Originally posted by Metal Brain Exxonmobile is pushing a carbon tax because it will eliminate competition from coal and increase it's profits while taxing consumers heavily and use that money for who knows what. People are already burdened with enough taxes and more will impoverish people. I would even go so far as to say it would cause needless deaths.
Originally posted by Metal Brain "That's what I would really like to know. But he never tells us."
I have told you many times. Why do you lie so much?
You tell us a vast load of crap that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, not your actual motive for wanting to disbelieve man made global warming that you allow to twist your logic that you show in your posts so to firmly believe the absurdity that it is false.
Originally posted by Metal Brain What references? You mean the other wikipedia links? You are fully aware that wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. You can do better than that.
Originally posted by Metal Brain "You are well aware of the evidence already. This has been discussed over and over."
No, I have seen no evidence of that at all and you have never presented any. It has been discussed over and over with no evidence to contradict my claim. Why do you and others on here keep repeating assertions without a reliable source of information?
"Far more in ...[text shortened]... nd more will impoverish people. I would even go so far as to say it would cause needless deaths.
So suppose the carbon tax goes away, you would still cling to the hope that humans are not capable of changing the climate of a whole planet.
THAT you are lying about. What is your REAL bitch?
Originally posted by Metal Brain Exxonmobile is pushing a carbon tax because it will eliminate competition from coal and increase it's profits while taxing consumers heavily and use that money for who knows what. People are already burdened with enough taxes and more will impoverish people. I would even go so far as to say it would cause needless deaths.
If you are honestly concerned about taxes, then maybe you would do better to push for lower subsidies for energy companies. Or do you work in the coal industry that benefits from such subsidies?
Originally posted by humy You tell us a vast load of crap that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, not your actual motive for wanting to disbelieve man made global warming that you allow to twist your logic that you show in your posts so to firmly believe the absurdity that it is false.
I explained it to you long ago and I did again for Twhitehead and he seemed to be satisfied with it. I don't know what your problem is. Read this article by Fred Singer. There is no consensus and even you can't dispute Singer is right this time.
Originally posted by sonhouse So suppose the carbon tax goes away, you would still cling to the hope that humans are not capable of changing the climate of a whole planet.
THAT you are lying about. What is your REAL bitch?
Man is a factor, I'll admit that much....again. I will acknowledge that humans are capable of changing the climate of the whole planet. It is called a full blown nuclear war.
I'll say it again. The Pliocene was much warmer than today even though CO2 levels are about the same today. Ice core samples prove that warming came first and CO2 increased later as a result of that warming, not the other way around. See Henry's Law. Better yet, open a beer on a warm day and notice how CO2 cannot stay in that beer when it gets warm.
CO2 is not the primary factor driving global warming. If it was the feedback would be out of control and simple observations show that is not the case. If you don't see that by now it is because you don't want to. If you are determined to believe what you want I can't change that, so keep on believing that.
Originally posted by twhitehead If you are honestly concerned about taxes, then maybe you would do better to push for lower subsidies for energy companies. Or do you work in the coal industry that benefits from such subsidies?
Lower or no subsidies are what the huge energy companies want. That would put the small energy companies at a disadvantage so the large ones can stay in business while the small ones go bankrupt. Less competition means more profits for the big energy companies.
I do not work at all at this time. I have never worked for any energy company...ever! I am just a guy that lives in the country and likes it that way. I have my garden and my chickens and I am barely getting by right now. I am not at all some kind of big shot man like you suspect.
And what? Do you have a question, assertion or a criticism of Dr. Singer's article? Did you even read it all the way through? I suspect you didn't. Get back to me when you do. ðŸ˜
Originally posted by Metal Brain And what? Do you have a question, assertion or a criticism of Dr. Singer's article? Did you even read it all the way through? I suspect you didn't. Get back to me when you do. ðŸ˜
Originally posted by Metal Brain What references? More wikipedia links? Dr. Singer addressed that in his article. Try reading it instead of ignoring it!
10 Jul '15 10:58
0.5% of climate scientists, not 97%
Back to Top