How many people here still believe climate change is a hoax?

[Highmark]

2 hours ago, SnowRider said:

Illustrates why you’re a stupid fucker and a worthless hack.  In the meantime you’ll hold up studies funded by big oil as gospel.....you’re a stupid fucker 

That hurts so much coming from a ugly, irrelevant, light bulb salesman.  

[snopro31]

no such thing

[NaturallyAspirated]

18 hours ago, Highmark said:

NASA again has a money driven agenda.   Plenty other data sources out there.  

It is far more lucrative to deny warming than provide evidence for it.  The "money driven agenda" is moronic bullshit.

Neal

[Highmark]

3 hours ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

It is far more lucrative to deny warming than provide evidence for it.  The "money driven agenda" is moronic bullshit.

Neal

[SnowRider]

12 minutes ago, Highmark said:

He’s correct.  👍. 

[Snake]

4 hours ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

It is far more lucrative to deny warming than provide evidence for it.  The "money driven agenda" is moronic bullshit.

Neal

[Snake]

4 hours ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

It is far more lucrative to deny warming than provide evidence for it.  The "money driven agenda" is moronic bullshit.

Neal

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share.  Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn't count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for "green energy."

OMB pointed out that their previously noted agency budget compilations didn't include revenues lost for the special deductions and tax credits intended to encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions. They attributed to those subsidies a cost of $7.2 billion in federal revenue losses during 2010 alone, ($16.1 billion since 1993), bringing the total since 2003 to $122.8 billion. Then there's still another $26.1 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities within the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (or "Stimulus Bill").

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#619dca7ebbef

Edited August 10, 2018 by Snake

[Rod]

Like the founder of green peace said—- at most all we’re doing is postponing the next ice age. Fine with me 

[Highmark]

Carbon Credits.    Nope, not about the tax revenue one bit.  

Edited August 10, 2018 by Highmark

[Zambroski]

5 hours ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

It is far more lucrative to deny warming than provide evidence for it.  The "money driven agenda" is moronic bullshit.

Neal

[revkevsdi]

Largest forest fire in California's history.

Now logically, you would think we should be able to stop forest fires easier now than 50 years ago.

We have satelites to track them, water bombers are better.  Basically we are all around better equipped to fight them.

Nope, can't be climate change because the scientists bought by the koch brothers said it's a hoax.

 

 

[racer254]

Just now, revkevsdi said:

Largest forest fire in California's history.

Now logically, you would think we should be able to stop forest fires easier now than 50 years ago.

We have satelites to track them, water bombers are better.  Basically we are all around better equipped to fight them.

Nope, can't be climate change because the scientists bought by the koch brothers said it's a hoax.

 

 

Yeah, but forest clear cutting is out of the question.  Some can't understand how some of the good intentions are not what is best for many things.

[revkevsdi]

On 8/10/2018 at 11:44 AM, Snake said:

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share.  Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn't count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for "green energy."

OMB pointed out that their previously noted agency budget compilations didn't include revenues lost for the special deductions and tax credits intended to encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions. They attributed to those subsidies a cost of $7.2 billion in federal revenue losses during 2010 alone, ($16.1 billion since 1993), bringing the total since 2003 to $122.8 billion. Then there's still another $26.1 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities within the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (or "Stimulus Bill").

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#619dca7ebbef

 

 

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.W3OcsS0ZNwd

 

[revkevsdi]

1 minute ago, racer254 said:

Yeah, but forest clear cutting is out of the question.  Some can't understand how some of the good intentions are not what is best for many things.

Clear cutting would solve the forest fire issue.  Maybe not the issue from mudslides when record rains fall.

Great idea racer.  Keep em coming. 

[Rod]

pour kevvyboomboom so scared of the climate boogieman 

[racer254]

2 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Clear cutting would solve the forest fire issue.  Maybe not the issue from mudslides when record rains fall.

Great idea racer.  Keep em coming. 

Put on the blinders, god forbid you have anyone with half a brain to try and get to a happy medium.  Shouldn't record rains stop the fires in the first place.....LOL  Your logic is a little off.

Edited August 15, 2018 by racer254

[Rod]

Kevvyboomboom cries every time he checks the forecast 

[revkevsdi]

10 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Put on the blinders, god forbid you have anyone with half a brain to try and get to a happy medium.  Shouldn't record rains stop the fires in the first place.....LOL  Your logic is a little off.

They would if they happened at the same time, brainless fucker.

 

[racer254]

15 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

They would if they happened at the same time, brainless fucker.

 

WHAT?  Youre a fucking genius. 

[Guest]

The Bible says mankind shall perish in a polluted world. With all the unchecked breeding of filthy people all over the globe, it wouldn't surprise me. Almost every part of our environment is contaminated. Even in the Arctic Circle. 

 

 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Polaris 550 said:

The Bible says mankind shall perish in a polluted world. With all the unchecked breeding of filthy people all over the globe, it wouldn't surprise me. Almost every part of our environment is contaminated. Even in the Arctic Circle. 

 

 

"The bible says" Lmfao OK

The bible also says

"Thou shall not suck the penis of thy neighbor behind Sandy's bread tent" but whatever

[DriftBusta]

On 8/10/2018 at 7:27 AM, NaturallyAspirated said:

It is far more lucrative to deny warming than provide evidence for it.  The "money driven agenda" is moronic bullshit.

Neal

Oh that must be why we have to buy those 7 dollar light bulbs and first plastic bags are good, now plastic bags are bad silliness.  The whole global warming hoax has been a cottage industry for everything from grant dollars to overpriced feel good consumer goods.

[XC.Morrison]

11 hours ago, racer254 said:

Yeah, but forest clear cutting is out of the question.  Some can't understand how some of the good intentions are not what is best for many things.

Trees convert carbon dioxide to oxygen.  Deforestation globally, is already having a dramatic impact on mother nature's ability to "self correct".  So your "fix" would just contribute to more global warming.  Good effort though!

[XC.Morrison]

52 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

Oh that must be why we have to buy those 7 dollar light bulbs and first plastic bags are good, now plastic bags are bad silliness.  The whole global warming hoax has been a cottage industry for everything from grant dollars to overpriced feel good consumer goods.

Lots of cost saving involved there too though, over the long haul.  A lot of the building automation companies I've worked for have been involved in "performance contracting" where you basically guarantee that improvements to lighting and temperature controls systems will save cost.

Introduction_to_Performance_Contracting.pdf

Edited August 15, 2018 by XC.Morrison

[Angry ginger]

11 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

Largest forest fire in California's history.

Now logically, you would think we should be able to stop forest fires easier now than 50 years ago.

We have satelites to track them, water bombers are better.  Basically we are all around better equipped to fight them.

Nope, can't be climate change because the scientists bought by the koch brothers said it's a hoax.

 

 

the issue in many cases is they do not work these forests therefore creating deadfall and underbrush that goes up quickly.  Selective culling within a forest would drive the greenies nuts but by not doing that you need to accept the natural cycle completely which includes the forest from time to time burning down and regrowing.