Gore want's to tax livestock flatuence
Seriously Al? Is that a genuine proposal, like, for real?? Where will the lunacy end??? :furious:
Does anyone legitimate seriously doubt it anymore?
- Thread starter Cliffbeer2
- Start date
Seriously Al? Is that a genuine proposal, like, for real?? Where will the lunacy end??? :furious:
What I want to know is how will the cows pay - and I do mean the bovine ones. After all it's them that are being flatulent not the farmers, or is there something in the research about Kangaroos not farting and using whatever is in their gut to stop cows polluting our World?
Yes, they propose a greenhouse gas tax, per head on livestock. The whole idea has been very, very, profitable for "can I have a happy ending with my massage" Gore. His net worth at the end of his vice presidency was not near the price recently paid for a home in Santa Barbara. He refuses to answer any legitimate questions during his global warming talks. His carbon footprint from $2,400.00 month electric bills on his house and jetting all over the world for talks is massive. But I don't believe that he ever practiced what he preached. All on smoke and mirrors.
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an ignorant unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." - Dave Frohmader -
"pick up a turd by the clean end" hahaha:laugh:
Taxing farmers by the head count of the herd for the amount of poop they throw out? Seriously!? By that logic, we should also tax the 'save the whale' people and World Wild Life Foundation etc, for assisting species to thrive. Clearly by doing so we are helping to increase the various populations and by default add to the amount of poop each species emits. Clearly a bad thing!
F***ing IDIOTS. SHUT THE HELL UP Al Gore!
We have discussed on various threads recently, the issue of leaving it all to our children.
All I can say, is that I am very glad that I am not just starting out in this world. Don't get me wrong, I do not wish to hasten my end, but am very glad I will not be around for another 50 yrs having to listen to all this sh1t.
SAVE THE PLANET. KILL A COW
F***ing IDIOTS. SHUT THE HELL UP Al Gore!
We have discussed on various threads recently, the issue of leaving it all to our children.
All I can say, is that I am very glad that I am not just starting out in this world. Don't get me wrong, I do not wish to hasten my end, but am very glad I will not be around for another 50 yrs having to listen to all this sh1t.
SAVE THE PLANET. KILL A COW
so true, Mark. I wouldn't do it over again either. Between heroin readily available in most any public school, and the rise of big government controlling most everything, its looking pretty bleak out there.
It's not the excrement they want to tax, it's the flatulence, geenhouse gas. Apparently they metered the output and arrived at an average. "What do you do for a living?" "Oh I measure the flatulence expelled by livestock." Bet that builds one's appetite over the workday. Must be an exciting college program.
Senators Have Beef With 'Cow Tax' - NYTimes.com The fact that they have even considered talking about this is stupid. And we wonder why our national debt is so high. Livestock, people, and rotting plants put off methane. Hook everything up to a container, new energy source. Makes as much sense as taxing it.
These things use carbon dioxide.
More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Is there a climate scientist in the house?
Oh wait, wrong forum.
Oh wait, wrong forum.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Hard to find a climate scientist, easy to find charlatans and opportunists, like
Gore and his ilk. Even the ones I would dignify with the word cannot predict with any accuracy what will happen next week let alone in a hundred years.
From my great depth of knowledge I predict we will have a climate and it will change on a daily basis.
Gore and his ilk. Even the ones I would dignify with the word cannot predict with any accuracy what will happen next week let alone in a hundred years.
From my great depth of knowledge I predict we will have a climate and it will change on a daily basis.
Hard to find a climate scientist, easy to find charlatans and opportunists, like
Gore and his ilk. Even the ones I would dignify with the word cannot predict with any accuracy what will happen next week let alone in a hundred years.
From my great depth of knowledge I predict we will have a climate and it will change on a daily basis.
Brilliant, absolutely fucking brilliant!
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
So we trust surgeons for surgery, and astronomers for astronomy, biologists for biology and so on, but climate scientists are charlatans. Hootannanie!
No, there are some men out there who are not intimidated or swayed by this massive fraud;
"The founder of the The Weather Channel in the US has described the concept of global warming as 'the greatest scam in history' and accused global media of colluding with 'environmental extremists' to alarm the public."
Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history' - Telegraph
"The founder of the The Weather Channel in the US has described the concept of global warming as 'the greatest scam in history' and accused global media of colluding with 'environmental extremists' to alarm the public."
Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history' - Telegraph
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
I do not trust surgeons for surgery, I want to know all about them their expertise or lack of it their track record if you like before I let them start cutting me. We recently had a certain Dr. Patel who is accused of causing the death of several of his patients because of his incompetence.
I don't generally deal with astronomers or biologists, so have no comment.
Doctors, Lawyers, accountants, etc are all human and therefore subject to human frailty as are so called climate scientists. Why can you not accept that?
Because science is their god.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
I accept it 100%. Everyone makes mistakes.
We've beaten this horse to death and you guys continue to do so from your "side," but let's examine that for a second. There are really four positions to take on this issue:
1. Crazy freaked out environmentalist who thinks the issue is closed and there is no room for debate or discussion. They're wrong. While it's stupid and foolish to deny there is a consensus among scientists on this point who actually know what they are doing, it's also stupid and foolish to fail to acknowledge the legitimate criticisms and warnings of the minorityof scientists who disagree.
This is what I call "freak zone 1."
2. A more rational approach is to realize while there is a consensus, it's not unanimous, and legitimate criticisms from the other side must be considered. Moreover, every attempt to address the problem must be viewed using a cost benefit analysis to see if ti makes sense to try it or not.
This is "rational zone 1."
3. A second rational approach is to read the science and conclude that while there is significant, even at times overwhelming, data supporting anthropogenic global warming, the numbers are not absolute and the conclusions drawn from them not airtight. Advocating caution, especially given the costs at stake if we are right OR if we are wrong, is sensible. Even a position advocating no action makes sense if it is based on a realiation that the Earth is warming, it is likely but not assured that we have something to do with it, but either (a) the warming is not significant enough to cause alarm or (b) there is nothing we can do about it.
Rational zone 2.
4. And then we have the freaks on the other side. These are the Limbaugh lovers who seriously think a cabal of world scientists primarily in first world countries have conspired to manufacture a complete and utter hoax -- that global warming exists and is caused by man -- in order to effect a wealth transfer to the third world, or to benefit their own "green companies" or somesuch. Everyone is in on it. Poiticians, the media and all of hte world's major science organizations.
This is Freak Zone 2.
I try to avoid the Freaks in Zones 1 and 2. Those in the rational zone I can discuss stuff with. Unfortunately, some of the folks here seem dead set on setting up shop in freak Zone 2......
We've beaten this horse to death and you guys continue to do so from your "side," but let's examine that for a second. There are really four positions to take on this issue:
1. Crazy freaked out environmentalist who thinks the issue is closed and there is no room for debate or discussion. They're wrong. While it's stupid and foolish to deny there is a consensus among scientists on this point who actually know what they are doing, it's also stupid and foolish to fail to acknowledge the legitimate criticisms and warnings of the minorityof scientists who disagree.
This is what I call "freak zone 1."
2. A more rational approach is to realize while there is a consensus, it's not unanimous, and legitimate criticisms from the other side must be considered. Moreover, every attempt to address the problem must be viewed using a cost benefit analysis to see if ti makes sense to try it or not.
This is "rational zone 1."
3. A second rational approach is to read the science and conclude that while there is significant, even at times overwhelming, data supporting anthropogenic global warming, the numbers are not absolute and the conclusions drawn from them not airtight. Advocating caution, especially given the costs at stake if we are right OR if we are wrong, is sensible. Even a position advocating no action makes sense if it is based on a realiation that the Earth is warming, it is likely but not assured that we have something to do with it, but either (a) the warming is not significant enough to cause alarm or (b) there is nothing we can do about it.
Rational zone 2.
4. And then we have the freaks on the other side. These are the Limbaugh lovers who seriously think a cabal of world scientists primarily in first world countries have conspired to manufacture a complete and utter hoax -- that global warming exists and is caused by man -- in order to effect a wealth transfer to the third world, or to benefit their own "green companies" or somesuch. Everyone is in on it. Poiticians, the media and all of hte world's major science organizations.
This is Freak Zone 2.
I try to avoid the Freaks in Zones 1 and 2. Those in the rational zone I can discuss stuff with. Unfortunately, some of the folks here seem dead set on setting up shop in freak Zone 2......
What zone does altering data to get the results you want fall into?
Similar threads
