RangerM Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) double post Edited July 30, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Like what? Are we going to tax beef so people can't afford to eat it? I don't like that idea. We could try to adjust what we feed them in an attempt to reduce enteric fermentation, however I don't hear anyone speaking of that. It would seem that the solution always comes back to punishment. (taxes) If makes no sense to me to drive an Excursion to work. That's why I choose to drive a Ranger, because I still want a truck, but also better MPG. But, I'm not going to criticize (or punish) someone else who chooses to pay all those extra gas taxes. My choice of vehicle has nothing to do with rent in urban areas. My choice not to live there does. The area of the United States is 1.8% of the entire globe (6.2% of the land area of the globe). You could put Earth's entire population in the United States, and average fewer than 3 people per acre. We are insignificant (on a global scale), and so are your efforts to destroy or save the planet. Worry about your back yard. The Earth will take care of itself (and us). Would God make the planet Earth so fragile, that He knew man could destroy it at will? :P well if you think taxing is the way to happiness go ahead! I would suggest feeding cattle more gras and less corn as their digestive system would be happier too! As for MPG I agree we would probably all like more! and if some one else wants to pay more taxes well that is less that I pay! 3 people per acre? well that might be a little to crowded already, maybe a person per 40 acres! We are significant, or at least me and mine are, as for you and yours I can only guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) well if you think taxing is the way to happiness go ahead!We are significant, or at least me and mine are, as for you and yours I can only guess. There is absolutely no need to be a smart ass. That is how to make yourself insignificant. Edited July 30, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Would God make the planet Earth so fragile, that He knew man could destroy it at will? :P That is what I don't understand. Why some think we can destroy others let alone the planet. A man makes a fertilizer bomb that does $700 million in damage to 300+ buildings, yet by the grace of God only killed 20. Planes into 210 stories yet only ~3000 killed. Car bomb in front of police housing and 60 wounded. Grenades, bombs, assault weapons in crowded places and no one or few killed. People try to commit suicide multiple times before they succeed. Clearly we can not just kill whom ever we want when ever we want. We know it is not Fragile. A nuclear core, oil seeping from below the surface and into the waters, toxic metals, poisonous substances, volcanoes, tsunamis, wild fires, dust storms, changing weather patterns, radiation, etc. Yea. We are a huge threat to the earth! Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Co2 is the big name ticket, but methane is a much bigger problem, hence making it two things, thus the need for the term green house gaseS.Methane and its effects make CO2 look like a happy meal. As for me and my agenda it is to make the world a better place, if that means you don't drive an hour to work so be it, or if you have to drive a car that get 40+mpg so be it, or if we develop nuclear fusion and most of our problems go away so be it. I do have to contend that population is one of the other major factor sin the global climate problem and mans effect on it,and instead of a rational discussion on it we get to hear discussions of roevwade by our two 'partiers' up on the hill instead of getting any real work done. I am not out to tax every one ot death, the government is doing a fine job at that no matter which one of the two major parties you choose. so in short my agenda is do unto mother nature as you would have her do unto you, or clean up after yourself and think about your actions and how it effects your surroundings. So there you have it. You really don't think CO2 is the problem. What you really want is for OTHER people to live in a way that is more acceptable to you: close to work, and driving cars that that are less offensive to your sensibilities. You want us all to eat less beef. Or at least for cattle to eat less corn. And in general, you feel like there are just too many people on the planet to begin with. So global warming has become the convenient crisis that you rally behind to achieve your agenda. The sky certainly is falling, if you need it to be to further your plans. This is why there is no movement to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, right now, today. It really never was about CO2. It was, and is, about control. It's funny that following WWII we thought fascism was dead forever. Who would of thought that it would remake itself in the name of environmentalism. Enviro-Nazis. It's got a great beat, and you can dance to it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 So there you have it. You really don't think CO2 is the problem. What you really want is for OTHER people to live in a way that is more acceptable to you: close to work, and driving cars that that are less offensive to your sensibilities. You want us all to eat less beef. Or at least for cattle to eat less corn. And in general, you feel like there are just too many people on the planet to begin with. So global warming has become the convenient crisis that you rally behind to achieve your agenda. The sky certainly is falling, if you need it to be to further your plans. This is why there is no movement to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, right now, today. It really never was about CO2. It was, and is, about control. It's funny that following WWII we thought fascism was dead forever. Who would of thought that it would remake itself in the name of environmentalism. Enviro-Nazis. It's got a great beat, and you can dance to it... I don't theink CO2 is the only problem, but it is one, the one that is getting the most press since Al gores documentary. I live close to work and if other don't want to and in turn want to pay more taxes so be it, I just find it idiotic the guy I work with who drives an Excursion almost two hours to work which he has 'to take his toddler to preschool.' Eating less beef is probably better for your health, but if you want to be unhealthy go ahead just dont use my tax dollars for your heart disease. Yes there might be a few to many people on the planet, please remember to spay or neuter your human! As for my agenda, I don't really have one except "L I V I N" and the sky isn't falling it is beign held in place by the theory of gravity. As for the control, well I am German, but a Nazi, come on man. Fascism is alive and well thanks to many ignorant masses following their shepherds, if you don't like it 'be the change you wish to see'!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Fascism, socialism, Naziism, Communism; all different names for left wing big government. It has been creeping onward since the beginning. FDR gave it a boost, and Obama looks to be doing the same. The environ"mental" brainwash is all part of the plan. This is not a conspiracy theory dreamed up by the "right-wing lunatic fringe". It is happening. Just look at history. How much of our lives is now independent of government? Very little. They are still not satisfied. Their thirst for control over us is unsatiable. They want it all. You can call it Democracy, but that died long ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 So there you have it. You really don't think CO2 is the problem. What you really want is for OTHER people to live in a way that is more acceptable to you: close to work, and driving cars that that are less offensive to your sensibilities. You want us all to eat less beef. Or at least for cattle to eat less corn. And in general, you feel like there are just too many people on the planet to begin with. So global warming has become the convenient crisis that you rally behind to achieve your agenda. The sky certainly is falling, if you need it to be to further your plans. This is why there is no movement to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, right now, today. It really never was about CO2. It was, and is, about control. It's funny that following WWII we thought fascism was dead forever. Who would of thought that it would remake itself in the name of environmentalism. Enviro-Nazis. It's got a great beat, and you can dance to it... +1 (So good that it causes waffling!!!) Great post and clear and to the point. A very sharp point. May find me quoting this else where! Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 +1 (So good that it causes waffling!!!) Great post and clear and to the point. A very sharp point. May find me quoting this else where! Peace and Blessings Keep this one in mind too..... Of the UN IPCC scientists, 1 in 5 are actually climate scientists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 +1 (So good that it causes waffling!!!) Great post and clear and to the point. A very sharp point. May find me quoting this else where! Peace and Blessings Thank you for the very kind compliment. No disrespect intended to SH, he is entitled to his own choices, just not mine or yours. That is the great thing about America (at least for now): we all have lots of choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) "Global Warming" the the new green mean tax raising machine on something which used to be known as the weather in the past. UK has had it's 3rd Summer in a row of wet washout weather below average temperatures maybe the UK needs to stop taxing us to death for "Global Warming" and start taxing us to death for "Global Cooling" instead and slap huge taxes on small clown cars. LINK Daily Express reports.... THE Met Office was accused of ruining Britons' holidays yesterday after its wildly inaccurate forecast predicting a "barbecue summer". In April, forecasters at the organisation said the country would bask in sunshine and above-average temperatures in June, July and August. But apart from a few days at the end of June when temperatures topped 86F (30C) the weather has largely been a washout after one of the wettest summers on record. Strong winds and heavy rain have battered the UK for most of July and yesterday the Met Office finally seemed to admit it had got it wrong as it revised its summer outlook. It has now said that the next month will bring more unsettled weather and near or above average rainfall. In its original summer forecast it said the country was "odds on for a barbecue summer". But just a week into July, torrential thunderstorms swept across Britain and they haven't really gone away. Last night the Met Office was accused of using "spin" to make its forecasts more popular and questions were being asked about whether the organisation – which costs taxpayers more than £83million a year – is risking its reputation. At the time of its forecast there was pressure on the Met Office from UK tourism chiefs to be positive about holidays at home. But the problem for the Met Office is that this is the third summer in a row when its forecast has failed. The miserable scenes across the country yesterday ranged from a flooded campsite in Keswick, Cumbria, to puddles on the ground before the third Ashes test match at Edgbaston, Birmingham. Meanwhile, holidaymakers from Scarborough, North Yorks, to South Wales were also soaked. Yesterday, the Met Office was blasted for raising the country's hopes and ruining the holidays of those who had stayed in the UK based on its forecast. Jonathan Powell, of Positive Weather Solutions, said: "Some people will have chosen to stay in the UK because of the credit crunch as well as the Met Office's weather predictions. "They have ruined people's holidays and they are to blame. People are sitting in tents completely sodden now. "I also think people will have cancelled holidays abroad that they already had booked after hearing the forecast." If weathermen are clueless about the climate how can we trust the government "Global Warming" tax raising machine. LINK Edited July 31, 2009 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Why is it that only Pro MMGW stories sink in to the average public's mind but Con MMGW stories just bounce off? This story brings up a good point. If we are going to tax, regulate, and curb industry's based upon Climate Expectations, then we should be able to sue for that money back plus damages when nothing or the opposite occurs? It is so frustrating watching this great country spend itself in to bankruptcy. They say we should have 6 months of income in the bank for security? How come our governments are not required to follow the same advise! Its is not mob rule. It is stupidity rule. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Why is it that only Pro MMGW stories sink in to the average public's mind but Con MMGW stories just bounce off? This story brings up a good point. If we are going to tax, regulate, and curb industry's based upon Climate Expectations, then we should be able to sue for that money back plus damages when nothing or the opposite occurs? It is so frustrating watching this great country spend itself in to bankruptcy. They say we should have 6 months of income in the bank for security? How come our governments are not required to follow the same advise! Its is not mob rule. It is stupidity rule. Peace and Blessings probably because the pro stories use science, while the anti stories look for some one to say it aint so, usually without science, but money, or fear in the form of taxes. what is weird is how much we spend on 'defense' or war on hunger, poverty, drugs, terror or what ever battle can't be won, and how little we spend on education! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 probably because the pro stories use science, while the anti stories look for some one to say it aint so, usually without science, but money, or fear in the form of taxes.what is weird is how much we spend on 'defense' or war on hunger, poverty, drugs, terror or what ever battle can't be won, and how little we spend on education! You know. If you turn those binoculars around so that things seem closer you will see a lot more then the little myopic view you have of Pro MMGW science and Con MMGW lack of science. Instead, you just keep selling the same old tired line of untruths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 You know. If you turn those binoculars around so that things seem closer you will see a lot more then the little myopic view you have of Pro MMGW science and Con MMGW lack of science. Instead, you just keep selling the same old tired line of untruths. both sides have pros and cons . can you name pros and cons for both sides? in a balanced amount? or do they have a tendency to lean? and if so which one of those 'facts' (example would be nice) sent you in that direction? I admit I am perplexed myself as I don't want higher taxes, but I don't want my children inheriting a cesspool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) SH, No one wants our children to inherit a cesspool. The issue at hand is not about that at all. There is only one issue on the table: will we tax energy enough to reduce consumption by 80%. I would ask you to consider what quality of life will be under this scenario. It might make a cesspool look good. Imagine heat and air conditioning as luxuries only available to the rich. Eliminate your microwave, oven and clothes washer and dryer. This level of electric consumption would be about where we were in the 1930's. Driving our own car would be a distant memory. And then remember this would not apply to India or China or any part of Africa, most of Asia, South or Central America, even Australia has opted out. Edited August 1, 2009 by xr7g428 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 SH, No one wants our children to inherit a cesspool. The issue at hand is not about that at all. There is only one issue on the table: will we tax energy enough to reduce consumption by 80%. I would ask you to consider what quality of life will be under this scenario. It might make a cesspool look good. Imagine heat and air conditioning as luxuries only available to the rich. Eliminate your microwave, oven and clothes washer and dryer. This level of electric consumption would be about where we were in the 1930's. Driving our own car would be a distant memory. And then remember this would not apply to India or China or any part of Africa, most of Asia, South or Central America, even Australia has opted out. well you see the taxes, perhaps your an accountant, I see a pollution because I work with it, so hence our world views may both be correct. as for taxes they are here to stay, Ben Franklin said that over 200+ years ago. Those that don't know their history are doomed to repeat it. How much do you pay per gallon in gas tax? do you smoke? what is the tax on pack of cigarettes? Taxes suck I agree, but living in a shit hole sucks too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 You keep talking pollution. What pollution? CO2 is not pollution in the ordinary sense. Plants require it survive. What evil do you ascribe to CO2 beyond global warming? I don't see taxes, I see the effects of a post industrial society trying to simply survive. Look at your electric bill and tell me how you can cut that consumption by 80%. Now cut the number of gallons of gas you use by 80% Scooter much? Only if you are lucky. What part of shit hole do you have left after you lose modern standards of living? Have you ever seen the kind of lifestyle you get minus electricity? Do you have even the slightest idea what the impact on the poor will be? Do people matter to you at all? If you want to understand what lfe with 80% less energy looks like, you need to visit rural India. Taxes are not the problem, they are simply the tool to be used to raise prices to such a degree that energy becomes a scarce commodity. Less is just less... And PLEASE don't tell us that if we pass the law, then technology will save us. If that really worked, cancer would have been illegal a long time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 both sides have pros and cons .can you name pros and cons for both sides? in a balanced amount? or do they have a tendency to lean? and if so which one of those 'facts' (example would be nice) sent you in that direction? I admit I am perplexed myself as I don't want higher taxes, but I don't want my children inheriting a cesspool. I have children too. I don't see the cesspool you speak of? Where is it? Even back in the 70 with a migraine driving into LA air pollution I don't see your cesspool. Perhaps you live in Russia, China, or India? Then I can understand what your concerns are. Please take it up with those groups. Pros and Cons? To MMGW? No. I don't believe in MMGW. You want cleaner fuels?. You have it. You want cleaner cars? You have it. You want cleaner packaging? You have it. You want cleaner energy? You have it. You want cleaner farms? You have it. You want cleaner energy exploration? You have it. You want cleaner bread making? You have it. You want less phosphates in the water? You have it. Etc. Etc. Etc. There are no pros for MMGW. Just like there were no Pros for MMGCooling. They guy that made the original model made it so loose, that it if was a car, it would be in pieces in different parts of the galaxy and he would still say it is a feasible and Running vehicle. 1 Nuclear bomb going off would do 1000000000 times more damage then any global warming is. And even if it were 5 or 10 or 20 nuclear bombs per continent, man would still be here, pick up the pieces and get back to work. Because Nuclear bombs can not destroy the world. And if they can not, MMGW does not even have a chance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 You keep talking pollution. What pollution? CO2 is not pollution in the ordinary sense. Plants require it survive. What evil do you ascribe to CO2 beyond global warming? I don't see taxes, I see the effects of a post industrial society trying to simply survive. Look at your electric bill and tell me how you can cut that consumption by 80%. Now cut the number of gallons of gas you use by 80% Scooter much? Only if you are lucky. What part of shit hole do you have left after you lose modern standards of living? Have you ever seen the kind of lifestyle you get minus electricity? Do you have even the slightest idea what the impact on the poor will be? Do people matter to you at all? If you want to understand what lfe with 80% less energy looks like, you need to visit rural India. Taxes are not the problem, they are simply the tool to be used to raise prices to such a degree that energy becomes a scarce commodity. Less is just less... And PLEASE don't tell us that if we pass the law, then technology will save us. If that really worked, cancer would have been illegal a long time ago. I think STP and many like him are willing to actually live in a tent in the woods because that would suit them. And if it is OK with them, then it will have to be OK with everyone else. Its like a Witch hunt or a Tribunal where the environmentalists are in control and lost their own way regarding reality. He works in the pollution industry. He wants zero pollution. He, himself, and many others, are not only willing, but eager to do what they must, to us, and themselves, for their idea of a greater good. Totally blind to what they have, as if they never wanted it in the first place, not knowing that it is not TV or Cars they are giving up, but science, technology, health, etc. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 I forget, there will always be enough energy to do the important things. Defined by the environmentalists. But no more then that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 I have children too. I don't see the cesspool you speak of? Where is it? Even back in the 70 with a migraine driving into LA air pollution I don't see your cesspool. Perhaps you live in Russia, China, or India? Then I can understand what your concerns are. Please take it up with those groups. every heard of love canal? Pros and Cons? To MMGW? No. I don't believe in MMGW. You want cleaner fuels?. You have it. You want cleaner cars? You have it. You want cleaner packaging? You have it. You want cleaner energy? You have it. You want cleaner farms? You have it. You want cleaner energy exploration? You have it. You want cleaner bread making? You have it. You want less phosphates in the water? You have it. Etc. Etc. Etc. don't believe? we it is not a religion so you don't have to believe, just look at facts There are no pros for MMGW. Just like there were no Pros for MMGCooling. They guy that made the original model made it so loose, that it if was a car, it would be in pieces in different parts of the galaxy and he would still say it is a feasible and Running vehicle. If you see no pros there are no pro, but if you open you eyes you would be amazed at what you may see! 1 Nuclear bomb going off would do 1000000000 times more damage then any global warming is. And even if it were 5 or 10 or 20 nuclear bombs per continent, man would still be here, pick up the pieces and get back to work. Because Nuclear bombs can not destroy the world. And if they can not, MMGW does not even have a chance! sounds like some one did some highly scientific research here "1000000000 times" what formula did you use to get this number? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 I forget, there will always be enough energy to do the important things. Defined by the environmentalists. But no more then that. with nuclear fusion it might be possible to have more than enough clean power, but the low costs, and the lack of waste, where would the profits be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 every heard of love canal? don't believe? we it is not a religion so you don't have to believe, just look at facts If you see no pros there are no pro, but if you open you eyes you would be amazed at what you may see! sounds like some one did some highly scientific research here "1000000000 times" what formula did you use to get this number? You speak in such Grand exaggerations I would have bet my life that "1000000000 times" would have been easily understood by you as a Minor exaggeration. Love Canal? Yea. That was from 50 years ago. Does that have any relevance to today? 1/5 of our nations life time... If your worried about Love canal, I got one word for you. MILITARY. If you want to clean up a world of cesspools about the only place you are going to find them is at Military bases or major military contractors. Regardless, I know of no Cesspool that my children are inheriting? Seriously, you make it sound like Mad Max and stuff. You figure we don't agree, so you have to exaggerate to such an amazing degree in the hopes that we will see what? The truth? If you are worried about kids growing up in cesspools, you better start adopting children ASAP from China, India, Vietnam, Russia, etc. My eyes are very open. I have seen the arguments for MMGW for years now. Its not brand new you know? Your not the first person in your generation to ever hear of MMGW. Its been around for a long long time. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Love Canal? Yea. That was from 50 years ago. Does that have any relevance to today? 1/5 of our nations life time... Hanford Libby Here's a couple. The radioactive waste leaking from corroded tanks at Hanford, and now being measured in rising levels entering the Columbia River water table a few miles away needs to be isolated from human contact for 300,000 years. 1,282 X our nation's life time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.