I cant believe people still believe that paying a carbon tax is going to do anything but make a few people richer and everyone else poorer.
What? Who are these few people who are going to get rich off a carbon tax?
There is no attention paid to space weather trends
There has been a lot of attention given to space weather, like solar dynamics. So far there has been no evidence that space weather is having warming effects. That doesn't mean that nobody has been looking. People have, especially in the energy industry, and so far what little evidence there is actually points in the opposite direction.
or the use of a carbon tax to fund a corporate policy boards that will act as a defacto world government with an agenda that is not friendly to individual rights.
I've heard this point made a lot- we can't reduce CO2 because that means a one-world government would take my guns away and force me to be an atheist, or something.
Proponents don't seem to notice that there are weather manipulation programs in place right now.
Have any reference to that other than geoengineeringwatch? Scientists do talk about that as a possible idea but so far it remains speculative, and nobody is actually trying it. Those jet trails you see over your house are from carrying passengers. Sulfuric acid just doesn't have the money to afford the ticket prices.
How is screwing up natural weather by spraying compounds into the atmosphere and shooting it with radiation just dandy but using any petroleum product is killing the earth?
(If anyone got confused by that, the "compounds" he's talking about are sulfur aerosols, not CO2.) To my knowledge the idea strikes everyone as fanciful and distasteful; it only gets discussed as a possible last ditch, desperate option. Cities would have to be pretty flooded before anyone would actually seriously consider doing that. The main argument in its favor is that one ton of sulfuric acid would be potent enough to offset the warming of about 100000 tons of CO2. That's about all that can be said for it. (FWIW, CO2 is also an acidic gas, and obviously it also "shoots the atmosphere with radiation".)
All of you Al Gore subscribers pay honor to the creation but not the creator.
The Senate just voted 98 to 1 that the climate is changing, but refused to vote on whether humans were in any way responsible. I think that if anything qualifies as "paying honor to the creation but not the creator".
You are looking for your keys under the streetlamp instead of where you lost them because the light is better there.
I think that's because we can see them under the streetlamp- if we're the type who even bothers to look at all.
I love how the lefties always say global warming is ruining everything and it is not up for debate and that 100% of scientists agree.
IIRC it's 97%, not 100%. But that's still a really good consensus for a scientific theory, especially given the financial incentives for scientists to dissent.
The planet will gain it's equilibrium back with or without your participation if it needs to.
That's definitely true- a typical CO2 molecule remains airborne for about 10,000 years before being reabsorbed. in several million years the planet will have forgotten about us, except for any mass extinction event that we might have triggered- similar to what happened during the Carboniferous period, when today's fossil fuels were actually fossilized.
The NOAA all stars could not even predict the New York blizzard accurately. Why do you think they know what the climate is going to be like in 25 years?
Rush Limbaugh said this the day after the storm. Weathermen and climatologists aren't actually the same people. In fact most of the "skeptical scientists" that appear on TV to deny climate change are actually weathermen. But even if a weatherman can't tell you whether it's going to be warmer next week than today, he can predict with good confidence that exactly six months from now it's going to be warmer than today was. You're demanding a perfect weather forecast over every possible timescale before you'll even pull your fingers out of your ears.
You sure feel smart being ugly to people that you deem as doing something wrong. It is gross how satisfied lefties feel when they get to be ugly to others. It seems to be their most favorite game. They invent reasons why others are stupid and tell each other how smart they are when they all repeat the same things. It sounds like evil chickens squawking. Just noise for the sake of the people making it.
Actually, climatologists are pretty irritated that they can't talk about their science in public without the discussions instantly getting mobbed by Rush Limbaugh fans. I see these articles and I figure, there might be actual scientists posting intelligent things in there somewhere, but I'm never going to find them through all this crud.
Did you ever think that the big push for the climate controversy may have others agendas in the payload? Did you ever consider that some of the people steering it admit this? Did you ever consider the conflict of interest that occurs when the pushers stand to make trillions if they can get the carbon tax policy in place?
I've heard a lot about scientists who are supposedly scamming the government with a giant hoax so they can get piddling NSF grants, but this is the first I've heard about wannabe trillionaires.
I can't afford $30K a year in gas tax or a Tesla. Most people can't.
But some people can. Then Tesla can get more business, they can come out with better and cheaper cars, other companies will be incentivized to sell similar cars, and someday your car will work that way too.
Say what you want about pencil pushers, they can usually do math. Most households pay about $3000 on gas per year. If you're worrying about paying $30K a year on gas taxes, that's some pretty serious driving.
Have the AGW supporters got so little that they must actively lie now?
The UN climate panel said it would happen, the date in question has passed, and nothing like that happened. Ergo, the UN climate change panel is full of it.
They obviously got the date wrong, but that doesn't mean the day will never come.
How many millions of people have died because you'd rather play hippy than deal with the issues that are actually killing millions of people every year? Well, about 10 million people every year, the math shows.
We're talking about a problem that isn't causing us difficulties in the short term but threatens to be a long term disaster. Cancer, traffic deaths, child abuse, teen smoking, alcoholism, disease, etc. are all problems in the short term as well as the long term, which is why we address them. That doesn't mean that specifically long term problems aren't worth addressing at all, especially if they need to be dealt with in the short term by their very nature. It's like saying "my kid is hungry today, I can't afford to vaccinate him- so I'll just wait until he actually gets the measles".
The fact that you point to a poll on peoples views?
Maybe you thought I was actually talking about AGW, but the point I was making there was about people's views being shaped by politics.
The world would be down right exactly the same as it is now if Al Gore hadn't made the movie.
Except for the fact that a majority of conservatives get offended by the topic simply because it was introduced to them by people they don't like. Seriously, I think he did a disservice to the environment just by getting himself associated with it.
And there is absolutely no proof otherwise.
<fail type="ad_hominem" class="projection">This is what is wrong with you extreme alarmists. Exaggeration as a talking point. FEAR FEAR FEAR. Honestly, you are down right dishonest.</fail>
Ow! That hurt!
If you want to understand why rising CO2 is a problem, try to imagine for a second what the world might be like if Al Gore hadn't made a movie about it.
It really sounds laughably desperate when the arguments have devolved to "So-and-so failed to predict the weather 30 years ago". Scientists over the years have come out with lowball estimates too, but those usually don't appear on paste sites.
This argument again? I'm so sick of having to explain why "Don't feed the bears" != "Don't feed the poor". If you feed bears, they'll learn to nag you and other people for food. If you feed the poor, they'll also learn to nag for the food, but there are good reasons why you'd maybe want a hungry poor person to ask you for food instead of having a bear ask.
Anyway, regardless of how they feel about bears, conservatives certainly don't like wolves.
You get the bends from high levels of nitrogen dissolved in blood plasma under pressure. If you move to low pressure regions near the water's surface too fast, the nitrogen is able to separate out into bubbles that get stuck in tissues and blood vessels.
These things are "round" like gas bubbles, but they're more like some sort of fake dummy cells, with a fluid interior surrounded by something that looks like a lipid bilayer made of soap-like molecules that bind together by van der Waals forces and have charged tips that interface with the surrounding water. There is no gas.
It's a badly written article- "oooh bubbles!" People should try not to write stupid shit like this, especially about vaccines. I'm already blue in the face screaming at thick skulled idiots on #CDCwhistleblowers who post crap about how vaccines cause autism because Big Pharma stuffs them with disgusting crap like dihydrogen monoxide.