re: OT Emissions Testing

No. Anthropogenic global warming is a farce for the EXACT same reason regulating car emissions is a farce.

Anthropogenic air/water/soil pollution IS a problem, however. Pumping toxic chemicals and aerosols into the air, water, and soil is a completely different issue than AGW. Mainly because it's a real tangible problem that can actually be totally quantified. And I'm talking about real toxins and pollutants. And car emissions don't come close to making this table because of their insignificance and ridiculously small amount.

People who believe in AGW are the same folks who are easily sold and persuaded and ultimately put too much faith in people in charge.

Our government lies to us all the time. They take us to war over oil and lie about it. They call previous presidents out for spending $4 trillion of tax-payer money and then they spend $13 trillion. They pander to the population with promises galore to get elected and then do the exact opposite once in. They accept campaign donations in the hundreds of millions and then create legislation and policy that helps donors and themselves get more rich.

It's a world of corruption and pandering and lying and stealing and yet folks like you somehow still believe them when it comes to certain things. Things that are totally based on financial motivations, and you're just buying it without question. Likely because it's a party line subject and you're more interested in blindly capitulating with you party talking points than doing some objective thinking. Because screw those bad guys on the other side. It's not the government that's bad, it's those Republicans or those Democrats, eh?

This is why we're all fricked. Too many people still think it's R vs D. Wake up. It's them vs us, the Establishment vs we the people. When you finally realize WTF is really happening, you'll hopefully see that the folks selling you on financially associated government policies has zero credibility and is just trying to control you for their gain.

Ugh. You're one of those clowns who still posts the bullshite 97% of climate scientists crap.

Like I said, folks like you are exactly why we're all fricked.

You're regurgitating propaganda. This 97% statistic is a lie created and used by politicians and people who have a financial and/or personal stake in people believing in AGW and agreeing to it being a control mechanism.

Go do some research. Check out the GW Petition Project.. That's 31,400 climate scientists who don't agree with the AGW narrative.

Or the American Meteoroligical Society. Which did a survey of their 1,900 members, where only 39.5% of them agreed with the AGW narrative.

Or here's a site that links 97 articles refuting the "97% Consensus" bullshite. LINK

I mean you're nothing more than a lemming blindly following the masses off the proverbial cliff. You've been sold lies, but refuse to question their validity because you want so bad to believe you're not gullable and mentally lazy and so easily duped and taken advantage of. The fact you're quoting propaganda just proves this.

For the love of God, wake up.

You can't reason with people like beefdawg. They'll form opinions based on half facts and then preach them regardless of how little they know on the subject because they've become indoctrinated to it. They've gone too far, and invested too much time to be wrong. You can't change their mind because they've found websites that cherry pick their data and find correlations that don't lead to causations. It's the exact same companies that sided with leaded gasoline back in the day. In fact, it's nearly the same arguments.



And then you're hit with the "Well the climatologists HAVE to fake data in order to get grant money! They get paid for it!" That's like saying you don't believe your doctor because they get paid to diagnose you. It's a moot point however. Beefdawg has made up his mind, and there's nothing an internet board can do to change his opinion on the subject. He can't admit fault. It's not in his nature to be wrong.

According to Cambridge physics professor David MacKay, burning fossil fuels only accounts for 3.27% of the CO2 emmissions on Earth. The other 96.73% of carbon emissions come from decaying vegetation, the ocean, volcanoes, other natural occurances.


With that in mind, also realize that scientists know the Sun has been going through a warming trend. Temperatures on Venus and Mars have also been warming.


Finally, consider the big picture, historically. There are fossils of dinosaurs and tropical plants, along with fossils of ice-age flora and fauna, all throughout Georgia. Long before the industrial revolution. We already know the climate makes dramatic shifts, sometimes very quickly, without any human intervention at all.


I leave you with this: If humans are able to come together and cut actual carbon emissions globally by 10 percent in the next ten years, and by cut, I mean actual cut, not a cut in growth, realizing this would be a gigantic cut, historic, laughable really, and our complete output goes from 3.27% to 3.00%, do you really beleive it will amount to much more than a mouse fart in the Georgia Dome? Remember.... that 3% is total CO2 emissions, which is only a small fraction of pre-existing CO2, which is only a tiny fraction of the entire atmosphere.

Emissions testing...I know of cars running around with catalytic converter shells welded on straight pipes...they ain't testin' brah.

As soon as anyone claims carbon dioxide is a pollutant that needs to be controlled I ask for my check. In fact there is research that shows CO2 amounts in ice cores trail high temperatures...not the other way around. Go figure...higher temps lead to more plant growth and decay...which causes an increase in CO2.

We're also coming off a solar maximum and there are already articles being written about how we could be in for some serious cooling over the next couple of decades.

We're going to need more Mexicans in old Silverados to combat the next ice age.

Yeah, I love to lurk on this board but I'm not really a poster. I posted on the old dawgrant a few times before it switched over here to the secrant. I hate getting involved in politics (which climatology should never have gotten lumped into with), but there's 2 topics that I just can't keep my mouth shut on, and climate change is one of them.

quote:

---

Go back to lurking

---

Please

My account is older than yours. If anything, wouldn't that make you my alter?