What human screwed with the climate then?>

#7 | Posted by Sniper

Republican logic - if climate change occurred before humans, then that means humans can't cause climate change!

If you went to college you should get a refund. But I highly doubt you did.

Global warming is something we will deal with one way or another but it shouldn't be a license for the government to tax the ---- out of us.

Our government spending is out of control and there's nothing indicating that they would be anymore responsible with the money from carbon taxes than they would with any other tax dollars.

I'm willing to live the same sacrificial lifestyle as my public servants (lobbyist whores) are willing to live. Whatever that may be.

#14 | Posted by lfthndthrds

"Global warming is something we will deal with one way or another but it shouldn't be a license for the government to tax the ---- out of us."

So much stupid in that sentence.

"Deal with one way or another" is a real offhand way to describe something that could kill millions.

No one is proposing taxing you is the way to solve climate change. But we need to incentivize energy usage that wont kill people, and DIS incentivize energy usage that will kill people. Do you have another way to do that besides taxes or government spending?

We cant. Much less reverse it.

#16 | Posted by boaz

This message brought to you by the same polluters who said it wasn't happening.

Then they said it wasn't man made.

Then they said it was made made, but nothing we can do about it.

Then they said we could do something about it, but it's too expensive.

Now they say global warming is good because canada will be warmer.

Try and keep up with your propaganda, sucker. You're using outdated talking points.

IF it's ok for me to live in a 1000 sq ft house with solar panels and ride my bike as transportation then that should be good enough for everyone. AND, I'm willing to do that as soon as the lobbyist whores follow suit...

#25 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Is that your standard of behavior? You set your bar at the lowest level you observe in the worst people you can find?

Because you're void of any intellectual material for an honest conversation..

#27 | Posted by lfthndthrds

You're the one taking the position of "I'm not going to do anything that evil lobbyists don't have to do."

I'd expect that sort of comment from sniper or boaz.

I'll believe climate change is real...

When corporate and private jets and Mega-yachts and Mega-Mansions are banned...

Till then it's just another way to make a buck off the young and stupid...

#32 | Posted by Pegasus

So you'll believe in science when government forces the rich to things.
Until then, science isn't real.

You're a moron.

for every study that shows climate change is "real"... I can find 2 or 3 that says it's not... so it's pretty much a ------ contest...

#37 | Posted by Pegasus

No you can't.

If studies AGAINST man made climate change outnumbered studies supporting man made climate change by 3 to 1, there would be no scientific consensus.

And guess what? It's actually 97% that agree its man made.

And that other 3%?

A 'clock' is not as good a representation as a pendulum would be, as our climate over time, swings back and fourth between ice ages and hot ages.

#43 | Posted by MSgt

Yeah. Until humans came along and burned a ton of carbon resulting in the most rapid change in climate on record.

Funny how you always leave that part out.

That's not what I said but carry on.

#50 | Posted by lfthndthrds

IOW - "I didn't say that thing that I said!"

IF it's ok for me to live in a 1000 sq ft house with solar panels and ride my bike as transportation then that should be good enough for everyone. AND, I'm willing to do that as soon as the lobbyist whores follow suit...

#25 | Posted by lfthndthrds

What's a carbon tax?

#52 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Use google.

A dream of elitist, radical environmentalists who want to shove it down our throats, but is meeting with resistance by us peasants.

#54 | Posted by nullifidian

Letting the earth fry to protect oil profits is far more radical than trying to save it.

Except taxing the particular behaviours and activities snowflakes don't like isn't going to save the earth.

Or have any impact whatsoever on macroclimate cycles.

At all.

#57 | Posted by TK421

You'd make a hell of a doctor.

"Quitting smoking really isn't going to help you. You're already got cancer so might as well live it up!"

But to your point, I'd say there's a bit more direct causation between smoking and cancer than there is modern civilization and weather patterns.

#66 | Posted by TK421

I'd say you're doing that typical pollution puppet strategy of intentionally swapping "climate" for "weather".

Unless Co2 stops being a greenhouse gas, humans have massive influence over C02 levels, which have a massive effect on climate.

Did C02 stop being a greenhouse gas?

Go google it.

The problem for people like yourself is that you've become emotionally invested in an ideological religion. It demands humanity to buy into the notion that only left-wing public policy will alter macroclimate cycles to the point where we never have to hear about a drought, a hurricane, a cold winter, hot summer or bad thunderstorm on CNN again.

That's awfully arrogant, don't you think?

Reminds me of 16th Century Spaniards.

#76 | Posted by TK421

You're so brainwashed you can't see it.

Religions require faith. Science has evidence.

Polluters saw the writing on the wall so their strategy to keep their profits was to MAKE saving the planet ideological. They knew if they could get you to see this problem as something only the OTHER team wants to do, that your team would resist it. And you fell for it.

You now actively promote and defend the destruction of YOUR home simply because the other side wants to save it.

Do they have a website with a charter or something?

#87 | Posted by TK421

Nice of you to pop in, act smarter to everyone, then say that you need proof that polluters fight environmentalism with propaganda, because that just isn't believable to your highly advanced impartial brain.

What is always amazing to me is how Shreek manages to access the internet without using any petroleum based products whatsoever, merely by using the power of his own sense of self satisfaction.

#86 | Posted by Rightocenter

Not as amazing as how unoriginal you pollution puppets are in your pollution defending talking points.

Talking point #412 - You can't advocate environmentalism unless you use zero fossil fuels and live outside modern society like ted kazinksy.

I know you want to use the Alinsky tactic to narrow the target to oil companies, but your real problem is 7+ billion people who want more, not less, economic growth. Those are the people you have to convince to lower their living standards with your goofy carbon taxes. Good luck with that.

#58 | Posted by nullifidian

#90 | Posted by nullifidian

Polluter talking point #132: You can't have environmentally cautious economic growth.

Those people can have economic growth without trashing the planet.

Solar is now cheaper than coal. And getting cheaper.

Doubling down on the stupid, as usual:

Largest Solar Plant in the World-Noor Complex Solar Power Plant, Morocco, 160MW, (2.5 acres/MW)

Largest Coal Power Plant in the World-Datang Tuoketuo power station, China, 6.720MW (10.5 acres/5000 MW)

Right now, to build an equivalent solar power plant to the Datang Tucketuo plant, you would need 14,784 acres, to put it in perspective, the island of Manhattan is 14,478 acres.

#93 | Posted by Rightocenter

You're gonna call others stupid, while pretending real estate is the only cost that matters in the equation.

I suggest you visit the southwest sometime.

Did you even read your own article, or just the headline?

#97 | Posted by nullifidian

Are you gonna make a point or just ask a question?

For one powerplant that couldn't power a small city.

Did you even read your own article, or just the headline?

Of course Shreek didn't read the article, that would require comprehension.

you'll have to pardon my ignorance, but what the conversion from acres to USD?

Depends on where you are buying the land, of course...and that is just a fraction of the cost for building a solar farm.

Maybe you should read and comprehend the link that Shreek posted, he obviously didn't.

I will help you: Conservative estimates predict that it will take 12-14,000,000 acres of solar panels to power the US, which is a space roughly the size of New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island and Long Island combined on the low end or West Virginia on the high end.

Good luck with that.

#105 | Posted by Rightocenter

You're the dumbass who said solar can't compete with coal because the problem was real estate.

The article proves it's nonsense. Want more?

Your new link just reinforces my point. A few counties in Texas = West Virginia. Power the whole World = California. Your splinter news article also points out it would need 16,000,000 Powerwalls to store the energy collected for distribution. You would need a million miles of new transmission systems, thousands of miles of service roads and tens of billions in infrastructure.

Keep it up, I got you covered.

#107 | Posted by Rightocenter

Haha you think they were proposing to put all the solar panels in ONE location and you'd have to run wires all over the world from there? Jesus you're dumb.

The california reference was about SIZE not LOCATION.

Haha, you were dumb enough to think that is what I meant?

Words fail me.

#114 | Posted by Rightocenter

Tell us what your millions of miles of new wires were for if not running them to the one big solar center.

Okay, I will take pity on you...to get to 4B Mwh, you need 21,875 sq. miles of panels. The largest, by far, solar site in the world is roughly 1/2 sq mile, so you need 43,750 such plants, or one half sq/mi plant every 71 sq miles in the continental US. They then need to be connected to the grid and to storage facilities (remember the 16M powerwalls?), so yes, there would be at least a million miles of wiring and tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure to connect all those plants to storage and the grid.

#118 | Posted by Rightocenter

Yeah if only there were somewhere to put solar panels besides a solar site!

Nope! They all need to be put far away from homes and businesses because the sun only shines on a few little places.