Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[AnnaG]

Show of hands...

Whose bought carbon credits?

That is just the dumbest way to go about things ....
Should just stick to the idea of whoever consumes more, pollutes more, pays more.

 

[Slim Chance]

But Development takes time. Hence the word "development" rather than "accomplishment".

Accomplishment vs development.. I like it. Too bad that the wind/solar industries are decades away from "accomplishing" the feat of being economically viable. It's also too bad that those industries haven't accomplished the feat of getting the general public on board like oil/gas has.

Let's see, the oil sands are currently working towards accomplishment and all the advances in deep water drilling are in a stage of research and accomplishment.

You mentioned something about bad spin?

Germany is a pretty rainy country (more so than Canuckville. DE = about 3.5 hours of sunshine per day, CA = about 6) yet it seems to be doing fine with solar energy so far. Canuckville has a windy belt in southern AB and a couple other places. One develops what works for the area.

.. And they still need subsidies...

The gov't decided on the green side. How else? That doesn't mean the only pressure was to go green, though.

I see... So there isn't a big powerful auto and oil/gas lobby afterall... I suppose that we all can rest easy with the knowledge that the people of California made the decision themselves then?

Who said that?

I said that; so answer the question.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of geological or climactic time. The rate is quite a bit faster in this "coincidence" or did you forget already what Ton already pointed out?

Oh.. So that massive 150 yr period is the generous geologic-time sample size that is proof-positive of AGW?.. Wow, that'll really come in handy when they can prove that this mechanism exists.

Yeah.. Sure..

Your words imply that alternative energy industries should be booming as much as the oil industry soon as it is implemented. That's unrealistic at best. And I am not supporting your view.

No, my words state that they tech can't stand on its own... you infered the rest... Regardless, they can't possibly exist without that subsidy. That in itself condemns them as economically inept.

Sunshine and wind are common; real estate isn't. Either the gov't owns land or individuals, companies, etc. own it.
The gov't leases land to power companies unless it is the power company owner.

... And they lease the land to oil companies.. What's your point?

That is the most watery explanation yet and it doesn't go anywhere to answering the question regarding the "common resource" as it applies to hydro... I see that one confounds you enough to deflect the issue like Potter.

I'm glad you like it.

I'm still laughing.

You exaggerate like Potter. Slight fudging is more like it.

Another hilarious comment; it's right up there with the logic behind your selective choices behind why sun, wind and oil are common resources but land isn't or that 150 years is a long geologic time frame.

So much for progress. Why bother researching and developing anything then? (rhetorical)

Yup!.. Or better yet, why don't you fund it and leave me and my tax dollars out if it's such a grand idea.

 

[AnnaG]

Accomplishment vs development.. I like it. Too bad that the wind/solar industries are decades away from "accomplishing" the feat of being economically viable.

*shrugs* It takes time for things to get going, I agree and it is too bad.

It's also too bad that those industries haven't accomplished the feat of getting the general public on board like oil/gas has.

roflmao You think everyone back a hundred years ago or so just took to that stinky goo in the ground and horseless carriages like flies to shyte? lmao how comically naive of you.

You mentioned something about bad spin?

I did and this is a great example that you provide here:

Let's see, the oil sands are currently working towards accomplishment and all the advances in deep water drilling are in a stage of research and accomplishment.

You mean they've already hit the epitome of efficiency in production? There's no way they can't develop any further?

.. And they still need subsidies...

So does GM, Bombardier, Air Canada, etc. now and then. And they've been in biz a lot longer than those young alternate energy companies. So what? Besides, didn't the oil companies in the States have their hands out when the economic mess popped up?

I see... So there isn't a big powerful auto and oil/gas lobby afterall... I suppose that we all can rest easy with the knowledge that the people of California made the decision themselves then?

BS. Your putting your spin on what I said again. Grow up.

I said that; so answer the question.

If you look back, it wasn't a question you posed. Therefore it doesn't require and answer. But, what you did say was your conjecture, not mine.

Oh.. So that massive 150 yr period is the generous geologic-time sample size that is proof-positive of AGW?.. Wow, that'll really come in handy when they can prove that this mechanism exists.

More spin. What you seem to fail to see is that nowhere else in all that geological time has the climate changed in such a short period of any kind of time.

Yeah.. Sure..

Right.

No, my words state that they tech can't stand on its own...

Yet. You seem to want to give the older industry all the time in the world but the young industry should be booming right away. Again, your views are highly unrealistic.

you infered the rest... Regardless, they can't possibly exist without that subsidy. That in itself condemns them as economically inept.

Yet the industry is growing. Go figure.

... And they lease the land to oil companies.. What's your point?

It got away from you at the speed of a drunken snail. Review the thread.

That is the most watery explanation yet and it doesn't go anywhere to answering the question regarding the "common resource" as it applies to hydro... I see that one confounds you enough to deflect the issue like Potter.

lmao You can't see the diff between land and air/sunshine and you complain that my explanation is watery. Well, sorry if I can't explain it so you understand it. Life's a bitch.

I'm still laughing.

So?

Another hilarious comment; it's right up there with the logic behind your selective choices behind why sun, wind and oil are common resources but land isn't or that 150 years is a long geologic time frame.

I never said oil was a common resource; you added that. More bad spin. Oil companies charge for the work they put into developing extraction, refining, etc. Anyone can get their own sunshine and wind anytime.

Yup!.. Or better yet, why don't you fund it and leave me and my tax dollars out if it's such a grand idea.

We already have. We are off grid. We use water and sun. The next thing is using electricity in my Dakota instead of gas. It's lubricants are synthetic.

 

[Tonington]

According to Batiza (1982), Pacific mid-plate seamounts number between 22,000 and 55,000, of which 2,000 are active volcanoes. However, none of the more than 2,000 active submarine volcanoes have been discussed in Kerrick (2001). Furthermore, Kerrick (2001) justifies the omission of mid oceanic ridge emissions by claiming that mid oceanic ridges discharge less CO2 than is consumed by mid oceanic ridge hydrothermal carbonate systems. In point of fact, CO2 escapes carbonate formation in these hydrothermal vent systems in such quantities that, under special conditions, it accumulates in submarine lakes of liquid CO2 (Sakai, 1990; Lupton et al., 2006; Inagaki et al., 2006). Although these lakes are prevented from escaping directly to the surface or into solution in the ocean, there is nothing to prevent superheated CO2 that fails to condense from dissolving into the seawater or otherwise making its way to the surface. It is a fact that a significant amount of mid oceanic ridge emissions are not sequestered by hydrothermal processes; a fact which is neglected by Kerrick (2001), who contends that mid oceanic ridges may be a net sink for CO2. This may well sound reasonable except for the rather small detail that seawater in the vicinity of hydrothermal vent systems is saturated with CO22, it stands to reason that this saturation is sourced to the hydrothermal vent system. (Sakai, 1990) and as seawater elsewhere is not saturated with CO If the vent system consumed more CO2 than it emitted, the seawater in the vicinity of hydrothermal vent systems would be CO2 depleted.Volcanic Carbon Dioxide

Change in pH is recorded in the surface waters. If the source of the surface water acidification is deep sea volcanoes, then there would have been a noted change in the benthic community from the deep ocean up towards the surface waters where we now measure the dropping pH. Such is not the case.

You know, sometimes it helps if you understand what is actually happening before you just spam some crap you found on the net.

 

[Tonington]

.. And they still need subsidies...

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear...all are mature industries which still receive subsidies.

 

[petros]

Change in pH is recorded in the surface waters. If the source of the surface water acidification is deep sea volcanoes, then there would have been a noted change in the benthic community from the deep ocean up towards the surface waters where we now measure the dropping pH. Such is not the case.

You know, sometimes it helps if you understand what is actually happening before you just spam some crap you found on the net.

Not to mention the nektic and benthonektic and planktonic organisms. I here they leave oil deposits in granitic inland seas in Ukraine according the Beave.

Those Ukrainains are far more clever than anyone could have imagined.

 

[Tonington]

It's just more throwing spaghetti at the wall, hoping something sticks.

 

[petros]

Thank god it's not lasagne noodles.

 

[Slim Chance]

Change in pH is recorded in the surface waters. If the source of the surface water acidification is deep sea volcanoes, then there would have been a noted change in the benthic community from the deep ocean up towards the surface waters where we now measure the dropping pH. Such is not the case.

You know, sometimes it helps if you understand what is actually happening before you just spam some crap you found on the net.

You had mentioned earlier in the thread that you believed that the increase in anthropogenic CO2 had direct impact in the acidification of the oceans (via the ocean being a carbon sink I presume). Further, you indicated that the ocean temperatures were rising.

I'm a little curious as to how that relationship is possible in that as the temperature of the water rises, the capacity of the oceans to absorb ambient CO2 decreases. The observations indicate that the the ocean temps would have to drop in order for the waters to absorb more CO2 and therefore alter the pH towards a more acidic level. Your logic is backwards.

 

[Slim Chance]

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear...all are mature industries which still receive subsidies.

I can't speak to nuclear, but I'm entirely unfamiliar with the subsidy programs that exist for oil/gas, particular in light of the plethora of industry specific costs.

Got a link to these subsidy programs?

 

[darkbeaver]

Change in pH is recorded in the surface waters. If the source of the surface water acidification is deep sea volcanoes, then there would have been a noted change in the benthic community from the deep ocean up towards the surface waters where we now measure the dropping pH. Such is not the case.

You know, sometimes it helps if you understand what is actually happening before you just spam some crap you found on the net.

Sometimes it does sometimes it dosen't. The internet and I are hardly the premium source of spam material available in the modern world. It is a fact that the well educated can and do disinform far more efficiently via the educational institutions rote training to their leashes and their vastly greater access to the propaganda tools of the mass media. If the ocean acidification has increased then the fresh water should also have been similarly affected. I will read about your silly benthic complaint. I wonder if the oil spewing into the Carribean sea will affect the PH in our atmosphere first and then bounce off the clouds back into the sea to affect it also. By the way I source all my spam with a link and you don't. I suspect you don't know or you don't trust your secret sources. If you want to end the contest successfully you can do it in very short order by linking to evidence.

 

[Tonington]

By the way I source all my spam with a link and you don't. I suspect you don't know or you don't trust your secret sources. If you want to end the contest successfully you can do it in very short order by linking to evidence.

My source is commercial fishing, marine biology, etc. How can you expect to show that subsea volcanoes are decreasing the pH of surface waters without destroying all of the calcifiers from the sea floor up first? It makes no sense. Got your local library and read this article:
Oceanography: Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH : Abstract : Nature

It will explain the varying changes with depth, and give you more references to read, that is if you read references, or even the studies I link to.

 

[Tonington]

I can't speak to nuclear, but I'm entirely unfamiliar with the subsidy programs that exist for oil/gas, particular in light of the plethora of industry specific costs.

Got a link to these subsidy programs?

You could try googling, but in case you can't do that, you can start here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf

Just enter "coal subsidies" or "oil subsidies" or "energy subsidies" or any other source of energy you might like to inquire about into the search bar.

 

[Slim Chance]

You could try googling, but in case you can't do that, you can start here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf

Just enter "coal subsidies" or "oil subsidies" or "energy subsidies" or any other source of energy you might like to inquire about into the search bar.

You'd almost think that an individual that made such broad-based statements would actually provide proof.

Too much to ask I guess.

 

[Tonington]

Did you read the link or not? I give links when asked for, or for topics that might not be so intuitive for readers here, but in this case it's fairly easy to check my comment. It's not like energy subsidies are some arcane topic that is hidden in the back alley's of the internet...

Anyways, mature industries are still getting subsidies. Lots of them.

 

[Slim Chance]

I did read the link and incorporating "natural gas and petroleum liquids" is one hell of a broad category. Further, the only component that had any real substance was in the Tax Expenditures section that defines itself as:

"Tax expenditures are provisions in the Federal tax code that reduce the tax liability of firms or individuals who take specified actions that affect energy
production, consumption, or conservation in ways deemed to be in the public interest."

Interesting, isn't it? No differentiation between production, consumption or conservation. Further, the tax incentive applies right across the board including both corporate entities and individuals... For all I know, the bulk of the subsidy went to those persons that bought hybrids.

 

[Slim Chance]

I forgot to add:

sub·si·dy (s

b

s

-d

)n. pl. sub·si·dies

1. Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.
2. Financial assistance given by one person or government to another.
3. Money formerly granted to the British Crown by Parliament.

I didn't see anything that refers to tax breaks as subsidies.

 

[Tonington]

So then you see how mature industries also receive subsidies?

 

[Tonington]

I did read the link and incorporating "natural gas and petroleum liquids" is one hell of a broad category.

So name as many as you can that are used to generate electricity.

 

[Slim Chance]

So then you see how mature industries also receive subsidies?

Let's confine this to oil/gas companies that you initially stated as the beneficiaries of government subsidies.

Do you believe that tax incentives and outright subsidies are identical?