Antarctic glacier melt maybe 'not due to climate change'

Originally posted by Xeven
Why are so many people so passionately against Al Gore and his efforts to protect our planet. Is he wrong? Of course he is just as Eienstien did not have everything exactly right.

Al Gore is simply trying to use what science is available to make sure the earth is here for your children.

Al Gores net worth has gone from somewhere around 1-2million USD when he was vice president to nearly half a BILLION dollars according to some estimates, though he keeps the actual number a close secret. We will find out for sure when he and his wife get divorced and he is forced to disclose his assets.

As a private citizen, Gore does not have to disclose his income or assets, as he did in his years in Congress and the White House, but when he left government in early 2001, he listed assets of less than $2 million, including homes in suburban Washington and in Tennessee. "Since then, his net worth has skyrocketed, helped by timely investments in Apple and Google, profits from books and his movie, and scores of speeches for which he can be paid more than $100,000, although he often speaks at no charge," Broder reports.

See full article from DailyFinance: www.dailyfinance.com...

Mind you, I am not saying anything at all about whether or not climate change is real. What I am saying is that politicians (and ex politicians) use their influence to enrich themselves. That makes them an interested party, with potential motives, not just someone who wants to leave a better world for the worlds children.

I am not saying he is lying, but I am saying you cannot take at face value the word of a person profiting from the idea they are selling you. You need to use caution when salesmen come knocking on your door, even when they are selling "green" products.

And I love green, personally, but I am not interested in being manipulated just to make someone rich even richer.

reply to post by maybereal11

Are you ever shocked by your electric bill? Or are you justed used to it?
The price of Kwh has always gone up not down, More consumers every year. If we can find a cheaper, cleaner way....why not at least try?

We should try... we should be pursuing cheaper, more plentiful electricity. Now let me tell you what Cap & Trade does toward that end:

• Smaller companies will be forced out of business, due to being unable to purchase the expensive carbon credits. The only companies left to do anything with energy will be the corporate giants who can afford to absorb and pass on the increased costs.
  
  
• Those increased costs will be passed on to the consumer. Every cost of doing business is always passed on to the consumer. No exec ever has thought "Well, I think we'll take a loss on this since we have been so evil. The shareholders will understand."
  
  
• The larger companies will make more profit than now, since there will be no more competition from smaller companies.
  
  
• The larger companies who are now making more profit than ever will not pursue alternate energy sources... how many threads on this very site have bemoaned the fact that alternate energy solutions have been hidden from the public, bought up and destroyed by large energy companies? Are we now saying they are going to change their ways, when the status quo is even more profitable?
  
  
• Even small inventors who may stumble onto ways to cheaply produce energy will not be able to run with their idea. There is no way to accurately measure carbon dioxide emissions; all the reports are based on chemical or energy analysis, so low-carbon methods would not see an incentive until they are accepted by the government agencies in charge of Cap & Trade. Of course, they wouldn't be beholding to those large companies who would be threatened by such action... nooooo....
  
  
• If Cap & Trade is instituted too tightly, it will be impossible for anyone to get the energy they need, for any price. One cannot burn a hydrocarbon in an oxygen-rich environment without producing carbon dioxide; it is a physical impossibility. The term 'hydrocarbon' covers about every chemical fuel source we have access to with our technology except hydrogen... and hydrogen cannot at this time be made without using hydrocarbons to produce the energy needed to separate it.
  
  Translation: artificial government-imposed energy shortages in fuel, electricity, heating, and every other energy usage could well be required by law.

Now, exactly what is Cap & trade going to do to help us find alternate energy sources?

Or rather take a moment to contemplate the literal hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars each year you and I pay in defense spending that go toward securing oil from the most volatile region on the planet..or more importantly the lives of US soldiers and citizens it costs...

Maybe test your math skills while waiting at the pump trying to figure out what that gas really costs and ask yourself ...If we are really the America we are supposed to be, why aren't we trying something new rather than writing checks to the Middle east for 50 years?

I already know how much of the cost of gasoline is from oil.... precious little (as in less than a dollar a gallon). The bulk is taxes.

I also know the costs of the military actions we engage in to maintain oil supply. I even know a better way: use the oil we already have on our own soil! Of course, those who believe in Global Warming to the point of hysteria would rather die than allow that to happen... have you ever considered the possibility that BO was drilling such a deep well in the Gulf of Mexico because so many oil-rich areas on dry land refuse to allow it to be drilled?

You mean the Oil Crisis of the 1970's?

I mean what I mentioned in the first paragraphs above. That was a fake shortage imposed by OPEC, as you insinuate.

Given the recent economic crisis and the average utility bill I know folks who are doing just that and it has nothing to do with politics.

Actually it has everything to do with politics. The main cause of the companies leaving the United States is over-regulation (as opposed to common-sense regulation) and over-taxation. That is political, and it directly affects both the number of jobs and the quality of jobs available to drive the economy.

They may not see the link... doesn't mean it isn't there...

Yes and you can continue to live just the way you want, go out and buy whatever you want, it's America! let the car run in the driveway just for the pleasant smell of the exhaust on a hot summer day. Rev the engine for fun and smile and look your son, brother, friend square in the eye and tell them that the war they are going to go fight half way around the world in the desert is for a really good cause and your proud of them.

Excuse me? Do you really think I let the car run in the driveway just to smell the exhaust fumes? Do you think I rev the motor for fun? And how dare you think that I would happily send anyone off to fight a war for oil!

But whatever you do....don't look for a better way...innovation and inventiveness isn't American anymore

Oh, if you only knew what you were saying to who...

Perhaps one day you will see. I can say no more at this time.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


So basically, if a sustainable lifestyle that will leave an ecosystem for our children is an inconvenience -- the earth can go suck it?

What we are trying to do, is push for legislation so that we can get trains, so that we can have a least as much money going to upgrade our electric grid and support the infrastructure for solar and other alternatives.

I can't make my own train, and paying double for gas might make BP happy -- but it doesn't really solve the problem. Making YOU pay double for gas might -- because unless people like yourself are inconvenienced, nothing will change.

I'm amazed at Americans for not being more ashamed at the Iraq and Afghan wars - but they seem OK with invading countries for cheap resources. They don't even bother with "Democracy" as an excuse anymore.

It would be great if all theories could be debated on scientific merit --- but we've been here for too long. The energy companies made this debate controversial -- just as the churches made Evolution controversial.

If we can get serious limits on pollution and force light rail into the cities and get passenger trains back -- then I'm OK with all the speculation anyone wants.

But these claims of "they science of Global Warming is poor" is total bunk. There hasn't been ANY major claim of the Anti Global Warming crowd that hasn't been soundly covered by real science -- I've heard them all and I've read the science;

The Sun actually reduced output a bit due to a reduction of sun spots. Despite that, the past 50 years are the warmest (globally) recorded in human history. The past 10 years we had a slight downward trend that is picking up again -- but we are talking about a continuous upward trend.

CO2 levels have increased dramatically.

Overall, the amount of ice in the world has reduced dramatically.

-- someone might have found some smooth topology in Antarctica, but that doesn't explain the thinning of ice over an area the size of Europe.



You show me ANYTHING you've got that you think refutes global warming, and there are some cogent, thorough articles to rebut it. Might I suggest you start here; OVER 100 Climate change denial arguments answered with stone cold facts.

It isn't even close. I haven't read good science anywhere that doesn't show that our environment is in trouble. Even if the weather doesn't get more energetic -- we've got acidification of the oceans, bleaching of coral, and park rangers dealing with a mass migration of animals and plants from warm ecosystems to formerly cold ecosystems -- something that effects maps and isn't up for debate.

As well as the Gulf of Mexico, here is a list of things we are ALREADY losing, regardless of the "debate" and waiting for all questions to be answered to infringe on carbon pollution profits; LINK

I'm glad to see more of this sort of stuff being reported in the so-called "mainstream" press. It will take time, but eventually the scientific process will pinpoint the true causes of climactic variances on this planet and not simply be another attempt to buttress a certain view point.

People who want to use "science" drive home an agenda simply don't realize how science is supposed to work. Comparing AGW with evolution is ridiculous. Most people I know really couldn't give a rat about where they might have come from eons ago and whether or not their proverbial uncle was a monkey but they do care about putting food on the table, paying the bills and having a roof over their heads. Consider also how scientific opinion changes over time on a certain issue. 100 years ago almost no scientist would have ever dared to declare that birds and dinosaurs might be related - if they did they would have been laughed at and marginalized. Now most scientists (based on literally newly unearthed evidence) agree that sort of familial relationship is very likely if not proven. But yet you don't see people and big corporations laughing all the way to the bank from the money they have fleeced off of desperate people who can least afford it.

If you really want to know why people hate the likes of Al Gore (and yes I do grant that he is a scapegoat for that agenda and there are other sinister entities that lurk in his shadow greedily waiting to stick it to the poor like General Electric - IMO this company needs to be boycotted and then some!) I think it is not so much because he is making money (which I have no problem with someone earning a living, if they do so honestly and don't cross over moral and ethical lines to do it) but because of the people who will suffer acutely to line his pockets and others like him.

And if you think it's all about being inconvenienced, think again! You might see the effects of a cap and trade as a nuisance if you make 200-500K a year and maybe you can't go buy that nice new luxury SUV and buy a bigger house because you're getting pinched by electric and fuel costs. But how many people make less than that? How many make less than 50K or even $20K a year? What might be a way to milk the rich a little more is also a way to inflict a devastating and possibly deadly hardship on those who can least afford it (gee, who will have blood on their hands when elderly people expire because they can't afford to adequately heat and cool their homes? This happens now and will only get way worse if we ever see cap and trade or anything like it).

There are plenty of ways to help the environment that don't involve screwing lower income people (or screwing anyone, actually). Recycling, conserving water, avoiding dumping poisons (pesticides) on your lawn, composting, re-using whatever you can, buying used (when applicable), buying local produce (I just spent the afternoon at a pick your own farm down the road - so much better and cheaper than what you often get in the store), etc. I do all these things and it either doesn't cost me a dime or it costs far less than other avenues people might pursue. But hey, no one makes much if any money off of these solutions which are available to pretty much everyone if they choose to do it.

As said, I'm not knocking anyone because they turn a profit (which would be hypocritical since I own my own business, but I don't take advantage of the poor either) but I will knock anyone who will happily run roughshod over people who can barely make it as things are now.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Wow, quite a list here of things that SUPPOSEDLY will go wrong if we do something about pollution:

Smaller companies will be forced out of business,

Then why not outlaw WalMart. Its the number one reason small businesses are disappearing. Also, regulations like Oxley Sarbanes. Actually MOST of these sorts of business rules are lobbied for by large corporations -- it creates barriers to entry and reduces competition. Obviously, this has all been blamed on mommy-state liberalism.

Those increased costs will be passed on to the consumer.

About a Million people a month are disappearing from the unemployment roles -- meaning, their benefits have run out. Passing on the "Costs" to the consumer, as the Conservatives have posited, would be great if we even had consumers to shop in another few years. The marketplace is supposed to decide prices. If McDonalds pays their workers less -- they still sell the happy meal for the same price. A lot was made of the $3 more that Union workers at Ford made versus the non-union Toyota plant. Something that seemed to escape the debate on TV; 10% of the cost of a Ford car is labor, 40% is executive compensation. Of course, Universal Health care would more than make up the difference -- but the CEO of Ford made $50 Million while the CEO of Toyota made $360,000. That's a LOT of incentive to inspire the patriotic capitalist.

The larger companies will make more profit than now

Again, it's nice that Conservatives are interested in small business. But Republicans have the worst record in regards to small business and they are also the strongest opponents of pollution legislation. Maybe we need to go with the RECORD of Liberals in regards to small business, rather than the fears of Conservatives.


>> There is so much of your basic assumptions on economics that just don't have real world examples -- we can't PROVE what will happen. But likely if we had Buy American provisions on solar panels, huge tax incentives and subsidies for the technology coupled with small business grants, there would be many more jobs than the oil industry provides, energy production would be decentralized, and the energy would be CHEAPER than even the latest nuclear technology can provide -- even factoring in all the hidden costs that don't make the headlines.


Here's just another rebuttal on one of your comments:

I already know how much of the cost of gasoline is from oil.... precious little (as in less than a dollar a gallon). The bulk is taxes.

If you go here; LINK
You will find that gas prices are on average 17 cents per gallon higher due to taxes. Of course, the stone cold fact of the matter will not end this talking point, as facts don't really matter. People who listen to Right wing radio will repeat the high cost of gas is due to tax meme again and again.

How do we pay for the road cars drive on -- should we tax people for walking?

What is NOT listed, is that the procurement of oil is almost free for most oil companies and requires REALLY EXPENSIVE military bases. Is it cheap to have troops in Iraq? Do you know how many Billions in weapons we give out to oil companies to suppress their citizens? Worldwide, the subsidy to Energy companies from governments is about $660 Billion. So it's hard to say that if these companies had to pay for their pollution, and a gas company couldn't just put the benzine in your gas rather than dispose of it -- if they cold be profitable at all.

It's corporate sponsorship that makes Gas affordable -- and then you think it's government taxes on the sales that are hurting your pocket? Without the subsidies and paying for the increased medical care -- it's estimated it would be $13 a gallon.

Anyway, I'm done --- it's been interesting. If there were some real world examples of this "free market prosperity" you speak of, rather than a lot of tragic examples like Haiti and Mexico, then there might be a point.

reply to post by TheRedneck

Actually it has everything to do with politics. The main cause of the companies leaving the United States is over-regulation (as opposed to common-sense regulation) and over-taxation. That is political, and it directly affects both the number of jobs and the quality of jobs available to drive the economy.

I would dispute this claim.

China & India are the main places that corporations like to go four outsourcing. They happen to be the two most populous countries on Earth. The workers there have virtually no rights, and make next to nothing. An American couldn't hope to get by on what they get paid. I remember seeing a documentary about an office manager in India who shared his apartment with 12 other people.

Sure, these nations offer tax incentives for corporations to outsource labor, and there are fewer regulations. I don't think that China and India, or even Mexico are good examples of what we should be doing economically.

If you want to see a real good example of the relationship between taxation and prosperity, take a look at this. It demonstrates that conservative tax cuts and military spending have thrown our country into a steady increase of debt since 1981. Reagan tripled the national debt during his Presidency.
Economic destruction of America

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by maybereal11
[Smaller companies will be forced out of business, due to being unable to purchase the expensive carbon credits.

Smaller companies produce less, pollute much less than the large multi-nationals...thus they would not be required to purchase anywhere as near as many Carbon Credits as the larger players. The expense is scaled to size by market forces...unless by some freak of engineering laziness you have a smaller company, say 5% the size of a larger player polluting an equal amount...then they deserve to get hammered.

The Carbon Credit expense is not fixed for all all, just the opposite. Your logic fails here.

Smaller companies innovate and can change much quicker and less expensively than the big boys and will be selling their credits for profit long before the larger corps.

Those increased costs will be passed on to the consumer. Every cost of doing business is always passed on to the consumer. No exec ever has thought "Well, I think we'll take a loss on this since we have been so evil. The shareholders will understand."

Addressed somewhat above, but will say this as well.

The threat by larger corps...mess with us...regulate us...hold us accountable for our pollution...remove government subsidies or tax breaks... and we will increase prices and bring pain to the consumer and economy...enough already. Prices are going to go up regardless and we need to break cycle and stop the blackmail.

The larger companies will make more profit than now, since there will be no more competition from smaller companies.."

Nope. the larger companies profits will be off-set by being required to reflect the cost of polluting in thier profit and loss equations. Thus far US taxpayers have carried that expense for them in EPA clean-up operations, health care expenses etc..

Here visit the EPAs SUperfund Site to get a small taste of where taxpayer dollars are subsidizing big corporations..

www.epa.gov...

Here are the ones in your neck of the woods.

www.epa.gov...

Your tax dollars at work carrying the production costs of companies that make Billions.

The larger companies who are now making more profit than ever will not pursue alternate energy sources... how many threads on this very site have bemoaned the fact that alternate energy solutions have been hidden from the public, bought up and destroyed by large energy companies? Are we now saying they are going to change their ways, when the status quo is even more profitable?

Confused...Cap and Trade is designed to change the status-quo. Those companies don't have to innovate or change, but it will cost them more.

Why did BP opt to pay off the MMS rather than institute proper safety measures? Because it was cheaper to. Simple capitalism. We need to incentivise change, return the cost of polluting to thier balance sheets instaed or ours or they won't do it.

Even small inventors who may stumble onto ways to cheaply produce energy will not be able to run with their idea. There is no way to accurately measure carbon dioxide emissions; all the reports are based on chemical or energy analysis, so low-carbon methods would not see an incentive until they are accepted by the government agencies in charge of Cap & Trade. Of course, they wouldn't be beholding to those large companies who would be threatened by such action... nooooo....?

OK...Saying that the "Foxs will run the Henhouse". Fair charge and seen recently in the Minreral and Management Services and BP, and the SEC and Wall Street Banks..Madoff et al.

Fair point, but not a sufficient disentive to at least try to institute change IMO. We can always send folks to jail, I'd like to see much more of that.

I already know how much of the cost of gasoline is from oil.... precious little (as in less than a dollar a gallon). The bulk is taxes.

Variable vs fixed costs etc. The price of oil remains the biggest factor, let's just say I disagree with what you are suggesting. worthy of a thread by itself for debate..

How Gas Prices Work
auto.howstuffworks.com...

I also know the costs of the military actions we engage in to maintain oil supply. I even know a better way: use the oil we already have on our own soil!

I have examined this alternative many times and am not opposed to it in principle. Bottom line is that native drilling would not offset our expenses or dependancy on the Middle East to any measurable amount. It would change nothing. The reason it is a political topic is that it would make a few Companies Billions and those companies own politicians...pure rhetoric, no help to our current predicament.

Excuse me? Do you really think I let the car run in the driveway just to smell the exhaust fumes? Do you think I rev the motor for fun? And how dare you think that I would happily send anyone off to fight a war for oil!

Apologies then Red...I mistakenly assumed when you took the liberty to MOCK and DERIDE anyone buying local produce, carpooling, or being conscience of not wasting energy or fuel that you had a general disdain for anyone concerned with the same.

But whatever you do....don't look for a better way...innovation and inventiveness isn't American anymore

Oh, if you only knew what you were saying to who...

Perhaps one day you will see. I can say no more at this time.

TheRedneck

Then get to it Red.

Create an LLC..it's cheap and easy. Register with the state.

I like "Redneck Energy Solutions, LLC"

Apply for funding and grants..

www.nrel.gov...

grants.nih.gov...

www.sbir.gov...

Talk to the local University and find a couple of students to help, Machinists, Engineers, etc.

*Get on it Red. Lifes short. I sometimes enjoy reading your posts, but I'd rather read about your invention in the news.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

So basically, if a sustainable lifestyle that will leave an ecosystem for our children is an inconvenience -- the earth can go suck it?

Please show me where I have ever said that. You seem to believe that any action by humanity is devastating to the planet. I simply believe we can live in harmony with nature without destroying our way of life completely.

What we are trying to do, is push for legislation so that we can get trains, so that we can have a least as much money going to upgrade our electric grid and support the infrastructure for solar and other alternatives.

So you can get trains and solar? Really?

Exactly how are trains going to change anything? Sure, they use less fuel to move the same amount of product. But they cannot move it to where it is needed. Look around the next time you visit a store: find the depot. I promise you it is not in the back. Laying tracks is a very expensive proposition, not to mention a major hazard every time they cross a road. The concept of using trains to deliver all freight is, to put it succinctly, ludicrous! It would be a logistical nightmare, further aggravated by the fact that an average train takes two weeks to move a shipment form CA to New England... a job that can be done by a team truck in under 72 hours. That is San Diego to Bangor.

As for solar and wind... you are talking DC power here. Do you have any idea of the problems with transmitting DC power? Here's a hint: it was figured out when the first electrical systems were installed. They were DC and so inefficient that one could not get power more than a couple of miles from the source. AC is the standard not because some big bad evil guy wants to keep solar and wind from happening, but because it is by far the most efficient way to move electricity long distances at high power levels.

I could give you the math to prove that, but I doubt you would look at it.

In order to complete with oil/water/nuclear/coal plants, solar and wind will have to produce power cheaply enough to allow this power to be converted to AC at high power levels. That is a very expensive and difficult task. If you really want to do some good, instead of demanding laws that specifically favor one group over another (something that goes against everything the country is supposed to stand for), show us poor dumb masses a simple, cheap way to convert DC to AC at power levels that can compete with present generation techniques... you will see solar and wind take over overnight if you can accomplish that, and make yourself wealthy in the process.

I can't make my own train, and paying double for gas might make BP happy -- but it doesn't really solve the problem. Making YOU pay double for gas might -- because unless people like yourself are inconvenienced, nothing will change.

Oh, forgive me for not being inconvenienced enough!

I happen to be one of those unemployed masses you speak of. My apologies for not being inconvenienced more.

It would be great if all theories could be debated on scientific merit --- but we've been here for too long. The energy companies made this debate controversial -- just as the churches made Evolution controversial.

The energy companies are backing Cap & Trade, just as the governments are. Those are the two entities who you appear to be wanting to fight, and yet here you are, arguing their agenda.

No one here is getting rich over the Iraqi/Afghani wars; no one here leaps for joy when the price of energy goes up; no one here is happy when huge tax bailouts are given; and no one here is excited about Cap & Trade. That's the energy company CEOs, the politicians, the super-rich who are such. The same people who would benefit from everything you are trying to do in the name of 'the people'.

But these claims of "they science of Global Warming is poor" is total bunk. There hasn't been ANY major claim of the Anti Global Warming crowd that hasn't been soundly covered by real science -- I've heard them all and I've read the science;

I could sit here and offer you conclusive scientific proof that the sky is black during the day. It is easy to do. All I need do is focus on a warped interpretation of the question. Of course, I will still see bluish expanse when I look up, and so will you. It will actually 'prove' nothing, save possibly that I could be dishonest and people could be fooled.

There has been proof given. I actually posted calculations that proved CO2 could not be responsible for any observed warming some time back. The message was lost in desperate attempts to teach Geometry 101.

You have to understand science to claim theories have been debunked.

The past 10 years we had a slight downward trend that is picking up again -- but we are talking about a continuous upward trend.

CO2 levels have increased dramatically.

Thank you for proving my point.

The last decade is indeed, according to the figures we have, been the warmest on record. The average temperature is indeed leveling off and starting to show indications of decline. That is called a wave function, and extrapolation of future climate based on that wave function show the cooling trend will continue to increase.

All this while CO2 levels are rising.

Yep, makes perfect sense to me that the CO2 is directly responsible for warming the planet.... NOT! Try reading your own posts.

You show me ANYTHING you've got that you think refutes global warming, and there are some cogent, thorough articles to rebut it. Might I suggest you start here

What's say I don't start here.

Sorry, but I have much better things to do with my time than to try and show how foolish every AGW advocate in the world can be. I've seen your arguments; I have answered your arguments. So instead of asking me to repeat everything I have said in the years I have been on this site, how about you go back and read through them yourself? It's mush more efficient, and hey! It uses less energy as well.

Do your part to conserve!

Then why not outlaw WalMart.

This is the problem with your solutions, in a nutshell. Why outlaw anything? Why do you think that everything that is done must have a law that goes with it? Why are you so fascinated by the idea of outlawing the activities of others?

I do believe we have found the fatal flaw in your arguments: are you on some sort of power trip?

The marketplace is supposed to decide prices. If McDonalds pays their workers less -- they still sell the happy meal for the same price. A lot was made of the $3 more that Union workers at Ford made versus the non-union Toyota plant.

I think you took Economics 51 1/2... because you completely missed half of Economics 101...

Where did you ever get the notion that the price of something was supposed to be set by the cost of making it? The price is set by what people will pay for it, and if that price is less than the cost, it doesn't get made.

You don't like the prices McDonald's charges? Don't buy their food! Are you of the opinion that Fords are too expensive? Don't buy Ford products! That is how you effect controls on the economy in a free society; not by passing laws. Oh, but wait, you wanted that Big Mac or that shiny new Taurus... then you are willing to pay the price, and you just 'voted' for McDonalds and Ford to make a profit.

Same thing goes with oil products. You have the right to not buy their products at any time. Yes, I know that is nearly impossible if one continues to live in society. I also know that in itself is an indication that we need those products you want to outlaw!

Again, it's nice that Conservatives are interested in small business. But Republicans have the worst record in regards to small business and they are also the strongest opponents of pollution legislation.

Where did you get the notion that I was a Republican? You do realize I have made no secret of the fact that I voted for Obama, much to my chagrin now? Is Obama Republican? Are we discussing an alternate reality?

Guess what? I also despise Rush Limbaugh, have little use for Sean Hannity, am seriously questioning Glenn Beck, and haven't seen an episode of FOX news in over three years!

So much for assumptions, huh?

You will find that gas prices are on average 17 cents per gallon higher due to taxes.

Oh, you are only interested in direct taxation... sure, that is about right then. Of course, if you start looking at hidden taxes, such as taxes on refineries, EPA restrictions on new wells, taxes on the transportation of the fuel, taxes on the businesses that sell the fuel... then you get closer to my estimate.

Don't worry, though, those hidden taxes won't hurt you. Just ignore those silly facts and pay them like Obama wants.

Anyway, I'm done --- it's been interesting. If there were some real world examples of this "free market prosperity" you speak of, rather than a lot of tragic examples like Haiti and Mexico, then there might be a point.

Did you just seriously say that Mexico and Haiti are free market economies?

Yeah... right... 'nuff said...

TheRedneck

reply to post by suicydking

I cannot completely dispute your claim; labor costs are an impact. However, this is getting into an area where I tend to be a little close-lipped, because a lot of people do not like what I have to say.

It's our own fault!

Money is not an absolute. Where is the difference between making $20 an hour when bread is $1.00 a loaf, and making $2 an hour when bread is $0.10 a loaf? There is none. Money is relative, and we in the USA have managed to increase our lifestyle to the point where inflation has ruined us.

You are correct: no American could hope to live on what is considered in India to be a good wage. That is our fault because we have, as a society, allowed prices to skyrocket upwards as long as we could manage to have the things we wanted... and in order to get the things we wanted, we started passing laws making it illegal to pay less than an arbitrary amount for labor. We called it 'Minimum Wage' and heralded it as the greatest thing since shirt pockets.

Every time the Minimum Wage was increased, prices increased shortly thereafter and unemployment rose. And the people danced in the streets.

Every time prices rose in response, the people cried for higher Minimum Wage laws, because tightening their own belts interfered with the dance.

This is getting somewhat off topic, so I'll end this post here. Perhaps good fodder for a new thread, or a revisitation of an old one.

TheRedneck


[edit on 6/23/2010 by TheRedneck]

I would never have even clicked on this thread, had it not had the author it does. (one of my favorite car crash radio commentators).

But this is all still "maybe, perhaps, could be, we'll see".

So, we'll see. My thoughts are global warming is real, and we know the reasons why.

The truth is very, very inconvenient.

Originally posted by suicydking
I see that everyone is quick to point out that "Al Gore is wrong", or that we now know the real reason for the ice melting. Did anyone notice that the article is presenting a theory, and that none of the information in the article is proven as fact? It seems people on both sides of the GW debate are happy to claim any information as fact as long as it backs their opinion.

"Did anyone notice that the article is presenting a theory, and that none of the information in the article is proven as fact?"

Funny, that's exactly what Al Gore did when he sold millions of gullible Americans on global warming, myself included. I admit I was pissed after watching "An Inconvenient Truth" but come on, man. We now know he had no real scientific data to back up his claims. The data he had was all based on theories and a bunch of he-said that he-said that he-said nonsense.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by HunkaHunka

And it only takes a few thousand years to come back around...

And exactly where did you draw that conclusion? If the first set of steps you gave are supposed to happen over a span of mere years, why would the second set of steps I gave, the exact inverse of yours, take thousands?

Or are you saying that it will take thousands of years for the Global Warming catastrophes to occur now?

TheRedneck

I'm saying that tipping points take small amounts of time once they are triggered... And the gradual move back takes a long time...

Think "slope failure" it takes a while to build to it... And then it happens... Mass cataclysm for life... And then geology and other factors take their sweet time moving back to it...

And now that we are releasing 3.5 X NYCs daiky emissions in the gulf... Well.. I think you see where this is headed....

reply to post by maybereal11

Smaller companies produce less, pollute much less than the large multi-nationals...thus they would not be required to purchase anywhere as near as many Carbon Credits as the larger players. The expense is scaled to size by market forces...unless by some freak of engineering laziness you have a smaller company, say 5% the size of a larger player polluting an equal amount...then they deserve to get hammered.

Look at the details: how is the 'pollution', the production of CO2 measured? It isn't. We have no way to accurately measure CO2 emissions in the air. Instead, we 'measure' CO2 emissions based on how much CO2 will be given off when a measured amount of carbon-containing matter is burned.

Example: in a gallon of gasoline, we already know about how many carbon atoms exist. We also know that every carbon atom, when burned, can produce one molecule of CO2. So we run a few simple calculations and find out how many molecules of CO2 are typically produced by a gallon of gasoline.

We know how many kilowatts of power a certain electrical plant is producing. We also know how much fuel it is consuming and thus how much CO2 could be produced form that fuel. A few calculations and we know how much CO2 every kilowatt is producing.

Now those calculations all take into account the amount of fuel burned, which means the credits based on that would be scalable with respect to the power output. But here is the kicker: suppose someone came up with a fuel cell approach to using the fuel to make electricity, and that fuel cell produced something besides CO2 from the carbon?

The calculations still hold. They are consuming fuel; that fuel can become CO2; they still have to pay the carbon credits. There is no incentive, unless they can get some sort of waiver based on their operation. When was the last time you saw a bureaucracy leap to change their regulations in order to help someone else?

You also have to remember that a larger company has access to greater funding than a small one, and not in direct proportion to the size of the operation. BP, for instance, can afford to take a huge loss that would cripple smaller companies, in hope of a greater future gain. Thus, what is preventing BP, Exxon-Mobile, Shell, et al, from buying up all the carbon credits and effectively starving out the competition?

The threat by larger corps...mess with us...regulate us...hold us accountable for our pollution...remove government subsidies or tax breaks... and we will increase prices and bring pain to the consumer and economy...enough already. Prices are going to go up regardless and we need to break cycle and stop the blackmail.

The only way to break the cycle is to allow competition... not by helping those doing the blackmail to carry out their threats with impunity.

Nope. the larger companies profits will be off-set by being required to reflect the cost of polluting in thier profit and loss equations. Thus far US taxpayers have carried that expense for them in EPA clean-up operations, health care expenses etc..

No offense, but you are living in a dream... never in the history of society has a large company decided to just not pass along their costs to the consumer. That includes carbon credits, taxes, and anything else they incur.

That dynamic will not change because we want it to.

Confused...Cap and Trade is designed to change the status-quo. Those companies don't have to innovate or change, but it will cost them more.

Read on for the answer:

OK...Saying that the "Foxs will run the Henhouse". Fair charge and seen recently in the Minreral and Management Services and BP, and the SEC and Wall Street Banks..Madoff et al.

Fair point, but not a sufficient disentive to at least try to institute change IMO. We can always send folks to jail, I'd like to see much more of that.

There is the whole problem. Those who are pushing for Cap & Trade are the ones who will directly and personally profit from it. If an oil company CEO demanded a law that would double his income, would you support it? I know I wouldn't; it is simply improper for someone to use political office for personal gain. yet, I see so many here arguing in favor of doing this very thing for one simple reason: they are convinced by dishonest individuals who call themselves 'scientists' that it is proper. That is the only reason.

Public opinion has been hijacked. Yes, we need to take care of our planet. Yes, we need to be more efficient in our use of energy. Yes, we should stop pollution. But these beliefs are not aided by Cap & Trade; mark my words, they will be hindered by it! Bureaucracy will not change because of a global moneymaking agenda; people will not suddenly be freed from their bonds; energy will not flow like water from Moses' rock; and advances in energy will not spontaneously happen.

I'm sorry; it simply doesn't work that way. It is a nice dream though...

I have examined this alternative many times and am not opposed to it in principle. Bottom line is that native drilling would not offset our expenses or dependancy on the Middle East to any measurable amount. It would change nothing.

That makes no sense. We would not be buying oil from the ME if we had oil here at home. Therefore, if we are able to get oil at home, then we would stop buying it from the ME, or at least be able to keep their prices in check through supply and demand.

There are massive oil deposits under ANWAR, Utah, Montana... all untapped because of the 'dangers' involved to local wildlife. Yet, we are turning the Gulf of Mexico into a tarpit to keep those areas pristine? Does anyone really see any logic in that? Oil on land is relatively simple to clean up; oil in the water is notoriously difficult.

And remember that we actually buy a small percentage of our oil from the ME... our largest oil supplier is: Canada!

I mistakenly assumed when you took the liberty to MOCK and DERIDE anyone buying local produce, carpooling, or being conscience of not wasting energy or fuel that you had a general disdain for anyone concerned with the same.

I don't remember mocking anyone for doing those things; I perhaps came off as mocking others for assuming that everyone could do them. People have this tendency tp oversimplify the problems, assuming that everyone has the abilities they do.

As an example, I own 40+ acres, about 10 of which is level and open. I can easily grow a 2-acre garden, raise chickens or pigs or cattle, and can hunt to my heart's content. I will not go hungry. Yet, I also know there are a lot of people who do not have this advantage, and it bothers me when their ability to have enough food is questioned because someone is afraid of some media-created mythical beast called 'Global Warming'.

So what you saw as mocking conservation is actually concern for those who have it less fortunate than I.

I like "Redneck Energy Solutions, LLC"

Actually, so do I.

TheRedneck

reply to post by HunkaHunka

I'm saying that tipping points take small amounts of time once they are triggered... And the gradual move back takes a long time...

Do you have any empirical basis that this is the case with climate?



TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Nope. the larger companies profits will be off-set by being required to reflect the cost of polluting in thier profit and loss equations. Thus far US taxpayers have carried that expense for them in EPA clean-up operations, health care expenses etc..

No offense, but you are living in a dream... never in the history of society has a large company decided to just not pass along their costs to the consumer. That includes carbon credits, taxes, and anything else they incur.

That dynamic will not change because we want it to.

Example...

Huge, established, multi-billion dollar company X has breakeven price..

(C) Costs of production (Hardware, real estate, people, technology, machinery, delivery etc plus (p) pollution produced by the process) determine the bottom line minimum expense.

Lets say they break even at .30 cents a kilowat hour.

There break even right now is represented by C - P (pollution) ..That 30 cents pkwh is artificial...they are being subsidized because they get a free ride from not carrying the cost of pollution.

let's make them responsible for that cost that we cover in Medical bills and federal cleean-ups...stop the subsidy...yes the .30 cents bumps up to .40 cents and we feel it.

But how can we expect an alternative energy company to compete with the Big Boys right now when the Gov. is subsidizing the big boys giving them an unfair advantage. Subsidies in the form taxpayer dollars toward envirornmental clean-up and direct consumer expenses in medical bills.

So a new company inventing technology X that is clean and costs .35 pkw hour is at a disadvantage and will never go anyplace as long as the big companies enjoy the polluters subsidy from US n the US Gov. ITS CHEAPER TO POLLUTE FOR FREE.

Get it?

Now if the big companies can no longer pollute for free...and the price goes to 40 cents per Kw for them, then the new clean energy comming in at 35 cents just ate thier lunch rather than immediately folding. The Big boys can try and compete, but the only way they can reduce those break even costs lower is to reduce the pollution that they now have to actually pay for.

Without those incentives...why on earth wouldn't the energy companies keep enjoying thier free polluting? It gives them a financial advantage that crushes any alternate energy business.

and BTW - Thier polluting is free to them, because WE pay for it in other ways...tax dollars, EPA, Super-fund clean-ups, medical bills etc. etc.

How can any rational, even conservative, mind think it is OK for those corporations to be subsidized by us?...Allowing them to shut out competitive alternative energies?

I remember 20 years ago during an economics course my professor scrawling out a real world cost equation for an energy company...about 30 some odd variable and fixed costs, and I saw the "p subsidy" and asked what that was and he explained it...energy companies financial analysts actually know about this very well and factor it into financial strategy....the amount of expense they pass on to the public when they pollute..and the best ways to capitalize on it.

I have to believe you get it.

Yes your energy bill might go up under cap and trade, but then again if it allows cleaner energy companies to actually be able to fairly compete for the first time...it might go down!

Even if it goes up, it is reflecting money we already pay in different ways and as a nation our net expense holds steady...but now there is an even playing field for innovation...and believe me if all of a sudden doing it cleaner means cheaper...market forces will do there thing and innovation and efficiency will drop prices...none of which will ever happen as long as we keep subsidizing the big energy companies by letting them pollute for free......and we pay the costs...no more subsidies.

We are moving Pollution to the expense collumn for these big players...where it belongs.



[edit on 23-6-2010 by maybereal11]

reply to post by maybereal11


You just don't get it, do you? No matter how much you bill the big companies for causing pollution they will always pass along those costs to consumers. Company X who is developing cleaner energy solutions is still using traditional energy in their offices and development. If traditional energy companies pass the costs on, how is a small company like Company X supposed to stay in business and continue development of their clean energy solution? They still have to use what is available today to meet their goals and that's never going to happen as long as the costs continue to increase! What you're saying only makes sense as long as the big companies are not allowed to pass on the burden of cost to others, and how can you make sure they don't do that? You would have to regulate each and every aspect of their business to make sure that they don't raise rates, fees or anything from then on. But what you end up with is government controlling businesses and no one wants that. This situation is a Catch-22 and is not going to be resolved by cap and trade. Cap and trade is only going to hurt the economy more than it's hurting now.

Get it?

Originally posted by black cat
reply to post by maybereal11

 

What you're saying only makes sense as long as the big companies are not allowed to pass on the burden of cost to others,

They already are...that is exactly what they are doing...when they don't pay for the pollution they create, we do...sometimes I don't think i am speaking english.

Status quo...free polluting to big corporations...because we pay the bill...not in utility charges...in EPA programs, superfund clean-ups (tax dollars) and medical expenses (direct consumer expense) etc. etc. etc.

WE ARE ALREADY LITERALLY PAYING FOR IT.

reply to post by maybereal11

OK, let's go with that example...

Company A produces 1 GW of power every hour. Their costs are $0.30 per kWhr, and they sell that power for $0.35.

Company B produces 1 MW of power every hour. Their costs, due to the fact they cannot buy fuel or equipment in the quantities that company A can, are more like $0.34 per kWh. They are selling their power as well for $0.35, since they are on the same grid as company A.

Company A is making $0.05 x 1,000,000 = $50,000 per hour profit. Company B is making $0.01 x 1000 = $10 per hour profit. Company A is doing just fine the way things are. They are financing a small research team to study alternate energy, but only so they can look better to the public. Company B is actually trying to develop better technology, because they are just barely hanging on financially and desperately need to produce power cheaper. The problem is they can't really put much money into it; they simply don't have it to invest.

Now here comes Cap & Trade. Company A gets 10 carbon credits for 1 MWhr of power each. Company B gets 1 such carbon credit. That's the way every plan I have heard so far works: companies receive carbon credits based on their production.

Some plans have companies buying the carbon credits to start with. So let's say the going rate for a 1 MW carbon credit is $1000. Company A has to buy 10 of these credits, for a total of $10,000. They make that in 12 minutes. Company B has to only buy one, for a total of $1000. It takes them 100 hours (over 4 days) to recoup that cost!

Now demand for power goes up; there is a market for another 1 MW of power. Now company B could double their income and be able to put twice the money into real research if they could fill that void, but they have to buy another carbon credit to do it. Company A can do the same thing and gain 10% of their already substantial income, none of which will go to research, since they really don't want any research breakthroughs. Whichever one fills the void, they will have to purchase another carbon credit.

If a carbon credit costs $1000, then it costs company A a little over a minute's profit. Company B, on the other hand, has to fork over 100 hours worth of profit. Who do you think will wind up getting that carbon credit and making extra money? Company A, who has plenty of money and doesn't care about better production methods, or company B, who really cares about developing better energy sources but is strapped for cash?

Roses aren't looking so rosy for the little guy now, are they?

And, finally, I have to mention that CO2 is not 'pollution'... it is a necessary part of the life cycle of the planet, and already exists in the atmosphere. We're not talking about HCl or NOx or SO2... if we were I would be screaming to high heaven for controls much stricter than Cap & Trade. And on that note, I will agree with you that we should never subsidize pollution via public taxation! That is a shame that has stained the industry for a very long time and should be discontinued!

TheRedneck

reply to post by maybereal11


I get that we're already paying for it, but how much is too much? They will all continue to rape us with rate hikes and fees to recoup any future losses. I know Bank of America isn't an energy company, but take a look at what they did this past week. Because of the new financial regulations imposed on them they have done away with free checking "in most cases". Again, we, the consumer, are being hen-pecked to pay for their corporate greed. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that nothing should be done. Clearly the cycle of corporate to customer abuse has gone on far too long. There has to be another solution to this problem other than slapping these corporate giants with financial penalties that they will take out on consumers.

EDIT for spelling and context correction

[edit on 23-6-2010 by black cat]

Originally posted by Xeven
Why are so many people so passionately against Al Gore and his efforts to protect our planet. ... where does that hate come from?

Are you kidding me? You wonder why you as an environmentalist are hated?

Thousands have lost jobs over the global warming scam.

You dont understand because it isnt you who are hurt! You dont think about the ramifications. You only scratch the surface of environmental issues before going off half cocked and ruining lives and entire industries.

You people are so prideful to think that we can destroy the Earth.

You claim it is billions of years old yet our activities over the last 100 years will ruin everything!

You scream the sky is falling and when it dosent you move on to the next pet problem and kill another industry, ruin another family, make another ghost town. You dont see the pain you inflict upon your fellow man.

Thousands of families entire ways of life were destroyed in the name of saving the planet from something that did not exist!

DO you understand that people have DIED due to financial hardship brought on by environmentalists fools who thought they were saving the planet but were really just destroying peoples way of life?

Remember the Northern Spotted Owl? Turns out he is infact one and the same species as the California Spotted Owl. There are a CRAP LOAD of California Spotted Owls.

From wiki:Spotted Owl

The California spotted owl is not considered to be threatened nor endangered by the USFWS; however, it considered to be a species of special concern by the state of California and the United States Forest Service (USFS). All subspecies of the spotted owl are often the subject of disagreement between conservationists and loggers, cattle grazers, developers, and other organizations whose activities can affect forest conservation. In February 2008, a federal judge reinforced a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to designate 8,600,000 acres (34,800 km2) in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico as critical habitat for the owl. The decision had been challenged by the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association, but Judge Susan Bolton upheld the designation. According to the Center for Biological diversity, "Having critical habitat will ensure that U.S. Forest Service logging does not limit the bird's recovery or drive it into extinction.

While we debate this crap people are loosing home and land, loosing the ability to purchase food, clothing, and medicine.

Here in the Pacific North West entire communities that used to thrive from logging have turned into ghost towns. Families that lived off the bounty of the forest are now living in poverty

In Nevada families were thrown off of cattle grazing land to protect the desert tortoise from extinction. MILLIONS of dollars were lost, an entire segment of an industry shut down. The families that ranched the areas for generations now live in a state of poverty. Do you know what happened? There are so many damn turtles that the government now KILLS THOUSANDS per year now because they cant shelter them all now that they are considered an endangered species.

Turns out they didnt count right. We have ALL KINDS of desert tortoises! They are actually sort of a pest when you consider the trouble people cause in their names.

Funny thing, we later find out that the cattle were HELPING the tortoise by clearing out vegetative growth that was inhibiting the growth of tortoise food!

Do you think the families were issued an apology or returned to the land or even financialy compensated? They were not.

Obviously the tortoise has little to do with the topic directly, but it has everything to do with why people get angry at knee jerk reactions to major issues (or non-issues, as the Spotted Owl and Desert Tortoise were).

There are hundreds of cases just like the Owl and Tortoise, and thousands of families displaced in the name of fanatical nature worshiping environmentalism.

And just an FYI here, I am not against conservation, just modern religious environmentalism. My family of 8 recycles and composts more than we put in the garbage can, I farm and eat organic, and I get VERY angry when I see entire hillsides clear cut. HOWEVER, I understand that we need to be SURE about what we are doing before we let it impact peoples lives. Man made global warming science (pardon the pun) has always been suspect and Al Gore's lies, even if he did think he was saving the world at the time (and I dont think he did believe that), caused many poor people's situations to deteriorate.

A man is responsible for the negativity caused by what comes out of his mouth. The Bible teaches us that it is not what goes in our mouth that defiles us, but instead what COMES OUT of our mouths. All Gore's words are a hurtful abomination.

Next time you want to know why people are angry about something you should do two things: put yourself in their shoes and EDUCATE YOURSELF.