[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Wordle - daily game - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 19, 2024 - 7:24pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Coaxial - Jun 19, 2024 - 6:33pm
 
Whatever happened to Taco Wagon? - Coaxial - Jun 19, 2024 - 6:14pm
 
2024 Elections! - kurtster - Jun 19, 2024 - 5:09pm
 
Electronic Music - Manbird - Jun 19, 2024 - 4:08pm
 
Pink Floyd Set? - R_P - Jun 19, 2024 - 3:09pm
 
favorite love songs - oldviolin - Jun 19, 2024 - 3:09pm
 
Song of the Day - oldviolin - Jun 19, 2024 - 3:03pm
 
Outstanding Covers - pope183 - Jun 19, 2024 - 2:50pm
 
Just Wrong - DaveInSaoMiguel - Jun 19, 2024 - 2:08pm
 
Too much classic rock lately? - ptooey - Jun 19, 2024 - 1:54pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jun 19, 2024 - 12:34pm
 
June 2024 Photo Theme - Eyes - MrDill - Jun 19, 2024 - 11:50am
 
NY Times Strands - Steely_D - Jun 19, 2024 - 11:42am
 
NYTimes Connections - Steely_D - Jun 19, 2024 - 11:33am
 
Israel - R_P - Jun 19, 2024 - 8:27am
 
Sonos - thatslongformud - Jun 19, 2024 - 7:52am
 
Basketball - ColdMiser - Jun 19, 2024 - 7:19am
 
SCOTUS - ColdMiser - Jun 19, 2024 - 7:15am
 
Name My Band - DaveInSaoMiguel - Jun 19, 2024 - 6:07am
 
The Obituary Page - rgio - Jun 19, 2024 - 5:48am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jun 19, 2024 - 5:37am
 
Trump - rgio - Jun 19, 2024 - 5:13am
 
RightWingNutZ - Steely_D - Jun 19, 2024 - 12:20am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jun 18, 2024 - 9:05pm
 
20+ year listeners? - islander - Jun 18, 2024 - 7:41pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - Beaker - Jun 18, 2024 - 5:04pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - rgio - Jun 18, 2024 - 5:02pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Manbird - Jun 18, 2024 - 3:38pm
 
Other Medical Stuff - miamizsun - Jun 18, 2024 - 2:35pm
 
Hello from Greece! - miamizsun - Jun 18, 2024 - 2:35pm
 
Predictions - R_P - Jun 18, 2024 - 12:27pm
 
Europe - R_P - Jun 18, 2024 - 9:33am
 
What did you have for dinner? - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 18, 2024 - 8:18am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - jarro - Jun 18, 2024 - 7:11am
 
Ukraine - R_P - Jun 17, 2024 - 8:56pm
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:57pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Red_Dragon - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:22pm
 
What Did You See Today? - Manbird - Jun 16, 2024 - 2:39pm
 
Geomorphology - kurtster - Jun 16, 2024 - 1:29pm
 
Artificial Intelligence - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 10:53am
 
The Chomsky / Zinn Reader - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 10:42am
 
The Dragons' Roost - oldviolin - Jun 16, 2024 - 9:35am
 
Football, soccer, futbol, calcio... - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:35am
 
No stream after station ID - arlen.nelson969 - Jun 15, 2024 - 2:29pm
 
Business as Usual - kurtster - Jun 15, 2024 - 9:53am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Antigone - Jun 14, 2024 - 7:04pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Jun 14, 2024 - 3:15pm
 
China - R_P - Jun 14, 2024 - 2:59pm
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - oldviolin - Jun 14, 2024 - 2:08pm
 
Religion - Steely_D - Jun 14, 2024 - 1:28pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jun 14, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - Proclivities - Jun 14, 2024 - 6:42am
 
Florida - R_P - Jun 13, 2024 - 3:35pm
 
Democratic Party - thisbody - Jun 13, 2024 - 9:08am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - thisbody - Jun 13, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Animal Resistance - thisbody - Jun 13, 2024 - 8:04am
 
New Music - lievendegrauwe - Jun 13, 2024 - 12:43am
 
The Green Thread: A place to share info about living a gr... - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 12, 2024 - 11:48pm
 
Derplahoma! - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 12, 2024 - 9:29pm
 
Guantánamo Resorts & Other Fun Trips - R_P - Jun 12, 2024 - 8:41am
 
Joe Biden - rgio - Jun 12, 2024 - 8:28am
 
Right, Left, Right of Left, Left of Right, Center...? - kurtster - Jun 11, 2024 - 10:36pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 11, 2024 - 3:51pm
 
Breaking News - Isabeau - Jun 11, 2024 - 2:29pm
 
Calling all RP Roku users! - RPnate1 - Jun 11, 2024 - 12:50pm
 
Words that should be put on the substitutes bench for a year - sunybuny - Jun 11, 2024 - 4:38am
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - R_P - Jun 10, 2024 - 12:01pm
 
Streaming Marantz/HEOS - rgio - Jun 10, 2024 - 11:43am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 12:38pm
 
Quick! I need a chicken... - thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 10:38am
 
Economix - Bill_J - Jun 8, 2024 - 5:25pm
 
Snakes & streaming images. WTH is going on? - rasta_tiger - Jun 8, 2024 - 2:16pm
 
Great guitar faces - thisbody - Jun 8, 2024 - 10:39am
 
TEXAS - maryte - Jun 8, 2024 - 9:21am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 124, 125, 126, 127, 128  Next
Post to this Topic
Coaxial

Coaxial Avatar

Location: Comfortably numb in So Texas
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 3, 2009 - 1:01pm

 dionysius wrote:


You, and the citizens of the Maldives?

 

Thanks, nice to know I'm not alone.
dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 3, 2009 - 12:59pm

 Coaxial wrote:
I'd like to go on record and say I'm against it.{#Good-vibes}

 

You, and the citizens of the Maldives?
Coaxial

Coaxial Avatar

Location: Comfortably numb in So Texas
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 3, 2009 - 12:50pm

I'd like to go on record and say I'm against it.{#Good-vibes}
musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 3, 2009 - 12:44pm

 Zep wrote:

Global warming e-mails prompt Republican letter to EPA

GOP members of Congress ask the administration to put climate-change measures on hold because messages from scientists in Britain appear to cast doubt on the idea of man-made warming.

By Jim Tankersley and Alexander C. Hart — December 3, 2009 — Reporting from Washington

Citing e-mails that critics say cast doubt on global warming, congressional Republicans called on the Obama administration Wednesday to suspend efforts to combat climate change until the controversy is resolved.

In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, the lawmakers requested that a pending move to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act be halted, along with plans to limit emissions from vehicles, power plants and other sources, "until the agency can demonstrate the science underlying these regulatory decisions has not been compromised."

At issue are more than 1,000 electronic messages that were apparently obtained and released by a computer hacker. Most involve scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Britain, one of the few institutions in the world that collect the historical temperature data relied on by climate researchers.

At the heart of the controversy is whether human activity causes climate change. Skeptics argue that global temperatures may be warming naturally. They say that the e-mails suggest that scientists may have manipulated evidence to bolster their claims. The scientists dispute that and say that their words have been taken out of context.

Republicans used otherwise unrelated hearings Wednesday in the House and Senate to demand congressional investigations, but Obama administration officials and congressional Democrats pushed back.

"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus . . . that tells us the Earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told a House committee. She said that the e-mails don't cover data from NOAA and NASA, whose independent climate records show dramatic warming.

The controversy flared up just before a summit in Copenhagen next week at which President Obama and other world leaders will attempt to make progress on an international climate-change treaty.

In some e-mails, a prominent climate scientist urges colleagues to destroy records rather than release them under public disclosure laws. In others, scientists appear to discuss how to discredit research they disagree with.

One of the leading figures in the scandal, East Anglia climate scientist Phil Jones, stepped down temporarily this week amid an investigation into his work and e-mails.

In a 1999 e-mail, Jones wrote of using a "trick" to hide an apparent decline in recent temperatures on a chart being prepared for a meteorological organization. Warming skeptics seized on the line, which Jones said was "taken completely out of context" because he was simply looking for a clearer way to chart global warming.

Critics have also focused on an e-mail from Penn State University scientist Michael Mann as evidence that climate researchers have sought to downplay findings indicating that the Earth warmed naturally 1,000 years ago.

In a 2003 e-mail, Mann said that "it would be nice to 'contain' the putative" Medieval Warm Period.

Mann said in an interview last month that the e-mail reflected his desire to identify exactly when the period began — not to downplay it. He also said that he had declined to act on Jones' request to destroy e-mails sought under freedom of information laws.

Republicans who have long questioned global-warming science say that the e-mails show a pattern that undermines the theory of man-made global warming.

"One cannot deny that the e-mails raised fundamental questions concerning . . . transparency and openness in science," Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) said at a hearing Wednesday.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), one of the authors of the letter to the EPA, said in a news release Wednesday that the e-mails "read more like scientific fascism than the scientific process. . . . It's time to take back the notion that the 'science is settled.' "

Some climate scientists have expressed alarm at the contents of the e-mails. But many scientists and environmental groups have aggressively challenged the notion that the messages undermine climate science.

"The body of evidence that human activity is a prominent agent in global warming is overwhelming," James McCarthy, chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in a letter Wednesday.

"People write ridiculous e-mails when they're in the middle of a fight," Boxer said. "To me, what's important is, e-mails aside, is there global warming? Is it being affected by human activity? And there's nothing out there that says otherwise."



 

First, I rejected long ago, membership in that Union...it is and always has been, heavily slanted LEFT. Second, Sen. Boxer proves herself an endless idiot. Those emails, using terms like 'travesty', or threats to destroy naysayers, or how to treat data not supportive of a preconceived notion, speak for themselves. Dummying data, adding data, using a 'trick' and on it goes, all to suppress the real working of the data and all to support what has become a religion among some, that of climate change, nee, global warming. If you remove the 'trick', you see as the emailers acknowledged, a decline in global temps since the 60's. That is why the 'trick' was used: add in data and by doing so, block the real data. Oh, what a true travesty and not a 'travesty' because damn it, temps are supposed to be increasing, not decreasing. And for those who think a few angered researchers in England tapped out emails they didn't mean to, the 'trick' is courtesy of a Penn State researcher, suggesting this hoax, this grand scale breakdown in solid science and ethical integrity, is well spread.

Zep

Zep Avatar

Location: Funkytown


Posted: Dec 3, 2009 - 5:36am

Global warming e-mails prompt Republican letter to EPA

GOP members of Congress ask the administration to put climate-change measures on hold because messages from scientists in Britain appear to cast doubt on the idea of man-made warming.

By Jim Tankersley and Alexander C. Hart — December 3, 2009 — Reporting from Washington

Citing e-mails that critics say cast doubt on global warming, congressional Republicans called on the Obama administration Wednesday to suspend efforts to combat climate change until the controversy is resolved.

In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, the lawmakers requested that a pending move to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act be halted, along with plans to limit emissions from vehicles, power plants and other sources, "until the agency can demonstrate the science underlying these regulatory decisions has not been compromised."

At issue are more than 1,000 electronic messages that were apparently obtained and released by a computer hacker. Most involve scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Britain, one of the few institutions in the world that collect the historical temperature data relied on by climate researchers.

At the heart of the controversy is whether human activity causes climate change. Skeptics argue that global temperatures may be warming naturally. They say that the e-mails suggest that scientists may have manipulated evidence to bolster their claims. The scientists dispute that and say that their words have been taken out of context.

Republicans used otherwise unrelated hearings Wednesday in the House and Senate to demand congressional investigations, but Obama administration officials and congressional Democrats pushed back.

"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus . . . that tells us the Earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told a House committee. She said that the e-mails don't cover data from NOAA and NASA, whose independent climate records show dramatic warming.

The controversy flared up just before a summit in Copenhagen next week at which President Obama and other world leaders will attempt to make progress on an international climate-change treaty.

In some e-mails, a prominent climate scientist urges colleagues to destroy records rather than release them under public disclosure laws. In others, scientists appear to discuss how to discredit research they disagree with.

One of the leading figures in the scandal, East Anglia climate scientist Phil Jones, stepped down temporarily this week amid an investigation into his work and e-mails.

In a 1999 e-mail, Jones wrote of using a "trick" to hide an apparent decline in recent temperatures on a chart being prepared for a meteorological organization. Warming skeptics seized on the line, which Jones said was "taken completely out of context" because he was simply looking for a clearer way to chart global warming.

Critics have also focused on an e-mail from Penn State University scientist Michael Mann as evidence that climate researchers have sought to downplay findings indicating that the Earth warmed naturally 1,000 years ago.

In a 2003 e-mail, Mann said that "it would be nice to 'contain' the putative" Medieval Warm Period.

Mann said in an interview last month that the e-mail reflected his desire to identify exactly when the period began — not to downplay it. He also said that he had declined to act on Jones' request to destroy e-mails sought under freedom of information laws.

Republicans who have long questioned global-warming science say that the e-mails show a pattern that undermines the theory of man-made global warming.

"One cannot deny that the e-mails raised fundamental questions concerning . . . transparency and openness in science," Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) said at a hearing Wednesday.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), one of the authors of the letter to the EPA, said in a news release Wednesday that the e-mails "read more like scientific fascism than the scientific process. . . . It's time to take back the notion that the 'science is settled.' "

Some climate scientists have expressed alarm at the contents of the e-mails. But many scientists and environmental groups have aggressively challenged the notion that the messages undermine climate science.

"The body of evidence that human activity is a prominent agent in global warming is overwhelming," James McCarthy, chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in a letter Wednesday.

"People write ridiculous e-mails when they're in the middle of a fight," Boxer said. "To me, what's important is, e-mails aside, is there global warming? Is it being affected by human activity? And there's nothing out there that says otherwise."




hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 2, 2009 - 8:50am

ClimateGate: The 7 Biggest Lies About The Supposed "Global Warming Hoax"


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 2, 2009 - 5:39am

Science or Nonscience?

The black mark earned by alarmists during the 1970s, for predicting continued global cooling, may be replicated for global-warming alarmists. The real tragedy, however, may be that - one day - scientists will cry wolf to a public that has learned to ignore them.
rosedraws

rosedraws Avatar

Location: close to the edge
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 1, 2009 - 7:56pm

 oldslabsides wrote:


 


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan


Posted: Dec 1, 2009 - 6:33pm




miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 1, 2009 - 3:57pm

 miamizsun wrote:


Maybe we should just contact him via email to clarify if possible?

I'm slammed right now with work, I'll explore an answer when time allows.

Regards
========================================

 
I did fire off an email to Lindzen, maybe he'll respond.

And now this:

Marine Cloud Whitening?


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 1, 2009 - 8:52am

 BasmntMadman wrote:

Here's something this here David noticed

In the slide "Impacts as a Chain of Inference."

Where does he get the number 11 in the expression (0.5)11 or (0.2)11
 

Maybe we should just contact him via email to clarify if possible?

I'm slammed right now with work, I'll explore an answer when time allows.

Regards

BasmntMadman

BasmntMadman Avatar

Location: Off-White Gardens


Posted: Dec 1, 2009 - 8:22am

 miamizsun wrote:

M, here's a scientist I believe wrote most of chapter 7 in the IPCC report. He reportedly agrees with some 90% of the info, however the 10% he disagrees with is apparently enough to get him labeled a contrarian.

Powerpoint

Regards
 
Here's something this here David noticed

In the slide "Impacts as a Chain of Inference."

Where does he get the number 11 in the expression (0.5)11 or (0.2)11

What he's referring to is probability of independent events all occurring - for example, 8 heads in 8 coin tosses, or a sequence 1,2,7,2,3 in 5 tosses of a die.  To calculate that, you multiply the probabilities of each event. 

I count 11 little squares in the slide, so that has to be where he gets the 11.  So he's saying that for global warming to be credible requires all 11 squares to be events that occur, each with probability of 0.5 or 0.2.  The first is "emissions".  Well, the probability of increased emissions in past years sure as hell isn't 0.5, it's 1. 

That's inaccuracy number one - he's playing some games with probability theory.  What makes more sense is if he's saying that there has to be all these events happening for global warming to be a problem:

increased emissions produce high atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases,
and high atmospheric levels lead to high radiative forcing,
and high radiative forcing leads to global response,
and global response leads to regional wind,
and humidity,
and temperature,
and rainfall,
and cloudiness,
and there are other factors influencing impact. 

I think he needs some or's in there after the "global response" block.  You don't need to have all the problems with wind, humidity, temperature, rainfall, and cloudiness for global warming to have a harmful effect.  In fact, rise of ocean levels would be the worst effect of all. The "other factors" influencing impact doesn't have to be part of the chain at all.  Plus, the first item, increased emissions produce high levels of greenhouse gases, has to have a probability of more than 0.5

It's games like this that reduce my confidence in this man - who berates the public for scientific illiteracy - radically. 

He also engages in emotional scare tactics himself, presenting a slide which implies that we'll become like North Korea if we cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80%. 

He mentions a couple pieces of work that differ from the global warming scenario, then use them as proof that the whole thing is absurd, and how could people be so stupid as to believe such absurdity?  Oh, it must be because they're whipped into a frenzy by the politicians and the liberal media. 

Polar bears thriving compared to 50 years ago?  I thought they were hunted to near-extinction 50 years ago, so of course their numbers will be higher than 50 years ago.  It turns out that it wasn't until 1973 that international efforts to curb intensive polar bear hunting were made. 
It turns out that their numbers are now stable, but are projected to decline by >30%.  Five of 19 subpopulations are in decline, which hardly seems thriving. The US Department of the Interior has classified them as a threatened species, but that's the government and they're in on the conspiracy, aren't they?



kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 1, 2009 - 5:26am

 fuh2 wrote:

More Right wing Corporate fear mongering from the Carbon Industry. I get all my electricity from wind farms and I pay only 10% more for it. In Germany they offer Solar Power panels for customers subsidized by the govermnment and the EXCESS YOU CAN SELL BACK to the utility.   
 
I love how you see that everything is always a right wing sponsored hoax.  The right is always at the bottom with everything wrong with this country.  The solution should be easy, a left wing dictatorship, that will fix everything wrong with the world.

OBTW:  here in Ohio, we have been able to sell excess energy back to the suppliers for years, be it in the form of electricity or natural gas.  Many people in NEO (that's North East Ohio) have gas wells on their properties.  Maybe you should lobby your state to allow electric meters to run backwards and sell back your excess energy to the provider as we do in Ohio.  We can't be the only state.  You infer that selling back excess energy is not allowed in the US.  Maybe that is another right wing hoax.  You should dig a little deeper and consider that there is more than one source of information.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 1, 2009 - 5:20am

 fuh2 wrote:

More Right wing Corporate fear mongering from the Carbon Industry. I get all my electricity from wind farms and I pay only 10% more for it. In Germany they offer Solar Power panels for customers subsidized by the govermnment and the EXCESS YOU CAN SELL BACK to the utility.   
 
fuh, feel free to read the material and objectively rebut.

Regards

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 1, 2009 - 5:16am

 dionysius wrote:


There is justified cynicism, and then also woefully misplaced cynicism.

 
M, here's a scientist I believe wrote most of chapter 7 in the IPCC report. He reportedly agrees with some 90% of the info, however the 10% he disagrees with is apparently enough to get him labeled a contrarian.

Powerpoint

Regards

HazzeSwede

HazzeSwede Avatar

Location: Hammerdal
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 1, 2009 - 4:33am

Rising temperatures could be devastating for glaciers surrounding the Himalayas. ITN's James Mates reports


MrsHobieJoe

MrsHobieJoe Avatar

Location: somewhere in Europe
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 1, 2009 - 1:33am

 fuh2 wrote:

More Right wing Corporate fear mongering from the Carbon Industry. I get all my electricity from wind farms and I pay only 10% more for it. In Germany they offer Solar Power panels for customers subsidized by the govermnment and the EXCESS YOU CAN SELL BACK to the utility.   


 
as far as I was aware this is not rocket science- many countries operate a system whereby you can sell power back to the grid.

My concern about this thread is how everyone talks about the science not being proven and tries to bring their own scientific theories to play.  There's nothing wrong with exploring and understanding the evidence of course but there seems to be a constant theme of "I won't believe the science until I personally have done my own independent research".

Now, of course some of the climate scientists are tainted by the UEA email scandal but why do we seem to need an amatuer scientist to prove every point now?  This strikes me as a little like some of the comments about the swine flu vaccination.  The science is there and it's good science- you can opt out if you personally wish but let the rest of the world and especially the governments get on with tackling this problem and stop putting up road blocks.


fuh2

fuh2 Avatar

Location: Mexican beach paradise
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 9:38pm

 miamizsun wrote:

M, how can you say that this obvious corruption means nothing? I must respectfully disagree.

There is more here.

You do realize how much money this carbon tax will generate right?

In Japan estimates are running $1400 & $8600 per household annually.

I don't deny that there is a major problem with pollution and climate change, I'm just questioning the legitimacy of the data, how much is due to man, and why they're going to tax the pants off of us.

Listen, any time corrupt government(s) get involved and wants to help us take care of an issue by taxing us, I get worried. Their track record speaks for itself.

If climate change is such a big deal, why don't they stop the wars, stop the bailouts for their "too big" to fail buddies and focus on taking care of a real issue?

Isn't it obvious government's priority is taxing, borrowing and spending?

I'm just asking....

I have a feeling we're about to take it in the a$$, and somehow the government/corporatists are about to ca$h in again.

Peace
 
More Right wing Corporate fear mongering from the Carbon Industry. I get all my electricity from wind farms and I pay only 10% more for it. In Germany they offer Solar Power panels for customers subsidized by the govermnment and the EXCESS YOU CAN SELL BACK to the utility.   

dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 9:33pm

 miamizsun wrote:

M, how can you say that this obvious corruption means nothing? I must respectfully disagree.

There is more here.

You do realize how much money this carbon tax will generate right?

In Japan estimates are running $1400 & $8600 per household annually.

I don't deny that there is a major problem with pollution and climate change, I'm just questioning the legitimacy of the data, how much is due to man, and why they're going to tax the pants off of us.

Listen, any time corrupt government(s) get involved and wants to help us take care of an issue by taxing us, I get worried. Their track record speaks for itself.

If climate change is such a big deal, why don't they stop the wars, stop the bailouts for their "too big" to fail buddies and focus on taking care of a real issue?

Isn't it obvious government's priority is taxing, borrowing and spending?

I'm just asking....

I have a feeling we're about to take it in the a$$, and somehow the government/corporatists are about to ca$h in again.

Peace
 

There is justified cynicism, and then also woefully misplaced cynicism.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 9:30pm

 dionysius wrote:


Sorry, I don't know Portuguese.

And the email "scandal"—proves nothing. Zilch. Does nothing to invalidate science being done all over the world, not just in one small organization. There is no smoking gun, not one than can clean up all the smoking chimneys. This is a venial sin next to the mortal one of climate change denial. Look past this well-intentioned error to the much bigger error beyond it.

The hard choices do have to be made. That's why there is a denial movement, to delay (because it cannot be prevented, ultimately) the hard political and economic decisions. Denial is in the short-term interests of a few who are heavily invested in the present carbon economy. The carbon tax and cap-and-trade will benefit us all, in the long run. We have to see that short-term inconvenience is necessary for long-term welfare and, well, survival. For the natural world as well as us.

 
M, how can you say that this obvious corruption means nothing? I must respectfully disagree.

There is more here.

You do realize how much money this carbon tax will generate right?

In Japan estimates are running $1400 & $8600 per household annually.

I don't deny that there is a major problem with pollution and climate change, I'm just questioning the legitimacy of the data, how much is due to man, and why they're going to tax the pants off of us.

Listen, any time corrupt government(s) get involved and wants to help us take care of an issue by taxing us, I get worried. Their track record speaks for itself.

If climate change is such a big deal, why don't they stop the wars, stop the bailouts for their "too big" to fail buddies and focus on taking care of a real issue?

Isn't it obvious government's priority is taxing, borrowing and spending?

I'm just asking....

I have a feeling we're about to take it in the a$$, and somehow the government/corporatists are about to ca$h in again.

Peace

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 124, 125, 126, 127, 128  Next