Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling

[homersapien 11,374]

What I find interesting is that some believe that humans will destroy the planet. But, those same people will state how resilient life is because life evolves and adapts to change in its environment. So from that, I am hearing that life is resilient, but the planet isn't.

Anyone who says humans will destroy the planet probably means they will destroy the environment that humans require. No one can say that humans will destroy the planet per se'. The planet will always remain, most likely with some sort of life, perhaps with many types of life, including humans, or whatever humans evolve to.

This planet, over centuries and centuries, has regulated itself, through unbelievable natural disasters that would make the threat of CO2 and human caused future disasters seem like a blip on thr screen.

True, but hardly relevant.

To say that we are that powerful, and have the ability to cause a greater impact to this planet than what historical records have stated that monumental and catastrophic "natural disasters" without human intervention has caused, is the height of arrogance, and for people to actually buy that line, is the height of idiocy.

No no one is saying that (other than you).

But to simply declare that humans don't have the ability to affect that tiny little skin of atmosphere on the planet, which in turns can effect changes to the chaotic equilibrium of the climate is simply sticking your head in the sand and denying the science that says it is most definitely possible.

Anybody that can read history, can see what this planet has been subjected to. And guess what, it has always regulated itself, and adapted and repaired itself accordingly. This planet will always balance itself, the historical record tells us that.

First, the historical record is not really relevant in evaluating what is happening today regarding CO2 (well other than to verify what effects high levels of CO2 have).

But if you like to think in those terms, consider that we are now returning the earth to the conditions of some earlier epoch by releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere that the earth has sequestered over millions of years since then.

And you are correct, the planet will ultimate reach another equilibrium of some sort, with or without us.

[AUcivE09 582]

I have stated several times that I work with this daily. Yet people still choose to beleive whatever is on the internet that supports their theory. The carbon tax is just that - a tax on business under the disguise of environmental protection. Just read the freaking regulations. All the government calls for is that facilities "use BMP and boilers/steam generating units operating with maximum efficiency". Guess what - the better these things run - the more CO2 they produce (as opposed to Carbon Monoxide and Nitrous Oxides). So the governement wants to increase the amount of CO2 produced and then charge them for it. There are absolutely ZERO control devices out there that are even remotely feasible options. But by all means - do not listen to the people who actually work with this and have to implement and enforce this crap.

No me. I always consider the quality of the source. In fact, I am always preaching not all sites are equal anymore than a given "scientist" represents an authoritative position.

But we are talking about the validity of AGW theory, not the pros and cons of what a given response should be.

Having said that, and not to change the subject, but I think you are conflating the term "efficiency" with maximum output. You also seem to conflate the carbon tax theory with direct regulations when they are essentially opposite in philosophy.

Homer - I highly doubt you consider the source. You have linked several blogs with no name people posting. Also, I am not confusing efficiency with maximum output, thank you.

And this just is just a crap statement "You also seem to conflate the carbon tax theory with direct regulations when they are essentially opposite in philosophy". I have no clue what you are even talking about. Saying "...essentially opposite in philosophy." may sound like you are a well versed person, but it is nothing more than jumbled words.

If there is a shred of validity to the "global warming" or whatever the phrase of the day is - they have no plan in place to do a damn thing about it. It is all a money grab and a vice to divide the people.

[homersapien 11,374]

I have stated several times that I work with this daily. Yet people still choose to beleive whatever is on the internet that supports their theory. The carbon tax is just that - a tax on business under the disguise of environmental protection. Just read the freaking regulations. All the government calls for is that facilities "use BMP and boilers/steam generating units operating with maximum efficiency". Guess what - the better these things run - the more CO2 they produce (as opposed to Carbon Monoxide and Nitrous Oxides). So the governement wants to increase the amount of CO2 produced and then charge them for it. There are absolutely ZERO control devices out there that are even remotely feasible options. But by all means - do not listen to the people who actually work with this and have to implement and enforce this crap.

No me. I always consider the quality of the source. In fact, I am always preaching not all sites are equal anymore than a given "scientist" represents an authoritative position.

But we are talking about the validity of AGW theory, not the pros and cons of what a given response should be.

Having said that, and not to change the subject, but I think you are conflating the term "efficiency" with maximum output. You also seem to conflate the carbon tax theory with direct regulations when they are essentially opposite in philosophy.

Homer - I highly doubt you consider the source. You have linked several blogs with no name people posting. Also, I am not confusing efficiency with maximum output, thank you.

It's possible. I am not perfect. Maybe I shouldn't have said "always".

But you need to point out the exception for me and I will either own up to it or explain why.

[homersapien 11,374]

I have stated several times that I work with this daily. Yet people still choose to beleive whatever is on the internet that supports their theory. The carbon tax is just that - a tax on business under the disguise of environmental protection. Just read the freaking regulations. All the government calls for is that facilities "use BMP and boilers/steam generating units operating with maximum efficiency". Guess what - the better these things run - the more CO2 they produce (as opposed to Carbon Monoxide and Nitrous Oxides). So the governement wants to increase the amount of CO2 produced and then charge them for it. There are absolutely ZERO control devices out there that are even remotely feasible options. But by all means - do not listen to the people who actually work with this and have to implement and enforce this crap.

No me. I always consider the quality of the source. In fact, I am always preaching not all sites are equal anymore than a given "scientist" represents an authoritative position.

But we are talking about the validity of AGW theory, not the pros and cons of what a given response should be.

Having said that, and not to change the subject, but I think you are conflating the term "efficiency" with maximum output. You also seem to conflate the carbon tax theory with direct regulations when they are essentially opposite in philosophy.

And this just is just a crap statement "You also seem to conflate the carbon tax theory with direct regulations when they are essentially opposite in philosophy". I have no clue what you are even talking about. Saying "...essentially opposite in philosophy." may sound like you are a well versed person, but it is nothing more than jumbled words.

You were talking about the paradox of specifying a certain mode of operation because that mode supposedly has the opposite of the intended effect.

My understanding of carbon credit or carbon tax plans is that regulations simply specify a total amount of carbon allowed for a company to be responsible for, allowing the company to figure out how to comply, even if it means purchasing carbon credits from a company that has excess to sale.

That is the exact opposite of specific regulations telling a company how they should operate their processes.

For someone in your business, I would have thought you understood that. But being an engineer I can also understand how you might consider that a "jumble of words". I have found that engineers often have problems with big-picture or holistic approaches to problems.

[homersapien 11,374]

If there is a shred of validity to the "global warming" or whatever the phrase of the day is - they have no plan in place to do a damn thing about it. It is all a money grab and a vice to divide the people.

I think you are again conflating aspects of this issue that are distinct.

First, there is far more than a "shred" of scientific evidence for global warming in general and AGW in particular.

I don't know who you mean by "they" but it is not the role of climate scientists to produce a plan to do something about it, although there are many scientists - including engineers - that are developing theories of what might be done, including theories involving the very engineering of climate. Look it up.

And to suggest that climate scientists worldwide have created a hoax to grab money (not sure how that's going to work) or to "divide" the people sounds like a paranoid delusion.

Are you suggesting that the scientists involved in climate science all have some sort of political agenda? That's absurd on the face of it.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

If there is a shred of validity to the "global warming" or whatever the phrase of the day is - they have no plan in place to do a damn thing about it. It is all a money grab and a vice to divide the people.

I think you are again conflating aspects of this issue that are distinct.

First, there is far more than a "shred" of scientific evidence for global warming in general and AGW in particular.

I don't know who you mean by "they" but it is not the role of climate scientists to produce a plan to do something about it, although there are many scientists - including engineers - that are developing theories of what might be done, including theories involving the very engineering of climate. Look it up.

And to suggest that climate scientists worldwide have created a hoax to grab money (not sure how that's going to work) or to "divide" the people sounds like a paranoid delusion.

Are you suggesting that the scientists involved in climate science all have some sort of political agenda? That's absurd on the face of it.

Would you go so far as to say that there are people who present themselves and scientists who are sometimes good, sometimes not so good, at manipulating and presenting data, and they are working with a political and/or financial motive?

[homersapien 11,374]

If there is a shred of validity to the "global warming" or whatever the phrase of the day is - they have no plan in place to do a damn thing about it. It is all a money grab and a vice to divide the people.

I think you are again conflating aspects of this issue that are distinct.

First, there is far more than a "shred" of scientific evidence for global warming in general and AGW in particular.

I don't know who you mean by "they" but it is not the role of climate scientists to produce a plan to do something about it, although there are many scientists - including engineers - that are developing theories of what might be done, including theories involving the very engineering of climate. Look it up.

And to suggest that climate scientists worldwide have created a hoax to grab money (not sure how that's going to work) or to "divide" the people sounds like a paranoid delusion.

Are you suggesting that the scientists involved in climate science all have some sort of political agenda? That's absurd on the face of it.

Would you go so far as to say that there are people who present themselves and scientists who are sometimes good, sometimes not so good, at manipulating and presenting data, and they are working with a political and/or financial motive?

Sure. I happens all the time. Scientists are all humans.

Look at the scientists who worked for the Tobacco industry back in the day. And many - if not most - of the deniers are being funded by special interests today. Contrary to what the "hoaxers" believe, there is a LOT more money to be made by being a denier than a honest scientist.

But in the case of serious scientists (meaning they publish and subject their work to peer review), then the rest of the scientific community will ultimately debunk faulty work. And if their faulty work is shown to be intentional, their careers as serious scientists are finished.

[telling tiger 156]

These global warming threads are funny. They always come down to which side of the aisle you are on. Some scientists that you guys quote, say that GW is happening, some scientists say that it has stopped. Which ones are correct?

Reality has no place in the world of politics. You pick a side and adopt the foolish notion that your side is always noble and correct, the other side is evil and wrong. Come on Weegs! Get with the program. Rhetoric is better than truth. Look at the last twenty years. Things have never been better. The last thing we need is truth, cooperation, and compromise. Reality is whatever your team says it is. You have to bend reality to suite your needs.

That is utterly ridiculous, lol.

So you say. You're a no good, stinkin................ What are you again?

Flippant.

[AUcivE09 582]

I have stated several times that I work with this daily. Yet people still choose to beleive whatever is on the internet that supports their theory. The carbon tax is just that - a tax on business under the disguise of environmental protection. Just read the freaking regulations. All the government calls for is that facilities "use BMP and boilers/steam generating units operating with maximum efficiency". Guess what - the better these things run - the more CO2 they produce (as opposed to Carbon Monoxide and Nitrous Oxides). So the governement wants to increase the amount of CO2 produced and then charge them for it. There are absolutely ZERO control devices out there that are even remotely feasible options. But by all means - do not listen to the people who actually work with this and have to implement and enforce this crap.

No me. I always consider the quality of the source. In fact, I am always preaching not all sites are equal anymore than a given "scientist" represents an authoritative position.

But we are talking about the validity of AGW theory, not the pros and cons of what a given response should be.

Having said that, and not to change the subject, but I think you are conflating the term "efficiency" with maximum output. You also seem to conflate the carbon tax theory with direct regulations when they are essentially opposite in philosophy.

Homer - I highly doubt you consider the source. You have linked several blogs with no name people posting. Also, I am not confusing efficiency with maximum output, thank you.

It's possible. I am not perfect. Maybe I shouldn't have said "always".

But you need to point out the exception for me and I will either own up to it or explain why.

scienceblog.com or whatever site you linked is not a "serious" site to be taken on face value. Anyone can post. There is a quick example. Huffingtonpost is another you you cite often. They are politically motivated.

[Weegle777 78]

Simple fact is, the earth will be just fine. Predict the demise of the planet all you want. Use your computer models forecasting doom and gloom with the CO2 emissions. At least the plants and the trees will be happy! In 100, 1000, 10,000 years, this planet will be thriving just as it always has. Hear that sound? That is the hysterical laughter of earth, laughing at this GW foolishness. None of this ridiculousness scares me one bit. At least you alarmists are entertaining!

[AUcivE09 582]

I have stated several times that I work with this daily. Yet people still choose to beleive whatever is on the internet that supports their theory. The carbon tax is just that - a tax on business under the disguise of environmental protection. Just read the freaking regulations. All the government calls for is that facilities "use BMP and boilers/steam generating units operating with maximum efficiency". Guess what - the better these things run - the more CO2 they produce (as opposed to Carbon Monoxide and Nitrous Oxides). So the governement wants to increase the amount of CO2 produced and then charge them for it. There are absolutely ZERO control devices out there that are even remotely feasible options. But by all means - do not listen to the people who actually work with this and have to implement and enforce this crap.

No me. I always consider the quality of the source. In fact, I am always preaching not all sites are equal anymore than a given "scientist" represents an authoritative position.

But we are talking about the validity of AGW theory, not the pros and cons of what a given response should be.

Having said that, and not to change the subject, but I think you are conflating the term "efficiency" with maximum output. You also seem to conflate the carbon tax theory with direct regulations when they are essentially opposite in philosophy.

And this just is just a crap statement "You also seem to conflate the carbon tax theory with direct regulations when they are essentially opposite in philosophy". I have no clue what you are even talking about. Saying "...essentially opposite in philosophy." may sound like you are a well versed person, but it is nothing more than jumbled words.

You were talking about the paradox of specifying a certain mode of operation because that mode supposedly has the opposite of the intended effect.

My understanding of carbon credit or carbon tax plans is that regulations simply specify a total amount of carbon allowed for a company to be responsible for, allowing the company to figure out how to comply, even if it means purchasing carbon credits from a company that has excess to sale.

That is the exact opposite of specific regulations telling a company how they should operate their processes.

For someone in your business, I would have thought you understood that. But being an engineer I can also understand how you might consider that a "jumble of words". I have found that engineers often have problems with big-picture or holistic approaches to problems.

Nice shot at the end btw. You have very little understanding of anything you are saying here.

Take this sentence: "You were talking about the paradox of specifying a certain mode of operation because that mode supposedly has the opposite of the intended effect." Once again you use fancy words with no substance or understanding. Yes that is what I was saying - and you have followed it with nothing but a well written sentence restating what I said. Good job.

Nothing specifies the total amount of CO2 a site can produce. They can produce whatever they want but the government is just trying to make money off an avoidable side effect of making that computer you are sitting behind. My argument is that if this was TRUELY about the environment they would try to find a way to control the emissions before resorting to this tax system that will drive industry away.

This sentence: "That is the exact opposite of specific regulations telling a company how they should operate their processes." is just completely out of place and wrong. Limiting CO2 emissions tells a company how much they can make - because everything produces CO2. Supply goes down and prices go up, or they pay for the extra CO2 required to make the product to meet demand and we pay the difference.

All of this is beside the point - man made climate change is a hoax to tax businesses. I have yet to see one credible shred of any proof that man made - or any other type - of global warming exist that we should be afraid of. It is not the problem of one side to prove it doesnt exist - it has to be credibly proven first to even make an argument against global warming.

[AUcivE09 582]

If there is a shred of validity to the "global warming" or whatever the phrase of the day is - they have no plan in place to do a damn thing about it. It is all a money grab and a vice to divide the people.

I think you are again conflating aspects of this issue that are distinct.

First, there is far more than a "shred" of scientific evidence for global warming in general and AGW in particular.

I don't know who you mean by "they" but it is not the role of climate scientists to produce a plan to do something about it, although there are many scientists - including engineers - that are developing theories of what might be done, including theories involving the very engineering of climate. Look it up.

And to suggest that climate scientists worldwide have created a hoax to grab money (not sure how that's going to work) or to "divide" the people sounds like a paranoid delusion.

Are you suggesting that the scientists involved in climate science all have some sort of political agenda? That's absurd on the face of it.

Sounds democratic to me - if you dont have a good argument then downplay the other side. Scientists "world wide" line is crap and you know it. I know engineers want to control weather - ive read about it recently too. The fact is that the side you are defending does the very thing you do - A LOT of talk with no factual info to back it up. There is no credible evidence out there or this would not be an issue. If you notice, YOUR scientists amigos use the word "linked" way too often. A link is not a proven fact. Obama's entire career has been based on political agenda and no scientists are going to bite the hand that feeds. This is why we have a bunch of watered down reports predicting doom and gloom with little actual information.

[AUcivE09 582]

Simple fact is, the earth will be just fine. Predict the demise of the planet all you want. Use your computer models forecasting doom and gloom with the CO2 emissions. At least the plants and the trees will be happy! In 100, 1000, 10,000 years, this planet will be thriving just as it always has. Hear that sound? That is the hysterical laughter of earth, laughing at this GW foolishness. None of this ridiculousness scares me one bit. At least you alarmists are entertaining!

Im with you there - but we are all going to feel the financial effects of this GW foolishness because of groups of people that blindly follow what our Clown-in-Chief and his buddies say. I know no one is going to change their mind until it is too late - then they will blame Bush. If we really wanted to help they Earth we should start with China, you know, the people taking all of our industry away.

[AFTiger 282]

Homer, what is your position on fracking?

[AUcivE09 582]

Homer, what is your position on fracking?

He has to see what his party thinks about it first......just hang on.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Homer, what is your position on fracking?

Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answer ?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

These global warming threads are funny. They always come down to which side of the aisle you are on. Some scientists that you guys quote, say that GW is happening, some scientists say that it has stopped. Which ones are correct?

Reality has no place in the world of politics. You pick a side and adopt the foolish notion that your side is always noble and correct, the other side is evil and wrong. Come on Weegs! Get with the program. Rhetoric is better than truth. Look at the last twenty years. Things have never been better. The last thing we need is truth, cooperation, and compromise. Reality is whatever your team says it is. You have to bend reality to suite your needs.

That is utterly ridiculous, lol.

So you say. You're a no good, stinkin................ What are you again?

Flippant.

Is flipants conservatives or librals?

[telling tiger 156]

These global warming threads are funny. They always come down to which side of the aisle you are on. Some scientists that you guys quote, say that GW is happening, some scientists say that it has stopped. Which ones are correct?

Reality has no place in the world of politics. You pick a side and adopt the foolish notion that your side is always noble and correct, the other side is evil and wrong. Come on Weegs! Get with the program. Rhetoric is better than truth. Look at the last twenty years. Things have never been better. The last thing we need is truth, cooperation, and compromise. Reality is whatever your team says it is. You have to bend reality to suite your needs.

That is utterly ridiculous, lol.

So you say. You're a no good, stinkin................ What are you again?

Flippant.

Is flipants conservatives or librals?

Yes.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

These global warming threads are funny. They always come down to which side of the aisle you are on. Some scientists that you guys quote, say that GW is happening, some scientists say that it has stopped. Which ones are correct?

Reality has no place in the world of politics. You pick a side and adopt the foolish notion that your side is always noble and correct, the other side is evil and wrong. Come on Weegs! Get with the program. Rhetoric is better than truth. Look at the last twenty years. Things have never been better. The last thing we need is truth, cooperation, and compromise. Reality is whatever your team says it is. You have to bend reality to suite your needs.

That is utterly ridiculous, lol.

So you say. You're a no good, stinkin................ What are you again?

Flippant.

Is flipants conservatives or librals?

Yes.

I don't like you. Your one of them smart alex.

[Weegle777 78]

Simple fact is, the earth will be just fine. Predict the demise of the planet all you want. Use your computer models forecasting doom and gloom with the CO2 emissions. At least the plants and the trees will be happy! In 100, 1000, 10,000 years, this planet will be thriving just as it always has. Hear that sound? That is the hysterical laughter of earth, laughing at this GW foolishness. None of this ridiculousness scares me one bit. At least you alarmists are entertaining! :laugh:/>

Im with you there - but we are all going to feel the financial effects of this GW foolishness because of groups of people that blindly follow what our Clown-in-Chief and his buddies say. I know no one is going to change their mind until it is too late - then they will blame Bush. If we really wanted to help they Earth we should start with China, you know, the people taking all of our industry away.

Dead on brother, I totally agree.

[homersapien 11,374]

Homer, what is your position on fracking?

Well, to be honest I don't know a lot about it, beyond the basic concept. In fact, unless I am mistaken, the exact contents of the fluid used for fracking are proprietary information which cannot be revealed to the public (at least). Please correct me if I am wrong about that.

Being a self-made "naturalist" I am not particularly receptive to the idea of injecting tons of a "witches brew" of chemicals deep into the earth when there is even a small possibility it could get into the ground water. I am very very skeptical of industry claims that this is a benign process with no risk.

Granted, I get my water from a 700' deep well in the Appalachian foothills so I may be a little more tuned into the possible risks of a contaminated ground water supply, even though I will probably be long gone before it could possible happen to me.

And if you Engineers and "Company Geologists" want to start making some technical arguments, have at it. I have enough basic understanding of the process and geology to give you a game.

All of the above was written without the aid of the internet, a political party or anything else, well, other than my own mind.

[homersapien 11,374]

I have stated several times that I work with this daily. Yet people still choose to beleive whatever is on the internet that supports their theory. The carbon tax is just that - a tax on business under the disguise of environmental protection. Just read the freaking regulations. All the government calls for is that facilities "use BMP and boilers/steam generating units operating with maximum efficiency". Guess what - the better these things run - the more CO2 they produce (as opposed to Carbon Monoxide and Nitrous Oxides). So the governement wants to increase the amount of CO2 produced and then charge them for it. There are absolutely ZERO control devices out there that are even remotely feasible options. But by all means - do not listen to the people who actually work with this and have to implement and enforce this crap.

No me. I always consider the quality of the source. In fact, I am always preaching not all sites are equal anymore than a given "scientist" represents an authoritative position.

But we are talking about the validity of AGW theory, not the pros and cons of what a given response should be.

Having said that, and not to change the subject, but I think you are conflating the term "efficiency" with maximum output. You also seem to conflate the carbon tax theory with direct regulations when they are essentially opposite in philosophy.

Homer - I highly doubt you consider the source. You have linked several blogs with no name people posting. Also, I am not confusing efficiency with maximum output, thank you.

It's possible. I am not perfect. Maybe I shouldn't have said "always".

But you need to point out the exception for me and I will either own up to it or explain why.

scienceblog.com or whatever site you linked is not a "serious" site to be taken on face value. Anyone can post. There is a quick example. Huffingtonpost is another you you cite often. They are politically motivated.

I never said I don't cite commercial/political/amateur sites for whatever reason I choose. But I don't use such sites to back up "big" claims, such as basic scientific claims (unless of course they are simply referencing a reliable source).

So pick out a specific topic you take issue that I supported with a commercial/political/amateur site and we'll take another bite at it.

[homersapien 11,374]

Simple fact is, the earth will be just fine. Predict the demise of the planet all you want. Use your computer models forecasting doom and gloom with the CO2 emissions. At least the plants and the trees will be happy! In 100, 1000, 10,000 years, this planet will be thriving just as it always has. Hear that sound? That is the hysterical laughter of earth, laughing at this GW foolishness. None of this ridiculousness scares me one bit. At least you alarmists are entertaining!

Well one can say the world depicted by the move "Soylent Green" is "thriving". You can't deny it wasn't efficient.

[homersapien 11,374]

I have stated several times that I work with this daily. Yet people still choose to beleive whatever is on the internet that supports their theory. The carbon tax is just that - a tax on business under the disguise of environmental protection. Just read the freaking regulations. All the government calls for is that facilities "use BMP and boilers/steam generating units operating with maximum efficiency". Guess what - the better these things run - the more CO2 they produce (as opposed to Carbon Monoxide and Nitrous Oxides). So the governement wants to increase the amount of CO2 produced and then charge them for it. There are absolutely ZERO control devices out there that are even remotely feasible options. But by all means - do not listen to the people who actually work with this and have to implement and enforce this crap.

No me. I always consider the quality of the source. In fact, I am always preaching not all sites are equal anymore than a given "scientist" represents an authoritative position.

But we are talking about the validity of AGW theory, not the pros and cons of what a given response should be.

Having said that, and not to change the subject, but I think you are conflating the term "efficiency" with maximum output. You also seem to conflate the carbon tax theory with direct regulations when they are essentially opposite in philosophy.

And this just is just a crap statement "You also seem to conflate the carbon tax theory with direct regulations when they are essentially opposite in philosophy". I have no clue what you are even talking about. Saying "...essentially opposite in philosophy." may sound like you are a well versed person, but it is nothing more than jumbled words.

You were talking about the paradox of specifying a certain mode of operation because that mode supposedly has the opposite of the intended effect.

My understanding of carbon credit or carbon tax plans is that regulations simply specify a total amount of carbon allowed for a company to be responsible for, allowing the company to figure out how to comply, even if it means purchasing carbon credits from a company that has excess to sale.

That is the exact opposite of specific regulations telling a company how they should operate their processes.

For someone in your business, I would have thought you understood that. But being an engineer I can also understand how you might consider that a "jumble of words". I have found that engineers often have problems with big-picture or holistic approaches to problems.

Nice shot at the end btw. You have very little understanding of anything you are saying here.

Take this sentence: "You were talking about the paradox of specifying a certain mode of operation because that mode supposedly has the opposite of the intended effect." Once again you use fancy words with no substance or understanding. Yes that is what I was saying - and you have followed it with nothing but a well written sentence restating what I said. Good job.

Nothing specifies the total amount of CO2 a site can produce. They can produce whatever they want but the government is just trying to make money off an avoidable side effect of making that computer you are sitting behind. My argument is that if this was TRUELY about the environment they would try to find a way to control the emissions before resorting to this tax system that will drive industry away.

This sentence: "That is the exact opposite of specific regulations telling a company how they should operate their processes." is just completely out of place and wrong. Limiting CO2 emissions tells a company how much they can make - because everything produces CO2. Supply goes down and prices go up, or they pay for the extra CO2 required to make the product to meet demand and we pay the difference.

All of this is beside the point - man made climate change is a hoax to tax businesses. I have yet to see one credible shred of any proof that man made - or any other type - of global warming exist that we should be afraid of. It is not the problem of one side to prove it doesnt exist - it has to be credibly proven first to even make an argument against global warming.

[homersapien 11,374]

Nice shot at the end btw. You have very little understanding of anything you are saying here.

That "nice shot" comes from 25 years experience working with engineers, primarily chemical and mechanical. Very, very few young ones possessed strategic insight of anything, and their people skills were rudimentary at best. Some developed it and they were very good. I worked for such who was even younger than me.

But so far, you are playing to type.