U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-14-2013, 10:18 AM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 7,710,431 times
Reputation: 2037

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by steven_h View Post
Yet In 2011 the three oil giants paid more income tax than any other American corporation. ExxonMobil paid $27.3 billion in income tax, Chevron paid $17 billion, and ConocoPhillips paid $10.6 billion.

That $38B over ten years returns more than $1T in income tax. Totally different results than the $28B lost on green energy subsidies (gambling) over the last 4 years.

Drill baby drill!
High taxes, high profits. Tech companies pay the next highest taxes.... again high profits.

O&G wants those subsidies likes the deserts wants the rain.

Personally, I just have to shake my head when people complain about green energy subsidies.

Rate this post positively

 
Old 04-14-2013, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
12,750 posts, read 6,606,428 times
Reputation: 4008
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
Exactly right, the Mayans ignored global warming opting to do nothing about it which in the end caused the collapse of their civilization.

The Mayan's did nothing and if we don't we will follow them into oblivion.
Well, I think you are exaggerating a bit when you compare the world of today with that of the Mayans.

Secondly, you are pretending that global warming is bad. But is it actually bad?

Think of it like this. During the peak of the last ice age, the sea levels were about 400 feet lower than today. Here is a map of what the world would look like if the sea levels were that low again.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/topo/pi...eldrop110m.jpg

There would be considerably more land if we were to cool the Earth. Especially in southeast Asia. The question is, would it be beneficial if the Earth cooled?

The problem with the Earth cooling is that, although there would be more land. A very large percentage of it would then be covered in ice. There would only be a narrow band of relatively warm climates suitable for farming, mostly between the tropic of Capricorn and tropic of Cancer. Not far from the tropics, it would be too cold to live.


Well, what would happen if sea levels rose? It is possible that if all the ice melted, sea levels would rise about 170 feet.

http://www.uwec.edu/jolhm/EH4/Extinc...ea%20Level.jpg

"What if all the ice melts?" Myths and realities

You can see that, if sea levels rose, Florida would disappear. As well as much of the Caribbean. The Amazon river would be quite different. And much of the lowlands in Europe would also disappear.

But, Greenland would again be green. And you would be able to farm in much higher latitudes. As well as there most likely being significantly more rain(more water surface + higher temperatures = more evaporation). Which also means, many of the worlds deserts would either disappear entirely, or shrink considerably.


Moreover, more CO2 means plants should grow more quickly. Meaning, we can grow more food on the same amount of land.


The truth is, whether or not the world would be better off, largely depends on your point of view. People living in coastal areas won't like sea level rise. Because it would mean their property would be underwater. Of course, basically everyone else on Earth would benefit from sea-level rise.

But regardless, sea-levels are currently rising about 3 mm a year. As I mentioned before, the sea-level rise in the pictures above is about 170 feet. At current rates, sea level will rise about 1 inch every 8 years. Which is about one foot of sea level rise every 100 years. So a total rise of 170 feet would take about 17,000 years.


The question of course is, if humans didn't even exist. Would climate not change at all over the next 17,000 years? The truth is, it would be incredibly surprising if the Earth wasn't in another ice age within the next 17,000 years. The Earth has been relatively warm for the past 10,000 years. For us to last another 17,000 years before the next ice age, would be pretty amazing. Most warm periods over the last million years, have only lasted about 10,000 years. Thus, we should actually be expecting an ice age long before any serious consequences of global warming ever occur.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ature_plot.svg


My point is, we are obsessing about having a very mild effect on global temperatures. Mostly because we are obsessed with trying to keep the Earth exactly as it is today. Mostly for economic and political reasons. But the problem is that the Earth doesn't stay the same, it constantly changes, with or without us. And in the future, we will enter another ice age, it is guaranteed. And in the future the Earth will get a lot warmer than it is today. That is also guaranteed. What should be done about it?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-15-2013, 08:00 AM
 
14,295 posts, read 9,232,018 times
Reputation: 4251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
So what you are saying is that if people are ignorant like you about the topic and simply post improperly sourced gossip articles about the topic, then they are "Joe Public", but if someone is informed about the topic, cites actual research and specifics concerning it, it means... they are paid for doing such?

You just made the case that ignorant means you are legit. Good job!
An ignorant person is a good government drone, and a good useful idiot
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-15-2013, 08:17 AM
 
14,295 posts, read 9,232,018 times
Reputation: 4251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I'm not a big fan of this discussion of "new jobs". There is no arguing that creating a market for alternative energy would create new jobs in an absolute sense. But it would also kill many jobs that already exist. Thus, there is no net increase in the number of jobs, just a shift in the types of jobs available.

The question isn't really about whether we can create a sort of false market for alternative energy by heavily subsidizing it. We could create a false market for practically anything if we heavily subsidized it.

The question is really about whether or not alternative energy technology would benefit us overall.
Every little bit of new energy helps, up to a point. When it comes to generating electricity we need a stable form of electrical power generation that is cost effective, dependable and reliable. Wind and solar are neither cost effective nor reliable, so the more of it we have, the more costly and unreliable our electrical grid will become.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
The reality is that, if you subsidized alternative energy, the subsidies have to be raised through taxes, which will inevitably cause the prices of everything else to go up. For instance, if we put in cap and trade, the cost of energy would skyrocket, and the cost to manufacture basically anything would also go up sharply. Thus, our manufacturers who are already having a hard time competing on the world market, would have an even more difficult time competing. Thus there is no reason to believe that there would be a net increase in jobs if cap and trade were to go into effect.
Subsidizing wind and solar is a double edge sword, we pay more taxes to subsidize them, and then our costs for using electricity go up as well. It's a lose, lose for the people, because we are the consumers and taxpayers. The only ones who make out are the crony corporations who get those Obama bucks.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-17-2013, 03:19 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 7,710,431 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
Every little bit of new energy helps, up to a point. When it comes to generating electricity we need a stable form of electrical power generation that is cost effective, dependable and reliable. Wind and solar are neither cost effective nor reliable, so the more of it we have, the more costly and unreliable our electrical grid will become.



Subsidizing wind and solar is a double edge sword, we pay more taxes to subsidize them, and then our costs for using electricity go up as well. It's a lose, lose for the people, because we are the consumers and taxpayers. The only ones who make out are the crony corporations who get those Obama bucks.
And what is fossil fuels excuse for needing subsidies?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-17-2013, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Earth Wanderer, longing for the stars.
12,408 posts, read 18,174,758 times
Reputation: 8884
Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal - there are multiple alternate sources that are appropriate for almost any area.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-17-2013, 09:13 PM
 
Location: Long Island
30,273 posts, read 17,377,365 times
Reputation: 8713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post

Well, what would happen if sea levels rose? It is possible that if all the ice melted, sea levels would rise about 170 feet.




But regardless, sea-levels are currently rising about 3 mm a year. As I mentioned before, the sea-level rise in the pictures above is about 170 feet. At current rates, sea level will rise about 1 inch every 8 years. Which is about one foot of sea level rise every 100 years. So a total rise of 170 feet would take about 17,000 years.

but the sealevel is NOT rising


the fact is seal levels have remained pretty near unchanged in the last 150 years...and while some measuring marks show an increase, others show a decrease


plus the fact , that is never said there is about erosion, and land expandion, plus land rising/sinking

if an island sinks one foot, does that mean the sealevel rose a foot....I dont think so
many of the tetonic plates are not only moving but sinking/rising as they move
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-17-2013, 09:19 PM
 
28,365 posts, read 16,588,290 times
Reputation: 18932
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal - there are multiple alternate sources that are appropriate for almost any area.
..................... and any rational person agrees with this.

What did people disagree about the global warming scam?

1. It was not supported by valid science

2. A "consensus" of liberal "scientist" opinions does not make fact

3. climate change can only be observed over a very long time frame

4. the fossil record, the only "long time frame" of climate analysis refutes the contention of man made global warming.

5. the emperic science shows that CO2 changes FOLLOW changes in temperature

6. The emperic science shows that CO2 has a very small impact on global climate

7. The main "global warming gases" are water vapor and methane

8. Current "science" notes recent global cooling is due to industrial CO2 emissions from China



: smack:

If you want to transition the US to energy independence and "clean energy", don't start with a lie. Lies are eventually easily disproven.

Those who supported the contention of "global warming" (i.e. all liberals) will deny in a few years ever believing the fraud. Libs (conveniently) have short memories. Otherwise they would be conservatives.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-18-2013, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Earth Wanderer, longing for the stars.
12,408 posts, read 18,174,758 times
Reputation: 8884
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
..................... and any rational person agrees with this.

. . .

Those who supported the contention of "global warming" (i.e. all liberals) will deny in a few years ever believing the fraud. Libs (conveniently) have short memories. Otherwise they would be conservatives.
Do you realize that you are saying that these governments, the world over, are part of a huge worldwide liberal conspiracy? Do you REALLY want people to think that of you? Are all these people members of an organization, do you think? Maybe you should get a group and try to infiltrate. Maybe you could make a list because people in your camp do SO favor lists?

Scientists the world over are shouting the warnings of the dangers of fossil fuels on the planet. Countries are making serious attempts to wean themselves off of these methods and also to shun nuclear fuels as there is no way that they can be guaranteed safe.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-18-2013, 07:01 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,320,515 times
Reputation: 4167
Of course, the climate on this planet changes periodically. See the chart below.

It changes pretty frequently, as it turns out. Looks like it mostly stays cool, then rises for a little while, then cool again, etc. This keeps happening roughly every 100,000 to 150,000 years.

Most recently, we're in one of those relatively warm periods.

And this latest warm period started about 20,000 years ago as temperatures began rising. They seem to have reached their "higher" level around 10,000 years ago.

People who insist we empower government to spend huge resources and put us all back into the Stone Age to change this, can I ask you something?

Do you actually believe that man did something 20,000 years ago, to make the temperatures rise as they did, and kept doing it for 10,000 years until temperatures levelled off where they are today?

How many SUVs were humans driving 20,000 years ago? Or even 10,000 years ago? How many coal-fired power plants were they running during that period? How many vast swaths of forest did they clear-cut back then? How much oil did they drill? We know for a fact they didn't have catalytic converters or fuel-injection systems at the time. Could this have contributed to man's effect on the climate back then?

And they must have done even more of these filthy, polluting activites around 130,000 years ago. Temperatures spiked even higher then, than they have during the period that started 20,000 years ago.

Now, if we can only find out what man STOPPED doing 120,000 years ago, when temperatures fell back to their relatively cool levels again, we might have a way to control the present crisis the Global Whatever fanatics keep caterwauling about. Can we put the fanatics to work researching the industrial records, newspaper accounts, and internet archives from 110,000 yeas ago, to find out how they did it?

Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top