400 ppm CO2

[CrusaderFrank]

Gee.

Looks like carbon emissions are FALLING,

and <GASP>

it's because of FRACKING!

Um....no, not exactly. Gasp.

Emissions are falling for a dozen different reasons - all of which luddite posters have bitterly opposed on this forum. The increasing use of wind, solar and tidal energy, the more efficient car engines and exhaust filters, better factory filitering systems and the use of everything from better insulation to low energy light bulbs to double-glazed windows all help. Your own link mentions mild winters, along with the reduced use of coal that so many posters here insist should be used.

Natural gas is a low-emmissions fuel, but not all of it is fracked, is it?

Fracking does have a role to play in the US, but anyone who thinks it is a fuel without a very high cost is stupid beyond belief. Fracking does create significant emissions as it goes, can leak chemicals into groundwater, and see minor releases of radioactive material. The risk of earthquake is significant. It can also mean bubbles of methane entering drinking water supplies.

I don't oppose it by any means, but I would sure as hell want to see it researched more before going as crazy over it as some folks are here. To my mind it has 'Impending Chernobyl-type accident' written all over it.

LOL, that's right no matter what keep on dancing and blaming the other guys.. WOW dude, it lowered 2012 and you still can't grow up.. It lowered you should be happy. You're not though because it doesn't fit in with your Algorian mantra...

ROFL, you freaking doom seekers are ridiculous.. If the globe suddenly turned into a perfect paradise-like eco-system, you people would still need something to cry over. It must be some kind of deep self-loathing issue..

AGW is more of a Doomsday Cult than science

 

[Old Rocks]

You could look all over the world and find the co2 level within 1-2ppm. That blows your little volcano theory out of the water. LOL.

Really? Prove it.. Prove that claim, Should be easy..

How reliable are CO2 measurements?

Money for Keeling: Monitoring CO2

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/Jubany_thru_2009_Daily.JPG

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outrea...ric Carbon Dioxide Monitored by NOAA-CMDL.pdf

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW Cult: Increase in CO2 to 400PPM will cause "Global warming/climate change"

Me: Can you show us how this works in a lab?

AGW Cult: No, fool! The system is far too complicated to repliacte in a lab!

Me: If the system is too complicated how can you know for certain that the CO2 is the cause? Especially since so much evidence contravenes and negates your theory and you fuckers manipulate the data?

AGW Cult: Increase in CO23 to 400PPM will cause "Global warming/climate change"

 

[skookerasbil]

Emissions are lowering in the US, however, lowering is not ceasing. We are still adding to the cumalative amount in the atmosphere. And China and India are more than making up for our lowering of our emissions. We are not going to see a lowering of the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere for a very long time, not until the effects are bad enough to cause it to be forced.

I dont get it.........

Why even bring up a concept when it is has zero chance of happening. It'd be like me coming on here and telling you guys about my multiple upcoming rendevous with Kate Upton

Moving to ceasing emissions would require.......among other things.......a short list ( very)

1) Destroying every cow on the planet ( no more beef s0ns)
2) Immediately stop making plastics ( no more cell phones......sorry.....back to the morse code to communicate )
3) Stop making electric cars.
4) That fireplace in your house? ( not anymore s0ns.....gotta brick that closed!!!)
5) Stop the freight trains from moving!! ( ummm......people on the east coast are going to get a little bit hungry......as in many starving to death )
6) A need to collectively pray for NO PROTRACTED COLD SNAPS ( because over 1 million people would be freezing to death with each one )
7) No more tires for your car s0ns!!!! ( we'll all be walking to work!!!! )
8) No more garbage collection s0ns......get used to lots and lots of rats and stinky smells!!!!
9) No more air conditioning for you s0ns!!!!!
10) No more water supplies........get out the rain cans s0ns!!!




Need I list anymore......or are we starting to get it???




Remember what I always say..........


For those on the far left, when they propose shit, they never concern themselves with answering two fairly important questions.


1) As compared to what?

and

2) At what cost?




To the majority, those are fairly important questions than must be answered!!!





Meanwhile.......and make no mistake........agencies like the EPA and the hyper-environmentalists would ban breathing tomorrow if it fit the agenda.

 

[jon_berzerk]

AGW Cult: Increase in CO2 to 400PPM will cause "Global warming/climate change"

Me: Can you show us how this works in a lab?

AGW Cult: No, fool! The system is far too complicated to repliacte in a lab!

Me: If the system is too complicated how can you know for certain that the CO2 is the cause? Especially since so much evidence contravenes and negates your theory and you fuckers manipulate the data?

AGW Cult: Increase in CO23 to 400PPM will cause "Global warming/climate change"

they have done some lab testing

to get the results of death on certain creatures

however the C02 had to be jacked up

not just up but jacked way up

to say

see i told ya so

 

[skookerasbil]

Post #104 shuts this whole thing down........

 

[Mr. H.]

Emissions are lowering in the US, however, lowering is not ceasing. We are still adding to the cumalative amount in the atmosphere. And China and India are more than making up for our lowering of our emissions. We are not going to see a lowering of the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere for a very long time, not until the effects are bad enough to cause it to be forced.

Would it really kill you to give a nod to the U.S. natural gas industry for their accomplishments and contributions? And maybe be a little more supportive for still more increased use of natural gas so we can experience more "lowering"?

Your "all or none" approach to these issues is troubling.

 

[Saigon]

Mr H -

I don't know see anyone denying that nuclear and natural gas play a role in lowering emissions.

WhatI do see are posters denying that new industries like tidal and solar also have a role in lowering emissions.

 

[Mr. H.]

Mr H -

I don't know see anyone denying that nuclear and natural gas play a role in lowering emissions.

WhatI do see are posters denying that new industries like tidal and solar also have a role in lowering emissions.

Thanks for responding.

I see the RISK taken by private industry and individuals alike in finding, producing, and marketing hydrocarbons.

Dollars risked in uncertain markets, under threat by the Obama administration to the tune of over $40 billion in taxes.

Yet they marshal on.

As opposed to the billions of Federal tax dollars dumped into failing enterprises in the name of.... tidal and solar.

Name for me if you will, the one single source of energy generation that has reduced U.S. carbon emissions to their lowest level in the past 20 years.

 

[Saigon]

Mr H -

That simply is not true at all. Coal, oil and nuclear have received MASSIVE subsidies over the years, probably far more than renewables will ever receive.

And actually, all of the tidal compaines I know are not only private - they are largely operating in privatised energy markets.

I can give some examples of that if you like.

the one single source of energy generation that has reduced U.S. carbon emissions to their lowest level in the past 20 years.

I haven't checked, but I would say nuclear.

 

[Mr. H.]

Mr H -

That simply is not true at all. Coal, oil and nuclear have received MASSIVE subsidies over the years, probably far more than renewables will ever receive.

And actually, all of the tidal compaines I know are not only private - they are largely operating in privatised energy markets.

I can give some examples of that if you like.

the one single source of energy generation that has reduced U.S. carbon emissions to their lowest level in the past 20 years.

I haven't checked, but I would say nuclear.

I'm not that well versed in coal and nuclear, but I would challenge you to speak about massive oil subsidies.

 

[Saigon]

Mr H -

Here is what Wiki has anyway -

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003. During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion. It has been suggested that a subsidy shift would help to level the playing field and support growing energy sectors, namely solar power, wind power, and biofuels. However, many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit mentioned above). The value of industry-specific subsidies in 2006 was estimated by the Texas State Comptroller to be just $3.06 billion - a fraction of the amount claimed by the Environmental Law Institute. The balance of federal subsides, which the comptroller valued at $7.4 billion, came from shared credits and deductions, and oil defense (spending on the SPR, energy infrastructure security, etc.).

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mr. H.]

Mr H -

Here is what Wiki has anyway -

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003. During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion. It has been suggested that a subsidy shift would help to level the playing field and support growing energy sectors, namely solar power, wind power, and biofuels. However, many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit mentioned above). The value of industry-specific subsidies in 2006 was estimated by the Texas State Comptroller to be just $3.06 billion - a fraction of the amount claimed by the Environmental Law Institute. The balance of federal subsides, which the comptroller valued at $7.4 billion, came from shared credits and deductions, and oil defense (spending on the SPR, energy infrastructure security, etc.).

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for that.

And why, if "many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses" would these two industries in particular be singled out for over $40 billion in taxes- as proposed in Obama's budget?

 

[MisterBeale]

CO2 is a trace gas........we actually need more of it.

Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide - WSJ.com



Anyway.....being a trace gas, its impact on climate is insignificant.


When you see this, you'll laugh your balls off ( if youre not a comitted climate k00k)........


CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube

Wow, that was a terrific vidiographic representation. I have tried to explain how foundations control global politics, education, science, and the press, the past how the Earth was warmer when the Vikings discovered America and colonized Greenland, how there is more CO2 locked in the Oceans and perma-frost than we produce through heavy industry and transportation, how water vapor is a much larger green house gas, but to no avail, people still want to believe the fairy tale the global elites preach.

People who have been conditioned in government schools and universities, who have been indoctrinated by MSM sources their whole life by people they trust more than their family, will never listen. It is a pointless task. But yup, this is the truth of the matter.

This is not to say we haven't over fished the oceans, made toxic the lands, polluted the rivers, and made a complete mess of the place, while depleting the world's resources, oh, we have. The place is a right mess all right. But the simple fact is, Global Warming is a key issue the global elites are trying to use to push world government. Just like gutting the dollar. They will crash it and rebuild their new world. No one in power cared about QE4 and infinite printing of money. It is now printed every month, more and more and more. Just as we pump more pollution and dump more plastic into the oceans.

Oh, the Earth will be fine. But us? We're fucked. Our economic system will collapse, and soon after, we will have no way to distribute and feed everyone. You can guess the rest.

That's right, the four horsemen.

There is no way that we will keep the rise in temperatures below 2 C this century. And the Arctic Ice will be gone for most of the summer while many of us here are still alive.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovbF0D2wySI]GEORGE CARLIN "The Planet is Fine.The People are Fucked" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Saigon]

Mr H -

And why, if "many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses" would these two industries in particular be singled out for over $40 billion in taxes- as proposed in Obama's budget?

I couldn't say.

My guess would be that it is traditionally easier for strong, established companies to do deals (for instance, local tax rebates for building a refinery in a different state) than it is for start-up companies who may bring less jobs and less stability to the table.

If BP or Chevron request a meeting with a Senator and ask for a deal, it's not going to be easy to send them and their thouand jobs home empty-handed.

 

[gslack]

Mr H -

Here is what Wiki has anyway -

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003. During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion. It has been suggested that a subsidy shift would help to level the playing field and support growing energy sectors, namely solar power, wind power, and biofuels. However, many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit mentioned above). The value of industry-specific subsidies in 2006 was estimated by the Texas State Comptroller to be just $3.06 billion - a fraction of the amount claimed by the Environmental Law Institute. The balance of federal subsides, which the comptroller valued at $7.4 billion, came from shared credits and deductions, and oil defense (spending on the SPR, energy infrastructure security, etc.).

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most of the actual money from subsidies pays for R&D. Like making the Fossil fuels go farther or get the most out of them. Which has brought us things like cleaner burning gas, and various others. As well as help keep the prices down in places that do not have the same buying power and infrastructure that the wealthier countries enjoy , which is where the disconnect is. Some believe they are ineffective and wasteful.

The truth is like most things It's not black and white, but rather grey. They do help keep costs down to some extent for poorer countries, but they also pass that burden onto wealthier countries forcing their costs to rise.

When you discuss energy subsidies in general, you cast an inaccurate blanket view on what that money goes to pay for.Some are good, some are bad. For instance..

Many countries in Africa have massive amounts of coal, just sitting in the ground. They don't mine it and create their own markets, why? Because subsidized fuel sources through the UN and select countries make it cheaper to buy it from others. And most African nations lack the finances to build the required infrastructures to make it cost effective. That makes that a bad subsidy for them in one way but good for them in another.

I think it would be best in the long run to stop that and let them adapt and grow. But then we have the Green and ecomentalists who fear what would happen if masses of 3rd world countries had access to massive amounts of fossil fuels of their own. The sudden rise in CO2 emissions, the accompanying desires of the people to have more that comes with it, scares the crap out of the people behind groups like the IPCC and Sierra club..

Subsidies classified to "fossil fuels" are rarely to pay for actual fossil fuel industry, but rather to make it viable for the entire world to use from the same sources.

 

[westwall]

Bill McKibben must be catatonic!

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

Interesting points. I agree that subsidies are not black and white, neither for oil nor for renewables. Some will be good decisions, others ultimately counter productive.

However, the situation with resources in Africa is changing rapidly. China are building ports, roads, railways and all of the infrastructure needed to access whatever minerals they want. I doubt coal isas high on that list as copper, uranium, coltan or diamonds, but you never know with China.

I agree that the extraction of oil from countries like Nigeria has been an unmitigated disaster.It's an environmental and civil rights catastrophe, and almost all of the money has been stolen or squandered. The West has to do better in its dealings with failed states.

Emissions from third would countries are bound to rise as living standards rise, and 100 million without access to electricity at home gain access to it. However, many of those countries can skip the coal generation and go straight to biogas, nuclear or solar if they are helped to do so.

btw. That was the best post I've seen of yours on this board.

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

Interesting points. I agree that subsidies are not black and white, neither for oil nor for renewables. Some will be good decisions, others ultimately counter productive.

However, the situation with resources in Africa is changing rapidly. China are building ports, roads, railways and all of the infrastructure needed to access whatever minerals they want. I doubt coal isas high on that list as copper, uranium, coltan or diamonds, but you never know with China.

I agree that the extraction of oil from countries like Nigeria has been an unmitigated disaster.It's an environmental and civil rights catastrophe, and almost all of the money has been stolen or squandered. The West has to do better in its dealings with failed states.

Emissions from third would countries are bound to rise as living standards rise, and 100 million without access to electricity at home gain access to it. However, many of those countries can skip the coal generation and go straight to biogas, nuclear or solar if they are helped to do so.

btw. That was the best post I've seen of yours on this board.

BTW, you would get better responses from me if you quoted my posts fairly and honestly, instead of picking what you want to respond to in it, and making up the rest as you feel..

Case in point; We were discussing fossil fuel subsidies specifically. You just pulled China and their desire for various other minerals out of where? Your butt of course.. I didn't mention China because despite what you seem to think they are not a 3rd world country. They already have an existing coal and fossil fuel industry and infrastructure..

Seriously dude, you just decided to make things up and add it in for what?

Want a better response from me? Fine give good reason for it and I will. Be honest and stop the trolling and neg-repping nonsense. Cherry-picking quotes and responding inaccurately or dishonestly just irritates me..

BTW, I gave many such responses before, and you decided you didn't like the message and trolled doing what you usually do...

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

And it's back to your usual gibberish, abuse and lies.

I'll leave you to it.