AARP members get more! Take a look at your member benefits.

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
209
Views

Re: Trump: Again With The 'Global Warming' Ignorance -- BLECH!

209 Views
Message 21 of 88

Sp362 wrote-  Your solution just leaves normal citizens with a huge bill to pay, regardless of how much of the energy they used.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------We had a huge bill to pay when  solar Solyandra went bankrupt. Coal comanies won`t go bankrupt as long as Trump is President and a future Republican President.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
209
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
221
Views

Re: Trump: Again With The 'Global Warming' Ignorance -- BLECH!

221 Views
Message 22 of 88

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:


You can't mitigate something that you are not sure the outcome or if it needs fixing or the best way to fix it. If you want to throw money at a problem that might not be a problem, or can't be fixed, that is the left's prerogative.


Even if the change is natural as you claim (it is not), that means that infrastructure will need to be moved to support the changing agricultural areas, sea walls will need to be built to protect coastal cities, the cost of clean-up from more powerful storms will increase, etc.

When you know doing something like using coal will cause future pollution problems that will need to be cleaned up, THAT IS THE ENERGY WELFARE I am talking about.


Coal use is down dramatically because....natural gas is plentiful and cheap. Technology has a way of mitigating problems that government can't. We might see fuel cell cars soon that burn hydrogen and the exhaust is water if technology brings costs down.  Government has a way of messing things up.


So if we stop using coal today is it your position that we would not have to clean up the coal ash ponds?  That is the reason we need to pay the full cost of energy as we use it.


 I am not in favor of a carbon tax as a catch all for money to be put in the "general fund" for future nonsense problems like: medicare for all, free college, giving to other countries to clean up the environment, free xxx,.....

 

 


OK.  So who is going to pay for the ash pond clean-ups?  Once a coal company declares bankruptcy, there is no way to make them pay.


The same people that pay for relocating the spent fuel rods in PG&E's (which is bankrupt) nuclear plant. There is no way to make PG&E pay once they're bankrupt! I'll tell you who isn't paying - the illegal aliens in this country.


These "same people" you are talking about are simply the tax payers.  Since you say illegals aren't paying taxes (a false claim), don't you think they should have been charged a "clean-up" fee for their energy at the time of use.  The way to get a company to pay, is to force them to put aside money into a separate account that cannot be accessed except for clean-up.  Total amount of money needed in these accounts would be determined by the bean counters analyzing the data.  Your solution just leaves normal citizens with a huge bill to pay, regardless of how much of the energy they used.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
221
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
228
Views

Re: Trump: Again With The 'Global Warming' Ignorance -- BLECH!

228 Views
Message 23 of 88

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:


You can't mitigate something that you are not sure the outcome or if it needs fixing or the best way to fix it. If you want to throw money at a problem that might not be a problem, or can't be fixed, that is the left's prerogative.


Even if the change is natural as you claim (it is not), that means that infrastructure will need to be moved to support the changing agricultural areas, sea walls will need to be built to protect coastal cities, the cost of clean-up from more powerful storms will increase, etc.

When you know doing something like using coal will cause future pollution problems that will need to be cleaned up, THAT IS THE ENERGY WELFARE I am talking about.


Coal use is down dramatically because....natural gas is plentiful and cheap. Technology has a way of mitigating problems that government can't. We might see fuel cell cars soon that burn hydrogen and the exhaust is water if technology brings costs down.  Government has a way of messing things up.


So if we stop using coal today is it your position that we would not have to clean up the coal ash ponds?  That is the reason we need to pay the full cost of energy as we use it.


 I am not in favor of a carbon tax as a catch all for money to be put in the "general fund" for future nonsense problems like: medicare for all, free college, giving to other countries to clean up the environment, free xxx,.....

 

 


OK.  So who is going to pay for the ash pond clean-ups?  Once a coal company declares bankruptcy, there is no way to make them pay.


The same people that pay for relocating the spent fuel rods in PG&E's (which is bankrupt) nuclear plant. There is no way to make PG&E pay once they're bankrupt! I'll tell you who isn't paying - the illegal aliens in this country.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
228
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
225
Views

Re: Trump: Again With The 'Global Warming' Ignorance -- BLECH!

225 Views
Message 24 of 88

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:


You can't mitigate something that you are not sure the outcome or if it needs fixing or the best way to fix it. If you want to throw money at a problem that might not be a problem, or can't be fixed, that is the left's prerogative.


Even if the change is natural as you claim (it is not), that means that infrastructure will need to be moved to support the changing agricultural areas, sea walls will need to be built to protect coastal cities, the cost of clean-up from more powerful storms will increase, etc.

When you know doing something like using coal will cause future pollution problems that will need to be cleaned up, THAT IS THE ENERGY WELFARE I am talking about.


Coal use is down dramatically because....natural gas is plentiful and cheap. Technology has a way of mitigating problems that government can't. We might see fuel cell cars soon that burn hydrogen and the exhaust is water if technology brings costs down.  Government has a way of messing things up.


So if we stop using coal today is it your position that we would not have to clean up the coal ash ponds?  That is the reason we need to pay the full cost of energy as we use it.


 I am not in favor of a carbon tax as a catch all for money to be put in the "general fund" for future nonsense problems like: medicare for all, free college, giving to other countries to clean up the environment, free xxx,.....

 

 


OK.  So who is going to pay for the ash pond clean-ups?  Once a coal company declares bankruptcy, there is no way to make them pay.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
225
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
229
Views

Re: Trump: Again With The 'Global Warming' Ignorance -- BLECH!

229 Views
Message 25 of 88

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:


You can't mitigate something that you are not sure the outcome or if it needs fixing or the best way to fix it. If you want to throw money at a problem that might not be a problem, or can't be fixed, that is the left's prerogative.


Even if the change is natural as you claim (it is not), that means that infrastructure will need to be moved to support the changing agricultural areas, sea walls will need to be built to protect coastal cities, the cost of clean-up from more powerful storms will increase, etc.

When you know doing something like using coal will cause future pollution problems that will need to be cleaned up, THAT IS THE ENERGY WELFARE I am talking about.


Coal use is down dramatically because....natural gas is plentiful and cheap. Technology has a way of mitigating problems that government can't. We might see fuel cell cars soon that burn hydrogen and the exhaust is water if technology brings costs down.  Government has a way of messing things up.


So if we stop using coal today is it your position that we would not have to clean up the coal ash ponds?  That is the reason we need to pay the full cost of energy as we use it.


 I am not in favor of a carbon tax as a catch all for money to be put in the "general fund" for future nonsense problems like: medicare for all, free college, giving to other countries to clean up the environment, free xxx,.....

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
229
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
232
Views

Re: Trump: Again With The 'Global Warming' Ignorance -- BLECH!

232 Views
Message 26 of 88

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:


You can't mitigate something that you are not sure the outcome or if it needs fixing or the best way to fix it. If you want to throw money at a problem that might not be a problem, or can't be fixed, that is the left's prerogative.


Even if the change is natural as you claim (it is not), that means that infrastructure will need to be moved to support the changing agricultural areas, sea walls will need to be built to protect coastal cities, the cost of clean-up from more powerful storms will increase, etc.

When you know doing something like using coal will cause future pollution problems that will need to be cleaned up, THAT IS THE ENERGY WELFARE I am talking about.


Coal use is down dramatically because....natural gas is plentiful and cheap. Technology has a way of mitigating problems that government can't. We might see fuel cell cars soon that burn hydrogen and the exhaust is water if technology brings costs down.  Government has a way of messing things up.


So if we stop using coal today is it your position that we would not have to clean up the coal ash ponds?  That is the reason we need to pay the full cost of energy as we use it.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
232
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
222
Views

Re: Trump: Again With The 'Global Warming' Ignorance -- BLECH!

222 Views
Message 27 of 88

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:


You can't mitigate something that you are not sure the outcome or if it needs fixing or the best way to fix it. If you want to throw money at a problem that might not be a problem, or can't be fixed, that is the left's prerogative.


Even if the change is natural as you claim (it is not), that means that infrastructure will need to be moved to support the changing agricultural areas, sea walls will need to be built to protect coastal cities, the cost of clean-up from more powerful storms will increase, etc.

When you know doing something like using coal will cause future pollution problems that will need to be cleaned up, THAT IS THE ENERGY WELFARE I am talking about.


Coal use is down dramatically because....natural gas is plentiful and cheap. Technology has a way of mitigating problems that government can't. We might see fuel cell cars soon that burn hydrogen and the exhaust is water if technology brings costs down.  Government has a way of messing things up.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
222
Views
Respected Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
218
Views

Re: Trump: Again With The 'Global Warming' Ignorance -- BLECH!

218 Views
Message 28 of 88

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@MsStretch wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:

And Noona recorded Australia’s highest ever overnight minimum temperature of 96.6°

 

Yes, Australia was having a heat wave. Why would you even try to argue about something that is so easily confirmed?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So why aren`t we having the same type of heat wave that Australia is experiencing? There is a reason you libs call it GLOBAL WARMING? One season doesn`t make a case either way or the weather we(North America )  are experiencing now would say global cooling is occuring


Oh my, what an Trumpian thing to say. 

 

We call it climate change; TrumpPets call it global warming or 'waming'. 

 

And again with calling weather and climate the same thing.  What is up with that? 

Simply ludicrous.

 

Yes, one season doesn't make a case; multiple seasons do though


The left came out with the title Global Warming (see Al Gore Youtubes claiming the world will be flooded in 5 years (15-20 years ago) and when we had cold spells, that didn't work out too well so someone on the left changed the name to "Climate Change". I like that name too because the climate is always changing - sometimes up and sometimes down.

 

The left is just going to listen to their left wing "Climate Scientists" while the right listens to the majority of scientists who says climate changes all the time! I personally like the warmer temps myself, the plants/trees seem to like it warmer, crops grow better, more trees/plants means more oxygen for us to breathe as well as absorbing some of that CO2 that heats us up.

 

The lefts mission - to tax carbon, make fossil fuels so costly that they won't be available to average citizens, use that tax money to redistribute to leftist causes.


You are certainly entitled to your opinion and beliefs.  I consider it an inarguable point - my opinion and belief.  I base my conclusions on the National Climate Assessment report which was released by the current administration as opposed to the gut of a silly man who is going to stand there and proclaim "Raking forest floors prevents forest fires".

 

An interesting aside to this is that the NFS and NPS actually do conduct controlled burns, but with the shutdown, many of the windows of time and opportunity were closed.

 

To label this as a "left" conspiracy is simply childish and intentionally divisive.  Celebrity President would be so proud of you.



    

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
218
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
204
Views

Re: Trump: Again With The 'Global Warming' Ignorance -- BLECH!

204 Views
Message 29 of 88

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:


You can't mitigate something that you are not sure the outcome or if it needs fixing or the best way to fix it. If you want to throw money at a problem that might not be a problem, or can't be fixed, that is the left's prerogative.


Even if the change is natural as you claim (it is not), that means that infrastructure will need to be moved to support the changing agricultural areas, sea walls will need to be built to protect coastal cities, the cost of clean-up from more powerful storms will increase, etc.

When you know doing something like using coal will cause future pollution problems that will need to be cleaned up, THAT IS THE ENERGY WELFARE I am talking about.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
204
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
217
Views

Re: Trump: Again With The 'Global Warming' Ignorance -- BLECH!

217 Views
Message 30 of 88

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:




The left came out with the title Global Warming (see Al Gore Youtubes claiming the world will be flooded in 5 years (15-20 years ago) and when we had cold spells, that didn't work out too well so someone on the left changed the name to "Climate Change". I like that name too because the climate is always changing - sometimes up and sometimes down.

 

The left is just going to listen to their left wing "Climate Scientists" while the right listens to the majority of scientists who says climate changes all the time! I personally like the warmer temps myself, the plants/trees seem to like it warmer, crops grow better, more trees/plants means more oxygen for us to breathe as well as absorbing some of that CO2 that heats us up.

 

The lefts mission - to tax carbon, make fossil fuels so costly that they won't be available to average citizens, use that tax money to redistribute to leftist causes.


Since when has anybody claimed that Gore was a scientist?  Has already been pointed out to you (by me) is that Gore's statement of 5 years came from a possible outcome proposed by one scientist, who scientists did not agree with.

 

By majority of scientists I assume you are talking about the 30,000 plus "scientists" who signed the petition against the Kyoto protocol?  Just a few of the problems with that are as follows:

 

"The petition was created by individuals and groups with political motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any science to sign."

 

"It is therefore misleading for the signatories to be considered climate scientists or even top researchers in their field, as some suggest. In fact, based on the group’s own numbers, only 12% of the signers have degrees (of any kind) in earth, environmental, or atmospheric science."

 

"Further, the petition and its creators are not neutral parties, and the major entities supporting it can easily be described as politically motivated. The petition was organized by Arthur B. Robinson, a conservative politician who founded the aforementioned Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and who holds a PhD in biochemistry from the University of San Diego."

 

"Seitz’s participation in the circulation of this petition raises another line of issues for the petition — that its original iteration intentionally misled its signers into thinking it was a document officially supported by the National Academy of Sciences. Seitz, a former president of the Academy, used its official letterhead to draft a letter of support and manufactured a non-peer-reviewed “study” formatted to look as if it were published in an Academy journal,"

 

Scientific American attempted to verify 30 names of people on the list who claimed to have a PHD in climate science and found "Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages."

 

"Careful study of the list revealed the names of fictional characters from the “Star Wars” movies as well as the name of pop singer Geri Halliwell from the “Spice Girls” band. Critics of the petition had added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved, including the difficulty—the practical impossibility—of verifying even the actual existence of each of the signatories, not to mention their expertise. To make the latter point, someone had added the title of “Dr.” to Halliwell’s name."

 

"the petition is open to anyone with an undergraduate background in science to sign, and a vast majority of the signatories are not climate scientists."

 

Or, are you referring to the Leipzig Declaration where "The signatures to the 1995 declaration were disputed by David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times. In an article on July 29, 1996, he revealed that many signers, including Chauncey Starr, Robert Balling, and Patrick Michaels, have received funding from the oil industry, while others had no scientific training or could not be identified."

 

You are trying to claim that all of climate science because of one statement by Gore that was false, but you are trying to claim climate change is not happening by refrencing or alluding to studies that have already been proven to be false.

 

Our crops will not be "growing better". What will happen is our agriculture regions will move.

 

Your plan is the leave cost of future mitigation to the next generation.  If we have to pay a little more for energy in order to lessen the uses of carbon fuels and encourage the creation of renewable alternatives, then so be it.  SINCE YOU ARE EXPECTING FUTURE GENERATIONS TO PAY FOR YOUR CURRENT ENERGY USAGE, YOU ARE EFFECTIVELY ON AN ENERGY WELFARE PROGRAM.  True conservatives should have learned from the Superfund expenses that you should be paying as you go instead of leaving a huge bill for the future.


You can't mitigate something that you are not sure the outcome or if it needs fixing or the best way to fix it. If you want to throw money at a problem that might not be a problem, or can't be fixed, that is the left's prerogative.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
217
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Roundtable Discussion:
Ask questions and get advice from fellow entrepreneurs
Now through Nov. 22

Top Authors