Its not a question of dogma, its a question of scientific evidence. Global warming isn’t a question of faith or personal conviction, its a scientific issue. On a scientific issue, the rational approach is to accept the evidence-based conclusions of the majority of scientists. This isn’t a matter to be decided by personal choice or conviction or conscience or faith.
I, humbly, think the argument should be what, if anything, we can do about it…
I know the US is far less of the “problem” then, say, India or China. So what can
we make them do about it?
Global Warming has become a religion , and to question it is blasphemy.
Using myself as an example, I am one the greenest people you will find, I live life as a minimalist, very small carbon footprint. Yet because I do not bow before the false god of global warming I am labeled as anti-environment.
In contrast someone ( like an Al Gore) with a huge carbon footprint but preaches the religion of Global Warming will be held up as a modern day Mosses.
Global Warming is not about science, it is about government control of the people
1 Like
Yeah, but wouldn’t you feel better about yourself and this country if you paid
some kind of carbon tax to the government…
1 Like
No Dennis, you’re conflating two arguments. One being the proof and cause of global warming, the other being how we should deal with it. The first issue is pure science, the second is political. If you want to argue that we should do this or that about global warming or we should not do this or that about global warming, these would be political choices, nothing to do with the science, and you should go ahead and argue your case. But when the majority of scientists look at the scientific evidence re a scientific issue and say that X is happening and the cause is Y, no political argument holds water against their case.
Ciga, you are right on point, this is all about money and a Carbon tax is their way of creating a whole new class of billionaires
nobody ever became a billionaire by a government raping in taxes 
edit: the discussion of implementing taxes is useless, as de facto we already have Co2 taxes implemented since a decade already.
its called emissions trading. where countries with little co2 output sell their granted “per capita” allowed co2 output to countries which co2 creation is above the average which is “allwed” per capita.
its a form of transfer world wide from industrial developed countries to underdeveloped countries for 2 reasons:
1st. reduce co2 output by increasing its cost
2nd. transfer money from rich countries to poor countries in exchange for “using” this planet resources which actually belong to everyone eve those in poor countries which do not utilize their resources.
its interesting people dont know such things… but like falstaff, like to voice out their opinions.
in fact the americans have a good saying: opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
imo, the opinion of 99% of the population has absolutely no justification and should not be considered at all. since its that amount of %-age which has absolutely no clue and loves to talk about things which are higher than their paychecks.
No Tom, there is only one argument, and Cigarmanstan hit it on the head , Carbon Taxes, that is what this has been all about from the very beginning. The science is irreverent. This is an attempt by globalist to seize control of the worlds energy and further exploit the under develop regions of the world. And the US Government is not the good guys in any of this, through a military 10 times stronger then Russia and China combined , The US will be to the world as the Empire was to the Galaxy in Star Wars. These are not good times for any of us
if you cared to learn reading, then youd notice than in my first statement the message of “my posts are of no positive contribution at all” you would have noticed that i already confirmed my posts are of no positive contribution. but here for you again.
my posts are of no positive contribution to the vast majority inthis forum. some, who know, will see in the details that there is very much of content which is worth something
For all I know, it might well be that there is a globalist plan for world domination. But a fight to oppose this on grounds which make no sense will fail anyway. You cannot pick and choose which parts of scientific evidence you accept and which you reject purely on grounds of suspicion of intent by politicians to misuse such evidence. The people who wish to misuse the evidence will simply ask the scientists who produced it to defend their evidence, which they will, and you have immediately lost your credibility.
You cannot defeat scientific evidence with political opinion, no matter how reasoned or sincere it is.
to your points
1st. by increasing cost Maga companies will continue as usual while small companies will go out of business creating huge Monopolies
2nd transfer money from rich countries to poor counties, they would love you to believe this but it is not true, the poor countries will continue to be exploited and the rich will become richer as the middle class dies
Emissions Trading, and who will benefit from this, do I see a billionaire Al Gore in the future
then the battle is lost, welcome “1984”
to your 1st point. you obviously do not have profound knowledge of market dynamics.
to your 2nd point. just plain rubbish talk and dennial of a point you dont know how to discard or prove anyone wrong. claiming just whatever else to avoid a direct answer to that topic. instead of adressing whats on the hand you try to adress my believes. (and wtf has the middle class to do with this topic? who mentioned middle class. nobody, its just you trying to grab on something and bring new “emotions” into a debate by drawing a picture of the humble middle class men who has no future in this world anymore, since 60% is middle class you are trying to snipe for help and sympathie from other people to chime in and jump on your side. very poor try)
honestly mate, on believes and opinions nobody can “debate”, i bring you facts, to everyone, even with evidence. what do i get in return? opinions and believes. you claim your statements on absolutely nothing than your believes and opinions (YOURS).
so why do we even talk?
the fact that people run out of points and start trying to make points with “believe” and “opinions” is nothing else than absolute prof that the knowledge of the debater is very limited and does not posess enough power to change or frame new points.
how about this: keep your opinions, nobody cares for opinions.
there are two sorts of paper in this world. paper to write on and paper to shyte on.
stats, facts and evidence is what is being written on paper, and it is what shapes the direction of this world.
your opion, and thereof the opinion of others, who lack knowledge fact, evidence and stats, counts no more than the paper that is being daily flushed down the toilet (paper thats beein shitted on).
1 Like
wow! we have a live one folks. it’s late so let’s start with market dynamics
when you regulate higher cost on to an industry, it is the largest most financially strong companies that will either change the way they do business or just absorb the cost of the regulation. This is something smaller companies cannot do, so the small companies die and you are left with monopolies. Same thing applies to wages, double the minimum wage and Walmart and Amazon will just automate more jobs, something the small business cannot do, Walmart and Amazon will survive, most other retail dies. That is market dynamics.
Your turn
1 Like
You’re right @Dennis3450 - 
I’ve been watching the Canadian Grand Prix and had a few jars - there seem to have been a few responses and I’ll pop back in with my “snips” if necessary on the 'Morrow to insert my thoughts as and where I feel they are required !
atb mate F
1 Like
As usual Falstaff, the only thing that you have shown us is just how blinkered your view of the world is.
1 Like
Questioning global warming is not blasphemy, so you should not try to take the moral high ground based on the blind intolerance of your opponents. In fact, global warming is severely questioned as a scientifically provable phenomenon by many scientists across the globe and in the spirit of scientific enquiry long may this continue.
Quote by someone you may just have heard of :-
" …“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” …"
Falstaff, you have misrepresented Galileo’s meaning. He was arguing against unquestionable authority and for scientific reason. That is, he was arguing against the faith-based authority of the church, the bible, the Pope and earlier philosophers and for scientific reasoning. In this regard he is the father of the observational scientific method.
He certainly was not arguing that one scientist (let alone a lay person) is more likely to be right than 1,000 scientists concerning a question of science.
But you are arguing that the unquestionable authority of “global Catastrophists” is correct - just because it is restated by thousands of “Global Catastrophists” as a dogmatic certainty !
You are consistently and insistently refusing to engage in and insisting that those of us who do and have done some research and engaged in logical thought - should be quiet and “Cease and desist” from stating our “Heresies”
Many high profile and serious scientists whohave publicly stated their discontent with the Catastrophists have undergone a similar fate to his ;
“…Galileo’s championing of heliocentrism and Copernicanism was controversial during his lifetime, when most subscribed to geocentric models such as the Tychonic system.[11] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism because of the absence of an observed stellar parallax.[11] The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture”.[11][12][13] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632), which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[11] He was tried by the Inquisition, found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, and forced to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[14][15]…”