Global Warming

[vz71]

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.

Nor I.
But we are arguing about what actually IS, not what you can convince yourself of.

 

[mapleoak]

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.

True the cost per gallon remains the same and the proportion of tax per gallon increases, the revenue still goes down with decreased consumption. Less gallons sold, less total gallons being taxed even if being taxed at a higher percentage. This is true only because it is proportional rather than disproportional. In other words, half the demand does not equal half the oil price. Otherwise revenue would actually increase with decreased demand.

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.

True if it prevents investors from opting out of alternative fuel investments during cheap oil periods.

 

[paulamari]

Basically,

We in Victoria, Australia, have been informed that the unprecedented extreme temperature of 47 degrees celsius on the dreadful day of 7th February, 2009 when bushfires began to rage throughout parts of the state (which are still burning) - were in part due to Global Warming!

Although not widely mentioned, it has been discovered that on 6th February, 1851 the extreme drought conditions were similar to those presently experienced and the temperature was exactly the same, ie 47 degrees celsius! People described the air “like a furnace” at the time, as we have recently done. One quarter of what is now Victoria (at the time Port Phillip) was wiped out.

“Global Warming?” I think not!..

 

[iceman]

Global warming is a ruse, a global con strategy to alarm people into accepting a global initiative (“solution”) governed through a global power (global government-new world order). It also is a means to steer people toward pagan religions which worship “mother earth” - Gaia, and away from the true faith. Now who could possibly be behind all this!?!

 

[Ender]

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.
I guess this is suggested on the theory that the government is so much better than the market in determining which ideas are technologically superior.

Investment in a smarter energy grid that makes more efficient use of energy.

Higher MPG standards. Higher efficiency standards for TV, air conditioners, refrigerators.
If these things could be achieved simply by writing the requirements into law I’d say let’s write a bill requiring that cars run on water. Given that reality intrudes, we should recognize that the reality in this case is that MPG standards are really aimed at the elimination of large vehicles, especially the notorious SUV.

banning incandescant light.
Yes, let’s get the government into every corner of our lives on the well documented theory that they know best.

Tax breaks for alternative fuel companies (more tax breaks).
Alternative fuel companies need tax breaks because they are inefficient and costly; just the kind of thing that appeals to politicians.

Increasing per kilowatt hour prices utility companies can charge based on their increasing efficiency.
This now works against alternative energy companies … which makes it a typical governmental program: what they do with one hand they undo with the other.

That’s for starters.
Clearly this would be only the tip of the iceberg. Once you accept the idea that bureaucrats know best the exercise of individual liberty is severely constrained.

Ender

 

[sodak]

relax denier. I gave a ridiculous response to a ridiculous question.

Go back and re-read the forum rules. Another incidence of name calling, and you’ll be sent off to the moderators. By me.

I have a lot to gain. Not because I am a lawyer. Because I am a father.

That’s exactly why I am concerned also - of unlimited power grabs by crooked politicians using bad science fiction to advance their interests. Which are quite contrary to our Constitution, by the way.

Wait, when did global warming become my fault???

We took a vote and you lost. Since all the GW people use proof by consensus, since you were voted as the cause, it is now a demonstrable fact. That’s the way science (fiction) works, right?

That mean that although less gas would be used (a good thing).

Why is that a good thing? I don’t agree with this logic at all. What if that gas is being used to take a scientist back to his lab because he just thought of the cure for cancer? Or an ambulance coming to save someone? Or a fireman racing to save some children from a burning school?

There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with using our natural resources in a responsible way. The earth was made for man, not the other way around.

 

[Valke2]

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?

It’s no news that we choose convenience over conservation every time. All the more reason why these issues need to have the government behind them. And why we need to be more aware of the hidden costs that dirty energy brings with it. By dirty, I mean coal, oil and gas.

 

[Valke2]

BRASILIA, Brazil – The future for Brazil’s mighty farm sector could be grim, with hotter temperatures pushing crops past its borders, uphill into the Andes and toward the tip of South America.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090218/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_brazil_migrating_crops_1

 

[Valke2]

The new head of U.S. intelligence and top adviser to President Barack Obama says climate change is a top threat to the national security of the country.

upi.com/Energy_Resources/2009/02/18/Intel_chief_Climate_change_threatens_US_security/UPI-14021234988045/

 

[vz71]

BRASILIA, Brazil – The future for Brazil’s mighty farm sector could be grim, with hotter temperatures pushing crops past its borders, uphill into the Andes and toward the tip of South America.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090218/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_brazil_migrating_crops_1

The new head of U.S. intelligence and top adviser to President Barack Obama says climate change is a top threat to the national security of the country.

upi.com/Energy_Resources/2009/02/18/Intel_chief_Climate_change_threatens_US_security/UPI-14021234988045/

So are we talking about Global Warming, or are we talking about climate change.
The two cannot be used interchangeably.

 

[vz71]

It’s no news that we choose convenience over conservation every time. All the more reason why these issues need to have the government behind them. And why we need to be more aware of the hidden costs that dirty energy brings with it. By dirty, I mean coal, oil and gas.

Of course…
If we cannot convince people of the case, we’ll force them through police action.

Tell me, when the police knock down someone’s door, subject them to various mistreatment, and throw them in jail for their usage of oil, will you feel justified?

 

[Valke2]

So are we talking about Global Warming, or are we talking about climate change.
The two cannot be used interchangeably.

Actually, they can. However climate change is the more accurate term. And this has nothing to do with the two news items I linked.

 

[Valke2]

Of course…
If we cannot convince people of the case, we’ll force them through police action.

Tell me, when the police knock down someone’s door, subject them to various mistreatment, and throw them in jail for their usage of oil, will you feel justified?

You really are a paronoid person. By government action I was referring to tax incentives and penalties that promote alternative energy and energy efficiency.

 

[vz71]

You really are a paronoid person. By government action I was referring to tax incentives and penalties that promote alternative energy and energy efficiency.

All of which must be enforced by the police, and is ripe for abuse.

One need only look at the various litigations the IRS is involved with to see the abuses that occur over ‘tax incentives and penalties.’

So again I ask, will you feel justified once people start being thrown in jail for using oil?

 

[Valke2]

The environmental agency is under order from the Supreme Court to make a determination whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers public health and welfare, an order that the Bush administration essentially ignored despite near-unanimous belief among agency experts that research points inexorably to such a finding.
nytimes.com/2009/02/19/science/earth/19epa.html?em

 

[vz71]

Actually, they can.

No, they cannot. The words mean two entirely different things.
Treating them as synonyms shows either a woeful ignorance of vocabuary at best, outright deception at worst.

However climate change is the more accurate term. And this has nothing to do with the two news items I linked.

Sure it does. Throughout this thread, you have advocated manmade global warming. Yet you keep linking to articles that highlight ‘climate change.’
So which is it?

 

[vz71]

The environmental agency is under order from the Supreme Court to make a determination whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers public health and welfare, an order that the Bush administration essentially ignored despite near-unanimous belief among agency experts that research points inexorably to such a finding.
nytimes.com/2009/02/19/science/earth/19epa.html?em

Only in the wacky world of politics could a harmless gas that promotes life in plants be considered a dangerous chemical.

Will I need special permits to breath?
After all, I exhale this dangerous chemical with every breath.
Perhaps they will declare human life harmful to the planet…oh wait…they have.

 

[Valke2]

No, they cannot. The words mean two entirely different things.
Treating them as synonyms shows either a woeful ignorance of vocabuary at best, outright deception at worst.

Sure it does. Throughout this thread, you have advocated manmade global warming. Yet you keep linking to articles that highlight ‘climate change.’
So which is it?

Actually, they can. However climate change is the more accurate term. And this has nothing to do with the two news items I linked.

 

[Valke2]

Only in the wacky world of politics could a harmless gas that promotes life in plants be considered a dangerous chemical.

Will I need special permits to breath?
After all, I exhale this dangerous chemical with every breath.
Perhaps they will declare human life harmful to the planet…oh wait…they have.

So far the EPA, the Supreme Court, Brazil, the UN, England and the EU are whacky over greenhouse gases. And President Obama of course. I suppose McCain is whacky as well. And Blair. And India. …

 

[Calliso]

Actually, they can. However climate change is the more accurate term. And this has nothing to do with the two news items I linked.

I am copying and pasting this from else where The phrase “climate change” is growing in preferred use to “global warming”
because it helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures.

Basically global warming isn;t an inaccurate term it;s just too simplistic.