What Kind of Organization Questions Global Warming?

David Staup wrote:
On 4/16/2015 1:36 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
Just saw this news article:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ence-a-critic/

This sort of thing should inspire those who have come to doubt the scientific
consensus on climate change whether they have been influenced by people whose
motives are obvious.

John Savard

chuckle

as trolls go you're jv

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...saster-relief/

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 7:52:04 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
David Staup wrote:
On 4/16/2015 1:36 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
Just saw this news article:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ence-a-critic/

This sort of thing should inspire those who have come to doubt the scientific
consensus on climate change whether they have been influenced by people whose
motives are obvious.

John Savard

chuckle

as trolls go you're jv

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...saster-relief/

The main things to be concerned about are that there are more people with more property in areas that have historically been at risk, AGW or no AGW. AGW will remain a minor concern in this regard, if it's even a concern at all, to the vast majority of people. Insurance companies and the insured will have to adapt to any changes that might occur, while keeping premiums fair for those who are at less risk.

Higher taxes for areas at risk would be a good way to pay for FEMA, otherwise cut back FEMA, and let each state decide how to proceed.

New Yorkers who drive around in cars and fly on airplanes should be the last people to complain about flooding due to "rising sea levels." That also applies to those who fly or drive to their second homes on ocean-front property.
The list can go on...

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 12:19:59 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Of course, the payback calculations for fossil fuel don't typically
take into account the real costs, which includes huge military
investments as well as massive costs due to ecological and climatic
damage. Add those in, and fossil fuels are incredibly expensive. And
by far the most subsidized energy sources.

The only war that was even remotely connected to fossil fuels was Gulf War I, and to put it succinctly, I was vastly more outraged at the atrocities committed against the Kuwaitis than about any possible effect on oil supplies.

Maybe to YOU it was only about the oil. But then perhaps you have a very distorted, socialistic, anti-individual, anti-human world view, peterson.

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 12:19:59 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:38:04 -0400, Lord Vath

peterson wrote:

There were no obvious subsidies. No credits from the government for
us, and the suppliers of the panels, batteries, and conversion
electronics are all operating as normal for-profit companies receiving
little if any subsidization.

Bull****. Ever hear of Solyndra?

So what? This was all commercial stuff from companies that do not
receive significant subsidies. Outback, Trojan Battery, Kyocera. Some
might get minor tax credits for research, but these companies are not
remotely dependent on them, and any subsidies have limited impact on
final pricing. This is a very competitive market right now.

I calling BS too!

From:

http://www.trojanbattery.com/pdf/RE_...lageResort.pdf

"The anticipated payback time for the PV system is five years.
Spice Village has applied for a 30% subsidy from the Indian
government on capital costs as part of the Jawaharlal Nehru
National Solar Mission (JNNSM) Rooftop Plant Program. This
project is also eligible to earn carbon credits since there is an
expected carbon reduction of 256 tons of COâ‚‚. Overall, Spice
Village expects to save nearly $45,000 per year by switching
to solar energy."

Subsidies are easy to identify if you feel motivated to look. Obviously you are not so motivated, are you, peterson?

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 06:39:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

The only war that was even remotely connected to fossil fuels was Gulf War I, and to put it succinctly, I was vastly more outraged at the atrocities committed against the Kuwaitis than about any possible effect on oil supplies.

Most of our military involvement in the Middle East for the last 50 or
more years has been about oil. You're very naive if you believe
otherwise.

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 06:47:28 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I calling BS too!

I didn't say there were absolutely no subsidies. I said that these
companies are not dependent on subsidies, and any subsidies represent
only a small part of their revenue, having little impact on final
costs.

Nobody is subsidized like the oil industry. If we paid what oil
actually costs, few could afford it.

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 04:40:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

IOW, since you can afford to pay for an unnecessary 120-mile round trip even with artificially inflated $10 per gallon fossil fuel you feel NO obligation to worry about global warming, while not feeling the least bit guilty that a poor person would have to walk to work in the rain, due to the fuel taxes which you favor.

My gosh, you are stupid.

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 04:41:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You have been asked a question that is relevant to the discussion, the answer to which would help readers gauge your level of hypocrisy.

Non sequitur.

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 10:05:25 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 06:39:32 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

The only war that was even remotely connected to fossil fuels was Gulf War I, and to put it succinctly, I was vastly more outraged at the atrocities committed against the Kuwaitis than about any possible effect on oil supplies.

Most of our military involvement in the Middle East for the last 50 or
more years has been about oil. You're very naive if you believe
otherwise.

Most of our military involvement in the Middle East has been about Israel, which is WAY down the list wrt oil reserves.

You're very naive, period.

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 10:07:15 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 06:47:28 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

I calling BS too!

I didn't say there were absolutely no subsidies. I said that these
companies are not dependent on subsidies, and any subsidies represent
only a small part of their revenue, having little impact on final
costs.

Nobody is subsidized like the oil industry. If we paid what oil
actually costs, few could afford it.

There you go again with that tired old "oil is subsidized" mantra.

It costs what the world market says it should.

If you hate oil then why do you use it? Oh, that's right, an electric vehicle can't get you home from your (unnecessary) club meetings.