Global Warming?

[toppop52]

Rob is just an old man dealing with what he thought was a slam dunk and internalizing the truth after a lifetime of being wrong.

Taking this out of context describes just about all of here! :laughing:

 

[EE_Bota]

I think Rob hates pollution, and likes both working with and playing with alternative energy sources. I think he got bugged about getting his energy from a utility that is a government regulated monopoly, and wondered if he could count on that. As an EE, he was probably going to have a solar panel at some point just because. So, he did the math on the situation, and added some intangibles in like energy security, pride in accomplishment, intellectual curiosity, pollution, world wide economic issues, terrorism, etc, and decided to act.


Some of his political beliefs show through, and sometimes they disagree with my own. I think I am right and he thinks he is right. It would be silly to harbor beliefs you think are wrong. Lots of folks disagree with me. Lots disagree with Rob. That will always be, so it can't be helped.

I am against subsidies for alternatives that actually spread the cost from a wealthier person to a poorer person. That means I want my taxes kept out of it. However, if a utility company finds it worthwhile to encourage distributed generation through grants and rebates, as long as that doesn't increase the bill for poor people (must be win-win for the utility and the producer) I think that is wonderful.

Many of you should be installing excellent insulation structures, and go on the warpath to eliminate energy leeches, ticks, and fleas that are sucking energy (our nation's lifeblood.) Become a "blood" donor if you can.

I hate AGW because I think it is a political subset of the energy and national security problem that some try to turn into the overarching reason to modify the country and the world.

To me, Energy is the overarching problem, and doing right by energy will also amount to doing all we could do for AGW in any case. So, for all the reasons to change, folks are using the most politically divisive reason, instead of the reasons that would promote more unity and agreement. Everyone would like a lower energy bill. Everyone would like to not pay terrorists. Everyone would like to keep the money we bleed for energy here instead. Everyone would like to breath clean air and drink pure water.

Not everyone will agree we breath out poison. The AGW side can't purge it's lunatics any easier than the non-A GW side can.

I think AGW is a moot discussion, with no obvious outcome except disagreement. It was seized upon by political parties for political reasons, and the discussion ought to be changed back to economics, security, sustainability, and cleanliness of ENERGY.

 

[newbury]

Everyone would like a lower energy bill. Everyone would like to not pay terrorists. Everyone would like to keep the money we bleed for energy here instead. Everyone would like to breath clean air and drink pure water.

Wrong. Big global energy companies don't like lower energy bills. They get a percentage off money going anyplace, including terrorists. They want to keep the money we bleed for energy for themselves. THEY want THEMSELVES to breath clean air and drink pure water but care less how they destroy the environment where it doesn't affect THEM.

Perhaps you are to young to remember the DDT problems where chemical companies declared it safe, the support of tobacco by doctors, Love Canal.

Industry is in it for the money and often ignores or attacks things that will affect their bottom line.

 

[EE_Bota]

Wrong. Big global energy companies don't like lower energy bills. They get a percentage off money going anyplace, including terrorists. They want to keep the money we bleed for energy for themselves. THEY want THEMSELVES to breath clean air and drink pure water but care less how they destroy the environment where it doesn't affect THEM.

Perhaps you are to young to remember the DDT problems where chemical companies declared it safe, the support of tobacco by doctors, Love Canal.

Industry is in it for the money and often ignores or attacks things that will affect their bottom line.

You essentially just called me "wrong" and then admitted that the individuals wanted for themselves exactly what I said they did, and then you slipped into an anti-business wrong-doing rant that is tantamount to using ****** and Stalin to condemn the concept of government.

Summary:
Wrong---change subject---rant.

 

[houstonscott]

Who taught you those lies? Where did you grow up, and go to school?

HS

Wrong. Big global energy companies don't like lower energy bills. They get a percentage off money going anyplace, including terrorists. They want to keep the money we bleed for energy for themselves. THEY want THEMSELVES to breath clean air and drink pure water but care less how they destroy the environment where it doesn't affect THEM.

Perhaps you are to young to remember the DDT problems where chemical companies declared it safe, the support of tobacco by doctors, Love Canal.

Industry is in it for the money and often ignores or attacks things that will affect their bottom line.

 

[tcreeley]

Pretty simple- each side thinks the other side is made of liars- no proof to the contrary. There is no consensus on a basic set of assumptions- the discussion is parallel- no intersection points. Even the words shift in meaning and intent according to the user. Newbury made a cogent point re past business assumptions re profit at the expense of toxins and health. Bota called it a business rant and reinforced his belief that he an Newbury basically want the same things.
I am with Newbury. Bota is on a different tack, HS distrusts the whole package- lies.
So what else is new!
.......Cool last couple of weeks? Are we into that global cooling period yet! :cool2:

 

[EE_Bota]

Pretty simple- each side thinks the other side is made of liars- no proof to the contrary.

I don't think Newbury is a liar.

 

[patrick_g]

I am against subsidies for alternatives that actually spread the cost from a wealthier person to a poorer person. That means I want my taxes kept out of it. However, if a utility company finds it worthwhile to encourage distributed generation through grants and rebates, as long as that doesn't increase the bill for poor people (must be win-win for the utility and the producer) I think that is wonderful.

Win win in what time frame?

Many folks erroneously think that doing the best they can every day is the best they can do but often that is short sighted and the best they could do over a longer period might very well deviate from the best over any particularly short period. Similarly subsidies, even partially sourced from the taxes of say the lower half of the population, may well contribute to an investment that over a longer period may result in more for less to that lower half. To not make the appropriate up front payment to ensure greater reward on the backside is short sided ignorance.

What is more important, the long game or the lowest taxes, one year at a time?

Once upon a time a long time ago in a metropolis far far away (San Diego 1984-85 as energy conservation officer for SUBASE San Diego) I found that by spending $ on energy conservative projects early in the fiscal year I could reduce utility bills sufficiently that the $ spent were recouped in lowered utility bills before I ran out of $ due to raiding the funds set aside for paying the bloated bills to instead invest in energy conservation. Note I said INVEST. Some energy conservation measures are investment opportunities and will have sufficient pay back to pay for themselves and produce a return on investment. No voodoo economics here. I used net present value calcs and reasonable values for the cost of money in identifying investment opportunities and their payback times.

I don't give blanket approval to subsidies as they are all too often abused and misused but... some subsidies can be THE RIGHT THING if it gets a needed supplier of goods and or services jump started or gets a useful industry out of the prototype stage and into meaningful production.

It is Governments duty to do the right thing by its citizens and sometimes that is to reward what you want to grow in excess of the enterprises current contribution to ensure future availability of their goods and services.

You can't make the issue of human assisted/accelerated climate change go away by calling anyone names however much you might like scoring points on someone to impress your cohorts.

I'm sorry if this post isn't sufficiently combative to blend in. I'll try to be more insulting some other time, OK?

Pat (Note: This post was entirely prepared without the use of an i-Anything)

 

[mostly_gas]

In the 30's we didn't have towns in Alaska moving because the perma-frost was melting under them.

10 years ago I was in Kotzebue AK. They told me foundations melting perma frost have been an ongoing issue. How many of these toens wer bult on permafrost in the 30's like they are now.

 

[mostly_gas]

He lied....

Geeze, we are the world's biggest per capita polluter, where do you get your info? We're the envy of the world? I was just listening to a nurse who just came back from Scotland. The people over there think our medical system is a world joke. We don't cure people we just hook them on drugs - for a life time. Don't lose weight, don't cut your salt intake, take this pill for your high blood pressure. We aren't even in the top ten of healthiest countries. Our education system is so low on a world scale that it's an embarrassment. Obesity is epidemic and our government is a corporate institution which now has the same rights as the individual.

China is the worlds biggest polluter. India is coming on strong to take over second. If you are really worried about world pollution that would keep you up at night. By the way what does per capita enter in the equation anyway.
As far as medical system being a joke, take a look at cancer survival rates.