Global warming

[JohnnySic]

Yes.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EuR3lP3XUAAugv0?format=jpg&name=medium

[Chick Stern]

Global climate change is supported by mountains of evidence. From ice cores in Antarctica, record cold spikes, more frequent hurricanes/tsunamis, record heat spikes, giant fires everywhere.

https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins/status/1140772720508047360

ps-not a political topic

[fsvr54]

Global climate change has been happening since there's been a globe. Humans don't affect it. Now pollution... that's a different discussion.

[oldtimer28]

Global climate change has been happening since there's been a globe. Humans don't affect it. Now pollution... that's a different discussion.


This is always my point in these debates.

Climate change is obvious. The cause of climate change is not.

I tried to find impartial for/against on the topic but can't. So many agendas and vested interests.

Any suggestions?

[scuzzy]

Earth is round


https://i.postimg.cc/zXZDb5S9/Dz0KE.jpg


Yes.

[Stanley Kobrick]

Big Science is lying to us, just like Big Election Machines lied to us and Big Morgues with their covid hoopla

[SATAN]

Some of the dumbest people on Earth post on this forum.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/image.php?u=576&dateline=1568133118

[JohnnySic]

Btw, how are those wind turbines doing? Oh right, they're frozen and we've got blackouts up the wazoo. And some guy in Texas who owns a Tesla is kicking mad right now.

LOL @ the pro-green energy crowd.

PS - global warming is a farce.

[SATAN]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/image.php?u=576&dateline=1568133118

[Axe]

Global warming was a compelling factor to get trump rigged

[Stanley Kobrick]

Btw, how are those wind turbines doing? Oh right, they're frozen and we've got blackouts up the wazoo. And some guy in Texas who owns a Tesla is kicking mad right now.

LOL @ the pro-green energy crowd.

PS - global warming is a farce.
renewable energy is another front to get Elon Musk elected. imagine actually having sonar panels, some guy in Texas is kicking himself on cloudy days

[Rocket]

I am old enough to remember the coming ice age they said was coming back in the 70's. Then when the climate started to warm the same idiots pushing the ice age rebranded and started talking about global warming. Then when their stupid warming predictions did not happen they rebranded again to just "climate change". Regardless what hysteria they are predicting the answer they push is always socialism. Anyone who does not see this for the 100% politcal movement that it is, well I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

[Chick Stern]

LOL @ the pro-green energy crowd.

PS - global warming is a farce.
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/da/dac35ff22ed3b84af19ee74042467a5a5cd6d945ac4b04865a 3a8440915fde82.jpg

[Cleverness]

This is always my point in these debates.

Climate change is obvious. The cause of climate change is not.

I tried to find impartial for/against on the topic but can't. So many agendas and vested interests.

Any suggestions?

Yeah, and yeah I got a suggestion

No lockdowns
No school closures
No business closures
No multi-trillion dollar handouts to special interests
No travel bans
No bullshit

[Axe]

Yeah, and yeah I got a suggestion

No lockdowns
No school closures
No business closures
No multi-trillion dollar handouts to special interests
No travel bans
No bullshit
And no vaccinations too

[Loco 50]

Yes.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EuR3lP3XUAAugv0?format=jpg&name=medium

You're a simple fellow so I'll keep this short.

Climate is not equivalent to weather.

The carbon cycle is thrown out of alignment with increased manmade carbon emissions that leads to increased temperatures over a large span of time, aka. climate

and wind turbines can divert some of the energy in the form of heat in future builds. Products generally need a few trial and errors before they reach the finished efficient model.

Not complex concepts overall. For the average Inside Hoopa these days, howeva.

We family.:cry:

[Loco 50]

Earth is round


https://i.postimg.cc/zXZDb5S9/Dz0KE.jpg


Yes.

:applause::banana::applause:

[Axe]

:applause::banana::applause:
:cheers:

[FultzNationRISE]

You're a simple fellow so I'll keep this short.

Climate is not equivalent to weather.

The carbon cycle is thrown out of alignment with increased manmade carbon emissions that leads to increased temperatures over a large span of time, aka. climate

and wind turbines can divert some of the energy in the form of heat in future builds. Products generally need a few trial and errors before they reach the finished efficient model.

Not complex concepts overall. For the average Inside Hoopa these days, howeva.

We family.:cry:


We were told before in an Academy Award Winning documentary that Miami would end up underwater in 2013 if significant action wasnt taken (which it wasnt.)

Nothing of the sort is even remotely close to being the case a decade later. And that documentary was ostensibly based on scientific analysis of the carbon cycle and so on.

So I guess my question is, and knowing you Im sure Ill get a dodge or a deflection, but how do you know exactly how alarmed to be? If the scientists whose research Al Gore promulgated either lied to us or calculated completely incorrectly.. what significant improvements in The Science™️ can you point to that correspond to your current level of alarm?

Like, the amount of alarm you effuse, which seems mostly like an effort to sound hip, progressive, woke etc (again Im preconceiving bc I know you as a poster)... what specific predictions is that based on? And what is your confidence in those predictions based on?

Your views seem arbitrary, and unsurprisingly tend to correspond with what Progressive Media Heroes tell you is the “in” consensus among the enlightened.

I guess my point is... as usual, you come off as more of a poser than an honest investigator .

[Loco 50]

This is always my point in these debates.

Climate change is obvious. The cause of climate change is not.

I tried to find impartial for/against on the topic but can't. So many agendas and vested interests.

Any suggestions?
Read up on the carbon cycle. Carbon leads to increased temps. Pollution increases environmental carbon. Meat production increases environmental carbon.

Deforestaton increases environmental carbon and loses a natural carbon sink because trees are a carbon sink so are protective factors.

Oceans absorb carbon and are also protective factors. They can only absorb so much before they are saturated. Saturation leads to acidification leads to carbon escaping into evironment and loss of protective buffer.

We lose our forest and ocean buffers without creating another, life changes as we know it. 1st year bio and chem stuff. Needs to be taught better in high school.

[FultzNationRISE]

Read up on the carbon cycle. Carbon leads to increased temps. Pollution increases environmental carbon. Meat production increases environmental carbon.

Deforestaton increases environmental carbon and loses a natural carbon sink because trees are a carbon sink so are protective factors.

Oceans absorb carbon and are also protective factors. They can only absorb so much before they are saturated. Saturation leads to acidification leads to carbon escaping into evironment and loss of protective buffer.

We lose our forest and ocean buffers without creating another, life changes as we know it. 1st year bio and chem stuff. Needs to be taught better in high school.


I believe environmentalism is generally seen as a non controversial, universally favorable issue, no? How much we all get off our asses and do about it, is another matter. But we all mostly agree it’s a good thing.

There are many good reasons to preserve the oceans and forests. You could easily declare such virtues without controversy. Why zero in on a controversial and unprovable (in terms of severity and timeline) aspect of an otherwise unifying issue?

The answer is because youve been drilled to do it that way, and you want the satisfaction of being on the right side of such a public division. Youve been conditioned to see it that way by ruthless billionaires who have invested HEAVILY in this controversy.

The question is what is THEIR endgame? Because Im sure it isnt kumbaya equality.

But you are their unwitting pawn. And your reward is a temporary relief from your intrinsic insecurity. “I stuck it to the climate deniers! Just the way popular opinion said I should. Orange Man BAD! Me smart and GOOD!”


Good for you.

[Loco 50]

We were told before in an Academy Award Winning documentary that Miami would end up underwater in 2013 if significant action wasnt taken (which it wasnt.)

Nothing of the sort is even remotely close to being the case a decade later. And that documentary was ostensibly based on scientific analysis of the carbon cycle and so on.

So I guess my question is, and knowing you Im sure Ill get a dodge or a deflection, but how do you know exactly how alarmed to be? If the scientists whose research Al Gore promulgated either lied to us or calculated completely incorrectly.. what significant improvements in The Science™️ can you point to that correspond to your current level of alarm?

Like, the amount of alarm you effuse, which seems mostly like an effort to sound hip, progressive, woke etc (again Im preconceiving bc I know you as a poster)... what specific predictions is that based on? And what is your confidence in those predictions based on?

Your views seem arbitrary, and unsurprisingly tend to correspond with what Progressive Media Heroes tell you is the “in” consensus among the enlightened.

I guess my point is... as usual, you come off as more of a poser than an honest investigator .
I've never once deflected from any of your poorly constructed arguments. You most often either disappeared or were unable to comprehend the conversation so it became pointless to continue on.

A. Don't give a shit about some Al Gore doc. 1st straw man.
B. Never stated what my level of "alarm" was. Your 2nd straw man.
C. Don't give a shit about how to quantify how alarmed to be. 3rd straw man

The point, short and sweet, because Ive gone around in illogical circles with you repeatedly.

Reduce carbon emissions, increase carbon buffer capacity which decreases rate of climate increase. Rate son, rate, not overall climate increase, but rate of climate increase. I emphasize that because I know it will be a point of confusion for you.

There are many economically viable solutions geared towards decreasing carbon emissions. Increased efficiency equals increased profit and decreased waste/pollution long-term (1st year economics and chemistry), and for the intrepid entrepreneurs that aspire towards greater things than razor blades......carbon capturing technology is rife for exploration in addition to supplementing reforestation programs are solutions towards improving our situation.

You keep searching for a stupid, quick fix for problems that have manifested over a large span of time. Think harder and more critically instead of your usual inane, lazy surface-level political rhetoric.

Who haven't you called a poser? The man who desired to be an actor calling others posers. How beautifully ironic.:oldlol:

[Loco 50]

I believe environmentalism is generally seen as a non controversial, universally favorable issue, no? How much we all get off our asses and do about it, is another matter. But we all mostly agree it’s a good thing.

There are many good reasons to preserve the oceans and forests. You could easily declare such virtues without controversy. Why zero in on a controversial and unprovable (in terms of severity and timeline) aspect of an otherwise unifying issue?

The answer is because youve been drilled to do it that way, and you want the satisfaction of being on the right side of such a public division. Youve been conditioned to see it that way by ruthless billionaires who have invested HEAVILY in this controversy.

The question is what is THEIR endgame? Because Im sure it isnt kumbaya equality.

But you are their unwitting pawn. And your reward is a temporary relief from your intrinsic insecurity. “I stuck it to the climate deniers! Just the way popular opinion said I should. Orange Man BAD! Me smart and GOOD!”


Good for you.

I've been condtioned by ruthless billionaires? :lol

Bruh, you just applauded Trump for giving tax breaks to those very same billionaires while concurrently running up the deficit to unprecedented levels all while crying about how we can't afford any programs that actually are geared towards a better public health.

Hush now, sucker.

[FultzNationRISE]

I've never once deflected from any of your poorly constructed arguments. You most often either disappeared or were unable to comprehend the conversation so it became pointless to continue on.

A. Don't give a shit about some Al Gore doc. 1st straw man.
B. Never stated what my level of "alarm" was. Your 2nd straw man.
C. Don't give a shit about how to quantify how alarmed to be. 3rd straw man

The point, short and sweet, because Ive gone around in illogical circles with you repeatedly.

Reduce carbon emissions, increase carbon buffer capacity which decreases rate of climate increase. Rate son, rate, not overall climate increase, but rate of climate increase. I emphasize that because I know it will be a point of confusion for you.

There are many economically viable solutions geared towards decreasing carbon emissions. Increased efficiency equals increased profit and decreased waste/pollution long-term (1st year economics and chemistry), and for the intrepid entrepreneurs that aspire towards greater things than razor blades......carbon capturing technology is rife for exploration in addition to supplementing reforestation programs are solutions towards improving our situation.

You keep searching for a stupid, quick fix for problems that have manifested over a large span of time. Think harder and more critically instead of your usual inane, lazy surface-level political rhetoric.

Who haven't you called a poser? The man who desired to be an actor calling others posers. How beautifully ironic.:oldlol:


First time it happened I asked you, quite civilly, if there was a single issue you disagreed on politically with Beta Orourke (to demonstrate the independence of your viewpoints) and you muttered how you dont have to prove it and left the thread in a huff. You seemed to have disappeared for a while after Beta endorsed Sleepy Joe instead of Camrade Bernie. Guess you finally told yourself it's fine you got conned be Beta, because you still got that Orange Man out!

Anyway why not just champion the virtues of voluntary conversion to sustainable methods? I look forward to driving an electric solar powered car and so on. What I don't need is a lecture from politicians about how I must change in the fashion of their choosing, on their own self-interested, donor-invested timeline. And I don't need gullible minions like you buying into their rhetorical Ponzi Scheme of alarmsim, so that you can feel like you mattered somehow by telling kblaze he's usually a really smart black guy, but he doesn't understand the climate sciencing the way you do and he needs to get educated so he can agree with you ASAP.

You're always the progressive shill, thinking it's giving you some kind of cover of identity. I guess you can't see it, but from the outside your thought never appears to be very original.

[FultzNationRISE]

I've been condtioned by ruthless billionaires? :lol

Bruh, you just applauded Trump for giving tax breaks to those very same billionaires while concurrently running up the deficit to unprecedented levels all while crying about how we can't afford any programs that actually are geared towards a better public health.

Hush now, sucker.

YOUR assertions are either categorically false and can be dispelled, or explained consistently within my overall viewpoints (below). The same cannot be said of my assertions of you, which you have never rebuffed rationally.


I applaud tax breaks because as a principle I believe in low taxes and more freedom. Many (nobel prize winning) economists agree.

I roundly condemned an increase of the deficit. Trump caved to the establishment on that, simple and plain. Show me where I've said otherwise.

Programs geared toward "better public health" are a massive waste in a country full of individuals not geared toward caring about their own health in the first place. Government programs have a long history (see: all of history) of failing far more than they succeed.

But you gotta be woke!

Because what else is there to you?

[warriorfan]

Loco 50iq

[FultzNationRISE]

Loco 50iq


Ehh, fair enough.

It's a generous estimate. But I think he'll take that, and I'm willing to compromise.

[FultzNationRISE]

https://hhp-blog.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/01/Doctor_promoting_cigarettes_ad.jpg
http://www.gnldu.com/GNLDUpvp/images/Slide13_jpg.jpg
https://www.easternct.edu/news/_images/2020/11/tuskegee-slide-1-900x600.jpg


Loco just never learns the lessons of history. He stills trusts government motives, as long as they couch it in something 'enlightened and progressive' (to his pea brain, anyway) even when they're backed by Soros, Schwab, and the entire Davos cadre.

Guys we have to spend gajillions of tax dollars on companies headed by these guys to do a Great Reset to stop the Global Warming!!!!!! If the government says it's science, I have to agree so I can prove I like science and ppl will think Im a smart!!!!!

[warriorfan]

https://hhp-blog.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/01/Doctor_promoting_cigarettes_ad.jpg
http://www.gnldu.com/GNLDUpvp/images/Slide13_jpg.jpg
https://www.easternct.edu/news/_images/2020/11/tuskegee-slide-1-900x600.jpg


Loco just never learns the lessons of history. He stills trusts government motives, as long as they couch it in something 'enlightened and progressive' (to his pea brain, anyway) even when they're backed by Soros, Schwab, and the entire Davos cadre.

Guys we have to spend gajillions of tax dollars on companies headed by these guys to do a Great Reset to stop the Global Warming!!!!!!

:roll:

Incoming smug post that doesn’t address anything under the guise that he is just too damn smart for anyone else to comprehend his supposed explanations.

[FultzNationRISE]

:roll:

Incoming smug post that doesn’t address anything under the guise that he is just too damn smart for anyone else to comprehend his supposed explanations.

I mean, just when I'm trying to stick to a retirement plan... one of the lowest IQ poster on Insidehoops comes back and starts making his trademark TERRIBLE political arguments, putting all my plans into shambles.

Friggin Murphy's Law, man...

[warriorfan]

I mean, just when I'm trying to stick to a retirement plan... one of the lowest IQ poster on Insidehoops comes back and starts making his trademark TERRIBLE political arguments, putting all my plans into shambles.

Friggin Murphy's Law, man...

https://media2.giphy.com/media/B3nATT4FPkb3G/200.gif

[FultzNationRISE]

https://media2.giphy.com/media/B3nATT4FPkb3G/200.gif

Exactly :lol

[Loco 50]

First time it happened I asked you, quite civilly, if there was a single issue you disagreed on politically with Beta Orourke (to demonstrate the independence of your viewpoints) and you muttered how you dont have to prove it and left the thread in a huff. You seemed to have disappeared for a while after Beta endorsed Sleepy Joe instead of Camrade Bernie. Guess you finally told yourself it's fine you got conned be Beta, because you still got that Orange Man out!

Anyway why not just champion the virtues of voluntary conversion to sustainable methods? I look forward to driving an electric solar powered car and so on. What I don't need is a lecture from politicians about how I must change in the fashion of their choosing, on their own self-interested, donor-invested timeline. And I don't need gullible minions like you buying into their rhetorical Ponzi Scheme of alarmsim, so that you can feel like you mattered somehow by telling kblaze he's usually a really smart black guy, but he doesn't understand the climate sciencing the way you do and he needs to get educated so he can agree with you ASAP.

You're always the progressive shill, thinking it's giving you some kind of cover of identity. I guess you can't see it, but from the outside your thought never appears to be very original.
You're being dishonest again. I responded to you that I disagreed with Beto on several issues; the death penalty and his willingness to cozy up to corporate overlords just two. Beto's a politician. Needless to say I was disappointed. I felt he took a cowardly approach in endorsing the candidate that he felt would lead to the most success for him. I'm not a borderline personality sufferer so me disagreeing with him on some issues doesn't make him all of a sudden public enemy no 1 in my mind. Beto has no blood in the game. Similar to Biden and the rest of the establishment dems and every single Republican. Anybody that pays any attention understands that the money has to be taken out of politics and that starts with Citizen's United.

Why do you create these fictions? It's not just me you do it with, it's other ISHers as well. You create a strawman that you think you can burn down, light it up, then gloat gleefully at your imagined victory. I wonder, is it purposeful? Or is it all psychological delusion? Regardless of why you do it, it doesn't make for productive conversation, let alone a remotely enjoyable one.

We can't "just champion the virtues of voluntary conversion to sustainable methods" because man's greed is insaturable. Let's say a corp/oligarch finally gets his fill. That void will filled by another and the endless greed just continues on to the detriment of the rest of us. This is the end result of unregulated capitalism. Profit over anything else. Environment, public health, mental health everything else can hang. Gotta squeeze that last buck while they're still alive. It's essentially an uncontrolled hording psych illness.

Why do you continue to vote for policy that has increased the economic divide to it's current status? Why do you vote for policy that actively harms you and passively harms you by harming your fellow Americans. Guess what? If your neighbors are sick/angry it's only a matter of time before that spills over to you. I'm afraid you're too far gone to understand though.

It really stings you when I compliment other intelligent folk here. I'll have to do it more often.:oldlol:

Unfortunately, this place has continued to become a more extreme, hate-filled, circle wank fest. It's humorless and frankly disturbing how this place has changed. Between that and the obvious trolls like Manny running around acting like complete tards and my Spurs current lackluster state I've lost almost all interest in visiting here. I weep for the days of Ev08's quod season, Mexican Rondo, Yinka Dare's highlight films, TMacsOneGoodEye avatar, KnoeItall and Loki smacking the Kobetards and GOBB's arguments with the entire board. I suppose I pop in the futile hopes for a glimpse of that humor.

We family, son. In all seriousness, you shouldn't get so agitated over things you've got no control over. It'll be the end of you someday.

[Loco 50]

Loco 50iq

I can't recall you ever having an interesting post in your entire existence here. :(

[Loco 50]

Loco just never learns the lessons of history. He stills trusts government motives, as long as they couch it in something 'enlightened and progressive' (to his pea brain, anyway) even when they're backed by Soros, Schwab, and the entire Davos cadre.

Guys we have to spend gajillions of tax dollars on companies headed by these guys to do a Great Reset to stop the Global Warming!!!!!! If the government says it's science, I have to agree so I can prove I like science and ppl will think Im a smart!!!!!

:oldlol:I didn't know you were one of those guys that shouted Soros at everything too. :roll:

The last rebuttal you're getting from me tonight. Yes, atrocities happen, yes bribery/corruption/shilling happen, but that doesn't mean that every issue is touched by them to the same degree to the point that we sit on our hands and do nothing.

But please, continue to attack spending on actual achievements and beneficial societal programs while backing a dude that paid his friends 15 billion to rebuild some fence along the border and cut his other friends some tax breaks.

Hey Okra, 'member that time you argued against the laws of physics and said space exploration was a waste of money? :roll:I member.

You're in over your head with anyone with any sort of education.

[warriorfan]

I can't recall you ever having an interesting post in your entire existence here. :(

Thanks for delivering on my prediction.

:cheers:

[FultzNationRISE]

Unfortunately, this place has continued to become a more extreme, hate-filled, circle wank fest. It's humorless and frankly disturbing how this place has changed. Between that and the obvious trolls like Manny running around acting like complete tards and my Spurs current lackluster state I've lost almost all interest in visiting here. I weep for the days of Ev08's quod season, Mexican Rondo, Yinka Dare's highlight films, TMacsOneGoodEye avatar, KnoeItall and Loki smacking the Kobetards and GOBB's arguments with the entire board. I suppose I pop in the futile hopes for a glimpse of that humor.

We family, son. In all seriousness, you shouldn't get so agitated over things you've got no control over. It'll be the end of you someday.


:biggums:

Join date: Dec 2017

[Axe]

I can't recall you ever having an interesting post in your entire existence here. :(
Just another lonely monday night for the welfarefan. :ohwell:

[Loco 50]

Just another lonely monday night for the welfarefan. :ohwell:

Why's he so bitter, though?:( Makes me sad.

[FultzNationRISE]

We can't "just champion the virtues of voluntary conversion to sustainable methods" because man's greed is insaturable.

And man's inequality is inescapable. For instance people not smart enough to make their own choices and who get constantly suckered by the schemes of the greedy, in EITHER the private or public sectors. You really think there will be an inherent difference from one method to another??

Socialist Heaven might seem great to you, because you'll benefit from the work and talents of others more than they'll benefit from yours. This is obviously of no concern for you, but you seem incapable of empathizing with people whose natural gifts and very autonomy will be either snuffed or usurped at the whims of a mob of peabrains, led by a few charlatans.

Why don't you write out a check to a hundred homeless people right now, until you have just enough money left to live on? Why not let a hundred homeless people go and spend your money in whatever way they want? Whether it's a couple months at a hotel, or a shopping cart full of booze, or... anything in between? Why are you making such demands of others when you're unwilling to make such commitments yourself?

You want to benefit from everyone above you, but don't feel equally obligated to those beneath you. "Nah, well, the people above me should have to pay for them, too. The cut off is like, more richer than I am. I dont care if a homeless person thinks I'm stupid wealthy. The cut off isn't where I am, it has to be who I say it is, because that works best for me."

People with more respect for themselves dont have this mentality, and I think that's what you dont realize. Freedom and independence don't have equal implications for everyone. A dog doesn't want freedom. It's fine being fed, and walked, and kept. Most won't run away if you let them. But other animals don't want to be kept. You can't seem to relate to other humans who dont want to be tied to you for the benefit of primarily you.

And granted, it could be argued we cant relate to you. There's an inevitable difference in ability and mentality. However, your solution is to devolve the capable, and my solution is to evolve the incapable.

And only one of those things is proven to work in nature.

So...

[Loco 50]

And man's inequality is inescapable. For instance people not smart enough to make their own choices and who get constantly suckered by the schemes of the greedy, in EITHER the private or public sectors. You really think there will be an inherent difference from one method to another??

Socialist Heaven might seem great to you, because you'll benefit from the work and talents of others more than they'll benefit from yours. This is obviously of no concern for you, but you seem incapable of empathizing with people whose natural gifts and very autonomy will be either snuffed or usurped at the whims of a mob of peabrains, led by a few charlatans.

Why don't you write out a check to a hundred homeless people right now, until you have just enough money left to live on? Why not let a hundred homeless people go and spend your money in whatever way they want? Whether it's a couple months at a hotel, or a shopping cart full of booze, or... anything in between? Why are you making such demands of others when you're unwilling to make such commitments yourself?

You want to benefit from everyone above you, but don't feel equally obligated to those beneath you. "Nah, well, the people above me should have to pay for them, too. The cut off is like, more richer than I am. I dont care if a homeless person thinks I'm stupid wealthy. The cut off isn't where I am, it has to be who I say it is, because that works best for me."

People with more respect for themselves dont have this mentality, and I think that's what you dont realize. Freedom and independence don't have equal implications for everyone. A dog doesn't want freedom. It's fine being fed, and walked, and kept. Most won't run away if you let them. But other animals don't want to be kept. You can't seem to relate to other humans who dont want to be tied to you for the benefit of primarily you.

And granted, it could be argued we cant relate to you. There's an inevitable difference in ability and mentality. However, your solution is to devolve the capable, and my solution is to evolve the incapable.

And only one of those things is proven to work in nature.

So...

:mad:

[oldtimer28]

Read up on the carbon cycle. Carbon leads to increased temps. Pollution increases environmental carbon. Meat production increases environmental carbon.

Deforestaton increases environmental carbon and loses a natural carbon sink because trees are a carbon sink so are protective factors.

Oceans absorb carbon and are also protective factors. They can only absorb so much before they are saturated. Saturation leads to acidification leads to carbon escaping into evironment and loss of protective buffer.

We lose our forest and ocean buffers without creating another, life changes as we know it. 1st year bio and chem stuff. Needs to be taught better in high school.

Ummm. I have a science degree. Again, see my post and contribute if you can.

Causation.

Say the carbon link is enough, human activity is not the only contributor. Plus how do we know clean energy change can reverse/improve climate at a sufficient scale?

We can't but happy to hear arguments for and against, not political views pushed. Thanks

[Stanley Kobrick]

You're a simple fellow so I'll keep this short.

Climate is not equivalent to weather.

The carbon cycle is thrown out of alignment with increased manmade carbon emissions that leads to increased temperatures over a large span of time, aka. climate

and wind turbines can divert some of the energy in the form of heat in future builds. Products generally need a few trial and errors before they reach the finished efficient model.

Not complex concepts overall. For the average Inside Hoopa these days, howeva.

We family.:cry:
very interesting. i appreciate your educated and informative replies always.

[Stanley Kobrick]

Just another lonely monday night for the welfarefan. :ohwell:
:(

[Loco 50]

Ummm. I have a science degree. Again, see my post and contribute if you can.

Thanks, this is helpful to know.


Causation.

Say the carbon link is enough, human activity is not the only contributor. Plus how do we know clean energy change can reverse/improve climate at a sufficient scale?

Agreed that human activity is not the only contributor and that there is much yet to discover. Do we agree that carbon is a significant accelerant to factor in? Not the only one, but a significant one that is a known variable. Because if not, then this discussion is dead in the water.

Clean energy won't reverse anything. Merely slow it down. We need carbon sinks to store the carbon in a solid state giving the ozone time to repair itself. Agreed? My opinion, we need to invest heavily in carbon capturing tech. I'm biased towards a biological approach. There are species of algae that folks have been developing towards this goal. It'd then be ideal if that algae could be farmed and utilized by existing animal farms as either fertilizer or feed.

Alternatively, bacteria are able to feed and store carbon, but I feel that tech is further out.

I believe it's important and relatively simple to convert the carbon emissions from the problematic free gas compounds to solid biological sinks.

I've also read that basalt rocks, when crushed will readily absorb free carbon and can then be used as fertilizer.

None of this will be known to be "sufficient" until we've got some experiments up and running.


We can't but happy to hear arguments for and against, not political views pushed. Thanks
Nothing is certain. We're obviously still in experimentation phase, but wouldn't it be better to start tinkering now and observing the results especially when there are possibilities in a net positive economic impact on top of the desired environmental one?

I'm not interested in the political aspects either.

[Nanners]

Green house gasses do influence the climate (on paper at least), and someday in the distant future these gasses might pose a serious threat to humanity... but virtually every single law or regulation that would supposedly address climate change has zero to do with the environment and everything to do with the agendas of the most wealthy/powerful interests on this planet.

Also, environmental health consists of more than just global temperature. Due to the obsession with climate science, little attention is being paid to other critical environmental issues like microplastics, heavy metal exposure, PFOS/PFOA, pesticides/herbicides, etc...

[Loco 50]

Green house gasses do influence the climate (on paper at least), and someday in the distant future these gasses might pose a serious threat to humanity... but virtually every single law or regulation that would supposedly address climate change has zero to do with the environment and everything to do with the agendas of the most wealthy/powerful interests on this planet.

Also, environmental health consists of more than just global temperature. Due to the obsession with climate science, little attention is being paid to other critical environmental issues like microplastics, heavy metal exposure, PFOS/PFOA, pesticides/herbicides, etc...

What is your definition of distant future, Nanners? Anything less than a hundred years is significant enough to be near in my opinion.

You're an extremely cynical fella so forgive me if I'm skeptical of that second half of your first paragraph. Do you have any interesting reading on that topic? Legit stuff obviously, please.

Agreed entirely with your second paragraph, however, you're so cynical I feel your demand for radical change/perfection would thwart any progress.

[Nanners]

What is your definition of distant future, Nanners? Anything less than a hundred years is significant enough to be near in my opinion.

You're an extremely cynical fella so forgive me if I'm skeptical of that second half of your first paragraph. Do you have any interesting reading on that topic? Legit stuff obviously, please.

Agreed entirely with your second paragraph, however, you're so cynical I feel your demand for radical change/perfection would thwart any progress.

I used the term distant future intentionally because its vague and because its clear that even the so-called "experts" have no idea when climate change will actually become a serious problem. I would bet that it wont be within the lifetime of anyone posting on this board.

Anyway in case it wasnt clear, I am not demanding radical change or perfection... all I am saying is that I think its stupid that libtards like you are obsessed with the climate while ignoring all of the other important environmental problems humanity is facing.

[Loco 50]

I used the term distant future intentionally because its vague and because its clear that even the so-called "experts" have no idea when climate change will actually become a serious problem. I would bet that it wont be within the lifetime of anyone posting on this board.

Anyway in case it wasnt clear, I am not demanding radical change or perfection... all I am saying is that I think its stupid that libtards like you are obsessed with the climate while ignoring all of the other important environmental problems humanity is facing.
So, your first paragraph alludes to a steady the course and continue what we're doing cynicism and your second contradicts that. I do agree that profound changes won't hit America in our lifetime. That is insignificant in my opinion. The problem remains and festers with time.

Not a libtard. An independent. You're your usual loveable self this early morning. You're pulling a Fultard technique in arguing against a strawman however. The topic was about climate and who ever said that there are not other environmental issues on the plate?

Have a lovley morn, Nanners.

[Nanners]

You can lie to yourself about being an independent if you want... but if you want to fool me into thinking you are something you arent, youre gonna need more than an alt acct to mask the unmistakeable stench of your libtard opinions... RRR3

[Loco 50]

:facepalm Bruh.............................................. ................your anger, you guys are nuts.

[Nanners]

:oldlol:

even if I was angry (clearly I am not), it wouldnt change the fact that my posts in this thread are 100% correct about everything... including the fact that you're RRR3 posting on an alt like a bitch

[JohnnySic]

https://twitter.com/weatherchannel/status/1352228449553772553

^File under "things that didn't age well". They cant even get the weather right a month in advance, but we're supposed to buy the climate change narrative. :oldlol:

[Chick Stern]

I used the term distant future intentionally because its vague and because its clear that even the so-called "experts" have no idea when climate change will actually become a serious problem. I would bet that it wont be within the lifetime of anyone posting on this board.

Anyway in case it wasnt clear, I am not demanding radical change or perfection... all I am saying is that I think its stupid that libtards like you are obsessed with the climate while ignoring all of the other important environmental problems humanity is facing.
You use of the term “libtard” shows that you are unable to have an independent thought.
and climate change is a serious problem now, as in this moment. To believe otherwise is innane.

[Nanners]

You use of the term “libtard” shows that you are unable to have an independent thought.
and climate change is a serious problem now, as in this moment. To believe otherwise is innane.

:oldlol:

you should go back to posting on your original account RRR3. posting on alts shows that you are unable to have an independent thought (it also shows that you're a ******)

[BigKobeFan]

:oldlol:

you should go back to posting on your original account RRR3. posting on alts shows that you are unable to have an independent thought (it also shows that you're a ******)

Retard3 with another new account?

[FKAri]

It's happening and human activity plays a significant role but how severe it is and how immediate action needs to be taken isn't very clear from what I understand. At least the evidence isn't strong enough to warrant multi billion dollar decisions.


Green house gasses do influence the climate (on paper at least), and someday in the distant future these gasses might pose a serious threat to humanity... but virtually every single law or regulation that would supposedly address climate change has zero to do with the environment and everything to do with the agendas of the most wealthy/powerful interests on this planet.

Also, environmental health consists of more than just global temperature. Due to the obsession with climate science, little attention is being paid to other critical environmental issues like microplastics, heavy metal exposure, PFOS/PFOA, pesticides/herbicides, etc...
The wealthy and powerful have more to gain from denying it than advocating for it. Old money and ancient establishment have a stranglehold on traditional energy. Why would they want to relinquish their hold? Though if the US is going to take a hit to pivot its economy so should China and other global powers.

[Nanners]

It's happening and human activity plays a significant role but how severe it is and how immediate action needs to be taken isn't very clear from what I understand. At least the evidence isn't strong enough to warrant multi billion dollar decisions.


The wealthy and powerful have more to gain from denying it than advocating for it. Old money and ancient establishment have a stranglehold on traditional energy. Why would they want to relinquish their hold? Though if the US is going to take a hit to pivot its economy so should China and other global powers.

The wealthy and powerful arent relinquishing jack shit... Bill Gates is still going to be flying on a private jet long after he forces all of us sheeple to eat bugs in the name of the environment. If anything, climate rules just increase the stranglehold of the elites.

Rules like Paris Climate or the upcoming ban on combustion vehicles are primarily designed to increase the costs of energy/resources for the middle class while limiting freedom and choices...

[bladefd]

So many processes are interconnected. The more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, the more energy gets trapped from escaping our atmosphere. The more energy gets trapped, the warmer the land/oceans/etc get as they absorb the excess heat. The warmer it gets, the more evaporation you get (ice caps/glaciers melt more too so water level rises too). The more evaporation you get, the more precipitation you get. More precipitation means more and stronger hurricanes/typhoons. More hurricanes means more destruction of people/infrastructure/forests/wildlife/etc.

^ All of those things are positive amplifications, making matters worse for us as time passes. Some of them also help contribute to forest fires, deforestation and desertification, which further amplifies climate change/global warming.

We humans are mostly responsible for the excess greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere (most but obviously not all). It's mainly two gases causing misery due to the extreme amounts.. CO2 from coal/oil/gas and methane from excess animal breeding (cattle) for our consumption. Other lesser amounts include NO2 from agriculture waste and other fluorides.

Fewer ice caps/glacier coverage also means there is less sunlight being reflected back into space, which means more energy gets absorbed into the land/water rather than reflected back into space (look up 'albedo effect')... This is yet more positive amplification.

As far as the point of return goes, we will never truly know. No climate scientist or computer prediction model can tell you "Year x is the point of no-return" with 100% certainty. It could be 2020 or 2220. It will also never end the Earth. Having said that, it still does not disprove any of the facts posted above, and it certainly does not disprove climate change/global warming/whatever synonym you want to use. It also does not dispute the fact that we need to focus on expanding clean renewable energy (and nuclear energy).. We must resist coal, oil and natural gas. Coal should have been gone this decade.

Technology won't bring back extinct animals (yes, I know about Jurassic Park but you cannot bring back pure breeds - only hybrids afaik and you can't know about unintended consequences like in Jurassic Park) and won't bring back ancient forests/rain-forests we are burning down. Technology alone isn't the answer but technology + behavior shift together.

Behavior change examples:
-We need to eat much less meat and breed less farm animals for our consumption. They take up too much land for grazing and release too much methane.
-We need to get population growth under control.
-Stop overfishing. Eat less fish. We need more plant-based diet with some meat/fish than vice versa.
-Switch to biodegradable plastic across the board. No plastic bags and no plastic water bottles.
-Retraining for those doing jobs in coal, oil, and eventually natural gas sectors into solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, etc. Transition faster to clean energy.
-Some carbon capture technology usage to take some carbon out of the atmosphere back into storage/solid state.
-Plant trees for every you chop down. Make it rewarding by lowering taxes for companies to plant new tree for every they chop down.
etcetc

[FKAri]

The wealthy and powerful arent relinquishing jack shit... Bill Gates is still going to be flying on a private jet long after he forces all of us sheeple to eat bugs in the name of the environment. If anything, climate rules just increase the stranglehold of the elites.

Rules like Paris Climate or the upcoming ban on combustion vehicles are primarily designed to increase the costs of energy/resources for the middle class while limiting freedom and choices...
Well to a Libertarian anything and everything is a limitation of freedom or a slippery slope to socialism. An obvious red herring since we both know climate policies don't hurt Joe Average as much as established businesses which can't afford to pivot like startups. Startups which overwhelmingly consist of middle class entreprenusers. The pollution regulations in the 60s tells the whole story on how this plays out. Just don't read a book published by Exxon Mobil about it.

And hating on Bill Gates? How low can you get? The man's a goddamn American hero(monopoly attempts notwithstanding). Meanwhile the old farts sitting on generational wealth, land ownership and the banking racket actually control the country. But their wealth is obfuscated and not privy to the researchers making the Forbes lists so they clearly don't exist.

[FKAri]

So many processes are interconnected. The more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, the more energy gets trapped from escaping our atmosphere. The more energy gets trapped, the warmer the land/oceans/etc get as they absorb the excess heat. The warmer it gets, the more evaporation you get (ice caps/glaciers melt more too so water level rises too). The more evaporation you get, the more precipitation you get. More precipitation means more and stronger hurricanes/typhoons. More hurricanes means more destruction of people/infrastructure/forests/wildlife/etc.

^ All of those things are positive amplifications, making matters worse for us as time passes. Some of them also help contribute to forest fires, deforestation and desertification, which further amplifies climate change/global warming.

We humans are mostly responsible for the excess greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere (most but obviously not all). It's mainly two gases causing misery due to the extreme amounts.. CO2 from coal/oil/gas and methane from excess animal breeding (cattle) for our consumption. Other lesser amounts include NO2 from agriculture waste and other fluorides.

Fewer ice caps/glacier coverage also means there is less sunlight being reflected back into space, which means more energy gets absorbed into the land/water rather than reflected back into space (look up 'albedo effect')... This is yet more positive amplification.

As far as the point of return goes, we will never truly know. No climate scientist or computer prediction model can tell you "Year x is the point of no-return" with 100% certainty. It could be 2020 or 2220. It will also never end the Earth. Having said that, it still does not disprove any of the facts posted above, and it certainly does not disprove climate change/global warming/whatever synonym you want to use. It also does not dispute the fact that we need to focus on expanding clean renewable energy (and nuclear energy).. We must resist coal, oil and natural gas. Coal should have been gone this decade.

Technology won't bring back extinct animals (yes, I know about Jurassic Park but you cannot bring back pure breeds - only hybrids afaik and you can't know about unintended consequences like in Jurassic Park) and won't bring back ancient forests/rain-forests we are burning down. Technology alone isn't the answer but technology + behavior shift together.

Behavior change examples:
-We need to eat much less meat and breed less farm animals for our consumption. They take up too much land for grazing and release too much methane.
-We need to get population growth under control.
-Stop overfishing. Eat less fish. We need more plant-based diet with some meat/fish than vice versa.
-Switch to biodegradable plastic across the board. No plastic bags and no plastic water bottles.
-Retraining for those doing jobs in coal, oil, and eventually natural gas sectors into solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, etc. Transition faster to clean energy.
-Some carbon capture technology usage to take some carbon out of the atmosphere back into storage/solid state.
-Plant trees for every you chop down. Make it rewarding by lowering taxes for companies to plant new tree for every they chop down.
etcetc

You're not saying anything new here.
The point is that the data is simply not good enough. You can't spend 10's of billions on enacting policy on unreliable data. 2020 to 2220 makes a huge difference in how a problem is tackled. No one wants to drop the relatively small amount of dough to get it done(because no one singular entity stands to gain anything from the knowledge of just how bad things are). Maybe this is capitalism and individualism's blind spot. They aren't perfect after all. I guess it was a good run.

[Nanners]

Well to a Libertarian anything and everything is a limitation of freedom or a slippery slope to socialism. An obvious red herring since we both know climate policies don't hurt Joe Average as much as established businesses which can't afford to pivot like startups. Startups which overwhelmingly consist of middle class entreprenusers. The pollution regulations in the 60s tells the whole story on how this plays out. Just don't read a book published by Exxon Mobil about it.

And hating on Bill Gates? How low can you get? The man's a goddamn American hero(monopoly attempts notwithstanding). Meanwhile the old farts sitting on generational wealth, land ownership and the banking racket actually control the country. But their wealth is obfuscated and not privy to the researchers making the Forbes lists so they clearly don't exist.

Climate policies hurt the average joe far worse than they hurt any company. Most citizens are already stretched as thin as they can be, and "pivoting" to clean energy is not really a viable option for most people/households. For an established company its easy to pay a premium for green electricity, or to pay a premium for a green supply chain, or to spend .01% of revenue buying climate credit offsets... meanwhile for small businesses and individuals, these extra costs can be the difference between prosperity and ruin.

I'll stop hating on Bill Gates when he stops going on mainstream media and yammering about all the ways society needs to change in order to better fit his demented and sociopathic vision of the future. No shit Bill doesnt control the country, but as long as he continues to act as an emissary for the controllers he can go **** himself IMHO

[bladefd]

You're not saying anything new here.
The point is that the data is simply not good enough. You can't spend 10's of billions on enacting policy on unreliable data. 2020 to 2220 makes a huge difference in how a problem is tackled. No one wants to drop the relatively small amount of dough to get it done(because no one singular entity stands to gain anything from the knowledge of just how bad things are). Maybe this is capitalism and individualism's blind spot. They aren't perfect after all. I guess it was a good run.

Unreliable timescale does not mean unreliable data. There are plenty of concepts we don't know the upper or lower limits to but that doesn't mean you can't grasp the concept itself. We have enough data to show that climate change is already in gear, but we don't know where we are at. No model is 100% certain. Science is not about certainty but more about high probability.

Those behavior changes can start right now. Eat less meat, plant trees for every you chop, stop overfishing, get population growth down through say more education, use biodegradable plastics only, transition from fossil fuel, how are any of them going to matter whether the point of no return (at which point nothing you do will matter) is in 2030 or 2230? Those hardly seem like costly changes except for energy source transition.

[FultzNationRISE]

Climate policies hurt the average joe far worse than they hurt any company. Most citizens are already stretched as thin as they can be, and "pivoting" to clean energy is not really a viable option for most people/households. For an established company its easy to pay a premium for green electricity, or to pay a premium for a green supply chain, or to spend .01% of revenue buying climate credit offsets... meanwhile for small businesses and individuals, these extra costs can be the difference between prosperity and ruin.

I'll stop hating on Bill Gates when he stops going on mainstream media and yammering about all the ways society needs to change in order to better fit his demented and sociopathic vision of the future. No shit Bill doesnt control the country, but as long as he continues to act as an emissary for the controllers he can go **** himself IMHO

Yup, and this is really what most government regulation is about. Guys like bladfd and R3 are enticed by the "theory" of regulation rather than the practice. They think politicians are caring and helpful people who just wanna do the right thing, and will enact regulation accordingly.

In reality they're conniving puppets controlled by wealthy interests, who use regulation to their advantage to snuff out competition. A fine or a sanction for violating a law is well worth the investment if the same law takes other companies completely out of business. Often the regulations themselves are token and arbitrary in nature anyway, (see: Paris Accords) and provide no tangible value.

With a bit of positive, voluntary encouragement rather than toxic political coercion, most people would be happy to support environmentally friendly consumer habits. However, the other issue is that US exceptionalism has always made America the destination for immigrants and refugees around the world, which has been a catalyst for our economic output and military influence, but also mandates having cheaper options (for food, transportation, etc) available to people of lesser means, which compromises quality standards. If we had the stringency Europe has on these things, it would be that much harder for "our tired, our poor, our huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of foreign teeming shores..." to even exist here. And if we just gave away high-quality free stuff, socialist style, while keeping our open borders, the entire population of South and Central America would have stampeded here. Right or wrong, our politicians felt our position in the world mandated a large labor class, and they chose open borders over regulating the ingredients of bread.

All in all, regardless which side of the aisle you're on, and regardless of the improvements that need to be made... we've still had it better than most all humans in all history. So that's something to be thankful for. The main thing we have to keep in mind is you can't have something for nothing. Any pie-in-the-sky solution that doesn't have significant drawbacks, probably doesn't offer significant help either. If it's even workable at all.

[Nanners]

Yup, and this is really what most government regulation is about. Guys like bladfd and R3 are enticed by the "theory" of regulation rather than the practice. They think politicians are caring and helpful people who just wanna do the right thing, and will enact regulation accordingly.

Cant believe I am virtually 100% agree with starface on everything these days.

I almost feel bad about relentlessly attacking you for all those years, thanks for not holding a grudge. :cheers:

[FultzNationRISE]

Unreliable timescale does not mean unreliable data. There are plenty of concepts we don't know the upper or lower limits to but that doesn't mean you can't grasp the concept itself. We have enough data to show that climate change is already in gear, but we don't know where we are at. No model is 100% certain. Science is not about certainty but more about high probability.

Those behavior changes can start right now. Eat less meat, plant trees for every you chop, stop overfishing, get population growth down through say more education, use biodegradable plastics only, transition from fossil fuel, how are any of them going to matter whether the point of no return (at which point nothing you do will matter) is in 2030 or 2230? Those hardly seem like costly changes except for energy source transition.


Should we implement a carbon tax at the consumer level on the purchase of new goods?

Because here’s a little secret for you:

It’s coming.

By 2030, youll own nothing and be HAPPY.

[FultzNationRISE]

Cant believe I am virtually 100% agree with starface on everything these days.

I almost feel bad about relentlessly attacking you for all those years, thanks for not holding a grudge. :cheers:


:cheers:

I feel bad about having publicly presumed you to be homosexual all those years. Which I didnt mean to suggest was a bad thing. And I currently still presume it. :confusedshrug:

Nice to have some political common ground at any rate.

[Nanners]

:cheers:

I feel bad about having publicly presumed you to be homosexual all those years. Which I didnt mean to suggest was a bad thing. And I currently still presume it. :confusedshrug:

Nice to have some political common ground at any rate.

Perhaps your presumption was correct... after all, is there any man who would have a stronger gaydar than a shoe salesman?

Sorry... I just cant help myself. Much love to you (seriously) :oldlol:

[FKAri]

Climate policies hurt the average joe far worse than they hurt any company. Most citizens are already stretched as thin as they can be, and "pivoting" to clean energy is not really a viable option for most people/households. For an established company its easy to pay a premium for green electricity, or to pay a premium for a green supply chain, or to spend .01% of revenue buying climate credit offsets... meanwhile for small businesses and individuals, these extra costs can be the difference between prosperity and ruin.

Not ideally. And not historically. But presently, you're probably right. Costs will get past down to the consumer and it'll be business as normal. But the alternative...

With a bit of positive, voluntary encouragement rather than toxic political coercion, most people would be happy to support environmentally friendly consumer habits.
...is also a pipe dream. Get outta here with people being happy to oblige. They'll do what's fed to them and what's fed to them will be that there's nothing wrong with the status quo. Just look at OP. Not only does he believe that nothing's wrong but he also believes that nothing could ever be wrong with the climate. Because Jesus would never let that happen.


All in all, regardless which side of the aisle you're on, and regardless of the improvements that need to be made... we've still had it better than most all humans in all history. So that's something to be thankful for. The main thing we have to keep in mind is you can't have something for nothing. Any pie-in-the-sky solution that doesn't have significant drawbacks, probably doesn't offer significant help either. If it's even workable at all.
I don't think it gets done. And if it does get done it'll cost us our freedom. Fun for the whole family.

[FultzNationRISE]

...is also a pipe dream. Get outta here with people being happy to oblige. They'll do what's fed to them and what's fed to them will be that there's nothing wrong with the status quo. Just look at OP. Not only does he believe that nothing's wrong but he also believes that nothing could ever be wrong with the climate. Because Jesus would never let that happen.


That's true, but it could still be 'fed' to people in a less polarizing, less coercive way (which is more effective). Nobody is forced to follow fashion trends, music trends, technology trends etc, but people often do because they're presented as cool and current. Rather than politicians soapboxing about how evil the climate deniers are, people could just enthusiastically express their commitment to giving up fish for a year, or buying a solar panel or whatever. Share these kinds of ideas and make them viral.

There is a reason Special Interest politicians use divisive, pompous rhetoric on issues like this, and methinks it isn't because they care about the climate. If people like Loco would reject that approach and instead just hype up his own interest and efforts to make adjustments, there'd probably be a lot more opportunities for cooperation.

Not that it isn't an uphill battle either way. It's hard to move the larger public without controlling the mainstream narrative. And the people who control the mainstream narrative will always put their interests above the public good.

[bladefd]

Should we implement a carbon tax at the consumer level on the purchase of new goods?

Because here’s a little secret for you:

It’s coming.

By 2030, youll own nothing and be HAPPY.

Carbon tax is good idea at production level at the very beginning of the source, long before produces even reach the manufacturer, long before it reaches the consumer. Yes, it would raise the cost of pollution, but I only support it as long as those funds are pumped back into growing renewable energy & battling pollution with say research into clean energy technologies & carbon capture technology we can use + sell to the world.

I don't know how much carbon tax but very small percent. In that system, non-polluters are rewarded and polluters are punished.

[Chick Stern]

:oldlol:

you should go back to posting on your original account RRR3. posting on alts shows that you are unable to have an independent thought (it also shows that you're a ******)
Sorry Sugartits, 100% original. No alt what so ever.

[Code Breaker]

I found it funny Texans attacking the use of windmills. Alaska also has “wind mills” and they don’t break down in cold weather because their government isn’t totally incompetent :) Maybe they made/bought the wrong ones because it doesn't breakdown/freeze in much colder places like Canada and Sweden.

[Chick Stern]

I found it funny Texans attacking the use of windmills. Alaska also has “wind mills” and they don’t break down in cold weather because their government isn’t totally incompetent :) Maybe they made/bought the wrong ones because it doesn't breakdown/freeze in much colder places like Canada and Sweden.
Texas has shown what you get with deregulation

[Cleverness]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EuaLOd2VgAARPwp.jpg

[Stanley Kobrick]

users can only blame themselves for this crisis. although, we cannot blame the welfarefan as his 10 speed Huffy gives off zero CO2 emissions

[bladefd]

I found it funny Texans attacking the use of windmills. Alaska also has “wind mills” and they don’t break down in cold weather because their government isn’t totally incompetent :) Maybe they made/bought the wrong ones because it doesn't breakdown/freeze in much colder places like Canada and Sweden.

Yea, I don't understand that whole "windmills are all frozen" argument. Alaska and Sweden get muuuuuuuch colder than Texas yet they never have issues with windmills freezing.

There is so much nonsense information out there that it is so difficult to sift through all of the bs/politics/other agendas by say oil/gas corporations & pricks like Koch brothers to get the actual facts.

[BigKobeFan]

Yea, I don't understand that whole "windmills are all frozen" argument. Alaska and Sweden get muuuuuuuch colder than Texas yet they never have issues with windmills freezing.

There is so much nonsense information out there that it is so difficult to sift through all of the bs/politics/other agendas by say oil/gas corporations & pricks like Koch brothers to get the actual facts.

This is nothing political. The energy company was just ill prepared. Nothing to see here. Whether its gas, windmills, nuclear, solar, the grids didn't support the cold.

[JohnnySic]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EubnqB5XcAMc6KZ?format=jpg&name=medium

[bladefd]

This is nothing political. The energy company was just ill prepared. Nothing to see here. Whether its gas, windmills, nuclear, solar, the grids didn't support the cold.

So the Texas grid was damaged? Not an issue of windmills freezing in cold or solar panels not working properly or any other bs being passed around.

[BigKobeFan]

So the Texas grid was damaged? Not an issue of windmills freezing in cold or solar panels not working properly or any other bs being passed around.

Like i said. The texas grid was not prepared for this. If everyone turns on their heaters all at the same time, the grid is bound to fail.

[Cleverness]

The climate is changing

yea, ok


Humans are the reason it's changing

by how much exactly?


you need to change your lifestyle and give trillions of dollars to Gavin Newsom and his friends so they can change the weather and save the planet

https://a9p9n2x2.stackpathcdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2018/07/Bitconnect-Carlos-Matos-Thats-a-Scam-7-28-18.gif

[nightlight]

Carbon tax is good idea at production level at the very beginning of the source, long before produces even reach the manufacturer, long before it reaches the consumer. Yes, it would raise the cost of pollution, but I only support it as long as those funds are pumped back into growing renewable energy & battling pollution with say research into clean energy technologies & carbon capture technology we can use + sell to the world.

I don't know how much carbon tax but very small percent. In that system, non-polluters are rewarded and polluters are punished.

Is a carbon tax a good idea like Comcast charging heavy internet users more?

[SATAN]

:facepalm

[Axe]

users can only blame themselves for this crisis. although, we cannot blame the welfarefan as his 10 speed Huffy gives off zero CO2 emissions
Said bike comes with nitrous oxide too so it is a two-wheeled sleeper. Plus being brakeless makes it more faster than the others. Comes with an integrated ashtray as well.

[JohnnySic]

More evidence for global warming! Total snow mass for the Northern Hemisphere is riding above the average (1982-2012) by some 600 gigatons, and snow cover in North America is off the charts.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Euq91vAXIAE97ss?format=jpg&name=small https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Euq94YpWgAAyaR5?format=jpg&name=small

Of course, anyone who denies the global warming narrative will labeled a racist and a white supremacist. I guess snow is white, after all.

[DoctorP]

More evidence for global warming! Total snow mass for the Northern Hemisphere is riding above the average (1982-2012) by some 600 gigatons, and snow cover in North America is off the charts.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Euq91vAXIAE97ss?format=jpg&name=small https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Euq94YpWgAAyaR5?format=jpg&name=small

Of course, anyone who denies the global warming narrative will labeled a racist and a white supremacist. I guess snow is white, after all.

Anomalies in the 50 year trends will happen. Emissions are also lower this year due to the pandemic. Further your research.

[SATAN]

More evidence for global warming! Total snow mass for the Northern Hemisphere is riding above the average (1982-2012) by some 600 gigatons, and snow cover in North America is off the charts.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Euq91vAXIAE97ss?format=jpg&name=small https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Euq94YpWgAAyaR5?format=jpg&name=small

Of course, anyone who denies the global warming narrative will labeled a racist and a white supremacist. I guess snow is white, after all.

You are the dumbest poster on this forum. By far.

[RRR3]

You are the dumbest poster on this forum. By far.
Nah. Cashew24 can’t be topped.