Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
waldo

AGW/CC Deniers & "Fake-Skeptics" - their mindset

Recommended Posts

I have lost interest in your stats.

Translation: I am only interested in finding some convenient "villain" pay to the cost of my obsession. I am not interested in hearing arguments that undermine my need to believe the designated villains deserve to have their money confiscated to sate my ego. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Work it out with BC. He's the one who seems worried about oil company profits not being what they should be.

BC was just commenting on WestCoastRunners statement such that:

WestCoastRunner, on 18 Jul 2014 - 9:07 PM, said:

...Isn't it time for these big oil companies to pay back to society with their billions in profits and work towards reducing fossil burning fuels.

Again....considering these oil companies are taxed at 40% or higher and General Electric is at 4.2%, I would say they are paying back to society. As I said, they pay more in taxes than any other company makes in profit other than Apple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Translation: I am only interested in finding some convenient "villain" pay to the cost of my obsession. I am not interested in hearing arguments that undermine my need to believe the designated villains deserve to have their money confiscated to sate my ego.

That translation fell off the rails pretty much. Can you do it in English?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That translation fell off the rails pretty much. Can you do it in English?

You have to look at her original post where she suggested that oil companies should pay for the cost of her obsession with non-fossil fuel energy sources. I am simply pointing out that people that expect others to pay for the costs of their obsessions are self absorbed hypocrites. Her unwillingness to listen to arguments on how oil companies already pay more than their fair share of taxes simply proves the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BC was just commenting on WestCoastRunners statement such that:

WestCoastRunner, on 18 Jul 2014 - 9:07 PM, said:

...Isn't it time for these big oil companies to pay back to society with their billions in profits and work towards reducing fossil burning fuels.

Again....considering these oil companies are taxed at 40% or higher and General Electric is at 4.2%, I would say they are paying back to society. As I said, they pay more in taxes than any other company makes in profit other than Apple.

And do you think with that kind of profit they will ever begin seriously to reduce burning fossil fuels? Keep in mind, there does have to be a LAST barrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to look at her original post where she suggested that oil companies should pay for the cost of her obsession with non-fossil fuel energy sources. I am simply pointing out that people that expect others to pay for the costs of their obsessions are self absorbed hypocrites. Her unwillingness to listen to arguments on how oil companies already pay more than their fair share of taxes simply proves the point.

So you are saying that people concerned about our environment are "self absorbed hypocrites"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying that people concerned about our environment are "self absorbed hypocrites"?

No, just some of them.

Edited by -1=e^ipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And do you think with that kind of profit they will ever begin seriously to reduce burning fossil fuels? Keep in mind, there does have to be a LAST barrel.

They don't burn them...they just sell them. We're the one's burning them and as long as we do that...then they will continue to sell. I know you would.

As for the LAST barrel....let's have that chat when they come close to not finding new oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying that people concerned about our environment are "self absorbed hypocrites"?

People concerned about the environment that are willing to use their own money to pay for their beliefs are not hypocrites. The label only applies to people that seek out others who they decide should be forced to pay for their beliefs because they are "evil" in some way. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't burn them...they just sell them. We're the one's burning them and as long as we do that...then they will continue to sell. I know you would.

As for the LAST barrel....let's have that chat when they come close to not finding new oil.

I don't have a problem with them making money. They provide lots of jobs. But my idea is they should use some of that boatloads of money to switch to something not quite so detrimental so they don't have to go out of busines when they get to tht last barrel, and we can no longer breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People concerned about the environment that are willing to use their own money to pay for their beliefs are not hypocrites. The label only applies to people that seek out others who they decide should be forced to pay for their beliefs because they are "evil" in some way.

A little grammar lesson. The environment is not "their" own, it's "our" own. As in that air you breath is the same as I breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little grammar lesson. The environment is not "their" own, it's "our" own. As in that air you breath is the same as I breath.

Except she was not talking about getting fossil fuel companies to reduce CO2 emissions. She was suggesting that punitive taxes be imposed on them because they are "evil" and she things they make too much money. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't take it personally. But I tell you this, if you get away from the NA continent for perhaps Asia, Africa, or even closer to home Haiti, the air quality from the burning of fossil fuels sure seems "evil".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't take it personally. But I tell you this, if you get away from the NA continent for perhaps Asia, Africa, or even closer to home Haiti, the air quality from the burning of fossil fuels sure seems "evil".

The biggest harm to air quality in the third world comes from bio-fuels like wood and dung.

Fossil fuels are a wealth enabler and the benefits far outstrip any harm.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest harm to air quality in the third world comes from bio-fuels like wood and dung.

Ever been in downtown PAP Haiti, or Manilla, or Bombay (Mumbay)? Black soot rolling out the exhaust pipes of a million ancient, untuned, diesel Toyota's etc. No doubt a few wood/dung fires up in the hills. But they pale by comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt a few wood/dung fires up in the hills. But they pale by comparison.

I don't think so:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2568866/

One-third of the world's population burn organic material such as wood, dung or charcoal (biomass fuel) for cooking, heating and lighting. This form of energy usage is associated with high levels of indoor air pollution and an increase in the incidence of respiratory infections, including pneumonia, tuberculosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, low birthweight, cataracts, cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality both in adults and children.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you celebrating pollution then?

No - Just saying you can't call something evil simply because some countries have not figured out how to use emission controls on vehicles. It is certainly not the fault of fossil fuel suppliers. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No - Just saying you can't call something evil simply because some countries have not figured out how to use emission controls on vehicles. It is certainly not the fault of fossil fuel suppliers.

 

It has nothing to do with figuring anything out, the technology is already long since there. It has to do with being able to afford it. Now when you consider that a lot of those fossil fuel suppliers get those fossil fuels from the countries I just enumerated that end of day still can't afford it, there maybe something approaching evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now when you consider that a lot of those fossil fuel suppliers get those fossil fuels from the countries I just enumerated that end of day still can't afford it, there maybe something approaching evil.

So you think people should just go back to getting sick from burning wood and dung? That is the alternative. IMO, the "evil" comes from the self righteous who would rather see people live in poverty than create some pollution. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think people should just go back to getting sick from burning wood and dung? That is the alternative. IMO, the "evil" comes from the self righteous who would rather see people live in poverty than create some pollution.

Apparently from what you say they are already doing that, so how would they "go back" to it. Oil companies leave people to live in poverty in the process of crating pollution. Maybe time to change that. We have the technology if we want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently from what you say they are already doing that, so how would they "go back" to it.

Different countries are in different stages of development. Large scale use of fossil fuels is the first step towards a modern lifestyle. As they get wealthier they will be able to pay for emission controls technology. If oil companies extract oil from a country the government is entitled to charge royalties once the oil company pays those royalties their obligation ends. It certainly not the fault of oil companies if the government chooses to use the money on things other than emissions controls. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different countries are in different stages of development. Large scale use of fossil fuels is the first step towards a modern lifestyle. As they get wealthier they will be able to pay for emission controls technology. If oil companies extract oil from a country the government is entitled to charge royalties once the oil company pays those royalties their obligation ends. It certainly not the fault of oil companies if the government chooses to use the money on things other than emissions controls.

Well it certainly doesn't need to be the end of the obligation, although that it does provide an excuse, flimsy as it is. Many of the countries large oil companys go into don't have anywhere near the ability to generate an oil business. So they could fit a few other items into their royalty contracts that would help out those beyond the "royal" family of said country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...