Um, no. The biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions is burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation. That's not the "State". That's human society as a whole. And the solution isn't to "tax poor people". It's to reduce the emissions of the gasses. And if you don't like being embarrassed in "meaningless" debates on KaW then don't participate in them. It's that simple.
Um, no. The answer is science isn't magic and the best solution to a problem caused by pumping tons of a type of gas into the atmosphere is to stop pumping the gas into the atmosphere. It'd be great if we could just Febreze the stuff away but then you'd be pumping something else into the atmosphere, which is what caused the problem in the first place.
Blather? Lol. The entire quotations encompass NASA as well as all those nifty acronyms, all under The Guardian as the source. If you're quoting multiples feel free to use more than one set of quotations. I can say I'm quoting or citing 20 sources on the Internet as well if you'd like, then you can quote me once as gospel as well. If you just want to try and act self righteous then accuse everyone else of it, do it correctly. Apparently this isn't the first time But as I said, each to their opinions and ideas. I choose to have mine with knowledge and wisdom then tempered with respect. I don't need to try and be bullish or rude to push my opinions on others. I just suggest they research their own. Apparently that's not okay to those who believe they're the only right answer. That sounds a lot like the definition of self righteous.
Technical the state owns all the energy companies. The state created all the roads. The state burns more energy on the military yearly then large nations combined. Your life style is a creation of the state.
What Dragon? Really. Are you some climatologist. Are you a politicians. You are a forum poster on KaW man. Are you gonna keep posting spoon fed data?
Actually, self righteous is blathering smugly to someone about using the Guardian as a source while ignoring the fact that the source for the quote you requested, which was "97% of the world's climatologists say it's happening and humans are contributing to it" came from NASA and isn't even mentioned in the Guardian article. That's why I told you it was on flippin page 2.
Are you going to post data to refute it or are you going to keep arguing your position without backing it up with any facts at all?
Philosophical questioning doesn't need data. Like I said stop looking for data points you want to use. Try looking for new solutions. Instead of arguing pointless statistics that we don't have a realistic solution for.
I definitely think that humans are contributing to climate change. I also think some of it is environmental. But what to do about it is the question. Our entire technological society is based on combustion of fossil fuels. Combustion produces far more electricity than any other source. Combustion is how our trains and cars and busses and planes and ships move. Combustion makes KAW possible. That is part of the issue with climate change. It's not if it's happening in my opinion. It's how severe the changes will be and how is it possible to change our entire society to stop it. And who should pay for that change? The west? The largest polluters (looking at you china)? Everybody?
I'm not sure what country you're in, but in America the State doesn't own all the energy companies. And while the State creates the roads, the State's not the only one driving on them. Yes, the US military produces carbon emissions, much more so when it's at war than when it's not. If you have a solution for a way to fight wars pollution free, by all means share it with us. And yes, my life style is a creation of the State, to a degree. The State shapes the society I live in but it's not the sole determiner of my life style. My individual choices play a big role in that.
That's right. You can't find solutions. You aren't a scientist. You aren't a politician. You aren't a atmospheric scientist or even a simple whether man. You are a parrot. Who doesn't want to see beyond his own static believes. That is the problem from everyone.
You do the research. I've posted data backed by sources. You've posted nothing but opinion. Opinions are like sphincters. Everyone has one.
And "everyone" has used that term before. It's old and boring as heck :3 With that, I'm leaving. Have fun arguing for hours on end :roll:
Don't be stupider than you have to be. I don't have to be a scientist to listen to the opinions of scientists anymore than I have to a doctor to listen to my doctor or a lawyer to listen to my lawyer. And I don't have to find the solution. They already have the solution. They're trying to tell you what it is but you're too ignorant to listen.
Go read economic suppression through energy. There are many scholarly articles. You may to need re-evaluate who the state is. Go read dude. Good luck.
Since I have seem to have an audience, here's the thing that always puzzles me about rabid climate change deniers. What's wrong with taking out insurance on the planet? Is there something bad about having cleaner air to breath? I like having cleaner air and it's healthier to breathe. Is there something bad about improving our infrastructure's resistance to storms and floods? I like having reliable power in storms. Spend two weeks without power and you will too. Is there something bad about expanding our supply of cleaner renewable energy? I like having an energy source which the cost of isn't so dependent on some idiots in the middle east east not taking over an oil field or blowing up a pipeline. Hell, I like not having pipelines that leak oil into my water supply or explode under my house. It's better for national security, better for the environment and it's better for me. You guys act like taking steps to prevent a catastrophe will be a catastrophe, but you can never explain exactly how. Is it because you simply don't want the Left to be right? Is it because you don't like Al Gore? It can't be jobs because doing all that stuff will create jobs. In fact, green energy tends to be more labor intensive than energy from fossil fuels. That means more jobs, not less. Is it simply because it will cost money? The moeny it will cost to fix the problem will be far less than the costs of doing nothing. It's like doing preventive maintnece on your car. It save you from having big repair bills later. So please, enlighten us all exaclty why you're so against doing something that's just simple common sense and has no down side?
Sorry Kitten Everyone gets an opinion. It's nice to see them all feel strongly about them and share ideas. I'm not mad about any, I appreciate them all.