Solar Activity Plays A Significant Role In Global Temps

[heckofajobbrownie]

And just for the hell of it, and for the 100th time:

 

Don't forget I also believe that population growth and non compliance from emerging third world industrial powers will negate anything you can tax.

 

Population growth and emissions do not go hand in hand. For instance, as of 2012 the United States has lowered its emissions to 1995 levels. In 1995, the United States had a population of 262,764,948. In 2012, it had 312,780,968. That means we added 50,016,020 people and kept the emissions at the same rate. So your notion that population growth will inevitably lead to higher emissions and so we can't do anything about them is false. So we can dismiss that argument. You can put it away forever. Really, you can.

 

Your second contention is that third world industrial powers (I'm assuming you mean China, India, etc.) won't comply so we shouldn't do anything. Which is an argument without much of an argument on the other side. Obviously, if the goal is to reduce global emissions then the agreement on carbon pricing would have to be an international agreement. That's what everyone would want, and what all of those meetings are designed to negotiate. So, you can dismiss that argument, too.

 

And now you're left with "what are you personally going to give up in order to lower emissions?" And we've already been over how irrelevant that argument is. And yet you still keep using it. Damn proud of it even.

 

So, you can see why I might warn Woody not to bother having this discussion with you. Because you're not equipped to have it. What's more, no matter how many times it's come up over the last 5-6 years, you've never absorbed any new information about it. It's uncanny. Your arguments clearly don't work, but yet you hold on to them as if they were your children.

[Westside Steve]

Oh don't play dumb.

Twice as many people Will want almost twice as many cars , goods food etcetera all produced in a manner that creates Carbon dioxide.

Slap on your carbon tax and maybe we cut the emissions by 10 percent.

That's 10 percent of what is now 200 percent.

Do the math.

 

But lowering everyone's standard of living by raising the price on almost everything anyone would ever want is good for your side,?

 

[Westside Steve]

And say goodbye to the rainforest.

Whoops there goes another rubber tree, whoops there goes...

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh don't play dumb.

Twice as many people Will want almost twice as many cars , goods food etcetera all produced in a manner that creates Carbon dioxide.

Slap on your carbon tax and maybe we cut the emissions by 10 percent.

That's 10 percent of what is now 200 percent.

Do the math.

 

But lowering everyone's standard of living by raising the price on almost everything anyone would ever want is good for your side,?

 

 

Oh dear God. Just stop.

 

I just made up some math! No do that made up math in your head!

 

Really, just stop.

[calfoxwc]

China. Smog crisis. Exempt from the Kyoto treaty they "wanted".

 

Rain forests. Rain forests. heckbunker and his flea refuse to talk about the destruction of the rain forests.

 

Because they are mentally warped as lib cultists.

 

Rain freakin forests destruction.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_history3.aspx

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yes, Steve, the world population is increasing. Awesome post.

 

Hopefully your knowledge will reach the rest of the world some day.

[FairHooker11]

 

UN investigators "nothing to see here..."

[Westside Steve]

Yes, Steve, the world population is increasing. Awesome post.

 

Hopefully your knowledge will reach the rest of the world some day.

We can only hope.

Unfortunately it has yet to dawn on you, supposedly a reasonably intelligent man. That anything purportedly caused by mankind will be increased greatly as the number of humans doubles triples quadruples...

WSS

[Westside Steve]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mobileweb/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934291.html

 

. I know you can't dispute the huff.

[heckofajobbrownie]

It's really not that hard, Steve. It's really not that hard. More humans doesn't necessarily equal more greenhouse gas emissions. If you shift to different energy sources, as the United States has done, you can lower emissions even while you increase population. There are other examples throughout Europe, where countries with growing populations are cutting their emissions. The whole effort acknowledges that the world's population is growing, and yet seeks to lower emissions. Because this isn't news to them. So pointing it out as if it is news is pretty dim. You're just going to have to give this one up.

 

That anything purportedly caused by mankind will be increased greatly as the number of humans doubles triples quadruples...

 

...Or mankind can do less of that thing that causes the problem. Think air pollution in the 70s. Fewer people than now, yet more air pollution than now. Or think of acid rain. Fewer people then, and yet now that we have more people it's actually less of a problem. Because we changed behavior. Really? Is that hard for you to grasp? Seems elementary.

 

Watching someone who doesn't have a clue stand mightily atop his cluelessness and demand that everyone accept his cluelessness is really something to watch. One could hope you would have been chastened by your Benghazi bullshit, or any of the other instances where you ended up being completely wrong, but nope - the same stubborn idiot is back for more, screaming, "You can't handle my truth!"

 

Yes, sadly, we can. Because it's not truth, and it's not hard to handle. You can swat it away like a bug.

 

I'm sorry to break it to you, man, but you're going to have to learn something new about the issue if you want to graduate to sophomore year. I've outlined your three opinions on it, and none of them work. Or just try admitting that you don't really follow this stuff so you're not in a position to comment. That's fine too. I don't know a lot about guns, which is why I asked Leg and Cysko. Nothing wrong with that.

[Westside Steve]

It's pretty clear, heck.

No one here is as rooted in party dogma as you.

Its not uncommon among extremists but you should have enough self awareness to see it.

 

 

 

And you gave a fine example of what I meant by do the math.

 

And no one, not even you, is stupid enough to misunderstand.

Quadruple the number of automobiles.

Reduce the emissions on each 1 one by seven percent.

You are still left with a big net gain.

I might feel worse about your petty insults if I thought you were less of an asshole than you are.

 

Love,

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

The funniest/most frustrating part is that you really have no idea how clueless you are. You make observations that have a grain of truth, miss the other 85%, and then imagine you've won something and the rest of us can't see it's genius.

 

I don't, Steve! I'm not wowed by anything you ever write! It's always less than a quarter of the story, if it's even relevant at all.

 

Automobile emissions only account for about 15% of global emissions. Yes, more cars will equal more emissions. So what? So don't do anything? This is your argument? We're hopeless because there are going to be more cars?

 

Just stop, man. It's embarrassing.

[heckofajobbrownie]

You're stating things everyone already knows and accepts. There will be more cars - check. There will be more people on the planet - check. We know this already. You're missing the point entirely. Like, you're not even in the game. And then holding up basic realities as arguments for ...something. No one can tell.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Try this: there will be more cars in the future, and more people, so _______________________. What's the back half of that sentence? What are you even claiming?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here, from today's Post:

 

The United States is not on track to meet its international commitment to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the World Resources Institute.

 

The new findings, which examine the impact of the country’s energy and transportation sectors as well as sources such as methane releases from landfills, provide the clearest picture yet of the challenges the United States faces in curbing its carbon footprint.

 

While the economic downturn and the increased use of natural gas to produce electricity have cut U.S. carbon emissions in recent years, this trend will reverse itself in the next two decades if the country continues on its current trajectory, the study says.

 

The United States could meet the 17 percent reduction target if it adopts a “go-getter” approach composed of several ambitious steps, according to the report. These include limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants; phasing out the hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) used in car air conditioners, refrigerators and insulation; curbing methane emissions from natural-gas operations; and improving energy efficiency.

 

 

...But don't they know we'll have more people and more cars in 2020? Steve, hurry! Get them on the horn!

[calfoxwc]

Heckbunker translation:

 

"oh, hell, Steve just kicked my ass again, so I have to change the subject

 

and post a ton of drivel real quick so I don't have to answer up about the two

 

graphs Steve posted. "

 

 

[MLD Woody]

Heckbunker translation:

 

"oh, hell, Steve just kicked my ass again, so I have to change the subject

 

and post a ton of drivel real quick so I don't have to answer up about the two

 

graphs Steve posted. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're a young man. Trust me. You're going to want that time back.

 

 

Listen to yourself here, lol

[MLD Woody]

I always thought Cal wasn't that stupid. I think he is more crazy, so ingrained in his conservative views and what not. I mean, he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I don't think he's an idiot.

 

 

I'm starting to think Steve is just a moron though, lol.

[Westside Steve]

http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_5GH_CO2Sources.htm

[Westside Steve]

I always thought Cal wasn't that stupid. I think he is more crazy, so ingrained in his conservative views and what not. I mean, he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I don't think he's an idiot.

 

 

I'm starting to think Steve is just a moron though, lol.

That's because you're too lazy to look further than Hecks paraphrases.

You have actually offered less intellectual content than bunker.

 

So let's try this okay?

 

Read my words and tell me where I'm wrong.

Since 1950 the population has risen from close to 2,000,000,000 to 7,000,000,000.

you don't think that is a contributing factor?

not only transportation costs and emissions, yes about 15 percent of the total.

how about another 20 percent for the production of meat for food.

how about the decrease in oxygen output from the defoliation of the rainforest and the trees here in the US?

How about energy production?

how about the Liberals getting out of the way for more nuclear plants?

yes woody the population is a huge factor.

if you don't believe that then who is the Moron?

 

Hecks Carbon tax in my opinion as well as the opinion of most lawmakers Will do more damage to our economy than would be gained by any miniscule improvement.

 

But if you guys don't mind having tunnel vision, fine.

 

Taxes are not a panacea for all the world's ills.

 

Remember this: If and when there is a vehicle that gets 100 miles to a gallon It will be because an entrepreneur wants to make a shitload of money.

Not because of epa blackmail.

 

So try to think for yourself, woody.

You might like it better than playing Lenny to Heck's George.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

I agree with Heck, so therefore I have no relevant opinions and clearly I just copy whatever he says...

 

 

Honestly Heck basically already told you why you are wrong. If I'm gonna do it again I'll do it after work maybe.

 

 

Oh I'm pro nuclear power by the way, by far. We should be pushing that way more than we are.

[Westside Steve]

I agree with Heck, so therefore I have no relevant opinions and clearly I just copy whatever he says...

 

 

 

Basically, yes.

You are too lazy or uninformed or both to tell me what I say you disagree with.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Heck is wrong a heck@@ of a lot ot the time. Then he runs and hides behind twisted changes of definitions,

 

changes of subject, and if necessary, he'll just drop out of sight for a while and start over.

 

Woodpecker - you won't even try. Or, you aren't able to ever keep up.

 

Bunker was wild and crazy, and wrong whatever. You are less than bunker was to this board, woodpecker.

[MLD Woody]

Basically, yes.

You are too lazy or uninformed or both to tell me what I say you disagree with.

WSS

 

Lol I'm at break on work.

 

If I remember I'll type something up teal nice for you tonight

[MLD Woody]

Try this: there will be more cars in the future, and more people, so _______________________. What's the back half of that sentence? What are you even claiming?

 

Can you fill in this blank though Steve? It'll help me direct my future post. I want to know what you think the end result of what you are claiming is.

[heckofajobbrownie]

That's because you're too lazy to look further than Hecks paraphrases.

You have actually offered less intellectual content than bunker.

 

So let's try this okay?

 

Read my words and tell me where I'm wrong.

Since 1950 the population has risen from close to 2,000,000,000 to 7,000,000,000.

you don't think that is a contributing factor?

not only transportation costs and emissions, yes about 15 percent of the total.

how about another 20 percent for the production of meat for food.

how about the decrease in oxygen output from the defoliation of the rainforest and the trees here in the US?

How about energy production?

how about the Liberals getting out of the way for more nuclear plants?

yes woody the population is a huge factor.

if you don't believe that then who is the Moron?

 

Hecks Carbon tax in my opinion as well as the opinion of most lawmakers Will do more damage to our economy than would be gained by any miniscule improvement.

 

But if you guys don't mind having tunnel vision, fine.

 

Taxes are not a panacea for all the world's ills.

 

Remember this: If and when there is a vehicle that gets 100 miles to a gallon It will be because an entrepreneur wants to make a shitload of money.

Not because of epa blackmail.

 

So try to think for yourself, woody.

You might like it better than playing Lenny to Heck's George.

WSS

 

Steve, do we really need to go over what "definitional retreat" means again?

 

All of the stuff you are saying is not an opinion on what to do or not do about global warming. It's not. These are just basic realities of the world, summed up poorly. You don't know enough about anything else to engage in a real conversation, so you retreat to asking someone to deny that the world's population is growing.

 

"Read my words and tell me where I'm wrong!"

 

Nor do you understand how a carbon tax would work, or what effects it would have, no matter how many times we've discussed it. You can only mischaracterize it.

 

You're not capable of having this debate. You only point out basic realities of the problem that people actually having the debate have just assumed and moved on from long ago.

 

Yes, they know the population is increasing. Yes, they know there will be more cars. You can go back to playing with your handler now, Koko.

[Westside Steve]

Can you fill in this blank though Steve? It'll help me direct my future post. I want to know what you think the end result of what you are claiming is.

@

Sure woody.

I'll get to it later today.

my voice is sounding okay for being the winter time so I'm going to record some vocal tracks I've been putting off.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

It would require you to go beyond stating the obvious in the place of an answer. I'm not holding my breath.

[Westside Steve]

@

And no, Heck, we haven't " discussed" how cap and trade for make things better.

you've given sermon after a sermon but even you admit the improvement will be small, possibly tiny.

And even then only if everything works perfectly just as projected which we should know is silly.

Not only that but you completely ignore other obvious factors.

 

You spend 20 posts in denial and finally grumble well everyone knows that.

 

It really has been years, sir. Unless the dire predictions of your side are wrong I can't honestly see how we have any hope. Maybe that's why it angers you so.

 

It's quite possible that you truly believe the cost will be minimal compared to the gain.

WSS