View Poll Results: Is Global Warming a myth?

Voters
151. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, explain

    52 34.44%
  • No, Explain

    99 65.56%
Page 15 of 102 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 1020

Thread: Is Global Warming a myth?

  1. #141
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    Sorry to be pedantic, but the very earliest settlement of Iceland took place at the earliest during the mid-7th century.

    Interesting post although much evidence does exist that shows late-20th century trends to be far more significant and rapid than any natural cycle theory can explain.

    The anti-Gore demonisation campaign seems a little too convenient, allowing the "feathering their nest" argument to divert attention away from the scientific validity of the AGW argument. Over here in Europe no one takes much notice of Al Gore, he's certainly not seen as the leading proponent of the AGW case. Nevertheless, the debate continues over the science.

    Forget about Gore, make the scientific case.
    There is no validity to the AGW argument.

    That's why the promoters of the AGW theory have to cook their books and hide/destroy source data.

    Oh, and btw, that "more rapid in the twentieth century" business? That was only evident when the AGW con-men cooked their books. No hockey stick. Hockey stick theory be dead. Just like AGW. Get used to it. Once again, hockey sticks are only to be used to beat up on other hockey players.

  2. #142
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chappy View Post
    Tap tap tap
    Amazing how people keep spewing propaganda and lies, isn't it?

    You are aware that NASA Goddard is refusing FOIA requests to release their raw data to peer review, right?

    Which is exactly what the other AGW con-men were doing, hiding their data.

    The last decade was cooler than the preceding one.

  3. #143
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,982

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    I am actually not suggesting legislation to ban anything, however. I'm suggesting the governments across the world incentivise r/d into alternative energy and make alternative forms of transport more attractive than those more wasteful kinds. Better public transport, better facilities for people using non-fossil-based energy sources.
    I actually have little issue with incentivising people to go for more economical cars or energy efficient items or research to new kinds of fuel sources, etc.

    I love incentives. My issue is not with incentives. I actually think we should have tax incentives and such for buying more fuel efficient cars, energy efficient appliances and objects like solar panels, and as long a we're in the business of giving scientific grants giving it to people (regardless if its a college or if its a fuel company) doing research into alternative forms of energy.

    What I dislike is PUNISHING people for NOT doing those things. You want to give people a $1000 tax break for buying a car with 35 MPG or over, sure thing. You want to impose a $1000 fine on people for buying one with 15 MPG, absolutely not. And that goes equally true for bull**** underhanded attempts of doing it by, for example, increasing the taxes on all cars by $1000 and THEN doing the $1000 tax break on ones over 35MPG, effectively back ending into the $1000 fine.

    You will rarely see me upset with the money potentially giving money back to people for doing something that is beneficial in some facet or way (As opposed to giving money to people for things that are of little tangable benefit or demotivate).

    There is substantive, tangable, immediete proven fact in terms of the affects on Alcohol. On ones body. On ones attitude and its impact if they are in public. On ones ability to drive. These are MUCH more immediete and much more definitive than that of climate change, its impact, and its possability to be "stopped" if it even needs to be.

    Further, if its about resouces, then why aren't we getting to use our own now? Why are we having numerous legislation that also is due to environmental issues that are essentially stopping it. People continue to claim that even if we drill now we won't have the oil now, but in 10 years. Fine, drill now, and lets get it in 10 years. Because 10 years ago people were saying lets reduce the restrictions on this and start drilling and we were told no, it won't come now. Now 10 years later we're hearing the same thing. If its about expiring resources why aren't we building the infastructure NOW to tap ours in 10 years, or even just be ready for when we NEED to start pumping ours? We're not, because this is as much a political movement as a legitimate scientific movement, and part of it is the notion that oil consumption of any kind, and using of our own resources, is bad.

    If we're going to run out or resources sometimes in our life time know what is even more important than simply using less of it currently? Finding what is going to be the NEXT resource we're going to use. Yet that is second fiddle most times to making us stop using the resources. And we're going to do significant damage to business, our economy, and our way of life all of which helps enables the educational system and economic system we have in place to allow us to potentially MAKE those advances in technology a reality.

    I'll have to look for an old thread, its probably 2 years old now so I don't know if I'll be able to find it, but its part of what started really opening my eyes with this.

    Scientists had found a way to create an incest that actuall excreted crude oil.

    Yeah, they shat oil.

    There were people on this website that went balistic at the notion, so upset with this scientific research because we needed to "end our obsession with oil".

    It was at this point where it was made crystal clear that this isn't simply science, this is most definitely political.

    If its about resources running out who cares what the resource is...if it hydrogen, if its water, if its trash, or if its oil. If its really about that then should we be excited and hey even saying "lets give these guys some grants" if there's a chance to have a renewable resource that could actually use the entire infastructure we currently have in place instead of having to create an entirely new infastructure?

    But we can't, because oil is bad, oil is dirty, oil is evil, oil is owned by people like exxon, and we can't have that...

    Cause yeah, it may be a bit about the environment, but its a hell of a lot about politics as well.

  4. #144
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    What I dislike is PUNISHING people for NOT doing those things. You want to give people a $1000 tax break for buying a car with 35 MPG or over, sure thing. You want to impose a $1000 fine on people for buying one with 15 MPG, absolutely not. And that goes equally true for bull**** underhanded attempts of doing it by, for example, increasing the taxes on all cars by $1000 and THEN doing the $1000 tax break on ones over 35MPG, effectively back ending into the $1000 fine.
    I'm really not seeing the distinction in those two cases. Either way, you're paying $1000 less in taxes if you get the more fuel-efficient car. And either way, those with less fuel-efficient cars are paying more taxes proportionally. I completely agree with you that incentives are great. I just don't see why that logic wouldn't apply to both carrots AND sticks. I think the best energy-conservation incentive of all would be one of the simplest: A gas tax.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 02-12-10 at 04:31 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #145
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    how do you figure that?
    The Messiah's Crap and Trade scam is about raising taxes, not reducing carbon emissions.

    Kyoto was about shutting down the industrialized economies so developing economies could "catch up".

    The latest show at Hopenhagen was about pushing forward the government control socialist agenda, not about the general global cooling and Climategate Scandal.

    The Green movement is the socialist movement in a gilly suit. Nothing else.

  6. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I actually have little issue with incentivising people to go for more economical cars or energy efficient items or research to new kinds of fuel sources, etc.
    I do.

    The constitution doesn't allow the government to steal my money to pay someone else to buy a specific product.

    That totally removes the incentives the alternative energy people have to reduce costs until they're competitive with other technologies.

  7. #147
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,982

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Here's my general reason.

    There's only going to be so far LOW the government is going to go with taxes if they keep the BASELINE where it is now...

    IE, they're never going to give you a tax break so cheap its paying for half the car, or all of the car, no matter how much they want to give you the "carrot" and want you in that car. Additionally, by lowering the tax this is a boone for the car industry, as the person is still paying them the full amount of money for the car and its the government taking the hit.

    However, this is not the case with tax HIKES. If they really don't want you in that car there's no height they wont' raise it too, they can just keep going up and up on it until its almost ridiculous to even THINK of buying it. And in this case it IS the car company that takes the hit, because individuals will not be buying the car as much because it will be so much more expensive, and thus makes it uneconomical to continue to produce it as the amount people will end up having to pay won't match the quality of the car.

    So in one case, with a Carrot, it is a marginal bonus that will be highly unlikely to get out of hand, does not really hurt the car industry but rather likely helps it.

    In the other case, with the stick, it can quickly become a large deterent with it having a much higher likilyhood of getting out of head, and ends up hurting the car industry and potentially pushes the car off the market completely.

    Its for the same reason why I don't like backhanded attempts at this, by raising the over all tax and THEN applying the incentives (even if the incentives are bigger then), as an attempt to get the punative stick applied to the cars they don't want without making it obvious that's what they're doing.

  8. #148
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,982

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    I do.

    The constitution doesn't allow the government to steal my money to pay someone else to buy a specific product.

    That totally removes the incentives the alternative energy people have to reduce costs until they're competitive with other technologies.
    I agree to a point and perfect world would agree completely, but I'm cursed with being a bit of a realist with how we are now.

    Additionally I would like to see such potential incentives, particularly any grants or such things, mixed with requirements put on those companies benefiting from it to reach a certain reduced cost price poitn by a certain time for said incentives to remain.

    However, in the short term, part of me see's this less as a environmental issue and frankly more of a national security one. Frankly I would have no problem with us being less dependant on foreign sources of energy, both through efficiency and tapping into our own, so as to remove a ptoential means of control or pressure people could put on us.

  9. #149
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Here's my general reason.

    There's only going to be so far LOW the government is going to go with taxes if they keep the BASELINE where it is now...

    IE, they're never going to give you a tax break so cheap its paying for half the car, or all of the car, no matter how much they want to give you the "carrot" and want you in that car. Additionally, by lowering the tax this is a boone for the car industry, as the person is still paying them the full amount of money for the car and its the government taking the hit.

    However, this is not the case with tax HIKES. If they really don't want you in that car there's no height they wont' raise it too, they can just keep going up and up on it until its almost ridiculous to even THINK of buying it. And in this case it IS the car company that takes the hit, because individuals will not be buying the car as much because it will be so much more expensive, and thus makes it uneconomical to continue to produce it as the amount people will end up having to pay won't match the quality of the car.

    So in one case, with a Carrot, it is a marginal bonus that will be highly unlikely to get out of hand, does not really hurt the car industry but rather likely helps it.

    In the other case, with the stick, it can quickly become a large deterent with it having a much higher likilyhood of getting out of head, and ends up hurting the car industry and potentially pushes the car off the market completely.

    Its for the same reason why I don't like backhanded attempts at this, by raising the over all tax and THEN applying the incentives (even if the incentives are bigger then), as an attempt to get the punative stick applied to the cars they don't want without making it obvious that's what they're doing.
    I agree that the tax hikes would hurt the auto manufacturer and the tax cuts would help them. But isn't that the whole idea of incentivizing behavior? To discourage them from producing energy hogs in the first place, and to encourage them to produce fuel-efficient vehicles?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #150
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,982

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I agree that the tax hikes would hurt the auto manufacturer and the tax cuts would help them. But isn't that the whole idea of incentivizing behavior? To discourage them from producing energy hogs in the first place, and to encourage them to produce fuel-efficient vehicles?
    Except that's not who I think needs the incetivizing. I'd rather give slight encouragement to consumers, and let them decide, than to give extreme discouragement to auto manufacturers till there's no reason to continue to produce a choice.

    Mind you, incentives for purchasing I don't mind if its relatively small. Enough to give people an excuse for themselves to do it, but not something to make it an absolute no brainer.

    I think giving a minor incentive to individual purchasers will give a slight increase to those buying economical cars, but not such a huge shift that its not economically intelligent for car makers to stop making other types of cars, thus allowing there to still be choices people can make. I also am in favor of doing it this way because there is an artificial floor for these tax reductions

    I don't like taxes being levied on the people or the automakers because there is no artificial cieling so the tendancy is for it to continually inflate upwards, and eventually removes choice from the equation as there is no longer any economical reason at all to make the alternative choice

Page 15 of 102 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •