Lord help us
-
Trying to correct Cal is no fun, goes nowhere, and makes me feel like a dick, so let's beat up on someone who matters:
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said the following when George Stephanopoulos asked what the GOP's position is on carbon emissions: "George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you've got more carbon dioxide."
I can't decide which is worse: that this guy thinks that because we exhale CO2 that means global warming doesn't exist, or that he thinks the debate is about whether CO2 causes cancer.
This man is the leader of the Republican Party in the House. How do you compromise with someone like this?
(You may now completely ignore how stupid this statement is and call Nancy Pelosi a pig.)
-
So What. Are we supposed to elect a scientist?
Here is a good question to ask.
Do volcanoes contribute to global warming?
The Effects of Volcanoes on Global Warming
Cari, Becky, and Rob have been doing research to find out whether or not volcanoes have an effect on global warming which leads to the greenhouse effect. We have found a lot of information that leads us to believe that volcanoes do have an effect on global warming. Volcanoes release SO2, Cl2, HCl, H2o, Ash, and CO2 into the atmosphere. Over the past 100 years, the earth has warmed about one degree Farenheit. Therefore, scientists believe the warm temperatures are caused merely by a natural fluctuation in the earth's climate pattern. The information we have found so far leads us to believe that volcanoes actually help cool the earth, not heat it. Although volcanoes release harmful gases into the atmosphere, they do not cause global warming.
http://softpixel.com/eof/1998,9/volcanoes/...%20Warming2.htm
So the Age old question is who produces more carbon emissions Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes?
And more
3 Volcanoes Put on Second-Level Alert Status
March 28, 2009
Jakarta Post - Indonesia
http://standeyo.com/NEWS/09_Earth_Changes/...cano.alert.html
JAKARTA: The Bandung-based Vulcanology and Geological Disaster Mitigation Center has increased the status of Semeru volcano in East Java to the second-highest threat level, bringing the total number of volcanoes on that alert level in Indonesia to three.
18 Live Volcano Cams
http://www.biketravel.net/english/sicily/elivecam.htm
Earth's Active Volcanoes
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/world.html
Enjoy resaerching this.
-
Ahh yes, and then on the other side of the aisle we have the mentality that climate change is no longer an environmental problem, but a revenue problem.
Couldn't possibly be the stale method of financing, maintaining, and evaluating transportation projects that has been around since 1950...
*ahem*
Get in the game.
-
I'm amazed that more politicians do not have a canned answer for the questions you gotta know Steph is gonna give ya.
As I mentioned before there's somne asteroid that has a tiny chance of hitting earth. Maybe. Someday.
"I ask YOU Dan and Heck!
Just what is YOUR plan to avoid this disaster???"
See you can't really answer it if you don't think it's likely to hit us OR that there's nothing you can really do.
But politicians aren't honest because voters are stupid.
He was right about the "sending jobs overseas" part but he didn't state it well.
That's at least Pavlovian for the masses.
WSS
-
I'm amazed that more politicians do not have a canned answer for the questions you gotta know Steph is gonna give ya.
As I mentioned before there's somne asteroid that has a tiny chance of hitting earth. Maybe. Someday.
"I ask YOU Dan and Heck!
Just what is YOUR plan to avoid this disaster???"
See you can't really answer it if you don't think it's likely to hit us OR that there's nothing you can really do.
But politicians aren't honest because voters are stupid.
He was right about the "sending jobs overseas" part but he didn't state it well.
That's at least Pavlovian for the masses.
WSS
See you can't really answer it if you don't think it's likely to hit us OR that there's nothing you can really do.
But politicians aren't honest because voters are stupid.
I hadn't realized that this quote really meant that he has a total grasp of the situation and is simply trying to lay us down easy. Thanks for clearing that up.
-
Ahh yes, and then on the other side of the aisle we have the mentality that climate change is no longer an environmental problem, but a revenue problem.
Couldn't possibly be the stale method of financing, maintaining, and evaluating transportation projects that has been around since 1950...
*ahem*
Get in the game.
Ahh yes, and then on the other side of the aisle we have the mentality that climate change is no longer an environmental problem, but a revenue problem.
I think your premise is false, Leg. This is just a bad way to address one part of the problem. In Oregon.
-
I don't have time to keep trying to get Heck and Dan to think critically - they're still screwing it up.
Heck finds one guy to discredit the entire Republican party, but ignores all the gaffes and really wacko statements
by Dennis Kuchinich, Harry Reid ("the war is lost"), or Murtha declaring that our soldiers were cold blooded murderers.
Going nowhere.
The rest of us would just like to talk some politics. This thread doesn't say diddley
about the fraud that is called "man made global warming immediate crisis". In effect, Heck is diverting attention
from the issue at hand.
by the way, apparently it IS an issue because the EPA says CO2 causes cancer. ROF,LMAO. Nice try, Heckleberry.
and CO2 is on California's list of carcinogens.
Here is a listing about the dangerous CO2
-
Cal, the EPA didn't say that CO2 causes cancer. It just didn't. It didn't even say that CO2 is a pollutant. It listed CO2, along with five other gases, as gases that contribute to the warming of the planet, which has consequences, some positive, mostly negative.
One of these days you'll get something right.
-
See you can't really answer it if you don't think it's likely to hit us OR that there's nothing you can really do.
But politicians aren't honest because voters are stupid.
I hadn't realized that this quote really meant that he has a total grasp of the situation and is simply trying to lay us down easy. Thanks for clearing that up.
I hadn't realized that this quote really meant that he has a total grasp of the situation and is simply trying to lay us down easy. Thanks for clearing that up.
But we do realize that you don't care enough about the pending end of the world to do anything meaningful.
We discussed that.
I gave solutions and you dodged 'em.
You don't care beyond a desire to validate Obama's unworkable plans, whatever they are.
I get that.
WSS
-
Yes, apparently if we don't agree with your stupid "solutions" - everyone makes personal sacrifices, like forgiving leisure travel - then we're not serious. And if we're in favor of a workable, market-based plan that relies on profit motive and economic self-interest to work - one that's been used successfully before - that's also not serious.
Steve, your ideas about this are dumber than dumb, and simply an excuse to try and lecture people about their shortcomings, according to you. Nor have I dodged these "solutions". I've tried to explain why they're senseless and unworkable, unenforceable and silly, and ineffective at solving the problem anyway.
You would get laughed out of any serious discussion. You should understand this.
Nor are we talking about the end of the world.
And I do believe I was talking about this long before you even knew who Barack Obama was. This isn't Obama's plan. It's one of the two main policy options for combatting global warming, and has been for years.
None of your points make sense, or hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Once again, you're just focused on people who don't like.
It's beyond tiresome.
-
Yes, apparently if we don't agree with your stupid "solutions" - everyone makes personal sacrifices, like forgiving leisure travel - then we're not serious. And if we're in favor of a workable, market-based plan that relies on profit motive and economic self-interest to work - one that's been used successfully before - that's also not serious.
Steve, your ideas about this are dumber than dumb, and simply an excuse to try and lecture people about their shortcomings, according to you. Nor have I dodged these "solutions". I've tried to explain why they're senseless and unworkable, unenforceable and silly, and ineffective at solving the problem anyway.
You would get laughed out of any serious discussion. You should understand this.
Nor are we talking about the end of the world.
And I do believe I was talking about this long before you even knew who Barack Obama was. This isn't Obama's plan. It's one of the two main policy options for combatting global warming, and has been for years.
None of your points make sense, or hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Once again, you're just focused on people who don't like.
It's beyond tiresome.
Yes, apparently if we don't agree with your stupid "solutions" - everyone makes personal sacrifices, like forgiving leisure travel - then we're not serious. And if we're in favor of a workable, market-based plan that relies on profit motive and economic self-interest to work - one that's been used successfully before - that's also not serious.
Steve, your ideas about this are dumber than dumb, and simply an excuse to try and lecture people about their shortcomings, according to you. Nor have I dodged these "solutions". I've tried to explain why they're senseless and unworkable, unenforceable and silly, and ineffective at solving the problem anyway.
You would get laughed out of any serious discussion. You should understand this.
I understand that.
But that is precisely because none of you Chiken Littles think it's a big deal.
Every option I gave would lessen the US output of those gases you fear.
To a much grewater extent than any tax you can pass. And that, Heck, is a fact whether you like it or not.
I also dare you to say it's not.
Nor are we talking about the end of the world.
That's exactly what we're talking about.
Did you even see Gore's film? Come on Heck.
You lefties gave the guy a Nobel and even YOU thiunk he's full of shit??
And I do believe I was talking about this long before you even knew who Barack Obama was. This isn't Obama's plan. It's one of the two main policy options for combatting global warming, and has been for years.
Yes Heck.
You now only follow Obama because he's the democrat in power.
Had it been Hillary or Dean I expect you'd adhere to their version of the party line. I'm not kidding.
I'll admit you may have broken with Leiberman but had he run against a Republican......? Who knows.
None of your points make sense, or hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.
Of course not.
They would accomplish what you want better than any plan you have.
But no, nobody's gonna do it.
Because the problem is exagerated for political points.
Once again, you're just focused on people who don't like.
It's beyond tiresome.
I'm focused on stupid unworkable and unpleasant plans no matter if it's an R or a D.
One big reason I didn't freak when McCain lost.
Do I like McCain? Yes. but if he supports stupid shit a say so.
WSS
-
I'll be sure to tell Steven Chu of your plan. I'm sure he'll find it far superior to cap and trade. Because there's no better way to spur the development of, and transition to, cleaner energy sources than having the government dictate that you can't take a leisure trip.
I'm really in awe of how far you'll go before you'll admit that this isn't your area of expertise, and that you don't know what you're talking about.
We're talking about policy solutions. You're talking about theoretical magic wand "solutions" that only exist in your head. And then you're comparing the two and declaring yours superior!
Holy shit.
But you did get to call me a chicken little, say some shit about Al Gore, accuse me of blindly following whatever Democrat they provide me, and then declared yourself to be above this type of ugly partisanship.
Cheers.
-
Ahh yes, and then on the other side of the aisle we have the mentality that climate change is no longer an environmental problem, but a revenue problem.
I think your premise is false, Leg. This is just a bad way to address one part of the problem. In Oregon.
I think your premise is false, Leg. This is just a bad way to address one part of the problem. In Oregon.
No, it's absolutely correct. It was to counter your original premise that the Republican party is the only one suffering from an affliction of stupid. More evidence that the GOP isn't "getting it" and so forth. And I agree, they aren't. Well, most aren't. But they aren't alone either.
-
Fair enough. But watch that clip of Boehner some time. It's clear they have no plan. Stephanopolous is asking what the Republican alternative is, and he just recites nonsense. So Stephanopolous asks him again what the Republican plan on climate change is, and gets more nonsense.
Their plan is ...nothing. They don't have one. After two decades of this, they haven't yet started to take it seriously.
Say what you want about taxing gasoline consumption, at least it's an idea pointed in the right direction. It's just not comprehensive enough.
-
Fair enough. But watch that clip of Boehner some time. It's clear they have no plan. Stephanopolous is asking what the Republican alternative is, and he just recites nonsense. So Stephanopolous asks him again what the Republican plan on climate change is, and gets more nonsense.
Their plan is ...nothing. They don't have one. After two decades of this, they haven't yet started to take it seriously.
Say what you want about taxing gasoline consumption, at least it's an idea pointed in the right direction. It's just not comprehensive enough.
Fair enough. But watch that clip of Boehner some time. It's clear they have no plan. Stephanopolous is asking what the Republican alternative is, and he just recites nonsense. So Stephanopolous asks him again what the Republican plan on climate change is, and gets more nonsense.
Their plan is ...nothing. They don't have one. After two decades of this, they haven't yet started to take it seriously.
Say what you want about taxing gasoline consumption, at least it's an idea pointed in the right direction. It's just not comprehensive enough.
I'd rather not. Reading about it is embarrassing enough. Not because I'm a Republican, but because I'm aware that there is no (smart, reasonable, effective) solution until both sides realize the existence of a problem.
-
I'll be sure to tell Steven Chu of your plan. I'm sure he'll find it far superior to cap and trade. Because there's no better way to spur the development of, and transition to, cleaner energy sources than having the government dictate that you can't take a leisure trip.
I'm really in awe of how far you'll go before you'll admit that this isn't your area of expertise, and that you don't know what you're talking about.
We're talking about policy solutions. You're talking about theoretical magic wand "solutions" that only exist in your head. And then you're comparing the two and declaring yours superior!
Holy shit.
But you did get to call me a chicken little, say some shit about Al Gore, accuse me of blindly following whatever Democrat they provide me, and then declared yourself to be above this type of ugly partisanship.
Cheers.
I'll be sure to tell Steven Chu of your plan. I'm sure he'll find it far superior to cap and trade. Because there's no better way to spur the development of, and transition to, cleaner energy sources than having the government dictate that you can't take a leisure trip.
God forbid the government running your life by punishing you with taxes...
And the point of Cap and Trade?
Force you to stop taking leisure trips.
That's a lot different Heck.
I'm really in awe of how far you'll go before you'll admit that this isn't your area of expertise, and that you don't know what you're talking about.
We're talking about policy solutions. You're talking about theoretical magic wand "solutions" that only exist in your head. And then you're comparing the two and declaring yours superior!
Holy shit.
But you did get to call me a chicken little, say some shit about Al Gore, accuse me of blindly following whatever Democrat they provide me, and then declared yourself to be above this type of ugly partisanship.
Cheers.
How's this then?
Just one part of Steve's save the world plan.
We don't outlaw leisure travel.
But everyone gets a requisition for mileage needed for work and basics.
Then on top of that you get an allotment of discretionary miles.
You could have chekpoints for monitoring.
Build 'em next to E Checks.
(Hey look!! Green jobs!!)
That way you cut down on whatever gases scare you and it's fair to all.
Not just guys like you who won't sweat an extra couple bucks a gallon.
Why not?
Because the only solution to a problem is tax tax tax I know.......
(and BTW Gore did get a prize right? So it's unfair to call him out because??)
WSS
-
I am ashamed that idiot represents our state. carbon dioxide is a carcinogen?...... how that relates toward greenhouse gases is odd.... Clearly he does not understand nor cares about climate issues. I understand that the cap and trade policy is flawed and that other current proposals are not nowhere near comprehensive but this guy is clearly a puppet.
You can be a fiscal conservative and pro business/pro lower taxes and be smart enough to come up with something better than humans exhale co2 so therefor blah blah blah...
-
Cap and trade surely has flaws. I wouldn't argue with that. And after it goes through the sausage factory of Congress I expect it to have even more flaws and loopholes. Minimizing these will be the great task.
-
Steve, just stop. I figured you were at least smart enough to know when you're embarrassing yourself.
And you still don't seem to know what cap and trade is, or does, or attempts to do. I'll give you one hint for what it isn't - a way to tax people so much that they can't take vacations. Or drive to work.
It's also a way to let the private market take over with limited government regulation and monitoring, and letting the market decide which new technologies to invest in, rather than having government guess which ones are the future. (Check out corn-based ethanol if you think government makes these types of decisions well.)
You're arguing for some byzantine and ineffective government monitoring system, still living under the delusion that this is about limiting how much people travel.
Why?
We've been discussing this for at least two years. In all of that time have you let any new information get under that mane of yours?
-
Steve, just stop. I figured you were at least smart enough to know when you're embarrassing yourself.
And you still don't seem to know what cap and trade is, or does, or attempts to do. I'll give you one hint for what it isn't - a way to tax people so much that they can't take vacations. Or drive to work.
It's also a way to let the private market take over with limited government regulation and monitoring, and letting the market decide which new technologies to invest in, rather than having government guess which ones are the future. (Check out corn-based ethanol if you think government makes these types of decisions well.)
You're arguing for some byzantine and ineffective government monitoring system, still living under the delusion that this is about limiting how much people travel.
Why?
We've been discussing this for at least two years. In all of that time have you let any new information get under that mane of yours?
Steve, just stop. I figured you were at least smart enough to know when you're embarrassing yourself.
And you still don't seem to know what cap and trade is, or does, or attempts to do. I'll give you one hint for what it isn't - a way to tax people so much that they can't take vacations. Or drive to work.
It's also a way to let the private market take over with limited government regulation and monitoring, and letting the market decide which new technologies to invest in, rather than having government guess which ones are the future. (Check out corn-based ethanol if you think government makes these types of decisions well.)
You're arguing for some byzantine and ineffective government monitoring system, still living under the delusion that this is about limiting how much people travel.
Why?
We've been discussing this for at least two years. In all of that time have you let any new information get under that mane of yours?
Oh man! This is giving me dejavu of the old days! Pretty soon you will be calling him "larrry the lounge lizzard".
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login