This is a question i get from Gary on a regular basis. He's willing to admit that he could be wrong but doesn't understand why i can't admit the same thing. Well Gary the answer is because....
I'm NEVER wrong. They've done studies and 60% of the time it works every time. Besides which it's normally common sense things that you challenge me on. Like for example Cap and Tax. It won't work. Obama knows it won't work, most of the members of congress know it won't work (some of them are so stupid they might not actually know) and the EPA KNOWS IT.
So now even Gary knows it. The only question for Gary and his ilk now is ....If we all know it won't work then why do it? If not for more control over everything then why?
Hmmm.......
30 comments:
One thing that I have noticed in my life is that the people who are 100% certain that they are 100% right about everything 100% of the time, are usually wrong. As Bertrand Russell said, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
Now, on to cap and trade. Of course, if one disregards the scientific evidence and thinks global warming is a hoax, as Senator Inhofeand you do, then the best policy would be the "do nothing" one that you advocate. I would agree with the EPA that reducing American C02 emissions alone is not enough. As for cap and trade the devil, as usual, is in the details. If the required levels are too high, or the system too easily manipulated by large corporate interests, then it will not work.
And since you're supposedly all about the science, here's news of yet another study in a scientific joural:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aZSiubM0Wkgg
so once again gary. We all know that cap and trade won't work.
that being said, why do it?
what's the motivation?
You scoffed at the idea of the government wanting more control over our lives and especially the means of production in this case.(showing your complete ignorance by the way)
so if that's not the motivation, and we know it won't have any effect on the environment then why go forward with it?
No answer for that in your scientific journal?
I think I anwered that. I read your link. The EPA says cap and trade won't work all by itself if only the USA does anything. It has to be global. Hence international agreements as at the G8 summit. See: www.voanews.com/english/2009-07-09-voa31.cfm
The government could just set strict C02 limits. Cap and trade is an attempt to lessen the burden on industry and utilize market forces, as was done with acid rain earlier.
Of course there's still the "do nothing" policy you advocate. But those of us who are impressed by the mass of scientific evidence prefer a "do something" policy. I do not expect a policy alternative to cap and trade from people who think the problem is imaginary in the first place.
You're blind baby you're blind from the facts on who you are
'cause you're watchin' that garbage.
In case you can't figure it out. I have no more patience for your stupidity.
You are the one demonstrating stupidity.
health care by doctor gary:
patient: doctor i have a headache
gary: i think it's a tumor lets try cutting off your foot.
p: but that will cripple me?
g: well we'll be doing something about the tumor.
p: will it cure the headache?
g: no. it will cripple you and cause you pain but i believe your headache is a serious problem so we have to do something.
p: isn't there anything else we can do?
g: i'm not sure. rhino doesn't have any ideas and in fact doesn't think you have a tumor so he has no ideas.
p: should we maybe try something new? maybe something that might work or has a chance to work?
g: there's no time for that. your headache could kill you! hop up on this table, i'm going to get my saw.
Gary, if we eliminated ALL the human made Co2 in the WORLD, do you know how much it would decrease the overall Co2 emitted in to the atmosphere?
Once again calm and reasoned comments (by me) have been met with insults and incoherence.
Getliveayite- I don't know.
hey getlive did you get that analogy?
I'm just curious because i know i'm a super genius and sometimes things that seem obvious and easy for me are a little tougher for the average person, but i thought i made that pretty simple.
Yea, I got it. Pretty creative on your part. I didn't know you had it in you.
OK, so Gary, if you don't know the answer to that simple question, how can you be for Co2 reductions??????????????????????????????????
You don't even know how much of a decrease there would be if all human contributions would cease to exist? Again, as I have said before, you just regurgitate what you read on the internet that pertains to team liberal. You have no logical thought process. It's not your fault, you don't have a Phd. in climatology. Be a man and tell the truth. You really have no idea.
Gary, my point is, even if all human contributions would cease to exist the percentage is so low that it really wouldn't make a difference.
ok getliveyite I admitted I didn't know the number off the top of my head. But clearly the science shows (according to the National Academy of Science for example) that the increase in C02 is driving global warming. So it makes sense we should cut CO2.
Rhino, I admit that I'm not a "super-genius" like you so I have to rely on scientific evidence rather than just "knowing" the truth like geniuses/idiot-savants like you.
Yea, but it's not from HUMANS. HELLOOOOOOOO
According to scientists, Dr. Hansen at NASA for one, C02 levels are at the highest in 600,000 years at least, and it's due to humans. Did Rush say something different?
Gary, if we were to eliminate all Co2 emissions that humans produce across the GLOBE, it wouldn't amount to any impact on the total Co2 in the atmosphere. That's why I asked you that question. So, if we cut down our emissions it would have NO EFFECT. Understand?
"The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached a record high, according to the latest figures, renewing fears that climate change could begin to slide out of control.
Scientists at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii say that CO2 levels in the atmosphere now stand at 387 parts per million (ppm), up almost 40% since the industrial revolution and the highest for at least the last 650,000 years."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/13/carbonemissions.climatechange
I'm not saying humans don't contribute. I'm not even saying that the earth is not warming, because it has been warming over a large period of time. I'm saying humans aren't the cause. Can man be so arrogant to think we even have the power to do that????? The earth has it's own agenda Gary.
Correction, the UNIVERSE has it's own agenda. I forgot about our friend the SUN that is heating the shit out of the earth.
Well, all I can say is that actual scientists say it's not solar variance, its C02 and it's manmade. For some actual science:
http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/
But at least you agree the Earth is warming. Rhino thinks it's cooling.
It depends on the time frame. Over the last 1,000 years it's warming. Over the last couple it's cooling.
First of all gary you continue to cite Hansen like he's some kind of neutral observer. He's not. He's got an agenda and it's been exposed for years already.
Hansen is the guy who lied about the 10 hottest years in history being in the 90's. He later admitted that he was wrong but didn't that lie is still repeated in the media and halls of congress repeatedly.
He promoted the "hockey stick" theory for years which was later proved to be wrong and has never come out and corrected himself on it.
Finally, Hansen and is wrapped up tight with algore. You know algore. he's the guy who made a "documentary" about global warming that included video clips from a hollywood production.
Bottom line is there is a mountain of evidence against global warming and especially against man made global warming.
Finally, the analogy works perfect. If you and getlive believe there is a tumor and i don't that's ok. We can agree to disagree on that. However if you're honest you know that cutting off the foot won't do anything to cure the tumor. There is no G8 summitt agreement that china or india or russia or even england or france or anyone else will submit to American cap and trade requirements. In fact, the brits are years ahead of us and have decided to scrap their plan because it has done nothing but make them less competitive.
So all we're going to do is cripple our economy and give a tremendous amount of control to the federal government. Which is, as i've said repeatedly, the actual agenda of cap and trade.
Of course in the end we will have to agree to disagree. I have looked at both sides. I watch both "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The Global Warming Swindle." I've read your links (and others). Given a choice between a peer-reviewed study in a major journal and an article in say a LaRouche magazine by some Exxon-paid hack who has never done any actual research, I will give more credence to the first and you will go for the second, because it supports your ideological world-view. But hey reasonable people can disagree. So can unreasonable people..
Less carbon exits the USA over the Atlanic then enters it from the Pacific. The continetal US is whats called a carbon sink. Youre welcome world.
... and yet Gary you still have failed to provide us with any evidence that mans carbon is responsible for the recent warming trend or explain past co2 levels and temperatures significantly higher than today. you keep citing your experts and how they think and they guess whats happening and how theyre peer reviewed and so altruistic and pure with no financial motive blah blah blah. but you have never once provided any actual evidence. hint, there is none. none. for fucks sake Hansen was one of the solar deniers and you consider him an expert. sad.
You keep saying that I've provided no evidence, I've just provided links to studies, reports by scientific bodies,etc. None of which I suspect you read. Why are these not evidence but your LaRouche article was? I concede I've done zero original scientific research on gobal warming. Nor have you. You want evidence? Go to the websites of the AAAS, the NAS, and on and on, find the studies and reports and read them.
And by the way the "solar variance" explanation has been discredited long ago. By scientists. Buy hey if Fred Singer says it (and is paid by Exxon for doing so) or Senator Inhofe issues a press release, then that is acceptable evidence. Sad.
1. Youve never cited evidence directly linking mans co2 to warming/cooling. You have cited guesses. If anything its a lagging indicator.
2. Youre a fucking idiot if you dont think that the sun impacts temperature. Or water vapor, or volcanic activity, or methane etc. Its all co2 to you because co2 is industry, and you want to destroy industry.
algore said all tha needs to be said on this matter this weekend... its all about world governance. The Aurora told ya that years ago.
Im done with you.
Yes, it's all "guesses" by scientists who don't know that the sun is hot and that ice melts, and make stuff up as some sort of mad plot to destroy the economy and rule the world. Thank God we have Drudge and Exxon standing in the way of their dastardly scheme.
once again gary your entire argument is attacking any source that you don't agree with.
more importantly you ignore the whole entire argument and change the subject.
It doesn't matter if global warming is actually happening, if it's man made, or not. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong or if i'm right or wrong.
FACT cap and trade won't work
FACT you know this, algore knows this, obama knows this
FACT you, algore, and obama still support it.
Why? They support it because it fits their political agenda which i've been saying all along. You support it because??????
I seriously think you're stupid. i'm not saying that to insult you that's my honest opinion of you based on the exchanges we've had here but are you so stupid that you would cut off the foot to try to cure the headache?
Or are you in favor of the federal government completely controlling industry and eventually everything else in the country?
OK, let me address cap and trade again. You call it a carbon tax. Fine. Why wouldn't taxing companies for carbon give them an incentive to reduce their carbon output? You haven't given a reason why it won't work, except that American action alone won't be enough, which I would agree with. It will require "global governance or global agreements" as Gore put it. (That got the rightwing blogosphere in a tizzy, didn't it?)
I mean, it might or might not work. More drastic measures might be required.
Post a Comment