Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:05 pm**

Juan_Bottom wrote:That's not what I'm argueing, really.
I'm argueing that it would be bad for our American economy. Then you're affordable housing goes out the window.

mpjh wrote:Tax on carbon.

Bad idea.

Actually a great idea that is working well on other developed countries without economic collapse.

mpjh wrote:Caps on carbon emissions, no trade.

On what? Cars?

On any emission for major source, like power plants, factories, large skyscrapers, etc.

mpjh wrote:Mandatory mass transportation systems for all cities larger than 80,000, subsidized by tax on carbon.

Tax on carbon is bad. Forced transportation is worst. And probably unconstitutional, as it impeads your right to travel.

I am not proposing forcing people to use it, just forcing its consturction. People will use it if it is there, witness all our cities that have such mass transportation, they are packed with users.

mpjh wrote:Take center lanes out of interstate highway and replace with bullet trains.

Subsidiezed by magic? Not viable in most places... A bit excessive.

If magic would work, sure. However, it is perfectly practical it just requires the will to do. I think the airlines and car manufacturers are the only real opposition.

mpjh wrote:Affordable housing near work locations.

Can't happen in a free society. I mean, government can only regulate, not control prices.

Sure it can happen. Zoning codes are used throughout the country to facilitate business and housing goals.

mpjh wrote:Stop development of the best farm land in the world and use it to grow plants.

There's a word for this... "communism" is it? But on the plus side, global warming means better living conditions for plants....

It is not communism, it is common sense. Expanding deserts as climate change is doing does not expand land for growing crops. We need to preserve what we have.

mpjh wrote:Mandate diesel for all engines over a set level in horsepower.

Eh.... probably illegal again.

Not illegal at all.

mpjh wrote:Give tax credit for smart cars and plug-in hybrids.

Done. In fact, the Clinton admininistration gave money to American car companies to develope them. But Bush did away with that, so the American companies scrapped their projects. Big mistake, because foriegn hybred's sales kick ass.

The credit expired. We need it permanent. American car companies need to get there heads out of their rear ends and start building hybrids and electric cars.

mpjh wrote:Subsidize wind power development.
Subsidize solar power development.

Done, and an excellent idea.

mpjh wrote:Prohibit the construction of any new coal fired power plants.

What about 'smart plants.' The ones that recycle, rather than dump into the atmosphere?

If that can be done, so far no power company has claimed such a plant and asked for permission to construct it.

mpjh wrote:Prohibit the construction of any new nuclear power plants until a method for disposal of the waste is found.

Put it in a hole. Or shoot it into the sun. Or put it in Afgahnistan... they lost the war....

OK, happy now that the flame is out of the way, how about addressing the problem.

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:25 pm**

I wasn't flameing... just wanted to make sure someone responded to you. Just happens that I disagree whole bunches. Nuclear is the cleanest source that people will fall for right now.

mpjh wrote:Sure it can happen. Zoning codes are used throughout the country to facilitate business and housing goals.

I'm not calling it impossibel. I'm saying the Feds can't control city taxes and such. I'f the community isn't for it, it can't happen.
I assume we are only talking about the richer communities where this is a problem.

mpjh wrote:It is not communism, it is common sense.

Still think its communism, but nice word play.

mpjh wrote:Not illegal at all.

You're not illegal...

mpjh wrote:The credit expired. We need it permanent. American car companies need to get there heads out of their rear ends and start building hybrids and electric cars.

Well, they are getting n the right track. In '06 Ford spent more money on lobbying that it did on research and development. But that stuff is changing. Hopefully, it isn't too late.

mpjh wrote:If that can be done, so far no power company has claimed such a plant and asked for permission to construct it.

We have them in development, if not already. I read an article about them. They pollute at a 16th of what coal plants used too.

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:57 pm**

So if a few people right articles about something and you're don't believe them, you're a retard? Okay, I'll play along. There are many, many more articles supporting the greenhouse gas theory than there are supporting the sun spot theory. Here are a few specifically debunking the sun spot theory:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650
http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-deniers-favorite-sunspot-theory-refuted-again
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/04/sunspots-dont-cause.html

And here are a couple saying sun spot activity has disappeared recently, so we should be going into a little ice age. But we aren't, so the only possibility is that those effects are canceled by global warming.
http://www.livescience.com/space/080611-sunspot-activity.html
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-sunspot-mys.html

I've actually seen effects of Global Warming firsthand. I live in Alaska, and lately we've been having extremely high numbers of wildfires. Sometimes my whole town is covered with smoke for weeks. This has never happened before in recorded history (for my town that's a little over 100 years.)

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:19 pm**

mpjh wrote:OK, are you just playing with yourself on that fake bomb, or can you explain what you mean by focus on the messengers?

That's an actual WWII photo and here's what I mean:

Verb
to focus
Third person singular
focuses or, less commonly, focusses
Simple past
focused or, less commonly, focussed
Past participle
[[focused or, less commonly, focussed]]
Present participle
focusing or, less commonly, focussing
to focus (third-person singular simple present focuses or, less commonly, focusses, present participle focusing or, less commonly, focussing, simple past and past participle focused or, less commonly, focussed)
1. (transitive) To cause (rays of light, etc) to converge at a single point.
2. (transitive) To adjust (a lens, an optical instrument) in order to position an image with respect to the focal plane.
You'll need to focus the microscope carefully in order to capture the full detail of this surface.
3. (transitive, followed by on or upon) To concentrate one's attention.
Focus on passing the test.
4. (transitive) To make (a liquid) less diluted.
5. (intransitive) To concentrate one’s attention.
If you're going to beat your competitors, you need to focus.

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:36 pm**

Well, what do you know, another one with his head in a dark place.

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:49 pm**

mpjh wrote:Well, what do you know, another one with his head in a dark place.

Only because I was trying to do you a favor and find your head. You owe me a bottle of shampoo

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:53 pm**

Do you want to be irrelevant, or is this your natural state?

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:58 pm**

What is relevant to you?

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:23 pm**

What is relevant to you?

Don't be irrelevant. Let us know what is truly relevant to you.

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:39 pm**

Simon Viavant wrote:So if a few people right articles about something and you're don't believe them, you're a retard? Okay, I'll play along. There are many, many more articles supporting the greenhouse gas theory than there are supporting the sun spot theory. Here are a few specifically debunking the sun spot theory:

I'll refer you to my original rebuttal to this (PLAYER'S TOO) in your last GW thread.

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:47 pm**

Simon Viavant wrote:If it's sun spots, WHY THE HELL HAS IT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE?!!! There's nothing natural that could make the earth's temperature increase noticeably in the last 50 years. There are several climate cycles involving the sun, anywhere from 100,000 year cycle to a 10,000 year cycle. THERE IS NO 100 YEAR CYCLE.

Anyway, back to the meaningful conversation going on earlier. I think the government should put a tax on carbon. That way, companies would develop efficient alternative energy because it would be more profitable than fossil fuels and people would buy alternative energy because it's cheaper. It might be a short term loss, but it would work in the long term.

It HAS occurred before! In the 1800's it was warmer than it is now! [-X

(the sky is falling, the sky is falling! What do we do Al Gore?) Give me a break. :roll:

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:00 pm**

jay_a2j wrote:
Simon Viavant wrote:If it's sun spots, WHY THE HELL HAS IT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE?!!! There's nothing natural that could make the earth's temperature increase noticeably in the last 50 years. There are several climate cycles involving the sun, anywhere from 100,000 year cycle to a 10,000 year cycle. THERE IS NO 100 YEAR CYCLE.

Anyway, back to the meaningful conversation going on earlier. I think the government should put a tax on carbon. That way, companies would develop efficient alternative energy because it would be more profitable than fossil fuels and people would buy alternative energy because it's cheaper. It might be a short term loss, but it would work in the long term.

It HAS occurred before! In the 1800's it was warmer than it is now!

(the sky is falling, the sky is falling! What do we do Al Gore?) Give me a break.

says the man who believes that the anti-christ is coming and the world will end soon.

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:40 pm**

Why the f*ck are we still talking about Al Gore?

Posted: **Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:48 pm**

Don't know. Seems this thread can produce paragraph after paragraph about Gore, but only one sentence responses to what we should be doing to address the climate change that is now upon us, regardless why it is occurring.

Posted: **Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:00 am**

mpjh wrote:Don't know. Seems this thread can produce paragraph after paragraph about Gore, but only one sentence responses to what we should be doing to address the climate change that is now upon us, regardless why it is occurring.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else but I'm going to hop in my SUV and head down to a big bon fire party. And party like it's 1999!

Posted: **Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:03 am**

jay_a2j wrote:
mpjh wrote:Don't know. Seems this thread can produce paragraph after paragraph about Gore, but only one sentence responses to what we should be doing to address the climate change that is now upon us, regardless why it is occurring.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else but I'm going to hop in my SUV and head down to a big bon fire party. And party like it's 1999!

Jay since the entire forum hates you anyway there really was no point

Posted: **Sat Aug 16, 2008 1:41 am**

Iliad wrote:Jay since the entire forum hates you anyway there really was no point

Posted: **Sat Aug 16, 2008 2:31 am**

jay_a2j wrote:
Iliad wrote:Jay since the entire forum hates you anyway there really was no point

You know I still love you.

Posted: **Sat Aug 16, 2008 2:57 am**

Neoteny wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Iliad wrote:Jay since the entire forum hates you anyway there really was no point

You know I still love you.

Illiad is a presumptive fool.

Posted: **Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:01 am**

Jenos Ridan wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Iliad wrote:Jay since the entire forum hates you anyway there really was no point

You know I still love you.

Illiad is a presumptive fool.

Well, jay doesn't always make it easy for us, but still, we'd never let him down.

jay_a2j wrote:It HAS occurred before! In the 1800's it was warmer than it is now!

In less than 30 seconds I found two graphs that disagree with you.

Posted: **Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:16 am**

There has to be a cycle in it all. I mean, what caused the ice ages that have occurred on this planet? It surely wasn't only meteorite impacts, or else this planet would have more pockmarks than Edward James Olmos' face.

I still hold that it's a natural phenomenon. Are we helping the situation any? No. But are we the sole cause? I don't think so.

Sure, we've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for going on 120 years now, but at the same time this planet always has a way of balancing itself out. Are you saying that in the 4.5 billion years this planet has been around that we managed to completely wreck it in only .0000027% of the time that it's been in existence?

When you look at the scale of it all, how can you think we have such an impact?

Posted: **Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:12 am**

The same way that we have exhausted the ocean fisheries, denuded the rain forest, created monocultures of plants, destroyed the habitat of a multitude of species, poisoned the water with hormones, poisoned our meat and chicken with hormones and antibiotics, and poisoned our fruit with pesticides, with sheer determination and abandon.

Posted: **Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:14 am**

"sheer", not "sear".

Posted: **Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:31 pm**

mpjh wrote:The same way that we have exhausted the ocean fisheries, denuded the rain forest, created monocultures of plants, destroyed the habitat of a multitude of species, poisoned the water with hormones, poisoned our meat and chicken with hormones and antibiotics, and poisoned our fruit with pesticides, with sheer determination and abandon.

but apart from that, what have the romans ever done for us?

Posted: **Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:56 pm**

MeDeFe wrote:
Jenos Ridan wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Iliad wrote:Jay since the entire forum hates you anyway there really was no point

You know I still love you.

Illiad is a presumptive fool.

Well, jay doesn't always make it easy for us, but still, we'd never let him down.

jay_a2j wrote:It HAS occurred before! In the 1800's it was warmer than it is now!

In less than 30 seconds I found two graphs that disagree with you.

What? less that 2 degrees change in almost 200 years and you are scared to death? And if you want the Gore graph that shows CO2 levels vs. temp. levels and the MISREPRESENTATION of it...... CLICK HERE!

Conquer Club

Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.

Re: Global warming.