Arctic sea ice loss due to global warming

Ya there's a reliable source 'Skeptical Science' their mission "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" Gee they don't have an agenda do they?

Moreover the article refers to 'impacts' and vague 'externalities' that are ill defined in terms of real $$$. This is nothing more than a cheap attempt to somehow rationalize idiotic environmental regulations.

Like I said, you don't know the real cost of producing FF BECAUSE of environmental regulations and perceived 'impacts.' In CA there is 'reformulated' gas. CA cannot buy gas from other States because idiot environmentalists require a certain 'formula' gasoline. This jacks up the price of gas in CA and, the eco-nuts have inadvertently caused a ground water contamination problem with the former (now removed) gas additive MTBE.

Get the government out of the market, lift stupid restrictions, build more refineries, drill more and remove eco-nut 'reformulation' requirements and you'd see the price of a gallon of gas plummet to less than 2 bucks. Probably burn cleaner too without all those enviro-additives.

 

Skeptical Science didn't do the study, they just reported on it. Are you saying they reported it wrong? Or are you just blowing smoke to hide the fact that you don't have an argument any more?

They are neither vague nor ill-defined. They are explicitly spelled out in the paper.

Tell me again why it is moral, ethical, or even good economics for people to push the cost of their business onto third parties without their consent. Then tell me why it's idiotic to stop them from doing that.

What utter nonsense. The external costs are known. That's the point of the paper. If a government recovers some (or better yet, all) of those costs, as in California, they are doing the right thing.

Yes, allow the oil companies and the coal companies to privatize the profits while shoving the costs onto you and your taxpaying wallet. That's fair? That's conservative? That's accountability? That's "the market" working???

I'd hate to see what you consider a market failure.

 

Sorry. I am right and you are wrong.

I am right and you are wrong, again. Pentagon is the HQ for the DoD.
Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security

I am right and you are wrong, again. "Costs" must include much more than financial costs.

See Poor Debater's response.

For how long?
No. Denmark is looking to extend its connections so it can expand its use of windpower.
Carbon Credit fraud has nothing to do with power generation. It was about not paying taxes.
I do not believe you.

 

Hansen admits skeptics are winning. Problem is he fails to mention it is at least partly because of lies and deceptions of the IPCC and Hansen's own GISS that has caused scientists ti lose credibility.


http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-sceptics-are-winning-the-battle-2368617.html

Climate sceptics are winning the argument with the public over global warming, the world's most celebrated climate scientist, James Hansen of NASA, said in London yesterday.

It is happening even though climate science itself is becoming ever clearer in showing that the earth is in increasing danger from rising temperatures, said Dr Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, and is widely thought of as "the father of global warming" – his dramatic alert about climate change in US Senate hearings in July 1988 put the issue on the world agenda.

Since then he has been one of the most outspoken advocates of drastic climate action, and yesterday he also publicly criticised Germany's recent decision to abandon its new nuclear power programme, formerly a key part of German climate measures, in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan earlier this year.
Related articles

 

Your NYT Times article refers only to "intelligence analysts say" and "experts at the Pentagon"....It seems the whole article is based on an 'exercise' overseen by the military at NDU which 'explored' the impact of a flood in Bangladesh. Moreover the study was done for a deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy working WITH a 'Pentagon group' ASSIGNED to incorporate climate change into national security planning.

The article mentions John Kerry and Hillary Clinton as the orchestrating this waste of money by forcing budget authorizations.

So, you see you have been duped yet again by a story made up by libs and reported by libs. It's a circle-jerk.

Unbridled, useless environmental regulations have cost this country billions and it has to stop...

Denmark needs electricity when the wind doesn't blow. They are expanding their connections because of the inefficiency of wind power and because they get to 'erase' part of their carbon footprint by exporting power. None of this has anything to do with reality it is just shuffling paper.

Carbon credits are directly tied to power generation/usage.

 

I am saying that they have an agenda that they proudly declare. Anything on that site is suspect.

The problem I see is that conclusions are based on the faux-science of GW which is nothing more than a cabal of so-called climate experts sucking down tax dollars by making sure no one questions them.

The cost of any business is recouped along with profit there is no 3rd party involved.

I believe the article refers to 'externalities' which I have learned is a liberal-socialist term these days referring to whatever fake 'program' they concoct take more of our tax dollars. CA most certainly did not do the right thing by contaminating ground water.

If oil companies were free to drill and build refineries there would be competition and OPEC would shrivel. That would be called a market and the consumer would have a choice once again. We don't need government to make business 'accountable.'

Markets are more prone to failure when government intervention is heavily imposed.

 

Here's a partial list of things on Skeptical Science. Let me know which ones you don't believe.
1. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature.
2. Skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas.
3. Climate changes when it’s forced to change.
4. It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings.
5. Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work.
6. Steve McIntyre's discovery of a glitch in the GISS temperature data is an impressive achievement. Make no mistake, it's an embarrassing error on the part of NASA.

And how do you manage to "see" that problem, when the Muller et.al. study excluded climate change costs from its analysis? (Answer: RPA doesn't read; he just sees what he wants to see, and truth be dammed.)

You're living in Fantasyland, I see. There is frequently third party involvement in industrial processes. Let's take a classic case from Japan: Factory dumps toxic waste into sea, fishermen in the bay get mercury poisoning. Factory is making its chemicals to sell, but who pays? The fisherman and their families, that's who. Third parties. Which, according to the Fantasyland theory, don't actually exist.

This is why liberals think conservatives are idiots: they deny what is obviously true. They avoid accountability instead of assuming it. They want everyone else to pay for the profits of corporations.

Where'd you learn that? From Rush Limbaugh? Or was it some other college dropout? Externalities have been known in economics since the 1920's at least. You can't take Econ 101 without learning about it. The mere fact that you don't know what externalities are tells me that you've never taken Econ 101.

Nice in theory. Let's see if it's worked in practice. Here's the increase US oil drilling since Obama took office, from the Wall Street Journal:


So why hasn't the price of oil come down?

Tell that to 1800 widows in Japan.

 

These are merely topics that your site wishes to refute. Nice try though. BTW none of your topics can be found using the 'search' function on that site. I don't have time to do your research for you. Why don't you provide links and we can discuss specific articles at that site?

Once one understands that the whole GW 'consensus' is nothing but a sham to keep tax dollars flowing to so-called 'climatologists' it is easy to see why vague terms like 'externalities' are used.

If you are referring to Fukushima, then one must consider that a natural disaster was the cause not just some 'factory' dumping 'toxic waste.' Disasters do happen you know...or do you? If you are referring to something else you need to provide a link.

Liberals want to create liability where none exists then, they like to point to what they have created and assign accountability to folks who, what liberals consider to have, 'deep pockets.'

Yes I realize what the classic definition of externalities is. Creating fake externalities is a liberal favorite because they can assign blame and collect money from the so-called 'rich' an re-distribute it to gain political power, just like all good little Marxists.

In CA gas was topping $4 a gallon before the news broke about N. Dakota. It has come down since then. Obama had 0 to do with that but had everything to do with the price rise because of his Gulf ban.

Tell what to who? Be more specific.

 

1. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature.
2. Skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas.
3. Climate changes when it’s forced to change.
4. It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings.
5. Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work.
6. Steve McIntyre's discovery of a glitch in the GISS temperature data is an impressive achievement. Make no mistake, it's an embarrassing error on the part of NASA.

Took me all of 2 minutes on Google.

"Externality" isn't a vague term at all. It's well known among economists (a group obviously not including you or your friends).

No, I'm not referring to Fukushima, I'm referring to Minamata. Which you could have discovered yourself by typing "Japan mercury poisoning" into Google.

Meanwhile, RPA1 insists that the whole concept of liability doesn't really exist, and therefore it's OK to pillage your neighbor without paying because that's how the free market is supposed to work. And this rampant organized crime, he assures us, is civilization.

WHAT??? RPA1 admits externalites exist!!!
At least I think so. If that's the case, it's a tiny step forward on the path toward reality. So how does RPA1 tell a fake externality from a real one?

In the first place, the so-called "drilling ban" didn't actually reduce drilling, as the graph shows. And in the second place, you're avoiding the question. Let me ask it again. Why haven't oil prices dropped as drilling has increased?

Tell the widows of Minamata that they don't need government to make business accountable. How else are they supposed to get justice? How is anyone?

 

no it is not.

externalities are unintended consequences of an economic activity. it is often, but not always, linked to environmental consequences.

it isn't related to liberalism or socialism.

 

Congratulations, you found the same crap you posted in the first place however it doesn't change anything. You presented these as proof of the objectivity of your site which is not objective at all. What are you trying to prove?

The problem is not the word it is the definition of the externality as being bad or good.

Example: A tree is cut down, sent to the mill and a house is built in which you live. The tree that was part of an eco-system is gone, the mill employs folks and sells not only the lumber from the tree but the sawdust as well for a profit which mill employees recirculate in the local economy. More folks are employed to ship the goods to the market where more folks make a profit selling the wood to a contractor who, hires more folks to build the house that you call home.

An ecologist might assign a higher value to the tree staying in the forest and discount all the other positive externalities.

You gave no such information in the first place. Don't expect others to somehow divine what you are thinking. That incident happened in the 50's. Bad stuff happens all the time and just because some company dumped mercury into the water half a century ago doesn't mean that other companies are doing the same. Get a grip.

I never said they don't exist it seems that comprehension isn't your strong suit. Your statements are moronic.

Apparently your comprehension is getting worse, I answered your question already. If you continue to ignore my posts and claim I said something else there is no point continuing this discussion.

Who said business shouldn't be accountable? I am beginning to think you are living in your own little pretend world.

 

Your post is an excellent demonstration that you are completely clueless about the meaning of words like "externality", as well as the science backing AGW.

 

Really? You mean there are no externalities to cutting down a tree? How so? Please explain.

While there is scientific research going on in the climate field, there is no proof, no experiements and no real predictions made from repeated experimentation. You AGWists need to set up an experiment that is predictable regarding weather and climate. Show US how you can control the weather or climate.

 

More meaningless drivel.

 

You can't answer my questions so you regurgitate personal insults. Typical.

 

Plenty of research and scads of proof

Hint to denialists: Sitting down with your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed repeating "there is no proof, there is no proof" does not make the nasty scientific papers and facts go away

 

Maybe the better strategy is to accept that the scientific predictions will happen as a certainty, and then try to come up with profitable investment strategies to exploit it. After all, it may be reasonable to suspect, that if humanity as a whole must act, then humanity as a whole will continue to be a "machine" of its own laws, where intelligent warnings don't work, never have.

I would recommend slow and low risk investing in military companies, water distribution related interests, and governments that have totalitarian power to move/deport populations.

 

There is no scientific proof only a 'consensus'...In science part of proving is objective, repeatable experiments. So far, no human has set up a climate experiment that changed the climate or the weather.

Hint to warmists: Trashing 'inconvenient' data does not a hockey stick make.

 

There are no predictions...only guesses.

 

You are absolutely correct. There is no scientific proof. There never is. Science cannot "prove" anything.

Scientific theories can be disproven though.

So far, no human has set up a climate experiment that has disproven that the increase in concentration of atmospheric CO2 is impacting upon climate.

And given that this is a theory that has been around for over 100 years and is supported by absolute mountains of empirical evidence - well, that is about as close to "proof" as science will ever give you

 

Bugs is right - no real "proof" just scads of empirical evidence.

Which includes things like ecological impacts, changing weather patterns, rising sea levels, rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, rising average global temperatures

We ARE conducting the world wide experiment by pumping excess CO3 into the atmosphere and we are seeing the result

The dismissal of scientific consensus among tens of thousands of scientists for accepting the stance of a handful of people who have demonstrated either an inability to understand the science or an ability to lie about the science is typical only of wishful thinking

 

100 years? Earth cycles can be hundreds of thousands of years. Where do warmists get off thinking they have enough data to 'prove' anything regarding global climate?

 

'Scads?' Is that a 'scientific' term or something? The weather changes all the time NATURALLY just as CO2 levels and rising temperatures.

A consensus only proves that a certain number of folks agree within their particular circle of believers. Much like a religion. I am not claiming that the INVESTIGATION is not scientific, I am saying that warmist conclusions are not supported.

 

So that is you alternative hypothesis? That Co2 levels rise naturally and that the current rise has nothing to do with the 80 million barrels of oil per day man is burning?

 

You obviously need some education...First of all, the actual yield of burnable fuel from a barrel of oil is dependent on the quality of the crude oil. Light crude yields more gasoline than heavy crude. Refineries in the USA are yielding about 49% of fuel per barrel from all feedstocks.

A barrel of oil is about 42 gallons. After processing you might get 15 gallons of gasoline, 9 gallons of fuel oil, 10 gallons of jet fuel (Kerosene) and 4 gallons of other products (grease, lubricants, asphalt, plastics and 4 gallons of condensates.

Lighter (and less plentiful) crude yields more fuel while heavier crude yields more complex chemicals used kevlar, resins, glue, etc.