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.
FYI if this legislation gets passed those that benefit financially from it will make the fossil fuel industry look like paupers. I think many hard core enviromenlatists have this pipe dream of some Utopian type companies coming to save the world and everything will be rainbows and flowers. Far from the case, this is big, big money.
Apparently you dont understand that the incentive to get OFF of fossil fuels DOES NOT EXIST in this country. Not only do oil companies skirt regulatory laws in this country, they also reap untaxed profits. Between the start of the Iraq war and today oil companies profits have more than doubled, furthermore, while they are the greatest contributors to climate change/destruction, they also are the richest corporations IN WORLD HISTORY.
Not so in the much more intelligent Western Europe, where consumers of oil companies are NOT encouraged by the state to use more oil. Their gas is not only more heavily taxed, but mass transit is more popular, and people are not grossly overweight and bicycle use is both recommended and possible.
Try convincing some lard ass to ride a bike in this country over his/her SUV....LOL
I dont like Cap And Trade simply because it will not work. The system will be manipulated and corporate polluters will use to for greater profits while doing nothing to lessen pollution.
I guess I shouldnt be surprised you would think such things about "hard core environmentalists" who know damn well no solutions are at hand at breaking the legislative stranglehold the GOP has on addressing these issues. No rainbows anywhere on the horizon, just an oil slick.
Not so in the much more intelligent Western Europe, where consumers of oil companies are NOT encouraged by the state to use more oil. Their gas is not only more heavily taxed, but mass transit is more popular, and people are not grossly overweight and bicycle use is both recommended and possible.
Try convincing some lard ass to ride a bike in this country over his/her SUV....LOL
Why not move to Europe if you want your freedom of transportation infringed upon? Frankly I love the idea that I can get in my car right now and drive across the entire US and do it without having to take out a bank loan. Matter of fact I did it 3 times, 20 times if you want to count going north/south... I make no apologies to anyone that my lifestyle is better than theirs partly because I have access to cheap energy and the freedom that gives me.
Now if you want to talk about practical solutions for this country lets discuss getting freight off the highways and onto rail.
Listening to this tells you that shutting down the entire U.S. ----everything put at a stand still---we would NEVER even get close to what the government demands. No one is saying not to continue good practices---but the only practices going on is somebody getting rich by doing much of nothing.
Models are quite defensible when they are scientific models that then find a consensus amongst scientists studying the issues and forecasting what awaits from climate change.
Thats not, nor has it ever been, who you listen to. You listen to FreedomWorks, Sen. Inhofe, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, all of whom have vast financial resources at their disposal from those profiting from a warming climate (as well as not having aclue as to what is driving climate change).
I also have to point out your "climate realists" propaganda is advertising for Dodge at the top of the page.........LOL!
on odanny. models aren’t defensible just because a bunch of guys standing around scratching themselves agree.
As for this silly “consensus” argument you are making as it relates to modeling, you have a very serious issue that reading the IPPC report itself would clear up. The Models listed have a +/- of over 3000 points….
Not exactly “consensus”...
But nice try. As for who I listen to, (read this slowly), I get my science from scientists, not politicians.
Your ability to type is no indication of who I read on the subject. Really, you are proving how shallow you are. It’s typical, small and juvenile to assert such nonsense… but you’re a lib so it’s expected.
on odanny. models aren’t defensible just because a bunch of guys standing around scratching themselves agree.
As for this silly “consensus” argument you are making as it relates to modeling, you have a very serious issue that reading the IPPC report itself would clear up. The Models listed have a +/- of over 3000 points….
Not exactly “consensus”...
But nice try. As for who I listen to, (read this slowly), I get my science from scientists, not politicians.
Your ability to type is no indication of who I read on the subject. Really, you are proving how shallow you are. It’s typical, small and juvenile to assert such nonsense… but you’re a lib so it’s expected.
But I'm a lib....so it's "expected"...........
Do you think such a statement of preconceived notions acts to burnish your credentials? It actually reveals how your preconceived notions dont allow the intellectual discourse of the subject of science to progress.
But you are not a scientist studying climate change. Furthermore, you've offered no contradictory evidence that would make be disagree with the consensus reached amongst scientists.
Do you think such a statement of preconceived notions acts to burnish your credentials? It actually reveals how your preconceived notions dont allow the intellectual discourse of the subject of science to progress.
But you are not a scientist studying climate change. Furthermore, you've offered no contradictory evidence that would make be disagree with the consensus reached amongst scientists.
LOL! go back and review odanny. you have twice accused me of getting my science from the likes of rush limbaugh. and you accuse me of preconceived notions? you accuse me of being the one preventing intellectual discourse?
LOL! in addition to being a liberal you are a joke.
LOL! go back and review odanny. you have twice accused me of getting my science from the likes of rush limbaugh. and you accuse me of preconceived notions? you accuse me of being the one preventing intellectual discourse?
LOL! in addition to being a liberal you are a joke.
Shall we just trade LOL's?
Sadly, getting back to climate change, you will ignore science to play silly games that have nothing to do with the topic. Thats what Teabaggers do as well, they accuse Obama of being Hitler when the subject is reforming the out of control monopoly on consumers by insurance companies (and, like fighting climate change, thats not really happening either).
It's better to ignore some people than entertain their juvenile, trite and off topic commentary.
For the record, it doesnt matter who you listen to, whomever it is, they stand alone in the scientific community, and for good reason.
More than likely they have no scientific background.
LOL! go back and review odanny. you have twice accused me of getting my science from the likes of rush limbaugh. and you accuse me of preconceived notions? you accuse me of being the one preventing intellectual discourse?
LOL! in addition to being a liberal you are a joke.
That is all he can do. Since most of our discussions on the details of the science don't follow a clear talking point summary that is easily cut and pasted, all he can do is dismiss, cheer leader consensus claims, appeal to authority, and attack mysterious straw man positions.
Sadly, getting back to climate change, you will ignore science to play silly games that have nothing to do with the topic. Thats what Teabaggers do as well, they accuse Obama of being Hitler when the subject is reforming the out of control monopoly on consumers by insurance companies (and, like fighting climate change, thats not really happening either).
It's better to ignore some people than entertain their juvenile, trite and off topic commentary.
For the record, it doesn’t matter who you listen to, whomever it is, they stand alone in the scientific community, and for good reason.
More than likely they have no scientific background.
we can trade LOLs all day if you like. the good people who can read will notice that you are the one pointing at me and yelling "stupid"
I am the one who has attempted to discuss the actual science.
For those playing along at home....In the second paragraph above odanny begins with: “Getting back to climate change” then he brings up the concept of “science”. That is followed by the following words: Teabagger, Obama, Hitler and insurance companies….
None of which have a thing to do with real science….
I appreciate your existence odanny. You are doing a fantastic job of proving all my points…
That is all he can do. Since most of our discussions on the details of the science don't follow a clear talking point summary that is easily cut and pasted, all he can do is dismiss, cheer leader consensus claims, appeal to authority, and attack mysterious straw man positions.
Tool is a better description I think.
[SIZE=3]It really is comical.
I link to actual real scientific papers and other articles that discuss the real science and what do we get from the other side?
We get shrill incoherent nonsense about how we ignore science.
The good news is, it is in the wide open and everyone can see it.
[/SIZE]
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.
