by BurnTheShips 79 Replies latest members politics
Say, BTW - how do you get your quotations to show up in those nice yellow boxes?
I used to know on the old board, but when I highlighted my qoute here and used the " icon in the reply toolbar it just tabs my whole text over 10 spaces and does nothing else.
Say, BTW - how do you get your quotations to show up in those nice yellow boxes?
Styles pulldown above. Highlight the text and apply the "quote" style.
BTS
Thanks, BTW. Now - Back to topic -
Was everyone aware that this cap & trade bill (as imagined by the house & Pelosi) contains a clause that forces ANYONE in the U.S. who sells a house to "upgrade it to clean energy standards" at the sellers expense? They are being pretty cagey about just what mods are ordered, but it would likely cost many thousands on most existing houses - and certainly add that much to new home construction.
Pretty unbelievable in times when unemployment is highest at 9.5 than it has been since 1982, and the housing market is already wrecked due to the banking crises and the economy.
Also unbelievable that Obama got up and personally ordered all homeowners to switch to flourescent light bulbs - claiming wildly that this would save 7% of the national electrical demand. I was puzzled, my electric meter hardly moves when just the lights are on, but spins around pretty good when the AC compressor comes on...and it doesn't differentiate between the two on my bill, either!
Was everyone aware that this cap & trade bill (as imagined by the house & Pelosi) contains a clause that forces ANYONE in the U.S. who sells a house to "upgrade it to clean energy standards" at the sellers expense? They are being pretty cagey about just what mods are ordered, but it would likely cost many thousands on most existing houses - and certainly add that much to new home construction
No effin way. How stupid are these people?
BTS
YOU are talking about stupid people? YOU! Seriously? Kettle meet pot...
I don't know why there aren't more serious scientist (like this... Umm what was he again? Oh yeah an economist with an AA degree) releasing these ground breaking studies!
You are the ultimate fail burn. Your so blind with stupid, inept rage you couldn't find your way out of a paper bag...
YOU are talking about stupid people? YOU! Seriously? Kettle meet pot...
I don't know why there aren't more serious scientist (like this... Umm what was he again? Oh yeah an economist with an AA degree) releasing these ground breaking studies!
You are the ultimate fail burn. Your so blind with stupid, inept rage you couldn't find your way out of a paper bag...
Well, I would submit to you that the economic effect of this tax bill is far more predictable than any effect it will have on the global level of CO2. Let alone any subsequent effects on planetary long term temperature. I am really amazed that the global warming proponents are many many times just as religiously fervent about it as the most rabid Jehovah's Witness going on about the time of the end or 607bce. That study was just one scientific opinion out of many which question the idea or say that the data is not consistently complete. It was suppressed for purely political reasons...the politics being to rapidly pass cap & trade before people figure out what it will cost versus what it will really do.
In the absence of RGB aka Shakespeare answering my simple question - what ppm of atmospheric CO2 he proposes as an upper limit - I'll quickly set the record straight on why this 'study' was 'suppressed'.
Firstly this 'study' was in the form of 'comments on a draft document' - it was not originated by the so-called author as a standalone piece but rather as comments on the official EPA document.
I say so-called author as massive swathes of his comments are lifted cut and paste from the blogosphere, from long debunked denier websites, astrologers - Theodor Landscheidt who believes the rise of Hitler and Stalin were predicted by sunspot cycles - and the occasional climate scientist who is on the periphery of mainstream scientific opinion.
From realclimate.org - written by real climate scientists with reference to the 'suppresed comments':
They don’t even notice the contradictions in their own cites. For instance, they show a figure that demonstrates that galactic cosmic ray and solar trends are non-existent from 1957 on, and yet cheerfully quote Scafetta and West who claim that almost all of the recent trend is solar driven! They claim that climate sensitivity is very small while failing to realise that this implies that solar variability can’t have any effect either. They claim that GCM simulations produced trends over the twentieth century of 1.6 to 3.74ºC - which is simply (and bizarrely) wrong (though with all due respect, that one seems to come directly from Mr. Gregory). Even more curious, Carlin appears to be a big fan of geo-engineering , but how this squares with his apparent belief that we know nothing about what drives climate, is puzzling. A sine qua non of geo-engineering is that we need models to be able to predict what is likely to happen, and if you think they are all wrong, how could you have any faith that you could effectively manage a geo-engineering approach?
Finally, they end up with the oddest claim in the submission: That because human welfare has increased over the twentieth century at a time when CO2 was increasing, this somehow implies that no amount of CO2 increases can ever cause a danger to human society . This is just boneheadly stupid.
Sorry guys - when plagiarized idiotic denier disinformation fails to make the grade into an official government report, that ain't called suppresion - that's called tax dollars well spent.
Not surprised your electricity meter puzzles you JWoods:
Also unbelievable that Obama got up and personally ordered all homeowners to switch to flourescent light bulbs - claiming wildly that this would save 7% of the national electrical demand. I was puzzled,
Obama actually said:
“I know light bulbs may not seem sexy,’’ Mr. Obama said during a brief appearance at the White House. “But this simple action holds enormous promise, because 7 percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and our businesses.’’
Now who is making the wild claims?
Awww poor little mkr32208. Is your insignifcunt little ego bruised? LOL.
BTS
I see BTS prefers insults to debate.
PS - was that an embedded suggestion in the way you spelled insignifcunt (sic)? :-)
