Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
The Sandbox - NationalThe Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here.
A few years ago the electric companies started offering smart meters for your homes electric needs. They would give you a small discount and you would give them to power to monitor your usage and to turn off your power if they thought you were using too much. It was completely voluntary. I refused it.
Today people are being arrested for refusing to have the meter installed in their private homes. The utility companies are being backed up local law enforcement acting under orders from the EPA.
Go look at it hanging on your house. Look for the digital readout and "FCC" (Federal Communications Commission) in the small print on it. That has to be there by law on any radio transmitting devices
That means its a transmitter back to the electric company. It works across the cellular networks.
The way our government is heading, we will all be forced to have thermostats that are controlled by a government agency and tampering with them, in your own home, will be a federal offense and possibly even a HATE crime.........
At the University of Denver’s “Voice of Experience” speaker series on October 17th, 2011, Sally Jewell, who Pres. Obama recently nominated for Interior Dept. secretary, said that “none of us are paying for the consequences of our carbon use.”
“Government does play a role” in ensuring that we do pay, and she’d like to see “some mechanism is put in place” to make us recognize carbon consequences, Jewell said.
It is a completely true statement. If we can get the RWWs who refuse to acknowledge ANY human responsibility for ANY environmental damage (copper mine poison fields, uranium tailings, Love canal, etc., etc.), and get rid of the LWWs who think one piece of litter is armagedon, then maybe we can have an intelligent conversation on such topics.
In the current environment of hate politics I am not holding my breath; on here, it will never happen.
The problem is that her "beliefs" are built on phony science that has been proven to be wrong regarding man's impact on global warming...........
10 killer questions for climate extremists
Source: SPPI
by Christopher Monckton
1. CO2 concentration has risen by 10% in the past 23 years, but the RSS satellite global lower-troposphere temperature-anomaly record shows warming over that period that is statistically indistinguishable from zero. How come?
2. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue from “consensus” is a logical fallacy – the headcount fallacy. Some 95% of all published arguments for alarm about our influence on the climate say we must believe the “consensus”. Why was Aristotle wrong?
3. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue that the “consensus” is a “consensus” of experts is a logical fallacy – the fallacy of appeal to authority. What has changed since 2350 years ago to make argument from appeal to authority acceptable rather than fallacious?
4. There has been 0.6 Celsius global warming since 1950. There are 5-7 times more polar bears today than there were in 1950. In what meaningful sense, then, are polar bears a species at imminent threat of extinction caused by global warming?
5. A recent paper shows that a naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover has had four and a half times more warming effect than manmade increases in CO2 concentrations. Why are you so certain that the recently-published paper is wrong?
6. In the past 247 years – almost a quarter of a millennium – the trend in rainfall over England and Wales shows an increase of just 2 inches/year, or 5%. Why do you regard so insignificant an increase over so long a period as being beyond the natural variability of the climate?
7. Australia’s carbon tax, a typical measure intended to make global warming go away, will cost $150 billion over ten years. In that time, the tax is intended to abate 5% of Australia’s CO2 emissions, which represent 1.2% of global emissions. Do you agree, therefore, that at a cost of $150 billion the Australian scheme, if it succeeds, will abate just 0.06% of global CO2 emissions over ten years, at a cost of $150 billion?
8. The IPCC’s own climate-sensitivity equations show that abating 0.06% of global carbon emissions would reduce CO2 concentration from a predicted business-as-usual 410 microatmospheres to 409.988 microatmospheres, and that this would reduce global mean surface temperature by just 0.00006 Celsius degrees – if the carbon tax succeeded every bit as fully as its framers had intended. Do you consider that spending $150 billion to cut surface temperature by 0.00006 Celsius degrees is a sensible, proportionate, cost-effective use of other people’s money?
9. If Australia’s carbon tax were adopted worldwide, and if it worked every bit as well as its inventors had intended, it would cost $317 trillion to abate the one-sixth of a Celsius degree of warming that is predicted for the current decade. That is $45,000 per head of the global population over the period, or 59% of global GDP? Compared with the 1.23%-of-GDP cost of paying to abate the damage from 1/6 C of warming the day after tomorrow, is it worth spending 59% of GDP today?
10. In 2005 the UN said there would be 50 million climate refugees because of rising sea levels and other effects of global warming by 2010. Where are they?
Another tax on man's behavior and freedom............when does the growth of government stop ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
And your problem with this is what?
It is a completely true statement. If we can get the RWWs who refuse to acknowledge ANY human responsibility for ANY environmental damage (copper mine poison fields, uranium tailings, Love canal, etc., etc.), and get rid of the LWWs who think one piece of litter is armagedon, then maybe we can have an intelligent conversation on such topics.
In the current environment of hate politics I am not holding my breath; on here, it will never happen.
It is a completely true statement. If we can get the RWWs who refuse to acknowledge ANY human responsibility for ANY environmental damage (copper mine poison fields, uranium tailings, Love canal, etc., etc.), and get rid of the LWWs who think one piece of litter is armagedon, then maybe we can have an intelligent conversation on such topics.
In the current environment of hate politics I am not holding my breath; on here, it will never happen.
We'll have none of your moderate sensible talk here, sir! Compromise and discussion with the other side is for weak womanly men!
Do you have a smart meter in your home?
