V
Valke2
Guest
As far as dealing with climate change, Saudi Arabia ranks dead last. Gee, I wonder why.
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
Speaking of deception, I did find an interesting chart of the European Union’s progress toward their Kyoto target. It is regularly touted that they are making excellent progress and, golly, why can’t we do the same? What goes unmentioned is why, when Kyoto was signed in 1997, the target year was 1990. That’s where this chart is so helpful. Europe - specifically England and Germany - had achieved major CO2 reductions because of activities completely unrelated to environmental concerns, and the EU wanted credit for that. As you can see, in 1997 they were already below the 1990 target. What you can also see is that as of 2006 they are right where they were when they signed the treaty. Holding your own may be seen as significant progress but, as can be seen from the “progress” they made prior to 1997, reductions in CO2 often have nothing to do with specifically environmental actions.
climateprogress.org/2008/10/20/are-europes-greenhouse-gas-cuts-real/
The other thing I wonder about is how much of the “reduction” was achieved by actually doing something and how much is the result of buying carbon credits, which quite literally is nothing more than paying for the right to say you are non-emitting.
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/eu-15.jpg
Ender
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
So you saying you don’t support the implementation of governmental policies and resolutions to curb global warming?
Or are you just blissfully unaware that governmental policies and resolutions intended to curb global warming must be ultimately enforced with the threat of government sanctioned violence in the form of wealth redistribution, punitive taxation, and, worse, the consequences that come from outright refusal to comply with such policies and regulations?
I don’t care at all that you believe in global warming- I only care that you believe so strongly that you are correct that you’ll eventually vote to punish those who don’t agree with you- for our own good, of course, and the good of mother earth, or gaia, or al gore, or the jolly green giant, or whoever else environmentalists are worshipping these days.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Excellent post-
I predict that the response from the global warming enthusiasts will take the following path…
First, they’ll attack your source as just another right-wing conspiracy nut
Second, they’ll say your source pales in comparison to the billions of scientists who believe in global warming, not to mention the “fact” that the whole world believes that the Kyoto treaty did a lot of good…so long as you define “the whole world” as only those countries that believe the Kyoto treaty did a lot of good.
Third, they’ll concede that the Kyoto treaty was nothing more than a massive wealth redistribution scam, but argue that it is still invaluable because it encouraged countries to at least do something. Even if that “something” happened to be lining the pockets of politicians with funds gained from the sale of carbon credits, and diverting large amounts of wealth to environmental lobbyists so that they can lobby for bigger and better environmental legislation.
Last, if you get this far, they will chortle at you, pat you on the head, congratulate you on a good effort…and declare that this matter has already been settled.
So I resubmit the exchange…
Seems to me that you advocate violence.
V
Valke2
Guest
I advocate you getting a sense of humor.
As to what I would like to see implemented in this country:
A floating gas tax which ensures that gas never drops below a specific price. So that companies that are thinking of investing 100s of millions of dollars in alternative energy sources don’t have to worry about a drop in oil prices causing their investment to evaporate.
Investment in a smarter energy grid that makes more efficient use of energy.
Higher MPG standards. Higher efficiency standards for TV, air conditioners, refrigerators.
banning incandescant light.
Tax breaks for alternative fuel companies (more tax breaks).
Increasing per kilowatt hour prices utility companies can charge based on their increasing efficiency.
That’s for starters.
As to what I would like to see implemented in this country:
A floating gas tax which ensures that gas never drops below a specific price. So that companies that are thinking of investing 100s of millions of dollars in alternative energy sources don’t have to worry about a drop in oil prices causing their investment to evaporate.
Investment in a smarter energy grid that makes more efficient use of energy.
Higher MPG standards. Higher efficiency standards for TV, air conditioners, refrigerators.
banning incandescant light.
Tax breaks for alternative fuel companies (more tax breaks).
Increasing per kilowatt hour prices utility companies can charge based on their increasing efficiency.
That’s for starters.
A
a_burger
Guest
Oscarthecat might be responsible for global warming but I’m not. I actually read the facts and figures. The top five scientists were interviewed in Japan and four disagereed with global warming. Putin speaking for the Russians disagree with global warming. The facts and figures support we are approaching another ‘little ice age’ which by the way destroyed the Vikings.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Wait, when did global warming become my fault???
Do all the countries in the world agree with that, too?
O
otjm
Guest
But that is based on your assumption that all attorneys are altruistic, and that they truly and well want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to come out.
Welcome to the real world: in court, you are there to represent your clients interests to the best of your abilities. That your clients interests may appear to run counter to the truth is not your problem; you are there to put their interests in the best light possible. Any attorney who misperceives their duty, and instead takes over the functions of either judge or jury has failed. Period. They are not there to tell lies; but neither are they there to do the other side’s job; they are there to put their client’s position forward in the best possible light, and let the judge or jury make the decision.
M
Monty_Arch
Guest
“I don’t think that there is any global warming,” said Czech President Vaclav Klausthe, 67-year-old liberal, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. “I don’t see the statistical data for that.”
And there’s no global warming in Monty’s world.
:snowing:
V
Valke2
Guest
In 1991-1992 NKP worked on the issue “The Strategy of reducing the Risk of Climate Changes”. In 1993 NKP signed the Assistance Agreement for carrying out the Czech Republlic’s Country Study with the US Environmental Protection Agency, encompassing all important aspects of climate change. Outputs of this study benefit both Czech governmental authorities and scientific institutions. These outputs discussed climate change projections and the assessment of its possible impact on agriculture, forestry, hydrology and water resources in the Czech Republic. In 1996-1997, a plan for adaptations to climate change was created, the aim of which was to mitigate the anticipated consequences of possible climate change in the Czech Republic. More than 100 specialists took part in this job. In 1999, NKP won the contract to research the impact of enhanced greenhouse effect on the Czech Republic. The research was funded by the Ministry of the Environment.
The publishing firm of CHMI has issued 28 publications of the NKP series (started in 1991). The publications deal with the results of the NKP’s work, concentrating mainly on the climate monitoring and climate change assessing. 500 copies have been distributed. There are about 80 copies for international exchange.
chmi.cz/nkp/nkpeo.html
The publishing firm of CHMI has issued 28 publications of the NKP series (started in 1991). The publications deal with the results of the NKP’s work, concentrating mainly on the climate monitoring and climate change assessing. 500 copies have been distributed. There are about 80 copies for international exchange.
chmi.cz/nkp/nkpeo.html
I had considered that.
Altruistic or not, their job is to present the best possible case.
I would have thought that being skilled in the art of saying things while avoiding the direct responsibility of the idea would have been there regardless of motivations.
Perhaps I was mistaken.
Were that anyone could be certain of the joke.
But thus far, I do not believe there was any humor intended.
Sure. And what happens when the demand for oil drops and the government no longer collects as much money on tax for it?
Sounds like a dead end road to me.
That I can agree with.
There is a direct correlation between increase of MPG and car accident deaths.
Already there, without goverment intervention.
Find me an alternative that has the same cost, and I’ll be right there wanting it too.
If there really is global warming that you advocate, there need be no tax breaks…people will be clamoring to be on board.
Why? If the utility is truly more efficient then their competitors, then their profit margin goes up without charging more.
Besides, artificially manipulating the cost of goods is bad for business.
M
mapleoak
Guest
Well, I am back. Look at the kind of fun threads I have been missing out on.
Sure could have used a little global warming up here in my neck of the woods this past December and January. Al Gore certainly is to be commended for a job well done.
Sure could have used a little global warming up here in my neck of the woods this past December and January. Al Gore certainly is to be commended for a job well done.
V
Valke2
Guest
When arguing a case I usually have to worry about the other side’s expert witnessess. If I had to put my experts up against yours in front of a jury, I have no doubt what the result would be.
V
Valke2
Guest
No. When the demand for oil drops, the floating tax would keep a gallon of gas at, for example, 2 dollars. That mean that although less gas would be used (a good thing), the government would be making more per gallon because the price per gallon would have dropped. So when demand is high and is costing the companies 1.80 a gallon, more gas is sold by the tax is only bringing in 20 cents a gallon. When demand drops and companies are only paying $1.00 a gallon, the government is collecting $1.00 on each gallon.
Under the last administration, efficiency standards for air conditioners were actually relaxed. Without gov’t intervention, standards will not be high enough.
V
Valke2
Guest
a wave of new studies and technologies – strong, light materials, better airbags and smarter designs – are beginning to break the logjam. The upshot: A big shift in government thinking that is paving the way for regulators to revamp fuel-economy rules for SUVs and pickup trucks for the first time in three decades
Spurring the change in government thinking is new research, including a study that argued that the quality of a car can play as much of a role in safety as its weight. To measure quality, the study used resale values, which tend to correlate with better design and more safety features. Honda Motor Co. also broke from the industry, commissioning studies that found reducing a vehicle’s weight while maintaining its size actually saves lives
wsjclassroomedition.com/archive/05nov/auto_related_crashcourse.htm
Spurring the change in government thinking is new research, including a study that argued that the quality of a car can play as much of a role in safety as its weight. To measure quality, the study used resale values, which tend to correlate with better design and more safety features. Honda Motor Co. also broke from the industry, commissioning studies that found reducing a vehicle’s weight while maintaining its size actually saves lives
wsjclassroomedition.com/archive/05nov/auto_related_crashcourse.htm
M
mapleoak
Guest
When demand drops, irregardless of a floating or dynamically variable tax, less revenue is collected. Simple. Unless it is disproportionately variable in order to ensure the same revenue is collected no matter the demand. Whether the demand is for 1 gallon or 100 thousand gallons.
V
Valke2
Guest
The tax per gallon increases when the price drops. The gallon of gas that costs 1.80 brings in 20 cents in tax revenue. The gallon of gas that costs 1.00 when demand goes down brings in $1.00 of revenue. Because either way we are paying $2.00 per gallon at the pump.
In any event, the revenue issue does not effect the benefit such a tax has for alternative fuel investment because investors don’t have to worry about their hundreds of millions in investments evaporating if and when oil becomes cheap.
D
dbaseII
Guest
Roy Spencer, former senior scientist at NASA stated:
- They only have accurate trackings since the early 20th century
- In those trackings, they tracked both temperature rises and falls (may I remind you of the “global cooling crisis” in the 1980’s?)
- Spencer says the climate is actually a complex system which is a balanced system and it accomodates temperature changes so even if the temps got warmer or colder, it would likely accomodate
- he says it’s too early to tell (not enough years of tracking) but IF the earth is getting warmer, the net change would be about 1 degree per 5 years.
- Since (although they did not have detailed tracking methods) they know that there have been changes in the climate (colder and hotter) since the beginning, there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that man has had any effect on those changes (since similar warming and cooling trends happened way before man hit the scene.
- He points out that the media does not like observations but wants “truths”. And quips “If you want observations of things which are happening and POSSIBLE explanations, go to science - if you want TRUTHS, go to church.” He further stated that scientists don’t get big grants for research unless they come up with definite “facts”. Observations or possibilities is something no one cares about.
Society supports the “definite facts” (so called) and not the real science and this I find to be true in medicine also. No one likes the maybes or possibilities…
The first evidence for “Global warming” came from a politician who made a movie just like the evidence for 9/11 being caused by the government came from a movie … the latter rife with errors which can be easily found on the internet. That some scientists have jumped aboard (and gotten fat grants for research) does not prove much beyond as Spencer says, “scientists are human too”.
SOURCE: Spencer, Roy, PhD: CLIMATE CONFUSION (NY, 2008)
PS: yes we should be more aware of our poluting the earth but didya ever wonder why they “diss” bottled water even though MOST of the bottles can be recycled but NEVER attacked paper diapers which are said to be the biggest poluting agents in the landfills? Didya ever wonder why they never say a word about going back to recycling glass bottles by requiring a deposit on it which would also have the nice effect of disappearing the “fun” of some smashing bottles on the street?
And did you notice the day after 9/11 when all the planes were grounded, air polution went down to zero? Perhaps grounding all unnecessary planes and going back to taking the train would do loads for polution.
How about everyone going back to having ONE car? And using alternate transportation?
You see people don’t REALLY care about the earth… not when it cuts into their lifestyle. Most Americans are more talk than walk. hmmm
- Status