Perhaps you could post "Hansen's Hypothesis" in his own words, so we can judge for ourselves what he is saying. Why should we trust what YOU say it is, especially considering how much complete bullshit you shoveled our way in your last twenty posts. As it is, I believe you are leaving out some key things about what he says Besides, it's not Hansen's hypothesis. It's basic climate science. Which judging by the fools,whores and frauds you parade out as climate experts, I can understand why you are confused about it. Anyone who, like you, says the rise in temps and CO2 levels at the start of the Ind Rev is just coincidence, frankly has zero credibility. In fact is worthy of ridicule and being made fun of.
yeah, I get it, the debate is not about the science, it's what to do about it. Futurecurrents already admits that the government needs to control all energy. It's a scary thought to think of the government controlling just how much gasoline your local filling station can buy each day. Or calling the utility company up in the winter and saying, "Hey man, it's cold in here." and being told, "We're still waiting for our government allowance." All in the name of "Climate Change" which they use to call "Global Warming."
What the fuck are you talking about "govt controlling all the energy"? and "govt allowance"?. Until now I have given you the benefit of the doubt. No more. You are now under the column "probable moron". How is a slowly ramping carbon tax "the govt controlling all the energy"?
once you start taxing it, you control it. If you want the government to decide how much co2 you can emit, you need better science. When the EPA started cleaning up the air and the water, there was no debate about it. Everybody knew it was dirty and what was causing it. Now everybody knows we are emitting a lot of co2, but there is disagreement about what harm that actually does. Proving that the earth is warming is one thing, proving what harm that does is another. Any thinking person knows if we keep going the way we are going it is going to mess us up eventually. But we are not going to keep going the way we are going. Better cleaner energy will be developed. If you tax one thing to make another thing lose less money you are on a dead end road. And that is why we call you watermelons. Green on the outside but red on the inside. You claim you care about the environment, but what you really want to get your hands on is the economy. Now, go ahead and reply in your usual manner by calling anyone who disagrees with you name. It just makes your side look even more foolish.
I did not read past the second sentence. No point. When you are so obviously wrong so soon there's no point. Actually I even gave you the first one which was also wrong.
I smoke cigarettes. My ability to afford them is no longer controlled by the tobacco farmers or the cigarette makers. It is entirely controlled by the government who taxes them. Once you tax it you control it. Now many of us long time smokers are trying to switch to e cigarettes, which is nothing more than inhaling vapor. Now the goddamned democrats want to regulate and tax vapor. Why? If I could invent an automobile that emitted no co2, the watermelons would still want to regulate it and tax it. Why? Because they already have their hands in the energy cookie jar through fuel taxes and they are not going to give up that control without a fight.
Because that vapor is costing and will cost us. The true cost is currently not in the equation. Once it is the free market will find the solution.
How is it costing "us"? You sound like Nancy Pelosi. We need to tax it now and then find out how it is costing us.