Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it may be chicken feed now, but as with ANY tax, it will grow over time. remember when the income tax was first instituted after it became constitutional? the top rate was 6%, it eventually became 90%, and to day its right at 40%. it happens all the time, a government wants more money, and they decide to raise taxes, the UN will be the same way, mark my words.
These global warming fanatics make al qaeda look like choir boys!
‘The Himalayan glacier melt really was the least of the errors’ – UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol turns on UN: ‘The IPCC does not guard itself against selection bias and group think’ – ‘Alarmism feeds polarization. Climate zealots want to burn heretics of global warming on a stick’
On the other hand, deniers are not even willing to admit that 30,000 scientists could possibly be right, and are under the delusion that they are more knowledgeable than these scientists...
That is sure one big conspiracy theory you guys have dreamed up....It involves hundreds of nations, and many thousands of climate scientist that you think are perpetrating an international hoax on the entire planet....
What reason is there for such a hoax?
Consensus is not a valid argument; even if every single scientist or even every single person on Earth believes something, that does not make it true. Truth is derived from reasoning constrained by observing nature and making falsifiable predictions. Using this standard instead of logically fallacious consensus ones, the AGW predictions from the computer models aren't looking too good versus reality; that's a big reason why the 20-year temperature stagnation is bugging quite a few scientists. As for it being a conspiracy, being wrong requires no conspiracy; the consensus that the sun revolved around the earth wasn't a conspiracy.
Look at the media $$$$ behind climate change awareness and climate change denial. That should tell you something.
But if Greenland melts in 20-30 years, all the deniers will look like morons. If it doesn't melt, well then it's inconclusive, but the climate change awareness group will have overestimated.
If it does melt. won't it just go back to being what it was several hundred years ago? You know Greenland?!!
If we wait to address the problem the cost will be a hell of a lot higher... Climate Change: Effects
there are a lot of assumptions made in that report. one in particular stands out that europe will lose snow pack areas, but what happens if the sea ice melts like they claim and changes the flow of the gulf stream? according to the same scientists making their current claims, it would throw europe into a mini ice age with lots of snow and increasing glaciation. so which is it? you cant have heavy melting sea ice and reduced snow packs in europe, as europe depends on the gulf stream to help warm the continent. heavy melting of sea ice would introduce a huge amount of fresh water into the north atlantic, changing the salinity of the sea water there, making the water even colder than it would normally be, and salt water being heavier would run deeper than normal, which means eurpoe would be colder not warmer.
this just points out that nature is far more powerful than man is.
i also have to wonder if these projections are based on computer models, which if they are it means that they are truly flawed as they dont take into account much of anything, except what the AGW scientists want it to take.
it may be chicken feed now, but as with ANY tax, it will grow over time. remember when the income tax was first instituted after it became constitutional? the top rate was 6%, it eventually became 90%, and to day its right at 40%. it happens all the time, a government wants more money, and they decide to raise taxes, the UN will be the same way, mark my words.
You can't say that. All your claiming is a slippery slope. Want me to make another slippery slope? rbohm just ate a piece of cheesecake. rbohm is going to have diabetes and be obese in 20 years. Therefore, we should raise his insurance rates now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
What "problem"?
If you have a condo on the Miami beach? Would that be a problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by my54ford
If it does melt. won't it just go back to being what it was several hundred years ago? You know Greenland?!!
Well, if it was truly green (which would have been hundreds of thousands not hundreds of years ago because of the freeze thaw rings in the ice cores) then we would be warming back to a previous state. And it would be beneficial in the long run. The major problem with global warming is just the speed of the warming, not the warming. There's a lot of human developement on the costlines of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
Consensus is not a valid argument; even if every single scientist or even every single person on Earth believes something, that does not make it true. Truth is derived from reasoning constrained by observing nature and making falsifiable predictions. Using this standard instead of logically fallacious consensus ones, the AGW predictions from the computer models aren't looking too good versus reality; that's a big reason why the 20-year temperature stagnation is bugging quite a few scientists. As for it being a conspiracy, being wrong requires no conspiracy; the consensus that the sun revolved around the earth wasn't a conspiracy.
Weather and climate is a lot trickier of an animal to understand than basic astronomy.
You can't say that. All your claiming is a slippery slope. Want me to make another slippery slope? rbohm just ate a piece of cheesecake. rbohm is going to have diabetes and be obese in 20 years. Therefore, we should raise his insurance rates now.
sorry. already have diabetes, as well as stage five kidney failure. but ell me, when was the last time any government instituted a tax, and then reduced it? especially when that tax is supposed to help reduce a particular activity? take our federal income tax for instance, when it was created, the top rate was 6%, it went as high as 91% and stayed there for decades before it was reduced to 28%, and then was increased to 40%, which is where it is now. and how about the cigarette tax? it has steadily increased over the years, especially since the bogus lawsuit was settled. so dont talk about slippery slopes when it comes to taxes as you know very well governments like to increase taxes, not reduce them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
