U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
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)
 
Old 04-27-2010, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
24,052 posts, read 15,230,469 times
Reputation: 6800

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
Dont forget General Electric... which owns NBC news... which owns MSNBC.... and which is the largest producer of CFC Lightbulbs and is setting up a carbon exchange as well as being the largest "green" energy companies out there....
General Electric and Goldman Sachs both have investments in multiple green house gas trading companies, such as The International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) and the Chicago Climate Exchange, United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP).

Goldman Sachs owns Constellation Energy's Carbon Trading Operation (CEG; GS) and Horizon Wind Energy, and many more. We know GE stands to make billions off green energy, and if the carbon cap & trade bill that the house passed last year becomes law, GE will make billions more when people are forced to upgrade all their appliances, furnace, hot water heaters and air conditioners. Is it any wonder why man made global warming is being pushed on us from all directions, $$$$$.

Just Google the below and see how many hits you find:

"Goldman Sachs" "General Electric" "carbon trading"
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-27-2010, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 53,845,184 times
Reputation: 24712
I my conclusions are correct I will be able to buy beach front housing in Atlanta but not on Cape Cod or the Outer Banks. (slight exaggeration.)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2010, 10:54 AM
 
18,160 posts, read 10,118,459 times
Reputation: 8072
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
I my conclusions are correct I will be able to buy beach front housing in Atlanta but not on Cape Cod or the Outer Banks. (slight exaggeration.)
dude, seriously just look for something on the beach that is about 3 feet higher than high tide.

even in 300 years you will be fine! LOL
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2010, 11:20 AM
 
13,055 posts, read 11,908,241 times
Reputation: 2612
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
I have studies the scientific evidence on this issue and have concluded that the globe will get warmer in the next few decades no matter what we do to curb our propensity for converting huge amounts of geologically sequestered carbon into present day carbon dioxide. I also believe the predictive models of the amount and timing of the increase are subject to considerable doubt. I will be watching this for the rest of my life and have considerable interest in the outcome. BTW there is no way I will be buying any beachfront property in the future.

Now there is a topic for debate. What should, given the assumption that the sea level will rise a considerable amount, the government do to protect sea side dwellers and their property from damages created by ever higher sea level and storm surges. Should the current owners have huge and costly Netherlands style costal barriers built for their protection? Should their property be purchased by the government at current values and the building moved or destroyed? Or should nothing be done to protect these people from the rising sea?
What source do you refer to concerning sea level rise? May we see it please?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2010, 10:15 PM
 
Location: Central Illinois -
24,743 posts, read 16,140,631 times
Reputation: 18695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
Remember when Dick Cheney had to divest himself of Haliburton? I think that before we go any further with government carbon cap & trade bills, that any politician, or advisor to the president should divest themselves of any and all investments or ties to carbon trading or green energy. I know 0bama has a lot of Goldman Sachs folks on the payroll, and Goldman Sachs owns stock in these green house gas trading companies. It makes me wonder how incestuous the business relationships of this whole "we have to save the planet from CO2" crowd are.

Yea. Good ole Dick, the straight shooter.

Here, I'll turn in my free lunch card and my couple million in Halliburton stock options for trillions to be made bleeding Iraq dry (literally and figuratively).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 53,845,184 times
Reputation: 24712
I believe a market is the wrong way of controlling greenhouse gases. Markets only increase costs by transferring money from the producers to the traders and market owners. Eliminating this overhead can save the consumers a huge amount of money. The greenhouse gas emitters should be regulated by the government and the right to release rapidly decreased thus forcing the utilities to purchase power from nuclear facilities owned and operated by the Atomic Energy Commission. This would rapidly reduce our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere.

We could protect our market by imposing countervailing tariffs on imported goods to eliminate the price differential created by “dirty” energy, slave wages and government subsidies. These tariffs would be lowered as the importing countries switched to green energy, paid their workers decent wages and stopped subsidizing industry.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 07:54 AM
 
13,055 posts, read 11,908,241 times
Reputation: 2612
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMlost12 View Post
You state that climate science is buit on weak data we can argee to disagree as far as many climate scientists don't believe in models, is there another choice?
To agree to disagree means that we are in contest of the facts. The science is also in such contest as well. This means that the hypothesis of AGW is not scientifically validated, it is merely a belief without proper support. It is inconclusive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IMlost12 View Post
There are many good reasons to reduce fossil fuel consumption even if you don't believe in AGW. Anyone can see that continuing to use fossil fuels is a losing proposition on many fronts.
The problem is not that it would be good to find alternate sources, or that we should attempt to be cleaner. The issue is the process to which this is trying to be obtained. That is, they are impractical solutions that penalize people, require society to give up to obtain, and are destructive to a healthy economy.

So, science is used politically to demand conformity through claims of fear and urgency. This way they do not need the permission of the people, they can simply install their solutions while disregarding them.

The common opinion of alarmist follow these lines concerning the science:


“It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.”

- Harvard University PhD candidate Monika Kopacz

”we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

-Professor Stephen Schneider, global warming guru at Stanford University

This is not science, it is politics, it is dishonest, it is a disgrace to the field of study.

We all want cleaner and more efficient, but some of us have the integrity to search for such without lying to the people to achieve it.

Those who would lie are simply people pushing subjective opinion in the face of the facts. The science is not the reason for their position, the science is simply a vehicle of credibility. Their use of climate science to push such agenda as sullied the field, made it a joke, and damaged its reputation.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 07:55 AM
 
13,055 posts, read 11,908,241 times
Reputation: 2612
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMlost12 View Post
I don't question that some will profit on the pro AGW side but the other side of the fence is an anourmous lobby and stand to lose a great deal.

Global Climate Change Lobby - A Center for Public Integrity Investigation
You argue the speculation of loss in the face of a known gain? Are you serious?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Central Illinois -
24,743 posts, read 16,140,631 times
Reputation: 18695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
To agree to disagree means that we are in contest of the facts. The science is also in such contest as well. This means that the hypothesis of AGW is not scientifically validated, it is merely a belief without proper support. It is inconclusive.



BZZZT!!

Wrong yet again. In fact, you are on the opposite side of the fence from actual science, and that is why your opinion stands in stark contrast to the 95% of scientists that have actually studied climate change.

The models you dispute you offer no contrary evidence to dispel their validity, that is why any reasonable person not blinded by ideology will agree with science, which is further backed by actual temperature averages, showing that the 10 warmest years in world history have occurred in the past two decades.

Sounds to me like science is supportable by actual measurement, not just models.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
24,052 posts, read 15,230,469 times
Reputation: 6800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
Wapasha, take a look at that study summary I linked to and see if you can find the very glaring thing stands out.

seriously it is very funny, if you can find it.
Their study just reinforced what their opponents have been saying, the warming we have been experiencing, since the end of the little ice-age is normal, and is not "unprecedented", and it shoots down alarmist talk from those like al Gore.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, 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