Obama acts to reverse Bush climate moves

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Ok, now you and your two neighbors just took $15K from "people you don't
>know". Nice job.

Yep. And they'll take it back from me when they send their kids to school, or when they get a job at the DMV. We're all in this together.

>The subsidies don't appear by magic - the net result is you are forcing others
>to pay for your system.

Correct. Any subsidy, whether it is a tax break for solar, a tax break for mortgage interest, free medical care for veterans, free ATC support for your flight or deductions for kids are "forcing" others to pay to drive behavior the government considers good or fair.

Not much different than requiring a utlitity to buy your genergated power at retail vs manufactures cost.

Now, I would have no problem with that if you are required to pay for maintenance and construction of the lines to carry that power back to the grid at the transmission to distribution substation. After all, if you do not you are getting a huge benifit.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

YOU are the one making an assurtion that we are destroying the planet. YOU are the one saying we shoud change to live the way you think we should all live. Therefore, it is up to YOU to prove it. Not anybody else

The point is that countless studies have shown just that, but people like you ignore them and say, "That's not enough proof." Her question was, "What would be enough proof?"

I suspect the answer is that there is no amount of evidence that would be acceptable to show a need for change.

- Dan G

[billvon 3,078]

>Now, I would have no problem with that if you are required to pay for
>maintenance and construction of the lines to carry that power back to the grid at
>the transmission to distribution substation. After all, if you do not you are
>getting a huge benifit.

OK, then how about this:

I pay them a nominal fee to maintain the lines. If I use more than I generate, I pay them more for the power I use. If I generate more than I use, they get the extra power for free.

Would that seem fair?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

YOU are the one making an assurtion that we are destroying the planet. YOU are the one saying we shoud change to live the way you think we should all live. Therefore, it is up to YOU to prove it. Not anybody else

The point is that countless studies have shown just that, but people like you ignore them and say, "That's not enough proof." Her question was, "What would be enough proof?"

I suspect the answer is that there is no amount of evidence that would be acceptable to show a need for change.

Um, no. There's countless studies that suggest that - there's a difference. I'd be a lot less skeptical if the studies weren't based on information that ignores the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

YOU are the one making an assurtion that we are destroying the planet. YOU are the one saying we shoud change to live the way you think we should all live. Therefore, it is up to YOU to prove it. Not anybody else

So why not provide a little guidance? tell me what scientific study/experiment/evidence WOULD prove or disprove it? Since the hundreds of things previously posted don't seem to do it, what WOULD? Do you see the conundrum? You want people to provide proof, yet it's never the kind you want to see. So how are we to know what you DO want to see unless you tell us?

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

YOU are the one making an assurtion that we are destroying the planet. YOU are the one saying we shoud change to live the way you think we should all live. Therefore, it is up to YOU to prove it. Not anybody else

The point is that countless studies have shown just that, but people like you ignore them and say, "That's not enough proof." Her question was, "What would be enough proof?"

I suspect the answer is that there is no amount of evidence that would be acceptable to show a need for change.

First off, you start from a false premise. at least for me. These "studies" you speak to are in many cases carry little strength. Especially when one looks at other studies that counter the data and or conclusions.

Hell, in the Des Moines Registrer today is says we cant fix it now even if we stopped puttuing out CO2 today, at least untill the year 3000.

Billvon says CO2 levels lead planetary temps. He believes that and that is ok. I think CO2 levels lag world temps. There are studies and data that say both.

So, befor we hand trillions of tax dollars over to world politions (that will do good things with the money right?) The "studies" are going to have to be better than they are today

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Read my post to DanG....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

We're just asking you to define "better". mnealtx gave a concrete example of what he wants to see in climate studies. Can you?

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Now, I would have no problem with that if you are required to pay for
>maintenance and construction of the lines to carry that power back to the grid at
>the transmission to distribution substation. After all, if you do not you are
>getting a huge benifit.

OK, then how about this:

I pay them a nominal fee to maintain the lines. If I use more than I generate, I pay them more for the power I use. If I generate more than I use, they get the extra power for free.

Would that seem fair?

I feel a trip wire in here some where but I cant see it quite yet.

I think what is fair is you get the same price generators get for the power. More simple that way. Still not totally fair to the power comany but at least they can turn a small profit on the power you sell them to help cover costs of lines to you. Usually the minimum service fee that comew with you bill is the part that covers the cost of pipe and wire going to a service anyway.

I could see even a small percentage more than genration costs because you are paying for the service being brought to you.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Anthropologic ice core, tree ring, and sea sediment studies indicating that tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands and years ago the climate had higher and lower temps along with higher and lower levels of CO2. CO2 levels higher than we are seeing today. Times before man altogether and (I just posted this week about ) times when man started farming in larger scales (the link I posted and exchanged with billvon about says that farming is a bigger problem with green house gasses than manufacturing but that is another thread)

Some of those studies also seem to indicate that temps lead the changes in CO2 levels. CO2 levels leading temp changes is THE main data that AGW supporters hang their hats on. (and I know it is not the only thing)

Hope this helps you understand my position is not just random

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

To add to my other post.

Some of the "studies" claim computer models show man made global warming but, when one looks into how the data was entered and the program run, the operators had to manipulate the program to get a "meaningful" result. Those I find very hard to follow or believe.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>I know you think it would be so much easier if the government just took it
>all and spent it for us.

And I know you'd prefer we not have a military, a government, roads, bridges, water systems, sewers or police. But the world is an unfair place, and sometimes you get things you didn't pay for (exclusively.)

>I'm glad you got your system at the expense of others that then had to wait
>to afford their own.

And I'm glad you got your roads at the expense of people who don't use them, and your ATC services at the expense of people who don't fly or skydive.

I understand, I can't agree with your view that the subsidies are the main reason - but I do understand it, lots of people are on that bandwagon.

I'll stick with simply energy efficiency just being the right thing to do and there are 'natural' markets for it - without subsidies or a huge overriding made up purpose to make the flakes feel validated.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Thanks. I appreciate the thoughtful post.

- Dan G

[pop 0]

Quote

Not that big of a deal, really.
If he can get the rest of the industrialized world on the same page, then THAT would be impressive.

To be a leader you lead by example. If you US accompishes this task, maybe the rest of the world will follow. It is a big deal.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[quade 4]

Quote

Anthropologic ice core, tree ring, and sea sediment studies indicating . . .

Do you know what the word "anthropologic" means?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Quote

Anthropologic ice core, tree ring, and sea sediment studies indicating . . .

Do you know what the word "anthropologic" means?

LOL

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[434 2]

Quote

Quote

Anthropologic ice core, tree ring, and sea sediment studies indicating . . .

Do you know what the word "anthropologic" means?

To easy http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Anthropologic

[ianmdrennan 2]

Ok - just a general, sincere, question to opponents of cleaning up the environment.

Lets say, hypothetically, that we're NOT causing any global warming, etc and that there are no long-term ill effects (on the globe) of pollution.

Why would you not try and keep making our place to live cleaner, and more efficient anyway?

I guess I'm totally lost on people who oppose the idea of trying to clean up the planet, even if it's for no other reason that the ecological equivalent to dusting your house?

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[434 2]

Just a quick search for rainforest in ASIA and S. America should give those with a conscious something to think about. Some people will turn the blind eye for the true beauty of our world and how we are ruining it. Make a search about fish in the sea, you will see how far we have gone to overfish the resources we should have taken better care of! More more more more we want, and if it a bit left we want that to!

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Ok - just a general, sincere, question to opponents of cleaning up the environment.

Lets say, hypothetically, that we're NOT causing any global warming, etc and that there are no long-term ill effects (on the globe) of pollution.

Why would you not try and keep making our place to live cleaner, and more efficient anyway?

I guess I'm totally lost on people who oppose the idea of trying to clean up the planet, even if it's for no other reason that the ecological equivalent to dusting your house?

Ian

I don’t think I have ever heard ANYONE say that "making our place to live cleaner, and more efficient" is a bad idea.

I don’t know of anyone that is opposed to cleaning up the planet.

The problem that many people (Including myself) have is that so many highly questionable and unsubstantiated things are being tossed around as "Fact" in regards to Global Warming/Climate Change.

Pollution is Bad. No one doubts that and we all need to do our part.

But are we willing to live without power or greatly reduced ability to generate power based on questionable science?

The environmentalists have successful blocked any new Nuclear Power generation plants from being built in the past 20 years. They want to shut down Coal Fired and other Power Generation Plants based on these studies. If they are successful, where will we get electricity from?

Even the notion that man made carbon is the cause for Global Warming/Climate Change is still disputed by many highly respected scientists.

The environmentalists are using these flawed studies to pass Laws that have an effect on all of us. The general public is being brainwashed into blindly accepting things that have not always been proven to be completely true.

Not sure if you remember the great “Hole in the Ozone” scare from the 80`s where scientist and the press tried to convince us that refrigerants and Aerosols (Chlorofluorocarbons) were causing a great hole in the ozone that was guaranteed to kill us all.

I absolutely support cleaning up the environment because it is the right thing to do. I completely support being environmentally friendly and reducing our impact on the environment as much as possible but not to the point that we go back to horse drawn carriages (Actually Horses Fart and that is just as bad for the environment according to the alarmists so forget this option as well) and living in caves. There is Middle ground and we need to find it and ignore extremists on either side.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Ok - just a general, sincere, question to opponents of cleaning up the environment.

Lets say, hypothetically, that we're NOT causing any global warming, etc and that there are no long-term ill effects (on the globe) of pollution.

Why would you not try and keep making our place to live cleaner, and more efficient anyway?

I guess I'm totally lost on people who oppose the idea of trying to clean up the planet, even if it's for no other reason that the ecological equivalent to dusting your house?

Ever seen some of those horror stories on tv where some hoarder... or some pet abuser lives in a freaking cesspool???

Some people have a greater tolerance for living in the cesspool they are used to... than cleaning it up. When I visit other places.. and can barely breathe... I realize that all of the GREEN thinking.. still has a long way to go.

I am very grateful to live in a place that has clean air that I can rarely see.. and more importantly smell.... but when I go other places I a, appalled just how nasty some people are willing to live.

[billvon 3,078]

>I don’t know of anyone that is opposed to cleaning up the planet.

I know a lot of them. They're the sort who say they would prefer a cleaner planet, but oppose any effort to make it a cleaner planet.

>Pollution is Bad. No one doubts that and we all need to do our part.

Yep. It's taken a tremendous amount of effort and expense to clean up places like LA - but it's been worth it. The air is between 50 and 90% cleaner than it was in 1970. Fewer kids are getting asthma and fewer adults are dying of COPD and emphysema.

The problem there is that, back then, you heard all the same nonsense you hear today. "No one has PROVED that catalytic converters work! It will cost trillions, and no one in the US will ever be able to afford a car. CARB is tossing around all these highly questionable and unsubstantiated things and claiming that they are "FACT" - but the science isn't settled! Sure, I'm all for cleaning up the planet, as long as someone else does it."

Fortunately we ignored those people and just did it.

>The environmentalists have successful blocked any new Nuclear Power
>generation plants from being built in the past 20 years.

Nowadays it's actually consumer groups:

========================
Monday, Jan 26, 2009
Nuclear plant foes shift from environmentalists to consumer groups
By DON NORFLEET
The Fulton Sun

Other than balancing the state's budget during a recession, AmerenUE's plan to build a second reactor at the Callaway Nuclear Plant is considered by many as the biggest issue facing the current session of the Missouri General Assembly.

The plant expansion, estimated to cost from $6 to $9 billion, would be the single most expensive construction project in Missouri's history.

Unlike the first nuclear reactor to be constructed in Missouri, opposition to the second nuclear reactor at the Callaway Nuclear Plant has come more from consumer groups than anti-nuclear activists and environmentalists.

Irl L. Scissors, a top lobbyist for the Missouri environmental and conservation alliance, has resigned as their lobbyist. Scissors revealed that he will support the new legislation allowing utilities to pay for nuclear, wind and solar plants during construction. Scissors said he also will lobby Missouri legislators to approve the bill. He said greater reliance on nuclear power and renewable energy can help replace current coal-fired power plants.
=========================

But we can whip them into line as well.

>Not sure if you remember the great “Hole in the Ozone” scare from the 80`s
> where scientist and the press tried to convince us that refrigerants and
>Aerosols (Chlorofluorocarbons) were causing a great hole in the ozone that
>was guaranteed to kill us all.

Uh, bad example, there. CFC's were damaging the ozone layer. We stopped using CFC's and ozone loss stopped. That's an example of a prohibition that worked - even though there were lots of manufacturers predicting doom and gloom, and a future of people baking in homes in Phoenix where no one could afford air conditioners or refrigerators.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Anthropologic ice core, tree ring, and sea sediment studies indicating . . .

Do you know what the word "anthropologic" means?

Alright, I got typing away and I did not think about it. I spelled it right though didnt I?

Anyway, I was speaking to studies done by paleo climatologist. Too many things going on.

You got my jist though didnt you......

Did I spell this other word correctly?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,545]

Quote

Not sure if you remember the great “Hole in the Ozone” scare from the 80`s where scientist and the press tried to convince us that refrigerants and Aerosols (Chlorofluorocarbons) were causing a great hole in the ozone that was guaranteed to kill us all.

The ozone hole is quite real. It just doesn't impact the US all that directly, because it's over parts of the southern hemisphere. I have cousins in Argentina who say that they cannot spend as long outdoors as they used to without getting horribly sunburned -- very significantly so. Australia and New Zealand (light-skinned folks there) have one of the highest melanoma rates in the world.

So it hasn't killed us all, but it's quite real. It's just that since all those folks are far away, it doesn't affect the US all that much. And, of course, the reduction in CFCs meant that things are either getting better, or not getting bad as quickly. Sucks that we can't use as many aerosols, or the cheaper A/C, but the upside is that what's happening to all those far-away people isn't spreading here.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Not sure if you remember the great “Hole in the Ozone” scare from the 80`s where scientist and the press tried to convince us that refrigerants and Aerosols (Chlorofluorocarbons) were causing a great hole in the ozone that was guaranteed to kill us all.

The ozone hole is quite real. It just doesn't impact the US all that directly, because it's over parts of the southern hemisphere. I have cousins in Argentina who say that they cannot spend as long outdoors as they used to without getting horribly sunburned -- very significantly so. Australia and New Zealand (light-skinned folks there) have one of the highest melanoma rates in the world.

So it hasn't killed us all, but it's quite real. It's just that since all those folks are far away, it doesn't affect the US all that much. And, of course, the reduction in CFCs meant that things are either getting better, or not getting bad as quickly. Sucks that we can't use as many aerosols, or the cheaper A/C, but the upside is that what's happening to all those far-away people isn't spreading here.

Wendy W.

You are right, it is and was real. There are now climate chemists that say they got the chemistry wrong and that they think the CFC's had less than 1/10 of the impact reported back then.

I cant find it now but you can bet it was not widely reported

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln