Global Warming Is A Scam Pushed By Dishonest "Progressives"
- Thread starter ok doser
- Start date
Whenever one asserts, pounds the table/podium, and states "it is a scientific fact," we know we are dealing with a dishonest drone, as you are not a scientist, and your blustering is akin to asserting, "The truth is the truth," and have added nothing, with this kid stuff.
Please sit, as what you mean, is it is a fact to you, as many scientists say otherwise.
Last edited:
Kit the Coyote
New member
Oh, I agree that alarmists tend to blow the issue out of proportion. That does not mean it is not an issue.
A warm, wet earth is preferable to a dry, ice age earth.
I've brought this issue up myself in discussions on the subject in other discussions on the subject and I generally get the impression that the major issue is the speed at which we are taking these deposits of sequestered carbon and flooding them back into the atmosphere. If the atmospheric balance and weather patterns change too quickly, the ability to adapt such as was pointed out moving coastal cities inland become overwhelmed. Would that be the end of mankind? not likely but it might be the end of some major world economies and lots of deaths that could have been avoided.
But really the climate change issue is the least of the issues that concern me of what I listed earlier. Even the 'quick' changes in the environment will take time. The clean vs dirty energy and sustainability are more relevant to me.
Wrong. I like my Jack Daniels "on the rocks," and I dig ice skating, while drinking "Moose Head" beer.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
hey, as long as the government forces rich people to pay for my Tesla P100D, I'm on board :thumb:
Kit the Coyote
New member
But are you fine with the government subsidizing and protecting an uneconomical dying coal industry?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
as long as i can charge my Tesla P100D with electricity produced by the coal-fired generating plants :thumb:
and as long as the government subsidies come from rich people's taxes :banana:
Kit the Coyote
New member
Fair enough I guess, I tend to favor nuclear over coal, its cleaner and has far more future potential. And preferably a more effective and equitable way to distribute tax burdens.
way 2 go
Well-known member
97 % is a lie just like global warming , liked that video.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i've been listening to a lot of them lately, streaming on my android through ear buds while i'm working outside
haven't listened to the radio hardly at all lately
The issue is the "solutions" that are being forced upon us. Politicians want to increase taxes, limit freedom and ostracize sensible investigation.
That's the response you get when inconsistencies are pointed out in the assertions of the warmists. You point out that things have been warmer in the past and they demand that the rate of change is somehow a concern now.
It's another unsupportable distraction.
Carbon dioxide is good for the planet. Coal and nukes are the cleanest ways to keep people warm.
I recommend using TuneIn and favoriting KLTT on it.
:nuke:
Yeah, we all need those alternative facts.
Kit the Coyote
New member
Taxes and regulation are the common means that politicians use to influence and encourage social change. When the side you favor does it, it is for the common good. When the other side does it, it is oppression and taking away freedom.
But a valid point none the less. Humans are very adaptable given time.
I thought of a good illustration for the point, People lived in the river valleys below the Hoover dam before it was built and all that water was sequestered behind it. People live there fine now. Open the locks and let the water drain out slowly and they will also be fine even if they might have to make some adjustments due to the rivers rising a bit. But blow up the dam and let the water out at a rate faster than the people downstream can react and you have a problem.
This might be true if the only byproduct of burning coal was CO2 but it is not. The measure I use for judging the safety of a fuel source is death per kilowatt hour. By that measure, coal is about as dirty and unsafe as you can get. I'll take nuclear, it rates down with wind power for safety and as I said, it has future potential.
There's a problem with wind power though...
https://phys.org/news/2012-04-farms-temperature-region.html
:think:
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
My side?
You mean a political party? I haven't voted since 1993. Taxation beyond about 5 percent is tyranny no matter who does it.
What is the global warming equivalent of "blowing up the dam"?
Are we talking about safety or cleanliness?
Kit the Coyote
New member
This isn't a problem. Any energy generation plant is going to have an increase in heat in the surrounding area, this is trivial compared to a coal plant.
Kit the Coyote
New member
You are welcome.
More along the lines of viewpoint, the part highlighted above, for example, represents a viewpoint, therefore, a 'side' on the subject of taxation.
Arguably, releasing sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere at a rate thousands of times faster than it was sequestered originally.
Both, particularly as they are interrelated. Burning dirty fuels has significant health impacts on the populace.