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

Well, if you will be here when the Global Conference on climate takes place, Parados,your abysmal ignorance and lack of knowledge about Economics and Politics will be revealed.

You are so idiotic that you do not understand that decisions that will be made at that conference will be decisions which will be based on the economy of the countries at the conference and the politics of the individual nations.

Try finding some errors in this, Paradox---

quote:

MAY 12, 2009 Carbon Reality, Again
Australia's prime minister discovers how much an emissions trading policy will cost.Article

It's turning out that the biggest problem with carbon taxes is political reality. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has just announced he will delay implementing his trademark cap-and-trade emissions trading proposal until at least 2011. Mr. Rudd's March proposal would have imposed total carbon permit costs (taxes) of 11.5 billion Australian dollars (US$8.5 billion) in the first two years, starting in 2010. This would have increased consumer prices by about 1.1% and shaved 0.1% off annual GDP growth until at least 2050, according to Australia's Treasury. Support has fallen among business groups and individuals who earlier professed enthusiasm for Aussie cap and trade. Green gains were negligible; Australia accounts for only 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The reversal, or "backflip," has caused Mr. Rudd much embarrassment. He may still push ahead with legislation in some form, as he promised when running in the 2007 election. But it's becoming clear the proposal won't be a shoo-in despite all the votes Mr. Rudd won when he campaigned as an anti-carbon apostle.

This is yet another example of politicians elsewhere cashing in politically on the current anti-carbon enthusiasm, only to discover that support diminishes as the real-world costs become clear.


*******************************************************************

You obviously know NOTHING about Economics and Politics. Even Rudd, who was a fanatical backer of the Global Warming Theories of AL GORE, is backing off based on the reality of the ECONOMIC COST AND THE SUBSEQUENT POLITICAL DAMAGE THAT COST WOULD INCUR.

********************************************************************

Because you are a liar and an obfuscator, you never ever mention the fact that previous attempts to "control" the climate by the countries of the world were miserable failures. You never reference the failed Kyoto Treaty.

********************************************************************

Kyoto's failures haunt new U.N. talks - The work of fixing the treaty's flaws begins today in Indonesia.
By Alan Zarembo
December 03, 2007


In the Kyoto Protocol's accounting of greenhouse gases, the former Eastern bloc is a smashing success.

Ads by Google
GHG VerificationCombat climate change; verify Greenhouse Gas emissions www.us.bureauveritas.com/bvcRussia: Down 29% in carbon dioxide emissions since 1990.

Romania: A 43% reduction.

Latvia: A resounding 60% drop.

Reductions such as those across Eastern Europe were the main reason the United Nations was recently able to report a 12% drop in emissions from the accord's industrialized countries over the 1990-2005 period.

It was an illusion.

The progress wasn't due to a global embrace of green power, but rather to the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, which shut down smoke-belching factories across the region.

"Their emissions dropped before Kyoto even existed," said Michael Gillenwater, a climate policy researcher at Princeton University.

Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol's status as the flagship of the fight against climate change, it has been a failure in the hard, expensive work of actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Its restrictions have been so gerrymandered that only 36 countries are required to limit their pollution. Just over a third of those -- members of the former Eastern bloc -- can pollute at will because their limits were set so far above their actual emissions.

China and India, whose fast-rising emissions easily cancel out any cuts elsewhere, are allowed to keep polluting.

The panel, laid out a framework for reducing emissions that could cost trillions of dollars over the next two decades.

*******************************************************************

By December, the Unemployment Rate in the USA will be over 10%, a Rate offered to the American People by the Messiah--OB.

Since you know nothing about Politics or Economics, you do not realize that the Congress will not pass any legislation which will threaten to raise the Unemployment Rate OR to weaken our economy and bring on inflation.

Are you really that stupid, Paradox?

Parados has disappeared. Obviously, he is unable to deal with facts. His flatulence on these threads has become tiring.

America's oil, gas and coal industry has increased its political lobbying budget by 50%, with key players spending $44.5m (£29m) in the first three months of this year in an intense effort to cut off support for Barack Obama's plan to transform the country into a clean energy economy, writes the Guardian's US environment, correspondent, Suzanne Goldenberg.

"The spoiler campaign runs to hundreds of millions of dollars and involves industry front groups, lobbying firms, television, print and radio advertising, and donations to pivotal members of Congress. Its intention is to water down or kill off plans by the Democratic leadership to pass 'cap and trade' legislation this year, which would place limits on greenhouse gas emissions."


Article in the Guardian: Obama's key climate bill hit by $45m PR campaign

So investigating record profits means they want NO profits?

Your argument is silly okie.

I don't recall you being a heavy drinker but based on your sentence structure you seem to be.

How long you going to stick around this time with your lies and ad hominems genoves?

Disappeared because I don't post between the hours of 11PM and 2AM?

Maybe I just don't have to sneak down after my mom goes to bed to use her computer.

Its called "protection money," Walter, to try to keep Obama from destroying their industry.

Your argument is the silly one. I used to work for an oil company, and for the last few decades, the industry has been demagogued by almost every Democrat of prominence. It is the industry they love to hate. Yet, they produce alot more of something useful than any Democratic bureaucrat or politician that I know of, yet the government takes far more in taxes than do the companies in profits from every gallon of gasoline sold.

You would do more good by investigating record ripoffs by bureaucrats and politicians.

I would say, leave the oil companies alone, and if you don't like their products, don't buy any.

Okie - the ignorance of basic science around here isn't limited to Parados (who excels in that subject, though whether because of basic mental incapacity or abysmally bad faith I cannot tell) so maybe we should add that almost all plastics, most cosmetics, medications, and countless other everyday items are petroleum-based.

If anyone can't grasp that the main greenhouse gas is water vapor, and thatnot only water vapor but also all other such gases collectively are overwhelmingly outside human control, let him wallow in ignorance - pointing out their errors only wastes time And detracts from very real pollution problems like heavy metals.

High Seas, your point about the countless products that are hydrocarbon based is a very good one. The fact that society in general is so ignorant and unappreciative of alot of this is a commentary on the woefully lacking educational system as well as the mainstream media, plus the constant onslaught of propaganda aimed at many of the industries that make our lives what they are. The fact that we have become so advanced in our lifestyles and standards of living, yet have so little appreciation and understanding for how it happened, that is a tragedy of significant proportions.

Okie - it gets worse, while we're wasting our time with the (possibly deliberately) obtuse AGW alarmists, others are keeping track of their interests only too well:


http://uk.reuters.com/article/gc07/idUKTRE54C4BY20090513?sp=true

I'm going to set a good example by leaving the thread - good luck to you, Foxfyre, and everyone else in possession of basic scientific facts

Don't leave us High Seas. There are so few truly rational (or informed) voices here, and I do believe those are getting through to some people. Consider it humanitarian generosity to provide balance to the uninformed nonsense that passes for science or basic information on these threads.

I hardly think I am the one that is ignorant High Seas. I am well aware that water vapor is a green house gas. I am also well aware that water vapor is the main green house gas. If you want to use water vapor in your calculations then you need to calculate from absolute zero for temperature. Since CO2 contributes 3.5% of the green house effect (according to a letter in the WSJ which you seem to think counts as science) and if our earth's temperature is a nominal 288 degrees Kelvin (the figure ican presents and you seem to accept) that means CO2 contributes roughly 11 degrees Kelvin to that 288 degrees.

So, now the question is how much of the CO2 can be directly tied to man's activities. This is where I say the letter got his science wrong by a rather large factor. I say that about 33% of the current CO2 can be tied to man's activities in the last 150 years. This would mean using the "math" contained in the WSJ letter, you presented as having some validity, that man's activities would have contributed 33% of the 11 degrees or about 4 degrees. I don't think that is true, but you laid the ground work for the simple math based the calculations YOU presented. If you want to attack me for ignorance High Seas then you deserve to have it pointed out that your post used simplistic math. If you don't think simple math works with climate then WHY did YOU post something using such simplistic math?

You might want to check your facts okie


http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2635.asp

Exxon's profits alone were 40 BILLION in the last quarter of 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/business/01cnd-exxon.html

So.. a single US oil company makes 40 billion in one quarter and okie says their profits were less than the 30 billion the US takes in in one year.
In order for your statement to be true okie, Exxon would have to make less than 20% of it's profit on gasoline sold in the US and no other oil companies could make sales here.

Mr. Embankment, the "government" includes more than the federal government.

Sure.. and if you include state and federal taxes you are up to 50% of Exxon's profit was collected in taxes by government....

http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

Of course you haven't yet accounted for ConocoPhillips, Chevron or the other oil companies profits.

The reason the oil companies profit from the rest of us is because they supply to the rest of us what we value, want, and are willing to pay for.

The reason oil companies contribute large amounts of money to lobbyists is the same reason unions contribute large amounts of money to lobbyists. Both want to influence Congress to serve their interests. While the unions benefit a relatively small percentage of Americans, oil companies benefit a relatively large percentage of Americans. But both have an equal right to contribute large amounts of money to pay lobbyists to try to influence Congress to serve their interests.

That has to be one of the stupidest statements I have ever seen from you ican.

So because oil companies provide gas for our cars, that means we benefit from them. But we don't benefit from the unions that build those cars? Or the unions that deliver that gas to our gas stations? or the unions that build the roads we drive those cars on? Or the unions that unload the foreign cars that arrive on our docks.



But then I suppose you are a true American ican and buy foreign made cars.

Yes, and we are only talking about tax on gasoline, so you need to include only profits on gasoline sold at the pump, so your analysis is obviously way off the mark. Have you included taxes on natural gas and all the other products, plus income tax on all the corporations? Remember, this is money for producing nothing, while it is the oil companies that do the seismic and all manner of other preliminary work, explore, do all the groundwork, drill, build offshore platforms, build pipelines, produce the oil, transport the oil and gas, build and operate refineries, transport the finished product, advertise, and all the rest of the overhead, meanwhile the bureaucrat sits in an office and with the stroke of a pen confiscates the tax monies for doing nothing.

Noting that while Parados presumed to insult Ican with an ad hominem argument, he made a flat out statement that unions build cars, deliver gas to the gas station, and build roads.

Remember that one guys. It might come in handy later.