Is this analysis of the probable long term effects of climate change logical?

there is a clear corrolation between CO2 ppm and atmospheric temperature changes.

all but the blind can see this in the Vostok ice core charts

 

then why did your side not appeal the ruling??????????????

 

The court ruled that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact and could continue to be shown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills

never did the court state that there is no corrolation between CO2 ppm and temperature changes, in the Vostok ice core data.

you simply made that up

 

LMFAO!!!!

The Court ruled 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica is GROWING....

That the Zionist media spun and spun this is just as pathetic as the Zionist media never showing that which hit the Pentagon on 911.

If 90% of Earth ice is GROWING during a period of rising CO2, then CO2 isn't causing any "melting..."

The Court ruled that CO2 lags temperature, not vice versa. CO2 is not the cause of temperature change. Indeed, we have definitive proof of that right now, with the highly correlated satellite and balloon RAW DATA showing precisely NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE...


This is what the RAW DATA says

1. NO WARMING in the atmosphere
2. NO WARMING in the oceans
3. NO NET ICE MELT
4. NO BREAKOUT in 'cane activity
5. NO RISE in ocean levels

The only raw data "warming" is from the surface of growing urban areas....

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=86440

"The urban heat island effect has been observed to raise the temperature of cities by 1 to 3°C (2 to 5 °F) compared to neighboring rural and semi-rural areas."

Hence, by measuring "temperatures" from just the surface of growing urban areas, the tippy toppiests get "warming" from the surface ground series. There is no other series showing any warming at all in the RAW DATA...

 

the court didn't say that the Vostok data graphs were wrong.

 

LOL

Although I think that is technically correct it will be such a trivial percentage, and its effect on New Orleans, is not worth talking about. All that matters is how useful it is to the regions that needs the water. But how much will that cubic meter of distilled water cost?

psik

 

But at least The Donald is discussing the type of
action that is needed to alter our thinking so that we
could finance turning the deserts of the nation of Jordan green
as well as the shift over to a truly green economy here in
North America.



http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-us-world-news/464333-trump-calls-auditing-fed.html

Trump Calls For Auditing the Fed
This sure does help to explain why so many GOP large donors
have stayed away from the Trump campaign up until this time.

The Donald has too much courage for the guys who are doing so well
under the seriously flawed system that is geared toward breaking
unions and forcing the poor to work like heck and complain little
about poor conditions.


http://www.infowars.com/trump-calls-for-auditing-the-fed/

Trump Calls For Auditing the Fed

 

The "Donald" is an astute business man. He would never invest in the current green energy available today (unless there were significant tax subsidies involved).

 

I totally agree with you that The Donald is
an astute business man......... I also agree with you
that he would be hesitant to invest in many supposedly
green energy projects that might appeal to extreme fans of
Mr. Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth..........

but.......... what if the nation of Israel was made an offer that was so good......
that they accepted an offer from a small town.......... and thus gave
very real value in comparison to the Israeli shekel...... to a village
that was willing to risk the value of their local currency...... on a project
designed to bring the nations of Israel and Jordan to a whole new level of
artistic..... diplomatic...... and economic cooperation with each other?

I guess my question is..... might "subsidies" be arranged in more ways than
merely by a piece of legislation that is backed up by a tax?



http://www.politicalforum.com/canad...nce-unified-theory-modern-world-problems.html
............a Unified Theory of Modern World Problems?!

 

Subsidizing inefficiencies (of any kind) is absolutely never sound economic policy. My neighbor down the street just had solar panels installed on his rooftop that I (and all the other neighbors) are paying for. All of the new houses being built in the community I live in have rooftop solar because the developer receives subsidies and tax advantages. The developer makes more money which is paid for in part by taxpayers which now have less discretionary income to spend on other goods and services. This reduces economic growth with zero effect on the global average temperature 100 years from now.

 

The idea that government subsidies are a bad idea and "absolutely never sound economic policy" is ridiculous. Just within the energy field alone there are two HUGE examples of government subsidized programs that paid immeasurable dividends in the past and will continue to provide benefits long into the future. They were endeavors that were deemed far too risky for any private company to even think about touching (the risks were far too great and the cost of failure far too high).

These are, of course, large scale hydro projects like Hoover and Grand Coulee ... and the American nuclear power industry. Neither of these would have occurred without significant government subsidization.

Will solar be a success or failure? ... No one knows ... But it is definitely worth the attempt. The potential upside would be massive.

 

Nuclear power is not subsidized. The US has not built a large scale commercial reactor in the US since the 70's. They've been basically regulated out of existence.

The Hoover Dam was a multistate project to provide a source of electric power to those states. It was not subsidized but was an infrastructure project just as bridges, highways, and navigable water channels are. The purpose is to increase the productivity of the US economy and not to pick winners and losers in energry technology. FDR basically made the Hoover Dam a national project.

 

You could not possibly be more wrong about this.

Nuclear power is subsidized at almost every possible phase, including, but not limited to:
- Subsidies to reduce the costs of capital
- Subsidies to labor
- Subsidies to land
- Subsidies to uranium mining and milling
- Subsidies to uranium enrichment
- Subsidies in the forms of insurance caps on liability
- Subsidies to plant security
- Subsidies for reactor decommissioning
- Subsidies for waste disposal
- etc etc etc

I have no idea what you mean by 'subsidy' if you do not recognize that the Bureau of Reclamation, thru it's building of the Hoover Dam and countless others, changed the very face of the American southwest. To quote economist William Anderson:

No private firm would distribute a precious commodity like water in a desert in the way that the Bureau of Reclamation has done it. While the subsidized farms in the West are private, the federal government owns the main input that is needed for their crops: water. Thus, the term “private enterprise” here is meaningless, since the farms are wards of the state.
​

To paraphrase your words, the federal government has very much "picked the winners and losers"

​

 

What's the source for the nuclear subsidies ??

Gov builds infrastructure (paid for by taxing the wealth created by the private sector). That is not a subsidy. No private firm would have built the interstate highway system either. These are built to increase productivity and economic growth.

 

Some are local and state governments. Most are Federal.

A more detailed list of subsidies to the nuclear power industry can be found HERE. (Warning: 146 page PDF)

Yes, it does ... and sometimes those infrastructure projects benefit everyone; sometimes they benefit select groups or companies. When it is the latter (as is the case of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Hoover Dam) it is most certainly a subsidy. It may not be a direct payment of dollars to an individual, But, it is the government paying for a cost that should normally be born by the individual/company/state/whatever. This is the difference between a direct and an indirect subsidy.

Look at it this way: If I buy a plot of land in the middle of the Arizona desert with the intent to start a farm there, who is responsible for getting water to my new farm? Is it me or a government? Most people would say that it is up to me to get my own water there. I cannot mandate that the local water utility pay the cost of putting in a new 100 mile length of pipe so they can sell me water. That cost is mine. I would have to pay for the transmission pipe.

If a government entity paid that cost, they would be subsidizing my farm. This is precisely what occurred in the past and continues to happen now in California and Arizona. I am not saying this is bad or good .. but to say that it is not occurring is simply not factual.

I'm sure there are many Libertarians who would disagree with you on this point.

Sometimes, yes ... sometimes, no. Debates can and should be had about individual subsidies and their merits. Some end up to have been good ... some, bad. But all of this was in refutation to your statement that "Subsidizing inefficiencies (of any kind) is absolutely never sound economic policy."

 

The main point of the pdf is the socialization of risk from some catastrophic event which has never happened. But that is true of everything.

The Hoover Dam provides water management and power to the entire US electrical grid. It's construction is infrastructure. And the "take over" of the project from a limitied number of states is an example of the vast enlargement of the federal gov under FDR's New Deal.

If you bought a farm in the middle of the AZ desert I have a bridge in Northern California that you might be interested in. It is not gov's responsibility to pipe water to your farm although if you are a big donor to the Clinton Foundation you might have gotten some action in previous years.

Any gov action which subsidizes inefficiencies are bad economic policy. Political payoffs occur everyday for both "good" and bad reasons. Ethanol is one of the latest.

 

Yet again you repeat this idiotic absolute ... "Any gov action which subsidizes inefficiencies are bad economic policy"

Are you saying that the subsidation we both have now described were bad economic policy? Because they seem to have been rather successful for a large number of people.

 

You link to an article saying it's too late and then say we have to do something immediately? What am I missing here?

 

Building infrastructure is not subsidization. And it is absolutely true that gov actions which subsidize inefficiencies are bad economic policy. Why is inefficiency economically desirable ??

 

You are going to have to explain how the government building a pipeline to my property and giving me water is not a subsidy. Or how any of the subsidies I mentioned as they regard nuclear power are not subsidies. Labelling it as 'infrastructure' does not change the fact that it is a cost that is not being borne buy the company/individual. If I were to simply assert that the solar panels you mentioned are 'infrastructure' are you magically ok with it?

Why would you imagine that 'inefficiency' is the ultimate goal of any subsidy? In a successful subsidy, inefficiency is a temporary, transitional phase (hopefully) .. but we never know until it plays out. I ask again, do you think that the subsidies described for the hydro and nuclear industries were (and continue to be) bad economic policy?

 

Why would the gov build a pipeline to your farm in the middle of the desert ??

The main "subsidy" in the article is what the gov would do for any disaster.

Gov subsidies pick winners and losers - and lately mostly losers - ethanol and Solyndra come immediately to mind.

 

Great question. In the case of California they did it to spur economic growth. (southern and central California was a desert before they did). The government effectively "built a pipeline to peoples farms in the middle of the desert."

Then you CLEARLY did not bother to read the PDF. You would have only had to read all the way to page 1 of the executive summary where the very first paragraph says:

"Conspicuously absent from industry press releases and briefing memos touting nuclear power’s potential as a solution to global warming is any mention of the industry’s long and expensive history of taxpayer subsidies and excessive charges to utility ratepayers. These subsidies not only enabled the nation’s existing reactors to be built in the first place, but have also supported their operation for decades."

This may be true but it has nothing to do with your assertion that "Any gov action which subsidizes inefficiencies are bad economic policy." This sounds like you are trying to make a political statement. Being neither a democrat nor a republican, I find that aspect uninteresting.

You keep ducking this question - do you think that the subsidies described for the hydro and nuclear industries were (and continue to be) bad economic policy? How about subsidies to the American farmers? How about subsidies to the American auto industry? What about subsidies to various specific companies like Boeing, Dow chemical, shell oil, etc? Are they all bad? If not ... then your assertion that, "Any gov action which subsidizes inefficiencies are bad economic policy" ... is false.

 

The pipeline in that case was infrastructure to enhance economic growth. That is one of the three main functions of gov along with defense and the "rule of law".

I didn't have to go any further that the executive summary where it clearly states the primary basis of their argument.

I'm making an economic statement.

Again "Any gov actions which subsidizes (economic) inefficiencies are bad economic policy". Hydro is infrastructure to enable widespread availability of electrical power to US citizens. Nuclear waste disposal is an infrastructure function although not much has been done in this area. All other subsidies which distort markets are bad economic policies and do net harm to the US economy by artificially raising prices paid by US consumers. That's Econ 101 (which is rarely taught anymore).

 

CO2 is band leader for this whole temperature rise business.



Not that this will change the Adam and Eve denialists. lol

 

What's an Adam and Eve denialist ??