[ddrhazy]

Originally Posted by Freedom4Nevada

Fires are caused by many things but this “warming” you relish is not sufficient to start fires as for climate, look no further than the bright ball of gas up there before looking at anything else. California’s situation is primarily caused by intentional human mismanagement. Before we arrived, fire played an important role in keeping nature in balance. Many plants and animals rely on the systems that respond to stimuli during and after a fire. We changed that. We no like fire. We smarter than fire. We love nature so we keep nature from being nature. That is the problem here.

California trains to Vegas will not cut down on the interstate mess and Californians live here and do not pay Nevada taxes/fees/permits. They still send their money back to California DMV for example. Have a good one!

Nah. You're wrong. The fires are getting worse. It is a direct result of carbon emissions.

[RationalExpectations]

Originally Posted by ddrhazy

The government needs to regulate or you get things like 2008 housing crash or data caps on internet or medical insurance plans that are absolute garbage.

If you dislike the government so much, why do you live in USA? Why not move to one of those tax evasion islands?

And yet, the government caused the 2008 housing crash and caused our current medical insurance system. cable and internet providers are protected monopolies - protected by the government - and are already highly regulated. So it sounds like the real problem is incompetent public sector employees, bureaucrats, elected politicians, and appointed mandarins.

[RationalExpectations]

Originally Posted by ddrhazy

A stop on all DOT highway and road widening projects for one. That's a start.

Scientists agree that will have zero impact on global warming.

But thanks for playing.

[geriatricjerry]

Originally Posted by rationalexpectations

and yet, the government caused the 2008 housing crash

lol

Originally Posted by RationalExpectations

cable and internet providers are protected monopolies - protected by the government - and are already highly regulated.

also lol

[clutchcargo777]

Has there been a drop off in people making the drive? Haven't people been driving to Las Vegas from Southern California for well over 70+ years?

There has been a huge drop off in people parking for free when they get here. That and the myriad of new fees they pay for everything from drinking, sleeping and breathing is starting to have an effect.

[ddrhazy]

If Sherman and Glass-Stegall were being enforced properly, we would not have nearly the amount of problems today. I don't understand this libertarian brain worm desire to privatize everything when every large company eventually becomes a monopoly, drives up prices and makes using their service worse.

Unless you have a large amount of stocks in places like Amazon, Google and various banks, it doesn't financially benefit you to even hold such an opinion. It's like you actively like being a boot licker and enjoy getting ripped off.

[bionictony]

no one's talking about the bad traffic between ontario and victorville? even if you got train tickets it is problematic to go up the hill to get to victorville and cominb back. at least have the train go from ontario airport? or some city along the 210 freeway?

[orca17]

Originally Posted by EA

NOTHING should be a government endeavor. They're absolutely terrible at everything they do.

Totally disagree. Want a boondoggle? Turn anything important over to someone with a profit motive. Private prisons are a prime example. Health care? Someone with no medical training parroting out of a company manual decides what you are covered for, and forget it if it is anything expensive or long term.

[ddrhazy]

Originally Posted by bionictony

no one's talking about the bad traffic between ontario and victorville? even if you got train tickets it is problematic to go up the hill to get to victorville and cominb back. at least have the train go from ontario airport? or some city along the 210 freeway?

There's a half assed way of doing this project and then there is a correct way. A lackluster rail will ensure nobody ever uses it and will be used as an example of "rail fail" and more pushback against building out high speed rail in the future.

The $4 billion price tag is actually cheap. However, contractors will quote a ridiculously cheap estimate and then the real cost is realized at the end. It happened in Seattle when they were building the tunnel after removing the viaduct, it's happening in Los Angeles for the metro rail build out and it could happen here.

I don't know where the grift is if a private company goes over budget and delivers a shoddy rail line, but my guess would be getting unwarranted tax breaks and getting easements and right of ways that they should be paying a hefty sum on.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by ddrhazy

Nah. It's getting warmer. [No, it's cooling.] And there's no point in arguing this anymore because almost all scientists that study climate are saying the same thing. [With what they're being paid - they had better! ] The only thing that they are not sure about is what sort of diminished eco system and quality of life will remain if we continue on our path.

I doubt you'll find one astrophysicist on the wagon.

The scariest part of the 'alarmist' mantra is a complete disregard for facts by ‘climate scientists.’
Consider that outside the atmosphere, the sun's energy is 1300 W / sq meter, whereas at sea level, inside that 'toasty' atmosphere it is only 1000 W/ sq meter. 30% was reflected back by the 'heat trapping' atmosphere. In fact, the atmosphere keeps Earth cooler than nearby bodies in a vacuum.

- - - TEMPERATURE DATA - - -
● Earth max : (134.33°F)
● Space station max : (250°F)
● Lunar surface max : (242.33°F)

Zero atmosphere = higher maximum temperature
How does a “heat trapping”atmosphere stay colder?

There is no "heating up" or trapping of heat by the atmosphere when it is COOLING the planet. And since there is no conduction nor convection of heat in a vacuum, that leaves RADIATION. The atmosphere is radiating / reflecting back energy, that COOLS the planet.

More Facts in support - - -
Earth Albedo : 0.3
Moon Albedo : 0.11

Coincidentally, the greenhouse gases have a higher emissivity that means they COOL the planet even more. And the #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor, which has a far greater effect than trace gases like CO2 or methane.. . .

Now, let me lead you to a KARBONITE SITE:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...orrelation.htm

... "A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth's surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them.”

WAIT - the Earth with ‘heat trapping’ atmosphere is 108° F cooler than the Moon without an atmosphere (242-134F). And they are claiming that trace gases are keeping Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer despite the atmosphere keeping us 116°F cooler than the Space Station right outside of Earth’s atmosphere (250-134F).

Too confusing?
=> Zero atmosphere = 250 F (space station)
=> Atmosphere w/ CO2 = 134F (Earth surface)
. . . .but the Karbonites are claiming. . . .
=> Atmosphere w/o CO2 = 80F (134F - 54F) [Ice age?]

HOAX, FOLKS
Just another way to spook muggles into giving up more power and wealth to 'public servants' who have your 'best interests' at heart... yeah, right.
- -- - - -- -

WHY BE SKEPTICAL?
The proponents of AGCC / AGW are con men or useful idiots.

If "the money" really believed that oceans would rise, they'd be selling off oceanfront property or surrounding it with polders, levees and dikes. Mountain retreats would be selling like hotcakes. Governments would be shifting subsidy from the automobile / petroleum / highway hegemony, to electric traction rail - the most efficient form of land transport (90% fuel savings). All housing would be built with superinsulation, thus minimizing the consumption of resources to maintain comfort. And to minimize the cost from natural disasters, construct disaster resistant resilient structures and homes, as a rule, not an exception.

But.They're.Not.
They're trying to tax air and sequester carbon - a joke if ever.
. . .

And thanks to the most famous DENIER: ex-prez BHO who bought some coastal property on Martha's Vineyard, we're sure that there's no immediate risk of oceans swamping those expensive properties. Or he's a big, fat liar.