Climate change - anthropogenic or not?

C3: Central England Temperatures: Do They Provide Evidence That Current Global Warming Scare Is Totally Blown Out of Proportion?

 

I hope you guys are on some big oil company's payroll, because given the amount of time you spent polluting this forum with your pseudo-scientist denials, I'm sure you don't have much time left to do any other kind of work.

 

Well, from this thread and so many others around the interwebs, I've pretty much decided we ARE going to argue ourselves to death.

Regardless of what you think about global warming, do you think:

Generating green jobs is bad?
Having clean air is bad?
Having abundant clean energy is bad?

Just a thought.

Also, follow the money. Some folks seem to be desperately clinging to outdated business models and technology, by any means necessary.

Carry on.

 

"Generating green jobs is bad?
Having clean air is bad?
Having abundant clean energy is bad?"

I've asked the same question a thousand time (Metaphor alert!), so save your breath. What you will get back in response is how any environmental regulation is only going to cripple the economy, or steal my money through taxes, or add to the socialist/commie/eco-freak take over of our precious bodily fluids or some combination thereof.

We should/will just leave this thread to the "true believers" of Jack T. Ripper!
(Social history reference!)

 

Well by strict definition, it might be considered both metaphor and Hyperbole.

metaphor |ˈmetəˌfôr; -fər|
noun
a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable : “I had fallen through a trapdoor of depression,†said Mark, who was fond of theatrical metaphors | her poetry depends on suggestion and metaphor.
• a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, esp. something abstract


hyperbole |hīˈpərbəlē|
noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

So in fact, you are right, I didn't expect to be take LITERALLY, unless of course you wish to count up the times that I have actually asked the question on this forum.

Now that the grade 8 english lesson is over, perhaps you'd like to go back to geography. Found Naknek with out having to look it up on Google yet?

 

Easy,,, southwest Alaska.

 

Easy for you perhaps, aparentlly not so easy for RP in another thread!

 

There's some interesting comments on the post at WUWT!

 

Junior Member

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Huntington Beach
Posts: 2
My Car: 2008 Prius
Model: N/A
Package: N/A
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post



Friends: 0

Somehow I think two whole posts doesn't put you in much danger of arguing yourself to death.

Those ignorant of economics don't appreciate what creating 'green jobs' really costs. Any time government interjects itself into free markets via subsidies, etc., the odds are overwhelming that something WILL go wrong and the costs will be greater than doing nothing. Indeed, positive HARM is more often the result than not.
Spain is often put forward as an example of successful implementation of 'green' jobs and energy. Here's the reality:
Green Job Destruction: The Spain Study (Netting to negative via government) — MasterResource

That’s why this study, from the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain should be kept handy (the report is in English).
After examining Spain’s experience with an aggressive wind-power program, the researchers concluded:

1. As President Obama correctly remarked, Spain provides a reference for the establishment of government aid to renewable energy. No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources. The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s “green jobs” schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs. The question that this paper answers is “at what price?”
​

2. Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, the Spanish experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.
​

3. Therefore, while it is not possible to directly translate Spain’s experience with exactitude to claim that the U.S. could lose at least 6.6 million to 11 million jobs, as a direct consequence were it to actually create 3 to 5 million “green jobs” as promised (in addition to the jobs lost due to the opportunity cost of private capital employed in renewable energy), the study clearly reveals a tendency that means the U.S. should expect such an outcome.
​

The study has other fascinating facts, including the cost of creating a green job (571,000 Euros each!), and how many jobs are lost in the economy as a result of putting on more renewable power.

Opposing government intervention for the purpose of 'generating green jobs' does not mean that one doesn't want clean air, clean water, or clean energy.

I'm sure that one day remewable energy will prove to be efficient, reliable and cost effective. That will evolve, it should not be forced or coerced. There is no reason to force it.

By the way, CO2 is a harmless, even positively beneficial gas, regardless what the EPA, IPCC or the Supreme Court say. It is not pollution just because some hoaxers say it is.

It's a good thing CO2 is harmless, because here is what has happened in Spain since thay implemented their job-killing green revolution.



Good job!

 

What do you think of all the subsidies given to the oil industry? By your reasoning, tax writeoffs for exploration would be...'positively HARM' -ful, wouldn't they? You're right, we should end those, and petroleum products should be priced at their true, full cost. If you genuinely understood economics, you'd see that renewable energy already IS cheaper in the long run.

 

You do realize there is a major difference between a tax write off and a direct subsidy dont you?

 

I personally do not believe that government should subsidize ANY industry.

However, if subsidies do exist, they will do less harm if they support efficient rather than inefficient energy producing sources.

Your assertion that 'renewable energy already IS cheaper in the long run' is confusing in both syntax and meaning. But if I catch your meaning, it is also entirely wrong.

Here's why, Tonto:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/energy_subsidies.cfm