Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Dec 14, 2008 Read more: Newsday 52,728
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Read more
Mothra

Mesa, AZ

#42270 Dec 29, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter what you post on here, overall the increased cost of energy gets saved in lower costs elsewhere such as insurance and money saved in having to rebuild storm damaged infrastructure. And if we are really serious clean energy yields a higher gain than fossil fuel could ever hope to imagine. More predictable crop yields, less extreme weather therefore lower energy consumption and the list goes on and on.
No matter what I post here? Seriously? You think you're making a valid argument? So "clean" energy has no infrastructure that could be damaged by storm?

As for your "higher gain" argument, you're begging the question: higher costs today are offset by lower costs in the future?

Sounds an awful like Wimpy logic,'You'll gladly pay more for electricity today to [maybe] pay less in the future'.

But go ahead tell us about all the cost "savings". This will be amusing.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42271 Dec 29, 2013
Well Mothballs here is a start in Australia where much of the population lives on the coastal fringes. All of a sudden beach front properties won't be worth as much if anything at all in a decade or so. Why don't you ask all the coastal dwellers in the US if they mind paying higher energy prices if they thought it might save their land value let alone their home.

"The NSW government will order councils to study the scientific evidence for sea-level rise on a beach-by-beach basis, amid fears that many local authorities may be undermining property values by imposing punitive planning conditions based on predictions contained in reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affa... #
litesong

Monroe, WA

#42272 Dec 30, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
Well Mothballs ......
I call it "motheaten". Your name maybe more accurate, since it is a toxic topix AGW denier. However, its arguments are motheaten.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#42274 Dec 30, 2013
(Reuters)- As China's smog levels crept past record highs in early December, the phone lines at pollution-busting kit maker Broad Group lit up with Chinese customers worried about hazardous pollution levels that have gripped China this year.

China's government is struggling to meet pollution reduction targets and has pledged to spend over 3 trillion yuan ($494 billion) to tackle the problem, creating a growing market for companies that can help boost energy efficiency and lower emissions.

"Recently, we haven't been able to make products fast enough to keep up with demand," said Hu Jie, a general manager at Broad Group, which makes pollution-related products ranging from hand-held monitors to eco-friendly buildings. Sales roughly doubled this year from 2012, Hu said, without giving details.

U.S. environmental engineering company LP Amina, which helps coal power plants reduce emissions by retrofitting burners to make them more efficient, saw its China sales double this year, said the firm's marketing manager Jamyan Dudka, without providing specific figures. Coal accounts for more than two-thirds of China's primary energy consumption.

U.S.-listed Fuel Tech, which also focuses in this area, sees China at the forefront of its business development plans, and has increased its China-based staff to more than 30 people, CEO Doug Bailey said on an analyst call last month.

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><>

Seems there's a lot of money to be made in green tech. We should be leading more, instead of usually following.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#42275 Dec 30, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
(Reuters)- As China's smog levels crept past record highs in early December, the phone lines at pollution-busting kit maker Broad Group lit up with Chinese customers worried about hazardous pollution levels that have gripped China this year.
China's government is struggling to meet pollution reduction targets and has pledged to spend over 3 trillion yuan ($494 billion) to tackle the problem, creating a growing market for companies that can help boost energy efficiency and lower emissions.
"Recently, we haven't been able to make products fast enough to keep up with demand," said Hu Jie, a general manager at Broad Group, which makes pollution-related products ranging from hand-held monitors to eco-friendly buildings. Sales roughly doubled this year from 2012, Hu said, without giving details.
U.S. environmental engineering company LP Amina, which helps coal power plants reduce emissions by retrofitting burners to make them more efficient, saw its China sales double this year, said the firm's marketing manager Jamyan Dudka, without providing specific figures. Coal accounts for more than two-thirds of China's primary energy consumption.
U.S.-listed Fuel Tech, which also focuses in this area, sees China at the forefront of its business development plans, and has increased its China-based staff to more than 30 people, CEO Doug Bailey said on an analyst call last month.
<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><>
Seems there's a lot of money to be made in green tech. We should be leading more, instead of usually following.
Which is why China is becoming the dominant economic power, they're smart enough to invest in the future. Unlike the U.S., which only invests millions in solar power, their gov't is investing billions--that is why Solentra failed. They see the writing on the wall and embrace it, while our industrial and political leaders only look at the immediate future and near term profits.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#42276 Dec 30, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why China is becoming the dominant economic power, they're smart enough to invest in the future. Unlike the U.S., which only invests millions in solar power, their gov't is investing billions--that is why Solentra failed. They see the writing on the wall and embrace it, while our industrial and political leaders only look at the immediate future and near term profits.
Is that why China heavily subsidized solar panels....which lead to the demise of Solyndra?
Mothra

Mesa, AZ

#42277 Dec 30, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
Well Mothballs here is a start in Australia where much of the population lives on the coastal fringes. All of a sudden beach front properties won't be worth as much if anything at all in a decade or so. Why don't you ask all the coastal dwellers in the US if they mind paying higher energy prices if they thought it might save their land value let alone their home.
"The NSW government will order councils to study the scientific evidence for sea-level rise on a beach-by-beach basis, amid fears that many local authorities may be undermining property values by imposing punitive planning conditions based on predictions contained in reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affa... #
You have a serious comprehension problem. You said there was no cost to 'green' energies. I showed otherwise.

Now you're arguing those non-existent costs really do exist but are justified.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42278 Dec 30, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a serious comprehension problem. You said there was no cost to 'green' energies. I showed otherwise.
Now you're arguing those non-existent costs really do exist but are justified.
The example was the REAL cost of ignoring it, which will be a 1000 fold rather than the cost of adopting green solutions. That was my point, and when caveman posts examples of green tech raking in cash that must feel like swallowing dirt as well. That has always been the counter argument for the fossil brigade who insist all green is doomed to failure. In fact green has the potential to far exceed all profits made by fossil fuel producers, it just needs a level playing field to do it.
Economics professor

Los Angeles, CA

#42279 Dec 30, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
The example was the REAL cost of ignoring it, which will be a 1000 fold rather than the cost of adopting green solutions. That was my point, and when caveman posts examples of green tech raking in cash that must feel like swallowing dirt as well. That has always been the counter argument for the fossil brigade who insist all green is doomed to failure. In fact green has the potential to far exceed all profits made by fossil fuel producers, it just needs a level playing field to do it.
You have a problem with the depletion allowance? Why?
Mothra

Mesa, AZ

#42280 Dec 30, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
The example was the REAL cost of ignoring it, which will be a 1000 fold rather than the cost of adopting green solutions. That was my point, and when caveman posts examples of green tech raking in cash that must feel like swallowing dirt as well. That has always been the counter argument for the fossil brigade who insist all green is doomed to failure. In fact green has the potential to far exceed all profits made by fossil fuel producers, it just needs a level playing field to do it.
Once again, you're arguing that a cost that doesn't exist now does.

As for cavemen, he's a zealot.. sold into the alleged "science". Not much point considering his opinions.
Libertarian mom

Los Angeles, CA

#42281 Dec 30, 2013
Global Warming Scientists Trapped in Antarctic Ice lol
----------

Somewhere far, far to the south where it is summer, a group of global warming scientists are trapped in the Antarctic ice. If you missed the irony of that situation, it is because much of the mainstream media has glossed over that rather inconvenient bit of hilarity. As an example here is an Associated Press story that avoids mentioning the real mission of the scientists aboard the icebound Russian ship:

The Snow Dragon icebreaker came within 7 miles (11 kilometers) of the Russian ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy, which has been stuck since Christmas Eve, but had to retreat after the ice became too thick, said expedition spokesman Alvin Stone.
The Akademik Shokalskiy, which has been on a research expedition to Antarctica, got stuck Tuesday after a blizzard's whipping winds pushed the sea ice around the ship, freezing it in place. The ship wasn't in danger of sinking, and there are weeks' worth of supplies for the 74 scientists, tourists and crew on board, but the vessel cannot move.
So what was the exact mission of these scientists? AP is rather vague about this reporting only:

The scientific team on board the research ship — which left New Zealand on Nov. 28 — had been recreating Australian explorer Douglas Mawson's century-old voyage to Antarctica when it became trapped. They plan to continue their expedition after they are freed, expedition leader Chris Turney said.
Um, there is a bit more to the expedition than merely following in the footsteps of a century-old voyage. But what that mission really is, AP won't say. If AP is vague about the mission's purpose, Reuters provides even less information.

Since the MSM isn't forthcoming as to the real purpose of those scientists traveling to Antarctica, we turn to Watts Up With That for more insight:

The expedition is being led by Chris Turney,“climate scientist”, who has “set up a carbon refining company called Carbonscape which has developed technology to fix carbon from the atmosphere and make a host of green bi-products, helping reduce greenhouse gas levels.” The purpose of the expedition is “to discover and communicate the environmental changes taking place in the south.”
It seems they found out what the “environmental changes taking place in the south.” are.
Finally, National Geographic bluntly states the mission purpose:

...The current crop of explorers are hoping to document some of the same data and compare them to Mawson's numbers, "using the twist of modern technology," Turney told National Geographic earlier this month.
As may be expected, global warming might play a role in this, he suggests, particularly with respect to melted ice in the East Antarctic.
Ah, so now we see why the MSM reluctance to flat out state why the scientists are in the Antarctic. Anything to avoid an inconvenient (but accurate) headline like this:

“Grow the power within yourself”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#42282 Dec 30, 2013
Hahahahaha, LMAO. On the other hand, these elitists will have a jet-airport built around their ship and suffer no ills. They can always buy "carbon credits" to "offset" this later on. I'm sure Turney can use his carbon refiner to fuel the plane, LOL

Just bill the tax payers..

Why cannot you global warming fools, who parrot ANYTHING coming out of that propaganda machine, fund this thing yourself?!? If you guys are TRULY and GENUINELY concerned about the globe melting, you all can start living more basic, right?

As a matter of fact, every time I see a global warming hoaxer on the internet, I know he/she is that, just a hoaxer. If it is SOOO seriously, they would do SOMETHING from their own side. Now, they mostly refuse to do anything unless everyone is forced to do same. Why is that? At least 20% believe in "global warming". If all of these people offered voluntary sterilization, paying half their income to a "carbon fund" and not the least stopped driving cars and using computers, I think that could "offset" the rest of us. I would happily support such a proposal, but KNOW you guys don't believe in any of this thing, just like Obamas main cronies don't believe in "affordable care act" and are all getting exempted from it.

Like others have said, Republicans are on this scam as well. We need a second party in America.

“Grow the power within yourself”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#42283 Dec 30, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter what you post on here, overall the increased cost of energy gets saved in lower costs elsewhere such as insurance and money saved in having to rebuild storm damaged infrastructure. And if we are really serious clean energy yields a higher gain than fossil fuel could ever hope to imagine. More predictable crop yields, less extreme weather therefore lower energy consumption and the list goes on and on.
Windmills are killing birds in the thousands. And killing FEDERALLY protected ones. The green cronies donate money to politicians and get immunity from prosecution, while if me or you pick up a Bald eagle feather and happen not to be of the right connection, we can go to federal prison. Now they are talking about installing "bird radars" on windmills. What a joke!! Otherwise, the long-term effect is a likely destruction of migratory flight paths, something bound to affect ecosystem all over.

Gigantic work projects are camouflaged as environmentally friendly while all the damming destroy habitat and wildlife immensely. Popular for electorate, garners party support lifelong and no REAL environmentalists to look at this, since they have all become rubber stampers these days.

Solar energy is now starting to kill more and more migratory birds AND animals who sit on them and get ill. House fires are on the rise because of this. I am also pretty certain that this will elevate cancers we are not aware of causations yet.

Ethanol fuel and the Iowa mooching lobby is destroying virgin land in massive amounts along with all the Methane released as this land is turned over. In addition to that, it has killed thousands of people in the third world due to higher food prices.

Liberals, you OWN all this and are RESPONSIBLE for it all as well. Everything you do goes contrary to nature and it's laws. Everything you do is based upon bread&circus along with demonizing everyone else.

Finally, wind currents may actually ATTRACT certain bird species straight to the windmills if airflow is proper temperature and direction. By that time, liberals will argue we do not need the Bald Eagle in the US. They will say since Benjamin Franklin suggested the Turkey, let's switch.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42284 Dec 30, 2013
VeganTiger wrote:
<quoted text>
Windmills are killing birds in the thousands. And killing FEDERALLY protected ones..........
Finally, wind currents may actually ATTRACT certain bird species straight to the windmills if airflow is proper temperature and direction. By that time, liberals will argue we do not need the Bald Eagle in the US. They will say since Benjamin Franklin suggested the Turkey, let's switch.
Here we go, the ole Bald Eagle into wind turbine routine as tho it was a flag burning protest. The fact is there are more birds killed running into glass buildings and communication towers each year by a factor of 10. Google it and see for yourself, besides there are measures like in Norway where they are painting the tips of the blades black & white to make them more visible.
Then we have domestic cats which kill birds by the billion & lets not forget the power lines.
So it's a tired old argument trying to discredit wind farming as opposed to fossil fuel fracking and the damage it does.

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#42285 Dec 30, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no argument.
Even IF ONLY ONE severe storm made LANDFALL, would that mean that the other dozen severe storms DID NOT EXIST?
Summary: IDIOT!
UPDATE:'Global warming' scientists forced to admit defeat -- because of too much ice...
They went in search evidence of the world’s melting ice caps, but instead a team of climate scientists have been forced to abandon their mission … because the Antarctic ice is thicker than usual at this time of year.
The scientists have been stuck aboard the stricken MV Akademik Schokalskiy since Christmas Day, with repeated sea rescue attempts being abandoned as icebreaking ships failed to reach them.
Now that effort has been ditched, with experts admitting the ice is just too thick. Instead the crew have built an icy helipad, with plans afoot to rescue the 74-strong team by helicopter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25311 ...

haw haw haw

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#42286 Dec 30, 2013
dont snow me wrote:
<quoted text>
UPDATE:'Global warming' scientists forced to admit defeat -- because of too much ice...
They went in search evidence of the world’s melting ice caps, but instead a team of climate scientists have been forced to abandon their mission … because the Antarctic ice is thicker than usual at this time of year.
The scientists have been stuck aboard the stricken MV Akademik Schokalskiy since Christmas Day, with repeated sea rescue attempts being abandoned as icebreaking ships failed to reach them.
Now that effort has been ditched, with experts admitting the ice is just too thick. Instead the crew have built an icy helipad, with plans afoot to rescue the 74-strong team by helicopter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25311 ...
haw haw haw
Fair Game wrote:
The ship is stuck in pack ice, a random phenomenon due to wind and nothing to do with global warming.
But some of the science produced by the ship is:
<quoted text>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#42287 Dec 30, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, you're arguing that a cost that doesn't exist now does.
As for cavemen, he's a zealot.. sold into the alleged "science". Not much point considering his opinions.
A cost that doesn't exist now?!?!

The cost is all around you. When was the last time gasoline was $1.50 a gallon? Do you think that it will trend up or down in the next decade?

China with its pollution problem, and smart German and Japanese companies, are stampeding to solar and wind tech, battery and hydrogen-power. They are taking market share away from us in one of the few growth industries in the world. They are making the money while we slump in the Republican recession. They are all R&D, getting better all the time.Where is America in this market, 15%? I thought we were leaders, or are some of our own countrymen become traitors...for money?

Our military is seriously into alternatives with one main purpose; reducing supply lines. Generators, air conditioners, heaters can all be used to reduce the amount of diesel our forces use, which reached near $100 a gallon during the two latest wars. The cost of not doing it? More convoys attacked, more lives and equipment and oil lost; a more expensive war!

Food prices are going up. Do you expect they will be coming down? Every heat wave, every drought, every flood, every ice storm, takes its toll on agriculture, not just here, in the world's breadbasket, but in the places that produce our coffee, wine, bananas, maple syrup, as well.

There's a cost in corruption in government, as your representatives are bought by moneyed interests. We laugh at Mexican small-change police corruption; we have refined it and made it a billion-dollar industry. The fossil-fuel industry gets ten times the subsidies and tax breaks as alternative energy does, compliments of an entitlement from your politicians, paid for by YOU.

Cost is relative.
Cost...not always measured in dollars.
Cost is justifiable if it leads to savings.
Savings...not always measured in dollars.

Can a moth understand? Or is it doomed to keep banging its head against the glass, seeking the light?
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#42288 Dec 30, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, you're arguing that a cost that doesn't exist now does.
As for cavemen, he's a zealot.. sold into the alleged "science". Not much point considering his opinions.
ZEALOT? HA!!!

I sheet in the milk of your having called-a me a zealot!
Anonymous

Sharon Springs, NY

#42289 Dec 30, 2013
I kind of believe in global warming, but then and again I doubt it. Wanna know why? The City of Albany, NY, usually has a temperature of 35 above zero this time of year, but lately, this past week, the temperatures have been negative or single digit number. Explain that to me!
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#42290 Dec 30, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go, the ole Bald Eagle into wind turbine routine as tho it was a flag burning protest. The fact is there are more birds killed running into glass buildings and communication towers each year by a factor of 10. Google it and see for yourself, besides there are measures like in Norway where they are painting the tips of the blades black & white to make them more visible.
Then we have domestic cats which kill birds by the billion & lets not forget the power lines.
So it's a tired old argument trying to discredit wind farming as opposed to fossil fuel fracking and the damage it does.
Nailed it.

If you want to stop killing hundreds of thousands of birds a year, we need to get started dismantling Boston, Chicago, Dallas/FW, San Francisco, and Miami.

He doesn't sound like a pro-growth guy....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 min Guru 187,007
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Incognito4Ever 1,217,521
obama our next president 2 hr bale wayne 3
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 3 hr scirocco 69,617
News Animal brothels prevalent in Chicago? 4 hr News Junkie 1
News Ultra Foods in Crestwood offers array of prepar... (Jun '12) 8 hr J T L U K 19
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 8 hr Red_Forman 856
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]