Global Warming Scare Tactics

19 May 2014 12:41 #21 by FredHayek
For South Park, a longer growing season combined with wetter winters and summers would be improvements.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 May 2014 13:05 #22 by LadyJazzer

FredHayek wrote: For South Park, a longer growing season combined with wetter winters and summers would be improvements.


Yeah, screw the rest of the planet...As long as you can't go to the top of Hoosier Pass and yell "Surf's Up!", what difference does it make...

Deflect much?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 May 2014 13:13 #23 by FredHayek
There will be some parts of the planet that do better with AGW and some parts of the planet that have worse conditions.
To believe that the climate of the last 200 years is the best for the Earth is laughable.
And LJ, what have you done but whine about the deniers? I spent tens of thousands of dollars on alternative energy systems.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 May 2014 14:03 #24 by LadyJazzer
What do I do?...I campaign hard and support those candidates with my $$ that fight climate-change deniers like you. I drive less miles; I combine trips when possible; I carpool to gigs and meetings so that we're sharing a ride whenever possible. I've cut my fillups on my car from 4+/month down to 2 or 3. I cut up my BP card and sent it back years ago...Same for Exxon/Mobil. Anything I can do to deprive the polluters of my $$...(Of course, it doesn't matter much because they're getting $4Billion/year in taxpayer subsidies to produce what they already make the highest profits in history from.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 May 2014 14:09 #25 by FredHayek
Australia plans to cut spending on alternative energy sources from 5.75 billion A$ to 1.25 billion.
The economy went from a mining boom to a bust and the much more progressive goverment than America is having to cut back. So even the countries closest to the disappearing Antarctica ice shelf are having to shut down many of their ecological programs. So it isn't only America that has decided they can't afford to stay on course.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 May 2014 14:17 #26 by Blazer Bob

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 May 2014 14:17 #27 by ScienceChic
Yes FH, a few parts of the planet, environmentally, will be better off. For a time anyway, some longer than others. The problem is that for the humans on this planet, life will suck a lot. The population decline won't be gradual, there will be famine, disease outbreaks, and wars over increasingly scarce resources. Many areas will become unable to support cities and will require mass movement, so eventually even remote places like South Park will become more populated (though not much, there's not enough water here) - people will go where food and water are and fight over what's left unless we plan ahead and start making an effort to lessen the degree of change that will impact us. And if you watched one of the videos I'd linked (the last one in the first TED link), you saw that they go over that. We do have a small element of influence on the outcome of the change that's already built into the system, and could eliminate as much change as possible if we were to drastically reduce our carbon use immediately.

It's not all based on climate models. They know from ice cores and sediment cores what's happened in the past when CO2 was at various ppm levels in the atmosphere - how warm it was and how high the oceans were. We're heading that way if we keep doing what we're doing. That is certain. The drought in the southwest US was predicted and projected to only get worse - how much of our food source is from CA? How much are we spending yearly on fighting wildfires? Their fire season is now year-round, there is no relief in "winter" months. How much longer can we keep that up until we just abandoned whole areas rather than try to save and rebuild? Is that the society you want to face?

I applaud you for investing in renewables, that's a great start. Just as important is sharing with others how that's helped you. If everyone, inidividual and corporations and government alike, who lived in an area where there is prevalent sunshine, like here in CO, invested in solar panels for their rooftops, we could generate the electricity we need for this state without using coal or damming up rivers. Then it's just the energy that it costs to create the solar panels and ship them to their end-use site. One and done, then it starts paying itself back until replacement is needed.

And for those who say that the cost is too high, no it's not when you factor in making that back - you never make that back with fossil fuel sources, it's just disposable resources and wasted money. And fossil fuel prices are going up and will only continue to rise - it's a finite resource. Wind and sun are always available and will be so for millennia. To wait until fossil fuels are exorbitantly priced and there's a chaotic crunch for renewable installation, and power shortages, is reactive instead of proactive, and will be more costly to the economy. Isn't it better to plan and have a controlled change-over? One that fossil fuel companies could be part of, instead of being the enemy and facing a terminal diagnosis?

"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 May 2014 14:31 #28 by LadyJazzer

BlazerBob wrote: Sure.





http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/201 ... er-gallon/


Yeah, Colorado's is 22 cents...And hasn't changed since 1991. So, you are combining Fed/State/Local to come up with your number. Since you only care about what happens locally, and screw the rest...That's dishonest--at best.

The federal tax is 18.4 cents and hasn't been raised since 1993.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 May 2014 14:56 #29 by FredHayek
Costs have to be an important part of the equation. For instance, I am debating right now adding another solar panel. Right now with just the two of us we can go three or four days in the summer without having to fire up the generator, we could go even longer with another panel, so if the price goes down to $5000 or the effiency increases, I will be more likely to do it. The new solar panel still won't pay for itself, but I love not hearing the generator turn on.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 May 2014 15:25 #30 by ScienceChic
FH, how much does running the generator cost you?

Curiosity killed the... :tongue:

"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.158 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+