Skip to main content
Topic: List of AGW dissenting scientists continues to grow at alarming rate (Read 1504 times) previous topic - next topic

List of AGW dissenting scientists continues to grow at alarming rate

Reply #15
I think its funny that cows make up more damage to the ozone then people do. I called it a hoax from the beginning and everyone called me stupid.
Quote from: jcassity
I honestly dont think you could exceed the cost of a new car buy installing new *stock* parts everywhere in your coug our tbird. Its just plain impossible. You could revamp the entire drivetrain/engine/suspenstion and still come out ahead.
Hooligans! 
1988 Crown Vic wagon. 120K California car. Wifes grocery getter. (junked)
1987 Ford Thunderbird LX. 5.0. s.o., sn-95 t-5 and an f-150 clutch. Driven daily and going strong.
1986 cougar.
lilsammywasapunkrocker@yahoo.com

List of AGW dissenting scientists continues to grow at alarming rate

Reply #16
Quote from: Cougar5.0;262185
I'm not qualified to argue about this issue so I'll leave it up to the "experts" to tell me what to think. ;) :hick: :D

Well, you're in luck because you have a forum full of "experts" here. Just post any topic you want and we can tell you what to think about it. That's how we roll.
1987 Turbo Coupe - Son's car
1987 Super Coupe - Son's project car
1934 Ford - My project car

List of AGW dissenting scientists continues to grow at alarming rate

Reply #17
Gore doesn't actually support Carbon Taxes. That's because they eat into his profits made on Carbon Credits, which are traded mostly by his company. His idea is for polluting corporations to PAY his outfit in return for CCs, and in turn he'll cash those in somewhere down the line (no one knows for sure when) by getting someone in a foreign country to plant trees or install solar cells on the roof. All this does is defer bad press, not deterring pollution in any way. Taxes, on the other hand, would be put directly on the companies that do the polluting. Governments lean toward the CT for pretty obvious reasons, and I have to agree that the taxes would be far more effective in reducing CO2 emissions... if that actually did us any good.

But to bring up the birds of prey again, that horrible reality was turned around by banning CFCs and handing out FINES. Fines bring both bad press and a loss of revenue. Imagine that working. If this whole initiative were about reducing emissions in general, for the purpose of saving lives, then I would ignore the whole CO2 thing. Sadly, it's not about pollution at all, but cash.

List of AGW dissenting scientists continues to grow at alarming rate

Reply #18
It's actually thought that and evidence has shown that ice ages last centurys and warming periods last decades.  Warming periods have occured in the past WITHOUT human activity to blame followed by severe cooling.

The problem is that we do not know why the earth warmed in the past because they have not found evidence of higher concentrations of CO2 in the past since the ice melted!  Was it volcanos causing the end of the last warming periods?

There's much that we don't know and can't know.  One thing for sure is that the earth's population needs to make sure that our offsping have a place to live in the future.  We won't be around.  I think reducing pollution and "greenhouse" gases are the right thing to do.  The "pay to pollute" theory of taxation won't work.
Armed Forces Car Club
Eastern Sierra Chapter, California
WEB:  armedforcescarclub.com