Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#3,151
#3,151
Sandvol said:
Ok, if you say so.
Click to expand...

The facts say so. It is what it is.

Sandvol said:
You hide your ignorance by throwing insults.
Click to expand...

My ignorance of my own Pantheistic ideas? That's fantastic.

Sandvol said:
Ok, I've read science books about glacial periods. I was just asking because you seem very naïve.
Click to expand...

You said something beyond stupid. Man up and own it.

Sandvol said:
So, we're going to build a bunch of skyscrapers and feed a lot of people that way? You know it would take a greenhouse about half the size of the state of California to feed us? Where are we going to get the water for irrigation of the greenhouse?
Click to expand...

Depends on the technology available. It could be as simple as desalination or as complex as fusing oxygen and hydrogen from the atmosphere.

Sandvol said:
You do know if the next ice age was like the last then cities like New York, Boston, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Cleveland, San Francisco, and Philadelphia will be gone? You do know that many of our lakes and rivers will be frozen over or completely dried-up like the Great Lakes and the Mississippi, Ohio, and Tennessee Rivers? Don't you think these things might impede our progress? Don't you think that expending a lot more of our resources just to keep people alive might impede our progress? Don't you think that extensive reductions in power output and manufacturing output might impede our progress? Oh, and you do know that the sea level dropped possibly 50-100m during the last ice age. Don't you think that might impede our progress? Just look at human progress. Do you think it is a coincidence that most of it has occurred during the Holocene?
Click to expand...

Goodness. Step back and breathe. We are talking about a process (climate change) that would happen over a very long period of time. We have only been in the enlightened age (including the Industrial Revolution) roughly 300 years and the technological/digital/information age a lot less than that. It is not a stretch to think our technology would be way beyond our modern comprehension by the time the next ice age is in full force.

Your concerns would be much more valid if the ice age happened suddenly.
 
#3,152
#3,152
PKT_VOL said:
The facts say so. It is what it is.



My ignorance of my own Pantheistic ideas? That's fantastic.



You said something beyond stupid. Man up and own it.



Depends on the technology available. It could be as simple as desalination or as complex as fusing oxygen and hydrogen from the atmosphere.



Goodness. Step back and breathe. We are talking about a process (climate change) that would happen over a very long period of time. We have only been in the enlightened age (including the Industrial Revolution) roughly 300 years and the technological/digital/information age a lot less than that. It is not a stretch to think our technology would be way beyond our modern comprehension by the time the next ice age is in full force.

Your concerns would be much more valid if the ice age happened suddenly.
Click to expand...

To be honest with you your arguments or lack of are not really worth spending any more time on.
 
Last edited:
#3,153
#3,153
Sandvol said:
Reagan was the conservative. We don't need a market-based solution for a non-problem and that's what Reagan would say today . Stop pretending you're a proponent of some market-based solution for this non-problem. You've stated many times you support a carbon tax. It is always inch by inch for you statist snakes.
Click to expand...

Ronald Reagan is THE FATHER of cap-and-trade. He instituted it to phase out leaded gasoline and CFCs and laid the groundwork for Bush Sr. to implement cap-and-trade on SO2 emissions. The carbon tax, like cap-and-trade, is a market-based pollution solution. Clearly you don’t understand the difference between command & control regulation vs. market-based systems or you’d realize just how foolish your continued McCarthyism is.

In Sandvol’s bizarro universe lead pollution, ozone depletion, and acid rain are all “non-problems” (i.e. “communist science hoax”) that real republicans would shrug off. Nevermind the fact that cap-and-trade was introduced to fight these environmental issues by the quintessential republican Mr. Ronald Reagan himself.

In Sandvol’s bizarro universe we should ignore science for the coming decades but prepare for an ice age thousands of years from now because, well, science!

In Sandvol’s bizarro universe Darwinism=atheism, creationism=evolution, and pantheism=headsplosion

giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
#3,154
#3,154
Sandvol said:
No, Creationists believe something came from a Creator. Darwinists believe that it just happened and that nothing caused it. Darwinists are atheists. Creationists are not.
Click to expand...

WTF? Do you somehow believe that there aren't many, many religious people, to include many, many Christians, that believe in evolution? And I mean evolution from single-cell to human evolution.
 
#3,155
#3,155
BartW said:
Ronald Reagan is THE FATHER of cap-and-trade. He instituted it to phase out leaded gasoline and CFCs and laid the groundwork for Bush Sr. to implement cap-and-trade on SO2 emissions. The carbon tax, like cap-and-trade, is a market-based pollution solution. Clearly you don’t understand the difference between command & control regulation vs. market-based systems or you’d realize just how foolish your continued McCarthyism is.

In Sandvol’s bizarro universe lead pollution, ozone depletion, and acid rain are all “non-problems” (i.e. “communist science hoax”) that real republicans would shrug off. Nevermind the fact that cap-and-trade was introduced to fight these environmental issues by the quintessential republican Mr. Ronald Reagan himself.

In Sandvol’s bizarro universe we should ignore science for the coming decades but prepare for an ice age thousands of years from now because, well, science!

In Sandvol’s bizarro universe Darwinism=atheism, creationism=evolution, and pantheism=headsplosion

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

I think the ice age is more probable than your "bizarro" scenarios.
 
#3,156
#3,156
You guys are just trying to change the argument. We don't accept your premise there is a problem. Just because RINO Bush senior caved you want us to accept your premise that CO2 is a pollutant and that cap and tax is a conservative answer. BS.
 
#3,159
#3,159
Bart's tactics have no bounds. He uses Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Moore, several Pope's, Charles Darwin, Catholicism, Mahatma Ghandi, dead Presidents, McCarthyism, scare tactics, past misguided programs, and on and on. When the only real issue is CO2 a problem? No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,160
#3,160
Sandvol said:
You guys are just trying to change the argument. We don't accept your premise there is a problem. Just because RINO Bush senior caved you want us to accept your premise that CO2 is a pollutant and that cap and tax is a conservative answer. BS.
Click to expand...

Oh, crap. You're a troll. Didn't realize it until now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,162
#3,162
Sandvol said:
You guys are just trying to change the argument. We don't accept your premise there is a problem. Just because RINO Bush senior caved you want us to accept your premise that CO2 is a pollutant and that cap and tax is a conservative answer. BS.
Click to expand...
Sandvol said:
Bart's tactics have no bounds. He uses Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Moore, several Pope's, Charles Darwin, Catholicism, Mahatma Ghandi, dead Presidents, McCarthyism, scare tactics, past misguided programs, and on and on. When the only real issue is CO2 a problem? No.
Click to expand...

Actually SandVol you’re the one changing the argument; I was just debunking your accusations of statism. I find it highly ironic that your ilk complain about the politicization of the climate discussion whilst engaging in such absurd demagoguery.

You don’t think CO2 is a pollutant? We’ve known about the greenhouse effect since the 1800’s. John Tyndall proved it by measuring the relative infrared absorptive powers of gases in 1859, the same year On the Origin of Species (your favorite :p) was published. Get with the times ya old fart.
 
#3,164
#3,164
BartW said:
Actually SandVol you’re the one changing the argument; I was just debunking your accusations of statism. I find it highly ironic that your ilk complain about the politicization of the climate discussion whilst engaging in such absurd demagoguery.

You don’t think CO2 is a pollutant? We’ve known about the greenhouse effect since the 1800’s. John Tyndall proved it by measuring the relative infrared absorptive powers of gases in 1859, the same year On the Origin of Species (your favorite :p) was published. Get with the times ya old fart.
Click to expand...

I find it a hoot you characterize it as absurd demagoguery. You are a statist and an operative. To say that cap and tax is a market-based solution is Marxist propaganda. So in your altered world it is better for the Federal Government to wreck the Constitution than for the good people of Nashville or Seattle or Boston to decide for themselves what is best? Where in the Constitution does the Federal Government get any authority to do anything like that? Clean Water Act-unconstitutional, Clean Air Act-unconstitutional, EPA-unconstitutional. But, you don't see that. Why? Because you're a young tyranny-loving ******* and you don't know any better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,165
#3,165
Cap and Trade is not market based. Is it more market based than state run energy companies? Sure. But a true free market solution would be to provide people and companies a choice in their electricity source, and let it all sort out.

But we all know that won't work. And for the same reason, a country by country political process won't work either. There will always be countries who like cheap energy and really need it to develop.

And fighting it unilaterally would be economically painful, and mostly useless. Saying it wouldn't ignores obvious global competition, and product inefficiencies.
 
#3,169
#3,169
London

Levels of the harmful air pollutant nitrogen dioxide at a city-center monitoring station are the highest in Europe. Concentrations are greater even than in Beijing, where expatriates have dubbed the city’s smog the “airpocalypse.”

It’s the law of unintended consequences at work. European Union efforts to fight climate change favored diesel fuel over gasoline because it emits less carbon dioxide, or CO2. However, diesel’s contaminants have swamped benefits from measures that include a toll drivers pay to enter central London, a thriving bike-hire program and growing public-transport network.

“Successive governments knew more than 10 years ago that diesel was producing all these harmful pollutants, but they myopically plowed on with their CO2 agenda,” said Simon Birkett, founder of Clean Air in London, a nonprofit group. “It’s been a catastrophe for air pollution, and that’s not too strong a word. It’s a public-health catastrophe.”
Click to expand...

lulz
 
#3,170
#3,170
you know what else is hilarious? Liberals blaming the cold weather on the economy slowing down, yet advocating for increasing taxes to fight global warming
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,172
#3,172
SandVol, do you really not see the irony in calling a Republican idea Marxist? Republicans were pro- cap-and-trade even just a few years ago, before they began pandering to the Tea Party.

Cap-and-trade and the carbon tax are free market solutions because the government doesn’t tell companies how to reduce their pollution, a la the democrats’ command & control style environmental regulations of the 70’s. It allows companies to decide for themselves how to most efficiently cut emissions. This requires far less regulators than C&C systems, thus shrinking the EPA. Revenue would be returned to the public through tax cuts or rebates. This ensures that the necessary pollution cuts are made at the lowest possible cost to the economy. It’s a tried-and-true policy. If you have a better idea we're all ears, but denying the problem exists is not a solution.

Calling cap-and-trade Marxist is loony Tea Party propaganda and reveals just how desperate the climate denial campaign has gotten.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,173
#3,173
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k[/youtube]

Here’s a clip from the upcoming episode of Cosmos showing NDT explaining the difference between weather and climate. If you’ve been watching, you’ll have noticed Cosmos has shown increasing attention to climate change in recent episodes. Well this week’s episode will be entirely about climate change, and it’s sure to present plenty more effective refutations of denier talking points. Catch it at 9 on FOX Sunday or National Geographic Monday

:popcorn:
 
#3,174
#3,174
Isn't climate based on the pattern of weather in an area? When you have variances in both directions but still remain fairly constant overall what exactly is changing?
 
#3,175
#3,175
BartW said:
SandVol, do you really not see the irony in calling a Republican idea Marxist? Republicans were pro- cap-and-trade even just a few years ago, before they began pandering to the Tea Party.

Cap-and-trade and the carbon tax are free market solutions because the government doesn’t tell companies how to reduce their pollution, a la the democrats’ command & control style environmental regulations of the 70’s. It allows companies to decide for themselves how to most efficiently cut emissions. This requires far less regulators than C&C systems, thus shrinking the EPA. Revenue would be returned to the public through tax cuts or rebates. This ensures that the necessary pollution cuts are made at the lowest possible cost to the economy. It’s a tried-and-true policy. If you have a better idea we're all ears, but denying the problem exists is not a solution.

Calling cap-and-trade Marxist is loony Tea Party propaganda and reveals just how desperate the climate denial campaign has gotten.
Click to expand...

If they're free-market solutions then Congress doesn't need to get involved then. Right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top