Quote:
Originally Posted by southtown4488
good question. . . first we have to stop denying the problem. we should listen to the scientists that spend a good portion of their lives studying the issue. work with other countries to get as much on the same page as possible - one of the best arguments from the "right" is that there are countries like China that are far worse than us, so modern nations putting unified pressure on developing countries to do their part is important. Cap and trade may not be a perfect solution but its better than the current other option of nothing, , an idea that GW Bush pushed for BTW.
No one person has all the answers of course, this problem is similar to the hole in the ozone layer was decades ago. . . seemed like it was unsolvable at the time, but wasn't.
|
right! let's "listen" to 77 scientists and claim 97% of ALL scientists believe man is drastically affecting the climate! ahaha
that dog won't hunt, clown. it's been shown to be false. Ivan the chimp clings to that so-called fact like his crap filled depends underpants cling to his chimp ass.
what's funny about you fervent believers is even when your false prophets of mother Gaia flat out say it's a scam you won't believe it.
"Klein’s statement is perfectly in line with Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in fact is almost an echo. Figueres acknowledged earlier this year that the environmental activists’ goal is not to spare the world an ecological disaster, but to
destroy capitalism."
http://www.investors.com/climate-cha...obal%20warming
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
now tell me i'm making this up clown? the outright arrogance of these clowns is both admirable and disgusting. they aren't even trying to hide their real purpose.
and why should they? all of the G20 nations are either sucked into the "crap" data and so-called 97% myth or worse, their leaders actually want to destroy capitalism.
so clown, now that it's clear these people's agenda has nothing to do with saving Mother Gaia, are you going to continue to support climate change?
these scientists, whose lucrative grant money comes from governments, are hardly impartial.
if these scientists cares so much about climate change and Mother Gaia, why aren't they putting their so-called expertise into ways to reduce pollution?
you can put scrubbers on smoke stacks from coal fired power plants. power utilities don't want to obviously, because it's expensive. So instead of all this crap about "cap and trade", why not put corporate tax incentives into effect to make it cost effective to do it? no it won't completely reduce emissions for coal fired plants, but it will do far more good than any "cap and trade" agreements will. Like China cares about that anyway?
France, Germany and Japan make large scale use or Nuclear power. 75% of France's power comes from Nuclear plants. i bet the air over Paris is by far better than Beijing, not like that's hard to beat.
China is becoming on of the world's leaders in nuclear power. they know they have to. it doesn't have a damn thing to do with climate change either. it's a matter of pollution and they know it.
i'm all for non-fossil fuel based energy. Solar, geothermal, wind, hydro-electric, and anything else science can develop, including nuclear power. here's where the money is by
far better spent, and it has nothing to do with destroying capitalism and subjected the world to a global welfare state run by some select group of uber wealthy elitists.
even before you try, i'll nix any argument against expanding use of nuclear power.
first, Chernobyl. in typical russki fashion, Chernobyl was patterned after a prototype British design that was never implemented into use by the British. it was a prototype that the Brits quickly realized had serious flaws and they abandoned it.
second, Fukushima Daiichi. that design is an excellent albeit dated design by GE. it does not have any major flaws, unlike the Chernobyl design. what went wrong here is that they put it right on the Japanese coastline and didn't account for a 100 year tsunami. if they had accounted for that, the Fukushima Daiichi would never have happened.
third, Thorium. Richard Milhous "I'm not a crook!" Nixon nixed promising research into nuclear power based on Thorium. Why? because it does not produce waste that can be turned into nuclear weapons. he wanted the Military Industrial complex to have uranium and plutonium for nuclear warheads. Thorium is making a comeback in nuclear power research, as it should. but not in the USA.
there are other types of nuclear power being researched, the holy grail is fusion. and possibly other ways.
i'd like to see solar power satellites in earth orbit. outside of the atmosphere, the power generation with current technologies goes off the charts. if you could manufacture the solar reflective mirrors in space, the efficiency potentially could reach near 100%.
the problem is transmitting the power back to earth. microwave beams have been proposed, but placement is an issue. would you want to be on an airliner that inadvertently flies through a high density microwave bean? probably not. might as well stick your head into a mega powered microwave oven and and set it on "fry me" lol.
like the concept of nanotube technology for space elevators, this has been proposed to transmit power to earth. at the least, if some idiot airline pilot flies into a visible nanotube power conduit, well .. that guy was probably too stupid to be flying an airliner anyway.
so suckclown, refute anything i've just posted with something better. and most of all, refuse the words of the very people in high office the the U.N. (sic) that admit this is nothing short of an attempt to destroy the only economic model, capitalism, that has propelled us into our current modern age.
just go ahead and try. and by the way .. i don't agree to disagree. i just disagree.
