72
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2008 11:49 am
Forgiven, Walter, always nice to see you Smile
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2008 11:50 am
High Seas wrote:
Forgiven, Walter, always nice to see you Smile

Ha, I usually switch of my webcam when you're online :wink:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2008 07:44 pm
And from one of my favorite economists, another astute observation on the dangers we face from environmental/AGW religionists who will keep chipping away at our freedoms, choices, and opportunities if we don't get serious about putting the brakes on all this soon.

Environmentalists' Hold on Congress
by Walter Williams, PhD

Let's face it. The average individual American has little or no clout with Congress and can be safely ignored. But it's a different story with groups such as Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and The Nature Conservancy. When they speak, Congress listens. Unlike the average American, they are well organized, loaded with cash and well positioned to be a disobedient congressman's worse nightmare. Their political and economic success has been a near disaster for our nation.

For several decades, environmentalists have managed to get Congress to keep most of our oil resources off-limits to exploration and drilling. They've managed to have the Congress enact onerous regulations that have made refinery construction impossible. Similarly, they've used the courts and Congress to completely stymie the construction of nuclear power plants. As a result, energy prices are at historical highs and threaten our economy and national security.

What's the political response to our energy problems? It's more congressional and White House kowtowing to environmentalists, farmers and multi-billion dollar corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland. Their "solution," rather than to solve our oil supply problem by permitting drilling for the billions upon billions of barrels of oil beneath the surface of our country, is to enact the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that mandates that oil companies increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. Anyone with an ounce of brains would have realized that diverting crops from food to fuel use would raise the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as pork, beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. Ethanol production has led to increases in other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat. Since the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter, higher grain prices have had a huge impact on food prices worldwide.

Congress and the environmentalists aren't through with us. If you're bothered by skyrocketing food and energy prices, wait until Congress re-introduces its environmentalist-inspired Climate Security Act, so-called "Cap and Trade." Cap and Trade is deceptively peddled as a free-market solution to the yet-to-be-settled issue of manmade climate change. Under its provisions, companies would be able to emit greenhouse gases only if they had a government allowance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a 15 percent cut in emissions would raise the annual average household's energy costs by $1,300. Since energy is an input to everything we use, we can expect everything to become more costly, resulting in a reduction in economic growth.

There's a hateful side to Cap and Trade that's revealed by asking the question: How will it be decided who received how much allowance to emit greenhouse gases? Congress could sell the allowances and/or give them away to favorite constituents. You can bet the rent money that a new army of lobbyists, with special pleadings, will descend on Washington to lobby Congress. And you can be sure that campaign contributions and favoritism will play an important role in the decision of who received what amount of allowances.

Much worse than that is the massive control government would have over our economy and our lives. Congress might decide that since tobacco use is unhealthy, it might not issue allowances to tobacco companies. While many Americans might applaud that, how many would like Congress to refuse to issue allowances to companies that produce foods that some people deem unhealthy such as French fries, sodas, canned soups and potato chips. Congress might deny, or threaten to deny, allowances to companies that in their opinion didn't hire enough women and minorities. The possibilities for control over our lives would be endless and could include nuisance-type edicts such a requiring us to buy a permit to barbeque in our backyard.

The thirst to wield massive control over our economy helps explain the near religious belief in manmade global warming and the attacks on scientists and others who offer contradictory evidence.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
LINK
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2008 08:29 pm
Walter Williams is a man of common sense. If everyone must be guilt driven to elect a black man, I would much rather vote for Walter over somebody like Obama, who is basically naive and ignorant in terms of economics and reality of many issues. Of course, Walter isn't running, and is not even a politician, but he has a good grasp on the issues. Walter sometimes sits in for Rush, and I enjoy his take on economic issues, which really lend themselves to very simple principles. They aren't complicated.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2008 10:16 pm
Cyclo - I love how they tried to call you out, then you posted something to back it up, then they simply dismiss it.

Typical.
K
O
0 Replies
 
cptjack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2008 11:14 pm
Forget about the environmentalists, they can hug a tree!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2008 11:52 pm
Welcome to A2K cptjack and wade on in. The water's fine.

But if all the environmental religonists were doing was hugging trees, it would be no problem. But, as Dr. Williams pointed out, they have different targets in mind. So. . . it becomes more urgent than ever that we discern the truth of AGW and, if it is as many of us suspect, a bunch of hot air spewed by opportunistic scientists and/or lobbyists, it is more urgent than ever that we make our case to the people. Otherwise many of our freedoms, choices, and opportunities are definitely in peril.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2008 12:21 am
Well, you certainly have the choice, freedom and opportunity to move to a rotten environment, Foxfyre, I think.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2008 05:45 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The American consumer does not benefit from their use of resources as much as the company does


The American consumer does not benefit from the availability of health care as much as a hospital does, therefore we should restrict a hospital's ability to expand their services and explore new ways of healing. They are just exploiting us to make money! Rolling Eyes



Cycloptichorn wrote:
while having oil to power one's car is a Good Thing, it is no different from any other product being available, and certainly isn't a Profit for the average consumer.


It certainly is different from 'any other product'.

It's hard to imagine that you can seriously think your post makes any sense.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2008 06:10 am
Diest TKO wrote:
Cyclo - I love how they tried to call you out, then you posted something to back it up, then they simply dismiss it.

Typical.
K
O


No, I didn't simply "dismiss it". I instead pointed out that the article was very long on hyperbole and very short on facts. Indeed the only verifiable specific allegations offered were that (1) the Interior Department's system for invoicing and charging Oil Companies for leasehold costs (evidently a complex formula based in part on production) was itself dysfunctional, and that (2) a Denver jury convicted one company for non-payment of $7.5 million owed, a finding that was later overruled on appeal, based on a lack of standing on the part of the claimant.

Compared to the headlined "billions" unpaid this is rather trivial stuff. Moreover, notably absent from the article was any suggestion that any oil company had not paid on any undisputed invoices actually issued by the Department.

If you want to take this sort of stuff as"proof" of anything more than disgruntled government bureaucrats and sloppy management by government agencies, that, of course, is your right. However, those of us with more real experience in the world and evidently better judgement, also have the right to find you a credulous and naive consumer of media hype, unable or unwilling to look beyond the obvious to discern the likely real meaning of things.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2008 08:00 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Well, you certainly have the choice, freedom and opportunity to move to a rotten environment, Foxfyre, I think.


Certainly, and I choose not to. I also choose not to meekly accept having my choices, personal freedoms, and opportunities taken from me by people promoting a climate doctrine that is likely based on little more than junk science.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2008 08:48 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Cyclo - I love how they tried to call you out, then you posted something to back it up, then they simply dismiss it.

Typical.
K
O


No, I didn't simply "dismiss it". I instead pointed out that the article was very long on hyperbole and very short on facts. Indeed the only verifiable specific allegations offered were that (1) the Interior Department's system for invoicing and charging Oil Companies for leasehold costs (evidently a complex formula based in part on production) was itself dysfunctional, and that (2) a Denver jury convicted one company for non-payment of $7.5 million owed, a finding that was later overruled on appeal, based on a lack of standing on the part of the claimant.

Compared to the headlined "billions" unpaid this is rather trivial stuff. Moreover, notably absent from the article was any suggestion that any oil company had not paid on any undisputed invoices actually issued by the Department.

If you want to take this sort of stuff as"proof" of anything more than disgruntled government bureaucrats and sloppy management by government agencies, that, of course, is your right. However, those of us with more real experience in the world and evidently better judgement, also have the right to find you a credulous and naive consumer of media hype, unable or unwilling to look beyond the obvious to discern the likely real meaning of things.


Translation: I didn't dismiss it, I dismissed it.
K
O
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2008 12:42 pm
George did not merely dismiss ci's article about alleged unpaid/collected oil leases. George rejected the article for valid, well explained reasons.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2008 12:45 pm
THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2008 11:45 pm
Britain should prepare for dangerous climate change of perhaps 4C, the Guardian reports in its lead story, citing the government's chief scientific adviser, Professor Bob Watson. This would mean would mean rising sea levels and inland flooding for the UK, while swaths of the Mediterranean would be parched of water and see food production decimated. A Guardian leader suggests that a joint agreement to find a to make carbon capture work, and to fund it, would be a first step.

Frontpage of today's The Guardian

http://i34.tinypic.com/whjpcj.jpg
Online report

Silly season ...
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 05:16 am
Perhaps Britain will sink bieneath the waves, Italy will get larger. That will at least be good news for football fans.

The apparent credulity and fanaticism of the British (or at least the Guardian) on this issue is remarkable. What happened to British skepticism and common sense?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 08:15 am
Wasn't Bob Watson the IPPC chair for awhile? One of the architects of the Kyoto treaty perhaps?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 10:17 am
Did anyone else notice the top left corner of Walter's post? That woman is scary. LOL LOL LOL

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 11:44 am
Diest TKO wrote:
Did anyone else notice the top left corner of Walter's post? That woman is scary. LOL LOL LOL......


The scariest figure on Walter's post is at the bottom right corner, Harrison Ford's video (not that I could bear to watch it - comment based on description only):
Quote:
Video (30 sec): May 21 2008: Actor has chest waxed to help raise awareness of effect of deforestation on global warming

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/05/21/Harrison_wax_140.jpg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 03:07 pm
THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

186

Climatologist Brian Fuchs of the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln said in February 2007 that it was "up in the air" how long the current warming trend would continue. Fuchs also replied "probably not" when asked if human emissions are solely to blame for global warming.


0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 02/24/2025 at 06:43:30