So is expendidture on Carbon Credits horrendously expensive and the govt has signaled they are defintely going ahead with that . I could see expenditude on these credits screwing the economy big time and the planet will not be any cooler at the end of it. Some commentators have suggested the whole Carbon Credit racket is a one world govt conspiracy.
All these government "carbon credits" aren't worth shit! They're just a big snow job to make it look as though the government is doing something when it's actually shovelling money to it's mates.
A proper Carbon tax is better, if properly controlled in that it's meant to de-incentivise the use of heavy co2 producing processes by making it more expensive than the alternatives......unfortunately, all that seems to happen in practice, is that any costs are merely shovelled back on to the consumer.
“- He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.”
Well, actually, we do have a pretty good idea how Ice Ages start and stop. Look it up.
Yes, climate changes, no one disputes that, it's the SPEED of the change in the last 100 yrs - particularly the last 50 yrs, that is the indication it's man made. In a natural system, CO2 generally balances out - input/removal. What we are doing is inputting at a far higher rate than it can be naturally removed, as well as removing some of the sources of removal (forests, wetlands, etc)
Funding science to push an agenda....most Climate scientists I know of would love to have some more funding, and, like most other scientists, do NOT "modify" their research, or results.......
A scientific "cure" to cool the planet would be horrendously expensive compared to trying to slow it down or stop it in the first place.
I'd prefer politics to be free of political ideology as well, but, it's going to creep in regardless to a degree.
The last thing I read (which was a wee while ago) - the mechanics of the Ice Ages were semi understood (as in what gases were present in the atmosphere during the change) but the cause of the change in atmospheric gases was the subject of much debate.
But certainly if you have any recent studies about it - I'd love to read them.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
You need to forward your ideas to Tim Groser Climate Change Minister because his idea of buying carbon credits is definitly not going to work is it? I thought trees were supposed to be carbon eaters but with all the forest fires world wide they end up emitting carbon too as they burn plus there is volcanic emissions too. If there is anything to worry about in the world at the moment I would say issues in the Middle East are substantiallly greater than any Cllmate Change.
Actually - I don't need to do Squat.
The point was - you asked for Ideas (to try and show that those making the Critique are bereft of an alternative) and you got 3 (which you weren't expecting)
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
So whats the point of coming up with ideas then if you dont want to see them through to fruition?
To prove you wrong.
Originally Posted by cassina
Or are you afraid they will be rejected by the govt climate change scientists?
I bet you will be kicking yourself for not submitting them if sea water does rise to dangerous levels during your lifetime
I'm neither a research scientist, nor an inventor, and surely if I can think of them, people in those positions can think of them too - and who will probably do a better job than I at making them a reality...
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
I'm neither a research scientist, nor an inventor, and surely if I can think of them, people in those positions can think of them too - and who will probably do a better job than I at making them a reality...
No doubt. But that assumes that the objective is to fix the problem rather than taxing it. If that doesn't make sense, look at the tobacco model. A known killer that is perfectly acceptable...... when appropriately taxed. Wake the fuck up and use that brain properly.
Political correctness: a doctrine which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd from the clean end.
No doubt. But that assumes that the objective is to fix the problem rather than taxing it. If that doesn't make sense, look at the tobacco model. A known killer that is perfectly acceptable...... when appropriately taxed. Wake the fuck up and use that brain properly.
Sure - they could Ban it - because that worked oh so well during Prohibition....
Regulation via Taxation is the lesser evil and adds to the Coffers.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Climate change = more government telling us how to live our lives.
Ah ... Alex Epstein
Alex Epstein is the director of the Center for Industrial Progress, a for-profit think tank he founded in 2011. Its mission is to “inspire Americans to embrace industrial progress as a cultural ideal.” He is also a blogger at Master Resource, a “Free Market Energy Blog,” and a past fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute, an organization that has received funding from the Koch Foundations including at least $50,000 between 2005 and 2010.
So we can see where he is coming from...from the munnnneeee..........with Stefan Molyneux
And then there is Stefan Molyneux. That’s the one everyone outside the Freedomain Radio “community” is supposed to see—the happy and witty libertarian gadabout who can make an argument against government so compelling, he can almost convert you to libertarianism on the spot.
Molyneux is so facile-minded and rhetorically deft, most interviewers can only nod their heads in appreciation as he pontificates........
a man who spouts absolute truth and honesty, yet reverts to serial lying when he's backed into a corner......
“- He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.”
Ah ... Alex Epstein
So we can see where he is coming from...from the munnnneeee..........with Stefan Molyneux a man who spouts absolute truth and honesty, yet reverts to serial lying when he's backed into a corner......
How about we talk about the amount money and the agenda involved on the other side??
If you don't have facts directly related to man made CO2 climate change then you have nothing.
Yes Stefan Molyneux is not always right, and like most people he doesn't like being wrong.
But his arguments on climate change like the issues regrading computer modelling are solid, the models are wrong so they are usless.
Anyway lets hope this lie is all starting to unravel.
simple question, why did the Soviets modify a air-raid shelter into a gas chamber? what was their intention?
Ah ... Alex Epstein
So we can see where he is coming from...from the munnnneeee..........with Stefan Molyneux a man who spouts absolute truth and honesty, yet reverts to serial lying when he's backed into a corner......
Originally Posted by Woodman
Gullibility only applies when the government is involved Aye Yokel?
Oddly enough, most people consider Yokel to be the smartest of all the KB conspiracy theorists (speaks volumes about the KB conspiracy theorists rather than Yokels intellect)
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Ah ... Alex Epstein
So we can see where he is coming from...from the munnnneeee..........with Stefan Molyneux a man who spouts absolute truth and honesty, yet reverts to serial lying when he's backed into a corner......
The typical response of the ignorant but ever denying sheeple.
When presented with solid factual evidence that the climate hoaxers (cLIEmate pseudo-scientists) have consistently fudged criteria of analysis and falsified factual data (re-balancing the scales) to suit the narrative of 'cLIEmate change/Global warming'. (Unpalatable evidence that suggests that the nipple they have so eagerly and innocently chugged on, is in fact a 'cock').
Rather than succumb to a loss of face for being a cock sucker, or even attempting to debate the evidence, they reject it out of hand (swallow the load) then attempt to make themselves feel better about the niggling aftertaste by playing the player instead of the ball.
As if casting aspersions on the players off field character somehow negates the fact that the player's adversary (the cock in your mouth) has consistently cheated and refused to wear protection multiple times and that the only line traversed by the adversary runs from your arse to your mouth.
Don't be ashamed. Chug with pride.
Political correctness: a doctrine which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd from the clean end.
Maybe they just can't be assed replying to dickheads who go out of their way to find some info somewhere and post it up just to have an argument and then belittle people who may question them.
Aside from that I find you a little entertaining, almost cute really.
I mentioned vegetables once, but I think I got away with it...........
Maybe they just can't be assed replying to dickheads who go out of their way to find some info somewhere and post it up just to have an argument and then belittle people who may question them.
Otherwise know as 'boiling frogs' (Google it) too stupid to heed the warnings even when they are highlighted and shoved in their faces. Yeah! I understand the problem, but there are too many damaged brains out there to risk wasting time with. If shell shock doesn't work for them, that's too dam bad for them (or at least it will be when they finally realise that they have been played for the fools they are).
Political correctness: a doctrine which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd from the clean end.
Otherwise know as 'boiling frogs' (Google it) too stupid to heed the warnings even when they are highlighted and shoved in their faces. Yeah! I understand the problem, but there are too many damaged brains out there to risk wasting time with. If shell shock doesn't work for them, that's too dam bad for them (or at least it will be when they finally realise that they have been played for the fools they are).
Perhaps you should google it, cos that terminology refers to slowly and gradually being exposed to a thing, not highlighted and shoved in faces, not shell shocked. I find a lot of conspiracy theorists fit the term very well.
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by SPman
Aye Yokel?
Bookmarks