Do current storms prove your stance on Man Mad Global Warming?

[RacerX.ksr]

They are using measurements from the hurricane planes. It has stayed at 130mph for the last 12 hours. They've done updates every 2 to 3 hours through the night and the speed hasn't changed once.

You know why they are doing it.

It slowed to 125 while hitting Cuba and then went over the warmest water it had seen, but only increased speed by 5mph. Just enough to get it back to Cat 4 status.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

OK, now the 2:00PM update has it dropped to a Cat 3 and 120mph. All they needed was to call it a 4 when it hit the keys. Of course the measurement equipment will have blown away.

 

[warrior-cat]

So if you don't believe in man made global warming does that mean you are against policy that wants us to use cleaner energy? Are we against clean energy? I mean what the hell is the argument and how did this GD topic become so political?

When the money sent all over the world to perpetuate the lie started and continues we tend to be against it. Man made global warming is a farce being proved time and time again. That being said, I am for clean energy. Wind is everywhere and is a very good source for energy. Nuclear is clean albeit dangerous but can be safer if we wanted it to be. The biggest problem I have is the government should not be using tax payer dollars to push this agenda. The only money that should be spent by the government is oversight and regulation regarding the safety of any energy source. Outside of that, competition should drive the clean energy train with private companies leading the charge.

 

[warrior-cat]

One other point of clean energy, until you can make it cheaper, you will not have conservatives behind it. The normal wind turbines being installed by electric companies cost anywhere between 3 and 4 million to buy and install just for one.

 

[morgousky]

So if you don't believe in man made global warming does that mean you are against policy that wants us to use cleaner energy? Are we against clean energy? I mean what the hell is the argument and how did this GD topic become so political?

The left. Like always.

 

[wildcatsboston1984_rivals]

I love how triggered you are. You're like a poodle... I can snap my fingers and you start shaking...

This is the part that really bothers me. What is the purpose of intentionally upgrading these storms? These guys know how hurricanes are graded, why are they trying to overinflated the categories?

I was watching the weather channel Friday night when Irma was hitting Cuba. It jumped from a 4 to a 5 while part of the eye was over land. I'm no meteorologist buts that's impossible.

It's so powerful that it is sucking up the water around islands. Like one island in the Bahamas had the ocean completely disappear around it due to Irma sucking up all the water around it.

 

[WonderBraa]

All I know is, one of y'all is wrong and the other is right. It's a matter of finding out who is right.

 

[Crushgroove]

Are you enjoying your Cats Illustrated experience, Aaron?

I thought "yada yada yada" was some of my best work...

 

[ekywildcat_rivals26726]

I believe in climate change...it was 52 degrees when I got up, now it's 57 degrees.

 

[P19978]

Why would I believe these liberals predictions about temps 25, 50, 200 years from now when they can't even tell me the correct number of genders?

 

[morgousky]

One other point of clean energy, until you can make it cheaper, you will not have conservatives behind it. The normal wind turbines being installed by electric companies cost anywhere between 3 and 4 million to buy and install just for one.

Not to mention, and Liberals never want to attack this problem, Wind turbines kill hundreds of thousands (would be millions) of birds. It's so severe Obama had to make an exemption for his "wind lobby" or they would have been put in federal prison for the amount of birds they kill.

Liberals want bird killing illegal, then want to create a whole energy source off of a unit that kills more birds than anything.

Not surprised in the least they think a man can be a Korean woman.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken

The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.

H. L. Mencken

 

[thornie1]

Global Warming..I mean Climate Change is just another part of the NWO propaganda. Got to get control over energy and the $'s...

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Sounds to me like universities are getting some extra funding for this and are milking it for all they can.. which is an absolute shocker that our educational system would ever do such a thing..

Don't believe humans are a big enough factor in this. We're a flea on a dog, along for the ride..

 

[RacerX.ksr]

Sounds to me like universities are getting some extra funding for this and are milking it for all they can.. which is an absolute shocker that our educational system would ever do such a thing..

Don't believe humans are a big enough factor in this. We're a flea on a dog, along for the ride..

Universities aren't the only ones who got extra funding.

We really are a flea on dog. With all of the fossil fuel we've burned over the years, and most of it in the dirtiest most inefficient way possible, we only managed to raise the level from 3 parts per 10,000 to 4 parts per 10,000 in 150 years.

As planet killers we really suck.

 

[Perrin75]

I'm just curious. How much money do you think is going to this supposed "Global Warming" conspiracy? Whatever it is, I can assure you it is a drop in the bucket compared to the subsidies going to fossil fuels. These industries do not, and have never existed in an open market. They have been funded and protected by the US Govt since their inception. They have also fought the development of any alternatives to them for decades. Without government subsidies for new forms of energy there is no chance they develop in this country.

But aside from that, here is the one reason you should be supporting the development of alternative energies and it has nothing to do with Global Warming. If we are able to reduce the importance of oil and natural gas then the Islamic terrorist groups immediately lose their source of funding. In fact, remove the need to secure fossil fuels and the US has no need to be in the Middle East at all.

This argument about Global Warming is irrelevant. We need to be developing the next generation of energy. It is financially and militarily essential. Some country is going to control it and right now it doesn't appear the be us.

 

[Bill Derington]

I'm just curious. How much money do you think is going to this supposed "Global Warming" conspiracy? Whatever it is, I can assure you it is a drop in the bucket compared to the subsidies going to fossil fuels. These industries do not, and have never existed in an open market. They have been funded and protected by the US Govt since their inception. They have also fought the development of any alternatives to them for decades. Without government subsidies for new forms of energy there is no chance they develop in this country.

But aside from that, here is the one reason you should be supporting the development of alternative energies and it has nothing to do with Global Warming. If we are able to reduce the importance of oil and natural gas then the Islamic terrorist groups immediately lose their source of funding. In fact, remove the need to secure fossil fuels and the US has no need to be in the Middle East at all.

This argument about Global Warming is irrelevant. We need to be developing the next generation of energy. It is financially and militarily essential. Some country is going to control it and right now it doesn't appear the be us.

You're mixing 3-4 different arguments together.
The amount of electricity produced in the US from fuel imported from the Middle East is almost zero.
We have basically taken control of the oil market, by drilling. Remember how the OPEC countries would drive up the price of oil by simply closing oil valves? They can't do that anymore because if oil gets high the US will drill like sailors on shore leave.

Look at all the studies that somehow mix climate change into it in order to get grant money. The group that was trying to clone a wooly mammoth even claimed a herd would alleviate climate change!?!
There is billions upon billions of dollars at stake "fighting" climate change.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

I'm just curious. How much money do you think is going to this supposed "Global Warming" conspiracy? Whatever it is, I can assure you it is a drop in the bucket compared to the subsidies going to fossil fuels. These industries do not, and have never existed in an open market. They have been funded and protected by the US Govt since their inception. They have also fought the development of any alternatives to them for decades. Without government subsidies for new forms of energy there is no chance they develop in this country.

But aside from that, here is the one reason you should be supporting the development of alternative energies and it has nothing to do with Global Warming. If we are able to reduce the importance of oil and natural gas then the Islamic terrorist groups immediately lose their source of funding. In fact, remove the need to secure fossil fuels and the US has no need to be in the Middle East at all.

This argument about Global Warming is irrelevant. We need to be developing the next generation of energy. It is financially and militarily essential. Some country is going to control it and right now it doesn't appear the be us.

The subsidies you mention are of two different varieties for the most part. Those for the fossil fuel industry mostly come in the form of tax breaks and low interest loans. This money doesn't come from the public coffer, it simply doesn't go in. Without these subsidies the taxpayer would have to provide the money in the form of higher prices for energy.

Subsidies given to alternative energy are often in the form of a grant, taking money from the coffer that has already been paid by the taxpayer. I think there is a big difference there, especially when you break it down to an energy/dollar level.

Check this out:
Allocation of subsidies in the United States[edit]
On March 13, 2013, Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives that federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows:

1. Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
2. Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
3. Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
4. Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

In addition, Dinan testified that the U.S. Department of Energy would spend an additional $3.4 billion on financial Support for energy technologies and energy efficiency, broken down as follows:

1. Energy efficiency and renewable energy: $1.7 billion (51 percent)
2. Nuclear energy: $0.7 billion (22 percent)
3. Fossil energy research & development: $0.5 billion (15 percent)
4. Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy: $0.3 billion (8 percent)
5. Electricity delivery and energy reliability: $0.1 billion (4 percent)[27]

To say the issue of global warming is irrelevant is a foolish stance since that is the main driving force behind your perceived "need" for alternative energy. We have had alternative energy since the 1940's. The same people who are now clamoring for alternative energy are the same ones who lost their minds about nuclear energy and drove the price for it through the roof with over regulation.

I believe you are overlooking the importance of oil and gas to the global economy. To think that terrorism would disappear due to the emergence of alternative energy is extremely shortsighted.

 

[78Gooses]

I've enjoyed this thread. Some of this is over my head, to say the least, but the information is appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Tskware]

[1] The subsidies you mention are of two different varieties for the most part. Those for the fossil fuel industry mostly come in the form of tax breaks and low interest loans. This money doesn't come from the public coffer, it simply doesn't go in. Without these subsidies the taxpayer would have to provide the money in the form of higher prices for energy.

Subsidies given to alternative energy are often in the form of a grant, taking money from the coffer that has already been paid by the taxpayer. I think there is a big difference there, especially when you break it down to an energy/dollar level.

(2) To think that terrorism would disappear due to the emergence of alternative energy is extremely shortsighted.

Like much of this thread, I disagree completely on the above take especially as to Point 1 above. Kentucky's tax code is Exhibit "A". Exempting economic activity from taxation is definitely a subsidy, because those dollars that otherwise would go into the public coffers to cover public expenses now have to come from somewhere else. And it is now and always has been politically driven, which is what you and so many other "free market" supporters find so objectionable about tax breaks for renewable energy.

Kentucky exempts more revenue through tax breaks (the horse sales which just started in Lexington are largely exempt from sales tax, as just one example). Why do you think coal, gas, and the thoroughbred industry get special treatment in Kentucky? Answer: Because they historically have bought the Legislature and the Governors office. The Agricultural exemption for small family farms is now largely used in Fayette County at least to protect huge operations which are in many cases owned by out of state interests, if not international interests. As one example, Sheik Mahktoum owns 2500 acres out past Bluegrass Field, which the taxpayers are subsidizing because he pays very little in property taxes. Does that seem like a good sound public policy to you?

As to Point 2, I actually agree with you. Terrorism has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years, and will not go away in our lifetime no matter how we create energy.

 

[rudd1]

-you cannot simultaneously limit what you can do with ag property devolopment...dictate minimum size of single dwelling farms and such whilst taxing family/hobby farms at the same level of other single family residences. Do you want a green belt or no?

-for every wealthy horse farmer there are dozens of small family/hobby farms in the county. Lower rates are a trade off for developmental restrictions. Again, green belt or no?

-govt does not have a revenue problem...it has a spending problem.

 

[Tskware]

^
Those are fair questions, and reasonable minds could disagree. But they are political questions, not science questions, which is what the topic du jour has been.

As for govt, I would argue that most governments really have a priority problem, i.e., they need to focus on what it is the citizens really want and need, then find the revenue to support those needs. Instead, most governments pander to the lowest common denominator (for votes) and to the rich and powerful (for money to win elections resulting in the elected officials sucking up to their every whim) and the result is pretty much dysfunctional.

 

[Rebelfreedomeagle]

With all of the fossil fuel we've burned over the years, and most of it in the dirtiest most inefficient way possible, we only managed to raise the level from 3 parts per 10,000 to 4 parts per 10,000 in 150 years.

I'm going to start a petition to get a license plate for "Friends of Peat Bogs" so we can get back to the good, old time ways of my toothless British ancestors.

 

[Tskware]

I'm going to start a petition to get a license plate for "Friends of Peat Bogs" so we can get back to the good, old time ways of my toothless British ancestors.

Growth destroys Peat Bogs Forever

 

[Perrin75]

The shear amount of money that goes to subsidize fossil fuels is staggering. A recent study shows that 6.5% of the global GDP(apx. 5.3 Trillion) goes to subsidize it. America is the second biggest subsidizer spending apx. 600 Billion dollars. To compare, the last estimates for global subsidies on alternative energy was 2011 and it was 88 Billion. It is probably larger now, but I doubt it comes to half the number the US alone is spending on fossil fuels.

The biggest subsidies, roughly 22%, are focused around giving credits that allow companies to avoid paying fees and fines associated with Global Climate Change. So, as someone mentioned earlier, follow the money. The reason this has become a political issue is because it is cheaper to buy politicians and TV personalities than it is to lose these subsidies.

Also I never said terrorism would stop. I said it would impact Muslim terrorist groups. If you don't think a massive drop in the importance in oil and the revenue generated from it wouldn't have an impact on this you are simply choosing to ignore realities. Al Qaida and 9/11 never have existed without oil dollars.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

Might want to let Lee take on this one pal, your entire post is false.

 

[TortElvisII]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4880930/Leo-Bieber-s-jet-setting-added-Irma.html

Justin Bieber is calculated to have travelled at least 136,000 miles in a plane over the last year, environmentalist DiCaprio is believed to have done more than 87,000 miles while fellow actor Clooney did 61,000 miles.