global warming

[IowaBayDog]

My post was directed at one person who, based on his posts in this thread, seems to care little about conservation of energy.

Henry believes everything he reads on the internet (probably why he owns a prius) and has not ability to detect sarcasm. That "one person" lives 2 miles from a Nuclear plant and has no problem with it and its clean energy. I even hunt and train downstream of it regularly.

Here's another tidbit, go to your Toyota dealer and ask them why they charge a premium for a Toyota Prius. The answer will be because for every Prius they get they have to take in 2 Tundra's and/or Sequoia's and deeply discount them to move them off the lot. So your "green" purchase just subsidized 2 of the worst gas guzzlers made to be put on the road. Verify and confirmed from 2 different dealers via recent (last 8 months) purchasers.

[subroc]

chuckling

I hunt near a Nuclear Power Plant as well.

Seabrook Station.

[Henry V]

Could anyone point out where I said that I was against nuclear power? Way to assume and jump to conclusions folks.

Nuclear power is one potential power source on the table. While it is convenient to point to the environmental community as the primary reason that no new nuclear plants have been built in this country, as Pete so clearly stated, this view ignores the other parts of the equation. We just had 8 years of an administration that was very nuclear plant friendly from a regulatory standpoint yet no new plants have been proposed. Do you really think it is the threat of the “environmentalists”? Perhaps you should all dig a little deeper and look at the costs of construction, the payback period on financing, the liability insurance, etc, etc, and then compare nuclear plants to the other power source options out there for the future. Take a look at these two articles: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear...learpower.html , which has a great section titled "New Nuclear Construction” and
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1140...rnment-support,
Funny, environmentalists are not mentioned as an obstacle, it all seems to relate to economics. Also, I am sure that the coal industry is really pulling for more nuclear plants too. I wonder if the same sort of economic arguments could be made for oil refinery construction? Of course not, it is so much simpler to just blame it on those darn “environmentalists”.
Here also is a fact filled sheet from NRDC http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/plants/plants.pdf. While I realize you may have trouble getting past their global climate rhetoric, please try and focus on the cost of nuclear power subsidize in the past and expected costs in the future.

I know human nature is to look for the simple answer to a problem. Unfortunately, nuclear power is not the simple answer to our energy future when you scratch below the surface. It will take huge subsidize to expand the industry, much like the subsidize for other industries. The question then becomes, what do we subsidize to ensure a bright energy future?

Also, while you may think it is “clean” there clearly are risks associated with nuclear power plants that need a full cost accounting and assessment and a comparison to the risks of other power sources.

I have fished near a couple nuclear plants but I won't be fishing near Chernobyl anytime soon regards,

[Henry V]

I have a problem with the clown (insult intended) that wrote the article determining anything about how we should use all, including those that aren’t highlighted in the article or considered “green,” energy sources available. If he is so sure of his position, he should get him some investors and start an energy company and prove it.[/FONT]

Don’t force your advocacy down the rest of our throat and force us to pay the freight for unproven technology.

BTW, when these technologies are finally proven and of reasonable cost I will be the first to get in line to own them. Give me a wind machine and a set of batteries that can power a house in the northeast and charge my car all at a reasonable cost and I’m in. Artificially raise the cost of conventional energy to make these unproven technologies attractive is doing nothing more than fleecing the public. It is fraud perpetrated by advocates, nothing more.

The article is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. This researcher at Stanford did the study and makes the conclusions. What specific part of it do you see as wrong or as advocacy?

If you look at the current investments in wind energy compared to other alternative energy options, many other people have apparently concluded the same thing as he did about wind power.

I hope you are just as concerned about the current subsidize that artificially lower the costs of conventional energy and the lack of total cost accounting as you are with "artificially" raising the costs of conventional energy.

[Henry V]

IBD,

Why all the fixation on the Prius? I get that you think that anyone who buys one is an idiot but my wife and I are secure in the decision. It is a good dependable family car that saves on fuel costs and by most accounts is a "green" car compared to others. You have now repeatedly tried to tell me why this purchase was actually bad for the environment and bad for US automakers. I can only imagine what runs through your head when you see a Prius on the road. I just took one of my children back to college and drove about 1,000 miles on about $48 worth of gasoline. At the same time my house was being heated at the equivalent of $0.70 propane. Yes, it is clear from this data that I am an idiot for making these long term choices. If you want to believe that my purchase caused the sale of two other Toyota vehicles, OK, that's your prerogative too.

How about if you tackle some of the more substantive issues that I have put out there the past few pages.
You know, like how Lindzen is paid by industry and how that may affect his viewpoint, the questions in the climate models about negative vs positive feedback, the concept of polluter pays, the fact that CO2 is on the rise, differences between weather and climate, the supposed bias in the empirical data from MN, etc. I appreciate the soundbites in response to these issues and blaming the messenger (NASA scientists not even part of the discussion, gov't employees, university scientists, state climatologists (which was particularly interesting since you posted a press release from a state climatologist as evidence against climate change), Prius owners, etc ) but certainly a master debater such as you can offer more to further the debate on these issues.

How about with start with an answer to a simple question. In post 56 you said

....climate is changing, duh,...

Yet your other posts suggest that you do not believe climate change/global warming is occurring. A couple times, I have asked where you stand but you have not given a direct answer. So, let's get back to basics, just where do you stand? Climate is not changing or climate is changing but it is part of natural cycles and man has nothing to do with it.

As I stated in post 60 the latter is "Certainly a fair position to take.".

[Cody Covey]

i personally feel (yes im late to discussion haha) that it would be ignorant to say that the climate isn't changing but to say it is all caused by us is a little ridiculous. Especially since what they used to say was going to happen has not happened. They said that the polar ice caps were going to melt and make the oceans colder then making the temps colder ( yes the simple version) but the caps didn't melt the way they said they were and yet we have been cooling for 6ish years and steady temp the 4-5 years before that. Shouldn't we be in an inferno right now? Notice how they changed it from global warming to global climate change? You can't shove stuff down peoples throats that isn't happening so they had to try something else.

[subroc]

More on the fact that the earth temperature peaked a few years back and is falling, just when the left wing alarmists were screaming loudest. It appears the ice is growing as well.

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/i...global_wa.html

[IowaBayDog]

How about with start with an answer to a simple question. In post 56 you saidYet your other posts suggest that you do not believe climate change/global warming is occurring. A couple times, I have asked where you stand but you have not given a direct answer. So, let's get back to basics, just where do you stand? Climate is not changing or climate is changing but it is part of natural cycles and man has nothing to do with it.

As I stated in post 60 the latter is "Certainly a fair position to take.".

Yes the climate is changing just as it has for thousands upon thousands of years due to natural cycles influenced by many factors. Man's contribution being miniscual at best having little or no overall impact. Being cleaner and less wasteful is good, forcing trillions of dollars of money to be spent on a hoax is not. If you like your Prius that is great enjoy it, everything I have stated about them is fact and can be found on several environmentalist sites you must frequent. That's the thing the environmental endgame is not conservation its bringing us back to the stone age. They are against, coal cause its dirty, wind because a bird might die and the Kennedy's might don't like the looks, nuclear because its dangerous, hydro cause a fish can't spawn. There are even enviro looneys who don't like Geothermal on any large scale because it will lower the Earth's core temperature.

What do I think when I see a Prius, most of the time its "Hope it came with a shovel" cause there usually stuck in the 6 inches of snow the snow plow leaves across the road.

[zeus3925]

Yes the climate is changing just as it has for thousands upon thousands of years due to natural cycles influenced by many factors. Man's contribution being miniscual at best having little or no overall impact. Being cleaner and less wasteful is good, forcing trillions of dollars of money to be spent on a hoax is not. If you like your Prius that is great enjoy it, everything I have stated about them is fact and can be found on several environmentalist sites you must frequent. That's the thing the environmental endgame is not conservation its bringing us back to the stone age. They are against, coal cause its dirty, wind because a bird might die and the Kennedy's might don't like the looks, nuclear because its dangerous, hydro cause a fish can't spawn. There are even enviro looneys who don't like Geothermal on any large scale because it will lower the Earth's core temperature.

What do I think when I see a Prius, most of the time its "Hope it came with a shovel" cause there usually stuck in the 6 inches of snow the snow plow leaves across the road.

Whoa there, Iowa. The man may disagree, but let's cool the name calling.

There are plenty of "hoaxes" to go around here. There ain't no such thing as clean coal technology.

Another misconception is is that geothermal is clean energy. Hydrothermal fluids often come with dissolved nasties, like arsenides, sulfides, and other toxic minerals. The fluids sometime carry some toxic gasses and potent acids. Disposal of those fluids can be a headache. Geothermal sources don't cool the earth's core, but eventually they kill the heat source that drives them. While the USGS estimated that there was enough dry geothermal to supply energy to the country for a number of centuries, experiments at Los Alamos failed to develop technology to harness it.

I am surprised at your panning of the wind power industry. I see hundreds of wind power generators whenever I traverse your fair state. If you go to Vestas website they are sure proud of the fact their windmills reduce CO2. There are quite a few Iowa farmers that are benefiting from that wind power.

[Cody Covey]

so what im hearing is that oil is still our best option?!