| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2175
|
 Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 9:20 am Post subject: |
 |
|
"The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy ... technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence." - Hillary Clinton - Democratic National Committee convention 2007
Solydra anyone? Simply delusional. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 1637
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: |
Solydra anyone? Simply delusional. |
Mr. G, your posts are always so amusing. Keep 'em coming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 4610
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks mrgybe for quoting what Hillary Clinton actually said. Still though, at least conceptually, I have to agree with her. While some folks don't want the government to invest taxpayers money in alternate energy development, I believe that the government could stimulate traditional energy related extraction and production industries to broaden their interests and efforts into those areas with the appropriate business and tax incentives. In the long run it would help to clean our air and environment while lessening our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
The Chinese seem to understand the importance of alternate energy development, but the question is whether we do? It's ironic that the Chinese were the primary reason why Solydra failed to gain the needed foothold to be able to capitalize on their design concepts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2175
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Chinese also understand that carbon based energy will dominate for decades. That's why they are buying up hydrocarbon resources wherever they can lay their hands on them.......including the hydrocarbons that were scheduled to flow through the Keystone pipeline. The Chinese have a focused energy strategy..........we have bickering and political pandering. We will live to regret that..........but not as well as we have heretofore.
http://m.ceip.org/2012/04/24/chinese-oil-evolving-strategy/agnk&lang=en |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 3358
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It does get tiresome debunking mrgybe’s nonsense, “I only refer to Exxon to debunk the paranoid barrage of falsehoods against them” portraying the braying of the oil companies bought and their paid consultants as high science that undermines the tenets of climate change. Without a doubt there are paranoids on both extremes of the climate change debate. But those who actively lie, supported by the carbon companies, including Exxon, lie solely on the right. Mrgybe is so fond of quoting them, or more accurately misquoting them, and so offended when we say such misrepresentation reveals his character. So here is Sourcewatch on his new favorite, Patrick Michaels:
| Quote: | | Patrick J. Michaels (±1942- ), also known as Pat Michaels, is a largely oil-funded global warming skeptic who argues that global warming models are fatally flawed and, in any event, we should take no action because new technologies will soon replace those that emit greenhouse gases. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia served as an Expert Reviewer to Working Group I of the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC[1]. |
His second source is “Plants need CO2” From the same source:
| Quote: | | Plants Need CO2 was a climate complacency front group 501(c)(3) that (with ad-buying sibling 501(c)(4) CO2 Is Green) popped up in 2009, with a mission "to educate the public on the positive effects of additional atmospheric CO2..."[1]. One of its directors, Corbin Robertson of Quintana Minerals, "is said to own more coal through his various ventures than anyone outside of the U.S. government"[2] - and was a Koch strategy group attendee. |
The idea that these neo-right “think tanks” are not spun up by the carbon industry, that I am paranoid, and that mrgybe was the saint that put Exxon on the proper track after the Exxon Valdiz spill is just so much happy horseshit. They work together, report selective aspects of tiny tangents on our ongoing understanding of climate change, and then, as mrygybe does here, insinuate that they undermine the consensus that climate change is happening and linked to CO2 increases in the atmosphere from increased burning of fossil fuels. If you read the papers, you might have heard about the latest ‘non-scientist” climate conference in Chicago, spun up by the Heartland Institute with billboards featuring the unibomber. Here’s that laudable group:
| Quote: | | The Heartland Institute is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as of 2010-2011.[2] It is a member of ALEC's Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force,[3] Education Task Force,[4] Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force Financial Services Subcommittee[5] and Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force.[6] James Taylor, managing editor of the Heartland publication Environment & Climate News, spoke at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force meeting at the 2011 ALEC Annual Meeting.[6] Heartland was also an Exhibitor at ALEC's 2011 Annual Meeting.[7] Heartland has also functioned as a publisher and promoter of ALEC's model legislation.[8] |
Mrgybe has betrayed no interest in the underlying factual questions of climate change, but has bragged about how effective the dis-information campaign is. While he claims to a polity in debate, the mask slips, as it did for the first time when he parroted the claims of Steven Milloy in attacking William Ruckleshaus as a stooge. Of course, Steven J. Milloy receives funding from—gasp—Exxon. Here’s what he is like:
| Quote: | Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute.
Milloy runs the website Junkscience.com, which is dedicated to debunking what he alleges to be false claims regarding global warming, DDT, environmental radicalism and scare science among other topics.[2] His other website, CSR Watch.com, is focused around attacking the corporate social responsibility movement. He is also head of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund he runs with tobacco executive Thomas J. Borelli, who happens to be listed as the secretary of the Advancement of Sound Science Center, an organisation Milloy operates from his home in Potomac, Maryland. |
Not only does Exxon contribute funding to ALEC, Senior Exxon management staff sit on their board. But this is all, of course, a paranoid barrage of falsehoods.
Now a bit about the science. The first article that mrgybe posted, accompanied by snide remarks that infer that ice sheets are growing and the paranoid fringe is hiding the evidence, is about the melting of the Greenland glaciers. One of the concerns about climate change is that melting of land-bound glaciers in Greenland would contribute to more rapid sea level rise than melting of floating ice. Mrgybe misrepresents the conclusion of the article, which I will quote: “Greenland is undergoing a gentler acceleration of mass loss than hitherto considered likely." So he Greenland glaciers appear to be melting, but more slowly than the most extreme modeling scenarios. Of course the question of Greenland’s ice sheet melting only affects the more doomsday scenarios of 55 inches or more of sea level rise by the turn of the century. But we can rest easily now, mrgybe infers.
Mrgybe has made much of the last ten years of data, which is in some places of much higher quality data, to conclude that warming has stopped, or been reversed. Of course he does that without seeming to understand that warming at the historic pace would have generated only a 0.1 C degree increase, something that is impossible to detect from such a record. He also fails to acknowledge that this period included a fairly significant El Nina, and represents what his citations have described as “weather,” from which it is too early to detect a trend.
The article on cloud cover and level is interesting, and represents a needed area of research. From the very beginning of modeling efforts, and my commentary on this forum, scientists have acknowledged that the best models do not account for increased cloud cover. There is a firm theoretical relationship between increased CO2 levels and increased cloud cover, and in increased temperature. But trying to figure out the nature of the function and the coefficients is presently beyond our understanding and modeling capabilities. Nothing there is new, and moderates, of which I consider myself one, have been saying that we need to understand the damping function of cloud cover before we do anything drastic. We can only hope that increased cloud cover slows the rate of temperature increase--without also damaging the world's agricultural productivity.
There is also an active debate in the coastal engineering community over the apparent flattening of the sea level rise trends. You can readily find an article by Robert Dean and Jim Houston http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/dirs/events/319/01%2087th%20CERB%20Dean.pdf and a rebuttal by Rahmstorf and Vermeer debating whether sea level rise is accelerating. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_vermeer_2011.pdf Again, ten years is too little data to detect trends on very messy data sets. It is safe to say that the pace of sea level rise is an unsettled area—and peer reviewed literature debate is contributing to our understanding.
You will be able to knock me over with a feather if mrgybe posts, and accurately summarizes, a peer-reviewed scientific article on climate change that doesn't come from a site associated with ALEC. But he doesn't want us to impugn his integrity. He's done the job already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 4610
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No worries mrgybe about the Keystone XL pipeline in the long run. Contrary to the scary hype coming from certain quarters, the Chinese will not steal everything under our feet before we resolve our pipeline routing issues. Sure, the Chinese will be able to benefit from Canadian tar sands development, but not to our exclusion. A successful pipeline project must be built in accordance with appropriate regulations and oversight to ensure that all environmental protection and safety concerns are addressed and preserved for those living in its path.
Lastly, as I've emphasized in the past, I would hope that an approval of the Keystone XL pipeline project incorporates a requirement that all tar sands oil and any resulting byproducts be strictly reserved for US consumption. That would hold all those boldly promoting the idea of the pipeline and American energy independence to their word. The last thing I want to see is a Big Oil sham pulled over on the American public where they will ultimately export byproducts of the pipeline internationally for their own profit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2175
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So to summarize your last two posts, you would be OK with the government telling oil companies where they can sell their products, and you are also OK with their profits being taken to give to ill conceived alternate energy projects. How's the weather there in Cuba? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 11471
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | "The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy ... technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence." - Hillary Clinton - Democratic National Committee convention 2007. |
SURELY none of these guys was unaware of that comment, which tells SO much about the extreme left's regard for private (including corporate) property. Anyone who hasn't seen that speech several times is beyond ignorant. Next you'll be telling us some f***ing communists here support that point of view. IMO, that's taking even the First Amendment too far, as it advocates overthrowing the government. Even Castro admits it to be a total failure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 3358
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What, no more debunking paranoia? Or just back to message? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 4610
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"So to summarize your last two posts, you would be OK with the government telling oil companies where they can sell their products, and you are also OK with their profits being taken to give to ill conceived alternate energy projects. How's the weather there in Cuba?"
Aren't you stretching things a bit mrgybe? One wonders why all the promotion from oil interests never really talks a whole lot about bringing in oil into this country so that they can export it and profit on it. Clearly it doesn't make the argument that we need to develop American energy independence does it? I guess I don't like all the deception and hypocrisy behind things. Also, I'm thinking that keeping products in America could contribute to lower pricing for oil products. You know, that supply and demand thing.
Regarding taking oil company profits and spending them on alternate energy projects, I never said that. My point was encouraging them to keep more of their profits by offering government sponsored business and tax incentives to invest in alternate energy projects. The choice would be theirs.
Of course, you actually understood what I was saying in both of my posts, but you couldn't resist taking a shot suggesting that I was some kind of communist. Your buddy isobars "surely" got a lot of lift off of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
