Who are you shilling for?

Discussion in 'Environment' started by westwall, Apr 12, 2011.

  1. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,047
    Thanks Received:
    7,993
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,820
    Whenever a sceptic points out one of the inumerable errors the alarmists are foisting off on the unsuspecting public, in an effort to pass onerous energy regulations, they are invariably branded as "shills for the oil companies" which as anyone with a brain knows is incorrect, and here we have an excellent example of how the energy companies are in bed with the politicos and enviro misinformed to pass this legislation.

    "At the same conference, Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, agreed. He said, “Cap and trade cannot be sold and must be reinvented,” adding that it was going to be hard to “resurrect cap and trade.”

    So when you see their accusations realise that it is actually them who are shilling for the big oil companies.

    Routed Greens Retreat
     
  2. hortysir
    Offline

    hortysir In Memorial of 47

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    20,459
    Thanks Received:
    4,027
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Lakeland, FL
    Ratings:
    +6,296
    I shill for good old fashioned self-interest
    :cool:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    This interview excerpt shows that the environment and "saving the planet" is the furthest thing from their minds, they are interested in controlling people and they will use any methods possible to get that control.

    Read Here:
     
  4. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,639
    Thanks Received:
    5,430
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,422
    We are in the midst of the sixth great extinction. Of which we are the primary driver. We are changing the very atmosphere of the planet. We are changing the chemical balance of the oceans.

    I agree with Dr. Hansen on Cap and Trade. Much too late and too little. And the path to alleviate the effects of what we have already done, let alone what we continue to do for at least another quarter century will not be taken. In fact, those that point out that the effects of failure to change our way of doing things will continue to be treated Casandras. And then fools like yourself will blame them for failing to tell you of the consequences. Not a single person here will admit they are wrong when the climate change begins to have major impacts.

    Westwall, we got a taste of your hypocracy on the thread concerning the nuclear disaster in Japan.
     
  5. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,047
    Thanks Received:
    7,993
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,820



    "6th Extinction event" huh? As usual you clowns resort to hyperbole and silliness to try and frighten the natives.......18,225 NEW SPECIES discovered in 2008 alone.....yep the world sure is dying off fast. Your numbers for this are as accurate as the numbers you concocted for the supposed disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers....OOOOOPPPS!

    18,225 new species discovered in 2008

    Or how about the 50 new species discovered in ONE WEEK!

    NOAA 'Okeanos Explorer' Discovers New Species With Robotic Vehicle In Indonesia's Oceans (PHOTOS)

    Loser.
     
  6. hortysir
    Offline

    hortysir In Memorial of 47

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    20,459
    Thanks Received:
    4,027
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Lakeland, FL
    Ratings:
    +6,296
    Any suggestions for India and China to alleviate what they have already done?
    :eusa_eh:
     
  7. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    I have no problem regualting the energy industry. When we failed to regulate ENRON RAPED CALIFORNIA, remember?

    But that said, I have no respect for the CAP AND TRADE plan.
     
  8. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,639
    Thanks Received:
    5,430
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,422
    A better plan by Dr. James Hansen.

    Climate Expert James Hansen Supports Cap-and-Dividend System : TreeHugger

    Not only would Hansen's plan help slash emissions further than other alternatives, it would return the proceeds to taxpayers through the disbursement of regular dividend payments. Here are a few choice selections from an e-mail exchange Revkin had with Hansen (the rest of it can be found in Revkin's post):

    “Carbon tax and 100% dividend” is spurred by the recent “carbon cap” discussion of Peter Barnes and others. Principles must be crystal clear and adhered to rigorously. A tax on coal, oil and gas is simple. It can be collected at the first point of sale within the country or at the last (e.g., at the gas pump), but it can be collected easily and reliably. You cannot hide coal in your purse; it travels in railroad cars that are easy to spot. “Cap,” in addition, is a euphemism that may do as much harm as good. The public is not stupid.
    The entire carbon tax should be returned to the public, with a monthly deposit to their bank accounts, an equal share to each person (if no bank account provided, an annual check — social security number must be provided). No bureaucracy is needed to figure this out. If the initial carbon tax averages $1,200 per person per year, $100 is deposited in each account each month. (Detail: perhaps limit to four shares per family, with child shares being half-size, i.e., no marriage penalty but do not encourage population growth.)

    A carbon tax will raise energy prices, but lower and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. Product demand will spur economic activity and innovation. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa — it is likely, e.g., that the U.K. will stop importing and exporting 15,000 tons of waffles each year. There will be a growing price incentive for life style changes needed for sustainable living.
     
  9. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Yep, tax the air. Lifelong wet dream of all watermelons and far-lefties.
     
  10. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,047
    Thanks Received:
    7,993
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,820




    Even his fellow warmists think he's full of crap....of course all of this "real science" is based on pathetic computer models:lol:


    U.N. Goal of Limiting Global Warming Is Nearly Impossible, Researchers Say
    by Eli Kintisch on 8 April 2011, 6:02 PM | Permanent Link | 44 Comments
    Email Print | More Previous Article Next Article International negotiators at a United Nations-sponsored climate conference ending today in Bangkok repeatedly underscored the goal of keeping the amount of global warming in this century to no more than 2˚C. But results from a Canadian government climate modeling study published last month suggest that “it is unlikely that warming can be limited to the 2˚C target,” the scientists who wrote the study say.

    The paper finds that reaching that goal would require that greenhouse emissions “ramp down to zero immediately” and that scientists deploy means, starting in 2050, to actively remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Previous modeling efforts have already highlighted the difficulty of reaching the 2˚C goal. But the new study is unique in several ways. Most important, it relies on the first published results from the latest generation of so-called Earth System climate models, complex programs that run on supercomputers and seek to simulate the planet’s oceans, land, ice, and atmosphere. The model in this study, Canadian Earth System Model 2, also incorporates updated data on volcanic eruptions, and it simulates in a more sophisticated way the biosphere’s ability to take in or emit carbon.

    In the study, scientists with Environment Canada, a government agency, fed their model various scenarios of future greenhouse gas concentrations out to the year 2100. In the scenario with the most carbon emissions, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere skyrocketed from its current level, about 390 parts per million, to 920 ppm, and global land surface temperature rose by 4.9˚C above 2005 levels. But even in a scenario in which emissions cuts caused CO2 levels to peak at 450 ppm in 2050, temperatures rose by 2.3˚C by the end of the century, above the 2˚C goal.

    In one figure in the paper, the highest-emissions pathway was depicted with an orange line, with the lowest-emissions line in blue. “In terms of emissions, right now we’re more likely on the orange line than on the blue, “ said co-author Ken Denman, an oceanographer at the University of Victoria in Canada who is affiliated with Environment Canada. Much higher temperatures may await humanity if emissions aren’t reduced quickly, and the difficulty of reaching the 2˚C goal may be irrelevant, he says.

    Climate modeler Myles Allen of the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom says that the paper’s findings suggest a way to buy time while we reduce CO2 emissions: cut emissions of short-lived gases that warm the atmosphere aggressively but persist in the atmosphere for decades instead of centuries, like CO2. “I wouldn’t see this as hopeless,” he says. “Methane, for example, is relatively short-lived. We have time to invent the technologies required ... to deal with it, in contrast to CO2.”

    As for the paper’s conclusion that removing atmospheric carbon is necessary in order to achieve the 2˚C target, climate scientist Richard Moss of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Maryland, says that’s a nearly impossible goal “with what we know about today.” But later in the century, carbon-removing techniques, such as burning biofuels while capturing their carbon emissions or developing carbon-sucking machines, may be feasible.

    “We can’t give up” on emissions cuts, says Denman, although it’s “probably already too late” to limit warming to 2˚C. “But maybe we’ll have to live with 3 or 4 degrees of warming.”




    U.N. Goal of Limiting Global Warming Is Nearly Impossible, Researchers Say - ScienceNOW
     

Share This Page