Who are you shilling for?

[westwall]

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

 

[hortysir]

I shill for good old fashioned self-interest

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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.

"TOWNSEND: I was making a speech to nearly 200
really hard core, deep environmentalists and I played
a little thought game on them. I said imagine I am the
carbon fairy and I wave a magic wand. We can get rid
of all the carbon in the atmosphere, take it down to
two hundred fifty parts per million and I will ensure
with my little magic wand that we do not go above
two degrees of global warming. However, by waving
my magic wand I will be interfering with the laws of
physics not with people – they will be as selfish, they
will be as desiring of status. The cars will get bigger,
the houses will get bigger, the planes will fly all over
the place but there will be no climate change. And I
asked them, would you ask the fairy to wave its
magic wand? And about 2 people of the 200 raised
their hands.

ROWLATT: That is quite shocking. I bet you were
shocked, weren’t you?

TOWNSEND: I was angry. I wasn’t shocked. I was
angry because it really showed that they wanted
more. They didn’t just want to prevent climate
change. They wanted to somehow change people, or
at very least for people to know that they had to
change."

Read Here:

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[westwall]

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.

"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.

 

[hortysir]

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.

Any suggestions for India and China to alleviate what they have already done?

 

[editec]

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

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

A better plan by Dr. James Hansen.

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

Yep, tax the air. Lifelong wet dream of all watermelons and far-lefties.

 

[westwall]

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.

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


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

 

[Old Rocks]

Really, Walleyes? Is that why he is considered the foremost climatologist in the US if not in the world? What does anyone consider you, other than a message board dingbat?

 

[Old Rocks]

A better plan by Dr. James Hansen.

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

Yep, tax the air. Lifelong wet dream of all watermelons and far-lefties.

Oh, don't get your panties in a knot, you senile old man. Nothing will be done until the there are major catastrophes. And then we learn to live, and die, with the results of what you fools have done.

 

[westwall]

Really, Walleyes? Is that why he is considered the foremost climatologist in the US if not in the world? What does anyone consider you, other than a message board dingbat?

By his fellow climatologists? Maybe. But who cares about their opinion. That's like caring which bank robber was best.

 

[westwall]

A better plan by Dr. James Hansen.

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

Yep, tax the air. Lifelong wet dream of all watermelons and far-lefties.

Oh, don't get your panties in a knot, you senile old man. Nothing will be done until the there are major catastrophes. And then we learn to live, and die, with the results of what you fools have done.

Us fools! This coming from a prick who works in the steel industry polluting his neighbors air and water?

You're a hoot! A complete jerk but a hoot!

 

[Zander]

The AGW freaks need to be assembled in a large area- then we can have an "extinction event".

 

[waltky]

EPA shillin' for China...

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gave $1.29 Million to China
Thursday, June 02, 2011 – The Environmental Protection Agency has given at least $1,285,535 in grants to China to promote environmental research in the country.

In all, the EPA issued six grants that went to China, most of which pertained to researching methane in Chinese coal mines and reducing carbon emissions in China, a communist dictatorship long criticized by human rights groups. Two of those grants were awarded during the Bush administration; four were awarded during the Obama administration. The issue, at a time of mounting debt and deficits, is about fiscal responsibility, said Robert Gordon, senior advisor for strategic outreach for the Heritage Foundation, who has closely monitored EPA grants, and recently wrote a piece criticizing the Chinese grants. “I’m just not sure that the EPA has addressed all the things it’s supposed to be doing here in the best manner possible before they’re spending money overseas,” Gordon told CNSNews.com. “At the end of the day, we’re spending money that we don’t have and on things we shouldn’t be spending it on if we had it.”

The grants to China were awarded through the EPA’s Coalbed Methane Outreach Program (CMOP). Since 1994, CMOP has worked cooperatively with the coal industry in the U.S. and internationally to reduce coal mining methane emissions, according to the EPA. “U.S. companies are in the forefront of coal mine methane recovery and utilization. CMOP plays a lead role in bringing Chinese delegations to meet American companies, as well as connecting U.S. companies with CMM [coal mining methane] project opportunities in China,” the EPA told CNSNews.com in a statement responding to questions about the grants. “Due to the large energy demand in China, many US companies are expanding their sales and operations there. These include coal companies (such as Peabody and Arch Coal), equipment manufacturers (such as Caterpillar and Megtec), and service providers (such as drilling companies, geologists and engineering firms),” EPA added. The EPA statement continues, “By helping to identify and implement methods to recover and use CMM instead of emitting it to the atmosphere, CMOP reduces global greenhouse gas emissions while providing economic benefits both at home and abroad.”

Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), a long-time critic of the human rights record in China, did not single out the EPA, but said the entire federal government should make grants contingent on human rights progress. “I hope with China we would make human rights, especially gendercide and forced abortion, torture, their ongoing squashing of religious freedom and the torture, often to death of people of faith simply because of their belief in God, that we would condition all of our grants with China because China has actually gotten demonstrably worse in the last several years,” Smith told CNSNews.com. “I think after [Chinese President] Hu Jintao’s visit, they feel the U.S. has lost its voice in human rights,” Smith continued. “Certainly President Obama did. We now have these human rights dialogues which are sideshows and good talking points. They do not produce tangible results.”

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gave $1.29 Million to China | CNSnews.com

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

"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.

Westwall, bad comparison. That would be like saying a dozen black birds were shot down in a week but that is ok because we found some paper airplanes.

Imagine Tigers going extinct but us finding a dozen "new" species of Amazon insects.

 

[Toronado3800]

The AGW freaks need to be assembled in a large area- then we can have an "extinction event".

I fear further conversation along these lines will only serve to entrench those who disagree with you sir.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh, that is just Zander. A bit over the hill, and with a certain loss of mental capabilities.

 

[westwall]

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.

"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.

Westwall, bad comparison. That would be like saying a dozen black birds were shot down in a week but that is ok because we found some paper airplanes.

Imagine Tigers going extinct but us finding a dozen "new" species of Amazon insects.

No, it isn't. How many species have provably gone extinct in that last 100 years? Less then 500 is the answer. And the vast majority of those were small critters that aren't even noticed. The simple fact is the world loses species all the time. It also gains new species all the time. the claim that man is perpetrating a 6th extinction event is not supported by fact. It is simply a lie perpetrated to try and legitimize the theft of more money from you and me.