The Universal Double Tax Burden of Alternative Energy

[amicus]

The new administration following the hue and cry of the global warming hysteria is investing billions of tax dollars in unspecified 'green energy' projects and construction, point number one.

You will pay for that.

Point the second, the new administration is imposing strict 'cap and trade', policies to limit pollution from fossil fuel fired energy plants. That means a Federal Agency will determine the amount of pollutants discharged and bill the energy facility X number of dollars, which can be traded among the various energy producers.

You will pay for that by higher energy prices for just about everything you purchase, from plastic tampon inserts (produced from crude oil) and every plastic object you use. Plus, your electric, natural gas heating bills and air conditioning bills will increase rapidly.

Now...the energy crisis....will any one of or all, the 'alternative energy solutions', increase appreciably the quantity of electricity produced?

No, even the best and most optimistic estimates fall far short.

No new power plants fueled by nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas or water, hydro, are planned, approved or intended.

Yet further billion dollar subsidies are headed for the American automobile manufacturers to build 'electric cars'.

You won't have to turn the lights out if you are the last one out of the building. This administration will do it for you.

Something more you should be reminded of, government has no money, none, not a 'thin dime'. Government has to take it from you, those who work and produce and earn. A trillion, three, wasted, thus far, in less than 40 days. And only the top five percent will pay? Ahm, you believe that I got a bridge to nowhere, cheap.

Amazing.

Amicus...

 

[DesertPirate]

Green is nice, if it works, what do we do for now?

The part left out of last nights speech?
Not one mention of nuclear power or offshore drilling. There will be no energy independance during this administration.

 

[TE999]

Green is nice, if it works, what do we do for now?

The part left out of last nights speech?
Not one mention of nuclear power or offshore drilling. There will be no energy independence during this administration.

But...but...if we turn off our furnaces and air conditioners...and all drive teeny little cars...and build big windmills and solar panels...and recycle everything...and not cut down trees...and save the whales and the dolphins and the snail darter...

We'll be in the 18th Century while the rest of the world's in the 21st.

 

[amicus]

Cowabunga! Yo>

 

[DeeZire]

But...but...if we turn off our furnaces and air conditioners...and all drive teeny little cars...and build big windmills and solar panels...and recycle everything...and not cut down trees...and save the whales and the dolphins and the snail darter...

We'll be in the 18th Century while the rest of the world's in the 21st.

Actually, it's too late for that, since in the 18th century we still had plentiful natural resources at our disposal.

Things to look forward to in your preferred future: mass migrations when populations lose their habitable land to the rising sea level. With these mass migrations will come war and famine, much like the 18th century but worse, since the world will be trying to support a much lager population. Of course, since you won't live long enough to see any of this man made apocalypse play out, it really shouldn't be your concern, should it?

 

[sr71plt]

Actually, it's too late for that, since in the 18th century we still had plentiful natural resources at our disposal.

Things to look forward to in your preferred future: mass migrations when populations lose their habitable land to the rising sea level. With these mass migrations will come war and famine, much like the 18th century but worse, since the world will be trying to support a much lager population. Of course, since you won't live long enough to see any of this man made apocalypse play out, it really shouldn't be your concern, should it?

The Dilbert cartoon strip was great yesterday. The older, cynical worker chortles to the younger, naive worker that his generation was sticking the next one with climate catastrophe and would just enjoy life. The younger one says, "Oh, but that's why my generation is developing science to extend your old age--so you'll be around to face the music." The cynical one has the good grace to end with "Well played."

 

[trysail]

Some Inconvenient Truths

Al Gore's documentary on climate disaster has been ruled a work of fiction by a British judge. In legal terms, his global warming hysteria has been assuming facts not in evidence.

Justice Michael Burton of the High Court in London stated, "(Gore's film) is not simply a science film . . . but that it is a political film."

Judge Burton documented nine major errors in Gore's film and wrote that some of Gore's claims had arisen "in the context of alarmism and exaggeration."

The first error Gore made, according to Burton, was in his apocalyptic vision of the devastation from a rise in sea levels caused by melting polar ice caps. Gore's claim of a 20-foot rise "in the near future" was dismissed as "distinctly alarmist." Burton wrote that such a rise could occur "only after, and over, millennia" and to suggest otherwise "is not in line with the scientific consensus."

The scientific consensus is that sea levels might rise anywhere from 7 inches to 23 inches, but it would take a century for that to occur. Even the latest IPCC report suggested that it would take a thousand years of higher-than-historic temperatures to melt the Greenland ice sheet, the basis of Gore's claim.

...Burton also ridiculed Gore's claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for ice melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court said it was aware of were four bears that died following a storm.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2149/1553052913_2f3b379216_o.gif

 

[Pure]

nice try, try.

you're either ignorant or lying about the judgment: read the actual story.

you beginning quote is doctored, see below: you said:

Justice Michael Burton of the High Court in London stated, "(Gore's film) is not simply a science film [slight omission]. . . but that it is a political film."

what is omitted is:
-- although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion

U.K. Judge Rules Gore's Climate Film Has 9 Errors

By Mary Jordan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, October 12, 2007; Page A12

LONDON, Oct. 11 -- A British judge has ruled that Al Gore's Oscar-winning film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," contains "nine errors."

High Court Judge Michael Burton, deciding a lawsuit that questioned the film's suitability for showing in British classrooms, said Wednesday that the movie builds a "powerful" case that global warming is caused by humans and that urgent means are needed to counter it.


But he also said Gore makes nine statements in the film that are not supported by current mainstream scientific consensus. Teachers, Burton concluded, could show the film but must alert students to what the judge called errors.

The judge said that, for instance, Gore's script implies that Greenland or West Antarctica might melt in the near future, creating a sea level rise of up to 20 feet that would cause devastation from San Francisco to the Netherlands to Bangladesh. The judge called this "distinctly alarmist" and said the consensus view is that, if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, "but only after, and over, millennia."

Burton also said Gore contends that inhabitants of low-lying Pacific atolls have had to evacuate to New Zealand because of global warming. "But there is no such evidence of any such evacuation," the judge said.


Another error, according to the judge, is that Gore says "a new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find ice." Burton said that perhaps in the future polar bears will drown "by regression of pack-ice" but that the only study found on drowned polar bears attributed four deaths to a storm.

The ruling comes amid speculation that Gore will win the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for his work on global warming.

Kalee Kreider, a spokesman for Gore, said the former vice president is "gratified that the courts verified that the central argument of 'An Inconvenient Truth' is supported by the scientific community." She said that "of the thousands and thousands of facts presented in the film, the judge apparently took issue with a handful."

Kreider also said that Gore believes the film will educate a generation of young people about the "climate crisis" and that the "debate has shifted from 'Is the problem real?' to 'What can be done about it?' "

Burton's ruling said that there is "now common ground that it is not simply a science film -- although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion -- but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political." Burton said Gore's errors "arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis."

Global warming has been a particularly big issue in Britain, where Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he wants to make his country a world leader in limiting carbon emissions.

Earlier this year, British education officials began distributing DVDs of Gore's film to state schools as part of a package designed to educate 3 million secondary school students on climate change.

The lawsuit was brought by Stewart Dimmock, a local school official who has two sons in state schools, in an attempt to block the education department's program. He claimed the film was inaccurate, politically biased and "sentimental mush" and therefore unsuitable for schools.

Dimmock, who belongs to the tiny New Party, told reporters he was "elated" at the ruling. He said guidance and context that teachers now must give along with the film means that students will not be "indoctrinated with this political spin." But he said he was disappointed the film wasn't banned outright from schools.

A spokesman for the Department of Children, Schools and Families said the agency was "delighted" that students could continue to see Gore's film. It has noted that the judge did not disagree with the film's main point -- that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are causing serious climate consequences.

 

[trysail]

...mass migrations when populations lose their habitable land to the rising sea level... war and famine... apocalypse...

you're either ignorant or lying...

Sorry— I can't quite make out what you're saying. There's too much noise; someone seems to be screaming, "FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!" at the top of their lungs.

 

[DeeZire]

Sorry— I can't quite make out what you're saying. There's too much noise; someone seems to be screaming, "FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!" at the top of their lungs.

Apparently you prefer the Baghdad Bob approach, who, during the Gulf War, would stand in front of a burning building saying "Fire? What fire?"

 

[incubus666]

A couple of weeks ago CNBC had a green energy guru on. Sorry I don't remember his name. Any way he said the the a reasonable nomber for wind and solar would be 10% of U.S. total energy needs would come from each. He did comment that some time in the future it might increase to 15% for each. So best case only 30% of energy from wind and solar combined.

The thing so many of the green folks seem to ignore is the wind does not blow all the time nor does the sun shine 24 hrs. day. So some kind of back up generating system has to be in place.

Then we have the problem with conservationists. They have stopped a fairly large pilot project for solar in Arizona. They are also complaining about bird and bat deaths caused by wind farms. They aint gonna go away.

Some might note that President Obama failed to mention nuclear energy in his speach on Tuesday. Nuclear is the cleanest and greenest generating system we have today.

The next cleanest is natural gas. Today we are importing it from overseas. Harry Reid called a special session of the senate in Dec. to place several million acres of known natural gas reserves off limits to drilling.

 

[incubus666]

Here is an article on Europes carbon trading trials and tribulations.

I certainly expect just as many problems when the U.S. starts our mess. Perhaps even more.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28177072/site/14081545

 

[amicus]

Actually, it's too late for that, since in the 18th century we still had plentiful natural resources at our disposal.

Things to look forward to in your preferred future: mass migrations when populations lose their habitable land to the rising sea level. With these mass migrations will come war and famine, much like the 18th century but worse, since the world will be trying to support a much lager population. Of course, since you won't live long enough to see any of this man made apocalypse play out, it really shouldn't be your concern, should it?

~~~~

People used to hang their mattresses out in spring to 'air them out', I quoted and bolded the above for that purpose.

The above is an example of 'a little knowledge can be dangerous', fear mongering practiced by the global warming fanatics.

Once upon a time, all the land masses of the earth were gathered into one super continent called Pangea, 250 million years from now, scientists predict, it will happen again, changing the entire face of earth.

There will be another ice age and another warming trend, scientists can estimate the frequency that such events have occured in the past and suggest when then may occur again in the future.

Rising ocean levels will happen again, thas a fac Jac, but in like a hundred thousand years and on a gradual basis so that mankind can adjust.

Scare tactics, folks, doom and gloom, the sky is falling, nothing new from the licentious left that has a vivid imagination and very little more.

Ami