95
96

I can't figure it out, either... (i.imgur.com)

submitted by chabanaisFortis est veritas

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]High_Wind_Gambit 46 ポイント47 ポイント

I'll try to explain it to you then:

There are a lot of coastal cities that could end up underwater if the ocean rises a few feet which could displace almost a billion people.

It is Islamophobia if you think of or try to treat all Muslims like those in that photo. A little worrying about Islamic extremism is not a problem, it's when you take it too far that it is a problem.

Downvote away.

[–]Dotz-N-BubblezPaleoconservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I think Chabanais was on to something when he pointed out the lack of certainty in what could happen, versus what will. This reminds of a thoroughly discredited National Research Council report that so many AGW proponents used as "smoking gun" evidence that entire cities would capsize if we didn't do something.

First of all, Antarctic ice sheets are expanding at rates we haven't seen since satellite imagery first captured them. Even The Guardian and Washington Post admit this. What's disputed is whether the so-called "polar vortex" is to blame and if this trend will persist into the future.

It should be noted, however, that the NRC's supposedly conclusive report relies heavily on estimates higher than even what the IPCC's faulty computer models predict - models that have been twice as high as what actually occurred from 2001 onward. While the authors of the report admit that basing their numbers on current sea levels, rather than the changes that are actually projected at the North and Southern poles, would be a mistake, they do it anyway - and raise them even further with unrealistic estimates of geothermal temperatures and glacier growth.

Many analysts have attributed the fact that sea levels are rising in some of our coastal cities because we aren't building as many dams. That has little to do with global warming and either 1) inadequate investment in public infrastructure, 2) misappropriation of funds for public infrastructure, or 3) a complete failure of public infrastructure, which is totally insulated from the price signals and financial incentives of an open, competitive market.

[–]chabanaisFortis est veritas[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Let's just go back to pre-Industrial Revolution existence and spend trillions because of something that might happen.

Hurr durr.

It's about wealth transfer not weather.

[–]terrortotChristian Moralist 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Cap And Trade is a potentially multi-TRILLION dollar market. Yes, that's "trillion" with a "T". There are tens of billions of dollars to be made in brokering these wealth-destroying financial instruments. That's why Goldman Sachs is for it. Not because they love the planet Earth, but because they want to make billions. And the environmental stooges on the left are playing right into their hands.

And the left calls us corporate stooges.

[–]chabanaisFortis est veritas[S] -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

Hurr durr send us money.

[–]terrortotChristian Moralist 2 ポイント3 ポイント

No:

"We have a proposition that can help you turn uneconomical-to-drill reservoirs into economical 'non-functioning drill sites'. Just sign on the dotted line and I can turn that scrub land into thousands of dollars a year in income."

Plenty of people will listen to that. The only problem is that it seeks to create value out of nothing, and is ultimately inflationary or distorting.

There's a huge amount of money to be made, whatever your political affiliation. You can never truly own too much land.

We want to encourage drilling, because it ultimately makes energy production domestic. And if the Arabs drill it and sell it to us, we're under their thumb.

tl;dr: Wall Street bankers want to sell us out for the vigourish and some Saudi oil money. And we're letting them.