Radical Environmentalism: Now Global Warming Causes Prostitution?

[kimmielittle]

My problem with AGW is it is nothing but pure Malthusian propaganda, designed to kill off the human race. Every Catholic and Christian should be against it, for Malthusianism promotes all forms of human death and prevention of human birth (such as limiting families, use of contraception and ABC, promoting abortion, and forgoing helping the needy because they will only breed more).

Either the world is going to have Peak Oil (Bull Hockey), in which we have exhausted all forms of hydrocarbons and plunge into economic misery where we live like we’re in North Korea. Or we become so addicted to our hydrocarbon fuel sources that we literally burn up the planet through Anthropological Global Warming (Bull Hockey!) or is it Man-Made Global Warming, or Climate Change, or Anthropological Climate Change, or Global Cooling, or man…notice how they constantly have to evolve the name because even the pseudo-science wonks can’t even agree on what lie they are trying to tell.

Either way you cannot have both scenarios, if we run out of oil, we stop pumping out CO2 and the world is safe from melting ----unless of course the Sun decides to heat up or the volcanoes decided to erupt, the earth decides to tilt more on its axis or any other factor us moronic feeble humans have NO…ZIP…NADA…NEIN, NULLUS CONTROL OVER!---- if we don’t run out of fossil fuels, then that means we have a lot…can’t have it both ways and Malthusians always want to have it their way…Death.

Call me a radical but I don’t subscribe to this notion that we are more powerful than God and can destroy His creation. That doesn’t mean we act careless and reckless and live a life of gluttony which means we will have to produce more and use more resources (See there is a reason gluttony is a sin ) that doesn’t mean we just trash God’s creation, but we respect His creation as we respect Him, not out of fear but out of love.

Hence we decide to clean up after ourselves when we go to the park, we decide to fast on Lent, we accept our fates and die and not stay to continue using up the world’s resources trying to obtain immortality, and we bring new life into this world (marriage and family)…so perhaps the next Norman Borlaug can save over a BILLION (yes billion with a ‘B’) people from starving to death, or the next Henrietta Lacks who’s death has saved millions of lives (especially children during the polio outbreak in the 50s) because her cells could be replicated and used to study diseases…to which they are still used to this day! or James Harrison who’s blood contains a rare enzyme that saved the lives of over 2,000,000 babies worldwide who suffer from a rare disease known as Rhesus Disease, he has donated his blood over 1,000 times in his 56 year span…and his blood has been used to create a vaccine to save those babies lives forever!

Call me crazy, but I believe in humanity’s desire to follow Christ for the good of all and not man’s self-centered ego to follow his views for the good of a few.

BRILLIANT POST!

 

[Yerusalyim]

Kimmielittle:

Mann made global warming…first time I ran across that, I’ll have to remember that.

 

[lynnvinc]

Question:
Green Mountain Energy “100% Wind” has approximately 300,000 "green"customers.
It’s Parent Company NRG owns four wind farms totaling 521 megawatts at peak performance always producing ].
521 megawatts is enough to serve about 100,000 homes.

Care to explain the math problem?

Not all their customers are on 100% wind energy plan. In fact their business customers only get 10% wind energy. Plus they also “rent” space from ranchers for other wind generators. I asked them what they do when they need more wind energy bec they get more customers, they told me they put up wind generators on farms and ranches, where they rent the space, and that farming can be done almost right up to base of the structure.

You are aware that Natural Gas It’s the “BIOGAS” used to offset wind turbines down times ] is considered “renewable - green”?

GMs energy goes into the grid, so it is mixed with all other energy. They supply 100% wind energy into the grid for the customers that have signed up for it, according to how much energy those customers take out of the grid.

There are also committed people in my town who have their own solar panels, and they generate a huge portion of their own energy. So there are many ways to do the right thing. It’s just that our house is not positioned right for solar panels, so GM was the easiest way to go.

To get your $5.00 a month “savings” ? ] - I presume you are locked into a 12 month contract?

I’m just estimating that $5. I haven’t compared for a few years. To begin with we were paying $10 extra per month, but since we were saving much much more than that on our other energy energy/resource conservation/efficiency measures, we were plenty rich enough to afford that $10.

I’ve explained to you before…YOU have NO moral / ethical standing argument ] about AGW…until you have proof of AGW - AND a MORAL / ETHICAL solution.

Well, if you like killing people and going to a place a lot hotter than a globally warmed world, you can wait around until the science gets to 101% confidence on AGW. As for me and my family, and JPII and BXVI, we will serve the Lord.

 

[Trader]

Global warming would also cause women to wear less clothing and thus promote more rapes by men who have no self-control in the presence of lightly clothed women.

Do you think I could get a federal grant to study this? We should not discriminate against dumb ideas–it could hurt my feelings.

 

[kimmielittle]

Kimmielittle:

Mann made global warming…first time I ran across that, I’ll have to remember that.

It’s truthful

AND he didn’t do it by being mistaken in his work… as we can see from Climategate 1 & 2 emails. He knew he got the Tiljander sediments upside-down from the orientation of the original authors and that the modern portion of these sediments was** contaminated**, Mann et al 2008.

After being shown, he Mr Mann ] , refused to retract his paper …allowing it to be used to make public policy. climateaudit.org/2011/11/13/the-epa-and-upside-down-mann/

Since, at least from, Sept 2000 scientists knew the Mann hockey stick was flawed. Knew it was based upon what Mr Mann called a “sweet spot” of trees that, somehow, decided to stop being reliable after 1850.

di2.nu/foia/0969618170.txt

tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-case-you-missed-it-hockey-stick-co.html

wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/24/mann-hockey-stick-co-author-bradley-it-may-be-that-mann-et-al-simply-dont-have-the-long-term-trend-right/

Definition of “sweet spot”: A 5 mile patch of land where trees grow - used as a proxy for approximately 24,901.55 miles of earths surface area. A 5 mile area would be measuring local weather patterns - not climate…going by their own rules. ]

Definition of “tree ring growth” : The growth of approximately 8 weeks June - July - mostly in July ] of **linear ** regressions to translate tree ring widths.

Definition of “Temperature measurement”: A Non-linear scale.

Definition of “hockey stick” : A contrivance used to sell an agenda - deliberately mixing graphs of **linear ** and ** non-linear ** measurements…because neither measuring the linear nor the **non-linear ** by themselves… produced the needed effects.

john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

climate-skeptic.com/temperature_history/

climate-skeptic.com/2007/11/the-splice.html

 

[kimmielittle]

Not all their customers are on 100% wind energy plan. In fact their business customers only get 10% wind energy. Plus they also “rent” space from ranchers for other wind generators. I asked them what they do when they need more wind energy bec they get more customers, they told me they put up wind generators on farms and ranches, where they rent the space, and that farming can be done almost right up to base of the structure.

Ha ha ha ha…Have you ever even seen a wind turbine?

Evidently, they told you in a way - that… “Hey! we just go add more” ?

It’s Parent Company NRG owns four wind farms totaling 521 megawatts at peak performance always producing ]. Texas / Ohio / California ?/ New York ?
521 megawatts is enough to serve about 100,000 homes.

In Texas it has 1 wind farm with 160 turbines totaling 160 megawatts at peak performance always producing ]…
Brazos Wind Farm ]. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazos_Wind_Ranch

160 megawatts serves about 33,000 household Texas customers. Think of a much smaller town than Killeen Texas without business - IF the turbines ran at 100%

In fact their business customers only get 10% wind energy.

A medium business one that uses 19,001-50,000 kWh a year.
A large business one as one that uses over 50,001 kWh a year.

The “averaged” USA home uses 6,000 kWh per year.

How many homes could be powered, by say, 10% of the Energy of the Empire State Building?

Green Mountain’s largest customer is the “world’s most famous office building,” the Empire State Building in New York City.

businesswire.com/news/home/20110621006727/en/SoftLayer®-Signs-Renewable-Energy-Contract-Green-Mountain

GMs energy goes into the grid, so it is mixed with all other energy.

Soooo…nobody gets 100% wind. Texas being the largest coal fired energy states.

Texas, which consumes far more coal power than any other state, already has 19 operating coal-fired power plants, the majority of which are in East Texas. (Some plants, including the proposed Las Brisas facility, burn petroleum coke, a refinery byproduct that is similar to coal.)

texastribune.org/texas-energy/energy/despite-pollution-worries-texas-builds-coal-plants/

They supply 100% wind energy into the grid for the customers that have signed up for it, according to how much energy those customers take out of the grid.

Do they?

boycottgreenmountain.com/

There are also committed people in my town who have their own solar panels, and they generate a huge portion of their own energy.

We have solar panels - someone isn’t telling you the truth.

I’m just estimating that $5. I haven’t compared for a few years. To begin with we were paying $10 extra per month, but since we were saving much much more than that on our other energy energy/resource conservation/efficiency measures, we were plenty rich enough to afford that $10.

Do the maths…I save at least $350.00 a year per kWh than you do.

Well, if you like killing people and going to a place a lot hotter than a globally warmed world, you can wait around until the science gets to 101% confidence on AGW. As for me and my family, and JPII and BXVI, we will serve the Lord.

PURE NONSENSE!

Can you name one person by name who has died directly from AGW and it’s 0.08F rise in temperature since about 1850?

I can name an 8 year old boy who was killed in the name of AGW. His name was “Monday”
prisonplanet.com/armed-troops-burn-down-homes-kill-children-to-evict-ugandans-in-name-of-global-warming.html

Thousands have been displaced in AGW schemes

We’ve heard the Warmist talking point about anthropogenic global warming creating “climate refugees” for a couple of years now, and, I guess they are right, because we see 20,000 who were pushed off their land, violently, because of the beliefs in the anthropogenic global warming community. These people were displaced, violently, to grow trees for carbon credits. The Oxfam report also states

….that much foreign investment actually hurts developing economies, taking fertile land out of production, weakening a country’s ability to feed itself, and displacing tens of thousands of citizens with no recourse or compensation.

All in the name of the climate change hoax. This can be laid directly at the feet of people like Al Gore and his unhinged cult.

thepiratescove.us/2011/09/26/ugandan-troops-burn-homes-kill-children-in-name-of-globull-warming/

continued

 

[kimmielittle]

Well, if you like killing people and going to a place a lot hotter than a globally warmed world, you can wait around until the science gets to 101% confidence on AGW. As for me and my family, and JPII and BXVI, we will serve the Lord.

Continued:

EU carbon credits deal included murder of 23 Honduran farmers who wanted land back, UN/EU climate deals have private militias for killings, removals

impeachobamatoday.blogspot.com/2011/10/eu-carbon-credits-deal-included-murder.html

In Brussels, the Green MEP Bas Eickhout called the alleged human rights abuses “a disgrace”, and told EurActiv he would be pushing the European Commission to bar carbon credits from the plantations from being traded under the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

Several members of the CDM board have been “personally distressed” by the events in Bajo Aguán, northern Honduras, according to the board’s chairman, Martin Hession, who said they had “caused us great difficulties.”

“Plainly, the events that have been described are deplorable,” he told EurActiv. “There is no excuse for them.”

euractiv.com/climate-environment/carbon-credits-tarnished-human-rights-disgrace-news-508068

They ALL have names.

How about the 27,500 that will die in England because of energy poverty: " In common with other countries, more people die in England and Wales in the winter than in the summer". While sitting on Natural Gas resources…but hindered by “greens”.
guardian.co.uk/money/2011/nov/22/fuel-poverty-protestors-die-in-winter-deaths

We’ve spent years removing Mercury from our homes, lakes and streams, landfills - and eco-wads reintroduce it into every home, business, landfill…

CFL bulbs are not as green as many people believe. First of all they are more complicated than incandescent bulbs requiring more materials, more processing, and therefore more energy during manufacture.
Secondly, they contain electronic components - the manufacture of which requires a range of nasty chemicals, and the release into the atmosphere of dangerous heavy metals and other polution. Last and by no means least, every CFL bulb manufactured today contains not insignificant amounts of the toxic metal mercury.

reuk.co.uk/Toxic-Mercury-in-CFL-Bulbs.htm

Wind turbines killing bats and raptors:

Here is an interview with the Norwegian ornithologist Alv Ottar Folkestad, who is concerned with the survival of white-tailed eagles in coastal areas of Norway:

…what to me is a really scaring prospective [sic] is the way wind power development has been introduced in this country. The first wind power plant of significant size in Norway, on Smøla, is localized into the most spectacular performance of nesting concentration of White-tailed Eagles ever known. There are plans for making wind power into huge dimensions, and most of them localized in the most pristine coastal landscape of the most important areas of the White-tailed Eagle. During the last five and a half years, the wind power plant on Smøla has been killing 40 white-tailed eagles, 27 of them adult or sub adult birds, and 11 of them during 2010. There are no mitigating measures taken so far, and hardly any to think of, and there is no indication of adaptation among the eagles to such constructions.

marklynas.org/2011/06/bats-birds-and-blades-wind-turbines-and-biodiversity/

We’ve sank billions into AGW theory based on Models fed by agendas.

Policies which amount to Trillions - with more to come.

ALL… with not one bit of observational empirical evidence.

Before you try to ride that high horse you think you are on - look down.

It isn’t a horse - it’s more snake like…AND he’s been lying to many.

AGW has not produced ONE societal redeeming thing in over 30 years.

Energy prices haven’t dropped - they’ve escalated.
Graft and corruption is ramped surrounding ALL of it… from Science to Policy and Trading.

No Ma’am…NO AGW’er has a Moral stand argument ].

AND IMO…Anyone who helps feed it…feeds the hand that killed little “Monday” I WON’T be a part of it. ALL based upon an unproven hypothesis that can’t even meet the “null factor” of reason.

 

[kimmielittle]

Do you think I could get a federal grant to study this? We should not discriminate against dumb ideas–it could hurt my feelings.

Just put in the words “Climate Change” - it insures publication in PAL-REVIEWED But it seems since Climategate 2 some changes are taking place - slowly ]

 

[jilly4ski]

We’ve spent years removing Mercury from our homes, lakes and streams, landfills - and eco-wads reintroduce it into every home, business, landfill…

reuk.co.uk/Toxic-Mercury-in-CFL-Bulbs.htm

Wind turbines killing bats and raptors:

marklynas.org/2011/06/bats-birds-and-blades-wind-turbines-and-biodiversity/

We’ve sank billions into AGW theory based on Models fed by agendas.

Policies which amount to Trillions - with more to come.

ALL… with not one bit of observational empirical evidence.

Before you try to ride that high horse you think you are on - look down.

It isn’t a horse - it’s more snake like…AND he’s been lying to many.

AGW has not produced ONE societal redeeming thing in over 30 years.

Energy prices haven’t dropped - they’ve escalated.
Graft and corruption is ramped surrounding ALL of it… from Science to Policy and Trading.

No Ma’am…NO AGW’er has a Moral stand argument ].

AND IMO…Anyone who helps feed it…feeds the hand that killed little “Monday” I WON’T be a part of it. ALL based upon an unproven hypothesis that can’t even meet the “null factor” of reason.

Don’t forget about corn based ethanol fuel, which is supposed to burn cleaner (ie less CO2). Land being taken out of food production, because of government grants to grow the corn, thus food prices go up, and people in the third world starve. Not to mention, ethanol takes more water to produce than just growing edible corn, (or feed for livestock) takes to grow (It takes 3 gallons of fresh water to produce one gallon of ethanol fuel). Thus depleting endangered water tables in the midwest. And the business that are supposed to be producing this fuel cannot operate without massive government funding and have gone out of business (or filed for bankruptcy).
energybusinessdaily.com/oil/alternative-fuels/bankrupt-ethanol-plants-for-sale-2/

So much for “green energy.” I thought the point of being green was to preserve the planet, not contribute to deforestation (for crop land to get government grants and a new cash crop), depleting the wolds fresh water supply, and causing people to starve in the third world because you took land out of food production.

Yeah, really sounds like the moral option.

 

[kimmielittle]

Don’t forget about corn based ethanol fuel, which is supposed to burn cleaner (ie less CO2). Land being taken out of food production, because of government grants to grow the corn, thus food prices go up, and people in the third world starve. Not to mention, ethanol takes more water to produce than just growing edible corn, (or feed for livestock) takes to grow (It takes 3 gallons of fresh water to produce one gallon of ethanol fuel). Thus depleting endangered water tables in the midwest. And the business that are supposed to be producing this fuel cannot operate without massive government funding and have gone out of business (or filed for bankruptcy).
energybusinessdaily.com/oil/alternative-fuels/bankrupt-ethanol-plants-for-sale-2/

So much for “green energy.” I thought the point of being green was to preserve the planet, not contribute to deforestation (for crop land to get government grants and a new cash crop), depleting the wolds fresh water supply, and causing people to starve in the third world because you took land out of food production.

Or the planting of weeds - Eucalyptus.

Yeah, really sounds like the moral option.

They have NO Moral / Ethical argument… and frankly, they flat tic me off trying to put / fit The Holy Father’s Words into their agendas.

Thanks for the links

 

[kimmielittle]

Someone wrote about water vapor being the most signif GHG, and that is right, except it is a feedback, bec wv molecules only last a few days in the atmosphere. CO2 generally lasts about 100 yrs, and a portion of it can last up to 100,000 yrs in the atmosphere, making it a forcing, not a feedback.

Where did you get these figures?

Even IPCC states athmospheric CO2 has a half-life of about 30 thirty years. It has, since IPCC WG II Vol. Impacts, Adaptions and Mitigation: Energy Primer, 1995… been challenged and acknowledged - at even lower life-time. Now thought to be approximately 5 - 8 years.

You seem to be an expert on Atmospheric Water Vapor and it’s role in Climate.

Could you provide empirical evidence, for us, that AWV is a) “positive” or b) “negative” “feedback”?

My thoughts: It is simply a travesty of physics that the IPCC still persists with its linear/one-real-sensed-feedback variable “forcing and feedback” formalism.

 

[lynnvinc]

I don’t think any true environmentalist is in favor of “cap & trade.” They want to simply reduce their own pollution and encourage others to do likewise. They even make fun of cap&traders, by saying that’s like paying someone not to cheat on his wife so that the payer can cheat on his own wife with impugnity.

Also it is sad about the birds and bats harmed by wind turbines, which indicates to me that God really wants us first to reduce our profligacy and inefficiency, and live simple lives through energy/resource efficiency/conservation. Once we have done the most we can on that front, then we can look at possible alternative energy schemes.

NATURAL CAPITALISM by Hawken and Lovins (see www.natcap.org) speaks of tunneling through, as in building homes in such a way that they don’t even need air conditioning, etc. I know an architect/engineer up in IL who built a passive solar home, well-insulated, using an external dual heater/water-heater, with beautifully landscaped berms on the north side. He has substantially reduced his energy needs, and it stays cool in summer without an air-conditioner, shaded by deciduous trees on the south side. The home cost about 10% more than a home without these features, but he figured the energy savings would pay for this extra cost in about 15 years, then go on to save money.

But it’s not the money. It’s the heart and God’s grace to do what is right, good, and just. We should be willing to sacrifice to do what is right, and think and act beyond materialism and selfish pursuits. It just happens that doing the right thing to reduce pollution and global warming can also save people money.

 

[kimmielittle]

I don’t think any true environmentalist is in favor of “cap & trade.” They want to simply reduce their own pollution and encourage others to do likewise. They even make fun of cap&traders, by saying that’s like paying someone not to cheat on his wife so that the payer can cheat on his own wife with impugnity.

Amazing!

I put names and faces, for you, on thousands of people directly affected killed - displaced - raped - robbed - threatened ], all done in the name of “environmental causes” and you try to dismiss… as if it were “some other environmentalists group”.

You have defended / supported the AGW’ers such as IPCC - UEA - Tyndall - Mr Mann - Mr Jones - Mr Gore etc. You have defended / supported their advertising “machines” - RealClimate - Tides Foundation - Environmental Media Services etc. You have repeated supported ] distortions of science, provided by them and groups that fund the above… such as WWF - FoE - Greenpeace - Soros Org… Maybe even financially contributed to those organizations ].

Whose agendas do you think allows these sins against humanity to exist and proffer? AND they do it with your support of them - in YOUR name.

You have even tried to tie The Holy Father to their agendas.

And now you try to separate, “True environmentalists”?

No environmentalist “true” or fake ] bothered to inform the world about the bad science - bad policy permeating the very marrow of AGW and it’s schemes. Why? Because they are “agendaists” dressed as “environmentalists”. It was / is the very people called deniers - skeptics - in bed with big oil - the people to hate… etc who are continually exposing these agendas.

No environmentalist took the time in an attempt to explain to you how your energy company profiteers from “environmentalists” and it’s TRUE impact. If you’ve read the links - you now know 100% Wind by Green Mountain is nothing more than an energy / carbon trade scheme. That works / profits because YOU support it.

No environmentalist provided you information of the bird kills you are so “sad” about.

Why?

Because the AGW hypothesis demands Cognitive Distortion / Displacement in order to feed it’s agenda base.

That agenda - from the start - has been a socialist economic / power grab…tied to a cognitive distortion that 0.08F rise in temperature - in the last 150 years is because of energy usage and CO2 as the main driver!

Also it is sad about the birds and bats harmed by wind turbines, which indicates to me that God really wants us first to reduce our profligacy and inefficiency, and live simple lives through energy/resource efficiency/conservation. Once we have done the most we can on that front, then we can look at possible alternative energy schemes.

Of Course, we are called to be Good Stewards - who here… has told you otherwise? THIS is exactly The Holy Father’s Message.

I know an architect/engineer up in IL who built a passive solar home, well-insulated, using an external dual heater/water-heater, with beautifully landscaped berms on the north side. He has substantially reduced his energy needs, and it stays cool in summer without an air-conditioner, shaded by deciduous trees on the south side. The home cost about 10% more than a home without these features, but he figured the energy savings would pay for this extra cost in about 15 years, then go on to save money.

You know of an architect / engineer who has been blessed with an **economic and energy **base that could use those bases in order to provide himself a nice home. What could he do without those “bases”?

Those very "bases"are being stripped from the poor. IN the Name of AGW and it’s supporters.

But it’s not the money. It’s the heart and God’s grace to do what is right, good, and just. We should be willing to sacrifice to do what is right, and think and act beyond materialism and selfish pursuits. It just happens that doing the right thing to reduce pollution and global warming can also save people money.

It has not been proven BY ANYONE that Temperatures are mainly driven by CO2 OR that Climate can be controlled by Mann.

What we HAVE evidence of: AGW kills Burns alive ] 8 year old children - displaces tens of thousands - creates energy poverty that will kill tens of thousands of people per year…AND anyone who supports the unproven hypothesis of AGW…does NOTHING to stop these sins against the weakest of humanity.

 

[lynnvinc]

Sorry, but ALL the environmentalists I know personally, either in my community or online, are against Cap&Trade, because it just won’t work. But you have given some other very good reasons to be against it. It simply is not a solution to reducing GHGs, and as you said it has other serious problems. I myself have never ever “bought” carbon offsets. My emissions are my emissions, including every product I buy from China, causing pollution and death to the Chinese. Those are my harms. I admit my complicity in global warming, and other pollution harms. I try to reduce as much as possible my own emissions and other pollution & waste of resources.

Now for some policy that would help get others to do likewise, that’s extremely difficult, bec denialists would even pollute more if someone is trying to reason with them. So nothing is going to work. The people of the world are bound and determined to destroy as much of life on earth as they possibly can. It’s really hard to get them to do the right thing. I’m starting a novena to the Divino Nino. Maybe that will help.

What I have been calling for re national policy is ending all subsidies to oil and coal, and diverting that money to the poor, who could then use it to offset the higher costs of their energy needs or better yet to become energy efficient/conservative. It saddens me greatly that I’m paying on April 15th through those subsidies for other people to profligately use energy and pollute.

Another solution supported by environmentalists I know is “Fee & Dividend.” That is assessing a fee on every barrel of oil and ton of coal, then dividing up the funds from that and giving equal amounts to the people, so they can decide whether to use it to pay for their higher energy bills, or become energy efficient/conservative and get on the road to lower and lower energy bills and economic well-being. The closest bill to that (but not 100% to my liking) is the CLEAR Act – cantwell.senate.gov/issues/CLEARAct.cfm

I would also like to see a portion of those funds go to the poor, especially in Africa, who are suffering from the effects of global warming. We break it, we buy it – we MUST pay for the harm we are doing.

But I don’t really think that would work either. I’ve been trying to get people to reduce their GHGs and other pollution through cost-effective measures for over 20 years now, and to almost no effect. People don’t care. They don’t care about saving money. They don’t care about the people they are harming. They don’t care about their own children and progeny. They don’t care if they go to hell. They really don’t care. End of story, bitter end of life on earth. That’s the situation.

The only thing left is prayer.

 

[jilly4ski]

Another solution supported by environmentalists I know is “Fee & Dividend.” That is assessing a fee on every barrel of oil and ton of coal, then dividing up the funds from that and giving all of most of that equally to the people, so they can decide whether to become energy efficient/conservative or offset their higher energy bills. The closest bill to that (but not 100% to my liking) is the CLEAR Act – cantwell.senate.gov/issues/CLEARAct.cfm

I would also like to see a portion of that go to the poor, especially in Africa, who are suffering from the effects of global warming. We break it, we buy it – we MUST pay for the harm we are doing.

The only thing left is prayer.

You have yet to address the fact that people developing alternatives to oil and coal (like bio fuels) and the government’s sponsor of said fuel are actually causing people in Africa and South America to die of starvation, because we are taking food out of production and causing food prices to rise. Where there is no known case of people in Africa dying due to global warming, but there are cases of people dying because of people trying to find solutions to global warming.

 

[lynnvinc]

You have yet to address the fact that people developing alternatives to oil and coal (like bio fuels) and the government’s sponsor of said fuel are actually causing people in Africa and South America to die of starvation, because we are taking food out of production and causing food prices to rise. Where there is no known case of people in Africa dying due to global warming, but there are cases of people dying because of people trying to find solutions to global warming.

I’ve always been against food-to-fuel (or “biofuel,” as some call it). And I have an environmentalist friend who hosts a “BiofuelWatch” website that has lots of criticism for biofuels.

These types of solutions (cap & trade & biofuels) are promoted by people who do not want to actually do anything to change their lifestyles. They are not good people.

If we could get more good people into the environmental movement who are actually willing to do the right things and effectively reduce GHGs and other pollutants, without harming others in the process, that would be wonderful.

Care to join?

 

[jilly4ski]

I’ve always been against food-to-fuel (or “biofuel,” as some call it). And I have an environmentalist friend who hosts a “BiofuelWatch” website that has lots of criticism for biofuels.

These types of solutions (cap & trade & biofuels) are promoted by people who do not want to actually do anything to change their lifestyles. They are not good people.

If we could get more good people into the environmental movement who are actually willing to do the right things and effectively reduce GHGs and other pollutants, without harming others in the process, that would be wonderful.

Care to join?

They are merely responding to the pressures that you are trying to place on them. You want coal and oil companies to be increasingly taxed for their CO2 emissions, so oil companies have been buying up the (bankrupt) biofuel processing plants in order to cut their emissions.

You keep adding things to the list. First Cap and Trade, now food vs. fuel. But there were none of these caveats before. What about wind farms that are destroying bird and bat populations (including endangered species) and thus destroying local habitats. I know this link is a blog, but he has some good primary links to real incidents. theresilientearth.com/?q=content/wind-power-green-and-deadly

 

[lynnvinc]

They are merely responding to the pressures that you are trying to place on them. You want coal and oil companies to be increasingly taxed for their CO2 emissions, so oil companies have been buying up the (bankrupt) biofuel processing plants in order to cut their emissions.

You keep adding things to the list. First Cap and Trade, now food vs. fuel. But there were none of these caveats before. What about wind farms that are destroying bird and bat populations (including endangered species) and thus destroying local habitats. I know this link is a blog, but he has some good primary links to real incidents. theresilientearth.com/?q=content/wind-power-green-and-deadly

Like I said I’ve ALWAYS been against biofuels (at least those made from food products, or that take up arable land that could be used for growing food crops), and I think most genuine environmentalists are too. It was the awareness back in the late 80s that global warming was harming food crops in Africa that turned me from a passive to active environmentalist. Why would I want to take food out of their mouths in order to put food in their mouths. You don’t have to believe me, but I think I know myself better than you do.

As for the birds and bats harmed by wind turbines – that actually leads to a conflict within the environmentalist community. I’ve read they they are trying to overcome the problem in various ways, such as better locations for the turbines (out of bird paths), and also some detector system that would detect birds coming and shut down the turbines. We’ve also had birds fly into our window and die. I hope they come up with solutions. Burning coal and causing pollution that destroys forests, lakes, soil, lungs, and contributes to climate change is not a good alternative to wind generators. It think the human and non-human species harms and deaths would be much higher from coal burning plants than from wind generators, not to mention the coal-mining harms to people and nature, like mountaintop removal, and the coal ash spills, like the one in Tennessee (see nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html).

I’m not putting pressures on anyone. The science is telling us there are serious problems. It’s up to each of us to either address these, or fail to address these. I think if people were good and sincere then as a nation we could come up with some national solutions that are least harmful to people and nature (both in terms of economics and biological health), rather than barreling down the road of environmental (and economic) destruction, as we are now. But if our nation is refusing to do anything, at least we as individuals can do our part in whatever feasible ways we can. God will help us, if we have the will and heart to do good and refrain from bad.

 

[kimmielittle]

Sorry, but ALL the environmentalists I know personally, either in my community or online, are against Cap&Trade, because it just won’t work.

Hmmmm…what environmental / environmentalist - politico NGO that you have defended, didn’t support Cap and Trade? Cap and Trade was and IS just ONE economic / energy tool for power grabbing.

IT IS the economic / energy power grabs attempts… that gave birth to Cap and Trade schemes.

You have defended the IPCC and it’s post-normal science / scientists …and policy makers.
I do hope you call me on the "post-normal science / scientists part - because I have a ton of evidence - from their own mouths, that call it that ].

Just a small taste of it:

“climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking…scientists – and politicians – must trade truth for influence.”

My Bolding

“The function of climate change I suggest, is** not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved…It really is not about stopping climate chaos**. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how** we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.”**

My Bolding.

“The IPCC is a classic example of a post-normal scientific activity.”

Just a few quotes from:

Mike Hulme, founding director of the Tyndall Centre, and Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia (UEA), prepared climate scenarios and reports for the UK Government (including the UKCIP98 and UKCIP02 scenarios, and reviewer for UKCP09), the European Commission, UNEP, UNDP, WWF-International and the IPCC, and was co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Climate scenario development for the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, as well as a contributing author for several other chapters. Hulme has been a champion and exponent of post-normal science for some years to serve his own socialist agenda.

What is post-normal science?

Post-normal science
A new concept of science was introduced by Funtowicz and Ravetz during the 1990s. When did AGW - IPCC take off? 1990’s

The guiding principle of normal science – the goal of achievement of factual knowledge - ** must be modified to fit the post-normal principle**…For this purpose, post-normal scientists should be capable of establishing extended peer communities and allow for extended facts from non-scientific experts…In post-normal science, the maintenance and enhancement of quality,** rather than the establishment of factual knowledge, is the key task of scientists**… Involved social actors must agree on the definition of perceptions, narratives, interpretation of models, data and indicators…scientists have to contribute to society by learning as quickly as possible about different perceptions…instead of seeking deep ultimate knowledge.

In other words " damn the evidence sell the agenda".

I myself have never ever “bought” carbon offsets.

You most certainly have. Not directly maybe, but you’ve fed those that do. One example, the Green Mountain 100% Wind scheme.

I admit my complicity in global warming,

I would be impressed if you admitted your complicity in bad science - corrupt power grabs - and your support in those that practice / preach these to children. YOUR defense of them… IS complicity in all they do…IN the Name of Bad science AGW - IPCC - ].

Now for some policy that would help get others to do likewise, that’s extremely difficult, bec denialists would even pollute more if someone is trying to reason with them.

No Ma’am…It is YOU AGW’ers ] that Denies NORMAL SCIENCE…in favor of POST-NORMAL SCIENCE.

I will turn the word “denialist” against you - IF you keep attempting to use it wrongly against me and all others that are Climate Realists!

I’m starting a novena to the Divino Nino. Maybe that will help.

Maybe a little self reflection as to what and who you’ve defended - will help?

What I have been calling for re national policy is ending all subsidies to oil and coal, and diverting that money to the poor, who could then use it to offset the higher costs of their energy needs or better yet to become energy efficient/conservative.

I can see you have no idea of economics

The poor…will be dead from energy poverty before you can give them their rebate. Their family members that survive will be jobless.

It saddens me greatly that I’m paying on April 15th through those subsidies for other people to profligately use energy and pollute.

Yet you have defended them…??? Mr Gore, Mr Hansen, IPCC leads…etc etc etc

I would also like to see a portion of those funds go to the poor, especially in Africa, who are suffering from the effects of global warming. We break it, we buy it – we MUST pay for the harm we are doing.

NO Ma’am…it is not AGW they suffer from. IT IS Power Grabs by WWF - FoE - First Forests Al Gore ] UNEP - POLITICIANS etc. NO ONE has died from global warming AGW…not ONE. MANY have died and been displaced in the NAME of AGW, AND you support / defend them.

You defend bad science like Mr Mann and his upside down - contaminated ’ evidence’ …Mr Hansen and his Soros backed “politicization of science” …IPCC who has NEVER adhered to 'normal science" .You refer people to Fenton Communications - Environment Media Services - Tides Foundation, for post-normal science…in order to support your claims “CO2 stays in the atmosphere 100’s of years maybe even 100,000 years” ( paraphrased ) ]… etc etc.

 

[kimmielittle]

People don’t care. They don’t care about saving money.

Names, please?

They don’t care about the people they are harming. They don’t care about their own children and progeny.

TRIPE!

They don’t care if they go to hell. They really don’t care. End of story, bitter end of life on earth. That’s the situation.The only thing left is prayer.

Then we can expect YOU to demand NORMAL SCIENCE from…NGO’s …IPCC etc???

We can expect YOU to quit calling people who insist public policy be made on normal science not post-normal science “dieniers” and call those out that insist on post-normal science?