Human Caused Global Warming

[cultsmasher]

Your entire position is a lie. 90% say so. Once your side decides it is no longer effective to lie/deny they will argue their second talking point then 3rd. Eventually we will be arguing with you on who should be the ones to pay for the solution. We as a society should decide that the corporate pollutors that contribute the most to GW should but you guys will fight that until ultimately you will make us the people pay.

And I don't blame you. Why not sock it to the people? They don't even show up to vote so keep fucking them until they have had enough. Clearly they haven't had enough. The America people are so dumb.

By the way, this is the same thing happening in Michigan with our roads. Michigan allows corporations to put more weight on trucks than any of the other 50 states. That alone is a reason why corporations do business in Michigan. No need to give them more tax breaks although Snyder did give them more. Anyways, the point is that corporate trucks tear up our roads more than our cars do. So corporations should pay for the roads. But Snyder says no. He gave them tax breaks and says we don't have any $ to fix the roads, so he's going to raise our taxes. Basically proving me right. Republicans are only anti tax for the rich. They actually shift the tax burden from the rich onto us. Essentially they are for raising our taxes so they can lower the taxes for the rich. If you are for that, either you are dumb or rich.

Remember for how many years Republicans said NO NEW TAXES? Suddenly they win a 2nd term and sock it to the middle class? Where are all my middle class buddies who vote Republican? Suddenly they are defending tax increases? Interesting. Just like when they win back the white house they will stop being deficit hawks bet me. THey'll double the debt and you won't hear a sound out of their defenders. In fact remember Chaney said debt was good? I do.

Eventually we will be arguing with you on who should be the ones to pay for the solution. We as a society should decide that the corporate pollutors that contribute the most to GW should

That sounds like a great idea! How do you do it without making "the people pay"?

Todsterpatriot,
This isn't the right thread to be talking economics. But as to who pays what, here's a good place to start.View attachment 34381

You have a link for that silly chart?

Todsterpatriot,
I take it you're talking about the tax disparity chart. I can find it But I have a couple more for you. Also, if you want to talk abouc such things, I suggest you do so in my thread, "War on the rich: Best idea in the history of man."

View attachment 34438 View attachment 34440

Yeah, thanks for stupid, pointless charts that have nothing to do with the discussion.

Todsterpatriot,
You said to show you where I got the graph from. If you didn't want to know the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.

You never cease to amaze me how you can say this bull shit knowing that batteries are decades away from being able to do this.

at just 14 -20 % increses it will take 50-100 years to obtain batteries that could store enough energy to balance the gird and the battery farms would be massive all over the place on earth..

You really are a moron..

source

Billy_Bob,
Excuse me for butting in, but you are all wrong about batteries All that would be needed for any battery is to scale it up. The same is true for capacitors and using them to store electricty for either night time or low wind or low sun days. Coal or oil should only be used as a last resort. Nuclear energy should never be used.

Nuclear energy should never be used.
Right. Why would we want a CO2 free, reliable, large scale source of energy?
Windmills and lead batteries are the way to go. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Eventually we will be arguing with you on who should be the ones to pay for the solution. We as a society should decide that the corporate pollutors that contribute the most to GW should

That sounds like a great idea! How do you do it without making "the people pay"?

Todsterpatriot,
This isn't the right thread to be talking economics. But as to who pays what, here's a good place to start.View attachment 34381

You have a link for that silly chart?

Todsterpatriot,
I take it you're talking about the tax disparity chart. I can find it But I have a couple more for you. Also, if you want to talk abouc such things, I suggest you do so in my thread, "War on the rich: Best idea in the history of man."

View attachment 34438 View attachment 34440

Yeah, thanks for stupid, pointless charts that have nothing to do with the discussion.

Todsterpatriot,
You said to show you where I got the graph from. If you didn't want to know the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question.

The graph had nothing to do with my comment.
A graph without a source is useless.
If you had a source, I could show you it was wrong, but you're too stupid.
It would be a waste of effort.

 

[cultsmasher]

My, my. Yet every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But there is no scientific consensus?

Ah yes, it is all a conspiracy, all these scientists in Russia, Europe, Asia, and North and South America are all in on a giant conspiracy. Tin hats, anyone? LOL

In that case, let's waste trillions and crush our economy.

LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.

Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity.

That's hilarious!!!
If it was better and cheaper (doesn't matter if it is not reliable), the government wouldn't need to subsidize and mandate it.

grid scale batteries

Yeah, we know there's no pollution involved in lead (or lithium) mining. LOL!

So, if oil, gas and coal are better and cheaper why does the government need to subsidise it?

By all means, spell out the imaginary subsidies you think they get.

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies. I have some graphs for them as well. Though I only include the second one because it mentions Exxon.

 

[cultsmasher]

LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.

You never cease to amaze me how you can say this bull shit knowing that batteries are decades away from being able to do this.

at just 14 -20 % increses it will take 50-100 years to obtain batteries that could store enough energy to balance the gird and the battery farms would be massive all over the place on earth..

You really are a moron..

source

Billy_Bob,
Excuse me for butting in, but you are all wrong about batteries All that would be needed for any battery is to scale it up. The same is true for capacitors and using them to store electricty for either night time or low wind or low sun days. Coal or oil should only be used as a last resort. Nuclear energy should never be used.

Nuclear energy should never be used.
Right. Why would we want a CO2 free, reliable, large scale source of energy?
Windmills and lead batteries are the way to go. LOL!

Todsterpatriot,
You need to see the documentary, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare." When nuclear goes bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean it up. That isn't very economical.

 

[cultsmasher]

Todsterpatriot,
This isn't the right thread to be talking economics. But as to who pays what, here's a good place to start.View attachment 34381

You have a link for that silly chart?

Todsterpatriot,
I take it you're talking about the tax disparity chart. I can find it But I have a couple more for you. Also, if you want to talk abouc such things, I suggest you do so in my thread, "War on the rich: Best idea in the history of man."

View attachment 34438 View attachment 34440

Yeah, thanks for stupid, pointless charts that have nothing to do with the discussion.

Todsterpatriot,
You said to show you where I got the graph from. If you didn't want to know the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question.

The graph had nothing to do with my comment.
A graph without a source is useless.
If you had a source, I could show you it was wrong, but you're too stupid.
It would be a waste of effort.

Todsterpatriot,
If you weren't so stupid, you would look it up yourself.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In that case, let's waste trillions and crush our economy.

LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.

Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity.

That's hilarious!!!
If it was better and cheaper (doesn't matter if it is not reliable), the government wouldn't need to subsidize and mandate it.

grid scale batteries

Yeah, we know there's no pollution involved in lead (or lithium) mining. LOL!

So, if oil, gas and coal are better and cheaper why does the government need to subsidise it?

By all means, spell out the imaginary subsidies you think they get.

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies. I have some graphs for them as well. Though I only include the second one because it mentions Exxon.

View attachment 34443 View attachment 34442

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies.

Actually, I was mocking the liberal idiot that brought them up.

Where do you come up with these useless, horribly inaccurate charts?
They're ridicuolous.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todsterpatriot,
You need to see the documentary, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare." When nuclear goes bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean it up. That isn't very economical.

Nuclear is so dangerous, more Americans have died in Ted Kennedy's car than from US civilian nuclear power.

 

[westwall]

LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.

You never cease to amaze me how you can say this bull shit knowing that batteries are decades away from being able to do this.

at just 14 -20 % increses it will take 50-100 years to obtain batteries that could store enough energy to balance the gird and the battery farms would be massive all over the place on earth..

You really are a moron..

source

Billy_Bob,
Excuse me for butting in, but you are all wrong about batteries All that would be needed for any battery is to scale it up. The same is true for capacitors and using them to store electricty for either night time or low wind or low sun days. Coal or oil should only be used as a last resort. Nuclear energy should never be used.

Funny how you never address the toxicity of actually CREATING your imaginary batteries. Why is that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have a link for that silly chart?

Todsterpatriot,
I take it you're talking about the tax disparity chart. I can find it But I have a couple more for you. Also, if you want to talk abouc such things, I suggest you do so in my thread, "War on the rich: Best idea in the history of man."

View attachment 34438 View attachment 34440

Yeah, thanks for stupid, pointless charts that have nothing to do with the discussion.

Todsterpatriot,
You said to show you where I got the graph from. If you didn't want to know the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question.

The graph had nothing to do with my comment.
A graph without a source is useless.
If you had a source, I could show you it was wrong, but you're too stupid.
It would be a waste of effort.

Todsterpatriot,
If you weren't so stupid, you would look it up yourself.

I'm not interested in scouring the internet for the source of a chart that is laughably inaccurate and
has nothing to do with my original comment.

 

[cultsmasher]

LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.

Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity.

That's hilarious!!!
If it was better and cheaper (doesn't matter if it is not reliable), the government wouldn't need to subsidize and mandate it.

grid scale batteries

Yeah, we know there's no pollution involved in lead (or lithium) mining. LOL!

So, if oil, gas and coal are better and cheaper why does the government need to subsidise it?

By all means, spell out the imaginary subsidies you think they get.

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies. I have some graphs for them as well. Though I only include the second one because it mentions Exxon.

View attachment 34443 View attachment 34442

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies.

Actually, I was mocking the liberal idiot that brought them up.

Where do you come up with these useless, horribly inaccurate charts?
They're ridicuolous.

Todsterpatriot,
There is nothing stupid about the unfortunate corporate welfare that this country hands out. As for my graphs, go to your web browser and ask it to show graphs on whatever topic you're interested in.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity.

That's hilarious!!!
If it was better and cheaper (doesn't matter if it is not reliable), the government wouldn't need to subsidize and mandate it.

grid scale batteries

Yeah, we know there's no pollution involved in lead (or lithium) mining. LOL!

So, if oil, gas and coal are better and cheaper why does the government need to subsidise it?

By all means, spell out the imaginary subsidies you think they get.

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies. I have some graphs for them as well. Though I only include the second one because it mentions Exxon.

View attachment 34443 View attachment 34442

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies.

Actually, I was mocking the liberal idiot that brought them up.

Where do you come up with these useless, horribly inaccurate charts?
They're ridicuolous.

Todsterpatriot,
There is nothing stupod about the unfortunate corporate welfare that this country hands out. As for my graphs, go to your web browser and ask it to show graphs on whatever topic you're interested in.

If you have real, sourced, info about corporate welfare, provide it and I'll be happy to discuss.

Provide an unsourced, obviously inaccurate graph, and I'll just point and laugh.

 

[idb]

LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.

Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity.

That's hilarious!!!
If it was better and cheaper (doesn't matter if it is not reliable), the government wouldn't need to subsidize and mandate it.

grid scale batteries

Yeah, we know there's no pollution involved in lead (or lithium) mining. LOL!

So, if oil, gas and coal are better and cheaper why does the government need to subsidise it?

By all means, spell out the imaginary subsidies you think they get.

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies. I have some graphs for them as well. Though I only include the second one because it mentions Exxon.

View attachment 34443 View attachment 34442

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies.

Actually, I was mocking the liberal idiot that brought them up.

Where do you come up with these useless, horribly inaccurate charts?
They're ridicuolous.

Mocking?
Saying "no it isn't" over and over again is hardly mocking.
Mocking pre-supposes some cleverness - you are way too unqualified for mocking.

In your own mind I bet you win every argument you get into because the other party always gives up.
The truth is that's because beating your head against an idiot only feels good when you stop.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity.

That's hilarious!!!
If it was better and cheaper (doesn't matter if it is not reliable), the government wouldn't need to subsidize and mandate it.

grid scale batteries

Yeah, we know there's no pollution involved in lead (or lithium) mining. LOL!

So, if oil, gas and coal are better and cheaper why does the government need to subsidise it?

By all means, spell out the imaginary subsidies you think they get.

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies. I have some graphs for them as well. Though I only include the second one because it mentions Exxon.

View attachment 34443 View attachment 34442

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies.

Actually, I was mocking the liberal idiot that brought them up.

Where do you come up with these useless, horribly inaccurate charts?
They're ridicuolous.

Mocking?
Saying "no it isn't" over and over again is hardly mocking.
Mocking pre-supposes some cleverness - you are way too unqualified for mocking.

In your own mind I bet you win every argument you get into because the other party always gives up.
The truth is that's because beating your head against an idiot only feels good when you stop.

Tell me again how selling oil at $20 instead of $100 is a subsidy for oil.

 

[idb]

So, if oil, gas and coal are better and cheaper why does the government need to subsidise it?

By all means, spell out the imaginary subsidies you think they get.

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies. I have some graphs for them as well. Though I only include the second one because it mentions Exxon.

View attachment 34443 View attachment 34442

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies.

Actually, I was mocking the liberal idiot that brought them up.

Where do you come up with these useless, horribly inaccurate charts?
They're ridicuolous.

Mocking?
Saying "no it isn't" over and over again is hardly mocking.
Mocking pre-supposes some cleverness - you are way too unqualified for mocking.

In your own mind I bet you win every argument you get into because the other party always gives up.
The truth is that's because beating your head against an idiot only feels good when you stop.

Tell me again how selling oil at $20 instead of $100 is a subsidy for oil.

Is the article too difficult for you to understand?
If the government is making up the $80 difference then that is a subsidy.
Try reading for comprehension.

No sense'
But most subsidies are handed out in developing economies in the form of state investments at very low rates of return, and lost income from selling fuel at an artificially low price.

For example, as Laszlo Varro at the IEA explains, a $100bn investment in electricity infrastructure at a 2% rate of return, where the cost of capital on the open market would be 8%, represents a $6bn subsidy.

Equally, selling a barrel of oil domestically at $20 to keep petrol prices low when you could export that same barrel at the open market price of $100 represents an $80 subsidy.

As William Blyth at Oxford Energy Associates says: "Economically, this doesn't really make any sense."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By all means, spell out the imaginary subsidies you think they get.

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies. I have some graphs for them as well. Though I only include the second one because it mentions Exxon.

View attachment 34443 View attachment 34442

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies.

Actually, I was mocking the liberal idiot that brought them up.

Where do you come up with these useless, horribly inaccurate charts?
They're ridicuolous.

Mocking?
Saying "no it isn't" over and over again is hardly mocking.
Mocking pre-supposes some cleverness - you are way too unqualified for mocking.

In your own mind I bet you win every argument you get into because the other party always gives up.
The truth is that's because beating your head against an idiot only feels good when you stop.

Tell me again how selling oil at $20 instead of $100 is a subsidy for oil.

Is the article too difficult for you to understand?
If the government is making up the $80 difference then that is a subsidy.
Try reading for comprehension.

No sense'
But most subsidies are handed out in developing economies in the form of state investments at very low rates of return, and lost income from selling fuel at an artificially low price.

For example, as Laszlo Varro at the IEA explains, a $100bn investment in electricity infrastructure at a 2% rate of return, where the cost of capital on the open market would be 8%, represents a $6bn subsidy.

Equally, selling a barrel of oil domestically at $20 to keep petrol prices low when you could export that same barrel at the open market price of $100 represents an $80 subsidy.

As William Blyth at Oxford Energy Associates says: "Economically, this doesn't really make any sense."

If the government gives an $80 subsidy to its oil consumers, that is in no way a subsidy to the oil producers. Sorry.

 

[idb]

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies. I have some graphs for them as well. Though I only include the second one because it mentions Exxon.

View attachment 34443 View attachment 34442

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies.

Actually, I was mocking the liberal idiot that brought them up.

Where do you come up with these useless, horribly inaccurate charts?
They're ridicuolous.

Mocking?
Saying "no it isn't" over and over again is hardly mocking.
Mocking pre-supposes some cleverness - you are way too unqualified for mocking.

In your own mind I bet you win every argument you get into because the other party always gives up.
The truth is that's because beating your head against an idiot only feels good when you stop.

Tell me again how selling oil at $20 instead of $100 is a subsidy for oil.

Is the article too difficult for you to understand?
If the government is making up the $80 difference then that is a subsidy.
Try reading for comprehension.

No sense'
But most subsidies are handed out in developing economies in the form of state investments at very low rates of return, and lost income from selling fuel at an artificially low price.

For example, as Laszlo Varro at the IEA explains, a $100bn investment in electricity infrastructure at a 2% rate of return, where the cost of capital on the open market would be 8%, represents a $6bn subsidy.

Equally, selling a barrel of oil domestically at $20 to keep petrol prices low when you could export that same barrel at the open market price of $100 represents an $80 subsidy.

As William Blyth at Oxford Energy Associates says: "Economically, this doesn't really make any sense."

If the government gives an $80 subsidy to its oil consumers, that is in no way a subsidy to the oil producers. Sorry.

Did I say that oil producers receive the subsidy?
A subsidy is still a subsidy.
Sorry.

Going back to the original point - if fossil fuel production is so much more efficient and cost-effective than renewables then why does it need subsidies at all?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies.

Actually, I was mocking the liberal idiot that brought them up.

Where do you come up with these useless, horribly inaccurate charts?
They're ridicuolous.

Mocking?
Saying "no it isn't" over and over again is hardly mocking.
Mocking pre-supposes some cleverness - you are way too unqualified for mocking.

In your own mind I bet you win every argument you get into because the other party always gives up.
The truth is that's because beating your head against an idiot only feels good when you stop.

Tell me again how selling oil at $20 instead of $100 is a subsidy for oil.

Is the article too difficult for you to understand?
If the government is making up the $80 difference then that is a subsidy.
Try reading for comprehension.

No sense'
But most subsidies are handed out in developing economies in the form of state investments at very low rates of return, and lost income from selling fuel at an artificially low price.

For example, as Laszlo Varro at the IEA explains, a $100bn investment in electricity infrastructure at a 2% rate of return, where the cost of capital on the open market would be 8%, represents a $6bn subsidy.

Equally, selling a barrel of oil domestically at $20 to keep petrol prices low when you could export that same barrel at the open market price of $100 represents an $80 subsidy.

As William Blyth at Oxford Energy Associates says: "Economically, this doesn't really make any sense."

If the government gives an $80 subsidy to its oil consumers, that is in no way a subsidy to the oil producers. Sorry.

Did I say that oil producers receive the subsidy?
A subsidy is still a subsidy.
Sorry.

Going back to the original point - if fossil fuel production is so much more efficient and cost-effective than renewables then why does it need subsidies at all?

Did I say that oil producers receive the subsidy?
A subsidy is still a subsidy.
Sorry.

Yeah, welfare is welfare. Which has nothing to do with fossil fuels still being the best, most cost effective energy source out there today.


Going back to the original point - if fossil fuel production is so much more efficient and cost-effective than renewables then why does it need subsidies at all.

It doesn't need subsidies to encourage production, unlike renewables which will shut down when the government money is cut off.

 

[cultsmasher]

Mocking?
Saying "no it isn't" over and over again is hardly mocking.
Mocking pre-supposes some cleverness - you are way too unqualified for mocking.

In your own mind I bet you win every argument you get into because the other party always gives up.
The truth is that's because beating your head against an idiot only feels good when you stop.

Tell me again how selling oil at $20 instead of $100 is a subsidy for oil.

Is the article too difficult for you to understand?
If the government is making up the $80 difference then that is a subsidy.
Try reading for comprehension.

No sense'
But most subsidies are handed out in developing economies in the form of state investments at very low rates of return, and lost income from selling fuel at an artificially low price.

For example, as Laszlo Varro at the IEA explains, a $100bn investment in electricity infrastructure at a 2% rate of return, where the cost of capital on the open market would be 8%, represents a $6bn subsidy.

Equally, selling a barrel of oil domestically at $20 to keep petrol prices low when you could export that same barrel at the open market price of $100 represents an $80 subsidy.

As William Blyth at Oxford Energy Associates says: "Economically, this doesn't really make any sense."

If the government gives an $80 subsidy to its oil consumers, that is in no way a subsidy to the oil producers. Sorry.

Did I say that oil producers receive the subsidy?
A subsidy is still a subsidy.
Sorry.

Going back to the original point - if fossil fuel production is so much more efficient and cost-effective than renewables then why does it need subsidies at all?

Did I say that oil producers receive the subsidy?
A subsidy is still a subsidy.
Sorry.

Yeah, welfare is welfare. Which has nothing to do with fossil fuels still being the best, most cost effective energy source out there today.


Going back to the original point - if fossil fuel production is so much more efficient and cost-effective than renewables then why does it need subsidies at all.

It doesn't need subsidies to encourage production, unlike renewables which will shut down when the government money is cut off.

Toddsterpatriot,
You basically said that oil, gas and coal company welfare has nothing to do with them being the "best" sources of energy. But if they're so great, why do they get subsidies at all. Though all this is beside the point. The point is HCGW. Also, you could learn something from the documentary, "Who Killed The Electric Car." But as a spoiler, I will tell you that car companies did. Probably because Both the oil and car companies own large percentages of each other's stock. Also, electric cars don't need things like lubricating oil, oil filters, air filters, fan belts and a zillion other things that car companies make money selling.

Another thing is that with these companies receiving subsidies, how eager do you think bribed government officals would be to do things that would destroy those industries. Or do things that would make them significantly change the way they do business. That is what is holding us up in adopting green energy. Not technology.

 

[MaxGrit]

jv456 -

Do not confuse lack of scientific evidence with your own inability to read scientific evidence.

As long as you don't want to know the facts - you won't. It's your choice.

BAM

lol