climate change

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

climate change

Postby dudejcb » Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:38 am

perhaps this guys explanations will help some understand the reality of this a little better.

http://www.versuscountry.com/itemdetail ... ionType=-1
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho


Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:44 pm

Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
Track this topic Print story Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report

By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author

Posted in Environment, 25th February 2009 12:23 GMT

Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.

One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.

The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7782
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: climate change

Postby dudejcb » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:05 pm

I googled this source's name, Andrew Orlowski, and the seem consensus that seems to emerge is that he's a hack journalist. A bit of a bomb thrower (kind of like Ann Coulter). He says outrageous things, get some readersip attention for it (everyone loves a train wreck), and sells advertizing space in the process. I guess it's one way to make a living.

Bottom line: there may be a credibility issue. But then I haven't really done an exhaustive research on the guy.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: climate change

Postby Redline29 » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:53 pm

dudejcb wrote:perhaps this guys explanations will help some understand the reality of this a little better.

http://www.versuscountry.com/itemdetail ... ionType=-1


I guess I would be concerned if man made "climate change" was real....
20 Jan 2009...the beginning of an error.
User avatar
Redline29
hunter
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 11:55 pm
Location: NW, PA

Re: climate change

Postby dudejcb » Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:16 pm

Redline:

Push your head a little deeper. Jizwitz
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: climate change

Postby Redline29 » Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:33 pm

Dude...please...it is a freaking scam...and you bought it hook line and sinker. Go see a doctor and take care of the headupyourassiteness you seem to be suffering from.
20 Jan 2009...the beginning of an error.
User avatar
Redline29
hunter
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 11:55 pm
Location: NW, PA

Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:12 am

AND THAT FREAK AL GORE - Who has acquired a 9.5 percent stake in Camco International Ltd, a carbon asset developer. He's pushing global warming and carbon credit tax - The media is behind him and there is bona fide evidence that we've been in a cooling trend. . . *** - there's a revolution brewing. :fingerpt:
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7782
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:43 am

Unprecedented snow in Las Vegas has some scratching their heads – how can there be global warming with this unusual cold and snowy weather?

CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN’s Dec. 18 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.

“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”

Myers is the second CNN meteorologist to challenge the global warming conventions common in the media. He also said trying to determine patterns occurring in the climate would be difficult based on such a short span.

“But this is like, you know you said – in your career – my career has been 22 years long,” Myers said. “That’s a good career in TV, but talking about climate – it’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here.”

“We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world’s been around,” Myers continued.

Dr. Jay Lehr, an expert on environmental policy, told “Lou Dobbs Tonight” viewers you can detect subtle patterns over recorded history, but that dates back to the 13th Century.

“If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous time for mankind,” Lehr said. “If go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we’re back into a cooling cycle.”

Lehr suggested the earth is presently entering a cooling cycle – a result of nature, not man.

“The last 10 years have been quite cool,” Lehr continued. “And right now, I think we’re going into cooling rather than warming and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But, all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man.”

Lehr is a senior fellow and science director of The Heartland Institute, an organization that will be holding the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York March 8-10.

Another CNN meteorologist attacked the concept that man is somehow responsible for changes in climate last year. Rob Marciano charged Al Gore’s 2006 movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” had some inaccuracies.

“There are definitely some inaccuracies,” Marciano said during the Oct. 4, 2007 broadcast of CNN’s “American Morning.” “The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming.”

Marciano also said that, “global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we’ve seen,” pointing out that “by the end of this century we might get about a 5 percent increase.”

His comments drew a strong response and he recanted the next day saying “the globe is getting warmer and humans are the likely the main cause of it.”
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7782
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: climate change

Postby dudejcb » Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:14 am

Mac,

you can find people in every dicipline who will disagree for whatever, and almost any, reason. Doctors and others held onto the view that cigarettes were non a health danger for many years.

We're not talking about the recorded histoory on man. it's geological history from ice cores, phossil evidence, etc. Supposing that the huge economies of the world don't have an impact, is akin to suggesting that air polution and smog are just natural things that happen around big cities. Extending that logic we could say water pollution is just a natrual thing too and industrial or municipal waste have no impact there either. Pollution is really all natural stuff only it appears in concentrations that create health and other problems. Seems like moderation in all things is the key generally.

Sure there is natural pollution (concetration of chemicals, particles, etc. ... around volcanos, geysers, mid-ocean vents and such, but observation, actual evidence and common sense suggest otherwise. The mini-ice age is now thought to have been caused by vulcanism. Meteor impacts have and uimpact (NO PUN). The point is that we have no control over much of nature, but we can control ourselves if we so choose.

Unusual snow in Las Vegas happens every now and then. A single event doesn't prove much one way or the other. But it stands to reason that as energy is added to any system, the system becomes more dynamic. That is indisputable physics and natural science. Dynamic activity means that hot and cold will begin happening more often in more places. This is why the nomenclature has changed from "global warming" to "climate change."

We are free to believe what we wish: in witches, goblins, super heros, space aliens, that the earth is flat, that ducks really do want to die. whatever.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:26 am

dudejcb wrote:Mac,

you can find people in every dicipline who will disagree for whatever, and almost any, reason. Doctors and others held onto the view that cigarettes were non a health danger for many years.

We're not talking about the recorded histoory on man. it's geological history from ice cores, phossil evidence, etc. Supposing that the huge economies of the world don't have an impact, is akin to suggesting that air polution and smog are just natural things that happen around big cities. Extending that logic we could say water pollution is just a natrual thing too and industrial or municipal waste have no impact there either. Pollution is really all natural stuff only it appears in concentrations that create health and other problems. Seems like moderation in all things is the key generally.

Sure there is natural pollution (concetration of chemicals, particles, etc. ... around volcanos, geysers, mid-ocean vents and such, but observation, actual evidence and common sense suggest otherwise. The mini-ice age is now thought to have been caused by vulcanism. Meteor impacts have and uimpact (NO PUN). The point is that we have no control over much of nature, but we can control ourselves if we so choose.

Unusual snow in Las Vegas happens every now and then. A single event doesn't prove much one way or the other. But it stands to reason that as energy is added to any system, the system becomes more dynamic. That is indisputable physics and natural science. Dynamic activity means that hot and cold will begin happening more often in more places. This is why the nomenclature has changed from "global warming" to "climate change."

We are free to believe what we wish: in witches, goblins, super heros, space aliens, that the earth is flat, that ducks really do want to die. whatever.


Your argument "sounds" okay - but still - there is no scientific facts to support it. Too many scientists refute it - and the sampling of earth core data is inconclusive as well. I for one do not wish a global tax on carbon dioxide emissions. Hell, I'm going to retire on a beach, we've already got a souped up electric golf cart. I suppose I'm good to go. . .
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7782
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: climate change

Postby rman114 » Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:57 am

There is plently of evidence supporting an upward trend in global temps. And an increase in carbon in the atmosphere. Isn't it also interesting that these stats also coincide with the Industrial Revolution.
Are you just ignoring the obvious?
If these graphs tracked an increase in crime in the United States would you simply say naa crime isn't rising nationally just because maybe you haven't noticed it in your backyard?
Attachments
temps.png
Increase in Global Temps
temps.png (14.58 KiB) Viewed 505 times
carbon graph.gif
Carbon in Atmosphere
carbon graph.gif (4.18 KiB) Viewed 504 times
User avatar
rman114
hunter
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:50 pm
Location: Plainfield, New Jersey

Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:10 pm

Game on:

The pundits relying on these global warming statistics generally point out that the year 1998 is the warmest year (in the United States) in the past hundred years. At least this is what was believed in 2005. More recently, NASA has realized they made an error in their original published findings and the year 1934 was actually warmer than 1998. This hasn't led global warming enthusiasts from pointing to the old information.

There is a growing faction of people who feel like those screaming the dangers of global warming are actually knowingly or otherwise paving the way for additional hidden taxes in the form of 'carbon credits'. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_war ... acy_theory, there are many motives for people to put forth global warming statistics that paint the bleakest possible picture.

While it is considered a conspiracy theory by most, those publishing global warming statistics certainly have motive for allowing flawed data to enter their findings. Scientists are notorious for selecting the statistics that support the position of those who support the scientists. In this case, that means the government. With the US median household income at $48000/year in 2006 according to Wikipedia, which translates to about $7000 for someone filing as the Head of Household per http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0, ... 56,00.html (or about 14%, not counting any state taxes). With the already high taxes and the strong resistance to any raising of these taxes, the government is turning to miscellaneous fees to increase revenues without technically increasing taxes.

CARBON CREDIT TAXES. . .
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7782
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:17 pm

Game on x2:

Brilliant little article that explains why global warming is anything but certainty. Well worth a read. The math is quite good too: Here are some highlights: Physicists just don't know how to deal with hypercomplex systems like the earth weather. That's why a recent NASA scientist was wildly wrong when he called anthropogenic warming "just basic physics." Basic physics is what you do in the laboratory. If hypercomplex systems were predictable, NASA would have foolproof space shuttles - because they are a lot simpler than the climate. So this is just pseudoscientific twaddle from NASA's vaunted Politically Correct Division. So in the best case, the smartest climatologist in the world will know 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that perfect world existed? Have you ever multiplied (99/100) by itself 100 times? According to the Google calculator, it equals a little more than 36.6 percent. The Bottom line: our best imaginable model has a total probability of one out of three. How many billions of dollars in Kyoto money are we going to spend on that chance? Funny how the words theory or hypothesis of global warming are always left out. Somebody once said: "Anything, even a lie if repeated often enough becomes accepted as truth". Global warming is one such truth established by repetition.
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7782
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: climate change

Postby GroundSwatter » Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:21 pm

Rman and dude,

People are looking at 2 variables in a complicated system. Can we say that humans have impacted the amount of CO2 in the air? Most certainly. But we aren't certain what consequences this has if any. Yes we have two graphs and both are on an upward trend, I guess that means the sky is falling.

I'm not quite ready to scream the sky is falling. I'm usually pretty hesitant to buy in to the same causes that Al Gore puts on an HBO special.
It's a fact that 70 percent of the people who purchase heavier tackle do so with the categorical I just lost a huge snook! Einstein Hairdo.The other 30 percent have either Tarpon Fever or are sporting a hand cramped into a claw from a deepwater grouper.
User avatar
GroundSwatter
hunter
 
Posts: 3641
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: GTMO from NE Texas

Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:29 pm

Game on X3:

If you really wish to look into this and educate yourselves - PLEASE - take the time to read these facts that refute anything Al Gore has presented.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monck ... rrors.html
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7782
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: climate change

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:03 pm

MacMan wrote:Game on X3:

If you really wish to look into this and educate yourselves - PLEASE - take the time to read these facts that refute anything Al Gore has presented.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monck ... rrors.html


Thanks for posting this Mac...There is so much evidence against Gore's claims-if people can understand the science. Gore is betting that a large percentage of the population can't.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56117
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:10 pm

Yo Bro. . . you know me!!! I ain't gonna let an opportunity to educate get by. . . But, Al Gore's motto:

Repeat a lie often enough and it will become truth. . .
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7782
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Memphis, TN

SHEEPLE!!!!

Postby MacMan » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:21 pm

The real reason behind Global Freakin' Warming. . .

News outlets are reporting that there are over $1 trillion in new taxes in the Obama budget. While that number is stunning, Grassfire.org has identified more than $1.6 trillion... and counting

No one is including the "Climate Revenues" of $645 billion. "Climate Revenues" is defined in the overview as "Proceeds from auctioning emission allowances" -- i.e. the Carbon Tax that every American will be forced to pay because it is a pass-on tax to the consumer. Actually, according to the fine print of the Obama budget overview, the $645 billion shown is just the portion of the "Climate Revenues" that are currently designated to "clean energy technologies" and "Making Work Pay" program. The footnote explains, "Shown here [i.e. the $645 billion] are those proceeds from auctioning emission allowances that are reserved for clean energy technology initiatives and to compensate families through the Making Work Pay tax cut.... All additional net proceeds will be used to further compensate the public."
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7782
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Memphis, TN

SHEEPLE Part 2!

Postby MacMan » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:51 pm

Here's a fun fact for you: If you live within walking distance of work, which do you think would put more CO2 into the atmosphere, driving to work, or walking to work? Contrary to what most would expect, the correct answer is walking to work! The food production that would be necessary to replace the calories that you would burn would put three times as much CO2 into the atmosphere than driving your car the same distance! Thus, if you buy into this global warming stuff, you better not exercise, because you are "causing global warming!!"
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7782
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: climate change

Postby buckmeister » Fri Mar 06, 2009 6:41 pm

What happened to Global warming, Why is it now called climate change?

Do you guys really think these univeristy types think they will get all this grant money if they dont say the sky is falling?

The beuaty of renaming it climate change is you can never loose the argument, if temperatures are colder for the next two winters you call it climate change and blame it on Co2, if temperatures are warmern the next two winters you can blame it on Co2 and climate change.

The favorite argument of you greensters is your experts are great men of learning but ours are quacks. There are plenty of qualified people against "Climate Change hysteria" even though a lot of academia knows the Climate change scare is their gravey train.

Albert Gore is and Academic coward, it makes a movie that can impact all our lives economically and then he will debate no one of any substance taking an arrogant stance that it is beyond debate. If something is so scientifically correct why worry about public debate, you would think He would embrace it.
"Give me liberty or give me death"
buckmeister
hunter
 
Posts: 4288
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:07 pm
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma

Re: climate change

Postby dudejcb » Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:18 am

Mac:

I think you may have left out the energy imputs necessary to find, drill, transport, process the gas in the car, as well as the energy needed to find, mine, process and manufacture the car itself. Energy and mass balances are always tricky. That's why the notion of a "carbon footprint" from cradle to grave taking all inputs into consideration is a tuffy.

Buck:
do you not think that those who dismiss climate change are also riding a gravy train? Someone's ox will always be gored (no pun) and there are an awful lot of entrenched special interests who might suffer if climate change regulations are enacted. Or, they could benefit if they embraced change and become solutions providers...but that takes more work and effort than the status quo. Sometimes the hardest thing to change is one's mind.

Do you have any reasonable explanation for why glaciers and ice caps are dissappearing?.. Why are birds are migrating north sooner than recorded in phenological notes?... Why desertification seeingly on the rise?

Yup, there a bunch of head scratchers to think on. Find your cap.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:49 am

Dude; Why is there always two polar opposites in a debate? Nevertheless - Now that it's climate "change" it's hard to argue - becuase there will always be change - as you alluded to - too many variables to precisely calculate anything of the sort; therefore, without bona fide factual evidence longer than 100 yrs - there's no "humanly" way to determine this. . . I saw the Green Peacer's marching on Washington - now there's a freak show - live livin' and breathin'.

There are weather patterns i.e., El Nino and La Nina - that can affect the weather pattern for months and months that will change bird migrations; however, tell me what weather man can predict the weather - cloud cover - solar explosions and the like. . . Until mankind can predict these things could man then predict what the "earth's" temperature trends.

And Al Gore with his 15000 sq ft house, fleet of Suv's, private jet - makes me want to throw up - to think he could have made president. . . Heck, to think Obama did. 'scuse me I got to run to the rest room.

How about a little humor;

Queen Elizabeth and Dolly Parton die on the same day and they both go before an Angel to find out if they'll be admitted to Heaven. Unfortunately, there's only one space left that day, so the Angel must decide which of them gets in.

The Angel asks Dolly if there's some particular reason why she should go to Heaven.
Dolly takes off her top and says, 'Look at these, they're the most perfect breasts God ever created and I'm sure it will please God to be able to see them every day, for eternity.'

The Angel thanks Dolly, and asks Her Majesty the same question.

The Queen takes a bottle of Perrier out of her purse, drinks it down then, wees into a toilet and pulls the lever.

The Angel says, 'OK, your Majesty, you may go in.'

Dolly is outraged and asks, 'What was that all about? I show you two of God's own perfect creations and you turn me down. She wees into a toilet and she gets in! Would you explain that to me?'

'Sorry, Dolly,' says the Angel, 'but even in Heaven, a Royal Flush beats a Pair - no matter how big they are.
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7782
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: climate change

Postby buckmeister » Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:27 am

In regards to the glaciers melting.

Dr. Deming from the University of Okalhaoma and I dont remember if he was in the Meterology department or Geology but he did a study on why the glaciers were melting and was contacted by NPR (National Public Radio) and they asked him if they could interview him about his findings but when he told them he had concluded that the glaciers melting had nothing to do with anything man was doing they decided not to interview him. Liberal bias at its best. Of course he does not have the towering intelect and qualifications of Albert Gore and he must be a quack because he doesnt agree with NPR. This is the kind of crap that bothes me.

In ten years when the cooling trend which is actually occuring now can be further documented it still wont matter to you guys. I cant wait to see what kind of emasculated trucks and cars your enviromental religion forces upon us. I am hoping the eco-greenies leave us with enough horspower to pull our boats to the lake but not betting on it.
"Give me liberty or give me death"
buckmeister
hunter
 
Posts: 4288
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:07 pm
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma

Re: climate change

Postby MacMan » Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 pm

Gosh doggit. . . I'm changing my stance folks - I've been convinced. There is global warm/client change! God destroyed the world with flood the first time - and it will be fire the next time and since the Lib's/Leftists/Socialist have taken over I think we are closer to this point in time; therefore, I must conclude that the globe is warming the closer we move to hell. . .
<\\\><
MM
User avatar
MacMan
hunter
 
Posts: 7782
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: climate change

Postby HtownBlaster » Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:07 pm

Nice one Mac.

I have heard the evidence on both sides. Although I am suspicious of man made global warming, there is plenty of evidence to support both conclusions.

The real question is: Based on the evidence, are we ready to conclude that the only course of action is to place carbon tax penalties on all industries that create pollution? Sounds good at first, but every "cause" has an effect. First: The carbon tax will be an extra expense that companies will have to pass on to their consumers, effectively raising all power rates across the United States. Second: Only companies that have extra capital will be able to purchase these credits. The system only works if there is a shortage of credits, therefore creating a demand. The lower volume, uncapitalized companies will shut down, therefore consolidating the ability to provide power into the hands of a very few large companies. This creates problems in the free market. Rates will inevitably rise, and the consumer will ultimately pay the price. Third: The theory that solar, wind, thermal, etc.. will ultimately rise up to claim the market. The government already subsidizes clean power technology at taxpayer expense. Clean energy rates are more expensive, and will raise electrical rates one way or another. Forth: Other foreign countries will not follow suit. Polluting countries will continue to pollute. As China, India, Mexico continue to grow, they will continue to build without pollution controls. Last time I checked, the earth was continuous.

I'm all for clean energy. There's nothing like driving through Houston on a clear winter morning and viewing the smog that looms over our city. But I'm not ready to sell out our power companies based on Al Gore's innacurate movie.
Newest member of the A5 club.
User avatar
HtownBlaster
hunter
 
Posts: 1497
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:33 pm
Location: Houston

Next

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SpinnerMan and 7 guests