Global Warming?

[SPYDERLK]

I don't think anybody is arguing that we could do better on energy issues, but the federal Gov. First drafted the clean water act in 1973 and has made little changes since. Therefore all of the advancements in technology have had slow implementation because a permit could not be acquired. Companies will not invest in research if they do not think they can recoup there investment.

Politician on both sides tend to use our tax dollars to fund research that justifies predetermined objectives. This will never result in sound scientific results.

If the problem with burning fossil fuel is that it traps solar radiation on the planet longer thereby heating the climate, what happens when we build vast solar arrays to trap that same energy?

Light energy goes into various forms when it hits earth. Some is just reflected. Other goes straight to heat and other is incorporated into chemical changes [photosynthesis etc]. In the long run it all comes back to heat ... and the earth loses exactly what it gains. This is self adjusted by earth temperature - the hotter the earth gets the more heat it is able to lose. All temps over or under what is needed to cause this balance will be temporary in the realm of geological time, but may seem permanent to out limited experience. The earth has so many ways of hiding heat ... our forest, our petroleum, our oceans and water vapor. Photovoltaics just turn part of light into electricity that then creates heat in its use. A small detour and back to space.
..larry

 

[Hillfarmer]

Spyderlk you are referring to the law of conservation of energy but the earth is not a closed system so for short periods of time you could upset the balance if not sure of the affect of the changes. Geological time considered one could say the earth is not as hot as it has been previuosly and therefore global warming may not be a problem. However, if we can curb our fossil fuel use and take advantage of natures non combustion energy sources we will all be better off.

 

[EddieWalker]

I actually like the fact that you agree the subsidies and taxbreaks to big oil is unacceptable, thanks for pointing out more facts.

Naturally, your "real" facts would only apply to your "right wing" side of the story since they are from a right wing blog, but its a real start seeing that you too view this as a problem.

Why is this a problem?

Are you just against allowing the oil industry to write off tax breaks and incentives? Or does this apply to all business? What about each of us? Should we stop the tax break on home owners that write off the interest paid on their home loans?

Where does the oil companis fit in overall in industry for tax breaks? From what I've heard,they are about in the middle of the range. Nothing like GE who doesn't pay taxes in the US due to tax breaks. Does that mean GE is worse then the oil companies? And they get billions of tax payer dollers to pay for their outdated, worthless windmills that don't do anything on top of all those tax breaks!!!!!!!!!!!!

$4 billion is the number that is used by both sides. To dismiss it because it's not the number you want to use and cannot support because it comes from the Right doesn't really accomplish anything. Provide a link that shows the $40 billlion a year in tax breaks and we can talk about why that is too much and shouldn't be there. Because I agree, that would be too much.

But when an industry provides more then they receive in tax breaks in the form of taxes paid to the goverenment, then I think those insentives are a good thing. The difference between the oil industry is that they pay taxes, provide jobs, provide energy and feed our economy. Solar, wind, ethynal and electric cars do the opposite. They cost tax payers money, do not add anything to the economy and because they get free money without providing something that actually works, there is no reason for them to make their products better.

Wishful thinking and feel good spending is what has gotten us into this mess.

Eddie

 

[Short Game]

 

[Short Game]

And now, a study in fuel efficiency and conservation: The Daytona 500 (if it stops raining).

 

[locknut]

The link posted doesn't identify anything. It's more circular logic saying studies have identified subsidies.

Another big lie without specifics.

Yes,and did you notice where their information came from? That wonderful group of environmental lawyers.They are just too cute.They even provide special seminars for judges about the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws.

 

[lilranch2001]

"Wouldn't a prudent person want to know what is going on and what if anything should be done about it and what if anything could be done about it?"

These "prudent people" have two goals. To line their pockets and cut America down to size.Why else would the push for Cap and Trade in the US when China and India will never participate?

:thumbsup:

 

[lilranch2001]

Why is this a problem?

Are you just against allowing the oil industry to write off tax breaks and incentives? Or does this apply to all business? What about each of us? Should we stop the tax break on home owners that write off the interest paid on their home loans?

Where does the oil companis fit in overall in industry for tax breaks? From what I've heard,they are about in the middle of the range. Nothing like GE who doesn't pay taxes in the US due to tax breaks. Does that mean GE is worse then the oil companies? And they get billions of tax payer dollers to pay for their outdated, worthless windmills that don't do anything on top of all those tax breaks!!!!!!!!!!!!

$4 billion is the number that is used by both sides. To dismiss it because it's not the number you want to use and cannot support because it comes from the Right doesn't really accomplish anything. Provide a link that shows the $40 billlion a year in tax breaks and we can talk about why that is too much and shouldn't be there. Because I agree, that would be too much.

But when an industry provides more then they receive in tax breaks in the form of taxes paid to the goverenment, then I think those insentives are a good thing. The difference between the oil industry is that they pay taxes, provide jobs, provide energy and feed our economy. Solar, wind, ethynal and electric cars do the opposite. They cost tax payers money, do not add anything to the economy and because they get free money without providing something that actually works, there is no reason for them to make their products better.

Wishful thinking and feel good spending is what has gotten us into this mess.

Eddie

And lets not forget that GE is first in line right behind Obama

 

[locknut]

Big long thread and no one brings up the fact that man-made global warming was born of a fictional novel written by an Austrian **** in 1958 and has been promuligated by propaganda ever since, by Cultural Marxists.

P.T. Barnum was right.

 

[Johnp33]

The money the Brazilians got was a guaranteed loan on equipment built in the USA to employ Americans, the rigs will be used in that new field they are developing.
One other subsidy the oil companies get is the enterprise zones where the refinery for the that disputed pipeline is going to go to, that means they will pay no taxes.
George bush he went to Iraq, for how many trillion and how many lives, and the :laughing:Russians:laughing: and the :laughing:Chinese:laughing: got the oil development permits.
Please with all the fancy answers the drones have on hear, do tell us the oil received from Iraq, I remember George saying they would pay for everything with oil. How did that work out?