Global Warming ended 11/28/2012, confirmed. If your still paying for their scams, I'd look into it. Mike
I wish that both "skeptics" and "warmers" would talk about non-tax solutions to global warming. And especially the "warmers." When a "skeptic" says that "warmers" only talk about taxes, unless warmers talk about something else.
One way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be to require the operators of coal plants to have 2 megawatts of zero emission electricity in progress for every megawatt of output from the coal plant.
Just saying that they have to replace the coal plant ten years in the future means that when the ten years pasts, the zero emission replacement hasn't been built and they get an extension on the license to operate the coal plant.
Even if they do, there will be issues with the government and agencies in the government for sure. There are always oppositions. Sigh. When will our world be united and think as one for the betterment of the earth we live in?
It's called responsible management as opposed to your paradigm (look it up) of rapacious exploitation
TWERP!!
Take my 10 points Yahoo! The Moron Global Warming jerkwads have nothing better to do than create more taxes. They are responsible for about 10k of the cost of a new car, high gas prices, high electric rates, etc, etc, yet these butt plugs care less about the litter strewn along the roadsides and no doubt most of these maggots don't even take a shower funkin up the air. They should all be taken to a landfill!
No they have no answer at all, plant a billion more trees would work, but that does not help them get more control over us.
Basically politicians hate democracy, democracy was only employed by desperate people, the Greeks facing war with the Persians, the French revolution, The Americans trying to escape the yoke of British rule, always there will be someone trying to be the dictator, a Napolean, a Hitler, a Stalin, Saddam Husein, Pol Pot, Mao tse Tung.
Tyranny to go with EPA. Of course. Al Gore wanted to destroy jobs with his Global Warning scare talk.
Because they're NOT environmentalists there trolls. Big companies and even governments they own hire professional trolls. Each one has multiple accounts, they try to drown out the voice of the people online. Other pathetic people join in and work for free because they want to be "on the winning side"
My suggestion is to tell them of permaculture earthships guerilla gardening and urban explorers. Anyone worried about tyranny should realize the value of getting self sufficient. These things are often drowned out in hippy talk but don't be fooled the new face if freedom has a new kind of victory garden and homes that are a bit closer to castles.
Interesting that you are on the side of those who oppose "taxes and tyrants"
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/10...
and not "tyrants" such as this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Reb...
What fantastic insights derive from getting Fs in history as well as science.
I have asked this question several times and once it was even vaporized. Apparently, it offends those who have no answer other than taxes and tyranny. (For some of those who have answered before, forcing a person to produce less CO2 is tyranny. Look it up.)
So are you now willing to admit there's a problem that needs to be addressed? Because if you are, then we can start discussing the alternatives for solving it.
By the way, as a starting point, do you consider everything that governments do as "tyranny"? It seems to me that any real government forces people to do all sorts of things that they may not want to do.
EDIT: Well that's a nice quote, but just what does it have to do with me? Also, why do you use ellipses in the quote? I think it's because if you include the entire quote, it doesn't say what you would like it to mean. You think by taking some quote from a book by a couple of guys, editing it, then showing it here out of context that it proves ANYTHING?
Besides, you completely ignored my answer. Are you ready to look at solutions? And tell me how a government can do anything without falling into your definition of tyranny.
And Trevor answered your question in a very simple fashion, so I see that you are forced to change the subject, because you didn't like his answer, either. By the way, maybe you can get Raisin Caine how your statements to Trevor have no statistical validity whatsoever.
Another EDIT: Ooh, 7 cents! I'm all scared about the 7 cent per gallon price increase you mention Sagebrush. Of course where I live (in the real world) gasoline prices go up or down that much every couple of weeks, and they've fallen by about 42 cents in the last 4 years, so it's hard to get TOO worked up about 7 cents, but I know that you see it as government tyranny and a threat to civilization as we know it.
Let's see, by my back of the envelope calculations, the cost of the Iraq War would have paid that "tax" for 200 years! Which do you think would have provided better return on investment?
Yes – removing the CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) from the atmosphere after they’ve been produced.
- - - - - - - -
RE: YOUR ADDED DETAILS
? Trevor, how do you suggest doing that? Be specific.
For the benefit of those who may be interested… In a nutshell, air is passed over atomised sodium hydroxide, the carbon dioxide from the air reacts to produce sodium bicarbonate. Calcium oxide is added thus the sodium hydroxide can be recovered and reused, the residual calcium carbonate is heated from which the calcium oxide is recovered leaving behind CO2 for storage and disposal.
A single device, as per the proposed design, will remove the emissions of 90,000 people. The devices can be sited anywhere in the world although to tap into the heat generated by the exothermic reaction, enough to heat 7,000 homes, they would be better in urban areas.
A variation of the chemistry turns the carbon and hydrogen into synthetic oil that can then be sold as a tradable commodity to offset installation and running costs.
White Paper: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/pro...
? Also there is no scientific evidence that CO2 is causing a rise in temperature.
Apart from 200 years of science, the laws of physics and the fact that it can be demonstrated in just about any science lab.
Again, for the benefit of those who are interested and open-minded enough to learn, greenhouse gases trap heat within the atmosphere. Put simply, the more of them there are the more heat is retained. This is the mechanism by which Earth maintains a habitable temperature, if it didn’t exist then the atmosphere would lose all it’s heat and Earth would be plunged into a total and eternal ice-age.
There are literally hundreds of factors that influence the temperatures around the world, many of them are cyclical and have warm and cool phases, across a full cycle these phases cancel each other out.
When there are strong cooling signals then any underlying manmade warming can be cancelled out. This is what we’re seeing at present. The cooling signals are temporary, shortly the net effect will return to positive and manmade warming will recommence.
? However, there is much hard evidence to the contrary.
Wishful thinking does not constitute hard evidence. Please provide credible evidence, not amateur blog nonsense or propaganda.
? Right now the Earth's temperature is going down And CO2 level is going up.
Sere above.
? If you really were a scientist you could see there is no correlation.
Again, for the benefit of anyone who is interested, there is of course far more to global temperatures than just carbon dioxide. The correlation between the two can be determined in simple experiments, most people will have the equipment needed in their own homes and can run the experiment for themselves.
Here’s how: https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/in...
Here’s the science: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
- - - - - - - - -
RE: YOUR UPDATE (3)
Here’s exactly the same graph except I’ve changed the start date to 2008 – it shows warming, as it does with every year bar five. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
UPDATE (4)
If it costs $0.07 per gallon then why aren’t we building these things everywhere. Sale of the heat they generate would pay for the device, the additional sale of synthetic oil means they’d be profitable.
