Bfgrn
New member
If that were true:
A) There would be a carbon credit market
B) You would be parroting that corporate line as virtue
CO2 is the equivalent of oxygen to plants. Human beings are not plants.
Professor Hal Lewis Joins The Global Warming Policy Foundation
- Thread starter Bfgrn
- Start date
If that were true:
A) There would be a carbon credit market
B) You would be parroting that corporate line as virtue
CO2 is the equivalent of oxygen to plants. Human beings are not plants.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
tell us... HOW is 'cap and trade' "responsible"????
How is fear mongering..... "responsible"??
How is hiding data for fear someone will try to poke holes in your 'science'.... "responsible"???
How is stomping your feet and proclaiming 'the debate is over the debate is over, we will not talk about any critiques any more, the debate is over CONSENSUS!!!!'..... "responsible"???
How is proclaiming 'we have been unable to explain the changes due to known natural causes, therefore it must be man!' .... "responsible"???
The flat earth global warming fear mongers love to pretend that anyone who is skeptical must be a shill for big oil/energy, blah blah blah... how is that... "responsible"?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Here is a concise a piece of writing as any that I've seen on global warming lately.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yeah... read that after you posted the other thread.
Bfgrn
New member
Cap & trade is a market based action that makes dirty energy producers 'responsible' for the costs they have externalized by evading free market rules and burdened those costs on everyone else.
I don't have to 'pretend that anyone who is skeptical must be a shill for big oil/energy'...in almost every case, they are.
The only stomping going on is by you.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Cap and trade is a scheme by the government, it does not benefit society. It benefits their buddies on Wall Street who will turn this into yet another derivatives bubble. It does nothing but attempt to shift wealth. It has NO positive effect on the environment.
you are such a good little parrot...
weak. One of use is willing to listen to opposing views, the other is not. You simply want to shout "CONSENSUS!!!!" and "big oil BAD!!!"
I guess they can only teach a parrot so much...
Bfgrn
New member
Concise tom? It is speculation at best and junk science at worst.
These two paragraphs show an argument that is not based on science. It is based on what a paid mouthpiece for fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) would say.
As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.
It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
There was a market in slaves too, that didn't make slavery moral. Did it?
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
So we should probably increase emissions. Not cut them. DUh. you're backasswards.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Please provide evidence that he is a paid mouthpiece as you suggest....
Bfgrn
New member
How is dirty energy 'moral'? It causes harm to our environment, puts a costs burden on every American and it causes illness and death of our people.
What is 'moral' about dead forests, sterilized lakes from acid rain, poisoned fisheries in 49 states and children with damaged brains and crippled health from mercury emissions, millions of asthma attacks and lost work days and thousands dead annually from ozone and particulates?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
He is a leading climatologist and you are what exactly? You can't attack him on that front so the old standby of Big Oil is rolled out instead.
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29[/ame]
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
You're conflating issues again. Im fine with basic controls on real pollutants.
Co2 is not one of them.
The end point of co2 hysteria is all of us being taxed to breathe.
Bfgrn
New member
From YOUR link: Roy Spencer (scientist)
Education and work
He speaks publicly often on climate, including four appearances on Coast to Coast AM. He is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute
The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a "non-profit" organization funded by the profits from oil and gas interests and right-wing funders (listed later). It has received substantial funding from Exxon's Exxon Education Foundation.
Personnel
William O'Keefe, CEO (GMI); President, Solutions Consulting, Inc. Formerly COO of the American Petroleum Institute and chairman of the Global Climate Coalition, and a registered lobbyist for ExxonMobil.
Funding
* Earhart Foundation
* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* Scaife Foundations - Sarah Mellon Scaife and Carthage Foundation's
The George C. Marshall Institute no longer shows an overview of recent funders, but in 2000 [17] they listed:
* Richard Lounsbery Foundation
* Sarah Scaife Foundation
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* American Standard Companies
* Exxon Education Foundation
* H.B. Earhart Foundation
* John M. Olin Foundation
* Gelman Education Foundation (Charles Gelman)
* Fieldstead Foundation
* Historical Research Foundation
* Charles and Jean Brunie Foundation
Petro-Dollars
Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets lists the George Marshall Institute as having received $715,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.[18]
This includes:
* $50,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 1999 for "support for science and public policy education programs;
* $50,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2000 for general support;
* $60,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2001 for "climate change work";
* $80,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2001 for "'global climate change program" in 2002; plus a further $10,000 for the Awards Dinner;
* $95,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003 for Global Climate Change Program
* $145,000 ExxonMobil Foundation in 2004 for "climate change" and a further $25,000 from Exxon Corporation for "Awards Dinner -- Climate Change Activities";
* $90,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation for, according to the Institute's IRS return, "climate change" and a further $25,000 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "Awards Dinner and General Operating Support"; and
* $85,000 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "General support and annual dinner" in 2006.
LOL. Well, you did ask Tom.
I think that a lot of this comes down to world-view. In most cases cons consider the government to be a danger, and libs consider large corporations, especially multi-national corporations, to be a danger.
Now, it seems clear to me that all of the evidence is in and corporations are buying our politicans, and even nation-states are really irrelevant. I am becoming more and more convinced that nation-states only still exist because they serve the interests of the multi-nationals. Certainly, nation-states serve the interests of the military industrial complex.
And any research I have ever seen has always found the same dirty money hidden, sometimes in plain sight, other times deep down at the bottom of these global warming skeptics.
I think that a lot of this comes down to world-view. In most cases cons consider the government to be a danger, and libs consider large corporations, especially multi-national corporations, to be a danger.
Now, it seems clear to me that all of the evidence is in and corporations are buying our politicans, and even nation-states are really irrelevant. I am becoming more and more convinced that nation-states only still exist because they serve the interests of the multi-nationals. Certainly, nation-states serve the interests of the military industrial complex.
And any research I have ever seen has always found the same dirty money hidden, sometimes in plain sight, other times deep down at the bottom of these global warming skeptics.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
But many corporations benefit from the global warming hysteria and cap and trade scheme.
And we need nation states because leaders need to be local to represent people adequately. They need to live in the same society as their charges.
Pschological distancing (and real distance) makes it easier for people to be cruel. So elitist cruelitarians seek to remove leaders from their people, psychologically, and spacially. The psychological distance created by elitist dogmatism is what the globalists inculcate so leaders will do horrible things to their people.
Last edited:
Bfgrn
New member
Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.
Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War “I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more.” Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is “the essence of fascism” and Benito Mussolini — who had an insider’s view of that process — said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state of corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Bfgrn
New member
Name an industry that emits ONLY CO2.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
So what, the Democrats received $4.500,000 from those corrupt bastards Goldman Sachs, why haven't they given that back?
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2...4795-on-goldman-sachs-campaign-contributions/
Last edited: