 million in research funding.
By Robert Mendick
Published: 8:15PM GMT 05 Dec 2009
The figure is disclosed in a leaked, internal document posted on the internet by climate change sceptics who have seized upon it as evidence of a funding "gravy train" for scientists conducting research into the area.
The grants were awarded following successful applications made by Professor Phil Jones, who headed up the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
Related Articles
- Met Office to publish global warming data
- One in two accept man-made climate change
- Thousands march in 'wave' against climate change
Prof Jones has stood aside as head of the CRU while an independent inquiry investigates thousands of emails and other documents stolen from the university's computer server and published on the internet.
Climate change sceptics point to an email written by one scientist in November 1999 as evidence of manipulation of the figures to mask falling global temperatures.
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," the email said.
In another email, the death of a leading climate change sceptic is described as "cheering news".
The emails are being used by climate change sceptics to allege that attempts were made to manipulate data to "prove" the existence of man-made climate change.
They also allegedly point to efforts to block Freedom of Information requests by sceptics. Allegations that data was altered and FOI requests blocked have been vigorously denied.
The spreadsheet listing all successful grant applications made by Professor Jones was part of the batch of leaked documents. It shows Professor Jones, along with other academics at the university, received more than 50 separate grants with a value of £13.7 million from a number of funding bodies including the European Union, Nato, and the US department of energy.
Several British bodies also gave substantial sums including the Met Office, the Environment Agency, the National Rivers Authority and the Department for the Environment.
Prof Jones' name appears alongside all the grants, which range in value from as little as £730 for work carried out on Scottish temperature indices for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to £6.6 million given by the Higher Education Funding Council for England for the establishment of the Zuckerman Institute for Connective Environmental Research at UEA, an award wining research facility which includes the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change.
According to the spreadsheet, Prof Jones's first successful grant application was made in 1991 to the Department of Environment and was worth £179,484 for 'climate change detection'.
Other grants appear more obscure such as a European Union grant for £42,464 for a project entitled: "Assessing the impact of future climatic change on the water resources and the hydrology of the Rio de la Plata Basin."
Several grants, totalling more than £3 million, are made by the National Environment Research Council, a quango based in Swindon. They include research for "Exploring the potential for dendroclimatological analysis in Northern Ethiopia" which was worth £18,639.
Besides Prof Jones, many of the leading academics past and present at CRU are also named on the spreadsheet, including Prof Trevor Davies, who is now pro-vice-chancellor at UEA but who once headed up the CRU.
Professor Ross McKitrick, visiting professor of environmental economics at the University of Buckingham and an arch sceptic who was subject of some of the leaked emails, said: "Climate sceptics are always accused of taking money from industry but it is now clear the money is on the other side.
"There is a huge amount of money on the global warming side. Institutions like the CRU have a very large budget but that would disappear if global warming ceased to exist.
"Scientists are enjoying a funding gravy train; there is so much money in climate research. Lots of areas of science are short of money but not climate change."
The CRU has come under scrutiny since the emergence of the emails which have been hugely damaging to the climate change lobby ahead of the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen. It has been reported the CRU database was hacked into some time ago but the emails released to maximise the impact ahead of Copenhagen which begins tomorrow.
The CRU dismisses suggestions that data has been manipulated and points to a huge body of evidence which back up the fundamental principle that man is responsible for a rise in global temperatures which will have catastrophic consequences if unchecked.
Funding bodies are sticking by the CRU. A spokeswoman for the NERC said: "We do fund climate change research at UEA.
Whenever research grants are applied for, academics go through a very rigorous peer review system. We have every confidence in the British and international climate research being undertaken at CRU."
The CRU refused to comment on the leaked spreadsheet.
A spokesman said: "The university has made it clear that all issues arising from allegations as a result of emails stolen from the CRU and published without permission on the web will be considered by an independent review."
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Wow. You only dispute one point in my entire post.
Josh Barro of the Tax Foundation can provide a much more lucid rebuttal than I can.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23465.html
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
= Rajendra Pachauri
Big P
Well-Known Member
foolish mortal: he was the lead scientist the UN used, u guys have no idea what backroom politics is, in involves colusion and other people wallets filling up thier wallets
you ever heard of the UN oil for food scandel????
Climate research chief Phil Jones stands down pending inquiry into leaked emails
Director denies conspiracy claims and stands by scientists' findings on global warming
- Alok Jha and agencies
- guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 1 December 2009 22.03 GMT
- Article history
The head of the climate research unit that had its emails hacked and posted online will step down from his post while an inquiry into the affair is carried out.
Messages between scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were posted on the web last week, and climate-change deniers seized on them as alleged evidence that scientists have been hiding and manipulating data to support the idea that the world is warming up.
Professor Phil Jones, the director of the CRU, said he stood by the science produced by his researchers and suggestions of a conspiracy to alter evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming were "complete rubbish". But he said today that he would stand aside as director of the unit until an independent review into the hacked emails had been completed.
"What is most important is that CRU continues its world-leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible," he said. "After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the director's role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the university for agreeing to this. The review process will have my full support."
Emails between researchers at the centre were obtained by hackers and then published on websites run by climate sceptics. Some argue that the timing, just before next week's major climate talks in Copenhagen, seems meant to undermine the negotiations.
Critics of the argument that global warming is human-induced say the emails show evidence of collusion by scientists. Some claimed that the contents of some emails suggested scientists prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007. But earlier this week, Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the IPCC, said there was "virtually no possibility" of a few climate scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN. He said that the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.
He was responding in particular to one email from 2004 in which Phil Jones said of two papers he regarded as flawed: "I can't see either being in the next [IPCC] report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Pachauri said: "People should be discreet in this day and age anything you write, even privately, could become public and to put anything down in writing is, to say the least, indiscreet It is another matter to talk about this to your friends on the telephone or person to person, but to put it down in writing was indiscreet. If someone was to say something like this in an IPCC authors' meeting then there are others who would chew him up."
Peter Liss, a specialist in interaction between the oceans and atmosphere at UEA, will stand in as acting director of the CRU while the review is conducted. The university's vice-chancellor, Edward Acton, said: "I have accepted Professor Jones's offer to stand aside during this period. It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally and the independent review can conduct its work into the allegations."
The economist Nick Stern said the views of those who doubted the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming were "muddled and unscientific". He admitted that all views should be heard, but said the degree of scepticism among "real scientists" was very small. The evidence for global warming stretches back more than 800,000 years, he said. "This is evidence that is overwhelming, from all sources, that's the kind of climate science we're talking about. I think it is very important that those with any kind of views on the science or economics have their say - that does not mean that unscientific muddle also has the right to be recognised as searing insight."
He added: "If they are muddled and confused, they do not have the right to be described as anything other than muddled and confused."
The move received a welcome from many involved in environmental non-government organisations.
One leading environmental campaigner said: "It seems like a sensible course of action finally, the CRU seem to be getting their public response in order. But any reading of the emails in context would lead to the conclusion that nothing untoward happened here at all."
i cant believe you guys would be on the side of the government lies!!!!!!!
I wouldnt trust you further than i could throw ya
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
weak
fail
Rajendra Kumar Pachauri (born August 20, 1940, Nainital, India) has served as the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity. The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations.
Shackleford.R
Well-Known Member
just when i thought i was out . . . .
"Warmers" are idiots apparently. Let's look back only about 2 or 3 decades. When we realized we had a hole in the ozone layer. Everyone freaked out, and then science said "Well aerosol spray cans and CFC's are having a serious effect on the deteriorating ozone layer." People stopped using aerosol products, corporations producing products containing CFC's began innovating new ways to have the same product without CFC's, and suddenly we don't hear about the hole in ozone layer NEARLY as much as we did 2 decades ago. Why is that? Science was right, those of intelligence, who's job it is to do research (not us dumb slack jawed idiots who read the papers and know what we know because of FOX News) discovered this fact, and pushed something into action. Suddenly the world is a slightly better place.
Moreover, even if you don't believe in global warming, or man made climate change, 99% of the ideas that are in an effort to reduce "greenhouse emissions" and improve air quality, are just generally good ideas. Stop burning coal because it produces carbon, even if you think carbon in the air is OK, coal runs out eventually. Solar power? Wind power? COMPLETELY RENEWABLE! That is of course until the sun blows up and by that point, I don't think renewable energy is the immediate concern. Electric cars, that don't fun on fossil fuels. Even if you believe car emissions/exhaust fumes aren't having an effect on climate change or air quality. Fossil fuels too will run out one day. Think of all the jobs created by the move to these renewable sources. New factories, new maintenance careers, jobs that literally DID NOT EXIST prior to this renewable energy movement.
Put global warming and climate change aside, making the move to renewable energy sources are just in general a good idea. We can still be lazy fat asses, but now we can be lazy fat asses indefinitely.
(but i understand how hard it is for old grey haired losers to give up their classic muscle cars, 500 HP engines, and 8-14 MPG , oh and how difficult it must be for soccer moms and guys with small cocks to give up their Hummers and road destroying SUVs, sorry, those just don't really have a place in the future)
Shack
"Warmers" are idiots apparently. Let's look back only about 2 or 3 decades. When we realized we had a hole in the ozone layer. Everyone freaked out, and then science said "Well aerosol spray cans and CFC's are having a serious effect on the deteriorating ozone layer." People stopped using aerosol products, corporations producing products containing CFC's began innovating new ways to have the same product without CFC's, and suddenly we don't hear about the hole in ozone layer NEARLY as much as we did 2 decades ago. Why is that? Science was right, those of intelligence, who's job it is to do research (not us dumb slack jawed idiots who read the papers and know what we know because of FOX News) discovered this fact, and pushed something into action. Suddenly the world is a slightly better place.
Moreover, even if you don't believe in global warming, or man made climate change, 99% of the ideas that are in an effort to reduce "greenhouse emissions" and improve air quality, are just generally good ideas. Stop burning coal because it produces carbon, even if you think carbon in the air is OK, coal runs out eventually. Solar power? Wind power? COMPLETELY RENEWABLE! That is of course until the sun blows up and by that point, I don't think renewable energy is the immediate concern. Electric cars, that don't fun on fossil fuels. Even if you believe car emissions/exhaust fumes aren't having an effect on climate change or air quality. Fossil fuels too will run out one day. Think of all the jobs created by the move to these renewable sources. New factories, new maintenance careers, jobs that literally DID NOT EXIST prior to this renewable energy movement.
Put global warming and climate change aside, making the move to renewable energy sources are just in general a good idea. We can still be lazy fat asses, but now we can be lazy fat asses indefinitely.
(but i understand how hard it is for old grey haired losers to give up their classic muscle cars, 500 HP engines, and 8-14 MPG , oh and how difficult it must be for soccer moms and guys with small cocks to give up their Hummers and road destroying SUVs, sorry, those just don't really have a place in the future)
Shack
sir rance alot
Active Member
No one seems to realize that this debate is about three things... Politics , Religion, and Greed. The only way to get the REAL TRUTH about the subject of climate change is by getting removing these three ridiculous things from the argument.. Politicians will say and do anything to protect their seats and the money their district is awarded. Religious morons want desperatley to believe that their God would never allow mankind to have an effect on this planet. Greedy corporate fucks will pay thru the nose to get a result that increases their profits..Until you can take out the idiots who believe in talking snakes, the morons who believe that if a Corporation gets a tax break they wont pocket the money...they will use it to hire another employee(sarcastic chuckle), the dumbasses who think the wars we are in are about protecting America..not about ignorant Christians trying so hard to convert ignorant Muslims into something more capitalistic; we are never going to settle this debate. Scientist for the most part...I mean REAL scientist, are not in the game for the money, they have a genuine need to get to the truth. However, if someone stands to make a profit from the results, good or bad, then the finding will always be skewed. Get rid of the polticians who must listen to their simple minded consituency, get rid of the religious ingnorance, and fund all scientific experiments with money attained from abolishing the STUPID tax exempt status of all these Churches.. WAKE UP MORONS...SARAH PALIN IS NOT GOING TO SAVE YOU.!!!! You must save yourself.
doc111
Well-Known Member
You guys are missing the pointjust when i thought i was out . . . .
"Warmers" are idiots apparently. Let's look back only about 2 or 3 decades. When we realized we had a hole in the ozone layer. Everyone freaked out, and then science said "Well aerosol spray cans and CFC's are having a serious effect on the deteriorating ozone layer." People stopped using aerosol products, corporations producing products containing CFC's began innovating new ways to have the same product without CFC's, and suddenly we don't hear about the hole in ozone layer NEARLY as much as we did 2 decades ago. Why is that? Science was right, those of intelligence, who's job it is to do research (not us dumb slack jawed idiots who read the papers and know what we know because of FOX News) discovered this fact, and pushed something into action. Suddenly the world is a slightly better place.
Moreover, even if you don't believe in global warming, or man made climate change, 99% of the ideas that are in an effort to reduce "greenhouse emissions" and improve air quality, are just generally good ideas. Stop burning coal because it produces carbon, even if you think carbon in the air is OK, coal runs out eventually. Solar power? Wind power? COMPLETELY RENEWABLE! That is of course until the sun blows up and by that point, I don't think renewable energy is the immediate concern. Electric cars, that don't fun on fossil fuels. Even if you believe car emissions/exhaust fumes aren't having an effect on climate change or air quality. Fossil fuels too will run out one day. Think of all the jobs created by the move to these renewable sources. New factories, new maintenance careers, jobs that literally DID NOT EXIST prior to this renewable energy movement.
Put global warming and climate change aside, making the move to renewable energy sources are just in general a good idea. We can still be lazy fat asses, but now we can be lazy fat asses indefinitely.
(but i understand how hard it is for old grey haired losers to give up their classic muscle cars, 500 HP engines, and 8-14 MPG , oh and how difficult it must be for soccer moms and guys with small cocks to give up their Hummers and road destroying SUVs, sorry, those just don't really have a place in the future)
Shack
If it were about saving those poor polar bears in the Arctic (and I love polar bears) or saving us from destroying our habitat I would agree and say "Let's get this moving." It's not about saving anybody or anything. It's all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The powers that be don't give a squirt of piss about saving us or our precious environment. They care only about coming up with new ways to tax you and I. Enslave us, keep us in squalor. I am older and more skilled, more educated and generally wiser. I am not earning enough to make ends meet anymore. Why is that? Because I earn less? No. It's because everything has become so expensive I simply can't afford to buy all the things my family needs anymore. And it's only going to get worse. Way worse if this cap and trade shit pases! Look at things just under the surface and often times the truth is revealed. And it ain't about saving glaciers and preventing pollution my friend.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Ignorant stereotypes aside, you make some good points. If the goal of the debate were pollution control I might go along with it. I am in favor of sustainable energy and conservation myself.just when i thought i was out . . . .
"Warmers" are idiots apparently. Let's look back only about 2 or 3 decades. When we realized we had a hole in the ozone layer. Everyone freaked out, and then science said "Well aerosol spray cans and CFC's are having a serious effect on the deteriorating ozone layer." People stopped using aerosol products, corporations producing products containing CFC's began innovating new ways to have the same product without CFC's, and suddenly we don't hear about the hole in ozone layer NEARLY as much as we did 2 decades ago. Why is that? Science was right, those of intelligence, who's job it is to do research (not us dumb slack jawed idiots who read the papers and know what we know because of FOX News) discovered this fact, and pushed something into action. Suddenly the world is a slightly better place.
Moreover, even if you don't believe in global warming, or man made climate change, 99% of the ideas that are in an effort to reduce "greenhouse emissions" and improve air quality, are just generally good ideas. Stop burning coal because it produces carbon, even if you think carbon in the air is OK, coal runs out eventually. Solar power? Wind power? COMPLETELY RENEWABLE! That is of course until the sun blows up and by that point, I don't think renewable energy is the immediate concern. Electric cars, that don't fun on fossil fuels. Even if you believe car emissions/exhaust fumes aren't having an effect on climate change or air quality. Fossil fuels too will run out one day. Think of all the jobs created by the move to these renewable sources. New factories, new maintenance careers, jobs that literally DID NOT EXIST prior to this renewable energy movement.
Put global warming and climate change aside, making the move to renewable energy sources are just in general a good idea. We can still be lazy fat asses, but now we can be lazy fat asses indefinitely.
(but i understand how hard it is for old grey haired losers to give up their classic muscle cars, 500 HP engines, and 8-14 MPG , oh and how difficult it must be for soccer moms and guys with small cocks to give up their Hummers and road destroying SUVs, sorry, those just don't really have a place in the future)
Shack
But the Man Made aspect of the debate is not about pollution it is about control. It is about wealth redistribution. It is about the Green Industrial Complex. It is about corporatism.
How arrogant are we to believe that anything we do will alter the fucking climate? The Earth has been much warmer and much colder throughout its existence. Natural history is very clear on this point.
One thing about solar and wind, both of those are unreliable and must be backed up with conventional, or nuclear, sources to prevent brown-outs.
Small scale solar and wind power are great and to be encouraged, but industrial sized projects are highly subsidized boondoggles subject to frequent breakdowns (windpower) and unreliable weather. And nuclear, forget about it in the U.S. where NIMBYism runs rampant.
And why don't we hear anything about industrial hemp from the Warmers and other environmental nut-jobs? I mean Jebus Christmas, talk about environmentally friendly! Drought resistant. No chemical pesticides required. Hemp bio-diesel, food, building materials, plastics, cloth, paper, and stock feed. All from one little plant.
Industrial hemp has the potential to save small scale agriculture in this country and revitalize our economy. Then again, this might make Americans less dependent on government. Nevermind.