Gore Vindicated, Proof That Carbon Tax Doesn't Cause Destruction of Economy
tg
*when there was no carbon tax*!!, clearly demonstrate that a carbon
tax could not cause an economic downturn.
-tg
Claudius Denk
Thank you for honestly revealing the underlying rationale of the
alarmist thinking. So often we get content free contributions from
the alarmist cabal. By laying out the step by step reasoning that
brought you to this conclusion you are a notable exception.
tg
Just following the "Earth was warmer once when humans weren't making
CO2" paradigm.
-tg
richp
Yes and the sun was cooler at the same time. I wish that fucking
Claudius would try and figure out that scientific paradox
tg
It reminds me of the Clinton high-tax prosperity.
-tg
Peter Franks
Holy hell -- you can't be serious?!
The "earth is flat" is a more accurate conclusion than what you have
assumed...
PLEASE tell me you are just kidding.
tg
You apparently aren't familiar with the "Earth was warmer once when
humans weren't producing CO2, so CO2 can't cause warming" paradigm?
-tg
Jerry
False reasoning.
Evidence of past deaths, including one just two years ago,
*when there was no bullet wound*!!, clearly demonstrate that a bullet
wound could not cause death.
tg
You apparently aren't familiar with the "Earth was warmer once when
richp
Yes and the sun was cooler at the same time. I wish that fucking
dipsy
wrote:
Did you get an Al Gore dartboard for Christmas? The hot air from Rush,
Hannity and O'Reilly IS causing global swarming in your head!
Don't worry about the worms growing in your brain, they won't hurt you
- they just want to live their and have babies.
Tom P
Sweden's record is worth noting. After the oil crisis in the '70s, the
country undertook strenuous efforts to reduce dependency on imported
oil. Since the early '80s, the use of oil has fallen by around 50
percent. Only 35% of the energy now comes from oil.
Sweden has announced plans to become an oil-free economy by 2020 and
already has a carbon tax in place. One result of the tax was that it
was possible to reduce income tax by one half.
This is in spite of an economic growth rate since 1990 of 44 percent.
Claudius Denk
Once again, thank you for the clarity of your thinking--and the
brevity.
Claudius Denk
It's just that simple isn't it.
Fred Weiss
> Sweden's record is worth noting. After the oil crisis in the '70s, the
> country undertook strenuous efforts to reduce dependency on imported
> oil. Since the early '80s, the use of oil has fallen by around 50
> percent. Only 35% of the energy now comes from oil.
It may have something to do with the fact that Sweden gets nearly 50%
of its electricity from nuclear power - a decision which was
vigorously opposed by its enviroHysterics just as it was here. In fact
because of that reactionary influence Sweden has not built any new
nuclear plants in nearly 30 years.
However its new center/right gov't has reversed that ban and has voted
to at least replace older nuclear plants as they go out of service - a
decision which has of course provoked indignant outcries from their
reactionary enviroHysterics once again.
For a change we have some things we can learn from the Swedes, perhaps
most impressively their adoption of a progressive program of parental
free choice in education - something which would give our reactionary
teacher unions and their Democrat stooges conniptions.
Fred Weiss
tg
Those Zany Socialist Swedes! Ya gotta love um eh.
-tg
tg
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:11:12 -0800 (PST), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
You apparently aren't familiar with the "Earth was warmer once when
richp
wrote:
> On Dec 31, 12:44 pm, richp <travelingman95...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 11:23 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 31, 12:39 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 31, 8:11 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Evidence of past economic disasters, including one just two years ago,
> > > > > *when there was no carbon tax*!!, clearly demonstrate that a carbon
> > > > > tax could not cause an economic downturn.
>
> > > > > -tg
>
> > > > Thank you for honestly revealing the underlying rationale of the
> > > > alarmist thinking. So often we get content free contributions from
> > > > the alarmist cabal. By laying out the step by step reasoning that
> > > > brought you to this conclusion you are a notable exception.
>
> > > Just following the "Earth was warmer once when humans weren't making
> > > CO2" paradigm.
>
> > > -tg
>
> > Yes and the sun was cooler at the same time. I wish that fucking
> > Claudius would try and figure out that scientific paradox
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The hell it isn't asshole
Fred Weiss
wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 03:51:11 -0800 (PST), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 31 2009, 7:42 pm, dipsy <dipsydoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:11:12 -0800 (PST), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Evidence of past economic disasters, including one just two years ago,
> >> >*when there was no carbon tax*!!, clearly demonstrate that a carbon
> >> >tax could not cause an economic downturn.
>
> >> >-tg
>
> >> Did you get an Al Gore dartboard for Christmas? The hot air from Rush,
> >> Hannity and O'Reilly IS causing global swarming in your head!
> >> Don't worry about the worms growing in your brain, they won't hurt you
> >> - they just want to live their and have babies.
>
> >You apparently aren't familiar with the "Earth was warmer once when
> >humans weren't producing CO2, so CO2 can't cause warming" paradigm?
>
> >-tg
>
> The queation has been asked numerous times; "The earth had been warmer
> before there was MANMADE CO2 so what caused it then?
> Plus you play a little word game by intially saying the same thing
> then falsely presenting a conclusion regarding CO2 in general.
> You may have had a leg to stand on had you said "MANMADE" but since
> there is still no scientific proof that manmade CO2 is causing any
> dramatic increase in temps then your argument would still be a very
> weak one to say the least.
>
> Your assumption that "the earth is now warming and we have more people
> now therefore people are causing the earth to warm" is as stupid of an
> argument as you are trying to make the other appear.
>
> A person of reasonable intelligence would try researching to see what
> is common between the last period of warming and today rather than
> foolishly playing silly little word games in an attempt to appear
> smart.
Nicely put.
Altho' it should be pointed out in fairness to the Hysterics - not
that they'd ever reciprocate - that the fact of previous warming
periods accompanied by high atmospheric CO2 does not in itself debunk
the possibility that man is causing it now.
It's just that they haven't established the linkage. Basically, they
don't understand the difference between causality and correlation -
nor what constitutes a valid scientific proof.
The dishonesty then gets magnified - and their true motives get
revealed - by the social policy positions they advocate. (None of
which - even some of them admit - will make much difference anyway.
Not on the atmosphere. It will of course make a huge difference on our
freedom which they want to eradicate.)
Don't get me wrong. The previous warm periods are not irrelevant. The
evidence for that is the extent to which the ClimateGaters attempted
to erase it from the data and diminish its significance.
Fred Weiss
tg
wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 31 2009, 7:42 pm, dipsy <dipsydoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:11:12 -0800 (PST), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Evidence of past economic disasters, including one just two years ago,
> >> >*when there was no carbon tax*!!, clearly demonstrate that a carbon
> >> >tax could not cause an economic downturn.
>
> >> >-tg
>
> >> Did you get an Al Gore dartboard for Christmas? The hot air from Rush,
> >> Hannity and O'Reilly IS causing global swarming in your head!
> >> Don't worry about the worms growing in your brain, they won't hurt you
> >> - they just want to live their and have babies.
>
> >You apparently aren't familiar with the "Earth was warmer once when
> >humans weren't producing CO2, so CO2 can't cause warming" paradigm?
>
> >-tg
>
> The queation has been asked numerous times; "The earth had been warmer
> before there was MANMADE CO2 so what caused it then?
> Plus you play a little word game by intially saying the same thing
> then falsely presenting a conclusion regarding CO2 in general.
> You may have had a leg to stand on had you said "MANMADE"
So you are saying that CO2 causes warming *except* when it is manmade?
IIRC, you also believe that if demand for oil goes down, the price
will go up, and this will make the oil companies happy.
As those Zany Socialist Swedes would say: Huh?!
-tg
Peter Franks
Yeah, I'm familiar with it, so what?
Is you post supposed to be a parody of that?
erschro...@gmail.com
Wanna compare scientific backgrounds, Dolt?
1. CO2 is up in the atmosphere.
2. Burning fossil fuels makes CO2.
3. Isotopic analysis shows the increased CO2 is from "old" cargon.
Ergo, the added CO2 is from burning fossil fuels.
4. CO2 traps heat.
5. The earth is warming.
6. All other causes of warming (things that caused it in the path,
like increased solar output, massive volcanic action, orbital shifts,
continental shifts, meteor strikes, etc.) have been investigated and
ruled out.
Ergo, it's the added CO2 that's causing the warming.
Combining the two conclusions, burning fossil fuels is causing the
warming.
That's why 36 national science academies, every scientific
organization, over 90% of articles in scientific journals, and 97% of
climate researchers agree.
mrbawana2u
<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[yawn/flush]
> That's why 36 national science academies, every scientific
> organization, over 90% of articles in scientific journals, and 97% of
> climate researchers agree.
The "Science" Mantra
By Thomas Sowell
Science is one of the great achievements of the human mind
and the biggest reason why we live not only longer but more
vigorously in our old age, in addition to all the ways in which
it provides us with things that make life easier and more enjoyable.
Like anything valuable, science has been seized upon by politicians
and ideologues,
and used to forward their own agendas. This started long ago, as far
back as the
18th century, when the Marquis de Condorcet coined the term "social
science"
to describe various theories he favored. In the 19th century, Karl
Marx and
Friedrich Engels distinguished their own brand of socialism as
"scientific socialism."
By the 20th century, all sorts of notions wrapped themselves in the
mantle of "science."
"Global warming" hysteria is only the latest in this long line of
notions,
whose main argument is that there is no argument, because it is
"science."
The recently revealed destruction of raw data at the bottom of the
global warming hysteria, as well as revelations of attempts to
prevent critics of this hysteria from being published in leading
journals,
suggests that the disinterested search for truth-- the hallmark of
real science--
has taken a back seat to a political crusade.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/22/the_science_mantra__99638.html
we need to look at the way Kyoto has turned into cash for many of the
biggest names
in the climate change world, and to do that we need to understand how
the whole
carbon trading scheme works.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-how-to-follow-the-money/?print=1