Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 51 of 51
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,488
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    Yall are stubborn. There are plenty of experts who deny man-made global warming. The issue is man-made. George Paltridge, for example, is a climate scientist who wrote a book called "The Climate Caper" which is a book proposing skepticism. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...climate_caper/

    Is CO2 really that big of a problem? Water vapor is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, should we try and stop water vapor emmissions too?
    ITs really not that hard Steel. George Paltridge represents that 3% of climitalogist that are not actively publishing in peer reviewed journals that doubt global warming being in part caused by burning fossil fuels. He is retired and even though he comes from the field he represents a very small populatoin of climitalogist that don't believe that we are having a big affect on climate change.

    I am sure you can find climitalogist who don't believe in ACC but I think the number is really really low and the previous posted publication proves that point.

    Even if you don't believe in ACC you should know that a rise in CO2 levels does not just affect climate change. IT affects the ocean acidity which will cause major changes in marine life. You can't simply just reverse this process and it could mean extinction of large ecosystems within the ocean.

    Like it or not there is good reasons to lower CO2 emmisions outside of GW.
    Last edited by Pacerlive; 01-09-2013 at 06:09 PM.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    728
    vCash
    1500
    It's more than 3%. I can guarantee you that. There may be more reasons to lower CO2 emissions. But it would cost a lot of jobs.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    the Rapids
    Posts
    2,821
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    It's more than 3%. I can guarantee you that. There may be more reasons to lower CO2 emissions. But it would cost a lot of jobs.

    I def think we need jobs for the citizens.......I'm officially on board saying to RAISE emissions and not taxes (unless they chose to commodotize it), therefore jobs will be added (unfortunately, it would be under a libby prez). Then the lefties would praise the lower unemployment rate. Wait a few years and then raise emissions--problem solved.
    Offseason To Do List:
    1. Make an offseason to do list.
    2. Get some tips on the ladies from Clark the Cub.
    3. P90X with Prince Fielder.
    4. Compile top ten list of top ten G.O.A.T. top ten lists.

    _______________________


    That Ain't No Bat. That A Kickstand!

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,488
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    It's more than 3%. I can guarantee you that. There may be more reasons to lower CO2 emissions. But it would cost a lot of jobs.
    The largest co2 reduction policy under obama was the fuel mileage requirements for new cars. Did that cost jobs?

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,362
    vCash
    1500
    Reducing emissions and protecting the environment are not antithetical to jobs and a healthy economy. Where do people get these crazy notions? The idea that we can protect our environment at the behest of our economy would be hilarious if it weren't so destructive.

    CAFE is a great way of doing so. By raising emission standards we actually help our citizenry by reducing the cost of transporting all things to all places. This frees up capital for businesses to invest, it allows regular citizens to have more money to spend on food, and it spurs innovation in the auto industry to make their cars better.

    A carbon tax could be structured to help ensure that the costs that it does create are turned into tax credits for cleaner energy research/technology or direct investment into bringing our power grid into the 21st century. But I would be hesitant to support it before seeing how it would be administered.

    This myth emerges from the fact that some people seem to believe that what goes into government simply sits there and does nothing or gets thrown into a fire to be burned. But history and facts suggest that this is not the case at all.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,203
    vCash
    1500
    ^ it is perpetrated by industries that benefit from endless debate.
    STORK WAS RIGHT!
    Mcfadden is useless

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •