Dano's Theory on Global Warming proves correct

KingCondanomation

KingCondanomation

New member
I said years and months ago that the support for government action on global warming is something that leftists in rich countries support because they can afford to support it and it's tied to an ancient instinct to make material sacrifices in good times.

Well now there are bad times with a bad economy and look at this survey by the independent Pew Research Center; support for action on global warming plummets all the way down to being the LEAST important priority, coming in dead last:
485-1.gif

http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority

Now is the time to act, contact Henry Waxman (and your reps in congress) who is looking to steamroll through very unpopular overregulation on combatting global warming and tell him about this survey and tell him we do not want yet more government regulation and higher cost of living on a possible problem that is not manmade and is not a big priority:
http://www.house.gov/waxman/contact.htm
 
Are you ever going to come to the realization that it's better for the American economy to keep $700 billion flowing to domestic sources rather than overseas?

I'm guessing no.
 
Onceler said:
Are you ever going to come to the realization that it's better for the American economy to keep $700 billion flowing to domestic sources rather than overseas?

I'm guessing no.
Click to expand...

This same argument was made for producing clothing and other manufactured goods in America in the early 90's. It ended up not losing jobs, seeing other higher paying jobs created, while allowing Americans to pay for lower cost goods and a better lifestyle.

I'm all for it if it happens on its own, but fuel is fuel and people would rather have cheaper. Until then why would you rob people of their tax money to fund government decided green pork that has already been largely rejected and will still end up costing more?
Again, green power is not against the law, anyone can buy it, most don't because it costs more, hiding part of the cost with taxpayer government subsidies is not a way to grow an economy, it's a way to grow government.
 
Oh, good lord - the umpteenth irrelevant clothing comparison.

We're going domestic now, whether you like it or not. Know why? A BROAD consensus - not just way out lefties, but lefties, conservatives, economists, military, Republicans, Democrats, think tanks like Heritage, etc. etc. etc. - agree that the time is now, and that a penny invested now will yield a dollar later, as well as improving our national security.

Keep fighting it & arguing it & coming up with completely inane comparisons, then, when we're all using domestic sources of energy & our economy is booming because of the new influx of green techology & green industry, lecture us about how much better off we'd be sending hundreds of billions to the Middle East & elsewhere...
 
The difference is damo that free trade makes the market more efficient.

Renewable energy would also make the market more efficient. The comparison is baseless.
 
Onceler said:
Oh, good lord - the umpteenth irrelevant clothing comparison.

We're going domestic now, whether you like it or not. Know why? A BROAD consensus - not just way out lefties, but lefties, conservatives, economists, military, Republicans, Democrats, think tanks like Heritage, etc. etc. etc. - agree that the time is now, and that a penny invested now will yield a dollar later, as well as improving our national security.

Keep fighting it & arguing it & coming up with completely inane comparisons, then, when we're all using domestic sources of energy & our economy is booming because of the new influx of green techology & green industry, lecture us about how much better off we'd be sending hundreds of billions to the Middle East & elsewhere...
Click to expand...
Are you beyond fucking retarded? Look at the chart dickhead, 30% of people thinking it's a priority is nowhere close to consensus, can you grasp that?
We didn't have alternative energy corporate welfare in the 90's and we had a fine economy. Lots of things are popular until people see the impact from it, right now support is at an all time low, you wait to see what it will be if you actually go through with your nutty plan to add yet more debt to fight a problem that does not exist, plus one that Americans soundly rejected as a priority and will end up costing them more in taxes and infringe more on their life with more regulations.
Stick your green war on the shelf and keep it there if you know what's good for you and you actually want to preserve the "health of the Democrat party".
 
Mr. Conservative said:
The difference is damo that free trade makes the market more efficient.

Renewable energy would also make the market more efficient. The comparison is baseless.
Click to expand...

No cute cliches, explain how renewable energy would also make the market more efficient.
Subsidies are never efficient, they are doled out as a reward for inefficiency and even more so in the pork district driven machine of Washington.

As usual you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Are you beyond fucking retarded? Look at the chart dickhead, 30% of people thinking it's a priority is nowhere close to consensus, can you grasp that?
We didn't have alternative energy corporate welfare in the 90's and we had a fine economy. Lots of things are popular until people see the impact from it, right now support is at an all time low, you wait to see what it will be if you actually go through with your nutty plan to add yet more debt to fight a problem that does not exist, plus one that Americans soundly rejected as a priority and will end up costing them more in taxes and infringe more on their life with more regulations.
Stick your green war on the shelf and keep it there if you know what's good for you and you actually want to preserve the "health of the Democrat party".
Click to expand...

Silly. The consensus I speak of is an American consensus, to GO DOMESTIC, which is strong for more reasons than global warming (like, economy, national security, jobs, etc.) You're still stuck in the narrow view that the only reason for investing in green tech is global warming, which is very typical of you.

And I can't believe your comparison to the '90's. You really do have a simple brain. The '90's boom was tech, but that's over. Green tech is going to drive the new economy, and create all kinds of new jobs. You're a dinosaur, though.
 
Onceler said:
Silly. The consensus I speak of is an American consensus, to GO DOMESTIC, which is strong for more reasons than global warming (like, economy, national security, jobs, etc.) You're still stuck in the narrow view that the only reason for investing in green tech is global warming, which is very typical of you.
Click to expand...
STUPID, the consensus I speak of is also American - hence why I posted a fucking poll of American opinions on issues, fucking DUH.
And again, ram it through your head, the vast MAJORITY of countries buy oil and do NOT have any national security problems. Just get out of the mideast and do not support Israel or even involve ourselves in any way with any country from there and you will have ZERO national security problems with foreigners. Do you dispute that?

Onceler said:
And I can't believe your comparison to the '90's. You really do have a simple brain. The '90's boom was tech, but that's over. Green tech is going to drive the new economy, and create all kinds of new jobs. You're a dinosaur, though.
Click to expand...
Tech jobs drove the economy because there was mass natural demand for new technology without any government interference or subsidies.
Green tech gets plenty of subsidies in many Liberal places in Europe and has gone NOWHERE. All those promised jobs never materialized because it was still far cheaper to buy oil to run your car or heat your house.
It will be EVEN LESS effective in America where gas is yet cheaper with lower taxes on it.

Tell you what Lorax. How about if the rightwingers promise not to try and debate on modern Liberal art issues as we don't know anything on that, in return the lefties promise not to try and debate economics or anything to do with money as they are clueless in that area. Deal?
 
KingCondanomation said:
Are you beyond fucking retarded? Look at the chart dickhead, 30% of people thinking it's a priority is nowhere close to consensus, can you grasp that?
We didn't have alternative energy corporate welfare in the 90's and we had a fine economy. Lots of things are popular until people see the impact from it, right now support is at an all time low, you wait to see what it will be if you actually go through with your nutty plan to add yet more debt to fight a problem that does not exist, plus one that Americans soundly rejected as a priority and will end up costing them more in taxes and infringe more on their life with more regulations.
Stick your green war on the shelf and keep it there if you know what's good for you and you actually want to preserve the "health of the Democrat party".
Click to expand...

Actually, you're being dishonest. 60 percent say energy is a priority, according to your chart. That's a consensus.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Actually, you're being dishonest. 60 percent say energy is a priority, according to your chart. That's a consensus.
Click to expand...

That's a stretch. Assuming that 60% think energy is a priority equates to 60% of people wanting government action on green energy? A substantial amount of those are likely people who think their energy or electricity bills are high or who want more domestic drilling or perhaps coal or nuclear energy or hydroelectric interests or truckers with still high diesel prices or gas taxes in general. Who knows? I am sure it is nowhere close to 60% and it's more than safe to assume that in a shitty economy people are not interested in pet green projects that are unproven and costly in taxes and increased regulation.
 
KingCondanomation said:
That's a stretch. Assuming that 60% think energy is a priority equates to 60% of people wanting government action on green energy? A substantial amount of those are likely people who think their energy or electricity bills are high or who want more domestic drilling or perhaps coal or nuclear energy or hydroelectric interests or truckers with still high diesel prices or gas taxes in general. Who knows? I am sure it is nowhere close to 60% and it's more than safe to assume that in a shitty economy people are not interested in pet green projects that are unproven and costly in taxes and increased regulation.
Click to expand...

Oncy was talking about domestic energy. The problem with energy is certainly commonly understood to be the fact that we're getting it from people who want to kill us.

The stretch is you saying that global warming equates to a debate strictly about green energy. If we're going to talk about domestically produced energy, it's very dishonest of you to simply ignore the fact that the ENERGY statistic on your chart shows that most people believe it's an issue.
 
Perhaps equally dishonest of you is conflating the fact that people think there are more pressing priorities that need to be tackled before global warming with the idea that action on global warming is "very unpopular." Not at all the same.

You, sir, are a dishonest shithead.
 
"Tell you what Lorax. How about if the rightwingers promise not to try and debate on modern Liberal art issues as we don't know anything on that, in return the lefties promise not to try and debate economics or anything to do with money as they are clueless in that area. Deal? "

LMAO

Like I said, there are people on all sides pushing green energy right now - higher-ups in the military, prominent members of the GOP, the Heritage Foundation, et al. Somehow, they're not listening to Dano's gut, which just "doesn't buy" the national security argument, or the economic argument.

You're such a buffoon. You still can't acknowledge that your poll is just about global warming, and that green tech is about so much more than global warming now. You keep citing it as some sort of "proof."
 
I think what is becoming apparent is we do not need the false science of AGW as an excuse to develop domestic energy sources. Much of the AGW scare was aimed at reducing use of oil as an energy source. Now we find (as many have maintained all along) that we do not need lame, pseudo-scientific theories as an excuse. Building a self-sufficient energy infrastructure makes economic sense, and we can quit worrying about shoveling back the tide with teaspoons. (ie: we can quit spending a whole bunch of effort and money combating what the Earth is going to do anyway and spend it in areas that we CAN do something about.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top