People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change

You know we could take a step in the right direction with the whole health care thing if the FDA wouldn't allow Food Companies to sell us sh!t, literally. Its illegal to smoke pot, but i can go buy as many McDonalds cheeseburgers as i want?

 

whicy begs the question, how could you possibly favor massive carbon taxes if we are not at risk?

how exactly are you justifying this carbon tax? i know you like to say "it works". well to what end? we are not at risk, according to you. or are we at risk? is that a yesno? a favoppose?

what exactly do i need to defend my claims about? the future of climate and what we need to do about it? now pay attention: i have no claims about the future of the climate, nor do i have any plans to tax anyone based on any claimte possibility.

what are you doing is like asking the atheist to justify his claim. i have no claim about the climate. i cant predict it! for all we know we might be entering another ice age. they happen periodically, yunno, even without our human influence!

this is impossibly dishonest claim from a man who favors a carbon tax. you are doing exactly what you claim you are not, involving science with your big government agenda.

you cant justify your calls for action. you have no idea of what the results of the carbon tax will be, in terms of destruction of the economy, punishment of the people who can least afford it, and even the environmental positives or negatives for humanity.

this is hubris of the left. they know it all. they can control everything. the economy, the environment, they have everything well understood. just keep your mouth shut and trust them.

 

Well dig a phucking hole and get in it. The world is coming to an end.:dis:

 

Some people don't understand personal responsibility and moderation. It's not the Govt's responsibility to be your mama

 

surely that guy wasnt serious about the cheeseburgers. if so i weep for our future.

and even if we concede that the temp is rising (and i am pretty sure it is, slightly, although not between around 1940 and 1970, and 1989 and now) how is it we can be sure this hurts humans or that we cannot adapt? it is totally arbitrary to take a snapshot of a climate situation and say "any deviation from this is terrible".

2 to 4 degrees in 200 years? jesus. think of how different the world will be then, what sort of technology we will have then. to make any predictions that far ahead about how we might manage a problem is ludicrous.

 

In 200 years your world might be a lot hotter than that. :hihi:

 

I'm sorry Red, but worrying yourself into a tizzy over a couple of degrees over 200 years is stupid. I can't phrase it any other way.

 

I hate to say it Red because I know you are much smarter than this crap you repeat from the left.
I think you seem like a doofus sometimes too.

WE have had many conversations on this topic and I have acknowledged that warming does exist but its the man made propaganda from the left that I don't agree with.
So we are talking about degrees here aren't we since I do believe some warming happens naturally!
One to four degrees don't cut it, it makes no sense especially when you consider the sacrifices this country will have to make, this is just stupid, the sun could also be responsible for this.
The weather always changes, some years are cooler or warmer than others simply because of clouds.

I know you have to realize that if the left really believed this crap they would live it.
If Obama and Al Gore believed this crap they would live differently.
They would set the example in their personal lives instead just the opposite.
It's quite different when you know the world is going to end if you don't do something than just talk.
Let's talk about volcanoes, forest fires and other natural things that happens on earth that is also destroying itself.:insane:
We need to plug these dudes up and stop controlled burns also!:lol:

Edit: I also challenge the numbers they put in these computers.
You can put anything you want into a computer and fudge the numbers and it will come out the way
you want especially if $ and jobs are on the line.

 

no doubt.


and you cant just favor new legislation without really understanding the ramifications and consequences or if the reasons behind it or valid. and that means answering the questions i asked, like how much this legislation will change the environment, if that change will help us, and how much, and why, and if we can manage the change otherwise, or if we even are worse off for the change.

we need to answer questions like how much will the sea level rise, how much can be prevented, and if it worth it. how many more hurricanes will we have, and how many could be prevented, at what cost. and then when we figure the cost, could that same money be directed somewhere else that would benefit humanity more? is warming a priority? why? because i can think of lots of actual priorities, places where investment would have actual tangible benefits. but my priorities are based on the premise that the investment should actually good for the human species, not just the conscience of uppity white american and western european liberals.

this isnt like a scientific study of some static thing in a lab, these are projections about the future, projections that could quite easily be totally wrong, and legislation that could quite possibly have the opposite effect of what is intended.