If Obama has his way, you won’t even need the solar oven because all that hot gay farmer sex will cook the atmosphere, and the fat cats at Hebrew National will laugh and laugh as they fondle their Jewish meat sticks. Then one day, FX will put a hot dog in the microwave, realize he’s “nuking” it, and he’ll cry.
Guess I just don’t recognize satire. It WAS satire, right? Including the use of B. Hussein Obama and the Little Rascals video of Buckwheat?
Hebrew National–Jewish Meat Sticks. Keep going.
Still think he was jesting?
You can deny all you want, but among smart people there is no doubt global warming is causing millions to die. Maybe billions. And all kinds of other things as well. Read it and weep.
See? Stop burning fossil fuels now. You stinking planet killers.
**FX ** (not a Master Mind) missed the memo again, even James Lovelock (who was the one interviewed for that silly piece) has dropped and repudiated his previous alarmism.
You found me out, samclem, but I just can’t keep quiet about the zionist conspiracy to use kosher franks to destroy the planet.
What is with you, man? Is it because I’m on record saying Ben Affleck would make a good batman? That’s it, isn’t it.
:rolleyes: It’s not a Zionist conspiracy, it’s a homosexual conspiracy! What, did you really think “franks” mean sausages?!
Careful now, you say stuff like that and samclem might think you’re a homophobe. Besides “franks” is obviously named after noted character actor Frank Nelson.
Anyway, I completely understand that my posts in this thread haven’t been the funniest thing I’ve ever written, but I just can’t take FX seriously. His pit threads are worthless and absurd, so I tried to post comments that were equally worthless and absurd. If people don’t think it’s funny, fine, they can take me to task for being a bad comedian, but I take offense to samclem’s characterization of me. I voted for Obama twice, voted against Georgia’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and don’t have an anti-Semitic bone in my body. I have never posted anything like what samclem is insinuating I have.
There is one thing I would like to post regarding climate change, though. Whenever a proposal to reduce CO2 emissions comes up, some members of the right will start arguing against it, but still argue that we need to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. It seems to me that the two would dovetail. The best way to reduce CO2 emissions is to increase efficiency and burn less fossil fuels. If the US burns less oil, that’s less oil we have to buy. It’s a win win, but nobody seems to address that aspect of it.
I know that’s a touch overly simplistic, but I still think it’s a valid point.
They should have called 'em ‘willies’. Or ‘rod johnsons’.
Of course it’s a valid point. It’s an excellent point. Note that nobody even acknowledged the point? (until now of course)
There’s also nuclear, which is safer than coal considering how unhealthy coal particulates are. I am not sure if the dangers from CO2 from burning clean (i.e. greenhouse gases-only) fossil fuels are greater or worse than the dangers of nuclear.
Kinda like the point on top of your head, eh?
We don’t mention it because we don’t want to call attention to your deformity. We’re trying to be nice to the congenitally stupid. Sue us.
It would depend on how much that extra efficiency costs. If it were expensive enough, the increase in efficiency could easily result in more CO2 emissions – the market might decide that it’s cheaper to manufacture widgets inefficiently in China or Mexico and then ship them to the West, each step resulting in more CO2 emissions than if the same widget were produced in the West.
The thing is, people already have an incentive to be somewhat efficient so it’s reasonable to expect that a marginal increase in efficiency will come with costs.
I don’t think it’s even potentially valid unless you look carefully at benefits, costs, and consequences.
Merde. Another Monsieur Pointu.
Succinct and definitive … lol
People have a tendency to reduce costs. The idea is to supplement market-priced costs. A company that throws trash on its own property may need to factor in that degradation, e.g. clean-up cost. A company which throws trash into the atmosphere will not factor in that cost without coercive governmental action.
Oh my. We can tell that this guy is a right-wing hypocrite because his attitude is that the U.S.A. must be at least as offensive as the most offensive producer, or lose its competitive advantage.
But the fact is that the evil communists in China whose country still produces less than one-third the CO2 per capita as U.S.A. are working harder on emissions control than the God-loving capitalists of U.S.:
China leads the world in hydroelectric power, solar panel development and production, and wind turbines.
I’m sure China can and should do much more. Doubtless part of the problem are whiners saying “The U.S., led by stupid dingbats like brazil84, won’t do shit – why should we bother?”
No, the idea was to “increase efficiency” which is not necessarily the same thing as supplementing market-priced costs.
Agreed, but that’s not necessarily the same thing as “increasing efficiency.”
Lol, nice ad homenim. From your attempt to change the subject, I take it you don’t dispute my basic point?
As usual the full costs of using the atmosphere as a sewer are never added by guys like brasil. Once again, just looking at ways to justify doing next to nothing.
sadly, it’s the way of the world.
GIGO, don’t you ever get tired of entertaining these clowns? And I don’t mean this with even a little bit of derision. You always make such thoughtful, well-reasoned contributions to these threads, only to be met with “Derp, derp, it was cold yesterday. Democrats!!!” When I grow up, I want to be as smart and patient as you.