Climate Change?

[Old Rocks]

I don't know. I suspect the residents of Joplin, MO; Tuscaloosa, AL and the states which border the Mississippi River and its tributaries might be beginning to question the conventional wisdom (i.e. propaganda) of the right wing spin machine.

So, to summarize this thread, you say these tornadoes and floods would not have happened if people had voted Democrat.

Daveboy, your strawmen may work for other ditto heads, but for most of the citizens, they understand what increased chances mean.

There is about a thirty to fifty year lag in the effects of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere. So what we are seeing now is mostly the effects of the GhGs that were in the atmosphere from 1960 to 1980. For at least thirty years, we will see increasing effects, even were we to cease to emit GHGs right now. Since that is not going to happen, by the time fools like you realize there is a problem, it is going to be too late for a significant portion of the human population.

 

[martybegan]

Your ideas on tax deductions and such evidently starts with the logic that the companies money belongs to the government, and its up to the company to figure out how to keep its own money. It doesnt work like that. Remember corporate tax is an INCOME tax, gross reciepts minus expenses. If you want to tax just profit, why not just make a profit tax? That would eliminate the need for deductions. Until then there are no subsidies, there are DEDUCTIONS, as the current law says we dont tax the cost of doing buisness.

As for the oil/gas company thing, I am saying no such thing. You arent getting the point, or you are, and refuse to conceed it.

Let me ask you a question. In 2012 will I be able to buy the same 100 watt incandescent light bulb I can buy right now?

As you don't seem to be reading or considering what I am actually saying, but rather seem to be working solely off of some predetermined script that exists only in your head, I'll leave you to continue your internal discussion all on your own.

its called my opinion. I guess you just have the inability to realize someone may have concepts or ideas that disagree with your own. I wonder why you are on a debate board in the first place.

I read and consider what you say, i just dont agree with it.

 

[daveman]

I don't know. I suspect the residents of Joplin, MO; Tuscaloosa, AL and the states which border the Mississippi River and its tributaries might be beginning to question the conventional wisdom (i.e. propaganda) of the right wing spin machine.

So, to summarize this thread, you say these tornadoes and floods would not have happened if people had voted Democrat.

Daveboy, your strawmen may work for other ditto heads, but for most of the citizens, they understand what increased chances mean.

He didn't say anything about increased chances, did he? He said their situations are because they listened to the right wing.

There is about a thirty to fifty year lag in the effects of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.

For CO2, temperature rises predate level rises. Try again.

So what we are seeing now is mostly the effects of the GhGs that were in the atmosphere from 1960 to 1980. For at least thirty years, we will see increasing effects, even were we to cease to emit GHGs right now. Since that is not going to happen, by the time fools like you realize there is a problem, it is going to be too late for a significant portion of the human population.

It's a damn shame there aren't any labratory experiments that back up your claim, isn't it?

Run along, Chicken Little.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is true that wind technology has brought the cost down to be very competitive if not the most cost efficient per kilowatt hour of electricity produced.

See the comparison on graphs here:
Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs

The trouble is, carting a wind turbine around on your vehicle might be a bit difficult. And so much more real estate has to be used up with wind turbines to generate anywhere near the electricity generating capacity of one coal fired or gas fired or nuclear plant that whole landscapes will be covered with the turbines as far as the eye can see. And even then they have to have wind to work.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, to summarize this thread, you say these tornadoes and floods would not have happened if people had voted Democrat.

Daveboy, your strawmen may work for other ditto heads, but for most of the citizens, they understand what increased chances mean.

He didn't say anything about increased chances, did he? He said their situations are because they listened to the right wing.

There is about a thirty to fifty year lag in the effects of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.

For CO2, temperature rises predate level rises. Try again.

So what we are seeing now is mostly the effects of the GhGs that were in the atmosphere from 1960 to 1980. For at least thirty years, we will see increasing effects, even were we to cease to emit GHGs right now. Since that is not going to happen, by the time fools like you realize there is a problem, it is going to be too late for a significant portion of the human population.

It's a damn shame there aren't any labratory experiments that back up your claim, isn't it?

Run along, Chicken Little.

It is a damned shame that you are such an ignoramous.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

It is true that wind technology has brought the cost down to be very competitive if not the most cost efficient per kilowatt hour of electricity produced.

See the comparison on graphs here:
Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs

The trouble is, carting a wind turbine around on your vehicle might be a bit difficult. And so much more real estate has to be used up with wind turbines to generate anywhere near the electricity generating capacity of one coal fired or gas fired or nuclear plant that whole landscapes will be covered with the turbines as far as the eye can see. And even then they have to have wind to work.

You are going to cart around a coal fired generator on top of your car, instead.

No, wind does not take up that much landscape. There are windgeneratorys by the hundreds east of The Dallas, Oregon. They stand in wheat fields with wheat growing right up to the base. So we have wheat farms producing wheat and power, with hardly any loss of land due to the production of power. Not only that, no production of mercury and other poisons for the children downwind of the turbines.

No one has suggested that the grid be wind only. In fact, what has been suggested is a mix of alternatives. With a distributed grid to take advantage of generation from 1 kw to 2 gw sources.

 

[Trakar]

It is true that wind technology has brought the cost down to be very competitive if not the most cost efficient per kilowatt hour of electricity produced.

See the comparison on graphs here:
Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs

The trouble is, carting a wind turbine around on your vehicle might be a bit difficult. And so much more real estate has to be used up with wind turbines to generate anywhere near the electricity generating capacity of one coal fired or gas fired or nuclear plant that whole landscapes will be covered with the turbines as far as the eye can see. And even then they have to have wind to work.

Well, wind isn't constant, so it runs into the same problem that faces solar. Of course there are lots of storage systems if you over-design capacity and integrate the storage system to take advantage of the excess when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining.

fly-wheels

pumped air

pumped water

molten salt

batteries

electro-chemical (fuel-cells)