Why we should listen to the 97%

[Saigon]

Todd -

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.

You have spent the past 10 pages preaching on the evils of subsidies - and now you seem to have gone very silent.

I'll ask again - do you support government subsidies paid to the nuclear and coal industries?

It's pretty much a yes or no question.

And yes, #1 and #3 are subsidies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.

You have spent the past 10 pages preaching on the evils of subsidies - and now you seem to have gone very silent.

I'll ask again - do you support government subsidies paid to the nuclear and coal industries?

It's pretty much a yes or no question.

And yes, #1 and #3 are subsidies.

No, business writing off their expenses is not a subsidy.
Here's a subsidy I would support for green energy.
After eliminating all "green" mandates, a 0% tax rate on green profits.

Wouldn't help the money losers.

 

[Snookie]

It's all about "The Binding Curve Of Energy".

 

[bripat9643]

What some posters are getting here is a lesson in capitalism.

We can only hope you are.

Saigon giving out lessons in capitalism?

Now that's a hoot!

 

[bripat9643]

Todd -

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.

You have spent the past 10 pages preaching on the evils of subsidies - and now you seem to have gone very silent.

I'll ask again - do you support government subsidies paid to the nuclear and coal industries?

It's pretty much a yes or no question.

And yes, #1 and #3 are subsidies.

No, business writing off their expenses is not a subsidy.
Here's a subsidy I would support for green energy.
After eliminating all "green" mandates, a 0% tax rate on green profits.

Wouldn't help the money losers.

Why support that? Why shouldn't these companies pay taxes like everyone else?

 

[Snookie]

What some posters are getting here is a lesson in capitalism.

We can only hope you are.

Saigon giving out lessons in capitalism?

Now that's a hoot!

Saigon is a genius. I know him well from the internet.

 

[bripat9643]

Todd -

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.

According to whom? It's interesting that you didn't provide a source for your claim. Most such claims are grossly inflated when the source is some left-wing eco-nutburger group. $24 billion over 30 years comes to less than $1 billion for the entire oil industry. Exxon paid $10 billion in income taxes just last year. That figure doesn't include all the federal, state and local excise taxes that are imposed on the sale of gasoline and diesel.

No one has argued that nuclear hasn't been subsidized. However, there's no need for it to be. It should stand or fail on its own merits.

BTW, tax deductions aren't subsidies.

You have spent the past 10 pages preaching on the evils of subsidies - and now you seem to have gone very silent.

Subsidies are evil and counter productive, and they have nothing to do with capitalism. They are a form of socialism.

I'll ask again - do you support government subsidies paid to the nuclear and coal industries?

It's pretty much a yes or no question.

I don't mind a bit. I would be delighted to see them end tomorrow.

 

[Snookie]

https://www.google.com/search?q=the...CWMba7sQTJ6YG4Cg&ved=0CE8QsAQ&biw=780&bih=402

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -



You have spent the past 10 pages preaching on the evils of subsidies - and now you seem to have gone very silent.

I'll ask again - do you support government subsidies paid to the nuclear and coal industries?

It's pretty much a yes or no question.

And yes, #1 and #3 are subsidies.

No, business writing off their expenses is not a subsidy.
Here's a subsidy I would support for green energy.
After eliminating all "green" mandates, a 0% tax rate on green profits.

Wouldn't help the money losers.

Why support that? Why shouldn't these companies pay taxes like everyone else?

I support dropping all corporate taxes to 0%.

 

[bripat9643]

What the hell are "feed-in tariffs?"

"

With all due respect, BriPat, if you don't know what a feed-in tariff is, you shouldn't be discussing energy.

A feed-in tariff (FIT, standard offer contract[1] advanced renewable tariff[2] or renewable energy payments[3]) is a policy mechanism designed to accelerate investment in renewable energy technologies. It achieves this by offering long-term contracts to renewable energy producers, typically based on the cost of generation of each technology.[1][4] Rather than pay an equal amount for energy, however generated, technologies such as wind power, for instance, are awarded a lower per-kWh price, while technologies such as solar PV and tidal power are offered a higher price, reflecting costs that are higher at the moment.

Feed-in tariff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that this has largely been used by right-wing governments.

It appears the term is simply an intentionally deceptive label for a subsidy.

And, no, governments that resort to subsidizing basic industries are not right-wing. They are left-wing. You would claim that a government that nationalized healthcare is "right-wing."

 

[bripat9643]

Todd -

In post #229, you clearly oppose the use of investment capital in new technologies and private companies.

Face it man - you are not comfortable with private companies making money and creating jobs and paying taxes unless it is a product you approve of. Cars you seem to be ok with, oddly enough.

So when I, and others, said we'll save billions by waiting until someone else creates a viable solar panel, we were right.

How is this statement capitalist?

Capitalism is all about innovation, risk and yield. If you want to wait for certainty, then try socialism.

Buying a working product rather than wasting taxpayer billions on products that aren't viable is socialism? Wow!
How much has Obama wasted on "green" energy in the last 5 years?
My electrons are still coal generated.

Saigon thinks "risk taking" means the taxpayers bear the risk rather than the investors. Saigon claims he isn't opposed to capitalism, but it's clear he doesn't even know what capitalism is.

 

[daveman]

Dave -

Yes, I did - YOUR SOUURCE confirms that 64% of those polled believes humans play some role in climate change.

Whether you were being dishonest or are simply illiterate, I have no idea.

You claimed:

Your research confirms that the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW.​

When in reality, the study I posted confirms that the great majority of scientists and engineers believe man May have SOME impact on climate change -- but that it poses from a zero to moderate threat to humanity.

And you perfectly illustrate the problem with AGW proponents: You see what you want to see.

Are you beging dishonest, or are you simply illiterate?

Nail, meet hammer.

I went around and around with Abraham3 on this exact same concept. It is telling when you start to see things like 65% still considered ‘consensus’ and the word moderate being substituted with extreme or catastrophic.

I am open for real discussion but there really isn’t any. All there is are some demanding that drastic action be taken now to avoid the end of the world or nothing is happening at all. I tend to think that there is warming. I think that the evidence is very strong in this respect. The role that carbon plays and (more importantly) the severity of that warming are in contention though and as long as people keep screaming that there is consensus I don’t think that the argument is going anywhere.

People who scream about the imaginary consensus don't want discussion.

 

[daveman]

Dave -

Can you explain why you claimed that only 36% of those polled believe humans play some role in climate change - when your own material suggests the figure is 64%?

You'll have to find where I claimed that. Link, please.

But regardless of where I did or I didn't, I successfully refuted your claim about the percentage of scientists who believe AGW.

 

[daveman]

BriPat -

Can you name one company making solar panels whose product isn't subsidized? . . . . . .

If you don't includ feed-in tariffs then yes, of course.....honestly, where do you get your information from?

How about Catalina?

?World?s largest? thin-film solar plant begins operations - PV-Tech

btw, Can YOU name a coal or nuclear company which has never received subsidies?

Catalina is not a producer of solar panels. It's a power plant.

They bought their panels from Solar Frontier of Japan -- and Solar Frontier receives subsidies from the Japanese government.

So you were wrong twice in your post.

 

[Abraham3]

Dave -

Can you explain why you claimed that only 36% of those polled believe humans play some role in climate change - when your own material suggests the figure is 64%?

You'll have to find where I claimed that. Link, please.

But regardless of where I did or I didn't, I successfully refuted your claim about the percentage of scientists who believe AGW.

Are you forgetting that I posted the links to those surveys? You didn't refute anything. And since none of the three surveys surveyed climate scientists, it's apples and oranges.

 

[daveman]

Todd -

So when I, and others, said we'll save billions by waiting until someone else creates a viable solar panel, we were right.

There have been "viable" solar panels for 20 years, genius. That doesn't mean every company that makes them is well managed or successful. The reason Solyndra failed is not because solar failed, genius, it is because their technology was 10 years out of date. The fact that American Luddite thinking is 20 years out of date probably meant that they thought they were up to speed...

In short - companies like Solyndra struggle in the US because of people like you. They are stuck in 1976. The best thing Solyndra could have done was relocate to Austria, where they would have better access to the latest R&D and top staff.

If by being right, you meant that all of the hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in profits would go to more forward-thinking countries, then you were right.

One thing you really need to try and understand is that when private companies make profits - that also benefits the country they are in, because they pay taxes. At the moment I really don't think you get how great the benefits are for countries like Austria, Scotland, Korea or Germany - and how much money Luddites cost the US. It's literally trillions of dollars that you are happily waving goodbye to, and you aren't smart enough to even realise it.

People like us -- i.e., the Bush Administration -- knew Solyndra was a bad investment. That's why Bush didn't give them any money.

But since Obama feels the purpose of the US Treasury is to pay back his donors and cronies, he wasted a half a billion dollars on on piece of crap company.

 

[daveman]

What the hell are "feed-in tariffs?"

"

With all due respect, BriPat, if you don't know what a feed-in tariff is, you shouldn't be discussing energy.

If you don't know the difference between a solar panel manufacturer and a solar power plant, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing energy.

 

[daveman]

Todd -

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion.

The Obama Admin has spent, as of last October, 7.5 billion dollars on failed or failing green energy companies.

And it seems that green energy and corruption go hand-in-hand:

The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.​

That's what happens when government picks winners and losers in the marketplace. It doesn't invest money wisely; it wastes it on cronies and donors.

 

[daveman]

Dave -

Can you explain why you claimed that only 36% of those polled believe humans play some role in climate change - when your own material suggests the figure is 64%?

You'll have to find where I claimed that. Link, please.

But regardless of where I did or I didn't, I successfully refuted your claim about the percentage of scientists who believe AGW.

Are you forgetting that I posted the links to those surveys? You didn't refute anything. And since none of the three surveys surveyed climate scientists, it's apples and oranges.

My mistake.

And yes, I did refute the silly "consensus" claim. Like all AGW "science", you have to resort to cherry-picked data to prove your conclusion -- which, against all scientific principle, you arrived at before you did the research.

 

[Abraham3]

You'll have to find where I claimed that. Link, please.

But regardless of where I did or I didn't, I successfully refuted your claim about the percentage of scientists who believe AGW.

Are you forgetting that I posted the links to those surveys? You didn't refute anything. And since none of the three surveys surveyed climate scientists, it's apples and oranges.

My mistake.

And yes, I did refute the silly "consensus" claim. Like all AGW "science", you have to resort to cherry-picked data to prove your conclusion -- which, against all scientific principle, you arrived at before you did the research.

You've refuted nothing.

The topic of this thread is why it is wiser to assume AGW is valid than to oppose it. Since even a survey conducted by one of the most subjective, anti-AGW groups on the planet, of non-climate-scientist categories of individuals known for low AGW acceptance rates, still finds a MAJORITY believe humans to be the primary cause of global warming - I think this can be put to bed.

A very strong majority of folks with the intellect and training to understand what's going on have been convinced by the evidence that the world is getting warmer and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions.

You've got nothing to challenge that with because it's a fact.