Hillhater said:PS: i didnt bother reading beyond that first line !
You never do.
eta: plus if you read further I explained why the question should be deferred to you. You just assumed I was begging inanities because that's what you do. :wink:
Hillhater said:PS: i didnt bother reading beyond that first line !
Punx0r said:furcifer said:Knowing this, you've somehow come to the conclusion that the activity of burning fossil fuels is having little or no impact on the environment? Doesn't that seem odd to you?
No, no, no. You forget that it's unique in having a positive effect on the environment. Remember: "CO2 is plant food, dummy!". Continued CO2 emissions are the only thing that will boost crop yields enough to prevent mass starvation and therefore burning fossil fuels is not only a good idea, it's our moral duty in order to help those in the 3rd world.
Then again, a different flavour of denialist would claim anthropogenic CO2 emissions don't raise atmospheric CO2 levels, so IDK...
Hillhater said:More accurately stated as ... there is no proof that the increase in CO2 levels are the result of anthropogenic activity. :wink:
That is correllation and assumption,...not proofsendler2112 said:Hillhater said:More accurately stated as ... there is no proof that the increase in CO2 levels are the result of anthropogenic activity. :wink:
But there is proof that we are doing it.
.
"One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. .....
.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase........
.........
Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes."
.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
Your memory is letting you down, as much as your sense of logic ...jimw1960 said:Hillhater said:More accurately stated as ... there is no proof that the increase in CO2 levels are the result of anthropogenic activity. :wink:
So, in your esteemed opinion, what has happened to the 30 billion tons of CO2 that fossil fuel burning has added to the atmosphere every year for the past several decades? Or, is it your contention that burning fossil fuels does not produce CO2?
That pretty much says it all. If you choose to remain ignorant, we can't help you. (And nowadays it takes a concerted effort to remain completely ignorant of AGW.)Hillhater said:PS: i didnt bother reading . . .
Completely destroying the economy would be great for the environment as a whole. Most of humanity would die out, and the remainder would result in a very small impact on the environment.sleepy_tired said:If you destroy the economy you destroy any ability to save the environment.
Correct. We place a high priority on safety. Same reason that flying is expensive compared to buses.Nuclear is fantastically inexpensive if it's allowed to be inexpensive. Which it is not.
The point of it is - both of those things. By making it possible to become very, very rich by significantly reducing CO2 emissions, everyone will try to become rich in that way.It's a bullshit scheme because the point of it is not to save the environment. The point of it is to create vast new financial markets to make certain individuals massive amounts of money.
Agreed. The goal is to reduce them, not end them. Get them to 15-20% of what they are now and the ecosystem can easily absorb the excess.There is literally nothing that the human race can do that does not result in carbon releases.
Also agreed. A carbon tax is just one tool that works. You need more than one tool for any project.The naive view is thinking that this is a problem that can be solved simply be declaring some new law or tax.
One of the funniest things about climate change deniers is how their denial changes on a weekly - sometimes daily - basis. They regularly switch back and forth between:Punx0r said:No, no, no. You forget that it's unique in having a positive effect on the environment. Remember: "CO2 is plant food, dummy!". Continued CO2 emissions are the only thing that will boost crop yields enough to prevent mass starvation and therefore burning fossil fuels is not only a good idea, it's our moral duty in order to help those in the 3rd world.
Then again, a different flavour of denialist would claim anthropogenic CO2 emissions don't raise atmospheric CO2 levels, so IDK...
Hillhater said:That is correllation and assumption,...not proof
I choose to ignor irrelavent bullshit that just serves to avoid answering the question asked.billvon said:That pretty much says it all. If you choose to remain ignorant, we can't help you. (And nowadays it takes a concerted effort to remain completely ignorant of AGW.)Hillhater said:PS: i didnt bother reading . . .
billvon said:And they never see any conflict between all of the above statements - even when the same person claims all of the above. Because to them what's important isn't the science - what's important is denial.
Hillhater said:Do you really want me to review the last 100 pages. Or so of posts to remind you of my esteemed opinions ?
furcifer said:This is exactly what I don't get. It's always blatantly contradictory.
TheBeastie said:The interesting story about the Tesla solar factory is the fact it was built via taxpayer funds from the article ->
Other than oil (google "depletion allowance") nuclear (Price-Anderson act) and coal (subsidizes land leases. Plus depletion allowance.)TheBeastie said:News on Tesla's solar business, really seems like solar is the worlds most subsidised business.
Hillhater said:i have asked repeatedly for someone to produce the results that prove the 120ppm increase is due to anthropogenic CO2 ...
....everyone has avoided producing that answer.
sendler2112 said:Subsidies per MWh
I don't follow the "over time" statement? If one energy source get a subsidy of $1/ MWh, and another gets $100/ MWh that it actually produces, The $1/ MWh is much less subsidy. Right?jonescg said:sendler2112 said:Subsidies per MWh
This might be true, but if we look at subsidies per MWh or Petajoule for each energy source over time, you will see that fossil fuels are still in the lead. I agree that renewable energy subsidies will need to be wound down, indeed rooftop PV is cheap enough to be completely viable without any subsidy.