You need to listen to Fox News to actually get it!

Kerp the comedy coming.

 

Like the links you provided that contradicted you ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

I think at this point I'll let you continue to disprove yourself, it's a lot less typing and twice the humor

And from your LINK

 

I don't care to be honest... I like plastic, rubber, vinyl, premium fuel, medicine, Television, computers, smartphones, charcoal BBQ, shoes, paper plates, air conditioning, igloo coolers, 11 MPG GMC truck, composite gun stocks/grips, wiper blades, motor oils, ink pens, paints, baggies, shoe polish just to name a few of my dirty addictions

 

Alarmists don’t like progress, raising the standard of living, and people in general.

 

Any actual argument for crying out loud. You find facts funny?

 

Of course you have been fear mongered out of your mind.... Cutting down on coal emissions, trying alternate energy and having the electric car choice is not going to affect any of that.

 

Bologna. link to that garbage?.... I have seen two to 3%, about the same as inflation and pathetic anyway.

 

That is how scientists are you know they are not hysterical politicians or pundits. However they are melting so I'm not wrong. Google melting glaciers in the United States for crying out loud or anywhere else. Icaramba. On the other hand around Buffalo we like global warming. But it's getting worse fast.

 

WTF? I'm not scared LOLOLOL, you my friend are exhibiting those emotions. I clearly stated "I DONT CARE" ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

Uhhhhh, whatever? It was your link, I live here, I get that sort of news in my local paper

 

Yes, global warming is beneficial and there is nothing politically possible to significantly reduce global CO2 emissions. All the that alarmist policies will do is cause economic damage with no reduction in the rate of global warming.

Morano, Marc. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change (The Politically Incorrect Guides) (p. 290). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Morano, Marc. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change (The Politically Incorrect Guides) (pp. 295-296). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.

 

You aren't doing your homework. Try getting out of the CNN/MSNBC cesspool sometime.

 

OK - it was ~ 5%.

https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/kudlow-wage-gains-booster/2020/01/23/id/951026/

 

Regarding Marc Morano, who has zero scientific experience or expertise:

 

You're watching/reading (and believing) too much right-wing nut sites without first fact-checking.

What point are you trying to make here? That the Bush administration screwed up and the Obama administration had to clean up the aftermath of it?

But I thought you didn't believe in wage hikes. Hiring American citizens would mean having to pay higher wages, plus benefits, etc. Now you know better than to believe that businesses want to pay their workers more than they can get away with. Capitalism 101.

 

Your numbers are off.

From Salary.com - The average Chief Executive Officer salary in the United States is $809,071 as of January 20, 2020, but the range typically falls between $623,844 and $1,005,896.

And regarding the annual median salary of a worker, you're making it sound like everyone earns a good wage. You do know using the average or median for workers is meaningless, right? That's because it ignores the millions that earn poverty-level wages. Did you forget that the average earnings of 44% of American is $18,000? Did you forget that for 51% of Americans it is $30,000?

 

And if you can't refute an argument attack the source which you have not read but rely on others to do your thinking for you. Predictable and indicative of the lack of argument from global warming alarmists.

 

Read and learn.

https://www.averagesalarysurvey.com/ceo

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/average-salary-information-for-us-workers-2060808

 

You fell into the trap. You do acknowledge that the real number is ~ 700,000. You actually can do homework but only selectively.

The point here is that Obamanomics produced the weakest recovery from a recession since the GD. It was so weak that many never thought the recession had ended. Thanks Obama.

Why would you think that ?? CNN/MSNBC propaganda ?? BTW, it is supply and demand that sets wages. The open border policies of the left has caused the loss of 1 million jobs to blacks and depressed the wages of all US citizen low income workers. Thus the Democratic party does great harm to the low income minorities that it claims to be the guardian protectorate of.

 

BTW the Morano book has ~ 90 pages of footnotes most with links. But instead all you are capable of is cutting and pasting some “hit job” rantings of global warming Nazis. Sad.

 

I was there before they built the Holiday inn and the jetport... We picked up an all-girl band at the cowboy bar and built a snow girl in the square with them. And all glaciers are melting more or less....

 

All glaciers melt in the summer and at their base due to friction. That’s how ice skates work. Some glaciers are advancing and some are receding. That has to do with the snowfall at their origins and has nothing to do with the current global warming of 0.9 degrees Centigrade since ~1880.

 

You do know you're accusing me of doing what you always do, right?

So you think I should accept the claims of a political science major who works on behalf of the fossil fuel industry over that of thousands of climate scientists who have put in years of field work, number crunching, and scientific analysis? And I should accept Marc's claims even though some REAL scientists have tried but failed to debunk AGW? The data is there and it's clear what's going on. And did you not read what I posted about Marc declining Bill Nye's $20,000 challenge/bet? Marc knows better. He knows he's just a propaganda mouthpiece for fossil fuel/corporate interests (but you don't). And that's his sole role. It's not because he's any kind of science/climate expert, nor does he have to be to play that role.

As far as Marc's claims, he spews the typical talking points of climate skeptics which have long been debunked. There's nothing new coming from him. Yet his followers keep spreading his fiction. You should know better than to listen to someone who's called "Limbaugh's man in Washington", and who regularly appears on Fox. But I would expect that from someone who believes glaciers don't melt and rapid global warming is a good thing.

But you're right. Let's ignore Marc's lack of credentials & expertise and instead address his words you posted:

(1) Morano is using figures & quoting from Lomborg...ANOTHER political scientist!!

This Lomborg character sounds a might shady. So, where did Lomborg get his dubious figures that Marc borrowed from? Now I know where you get your talking points.

(2) No one knows what the exact financial costs really will be or how successful (temperature-wise) we will or can be. There are many unpredictable social, political & environmental factors that would come into play. Marc/Lomborg are not addressing the current or historical science because it's much easier to focus on the "what if's". This makes their argument appear more believable, so any climate skeptic would naturally accept it on faith alone.

(3) The actual costs don't matter if it is to curtail the advancement of AGW. However, the costs of not doing anything will be (have already been) much greater, as we've already observed with the weather extremes, record heat, record freezing, flooding, rising sea levels/storm surges, droughts, mega wild fires, loss of crops, coral bleaching, mega-hurricanes, risk of greater volcanic activity, declining water table + ground settlement, climate refugees/migrations, increase in infectious diseases & malnutrition, rising poverty, scarcity & conflicts over water/food, rising welfare/emergency relief costs, declining food/water/air quality, disruption of energy grids, disruption of supply lines, loss of revenue to affected businesses (eg, farms, vacation/travel, etc.), job losses, economic collapse, and so on.

These cost nations $billions annually.

(4) The costs to the fossil fuel industry & various mega corporations will be disastrous (which is a good thing)...but the benefits to humankind, the environment & wildlife, the advancement of green technologies, and global security will be great.

--------------------------------------------------------------------​

What a LOAD of drivel! (And again, I see where you're getting your climate talking points from.) The "black & brown" people, people of the developing world, and indigenous groups have been subject to the abuses of the white/Western imperialist agenda for centuries. This agenda is very much still alive & well...only it used to be mostly for gold & cheap/slave labor. Now it's mostly for oil & cheap/slave labor. If you want to really help people of developing nations, then first tell your public officials, the defense industry & corporations to stay the hell OUT of their country & stop meddling in their politics!

Secondly...the transition to green energy & technologies would benefit people of all walks of life worldwide, improve air/water/food, ensure the well-being of plant & animal wildlife, allow for more natural space, provide a stable foundation for the resolution of social & political conflicts, remove the fossil fuel industry/lobbyist albatross, reduce energy costs, create millions of meaningful/important jobs & spur individual creativity, and accelerate the advancement of more beneficial (less invasive/destructive) technologies. It's a no-brainer.

 

(A) Your first link shows average pay based on a survey of 195 voluntary CEO entries. (Hence the site's name, "AverageSalarySurvey.com") So some issues need to be pointed out here:

* This is neither a good cross-section of the CEO's throughout the U.S., nor is it a representation of the top CEO's (eg, S&P 500) who are increasingly monopolizing the market. Some or many of the entries could be CEO's of very small (even startup) companies with only a few employees for all we know...and naturally they would make far less than CEO's of larger (often older, well-established) companies.

* Another bit of information we're not given is whether the CEO chose to keep a lower wage in order to invest more of the revenue back into the company. If so, was this based simply on a decision to reinvest revenue into the company for growth, or because it was necessary due to limited finances?

* How long have they held the position of CEO in the company? This can impact salary.

* How old is the company? A younger company will normally bring in less revenue than an older, well-established one.

Some facts to keep in mind:

Median CEO pay rose to $12M in 2018

The No. 1 reason you’re still broke even if you received a pay raise last year

Home prices are rising faster than wages in 80% of U.S. markets

CEOs make $15.6 million on average—--here’s how much their pay has increased compared to yours over the year

(B) Regarding your second link:

Trump vs Obama economy:

 

All you are capable of doing is attacking the source. That’s telling - you have no argument.

Why do you want to deprive the citizens of third world countries the opportunity to exponentially increase their standard of living ??? The only true hockey stick is the one showing the human standard of living taking off as fossil fueled electrical generation capacity was made available.