Merger = Global Warming

[Horza]

Starting to feel like we're going in circles a little bit.

[Canelek]

So far it looks like Faith is asking Science to Prove It.

cool

[Teppler]

Originally Posted by Canelek [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So far it looks like Faith is asking Science to Prove It.

cool

Well personally, it's the tax payer in me that is asking for you to prove it considering there's huge money attached to 'green projects'. Shouldn't they be able to justify their positions?

If you just want to insanely scream about global warming, I don't really mind. When you try to get into my pocket about it, I have to ask that your position is strong.

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by Teppler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well personally, it's the tax payer in me that is asking for you to prove it considering there's huge money attached to 'green projects'. Shouldn't they be able to justify their positions?

If you just want to insanely scream about global warming, I don't really mind. When you try to get into my pocket about it, I have to ask that your position is strong.

Well, lets ignore global warming. Reducing global warming is just a bonus to the real benefits of ‘green projects’.

Dinojuice is rare, expensive to extract, and often requires military force to secure a dinosaurgraveyard.

Wind blow, sun burn and river flow. It’s easy to see why energy companies are interested in these options and becoming less reliant on old trees and dinosaur juice. The real reason for pursuit of ‘green’ is nothing to do with the environment.

It’s just diversifying suppliers of generated energy and reducing logistical problems (no more Iran taking control of ships that navigated the wrong route, Saudi price fixing, Russians turning off taps, etc as well as simply being able to generate energy closer to the point of delivery).

‘Green’ is just marketing. e.g. Interfering with waterways has devastating ecological consequences (whether blocking navigations with hydro, or using water as cooling for furnaces or nuclear).

So yea, ignoring environmental issues both ways, “green” has some advantages in terms of source, supply, competition, logistics and distribution but the best solution might be a mixed approach.

[Teppler]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well, lets ignore global warming. Reducing global warming is just a bonus to the real benefits of ‘green projects’.

Dinojuice is rare, expensive to extract, and often requires military force to secure a dinosaurgraveyard.

Wind blow, sun burn and river flow. It’s easy to see why energy companies are interested in these options and becoming less reliant on old trees and dinosaur juice. The real reason for pursuit of ‘green’ is nothing to do with the environment.

It’s just diversifying suppliers of generated energy and reducing logistical problems (no more Iran taking control of ships that navigated the wrong route, Saudi price fixing, Russians turning off taps, etc as well as simply being able to generate energy closer to the point of delivery).

‘Green’ is just marketing. e.g. Interfering with waterways has devastating ecological consequences (whether blocking navigations with hydro, or using water as cooling for furnaces or nuclear).

So yea, ignoring environmental issues both ways, “green” has some advantages in terms of source, supply, competition, logistics and distribution but the best solution might be a mixed approach.

There's always going to be advances to supplying and generating energy. Some of that is going to cross over into green for sure. It should be explored organically. The problem is beating people over the head with global warming. But you're saying let's ignore that for a hypothetical.

[Polycaster]

Originally Posted by Canelek [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So far it looks like Faith is asking Science to Prove It.

cool

What are you babbling about? No one has brought up religion or faith. I have debunked the "97% consensus" nonsense, and provided other links to evidence that man-made climate change is over-hyped.

[solleks]

I know how liars work, they don't prove it bro

[Teppler]

Originally Posted by solleks [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I know how liars work, they don't prove it bro

I'll tell you have the absolute best liars work. They mix truth with lies. They'll tell you A & B is true and they'll be right. You'll be able to confirm it yourself. Then they'll say C is also true but that one is something you can't prove one way or the other. And that's where the best lies are slipped in. Yes it's true climate changes. The idea that we're causing irreparable damage..... eh.

[solleks]

Prove y know jack shit about a million years ago or ur a science cuck

[Evets]

The world has been ending due to climate change for years apparently ... then al gore found a way for politicians to profit from it and now I'm getting TAXED for it! all because I have to heat my home in winter and drive a vehicle to work. WOOOOW. I'm still waiting and I'll still be waiting in 12 years time (or is it 10 they say we have left now?)

All I see is politicians and other fat cats getting rich off of me and all the other peasants ... now i'm just wondering when the OXYGEN tax is coming in for having to breathe!

Just another in the long chain of recent scams to force us out of our hard earned money.

Also I thought taxes were supposed to be for war time efforts? anyone know the percentage of taxation now compared to 1940s?