Republican nominations - Page 160
Forum Index > General Forum |
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
| ||
Adila
United States874 Posts
On November 27 2011 17:30 dOofuS wrote: I want this piece of art on my wall. If you want explanation, go here: http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=379 You can replace Obama with any other recent president or politician and it'd be the exact same thing. I also find it funny Reagan is with the old Presidents instead of being with the recent ones. | ||
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808 This is the first in a series of articles that aim to educate the population on the research behind global warming. It deals with most of the issues raised by sceptics, including those raised in this thread. It is also supported by some of the worlds leading climate scientists. So often global warming sceptics (or deniers) can get a word in because people's response is to just shout at them. Sceptics need information, so here is some. | ||
TheBomb
237 Posts
On November 28 2011 08:37 Probulous wrote: Perhaps the conversation had moved on but if anyone is actually interested in learning about the science behind global warming please read this link http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808 This is the first in a series of articles that aim to educate the population on the research behind global warming. It deals with most of the issues raised by sceptics, including those raised in this thread. It is also supported by some of the worlds leading climate scientists. So often global warming sceptics (or deniers) can get a word in because people's response is to just shout at them. Sceptics need information, so here is some. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html 5,000 leaked emails reveal scientists deleted evidence that cast doubt on claims climate change was man-made Experts were under orders from US and UK officials to come up with a 'strong message' Critics claim: 'The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering' Scientist asks, 'What if they find that climate change is a natural fluctuation? They'll kill us all' Another blow for the climate corrupts and zombies. Its all a bunch of lies, its a scam that started from private political figures and not scientists. In fact these people have invested more than 1 billion into the global warming scam and they are not going to let it go. Most of the "scientists" are payed off imbeciles that probably believes in big foot. And stop with the bullshit "consensus" crap. There is a consensus, but its that all this global warming crap is just that - crap! 99% of the scientists in the world question and/or don't agree with the global warming scam. http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/12/stick-a-fork-in-2.html I for one know that scientists that haven't received money to research global warming and have done it on their own all agree that global warming is a scam. You people better wake up and start worrying about real environmental problems like chemical companies dumping toxic waste into the earth and water, metal mines dumping waste in back side small towns and villages polluting the environment and destroying the soil and dangerous and aggressive genetically modified foods. | ||
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
I can only help explain the situation to you if you are willing to learn. Clearly you are not. The series I have linked has about 8 separate articles and you have raised nothing that responds to them. You clearly have no interest in changing your opinion even if evidence is provided that contradicts your position. You are therefore not a sceptic but a denier, no different from any conspiracy theorist. As for your link, first off it's the daily mail hardly a reputatable institution. Secondly, science is based on doubt. If a scientist says that they are 100% certain of something they are lying or not a scientist (phyics and maths have exceptions). Global warming is a theory, like any theory it is based on evidence but is not a physical law. There is always a possibility that it is correct but there is also a possibility that it is not correct. The same can be said for the theory that toxic pollutants destroy habitats. The evidence is there but there could be some other explanation that has not been found. Thirdly of course there is a lot riding on the research. "'What if they find that climate change is a natural fluctuation? They'll kill us all" Does not mean the research has been tainted, it simply means the scientists are aware of the consequences. If I am engineer of the space station I want to damned sure I do my job properly. Doesn't mean that I am beholden to some powerful lobby group. Finally, this is one set of scientists that are contributing to research that has spanned decades. One conflicting opinion does not change the tide unless there is irrefutable proof. Yes the e-mails are damaging in that they appear to show data massaging. Nothing has been proven. These researchers will have to deal with that. However they do not show " these people have invested more than 1 billion into the global warming scam and they are not going to let it go. Most of the "scientists" are payed off imbeciles that probably believes in big foot". Come down from the mountain oh prophet of doom, the world is not controlled by the illuminati or Al Gore. Facts can be fiendishly difficult to deal with, particularly if your prefer fantasy. Edit: Having braved that link you provided, I prefer to take my thinking from someone who doesn't write stuff like Even now daring to challenge liberal orthodoxy means trading lavish public funding for an endangered career. But as ever more scientists gather the courage to speak out, the tide is turning against the greatest scientific hoax in human history. Sorry progressives — you'll have to find some other way to impose one-world totalitarianism. But Cancunbats can still enjoy their holiday while the rest of us work to pay our taxes, so long as they do their best to stay warm. I am reading the report so give me some time but I am giggling that the author stipulates "Selected highlights from the report" when quoting people. Anybody that thinks that public research funding is lavish obviously has never seen the inside of a public laboratory. Edit 2: Do you have a different link, that one doesn't work. | ||
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On November 28 2011 08:46 TheBomb wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html Another blow for the climate corrupts and zombies. Its all a bunch of lies, its a scam that started from private political figures and not scientists. In fact these people have invested more than 1 billion into the global warming scam and they are not going to let it go. Most of the "scientists" are payed off imbeciles that probably believes in big foot. And stop with the bullshit "consensus" crap. There is a consensus, but its that all this global warming crap is just that - crap! 99% of the scientists in the world question and/or don't agree with the global warming scam. http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/12/stick-a-fork-in-2.html I for one know that scientists that haven't received money to research global warming and have done it on their own all agree that global warming is a scam. You people better wake up and start worrying about real environmental problems like chemical companies dumping toxic waste into the earth and water, metal mines dumping waste in back side small towns and villages polluting the environment and destroying the soil and dangerous and aggressive genetically modified foods. Don't listen to this man: he probably doesn't even drink unfluoridated water. What about global warming on Mars? It's sunspot cycles. Can you control the sun? Look at the Obama scandal with Solyndra--tapping solar power to tap into sunspot cycles to cover up the global warming scam? Does anyone believe the Mars mission really failed because of unit conversion? Can Illuminatus Mason TheBomb provide his long-form birth certificate that shows he isn't from a city named after Martian geography? I think not. | ||
TheBomb
237 Posts
On November 28 2011 09:05 Probulous wrote: Thanks for reading mate I can only help explain the situation to you if you are willing to learn. Clearly you are not. The series I have linked has about 8 separate articles and you have raised nothing that responds to them. You clearly have no interest in changing your opinion even if evidence is provided that contradicts your position. You are therefore not a sceptic but a denier, no different from any conspiracy theorist. As for your link, first off it's the daily mail hardly a reputatable institution. Secondly, science is based on doubt. If a scientist says that they are 100% certain of something they are lying or not a scientist (phyics and maths have exceptions). Global warming is a theory, like any theory it is based on evidence but is not a physical law. There is always a possibility that it is correct but there is also a possibility that it is not correct. The same can be said for the theory that toxic pollutants destroy habitats. The evidence is there but there could be some other explanation that has not been found. Thirdly of course there is a lot riding on the research. "'What if they find that climate change is a natural fluctuation? They'll kill us all" Does not mean the research has been tainted, it simply means the scientists are aware of the consequences. If I am engineer of the space station I want to damned sure I do my job properly. Doesn't mean that I am beholden to some powerful lobby group. Finally, this is one set of scientists that are contributing to research that has spanned decades. One conflicting opinion does not change the tide unless there is irrefutable proof. Yes the e-mails are damaging in that they appear to show data massaging. Nothing has been proven. These researchers will have to deal with that. However they do not show " these people have invested more than 1 billion into the global warming scam and they are not going to let it go. Most of the "scientists" are payed off imbeciles that probably believes in big foot". Come down from the mountain oh prophet of doom, the world is not controlled by the illuminati or Al Gore. Facts can be fiendishly difficult to deal with, particularly if your prefer fantasy. Edit: Having braved that link you provided, I prefer to take my thinking from someone who doesn't write stuff like Even now daring to challenge liberal orthodoxy means trading lavish public funding for an endangered career. But as ever more scientists gather the courage to speak out, the tide is turning against the greatest scientific hoax in human history. Sorry progressives — you'll have to find some other way to impose one-world totalitarianism. But Cancunbats can still enjoy their holiday while the rest of us work to pay our taxes, so long as they do their best to stay warm. I am reading the report so give me some time but I am giggling that the author stipulates "Selected highlights from the report" when quoting people. Anybody that thinks that public research funding is lavish obviously has never seen the inside of a public laboratory. Edit 2: Do you have a different link, that one doesn't work. Okay mate, you keep on paying those carbon taxes there in Australia and keep on thinking Al Gore cares about the climate and that the 1 billion he and his buddies have invested don't have anything to do with all the fake data being created. Al Gore cares about you and he spend part of that one billion to save you from the sun, heck why don't you proclaim him to be Jesus Christ or even god maybe. No he doesn't want to put carbon trading and make hundreds of billions through it, no he doesn't have majority shares in an oil company and doesn't want to destroy all competition to oil like coal. No Al Gore loves you and might as well be Jesus Christ in disguise here to save the earth from the sun and the atmosphere itself. In fact we should probably all have 50% carbon taxes because we exhale carbon dioxide imposed on all of us and while we are at it maybe have few wars to reduce population because we are all destroying the earth. | ||
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
| ||
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On November 28 2011 09:23 TheBomb wrote: Okay mate, you keep on paying those carbon taxes there in Australia and keep on thinking Al Gore cares about the climate and that the 1 billion he and his buddies have invested don't have anything to do with all the fake data being created. Al Gore cares about you and he spend part of that one billion to save you from the sun, heck why don't you proclaim him to be Jesus Christ or even god maybe. No he doesn't want to put carbon trading and make hundreds of billions through it, no he doesn't have majority shares in an oil company and doesn't want to destroy all competition to oil like coal. No Al Gore loves you and might as well be Jesus Christ in disguise here to save the earth from the sun and the atmosphere itself. In fact we should probably all have 50% carbon taxes because we exhale carbon dioxide imposed on all of us and while we are at it maybe have few wars to reduce population because we are all destroying the earth. Why the hysterics? Calm down a little. This is just a discussion, no need to blow a valve. The carbon tax in Australia is actually a fixed price trading scheme that becomes a fully fledged market in two years. Tax is just an over simplification. Secondly it only affects the largest polluters in the country. Yes there are flow on effects but the revenue from the scheme is used to compensate those affected. I don't care about Al Gore, poor guy since he obviously cares about me. I care about the facts. I have read far and wide on this issue, from Flannery to Mockton and everything in between. I just don't see the evidence to suggest a massive scam. Exhaling carbon dioxide doesn't mean anything. If we had a purely oxygen atmosphere we would die. It is the proportion that matters. Who said anything about 50% taxes Please climb back on the sanity train, cause where you're heading, no-one can follow. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Since more in depth seems to be needed, I'll spotlight my problems with the author's credibility and approach to the issue. Not his goal, which is to seek to persuade skeptics and full-blown deniers that the evidence is overwhelming that global warming is occuring, is human-caused, and could spell our doom in coming years. I'm talking about when he says, On 20 April 2010, a BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and creating the largest oil spill in history. When President Obama sought to hold the corporation accountable by creating a $20B damage fund, this provoked Republican Congressman from Texas Joe Barton to issue a public apology. An apology not to the people affected by the oil spill … but to BP. Let us return to Congressman Barton. Before apologizing to BP, not for the nearly $3,000,000 he has received in contributions from the oil, gas, and energy industries, but for President Obama seeking accountability from the corporation, Mr Barton also sponsored a contrived investigation of the famed “hockeystick” paper by Professor Michael Mann and colleagues. Article opens on a one-sided villification of a sitting congressman. You might think it off topic, but the author is trying to make a quick point and segue here. Really shakes your confidence in his accurate portrayal of science fact and science theory. Firstly, we are brought in to believe that President Obama is 100% "hold[ing] the corporation accountable by creating a $20B damage fund." Wise, benevolent Obama whose plan was the only way to hold the evil corporation responsible. I say that last sentence for emphasis: Other plans existed. If you thought 20 billion was a number pulled out of his posterior, you might call that a shakedown of a private company by the sitting president. Haha you've got a disaster, cough up 5Bil, wait no make that 10bil, nvm let's round it out to 20bil. Catch my drift? The narrow focus on the stereotypical hero and the villain in the opening comparison impede my ability to take the author seriously in his criticism of skeptics and deniers, and casts a shadow on my continued reading. Much like (and don't read beyond illustration in this comparison) a teenager calling himself the victim and his mother the evil villain for taking away his TV privileges for no reason whatsoever, and then lecturing on other household injustices. Rest of article disparages what it apparently views as the most prominent of 'deniers' articles appearing in scientific journals. Of course, you do have to do that because there are articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that dispute catastrophic irreversible climate change. But the compromise this author goes on injecting political bias in his opener and seeking parallels from there is :S. Greenhouse effect is real, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's true. I desire a better article than that guy. Stick with objective rebuttals of the opposing side, the science of the proponent's side, and leave your political straw men at the door. We already have doomsday on one side, counter-doomsday on another. We are doing irreversible damage that will raise sea levels by x amount in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, or earth is fine. Global Temperatures last 50 years: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average global temperature last 50 years You know, there is simple things out there that need explanation. Why do HadCRUT3vGL, Mann2003a, Mann2008f, NCDCGL studies show this plateuing at 58 degs fahrenheit from 2000-2010? Obviously, this is a very minor question in the overall body of research. I want to see more explanations for why 10 years of pause and why now? Do climate models predict this? Did Professor So-and-so say this was coming? Hope this helped elucidate, prob. Oh, and go Herman Cain =) | ||
Josealtron
United States219 Posts
On November 28 2011 08:46 TheBomb wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html Another blow for the climate corrupts and zombies. Its all a bunch of lies, its a scam that started from private political figures and not scientists. In fact these people have invested more than 1 billion into the global warming scam and they are not going to let it go. Most of the "scientists" are payed off imbeciles that probably believes in big foot. And stop with the bullshit "consensus" crap. There is a consensus, but its that all this global warming crap is just that - crap! 99% of the scientists in the world question and/or don't agree with the global warming scam. http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/12/stick-a-fork-in-2.html I for one know that scientists that haven't received money to research global warming and have done it on their own all agree that global warming is a scam. You people better wake up and start worrying about real environmental problems like chemical companies dumping toxic waste into the earth and water, metal mines dumping waste in back side small towns and villages polluting the environment and destroying the soil and dangerous and aggressive genetically modified foods. Ugh, I can't believe I'm wasting my time responding to this crap. + Show Spoiler + And stop with the bullshit "consensus" crap. There is a consensus, but its that all this global warming crap is just that - crap! 99% of the scientists in the world question and/or don't agree with the global warming scam. ROFL. http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm + Show Spoiler + The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. So basically, no. Not 99% of scientists deny it-in fact, 97% of climate scientists(who should be the ones that we mainly consider, because they devote their lives to researching this crap) believe it, and the biggest doubters are petroleum geologists(big surprise!), but even 47% of them believe it. If you think these sources are bullshit, I can find many more that say the same damn thing. + Show Spoiler + I for one know that scientists that haven't received money to research global warming and have done it on their own all agree that global warming is a scam. I would LOVE to see a source for this. And no, Fox news and similar websites are not reputable sources. The fact that you claim they "all agree" is hilarious, because in science they rarely, if ever, "all agree" on a relatively new theory like Global Warming. That alone tells me that you probably pulled this out of your ass. + Show Spoiler + You people better wake up and start worrying about real environmental problems like chemical companies dumping toxic waste into the earth and water, metal mines dumping waste in back side small towns and villages polluting the environment and destroying the soil and dangerous and aggressive genetically modified foods. These things are also real problems(except for the genetically modified foods, LOL. And villages polluting the environment? How about Urban cities polluting the environment?) but I'd say, and I'd have 97% of climate scientists agreeing with me, that Global Warming is also true and a very real problem. | ||
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
| ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 28 2011 09:55 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @Danglars Herman cain really? The guy who quotes pokemon as a poem and gets his Tax plan from the SIMS game. Come on man... you can do better than that. Also, he is related to the koch brothers, so you know he is corrupted x10. Tax plan actually centers the focus on why I oppose Obama's economic policy. It's a step in the right direction for the ideas I want congress debating. And a "Huh?," for the rest. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On November 28 2011 05:01 Adila wrote: You can replace Obama with any other recent president or politician and it'd be the exact same thing. I also find it funny Reagan is with the old Presidents instead of being with the recent ones. I also like Lincoln seems to be aghast as well despite the fact that considering what he did during the Civil War suspending habeas corpus etc. | ||
pyaar
United States423 Posts
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/12/stick-a-fork-in-2.html i'd just like to note that only three of all the scientists (who were not from historically significant research institutions) quoted hold degrees in Geology or a similar field that would allow someone to speak on the validity of global warming. | ||
pyaar
United States423 Posts
On November 27 2011 01:14 Shiori wrote: + Show Spoiler + not like those jobs are way below the poverty line or anything, though. who cares if they're 'stable' or 'last longer' if they're not sufficient to sustain a decent lifestyle? i'm honestly appalled that people in America think that the republican party should ever be elected. as someone who lives in Canada, i can tell you for a fact that the vast majority of the world (esp. Europe) looks at you with a sort of dumbfounded disbelief every time you guys have a serious bout of civil unrest over some hot button issue that, to the rest of the world, is something that we might have thought relevant forty or fifty years ago. i mean, we're talking about a country that had huge protests because someone wanted to build a mosque a few blocks away from ground zero. like seriously? that's what makes news in your country? that's what people are passionate about? really? i'm not really going to check this thread very often, but i'm going to say a few things that the rest of the world (and basically everyone with a PhD in a relevant field) has accepted: 1) socialism is good, and you know it. 2) ayn rand was a horrible author and conservatism is actually weaker because of her 3) conservatism essentially boils down to preserving the status quo (or reaching back to a previous status quo) for its own sake, and this is totally unfounded 4) if you want to be in a country, then you need to stfu about extreme individual rights. it might be 'your right' to decide in a meticulous sense where each cent of your taxes go, but being that you are a citizen of a nation, you've got to understand that for logistical and practical reasons, you're going to be funding a road you might never drive on, or a school you might never attend, because these things are just good for the common good of your town/state/country. teaching evolution in schools is just a good thing to do. if you're teaching creationism to kids when it could be avoided, you're doing kids a disservice. the fact that you have to have a public education system (which, if properly optimized, is just better for everyone anyway) is a small price to pay for a guarantee (supposing you actually bother to make a good curriculum, which is something that the more 'socialist' states have done a much better job at) that every kid gets taught the correct stuff. and for those of you saying that it doesn't work: try looking outside America. you guys are doing it wrong. public school systems can work find and they do work fine in the vast majority of the developed world. simply because you have flaws in particular areas doesn't mean you need to abolish the entire system. 5) gay marriage is a non-issue. you are not going to overturn this, and trying to give the states the right to do so under the guise of "constitutionality" is underhanded and bigoted and everyone knows it. stop trying to subtly undermine the rights of citizens, or, if you're going to, come right out and preach it. don't hide behind legalistic nonsense. 6) just because something is constitutional doesn't make it good or correct. the founding fathers, while intelligent, were men of their own era, and they weren't infallible. if someone discovered that your constitution included a provision to only teach creationism, it would have to be amended, because that's simply a stupid provision. a good rule of thumb for these sorts of debates is to ask yourself, when you're considering objecting to something on the grounds that it's unconstitutional, "do i know a good reason as to why this should be unconstitutional? if the constitution were rewritten today, should we include the provision that makes this unconstitutional? why or why not?" 7) you guys aren't broke because of medicare, public education, pensions, or anything. you guys are broke because of essentially two things, only one of which is your fault:first, you're part of a capitalist system, which means you're necessarily going to have periods of recession and periods of prosperity. this is just the way capitalism works, and while someone might be to blame for it happening at this particular moment, pretending that you could fashion a system which NEVER recedes and yet is still capitalist is simply wrong on every level and contradicts basically every economic theory there is. second: you have a lack of national unity. you waste money on pointless things in order to appease (generally right wing, since they're the most vocal) interest groups. your military is a gigantic waste of money. the bush taxcuts were a gigantic waste of money. but understand simply because something costs a lot doesn't make it inherently bad. some indispensable stuff costs a lot of money, e.g. health care, education, the maintenance of a police force, etc. the problem with republicans is that they want unilateral cuts to spending across the board. ya, no. it's better to be in a state of debt with some sort of social security than to balance the books on the back of everyone's standard of living. it's not at ALL presumptive to suppose that i, or anyone else, should be entitled to enough to live off of, supposing i make the effort to work everyday. 8) hard work != wealth or success. this one is self-explanatory. poor people aren't poor cause they're lazy. they're poor because capitalism implies the existence of a lower class who are extorted by necessity into selling their labour for less than it takes to sustain them comfortably, only because the alternative is starving to death. the best argument against this is to suppose by thought experiment that every person worked extremely hard. would we have a world of billionaires? no, because that would completely annihilate the market. basically, if you're a republican supporter, i strongly suggest you take some university level courses in economics or political science. it's not due to a conspiracy that professors are overwhelmingly left-wing. it's because the intelligentsia is always more left-wing than the commonfolk because the world is basically progressing more and more to the left with each decade. look back a hundred years. we're lightyears to the left. the republican party would have been left wing at that time. and you can bet that it'll be the same 50 years from now, because the status quo always has a net change when the left wing is in power and relative stagnation when the right is in power. over time, that results in a slow but steady shift to the left. thank you for writing all this, i can copy-paste this to people who ask me why i plan to move out of the states to europe or a commonwealth nation when i finish up my education. america's among the best in the world for high education but is otherwise quite backward when it comes to issues i care about. edit: oops sorry for the double post, didnt know this was the same thread. | ||
TheBomb
237 Posts
On November 28 2011 09:35 Probulous wrote: Why the hysterics? Calm down a little. This is just a discussion, no need to blow a valve. The carbon tax in Australia is actually a fixed price trading scheme that becomes a fully fledged market in two years. Tax is just an over simplification. Secondly it only affects the largest polluters in the country. Yes there are flow on effects but the revenue from the scheme is used to compensate those affected. I don't care about Al Gore, poor guy since he obviously cares about me. I care about the facts. I have read far and wide on this issue, from Flannery to Mockton and everything in between. I just don't see the evidence to suggest a massive scam. Exhaling carbon dioxide doesn't mean anything. If we had a purely oxygen atmosphere we would die. It is the proportion that matters. Who said anything about 50% taxes Please climb back on the sanity train, cause where you're heading, no-one can follow. Of course its a trading scheme man, haven't you ready any of my posts? Al Gore and his buddies invested 1 billion dollars and more into this scam and are going to use carbon trading to take all those money you give to the government as tax in their own private pockets laughing all the way on the common idiots paying for a scam, while they enjoy their 200 meters yachts, private jets and drink whiskey in their lavish oil corporations offices. At first its "big" companies yeah right and then will come the smaller ones and so on, until everyone pays taxes. Just 1 month ago I saw an article where a man is charged with a 500 fee for not putting paper garbage into the designated place there in Australia. O yeah I would love police to inspect my garbage and put huge fines on me. So as I've said let a bunch of billionaires get even more money at the expense of your country economy! In fact I might even invest in Al Gore's trading scheme and use you and get insanely rich of a fake thing. Its like if I were to come up with there is too much oxygen we need to tax everyone from breathing to save the earth and pay off tons of scientists to provide fake data and now I can have oxygen trading schemes and taxes and literally suck out the wealth of the country. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
Will you please stop using that email thing over and over again, they were debunked almost instantly. Start getting your news from somewhere else than Fox. I think Jon Steward talked about it in the Daily Show sometime a few weeks ago. When the emails thing came, Fox went all over it calling global warming a scam, but when evidence showed that they were wrong, they completely ignored it, instead reported on McDonalds. | ||
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On November 28 2011 11:59 TheBomb wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On November 28 2011 09:35 Probulous wrote: Why the hysterics? Calm down a little. This is just a discussion, no need to blow a valve. The carbon tax in Australia is actually a fixed price trading scheme that becomes a fully fledged market in two years. Tax is just an over simplification. Secondly it only affects the largest polluters in the country. Yes there are flow on effects but the revenue from the scheme is used to compensate those affected. I don't care about Al Gore, poor guy since he obviously cares about me. I care about the facts. I have read far and wide on this issue, from Flannery to Mockton and everything in between. I just don't see the evidence to suggest a massive scam. Exhaling carbon dioxide doesn't mean anything. If we had a purely oxygen atmosphere we would die. It is the proportion that matters. Who said anything about 50% taxes Please climb back on the sanity train, cause where you're heading, no-one can follow. Of course its a trading scheme man, haven't you ready any of my posts? Al Gore and his buddies invested 1 billion dollars and more into this scam and are going to use carbon trading to take all those money you give to the government as tax in their own private pockets laughing all the way on the common idiots paying for a scam, while they enjoy their 200 meters yachts, private jets and drink whiskey in their lavish oil corporations offices. At first its "big" companies yeah right and then will come the smaller ones and so on, until everyone pays taxes. Just 1 month ago I saw an article where a man is charged with a 500 fee for not putting paper garbage into the designated place there in Australia. O yeah I would love police to inspect my garbage and put huge fines on me. So as I've said let a bunch of billionaires get even more money at the expense of your country economy! In fact I might even invest in Al Gore's trading scheme and use you and get insanely rich of a fake thing. Its like if I were to come up with there is too much oxygen we need to tax everyone from breathing to save the earth and pay off tons of scientists to provide fake data and now I can have oxygen trading schemes and taxes and literally suck out the wealth of the country. Of course its a trading scheme man, haven't you ready any of my posts? Al Gore and his buddies invested 1 billion dollars and more into this scam and are going to use carbon trading to take all those money you give to the government as tax in their own private pockets laughing all the way on the common idiots paying for a scam, while they enjoy their 200 meters yachts, private jets and drink whiskey in their lavish oil corporations offices. Wrong. The legislation that puts the trading scheme into place only passed parliament this month. No-one has invested anything in the scheme as it hasn't started yet. Get your facts straight. What you are talking about is the European Scheme. Besides, they can put their money wherever they like. Like I said I don't have a problem with Gore, nor do I have a fascination with him. Just drop it, he has nothing to do with my position. At first its "big" companies yeah right and then will come the smaller ones and so on, until everyone pays taxes. Just 1 month ago I saw an article where a man is charged with a 500 fee for not putting paper garbage into the designated place there in Australia. O yeah I would love police to inspect my garbage and put huge fines on me. Yes, it is the BIG companies, that is what has been legislated. If they decided to expand it beyond that then I would have something to complain about. What is the point in complaining about hypotheticals? What does recycling have to do with a Carbon tax? I happen to love the fact that my country recycles. It doesn't do enough. In japan you have seven different rubbish bins for different types of recycling. If you don't like it live somewhere else. Its like if I were to come up with there is too much oxygen we need to tax everyone from breathing to save the earth and pay off tons of scientists to provide fake data and now I can have oxygen trading schemes and taxes and literally suck out the wealth of the country Go for it. You would get absolutely zero support simply because the idea is absurd and you have no credibility. Unlike the scientists who do the research in this field. If you really believe that this is some kind of conspiracy orchestrated by Al Gore, provide something that backs it up. Extreme theories require extreme evidence. The evidence for global warming has been building for decades. The Greenhouse effect is well demonstrated. CO2 is a demonstrated greenhouse gas. Increases in CO2 will lead to incresed temperatures unless the feedback mechanisms can contain the extra carbon. The evidence suggests otherwise. Please provide something that supports your view which is in the minority. | ||
discodancer
United States280 Posts
On November 28 2011 09:23 TheBomb wrote: Okay mate, you keep on paying those carbon taxes there in Australia and keep on thinking Al Gore cares about the climate and that the 1 billion he and his buddies have invested don't have anything to do with all the fake data being created. Al Gore cares about you and he spend part of that one billion to save you from the sun, heck why don't you proclaim him to be Jesus Christ or even god maybe. No he doesn't want to put carbon trading and make hundreds of billions through it, no he doesn't have majority shares in an oil company and doesn't want to destroy all competition to oil like coal. No Al Gore loves you and might as well be Jesus Christ in disguise here to save the earth from the sun and the atmosphere itself. In fact we should probably all have 50% carbon taxes because we exhale carbon dioxide imposed on all of us and while we are at it maybe have few wars to reduce population because we are all destroying the earth. Regardless of you being on a sub-par intellectual level to any of the above posters, I am still going to make a small note here: destroying coal industry doesn't directly boost oil sales, first of all it will lead to increase of nuclear power use. Coal and oil isn't all interchangeable, plus oil deposits will start running dry in about 60 years. To even consider someone like Al Gore to be a mastermind behind all of this with a measly billion dollar investment you have to be clinically insane. Anyways, I'm not trying to cure your delusions or add to the fire of this "discussion". Just felt compelled to say something when I saw a man take a dump on himself. | ||
| ||