This pretty much sums up the fraud of mmgw

[calfoxwc]

produce less cows farting, less lawn mowing? Using taxes as a manipulative weapon

 

is the excuse of socialists who need more money to spread around to those who will vote for them in return.

 

You are too stupid to comment around here, woodypeckerhead. Just a legit post from you would be appreciated.

[calfoxwc]

[MLD Woody]

produce less cows farting, less lawn mowing? Using taxes as a manipulative weapon

 

is the excuse of socialists who need more money to spread around to those who will vote for them in return.

 

You are too stupid to comment around here, woodypeckerhead. Just a legit post from you would be appreciated.

I did give you a legit post. I explained to you how the taxation is supposed to work. You twisted that into some evil liberal socialist plot though because you're an idiotic, simple, gullible man.

[calfoxwc]

You're wrong, nirvana woodpecker.

 

Obamao himself said that energy prices will necessarily skyrocket, birdbrain.

 

They have said they wanted to financially put coal out of business.

 

Why would you want our electric companies to produce less?

 

All you dished out was some ignorant rationalizaiton for what's going on about global warming.

 

Why would you want to have farmers produce less? That's what a carbon tax would do, stupid woodypeckerhead.

 

Why would you want food prices to also skyrocket, ignorant woodypeckerhead?

 

Nothin legit in your post.

[MLD Woody]

You are delusional crazy person.

 

I mean, why follow the rational explanation when the crazy "Obamao and the liberals are out to get us" one is right there...

[sadbrownsfan]

The way that woody and cal fight if this was a Hollywood movie they would be making out near the end.

[calfoxwc]

Hardly. And woodypeckerhead, I only give you crap, out of self defense, and annoyance.

I don't have this problem with anybody else on the board, cept maybe heck once in a while when

he mouths off. So, given that I am able to differentiate between good posters on the board, which everybody

else on the board is besides you and mz the pussy in the past...... that means you are the weakest, most immature,

most ignorant, most worthless, most non-existent contribution/content wise arsehole on the board.

 

IOW's, woodypeckerhead, you initiate putdowns of other people, and you get put down in return. It isn't that tough to understand, except

you don't/won't/can't. I personally think that there's something wrong with you. You're as dim as Treyvon Martin was....

you don't get that if you force someone to defend themselves, it's your own damn fault that they have to defend themselves.

 

Yes, that's over your woodypeckerhead head. You are the butt of the board.

[Stewy]

Don't flatter yourself, boy (intellectually, you're a boy). You and Cal don't post these groundbreaking full proof arguments and sources that can't be touched. Its the same shit... every time... from the same sources.

 

But think what you want. Idc. You're nothing.

 

Blah, blah, blah....You don't care, and I'm nothing, yet you to continue to respond with the same mindless babble every time your panties get rolled up in a knot.

You're a piece of work. Grow up already woody.

[Stewy]

Oh I don't particularly think it's a hoax.

I believe that there is a consensus, of sorts, among the scientific community that believes the consequences are going to be dire. Many of which I believe it's too late now.

I also believe that politics and the news cycle far outweigh any scientific fact. Sorry bud. But if you are honestly in fear for your own life or the life of your children then by all means do something about it. The conversation I've often had here revolves around the simple fact that even those of you who are deeply concerned aren't really willing to make much sacrifice in your own lives.

 

Just calling the non believers idiots doesn't really change a thing, does it?

 

A joke I tell occasionally refers to conversations I have with my liberal friends who demand of me what about our children!?!? I told them I don't have children and I don't like yours.

 

but joking aside I think those on the left who rail about global warming seem to be unwilling to do much about it besides rail.

 

so that's where I'm coming from in case you care.

WSS

 

It needs to be made clear by all..what do you think is clearly not a hoax... "man made" global warming, or global warming period?

No reasonable person believes global warming, or global cooling is a hoax..as stated before, it's what the earth does..with or without man.

 

"'Republicans don't discard global warming. They also don't discard global cooling, which has been trending since 1998. They DO discard fear mongering, sky is fallng, we need to redistribute the world's wealth liberals! They also dismiss scientists and universities substantially funded by the goverment to derive at results that they want to hear by cherry picking data, falsifing studies, writing software that gives them the outcome they want no matter what data is fed into the "model", adjust data to fit their model's predictions, change timelines to show causation when there is none, etc.

 

Not ONE single model has ever even gotten the cyclone activity correct, EVER! Not even close! The models are based on a fallacy. Warmers have no credibility, NONE.

 

Liberals are taking advantage of the natural process of global warming and blaming mankind for it. "Man made" global warming is only promoted by liberals and socialists who are seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy..

 

To you gullible government believing sheeple mf'ers that fall for this crap, Rush says it best...

 

"The way you've been approached on this is to first make you feel guilty. And if not you personally, at least other Americans who've been living their lives too "irresponsibly" without concern for the environment. They've been polluting, they've been wasting electricity, they've been driving big cars, they've been cooling or warming their homes to extremes, whatever. You have been made to feel appropriately guilty or angry, but then you have been offered absolution.

You've been offered a way out of the guilt for having contributed to the destruction of the planet, and that is if you will go out and buy a hybrid, or if you will oppose oil companies, or if you will oppose fracking. If you will oppose the Keystone pipeline, if you will oppose the growth of any fossil fuel industry, then you're a good person. If you will agree that people need to pay higher taxes in order to save the planet, you're a good person. They've offered you absolution."

It's all a hoax.

[MLD Woody]

 

They also dismiss scientists and universities...

 

You're right, I should just stop responding...

[calfoxwc]

Never really started.

[Westside Steve]

T I think you are asking me if I believe global warming itself, or climate change, is a hoax or that man made global warming and climate change is a hoax. I don't think either one is particularly a hoax. I think there's probably enough scientific data to make it seem like fluorocarbon and such in the atmosphere certainly could be a factor. My entire rant has always been that we aren't sure how much of a factor. Also that other factors are involved but no matter which ones create more of the problem or less there's a little we can do to change it. I do agree with the theory that hi taxation can certainly make a change in the behavior of individuals and corporations. However I don't think it will be enough, I do think that people are making progressas it is I do believe these taxes will take a significant toll on our economyand I do believe that it is a money making scheme whether or not it has a seed in practicality.

 

much like the cigarette tax. Yes it's contributed to less people smoking today even though it hasn't eliminated it.

but it is damned profitable and I'd be surprised if those who eat from the cigarette tax trough would like to see the practice banned altogether. Follow the money.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

It's the alarmist overboarding that gives them some kind? of legitimacy

for taxing.

 

"Changing peoples' behavior" is just another soft tyranny.

Smoking is one thing, running your tractor or lawnmower or car is another.

What next, a carbon tax for everybody who breathes and puts out CO2?

[Westside Steve]

I don't think you are incorrect. I just think that even though we need to mow only ones drive our cars and till our fields it isnt a bad idea to try and do it in a little more sensible way.

And that, of course, is the theory of the taxes not the underlying reason. At least I don't think so.

Actually I really don't have a beef with common sense conservation. Catalytic converters for example are a pain in the ass but apparently they help a little.

 

And even there I am mistrustful.

They are really expensive, more than need be, and extremely proprietary . If they are just being required for altruistic reasons why not make good quality universal converters cheap late?

Follow the money.

WSS

[sadbrownsfan]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/20/world/un-climate/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

New UN report due out in the next couple months, states that are 95% certain that the increase in temps is caused by human activity.

[MLD Woody]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/20/world/un-climate/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

New UN report due out in the next couple months, states that are 95% certain that the increase in temps is caused by human activity.

 

liberals

commies

Obamao

gays

scientists (a bad word i guess)

universities (same)

evil

secular

[DieHardBrownsFan]

UN, ha.

[calfoxwc]

The UN wants more money from those who have it, to fund itself, and

to fund the distribution of wealth to poor countries. I've said it in the past.

 

It's a "we need more money" political farce.

*****************************************************

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

CO2 An Excuse for Money Grab by the UN

But the United Nations doesn’t really care about CO2 – it is just an excuse for grabbing money. A 2004 report from the United Nations University [http://www.unescap.org/tid/mtg/egmrti_ref272.pdf] states:

“How can we find an extra US$ 50 billion for development funding? Our focus is on flows of resources from high-income to developing countries.”

“We are presupposing that the tax is indeed levied on individuals and firms in the form of a carbon levy (or other environmental tax base). Suppose, however, that we have subsidiarity, where the burden on national governments is determined by their carbon emissions but the national governments are free to decide how to raise the revenue. As noted above, they may, for political or other reasons, choose another tax base.”

“To the extent that emissions impose environmental damage wherever they occur, the corrective tax should be the same. However, this needs to be moderated to take account of the unequal distribution of world income — the very reason for our current interest in the tax. Considerations of global justice point to poor countries bearing less of the cost burden, and may justify the tax being levied only on high-income or middle-income countries.” (In other words the 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions caused by developing countries is to be ignored.)

They make it clear that they don’t really care what tax base is used, just as long as they can achieve redistribution of world income in the name of “global justice”.

“The revenue potential appears large – a fuel-consumption tax on CO2 emissions could by itself finance the MDGs. … It would require that the United States opt for it, however; 20 per cent of the tax yield would originate there alone.” From “Financing Development, Aid and Beyond”, OECD Development Centre [http://books.google.com/books?id=_XvLvuRd4-8C]