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.
Not at all. For lots of folks, their ignorance is their most prized possession and they'll fight like hell to keep it in the face of overwhelming evidence.
What evidence?
Theories?
Theories are not evidence, just half-baked guesses.
When are you going to stop claiming I say things that I do not say?
In post #337 of THIS THREAD you say "Climate models are no longer needed...We can measure changes, and the facts are obvious...."
So why do you keep referencing climate models?
I called you on your statement in that other thread at the time. You responded with something snitty. I call you on that statement again now. You say I'm making stuff up.
Fact is, you just dont like being held accountable for your own statements. Typical AGW behaviour.
Here is the truth. If AGW actually was a problem, within a short period of time, we could mitigate its effects.
The problem is, so far, it simply hasn't been a problem. And it is unlikely to be a real problem anytime soon.
Keep in mind, the types of people who fall into the category of "global-warming alarmist", are really just environmentalists. The same types of environmentalists who have been saying the sky is falling for decades now.
The same types of environmentalists who have been trying to get us to stop using oil for decades. Are the same types of environmentalists who, if they were successful in stopping our use of oil. Would just turn to another cause, such as ending the use of nuclear energy, or even the use of wind turbines(they kill birds). And so on and so forth.
The real goal of the environmentalist, is to basically kill off the vast majority of humanity. Just ask a die-hard environmentalist how many people the Earth can sustain. They will usually claim "around a billion". Because that is roughly how many people the Earth could sustain without the use of chemical fertilizers and irrigation. And environmentalists won't stop until we no longer use chemical fertilizers and irrigate our crops. Which means, about six billion people need to die.
These global warming crazies need to be ignored and dismissed until they can learn how to make a reasonable argument with actual proof.
Should we be concerned about a warming planet? Absolutely. But the sky is not falling.
Here is the truth. If AGW actually was a problem, within a short period of time, we could mitigate its effects.
The problem is, so far, it simply hasn't been a problem. And it is unlikely to be a real problem anytime soon.
Keep in mind, the types of people who fall into the category of "global-warming alarmist", are really just environmentalists. The same types of environmentalists who have been saying the sky is falling for decades now.
The same types of environmentalists who have been trying to get us to stop using oil for decades. Are the same types of environmentalists who, if they were successful in stopping our use of oil. Would just turn to another cause, such as ending the use of nuclear energy, or even the use of wind turbines(they kill birds). And so on and so forth.
The real goal of the environmentalist, is to basically kill off the vast majority of humanity. Just ask a die-hard environmentalist how many people the Earth can sustain. They will usually claim "around a billion". Because that is roughly how many people the Earth could sustain without the use of chemical fertilizers and irrigation. And environmentalists won't stop until we no longer use chemical fertilizers and irrigate our crops. Which means, about six billion people need to die.
These global warming crazies need to be ignored and dismissed until they can learn how to make a reasonable argument with actual proof.
Should we be concerned about a warming planet? Absolutely. But the sky is not falling.
absolutely brilliant!!!!!! another person that gets it.
I want to add, the environmentalist also wants to end our use of dams. Which have saved countless lives and property from flooding. And which are essential for irrigation.
They make it impossible to build absolutely anything, anywhere. Ironically, the very light rail and other transit systems that environmentalist claim they want. Are driven up dramatically in price, or prevented altogether, because the environmentalists require "environmental studies" on every area that might be affected.
Can't build there, because some mouse that no one has ever heard of might be hurt. Can't build here, because some turtle no one has ever heard of might be killed.
If you really start looking at the logic of their positions. You'll realize that they would actually like to tear up everything that humans have ever built, and return it all to nature.
In post #337 of THIS THREAD you say "Climate models are no longer needed...We can measure changes, and the facts are obvious...."
So why do you keep referencing climate models?
I called you on your statement in that other thread at the time. You responded with something snitty. I call you on that statement again now. You say I'm making stuff up.
Fact is, you just dont like being held accountable for your own statements. Typical AGW behaviour.
I said "Climate models are no longer needed (Inferring that they are no longer needed to verify warming) ...We can measure changes, and the facts are obvious...."
Climate models are predictions...Measurements are what is happening now...Surely you are not so slow that you do not understand the difference....or are you?
You claimed that I said... " climate models do not matter any more."
How does it not work?....It is doing exactly what it was meant to do, encouraging people to lower their carbon footprint......Even though I have posted in detail how our carbon tax works, you still either don't understand it or you are lying for big oil.
Once again..
• On 1 July 2008, BC brought in North America’s first carbon tax shift. It imposed a price on the use of carbon- based fuels, with all the revenues going to fund corresponding cuts in other taxes
• The tax is a central component of BC’s climate change strategy, which aims to reduce GHG emissions by 33 percent below 2007 levels by 2020
• BC’s carbon tax shift was designed to be “revenue neutral”; all the revenues are to be used to reduce other taxes – mainly through cuts to income taxes (personal and corporate), as well as targeted tax relief for vulnerable households and communities – resulting in no overall increase in taxation
• When introduced in 2008, the tax was initially set at $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). It was designed to rise by $5 per year thereafter until it reached $30 per tonne (roughly 7 cents per litre of gas) in 2012.
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.
