Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 211 of 236 FirstFirst ... 111161201209210211212213221 ... LastLast
Results 3,151 to 3,165 of 3539
  1. #3151
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    48,075
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Let's assume it's true as I don't want to argue this point again, 97% of the scientists agree that man is the number one cause of climate change (again not going to argue the term). That leaves 3% that would disagree. Numbers do not make one right. Don't use it as evidence.
    But why do 97% of the experts on the subject believe it?

  2. #3152
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    19,199
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    I do reply to you so you have a great point...for once.
    Well, that is a good sign. Awareness of one's shortcomings is the beginning to correct them. I wish you the best of luck, you are going to need it in spades.

    AND GOT DAM IT, GET OFF THE ****ING COMPUTER AND SPENT THAT TIME WITH YOUR KIDS!
    Last edited by WES445; 08-17-2022 at 01:27 PM.
    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

    Will Rogers

  3. #3153
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,194
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Let's ask a basic question. What is the #1 greenhouse gas?
    Instead of asking your asinine questions, just get to your point. If you have a point to make about greenhouse gases, just state it and try to support with more than "i just know" or a google search link.

  4. #3154
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    81,678
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Let's assume it's true as I don't want to argue this point again, 97% of the scientists agree that man is the number one cause of climate change (again not going to argue the term). That leaves 3% that would disagree. Numbers do not make one right. Don't use it as evidence.
    stats aren't absolute unless result driven. But acting like they mean nothing in this case is absolutely irresponsible. It would be like you, and 96 others in your line of work agreeing on something, 3 people don't, and someone from the outside says who knows nothing about the subject, "Those 97 are wrong".

    Would that make sense? How would you approach that person, or would you just shake your head and move on?

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  5. #3155
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye15 View Post
    stats aren't absolute unless result driven. But acting like they mean nothing in this case is absolutely irresponsible. It would be like you, and 96 others in your line of work agreeing on something, 3 people don't, and someone from the outside says who knows nothing about the subject, "Those 97 are wrong".

    Would that make sense? How would you approach that person, or would you just shake your head and move on?
    He's going to take the childish approach and try to get out on a technicality.

    He'll say something like "but all I said is that there are scientists who don't agree. I didn't say how many. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't discount them just because there are more who agree".

    He's either trolling again or he's really convinced that a small % of scientists is enough to create enough doubt to affect policy decisions.

  6. #3156
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    65,829
    Quote Originally Posted by WES445 View Post
    AND GOT DAM IT, GET OFF THE ****ING COMPUTER AND SPENT THAT TIME WITH YOUR KIDS!
    I think they'd be better off without him doing that, to be fair.

  7. #3157
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    19,199
    If they exist. The guy has a habit of saying anything to refute a poster.
    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

    Will Rogers

  8. #3158
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    61,008
    A bit disappointed with some of the things around the $369 billion that was just signed. Generally not a fan of giving people rebate for buying EV given the supply shortage. Rather they gave that money instead to car makers to increase supply and lower costs.

    I probably woulda included somrthing that requires lower emmisions too. And more investment in nuclear energy.

    But its a good step.

  9. #3159
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps18-19 Champ View Post
    A bit disappointed with some of the things around the $369 billion that was just signed. Generally not a fan of giving people rebate for buying EV given the supply shortage. Rather they gave that money instead to car makers to increase supply and lower costs.

    I probably woulda included somrthing that requires lower emmisions too. And more investment in nuclear energy.

    But its a good step.
    yeah, but I think auto companies have been bailed out enough. I'm totally fine with putting money back in the wallets of the people instead of the companies.

  10. #3160
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    19,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps18-19 Champ View Post
    A bit disappointed with some of the things around the $369 billion that was just signed. Generally not a fan of giving people rebate for buying EV given the supply shortage. Rather they gave that money instead to car makers to increase supply and lower costs.

    I probably woulda included somrthing that requires lower emmisions too. And more investment in nuclear energy.

    But its a good step.
    But that didn't stop Pelosi from calling it "Historic and transformative". We keep getting these transformative bills she keep crowing about and there is no transformation being done from where I stand.

    I bet old transformative Nancy go back on her word and run again.

    The bill in general is too little, too late on its climate change policies will no signs of building on it. Nothing was addressed about climate problems out west or the flooding east of the Mississippi.

    The whole debate to get this has sour most on it because of various things taken out of it even the successful child credit program wasn't reinstated.
    Last edited by WES445; 08-17-2022 at 02:45 PM.
    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

    Will Rogers

  11. #3161
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    61,008
    Quote Originally Posted by nyyfan555 View Post
    yeah, but I think auto companies have been bailed out enough. I'm totally fine with putting money back in the wallets of the people instead of the companies.
    Yea but not really thrilled abouy the idea of tax money being used to subsidize the cost of luxury car that only rich people can afford.

  12. #3162
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps18-19 Champ View Post
    Yea but not really thrilled abouy the idea of tax money being used to subsidize the cost of luxury car that only rich people can afford.
    While I agree that the cost of EVs should be reduced, they are hardly unaffordable. There are several new cars under 30K and then there's the used car market which makes things affordable as well.

    The new law also reclassifies them as "clean vehicles" rather than EVs to include more than just plug in cars.

    Large companies and corporations have proven time and time again that if given the financial break, they'll use it to enrich themselves rather than do whats right for people, such as increasing supply. This rebate for the people will actually help to increase the number of EV purchases and help the environment.

  13. #3163
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    19,199
    Quote Originally Posted by nyyfan555 View Post
    While I agree that the cost of EVs should be reduced, they are hardly unaffordable. There are several new cars under 30K and then there's the used car market which makes things affordable as well.

    The new law also reclassifies them as "clean vehicles" rather than EVs to include more than just plug in cars.

    Large companies and corporations have proven time and time again that if given the financial break, they'll use it to enrich themselves rather than do whats right for people, such as increasing supply. This rebate for the people will actually help to increase the number of EV purchases and help the environment.
    Fossil fuel companies are making record profits, and we still gave the stimulus checks and corporate subsidies. Not many moms and pops businesses got that help. I have seen five businesses close up in my area. We are for socialism if it is for corporate profit. No pulling oneself up by the old bootstraps here, folks.

    It sounds good in print but in reality, it's pure and simple pork. We just got these burning desires to give money to them.
    Last edited by WES445; 08-17-2022 at 03:09 PM.
    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

    Will Rogers

  14. #3164
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    19,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps18-19 Champ View Post
    Yea but not really thrilled abouy the idea of tax money being used to subsidize the cost of luxury car that only rich people can afford.
    I can go with that.
    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

    Will Rogers

  15. #3165
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    7,338
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Ok, but why do you think so many scientists, the experts who study this subject, believe the amount man contributes is so sizable we can slow the effects by reducing our contribution?
    I'll ask you the same question, what is the number one greenhouse gas?
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, crovash, nastynice, natepro, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

Posting Permissions

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