I mean, it makes sense, the poor don't have a lot of money, and therefore aren't the ones spending money on large projects, but the findings are that the green tax programs significantly benefitted the wealthy over everyone else:
"Households in the top 20% of earnings nationally received about 60% of clean energy tax credits, while the bottom 60% of households received just 10%, according to the paper written by Severin Borenstein and Lucas W. Davis, two economists at the University of California, Berkeley. This pattern of high-income filers claiming the lion’s share of green tax credits has stayed “relatively constant” during the time period until it experienced a “slight broadening” with the introduction of an electric vehicle (EV) credit in 2018.
In the case of EVs, the top 20% of earners receive 80% of the credits, while the top 5% of earners receive 50%, according to the study. There was also only a small correlation between greater green tax credits and the adoption of technology such as heat pumps, solar panels, and EVs."
Rinse, if you are reading this... please channel RayB or Patrick for your response!
I mean, it makes sense, the poor don't have a lot of money, and therefore aren't the ones spending money on large projects,
Exactly. You have to have money to invest in green energy to get benefits back from the government. Environmental protection is a completely separate issue from wealth distribution. So there is not supposed to be any connection.
There is no problem with the wealthy benefitting because in the long run we ALL benefit from a better climate/environment. So I don't think Rinse would be disappointed at all.
Originally posted by Patrick:Personally, I think it's in rather poor taste to be bringing up a deceased forum member's name, just to try (and fail) to rub his face in it.
Let the man rest in peace.
Only if you look at it from the perspective that you are. I'm viewing it from the perspective of him still hanging out here with us, in spirit.
And no, I will not go back and forth with you on this. This was not an offensive post and wasn't intended to be.
What've we got here, the Liberty Daily citing a paper that concludes in favor of increased environmental taxation and cap-and-trade? Didn't make it down to page 29 before we started agreeing here, did we?
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 07-16-2024).]
Originally posted by NewDustin: What've we got here, the Liberty Daily citing a paper that concludes in favor of increased environmental taxation and cap-and-trade? Didn't make it down to page 29 before we started agreeing here, did we?
LOL, did you really just advocate for Cap and Trade? I'll get to that in a minute...
So... the premise makes sense. Only those with money can buy things, and thus would be the greater recipient of tax breaks and / or benefits to energy programs. But I think what you fail to understand is that this is all intentional.
Huge corporations and well... wealthy Oligarchs, if you will... are more than happy to support legislation which funnels money back to them. The "green programs" seem like a fantastic idea... let's help the environment. But they rarely, if ever, actually support improving the environment. What they usually do is focus money towards the next big shiny thing that someone else is going to profit from. China HEAVILY lobbied our Congress (and senate) to pass these bills... because they are the ones who directly receive the benefit. They own more than 86% of the supply chain and production of solar and wind technology. When we passed that law, it essentially meant that China was going to get a massive pay check, and several unions would be guaranteed jobs. It's all part of the basket of "who gets" ... including several corporations (both foreign and domestic) who stood to profit from this legislation... and as such, it was tailored in that way.
It's the same thing we did for the infrastructure bill. Almost all of the infrastructure money spent went to union-supported programs (most of which will not likely end up getting completed on time or anywhere near in budget), or they went directly to corporations that stood to have a significant financial interest in them.
Let's look at this from a microcosm of how this supports the wealthy versus the poor. The Democrats always say that these things help the poor... but they never do, it's usually the exact opposite. An example I like to give WAS Florida's emissions and safety inspection laws. These were laws that required every registered car to have a full safety inspection performed by a certified dealership or mechanic (usually cost about $35 bucks back then). They also required you to go through an emissions testing line... which was always slam-packed, and they'd run your car on a dyno while they probed your tailpipe. This also cost $25 (at the time).
Now, you're probably thinking... this is great, helps keep the environment clean, and the roads safe. It did none of that... it was a Democrat-instituted program from back in the days when Democrats ruled Florida (when Florida looked like California does now). What really happened is that we wasted a lot of gas driving to and from said inspection facilities, including waiting in the 30 minute line with our cars running (with signs saying not to turn off the car), and then... if you failed any part of it, you were either fined, or given a warning to fix. The "fix" had to be done by a repair shop, with receipts... you couldn't simply go do it yourself in the driveway. Imagine now who this actually affected? It affected the poor. The middle class and wealthy always had newer cars and never had a problem passing them. So what then even was the point of it? Seriously? The ONLY people who were ever in question then were the poor... and they almost all failed. So these policies directly affected the poor. It levied fines on them, put them at risk of having their drivers licenses suspended, and put them at risk of getting arrested for driving with a suspended license, and made them MORE poor because many people lost their jobs since they could no longer drive to work. When Jeb Bush won the election, the very first thing he did was eliminate that requirement... just totally threw it out after 2000.
This is the problem with every single Democrat-plan to help the environment... it's always 99% rife with corruption, and pay to play embezzlement that just manages to eek by financial regulations well enough. But it's always corrupt, never does what it intends to do, and always ends up lining the pockets of those who supported it. You see... almost every single one of these bills, or programs, or what have you... is just a means for extorting money from taxpayers, and trickling it back up in greater number to the wealthy who sponsored it.
And so now we'll talk about Cap & Trade... tell me exactly what you think Cap & Trade actually does... not what it pretends to do, but what it actually does. It's wealth redistribution from the American middle class to NGOs in foreign countries run by wealthy Oligarchs.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: This is the problem with every single Democrat-plan to help the environment... it's always 99% rife with corruption, and pay to play embezzlement that just manages to eek by financial regulations well enough. But it's always corrupt, never does what it intends to do, and always ends up lining the pockets of those who supported it. .
This is a complete lie.
Environmental programs have been very successful. We healed the hole in the ozone layer. We ended acid rain. We don't have rivers catching on fire anymore. We don't have areas decimated by strip mining.
And you did not give one single example of corruption.
You are just repeating some right wing propaganda speaking point. There was NEVER supposed to be a connection between environmental protection and wealth distribution. It is just a red herring devised by the fossil fuel industry to try and come up with a criticism for environmental protection. This is the same fossil feul industry that has been raping the American citizens with high prices while posting record profits. And one reason they are able to do it is because the right has trained its minions to blame Biden for high gas prices.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: LOL, did you really just advocate for Cap and Trade? I'll get to that in a minute...
Nope. I pointed out the conclusion of the paper this article cites does, and that it's funny they ignore it.
quote
So... the premise makes sense. Only those with money can buy things, and thus would be the greater recipient of tax breaks and / or benefits to energy programs. But I think what you fail to understand is that this is all intentional.
Huge corporations and well... wealthy Oligarchs, if you will... are more than happy to support legislation which funnels money back to them. The "green programs" seem like a fantastic idea... let's help the environment. But they rarely, if ever, actually support improving the environment. What they usually do is focus money towards the next big shiny thing that someone else is going to profit from. China HEAVILY lobbied our Congress (and senate) to pass these bills... because they are the ones who directly receive the benefit. They own more than 86% of the supply chain and production of solar and wind technology. When we passed that law, it essentially meant that China was going to get a massive pay check, and several unions would be guaranteed jobs. It's all part of the basket of "who gets" ... including several corporations (both foreign and domestic) who stood to profit from this legislation... and as such, it was tailored in that way.
It's the same thing we did for the infrastructure bill. Almost all of the infrastructure money spent went to union-supported programs (most of which will not likely end up getting completed on time or anywhere near in budget), or they went directly to corporations that stood to have a significant financial interest in them.
What you are describing here is not an issue with cap and trade and a single infrastructure bill, but an issue with federally-run initiatives in general. Using the fact that solar panels and the like are manufactured largely in China as an argument against their widespread adoption is nonsense if you apply it to virtually anything else. Subsidies to farmers, anything requiring the purchase of computer hardware, medical devices, cell phones, or clothing...all of that is lobbied for, and goes to, China as much as cap and trade does.
quote
Let's look at this from a microcosm of how this supports the wealthy versus the poor. The Democrats always say that these things help the poor... but they never do, it's usually the exact opposite. An example I like to give WAS Florida's emissions and safety inspection laws. These were laws that required every registered car to have a full safety inspection performed by a certified dealership or mechanic (usually cost about $35 bucks back then). They also required you to go through an emissions testing line... which was always slam-packed, and they'd run your car on a dyno while they probed your tailpipe. This also cost $25 (at the time).
Now, you're probably thinking... this is great, helps keep the environment clean, and the roads safe. It did none of that... it was a Democrat-instituted program from back in the days when Democrats ruled Florida (when Florida looked like California does now). What really happened is that we wasted a lot of gas driving to and from said inspection facilities, including waiting in the 30 minute line with our cars running (with signs saying not to turn off the car), and then... if you failed any part of it, you were either fined, or given a warning to fix. The "fix" had to be done by a repair shop, with receipts... you couldn't simply go do it yourself in the driveway. Imagine now who this actually affected? It affected the poor. The middle class and wealthy always had newer cars and never had a problem passing them. So what then even was the point of it? Seriously? The ONLY people who were ever in question then were the poor... and they almost all failed. So these policies directly affected the poor. It levied fines on them, put them at risk of having their drivers licenses suspended, and put them at risk of getting arrested for driving with a suspended license, and made them MORE poor because many people lost their jobs since they could no longer drive to work. When Jeb Bush won the election, the very first thing he did was eliminate that requirement... just totally threw it out after 2000.
This is the problem with every single Democrat-plan to help the environment... it's always 99% rife with corruption, and pay to play embezzlement that just manages to eek by financial regulations well enough. But it's always corrupt, never does what it intends to do, and always ends up lining the pockets of those who supported it. You see... almost every single one of these bills, or programs, or what have you... is just a means for extorting money from taxpayers, and trickling it back up in greater number to the wealthy who sponsored it.
This confuses a few things. I'm not a Democrat, and I don't think policies crafted to benefit the environment need to also redistribute wealth or benefit the poor; that's part of how you end up with crazy convoluted laws. I agree with your point that there is considerable room for corruption in these policies, as well as the ineptitude in Florida's execution from your example, but not that it is ubiquitous nor that it is absolutely unavoidable. Again, the corruption you point to is present in all government, not environmental policy in general. Take a step back and apply the following statement to any defense spending bill, infrastructure project, bailout, etc:
"You see... almost every single one of these bills, or programs, or what have you... is just a means for extorting money from taxpayers, and trickling it back up in greater number to the wealthy who sponsored it."
Hell, apply it to the increased funding in the Project 2025 plan we spent all that time going over.
quote
And so now we'll talk about Cap & Trade... tell me exactly what you think Cap & Trade actually does... not what it pretends to do, but what it actually does. It's wealth redistribution from the American middle class to NGOs in foreign countries run by wealthy Oligarchs.
[/Quote] If you want my actual opinion on cap and trade, I think it can be effective if it's implemented well, but that's extremely hard to do and has a spotty history. If you are going to regulate externalities, this has the benefit of directly addressing them, and may have a place in overall policy. At that point, though, I feel like a direct tax on them achieves the same thing with less overhead. However, I'm not advocating either approach and they're definitely not what I'd start an environmental policy with.
Originally posted by NewDustin:What you are describing here is not an issue with cap and trade and a single infrastructure bill, but an issue with federally-run initiatives in general. Using the fact that solar panels and the like are manufactured largely in China as an argument against their widespread adoption is nonsense if you apply it to virtually anything else. Subsidies to farmers, anything requiring the purchase of computer hardware, medical devices, cell phones, or clothing...all of that is lobbied for, and goes to, China as much as cap and trade does.
Well, there's more to this. China intentionally sought to buy up every aspect of the wind and solar energy production chain. They did this and then lobbied congress to support these policies, all while they're opening up new coal plants. I think solar is fantastic, and there's so many ways we can be using it... so I'm not saying I don't support solar. I just very much dislike that we're basically writing a check to China. They're really smart in how they handle these things, since they manipulate "capitalism" in a Communist way that allows them to guide and direct their economy to take advantage of policy that their government directly pushes. What I really want, is for us to be producing solar and wind technology here in the United States. Furthermore, I'd like for wind technology to be designed in a way that we don't have to bury the blades, but instead re-use them for something else (like roofing shingles).
Problem with anything managed by government is the insane process that must be gone through to get everything done. … I’m hoping the Chevron decision will change that. Take Mr. Beast for example...
For government to do what Mr. Beast did… would require a contract vehicle to be put out, a team of people to evaluate the contract, and then there needs to be all the ranking stuff like: - Black or minority owned business (yes, that is a thing) - Veteran-owned business - Woman-owned business - Small-business - Blah blah…
And then depending on where, it may require a union, and then for it to be government, it requires all the other stuff like environmental studies, etc. In this case, he can just go hire a bunch of people and pay them to pick up trash. DONE. That dude really is pretty awesome. I don’t like it when he destroys cool cars, but he’s really taken his fame and done something awesome with it.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:If you want my actual opinion on cap and trade, I think it can be effective if it's implemented well, but that's extremely hard to do and has a spotty history. If you are going to regulate externalities, this has the benefit of directly addressing them, and may have a place in overall policy. At that point, though, I feel like a direct tax on them achieves the same thing with less overhead. However, I'm not advocating either approach and they're definitely not what I'd start an environmental policy with.
I think there's better ways to handle it, but anything that takes money from the United States and gives it to other countries is going to be a failing policy... simply by sheer fact that we're on a runaway train headed to bankruptcy. At this point, we just have to support global policies that support better actual environmental policies, and focus on what we can do at home while not destroying industry. Work with them, but not in the way that most of these programs go.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Well, there's more to this. China intentionally sought to buy up every aspect of the wind and solar energy production chain. They did this and then lobbied congress to support these policies, all while they're opening up new coal plants. I think solar is fantastic, and there's so many ways we can be using it... so I'm not saying I don't support solar. I just very much dislike that we're basically writing a check to China. They're really smart in how they handle these things, since they manipulate "capitalism" in a Communist way that allows them to guide and direct their economy to take advantage of policy that their government directly pushes. What I really want, is for us to be producing solar and wind technology here in the United States. Furthermore, I'd like for wind technology to be designed in a way that we don't have to bury the blades, but instead re-use them for something else (like roofing shingles).
No disagreements from me on China’s economic manipulation. In order to sustain that they have to sacrifice all free market benefits, accept inhumane working conditions for their people, and support the leviathan government required to oversee the whole affair.
…and that -in addition to China’s incredible economies of scale advantage with this type of manufacturing- is what we’d be directly competing against to bring that commerce back to the U.S. What would be required is adopting the nationalist/interventionist policies closer to those which China uses, and reducing our workers’ living expectations. I’ve no interest in competing with China in a pointless race to the bottom.
quote
Problem with anything managed by government is the insane process that must be gone through to get everything done. … I’m hoping the Chevron decision will change that. Take Mr. Beast for example...
For government to do what Mr. Beast did… would require a contract vehicle to be put out, a team of people to evaluate the contract, and then there needs to be all the ranking stuff like: - Black or minority owned business (yes, that is a thing) - Veteran-owned business - Woman-owned business - Small-business - Blah blah…
And then depending on where, it may require a union, and then for it to be government, it requires all the other stuff like environmental studies, etc. In this case, he can just go hire a bunch of people and pay them to pick up trash. DONE. That dude really is pretty awesome. I don’t like it when he destroys cool cars, but he’s really taken his fame and done something awesome with it.
So I had to look this up. I know very little about Mr. Beast, but I love Mark Rober’s videos, and he was involved in this too!
If you look, though, what they did was provide funding to two organizations: "All of the donations from the fundraiser go to the Ocean Conservancy and The Ocean Cleanup, with the organisations splitting the donations."
Not to diminish their contribution, but they weren’t responsible for the cleanup beyond funding, and if you check Ocean Conservancy’s financials, the government was already doing that.
From that, it looks like the YouTubers approached this cleanup very similarly to how a government who wanted to fund it would.
quote
I think there's better ways to handle it, but anything that takes money from the United States and gives it to other countries is going to be a failing policy... simply by sheer fact that we're on a runaway train headed to bankruptcy. At this point, we just have to support global policies that support better actual environmental policies, and focus on what we can do at home while not destroying industry. Work with them, but not in the way that most of these programs go.
Comparative advantage and economies of scale insist that we engage in exchange. We have control groups that let us know what economic isolation looks like. For all of that to work money has to go to other countries.
On the green policies I think a combination of nuclear-backed-by-renewables and efficiency solves the vast majority of our energy generation issues, and through that a considerable chunk of our entire environmental impact. I think any "green" policy that doesn't start with nuclear is going to be generally infeasible.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 07-17-2024).]
I just very much dislike that we're basically writing a check to China. They're really smart in how they handle these things, since they manipulate "capitalism" in a Communist way that allows them to guide and direct their economy to take advantage of policy that their government directly pushes.
United States government did the same thing by continuing to subsidize fossil fuel industry at the same time that industry is raping consumers with high prices to produce record profits.
China government invested in solar while US government invested in fossil fuels. Guess who is going to win that one in the long run.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 07-18-2024).]
Originally posted by NewDustin: I’ve no interest in competing with China in a pointless race to the bottom.
This is a very unreasonable way to respond to this. You're making assumptions that we need slave labor to compete. Whether we make it in house, or get it from somewhere else, we can make a conscious effort to pivot and initiate development somewhere else, in a partner nation.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:So I had to look this up. I know very little about Mr. Beast, but I love Mark Rober’s videos, and he was involved in this too!
If you look, though, what they did was provide funding to two organizations: "All of the donations from the fundraiser go to the Ocean Conservancy and The Ocean Cleanup, with the organisations splitting the donations."
Not to diminish their contribution, but they weren’t responsible for the cleanup beyond funding, and if you check Ocean Conservancy’s financials, the government was already doing that.
Ocean Conservancy also insists on diversity and inclusion, so not a lot being saved in terms of overhead there.
The Ocean Cleanup is a Dutch environmental group, and insists on diversity and inclusion in all contracts.
From that, it looks like the YouTubers approached this cleanup very similarly to how a government who wanted to fund it would.
You are very much trivializing this, and misrepresenting it. Just because a company says they support DEI, doesn't mean that it's REQUIRED for them to do a job. Most companies say they support this, and they do so for BS reasons because it helps their equity scores and makes governments feel better about giving them money. But most companies and organizations are interested in profits, and being efficient, and the purpose of DEI is more for show, rather than implementation. If someone in charge happens to fit into a DEI bucket, that's great. But a company will always ensure it's operating efficiently... regardless of what it says it's policies are, and regardless of the color and gender, or sexual position preference of the people making the decision.
These are both private organizations, with private money... they are not required to abide by government regulations that are meant for government contracts... because they are not government. Additionally, you super-focused on that, and it's such a small part of what I wrote. A company supporting DEI does not mean they'll win a contract that prioritizes ownership from a vendor who is a minority, woman, or veteran. That's two totally different concepts, as well as the aspect of union labor, etc. You went off on a tangent about this one thing, and it's hugely irrelevant in totality.
And what you say here is a total misrepresentation: "Not to diminish their contribution, but they weren’t responsible for the cleanup beyond funding."
They get a TON of volunteers who work for free, including themselves, and record a YouTube video doing it, for the majority of these beach clean-ups. This guy literally makes his money from YouTube and other things that he's branched off from as a result of his YouTube business.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 07-17-2024).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: This is a very unreasonable way to respond to this. You're making assumptions that we need slave labor to compete. Whether we make it in house, or get it from somewhere else, we can make a conscious effort to pivot and initiate development somewhere else, in a partner nation.
What's the plan to compete with that without massive cuts to labor costs and government funding/protection of a domestic manufacturing market? Look at that labor costs graph; China isn't even comparatively cheap anymore, so you're going to have to compete with other manufacturing giants like India as well. All of them are already engaged in a race to the bottom. What's the plan to change that? Even more importantly, why would we want to be more involved in something like that? I'm not arguing for dumping the manufacturing we have, but going after China's low-margin stuff? Just...why? If we're going to focus on things, why not the industries that are already growing and creating jobs in the US?
quote
You are very much trivializing this, and misrepresenting it. Just because a company says they support DEI, doesn't mean that it's REQUIRED for them to do a job. Most companies say they support this, and they do so for BS reasons because it helps their equity scores and makes governments feel better about giving them money. But most companies and organizations are interested in profits, and being efficient, and the purpose of DEI is more for show, rather than implementation. If someone in charge happens to fit into a DEI bucket, that's great. But a company will always ensure it's operating efficiently... regardless of what it says it's policies are, and regardless of the color and gender, or sexual position preference of the people making the decision.
These are both private organizations, with private money... they are not required to abide by government regulations that are meant for government contracts... because they are not government. Additionally, you super-focused on that, and it's such a small part of what I wrote. A company supporting DEI does not mean they'll win a contract that prioritizes ownership from a vendor who is a minority, woman, or veteran. That's two totally different concepts, as well as the aspect of union labor, etc. You went off on a tangent about this one thing, and it's hugely irrelevant in totality.
And what you say here is a total misrepresentation: "Not to diminish their contribution, but they weren’t responsible for the cleanup beyond funding."
They get a TON of volunteers who work for free, including themselves, and record a YouTube video doing it, for the majority of these beach clean-ups. This guy literally makes his money from YouTube and other things that he's branched off from as a result of his YouTube business.
I'm not sure I get the distinction between required by government mandate and required by organizational policy, but a lot of the overhead you're seeing as being purely governmental is not. Mr. Beast did not get a ton of volunteers - he raised and donated money to an organization that took care all of that. He did not organize the beach cleanup -again, money raised and donated to another organization that took care of all of that. He did show up and film it, but that's how he makes the money he's paying the organizations. Your original argument in favor of his efficiency was:
quote
In this case, he can just go hire a bunch of people and pay them to pick up trash. DONE.
Originally posted by NewDustin:I'm not sure I get the distinction between required by government mandate and required by organizational policy, but a lot of the overhead you're seeing as being purely governmental is not.
The point is that government is too over-regulated. When you APPLY for a government contract, there are a whole ton of conditions you have to meet. They're not all bad, and I'm not disagreeing with them outright, some I agree with, some I do not... but it makes for an absurdly long and drawn-out process. Government issues a requirement, companies bid for it within a certain time frame, and then a year goes by before the contract is decided and actually awarded.
Two companies can make a decision over lunch, and it'll happen the very next day if they want it.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The point is that government is too over-regulated. When you APPLY for a government contract, there are a whole ton of conditions you have to meet. They're not all bad, and I'm not disagreeing with them outright, some I agree with, some I do not... .
The bolded part is the problem.
You put a bunch of people in a room who all agree that government is "over regulated" but they will not be able to agree on which regulations need to go. everyone wants to keep what they like and get rid of the rest. But a government can run like that. You have to have a process to create regulations then everyone has to agree with the process.
Originally posted by BingB: You put a bunch of people in a room who all agree that government is "over regulated" but they will not be able to agree on which regulations need to go.
Your showing off. Try to sound intelligent.
A room ? What room ?
As I said, act intelligent.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: ... everyone wants to keep what they like and get rid of the rest. But a government can run like that. You have to have a process to create regulations then everyone has to agree with the process.
I bet you do not realize you put your finger on the problem.
This is an opinion piece by a non-scientist who's opinions have been argued against by the vast preponderance of the scientific community and evidence. He's also been censured for scientific dishonesty.
I mean, you do you but if I find myself this desperate for a stance that agrees with my own will you please call me out on it?
Originally posted by NewDustin: This is an opinion piece by a non-scientist who's opinions have been argued against by the vast preponderance of the scientific community and evidence.
Yeah, we heard all that. The vast preponderance is 97% agree that climate change really is a global threat. FALSE ! That is a hyper link.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: He's also been censured for scientific dishonesty.
Ah yes. Denmark's Ministry of Truth. The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) is now the subject of debate itself. With some advocating for the abolition of the Committee itself. The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty initially did not censor Bjørn Lomborg for his work but public pressure caused them to change their mind.
It is fact we have heard many many fear, doom, and gloom warnings which have not come true. Heavily coupled with the emotional guilt about polar bears, peoples beach front homes being destroyed, Even cities which will end up like the Lost City of Atlantis. Submerged islands.
Ah yes. Denmark's Ministry of Truth. The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) is now the subject of debate itself. With some advocating for the abolition of the Committee itself. The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty initially did not censor Bjørn Lomborg for his work but public pressure caused them to change their mind.
It is fact we have heard many many fear, doom, and gloom warnings which have not come true. Heavily coupled with the emotional guilt about polar bears, peoples beach front homes being destroyed, Even cities which will end up like the Lost City of Atlantis. Submerged islands.
Did your elevation above sea level change ?
yes it has about 400 feet in 10 thousand years you do know they can see and date older levels
hottest day on record several days in a row recently but drill baby drill and burn baby burn act like nothing matters
rump plan is never do anything so the gran kids will own it
Now THIS is how you straw man! For those of you hoping to use or call out that fallacy in the future, pay close attention to what this author does:
Do they acknowledge that the actual claim is that there will be more high-strength storms, which is demonstrably true? NO! They find one big hurricane then claim their ideological opponents are saying that the biggest hurricane must be caused by global warming, ignoring the impact of thousands of years of statistical probability.
Do they acknowledge advances in early warning systems, disaster procedures, and technology in general? No, they ignore any reasonable point that might undermine what they are saying! More people died per-storm before CO2 emissions grew to the problem they are now, so the author immediately concludes the storms must have been worse.
Is it true that primarily US federal government-funded scientists are finding in favor of anthropomorphic climate change? Of course not, they but insist it is! They ignore that anthropomorphic global warming is overwhelming corroborated by a huge body of independent, peer-reviewed research from across the entire world.
Is it true that many grids rely largely on renewables, and energy security is not mutually exclusive with that? Sure, but don't acknowledge that! Focus on silly-sounding future plans, or just outright insist people are arguing against progress and energy security.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 10-12-2024).]
Originally posted by NewDustin: Now THIS is how you straw man! For those of you hoping to use or call out that fallacy in the future, pay close attention to what this author does:
Do they acknowledge that the actual claim is that there will be more high-strength storms, which is demonstrably true? NO! They find one big hurricane then claim their ideological opponents are saying that the biggest hurricane must be caused by global warming, ignoring the impact of thousands of years of statistical probability.
Do they acknowledge advances in early warning systems, disaster procedures, and technology in general? No, they ignore any reasonable point that might undermine what they are saying! More people died per-storm before CO2 emissions grew to the problem they are now, so the author immediately concludes the storms must have been worse.
Is it true that primarily US federal government-funded scientists are finding in favor of anthropomorphic climate change? Of course not, they but insist it is! They ignore that anthropomorphic global warming is overwhelming corroborated by a huge body of independent, peer-reviewed research from across the entire world.
Is it true that many grids rely largely on renewables, and energy security is not mutually exclusive with that? Sure, but don't acknowledge that! Focus on silly-sounding future plans, or just outright insist people are arguing against progress and energy security.
I have no idea of what you are trying to say.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Do they acknowledge that the actual claim is that there will be more high-strength storms, which is demonstrably true?
Demonstrably true? Which would mean you could prove it, yeah ? We expect numbers.
Originally posted by NewDustin: Is it true that many grids rely largely on renewables, and energy security is not mutually exclusive with that? Sure, but don't acknowledge that!
All the "hand wringers" conveniently ignore that we are now at the "solar maximum" of the 11 year sunspot cycle. I am again reminded of this due to all of the recent CMEs (Coronal Mass Ejections - aka solar flares) that have taken place in the past few months. I am 67 years old and have never seen the Aurora Borealis in GA. Friends of mine were seeing them as far south as the Florida panhandle, two nights ago. There was a repeat performance, last night. Sixty. Seven. Years. That's got to be significant. Think that the solar maximum might have something to do with warmer temps? Naaah. Couldn't be.
West GA. ~10:30, Thursday night. We've got dozens of pics, but this is the best one.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 10-12-2024).]
All the "hand wringers" conveniently ignore that we are now at the "solar maximum" of the 11 year sunspot cycle. I am again reminded of this due to all of the recent CMEs (Coronal Mass Ejections - aka solar flares) that have taken place in the past few months. I am 67 years old and have never seen the Aurora Borealis in GA. Friends of mine were seeing them as far south as the Florida panhandle, two nights ago. There was a repeat performance, last night. Sixty. Seven. Years. That's got to be significant. Think that the solar maximum might have something to do with warmer temps? Naaah. Couldn't be.
West GA. ~10:30, Thursday night. We've got dozens of pics, but this is the best one.
MAX IS NEXT YEAR and it is low as our star is in a slight down cycle with about 1/2 normal spots
Originally posted by NewDustin: This article relies heavily on building straw man arguments about global warming.
Like the straw man argument you are making with your comments ?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: I've noticed that "we" generally only expect numbers from a specific viewpoint, but sure, do you prefer NASA or GFDL?
Yeah, "we" is used by both viewpoints.
NASA or GFDL ? It doesn't much matter. We all have opinions and armpits. Many stink. Why do neither even mention the big role barometric pressure plays into the process ? What makes a hurricane change category strengths ?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: The national grids of Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and Germany are a few.
Originally posted by cliffw: Like the straw man argument you are making with your comments ?
Could you elaborate on this, or specify where you think I've done misrepresented an argument against me? This accusation has been leveled against me a few times here, but I've yet to have someone point out where or how I am doing it.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Yeah, "we" is used by both viewpoints.
NASA or GFDL ? It doesn't much matter. We all have opinions and armpits. Many stink. Why do neither even mention the big role barometric pressure plays into the process ? What makes a hurricane change category strengths ?
Those were not opinion pieces that I linked you to, they were meta-analyses from primary authorities in the field of climatology. I could throw NOAA in there too, if you want, or really any international scientific body recognized as an authority in climate.
As for barometric pressure, both organizations address changes in barometric pressure at length and in the context of global warming, you just didn't look beyond the articles I linked to
Not sure what the purpose of that link was, but if you're referring to Georgetown, Texas, that very much proves that there are dumb ways to go about energy policy. Given that there are several countries getting huge portions of their energy from renewables, I don't think this example is very damning outside of "Texas cities shouldn't try to grift ERCOT with energy production schemes they haven't run by their citizens."
? What room ?
