• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

You're right, the ocean's could be cooling more than they originally thought.
Just as much as it could be warming more than they thought.

Gill said:
That's good to know. Many alarmists like jfuh demand peer reviewed data, then ignore it when provided.
Now you're just blatantly lying. You've done nothing of the sort. You've not produced a single peer review that has rejected AGW.
In fact as with the sources you cited here
You completely lied by ommission as proved here
So again, what peer review have you ever cited?
Let me remind you that neither New scientist nor Energy and Environment are peer review.
 
Here's another vid detailing how AGW skepticism is nothing more than a PR campaign deliberately modeled after another known denialist campaign - tobacco-lung cancer skepticism (and unsurprisingly by many of the same people and organizations).

YouTube - Smoke and CO2: How to Spin Global Warming
 
Here's another vid detailing how AGW skepticism is nothing more than a PR campaign deliberately modeled after another known denialist campaign - tobacco-lung cancer skepticism (and unsurprisingly by many of the same people and organizations).

YouTube - Smoke and CO2: How to Spin Global Warming
The profits of denial
Asbestos, DDT, Cigarettes, all the same thing, industry denying science for the sake of profits.
If everyone knew the facts about AGW, the renewable energy and non-fossil fuel based energies would already be a reality.
 
The profits of denial
Asbestos, DDT, Cigarettes, all the same thing, industry denying science for the sake of profits.
If everyone knew the facts about AGW, the renewable energy and non-fossil fuel based energies would already be a reality.

Except they don't work as well as oil and gas, so no they wouldn't. And most peopel realize AGW is the biggest hoax of the last 100 years. It'll go down as the scam of the millenia
 
Except they don't work as well as oil and gas, so no they wouldn't. And most peopel realize AGW is the biggest hoax of the last 100 years. It'll go down as the scam of the millenia
You want to wager on that Vic? $500 donation to the site how about it?
 
Except they don't work as well as oil and gas, so no they wouldn't. And most peopel realize AGW is the biggest hoax of the last 100 years. It'll go down as the scam of the millenia


I think most people think it's real. Here in Canada, it surpassed healthcare as the most important thing to Canadians a few years back.

In 5-10 years, most will be on board, including yourself.
 
Here's another vid detailing how AGW skepticism is nothing more than a PR campaign deliberately modeled after another known denialist campaign - tobacco-lung cancer skepticism (and unsurprisingly by many of the same people and organizations).

Yeah, it's a vast right wing conspiracy. Everybody knows that, but we're just not telling you. :roll:

Here you go.... you'll need this at your next conspiracy meeting:

tin_foil_hat.jpg
 
Yeah, it's a vast right wing conspiracy. Everybody knows that, but we're just not telling you.
You needn't say anything, it's already been quite thoroughly documented.
 
I think most people think it's real. Here in Canada, it surpassed healthcare as the most important thing to Canadians a few years back.

In 5-10 years, most will be on board, including yourself.

Negative, in 5-10 years we'll still be argueing that the cold is an effect of global warming and increasing the carbon tax from $0.20 to $0.45 will save .00011 degrees and we should do it!
 
You bail on bets you lose, no thanks.
Palin never won the debate vic, just because you say so doesn't make it so - want to know what the polling showed after the debate? Palin lost
I let you slide on that one because I did not see Biden KO Palin, which was my condition for a win.
 
Palin never won the debate vic, just because you say so doesn't make it so - want to know what the polling showed after the debate? Palin lost
I let you slide on that one because I did not see Biden KO Palin, which was my condition for a win.

How could anybody claim with a straight face she won? Hell man, she actually came out and said she wasn't going to answer the questions asked of her! All she did was spew her memorized talking points as fast as she could remember them. they came out with no emotion, no articulation and in no discernible order.

And now McCain is reluctant to even support her anymore!

She... is... an... idiot. Dat's a fact, Jack! :mrgreen:
 
How could anybody claim with a straight face she won? Hell man, she actually came out and said she wasn't going to answer the questions asked of her! All she did was spew her memorized talking points as fast as she could remember them. they came out with no emotion, no articulation and in no discernible order.

And now McCain is reluctant to even support her anymore!

She... is... an... idiot. Dat's a fact, Jack! :mrgreen:
Tell that to vicchio, he's been bitching to me about it for ages of how SHE WON SHE WON SHE WON PAY UP PAY UP PAY UP

She's not an idiot though, she's an utter bimbo
 
Tell that to vicchio, he's been bitching to me about it for ages of how SHE WON SHE WON SHE WON PAY UP PAY UP PAY UP

She's not an idiot though, she's an utter bimbo

Yeah I know. "Stupid as a fence post" comes to mind. :2rofll: :joke: :2dancing: :2funny:
 
And most peopel realize AGW is the biggest hoax of the last 100 years. It'll go down as the scam of the millenia

Yup. Most Americans are conspiracy minded idiots.

Yeah, it's a vast right wing conspiracy. Everybody knows that, but we're just not telling you.

I think you're grossly overestimating their ability. A few conservative think tanks that are using the same handful of scientists to distort known science just as they had a few decades ago is hardly what I consider "a vast right wing conspiracy". Now if it involved multiple levels of the government, the entire peer review process across multiple competing journals, and every scientific organization with national or international standing like your juvenile conspiracy does, then perhaps... :lol:
 
Except they don't work as well as oil and gas, so no they wouldn't. And most peopel realize AGW is the biggest hoax of the last 100 years. It'll go down as the scam of the millenia
That depends according to Kirkpatrick Sale's Human Scale on a small scale, say a few square miles solar works very well. It is actually more efficient, or was back in the 80s, than fossil fuel power generation.

A lot of these renewable technologies could work very well right now on a small community scale. The problem is the will isn't there for various reasons ranging from lack of community spirit to no investment from large corporations because it is a lot harder for them to make a profit this way.

So predictably money is wasted by gov'ts and energy companies to try and make massive large scale renewable power generation systems because this is the only way these people can think.

The green technology is here, we just have to adapt to it instead of trying to get it to adapt to our overly centralised, large scale technofix world. And paradoxically it supports communitarian, decentralised and anti-authoritarian solutions that conservatives should be all over.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman, when the tech becomes both profitable AND economically viable, it will take off, not a moment before then.
 
Wessexman, when the tech becomes both profitable AND economically viable, it will take off, not a moment before then.

You seem under the false impression that there is much of a free market in these things. There are many social, govermental and big business, which is much the same as the state, factors involved

Did you know in 1980 that direct sudsidies to industry were actually higher than total corporate profits? This is according to a study by Congress itself quouted in Kirkpatrick Sale's Human Scale.

If communities had the spirit and knowledge they could easily set up this sort of system, those sorts of things are lacking sadly in the modern world now.

I have figures on the hidden costs of fossil fuels and Nuclear from Sale's book, they are quite old but I see no reason to presume the general tendency has changed.

Federal Subsidies to the oil industry: $10.3 billion dollars
Federal Subsidies to utility corportations, including uncollected taxes and the 20 percent tax subsidy on new plants:$2.7 billion
Federal Subsidies to coal and Nuclear industries: $3.8 billion
Federal expenditures on its own power projects: $11 billion
Federal agency expenditures for utility regulation excluding pollution $1 billion
Federal expenditures for energy agencies: $11 billion
Total Federal and state gov't expenditure for pollution control(exluding auto.): $4.8
State gov't purchases of utility power: $11.2 billion
Business expenditure on pollution control: $6.5 billion
Business expenditures related(excluding auto.): $3 billion
Consumer expenditure(excluding auto.): $1 billion
General pollution cots: $18 billion.

Total costs: $76.8 billion

No doubt these days renewable energy gets some help itself, however as has long been noted big gov't and big business are addicted to large scale, centralised, technofix solutions which are coslty with renewable energy and usually fail whereas the real opportunity, and much alreadt existing knowledge and technology, is for the small scale, communitarian stuff. Blocks can already largely be powered by small solar generating systems very efficiently but gov'ts and energy corporations waste vast sums on trying to get efficient solar generation for large areas from massive towers of solar conductors.
 
Last edited:
Except you, and Jfuh from the thanks, miss two important points:

1. The subsidies were more political then market needed.

2. No one wants to drive an inferior electric car.
 
Except you, and Jfuh from the thanks, miss two important points:

1. The subsidies were more political then market needed.
Who says? The subsidies over the decades have been enormous and certainly fulfilling large economic needs. You can't get out of it that easily.

2. No one wants to drive an inferior electric car.
Well if cities were planned better instead of being planned around the motor car then that may have been different. But that doesn't change the rest of the power debate.
 
Who says? The subsidies over the decades have been enormous and certainly fulfilling large economic needs. You can't get out of it that easily.
Look who voted for such, then look who got paid.
Well if cities were planned better instead of being planned around the motor car then that may have been different. But that doesn't change the rest of the power debate.

Gas powered cars are the superior product in terms of cost, effectiveness and utility.

When electric can match that, it will take over, not before then. No amount of subsidizing will change that.
 
Look who voted for such, then look who got paid.
These companies got vast economic benefits, that is simply the truth. That is a massive interference in the market.

In fact direct subisdies to industry in 1980 were more than corporate profits totally more than $100 billion according to Congress' own study.
Gas powered cars are the superior product in terms of cost, effectiveness and utility.

When electric can match that, it will take over, not before then. No amount of subsidizing will change that.
Gas powered cars don't run in a vacuum, they live in transport system largely made for them.
 
Back
Top Bottom