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.
Welcome to science, sanrene. They make predictions based on the info they have and when more becomes available, they make better predictions.
Once again - you confuse the rate of global warming's impacts with the fact that it is still happening, even if one area of the world had a cold spell for a month.
In the case of AGW that hasnt happened.
They decided to use global warming to drive a political agenda, then they came up with predictions. when those failed, they made new predictions that also failed.
so they said, things were actually worse than they thought because their predictions were wrong so they have made new and more dire predictions that will also fail
A lot of these people never heard of global warming before Al Gore. They had no idea there was decades of research into it before Gore made his slideshow. So, to them, Gore invented this whole idea as a ploy to get rich off increased taxes and control of the economy.
Anytime someone mentions "Gore" in any debate about global warming, it is a sure sign they do not know what they are talking about, as they descend from the extreme political perspective rather than the vast body of science that most educated folk have studied.
Fortunately for us, their arguments are very simplistic and easy to shoot down. It just takes persistence because they latch onto one or two media events rather than really studying the body of science.
And whose research does gore base his sensationalist claims on? And which "leading authority in climate science" also uses that research as the basis for its position?
People on here are really ignorant on this issue, so much so that its kind of a waste arguing against them but if you've used 1 week/month or even year worth of weather patterns or events as "proof" against global warming then you are an idiot.
also whats the hostility against al gore? he's not a scientist all hes done is presented the work of scientists.
"goracle" wtf. bunch of neanderthals.
So you are calling all the climate scientists who used localized events and occurrences idiots? You do realize part of the problems here is that a lot of the AGW claims were based on very narrow looks at the evidence.
Or did you forget about the hurricane season claims and the 2006 and 2007 arctic ice scare? Did you forget about the tornado season a few years back to which was proclaimed PROOF of AGW?
Gore is only relevant because his work is based on Hansen, Briffa, Jones, Mann, etc... He isn't the researcher, but a spokes person for their research. Don't get me wrong, Gore displayed the research at times like an idiot (inverting some graphs), but what he displayed IS what the IPCC backs. So when we point to his work and show it garbage, it really is simply pointing back to those researchers and the IPCC.
All I see from people like you is "spin spin spin" as you hold dearly on to your need for your precious garbage hypothesis to be correct. So concerned about the earth, that anything that might even suggest a turn from "the world is dying" is completely disregarded. Why? Because it serves the cause of forced policy. If ya can't get people to support your cause, you can always infiltrate the science and politics so you can mandate it on them.
People on here are really ignorant on this issue, so much so that its kind of a waste arguing against them but if you've used 1 week/month or even year worth of weather patterns or events as "proof" against global warming then you are an idiot.
also whats the hostility against al gore? he's not a scientist all hes done is presented the work of scientists.
"goracle" wtf. bunch of neanderthals.
Then I suppose the reverse is true?
Thus Bill Ney is an idiot because he stated that the snow fall in Washington DC was PROOF of global warming.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,490,602 times
Reputation: 6671
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
When you pay a tax you expect a benefit, if I pay school taxes I can expect it will be spent on educating people. While I may complain about them being too high and how they are being spent you won't hear me complain about their necessity. If we want educated people in this country we need schools to teach them. This tax however has no benefit except those collecting the taxes(the government) and whoever they decide is going to benefit from them. For example one thing they will be doing and will have to do is expand the LIHEAP program as low income people can barely afford heating bills now. <-------redistribution of wealth, cap and trade has all the bases covered.
The way I see it is this, they have no intentions of slowing their economy. Isn't going to happen, what they see is a golden opportunity to not only expand their economy by building green technology to sell to us but they also see the devastating effects this will have on what is left of the US manufacturing base and economy as whole.
Cap and trade will effect the cost of everything you purchase, I'll give the best example I'm aware of which is the cement and steel industry. Both of these indutries use a huge amount of energy. Besides the increase in the cost of electricity the cement process uses a lot of coal for heat during the cement making process, I believe they are second largest producer of CO2 behind power production.
What do we use cement and steel for? Roads, bridges, buildings, airports.... right down to the sidewalk in front of your house and the foundation it is built on. The cost will depend on the plan but one preliminary estimate I saw from an earlier bill predited a 40% rise in the cost of concrete, that is significant by itself without even adding in the cost to any other industry or business.
Well, all of that would be alot more "understandable", were it not for the fact that conventional "non-renewables" not only have such a huge stake in maintaining the "status quo", they're also currently so heavily subsidized one way or another, and naturally all of 'em are making pretty extraordinary profits to boot. And we all know who's ultimately paying for it all now!
But just for the sake of argument, let's assume everything you're saying is totally correct. So what's your "vision" of things, what do you think should be "done" (besides nothing)?
They decided to use global warming to drive a political agenda, then they came up with predictions. when those failed, they made new predictions that also failed.
so they said, things were actually worse than they thought because their predictions were wrong so they have made new and more dire predictions that will also fail
You are focusing on one political party from one nation. The reality is that this "agw" concept is not political, it's scientific. Idiotic political people on both sides have jumped all over it to their own end. Al Gore took science and extrapolated the most extreme potential outcome. Glenn Beck has done the same from his radical agenda about how they want to control the world.
Both are absurd and political. Need to focus on the scientists from many fields and many countries and not the politicos.
You are focusing on one political party from one nation. The reality is that this "agw" concept is not political, it's scientific. Idiotic political people on both sides have jumped all over it to their own end. Al Gore took science and extrapolated the most extreme potential outcome. Glenn Beck has done the same from his radical agenda about how they want to control the world.
Both are absurd and political. Need to focus on the scientists from many fields and many countries and not the politicos.
Global worming isn't the problem global cooling is. Ice age here we come Oh Ya
they're also currently so heavily subsidized one way or another,
False, there's only one recent document I'm aware of that really does a good comaprison from 2007. For example the coal industry received about the same amount of subsidies the wind industry received in 2007:
See table ES5, the subsidies for coal in 2007 came out to 44 cents per megawatt. If they dropped this subsidy the average monthly electric bill would rise about 44 cents... big deal. Since wind makes up so little of the electric pool they are subsidized to the tune of more that $23 per megawatt. This only includes federal subsidies, wind and solar projects also receive substantial incentives and tax breaks at the state and local levels.
One other thing to note is you will notice more than half the subsidies for coal go to R&D, the subsidies for the renewables are tax breaks and other incentives which effectively subsidize production.
The subsidies for renewables will be much more now.
Quote:
So what's your "vision" of things, what do you think should be "done" (besides nothing)?
My version of things is to not drive the bus off a cliff in a panic and let the market do it's things, drop all subsidies for production to all energy companies across the board. Divert that money to R&D or other incentives. For example we could take that couple of billion that will be spent on the solar industry this year and offer a 2 billion cash reward to any US based company that can demonstrate a solar panel that can be mass produced and compete with coal.
It's only a matter of time before renewable energy does become inexpensive because that is one huge plum to pick. Under the current system of handing out huge sums for production the incentive to do that is no longer present and will only hinder progress towards reliable and cheap renewable energy.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,490,602 times
Reputation: 6671
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
False, there's only one recent document I'm aware of that really does a good comaprison from 2007. For example the coal industry received about the same amount of subsidies the wind industry received in 2007:
See table ES5, the subsidies for coal in 2007 came out to 44 cents per megawatt. If they dropped this subsidy the average monthly electric bill would rise about 44 cents... big deal. Since wind makes up so little of the electric pool they are subsidized to the tune of more that $23 per megawatt. This only includes federal subsidies, wind and solar projects also receive substantial incentives and tax breaks at the state and local levels.
One other thing to note is you will notice more than half the subsidies for coal go to R&D, the subsidies for the renewables are tax breaks and other incentives which effectively subsidize production.
The subsidies for renewables will be much more now.
My version of things is to not drive the bus off a cliff in a panic and let the market do it's things, drop all subsidies for production to all energy companies across the board. Divert that money to R&D or other incentives. For example we could take that couple of billion that will be spent on the solar industry this year and offer a 2 billion cash reward to any US based company that can demonstrate a solar panel that can be mass produced and compete with coal.
It's only a matter of time before renewable energy does become inexpensive because that is one huge plum to pick. Under the current system of handing out huge sums for production the incentive to do that is no longer present and will only hinder progress towards reliable and cheap renewable energy.
In fairness, then we shouldn't overlook all the "indirect costs", like respiratory diseases, cancer, toxic runoff, oil spills, wildlife & habitat destruction, (and of course, coal mining accidents). Although actually, if it would mean renewables could compete on a more level playing field, you'd probably find a surprising number of folks (on both sides) who'd agree with you re: dropping subsidies altogether.
Agreed re: "panics", but dunno about the "cash reward" approach (with all subsidies removed, presumably the potential market is incentive enough). Just personally would prefer to see an "Apollo Program" type of approach, having a competitive goal & requirements set at the federal level (with something less controversial, like say, total "energy independence"), and the R&D is encouraged and paid for thru federal research contracts & grants, basically not unlike current military research is conducted. And as with the first space program, no doubt the value in spinoff technologies alone would be enormous.
In fairness, then we shouldn't overlook all the "indirect costs", like respiratory diseases,
The six primary air pollutants within the US have been cut in half since 1980, that's according to the EPA. I know coal plants are often blamed for the recent rise in asthma cases by the environmentalists but they need to get their facts straight.. I'm not a scientist but if we have drop in pollution and the cases of asthma go up I think you might want to look elsewhere for a cause. It's pretty much common sense. Personally I would attribute it two factors, more diagnoses and the air tight houses built in the last 2 or 3 decades.
On a side note this topic came up on my forum and most members afflicted with this reported no change and in some cases an improvement. Our unscientific assumption was that since most coal units are installed in the basement it was keeping things like mold and mildew from forming.
Quote:
cancer,
Hard to quantify isn't it? If you have some guy that is fat, smokes and drinks a bottle of whiskey each day and he dies of a heart attack what killed him?
We have regulations regarding this and they need to be enforced, I want to live in pollution free world too but I'm also practical and realize that some sacrifice to the environment is needed. It may come as a suprise but new mining activity is actually beneficial to the environment in one way, for every ton of coal mined there is special tax applied that goes towards reclamation of abandoned mines. These abandoned properties may be a century ld and there is no one to hold accountable for them, without these funds which is billions each year they would never be fixed.
Quote:
(and of course, coal mining accidents).
In the context of a reason to stop mining that is not a very good argument, you're more likely to die as taxi driver. Mining isn't even the top ten most hazardous jobs. I don't want to mimimize the tragedy because any loss of a miner that could have been avoided if a company is putting profits over safety is criminal.
Quote:
Agreed re: "panics", but dunno about the "cash reward" approach
Just an idea, whether it's good idea is debatable. Certainly a better idea than subsidizing production.
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.
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.
