What's new
By:

Weather Network ****s on Breitbart climate article

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date Start date
Beantown said:
Also besides poisoning our resources and our children....maybe getting off fossil fuels could help stop the largest mass extinction in our worlds history?

https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/world/sutter-vanishing-help/

Think about it.....

Clean air
Clean water
Healthier children
A more beautiful world
Sustain animal and plant life
Local jobs
Energy independence
I won't even mention climate change....


The list goes on and on. When you compare the benefits of renewable energy to the destruction of fossil fuels it shouldn't even be a debate. It's ridiculous that people are still trying to prevent a better and healthier world for our children and future generations.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep going back to this? Is anyone here arguing against this?

For me they are the biggest reasons I'd like to see some changes.
 
Beantown said:
Because this shouldn't even be a debate.
Click to expand...
Is it a debate?

I have not seen anyone post anything saying that they prefer dirtier air, water, etc etc.
 
Beantown said:
Because this shouldn't even be a debate.
Click to expand...

lol, it's not. That's my point.

No one that I have seen has opposed any of the bolded items. Well except maybe Boris.

The impact of climate change and man's affect on said change is debated but that doesn't mean people are opposed to any of the items on your list.

So in short, what debate?
 
Stoked said:
lol, it's not. That's my point.

No one that I have seen has opposed any of the bolded items. Well except maybe Boris.

The impact of climate change and man's affect on said change is debated but that doesn't mean people are opposed to any of the items on your list.

So in short, what debate?
Click to expand...

So why are we debating that we should still be using fossil fuels?
 
Beantown said:
The data is factually wrong. State's don't prove the tax credits to big oil. The federal government does.

But it is true that states do provide incentives for clean energy to improve local air and water quality.


Big oil is subisidized at an alarming rate. That also doesn't include costs such as site clean-up, impacts to fresh water and air, and on healthcare costs for citizens.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/fossil-fuels-with-550-billion-in-subsidy-hurt-renewables
Click to expand...

Those are worldwide subsidies not US federal subsidies.
 
DutchJazzer said:
we are debating the effects of CO2 on climate change.
Click to expand...

Graph
600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png
 
Beantown said:
The data is factually wrong. State's don't prove the tax credits to big oil. The federal government does.

But it is true that states do provide incentives for clean energy to improve local air and water quality.


Big oil is subisidized at an alarming rate. That also doesn't include costs such as site clean-up, impacts to fresh water and air, and on healthcare costs for citizens.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/fossil-fuels-with-550-billion-in-subsidy-hurt-renewables
Click to expand...

This. The data and its representation is being spun. Every State incentivizes business to set up shop. The State of Utah incentivizes business to come to Utah. If clean energy was a targeted industry for them, they would offer the same. In fact, Energy is a targeted industry for the State, and they incentivize it heavily.
 
DutchJazzer said:
i can pull graphs out my *** too.
Click to expand...

this graph does not take into effetc changing orbit of earth. for example.

all these models lack info.

the climate is a complex thing, and we think science is settled based on models we made of this complex system.

yet most man made climate change models so far have failed, but we dont seem to call out the people out on it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top