dfa2c4a2-344a-448b-adea-ed0d9d5ad6a7-image.png
I has snow!
-
Don’t get me wrong, Func. I have no problem, even a desire to engender man to achieve, a reduction in pollution. However, there is no scientific basis for man causing the planet to warm or cool.
Solar panels are great! If I didn’t live in an @$$-ociataion myself, I’d have solar panels on the roof and a tankless water hearter in my utility room.
Being conservative means you want to CONSERVE what we had. That means clean water, clean air, lush park areas to enjoy, etc. But I very much doubt that a minivan is killing all life on planet as we know it because the planet is getting warmer. Especially because the Medieval period had higher temperatures then we have today and no minivans. Likewise, the industrial revolution had colder temperatures then we have today and spewed massively higher amounts of greenhouse gases and other pollutants into the atmosphere.
-
Bal, I don’t know what do you mean. I could not understand your post, truly :|
Jen, the trouble is not a single minivan. There are millions of minivans, millions of fabrics and such. Of course, as I said, natural causes can be there and sure there are, but man’s hand can get the issue worst.
I know the issue on Industrial rev. This is called “the little ice age”, I think. Anyway, the amount of pollution in 18th and 19th centuries was lesser than in 20th and 21th, and remember in the last 50 years, the industrialization have reached all the globe and the world has bigger population. So the trouble is increasing quickly.
Say we are sceptic and think the trouble is not big still (that I would disagree). This is increasing anyway and sometime we will have to do something. Even if you think is not a urgent matter, no damage is done if we keep the vigilance (just in case). Absolute negation, I think, is a bit risky.
Interesting debate here, pals
-
Thing is we can’t/havn’t proven that the globe is warming due to any thing man has done. we have had global warming in the past (it’s how we got out of ice ages), and i’m sure man didn’t make so many camp fires that we warmed the earth.
now i am not saying that the earth is not getting warmer, but to say that man is the cause is rash.
now i am all for finding alternative fuels to replace what we have BUT they should work effectivly and guidelines should not be so drastic that it harms the economy. Global warming has been a big excuse for a lot of stuff that hurts people and the proff is not hear that people have had an inpact, or atleast a large enough of one to justify the harm done to people so far/being proposed. in Austrelia there is a new tax on children because of Global warming, in WA state there is a proposed tax on cars with larger motors to off set there carbon emisions due to Global warming (and yet in the Seattle area we have heavy traffic and a state that is wasting billions of dollors on light rail that only goes 14 miles well that same amount of money could open up lains on the freeways to open up congestion on the freeways).
Global warming is an excuse to tax people and hurt industry for no clear benafit.
yes a car that cost less in gas to run is a good thing for me to have, but that dosn’t mean I should have to have a good gas millage car.
the earth is in a cycle, thats all it is. if i remember right we had Global Cooling back a few years ago that was being blamed on man and polution we were doing. how can the same thing cause two totaly diffrent extreams? -
in Austrelia there is a new tax on children because of Global warming, in WA state there is a proposed tax on cars with larger motors to off set there carbon emisions due to Global warming
I heard of the cars with big motors tax, but this children tax is totally new to me. What charges this tax?
-
now i am all for finding alternative fuels to replace what we have BUT they should work effectivly and guidelines should not be so drastic that it harms the economy
I said something similar in another post. I agree.
-
Func:
The problem is that people like you are telling people like me that 32 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the planet to warm MORE than Solar Events, Interstellar Radiation, Water Vapor, Volcanos, etc.
It’s scientifically and logically impossible. I’d be willing to listen to a debate between real scientists who say global warming is not man made, nor is it actually happening, and people like Al Gore who says it is and it’s our fault. But people like Al Gore will NOT enter into a debate! Sounds like they KNOW their evidence is faulty and thus, to prevent getting creamed in a debate by people who KNOW what they are talking about, they hide and say “Consensus” (which, most of the “consensus” came from administrators, lab technicians and politicians, very few scientists were in the consensus. Some scientists on the panel actually had to file law suits to get their names removed from the endorsement pages because they did not consent to the findings!)
-
Of course, Global Warming can have natural causes. But the man also has impact on it. How much is the question, sure, but the man has impact. It’s better trying do something about it because the man can make the global warming worst than if only natural issues were affecting.
I never said the man is the only responsable. I only said that can make the problem greater than would be only by natural causes.
I didn’t mencioned Mr. Gore’s speechs. Seems he is a bit hipocrit because he talks about climatic change and so, but he was USA’s VP for 8 years and didn’t much about the issue, and seems he has some industries that contamine too much. Anyway if the messenger is a bad guy, not means the message is also wrong. The reverse of “don’t kill the messenger only because he carried bad notices” :-)
-
sorry miss worded my above statment. the child tax is being proposed in Austrelia, not passed yet.
-
sorry miss worded my above statment. the child tax is being proposed in Austrelia, not passed yet.
Anyway, what charges? I’m intrigued… Say, it charges every children after the first or such or what?
-
@Cmdr:
Water Vapor
Now I understand what Bal meant, that argument is new to me. I’ll search Google to find more info about it :-)
-
each child after the 2nd has to pay $5,000 to buy land and trees to plant on that land, then they have to pay tax’s on that land (although it’s government owned) till the day they die.
the $5k is bassed of the price of land from the 1990’s and as such would probably be higher in cost.
this is to offset there housing they will need and the food they will consume durring there life. -
Water Vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas (actually the STRONGEST) than CO2.
BTW, I am not for pollution. I have no problem with encouraging companies and individuals to reduce their pollution levels. I dream of a day where I don’t need a battery of immunizations if I want to drink from a river in the United States or elsewhere in the world. I dream of a day where the Chicago River is ONLY green on Saint Patrick’s day, not year round.
But all this global warming stuff is just hurting the eco-cause. It’s actually worse then when eco-freaks drove iron spikes into trees to kill lumber jacks. Then it was just a bunch of criminal fanatics. Now you are lying to the people and when they discover your lie, they will not trust you when you start telling the truth.
-
each child after the 2nd has to pay $5,000 to buy land and trees to plant on that land, then they have to pay tax’s on that land (although it’s government owned) till the day they die.
the $5k is bassed of the price of land from the 1990’s and as such would probably be higher in cost.
this is to offset there housing they will need and the food they will consume durring there life.Seems a bad tax. Rich families can pay that tax without much difficulty and poorer will be hurt. It not solves the problem. “Pay for pollution” is a bad politic, don’t resolve the matter. I hope this tax will not pass a become a law.
-
But Al Gore wants a carbon tax. Don’t you think that would be at least as regressive as a baby tax?
(BTW, I support the government paying families to have more babies. I think a US Citizen born of US Citizens should be paid $5,000 which must be put towards bills incurred by the parents to support the baby like clothes, furniture, medical bills, etc. Babies are EXPENSIVE!)
-
@Cmdr:
(BTW, I support the government paying families to have more babies. I think a US Citizen born of US Citizens should be paid $5,000 which must be put towards bills incurred by the parents to support the baby like clothes, furniture, medical bills, etc. Babies are EXPENSIVE!)
and your choice to have. so the expense should not be on the government and in effect on those who have no children/are waiting to have children.
also by paying people to have kids you are encouraging people to pump them out for the cash and not be productive them selfs. -
@Cmdr:
(BTW, I support the government paying families to have more babies. I think a US Citizen born of US Citizens should be paid $5,000 which must be put towards bills incurred by the parents to support the baby like clothes, furniture, medical bills, etc. Babies are EXPENSIVE!)
and your choice to have. so the expense should not be on the government and in effect on those who have no children/are waiting to have children.
also by paying people to have kids you are encouraging people to pump them out for the cash and not be productive them selfs.It’s better then forcing people to pay the government so they can have kids. At least mine fosters and encourages parents to provide another generation to support the nation AND helps them do so responsibly.
Suggested Topics
