We are having record cold temperatures and snowfall in history across the United States so the question begs to be asked...
While the Himalayan glacier isn't melting as fast as was stated by the scientist you mentioned, the artic ice is melting faster.
Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
30 years ago, the science told us that another ice age was on the way, as the globe was cooling.of course, the science tells us the earth is warming. the causes are what's at issue.
30 years ago, the science told us that another ice age was on the way, as the globe was cooling.
Have we? Are you sure?And 100 years ago, we knew the Earth moved through the ether. We have learned more since then.
Have we? Are you sure?
What's changed since then, and how do you know?
Be sure to factor in the recent revelations regarding the cooking of the termperature data books.
And then, what's to say that 30 years from now, we will not have learned more, and found that the "global warming' scare was unfounded?
On the contrary -- I am following perfectly.I think you are not following....
On the contrary -- I am following perfectly.
Now, can you answer my questions, or not?
Just so you know, I am betting on the 'or not'.
We are having record cold temperatures and snowfall in history across the United States so the question begs to be asked...
I think people should CHOOSE to do all those things.
The government has no business getting into the legislation of what kind of things I can buy unless there is some SEVERE state interest imho.
However those are not the extreme type things. However telling businesses they must spend thousands to millions of dollars to make their business "Greener", causing them to diverge money and profits towards that rather than improving a product, research and design, or employee's is bad. Taking peoples hard earned money away from them in a form of a tax or a fine for not being "Green enough" in the additions or changes to their home is basically the government forcing them to spend money one way or another that is not of their choosing. Telling car companies they must spend money on research for "greener" cars instead of spending that money on other things that may increase the likelihood of making their cars attractive to consumers is bad.
30 years ago, the science told us that another ice age was on the way, as the globe was cooling.
Yes, yes I am.No you are not following.
We have learned more since then.
Have we? Are you sure?
What's changed since then, and how do you know?
Be sure to factor in the recent revelations regarding the cooking of the termperature data books.
And then, what's to say that 30 years from now, we will not have learned more, and found that the "global warming' scare was unfounded?
I saw a show on PBS some time ago about how the polutants from commercial air travel have blocked enough of the sun's energy to lower average earth temps -- that global warming would be WORSE without it.Headline: Scientists Claim Global Warming Prevented an Ice Age!
I saw a show on PBS some time ago about how the polutants from commercial air travel have blocked enough of the sun's energy to lower average earth temps -- that global warming would be WORSE without it.
This was supported by a (supposed) average rise in temps across the US in the 3-4 days after 9-11 when all the planes were grounded.
The jist of the story was that global warmiong is actually worse than we think -- but, I believe the people pushing the story have unwittingly stumbled upon a solution -- more, dirtier, commercial aircraft!
It's kind of like my theory about the hole in teh ozone layer.
It's fairly common knowledge that the smell after a static electric shock is caused by Ozone. So my theory is that if we create a HUGE latex balloon and the world's largest toupee and rub them together under the hole in the Ozone layer, everything'll get better.
Sorry to be pedantic, but the very earliest settlement of Iceland took place at the earliest during the mid-7th century.
Interesting post although much evidence does exist that shows late-20th century trends to be far more significant and rapid than any natural cycle theory can explain.
The anti-Gore demonisation campaign seems a little too convenient, allowing the "feathering their nest" argument to divert attention away from the scientific validity of the AGW argument. Over here in Europe no one takes much notice of Al Gore, he's certainly not seen as the leading proponent of the AGW case. Nevertheless, the debate continues over the science.
Forget about Gore, make the scientific case.
Tap … tap … tap …
I am actually not suggesting legislation to ban anything, however. I'm suggesting the governments across the world incentivise r/d into alternative energy and make alternative forms of transport more attractive than those more wasteful kinds. Better public transport, better facilities for people using non-fossil-based energy sources.
What I dislike is PUNISHING people for NOT doing those things. You want to give people a $1000 tax break for buying a car with 35 MPG or over, sure thing. You want to impose a $1000 fine on people for buying one with 15 MPG, absolutely not. And that goes equally true for bull**** underhanded attempts of doing it by, for example, increasing the taxes on all cars by $1000 and THEN doing the $1000 tax break on ones over 35MPG, effectively back ending into the $1000 fine.
how do you figure that?
I actually have little issue with incentivising people to go for more economical cars or energy efficient items or research to new kinds of fuel sources, etc.
I do.
The constitution doesn't allow the government to steal my money to pay someone else to buy a specific product.
That totally removes the incentives the alternative energy people have to reduce costs until they're competitive with other technologies.
Here's my general reason.
There's only going to be so far LOW the government is going to go with taxes if they keep the BASELINE where it is now...
IE, they're never going to give you a tax break so cheap its paying for half the car, or all of the car, no matter how much they want to give you the "carrot" and want you in that car. Additionally, by lowering the tax this is a boone for the car industry, as the person is still paying them the full amount of money for the car and its the government taking the hit.
However, this is not the case with tax HIKES. If they really don't want you in that car there's no height they wont' raise it too, they can just keep going up and up on it until its almost ridiculous to even THINK of buying it. And in this case it IS the car company that takes the hit, because individuals will not be buying the car as much because it will be so much more expensive, and thus makes it uneconomical to continue to produce it as the amount people will end up having to pay won't match the quality of the car.
So in one case, with a Carrot, it is a marginal bonus that will be highly unlikely to get out of hand, does not really hurt the car industry but rather likely helps it.
In the other case, with the stick, it can quickly become a large deterent with it having a much higher likilyhood of getting out of head, and ends up hurting the car industry and potentially pushes the car off the market completely.
Its for the same reason why I don't like backhanded attempts at this, by raising the over all tax and THEN applying the incentives (even if the incentives are bigger then), as an attempt to get the punative stick applied to the cars they don't want without making it obvious that's what they're doing.
I agree that the tax hikes would hurt the auto manufacturer and the tax cuts would help them. But isn't that the whole idea of incentivizing behavior? To discourage them from producing energy hogs in the first place, and to encourage them to produce fuel-efficient vehicles?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?