Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 8, 2015 at 3:51

The dissent is marginal and credibility is in the eye of the beholder.  The reason that the discussion has not moved from "is global warming a reality?" to "what are reasonable responses to combat global warming" is the media's penchant for presenting both sides of the debate when the reality is that the preponderance of scientific evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of global warming as a real threat.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on July 8, 2015 at 4:29

Skip, Since you are so intent on finding a remedy to your perception of "global warming" what is your proposal to stop the problem that you think we have. Is it taxes to run the price of energy up to the point that we can't afford fossil fuel? Is that what you think we need? How else are we going to make people stop using the oil and gas? 

Its interesting that the next movement is going after the cattle industry. They had a piece on the news that stated 15% of the green house gases produced is by the cattle industry. Is the next issue that we face the elimination of the dairy and beef industries?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 8, 2015 at 4:52

Not being prone to conspiracy theories that preclude rational discussion I'm looking for a debate on an incremental approach to lowering carbon emissions.  Forget for a moment if you can claims of oppressive taxes and illogical assumptions related to the cattle industry and consider that the first step to address emissions is an increase in the rate of conversion from coal to NG fired electric generation.  The greatly ballyhooed price of carbon taxes are not expected to be an unbearable burden on cleaner forms of energy, just the dirtiest.  They should not make the price of energy much different than today for the average consumer.  Continue to increase CAFE standards.  How much has it cost the American consumer to drive more fuel efficient cars?  Auto manufacturers have made great strides in mpg and cleaner emissions and it hasn't hurt the industry or the consumer.  Other conservation opportunities with more efficient appliances, light bulbs, better insulated structures ,etc. are having a meaningful effect.

The problem with the skeptics is they want to embrace and battle the energy future espoused by those who are as far left as they are far right.  Both are focused on an exaggerated view of the challenge of global warming.  One that it does not exist and the other that our world as we know it will come to an end in this century unless we make drastic and immediate changes to the ways we source energy.  For those who have come to grasp that there is potential though yet fully known negative consequences of global warming doing nothing has ceased to be an option.  Beginning to take some actions that make sense now may very well eliminate the requirement to take drastic steps later.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on July 8, 2015 at 5:28

All of the things that you list are being done. That according to the President is not enough. You don't seem to think that taxes are an answer. Yet, for some reason you think we need more regulation. I'm sorry I just don't understand. 

Again, when NASA and NOAA don't seem to see a change in the temp in the last 18 years or so from the satellites they put up I question the validity of the assumptions that you, these scientists you quote and the President is making. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 8, 2015 at 5:47

If you wish to debate the science, you'll need to find someone else, Joe.  IMO the science backs global warming.  It is no longer an open question.  As to what is being done, no the transition from coal to NC is not moving fast enough and needs to be incentivized by carbon taxes.  Conservation standards should also be revised.  None of the bug-a-boo extreme measures need be on the table now.  The logical steps should be implemented incrementally now. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on July 8, 2015 at 7:17

The problem is you are not willing to quantify anything. We are already doing the very things that you suggest. That is not enough for people like the President and his cronies. So if you are expecting more to be done then where will the more end. That is the problem with these fanatics. More is never enough. Like I said earlier; The livestock industry is next and as we already see all NG produced on site during drilling operations and transport, etc.is a problem. And it goes on and on. Where will it end? There is no end because there is no reason from fanatics that have no science but have ideas purported to be true.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 8, 2015 at 7:23

Spoken like a true fanatic, Joe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on July 8, 2015 at 7:33

Its interesting that your response is to start name calling. GROW UP.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 8, 2015 at 7:40

No, the problem is you totally ignore the fact that there is a middle ground.  All you see are the extremes.  You brought up the subject of fanaticism. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on July 8, 2015 at 7:53

You have a very thin skin. I did not call you a fanatic. You are the one that personalized it. 

As I stated in the beginning of this thread; I have the science. I follow the science. You in your statements say you don't have the science background. So as to your statements you are following idologs (sp?) that are fanatics with you having no science background. I question these people that you quote throughout this thread and ask what is their background? What real research have they done or are they following some mantra that a group states? Again, I never personalized anything; you have.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 8, 2015 at 7:54

Joe, what you've got is the fanatic spin.

"The climate bill specifically excludes enteric fermentation — the fancy term for the gas created by digestion and expelled largely by burping — from the limit it would place on greenhouse gas emissions. The legislation directs the EPA not to include it among the various sources that could be subject to new performance standards.

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has called rumors of the cow tax "ridiculous notions" and a "distraction."

House aides and EPA officials say that controlling such emissions is unworkable. Cow burps make up about 2% of all the climate-altering pollution in the U.S."

"The origins of the cow tax can be traced to last July, when President George W. Bush's EPA released documents outlining how the Clean Air Act could regulate greenhouse gases.

"Even though the Bush administration had no intention of using the law, farm groups seized on a single paragraph deep in the comments from various federal agencies. The Agriculture Department warned that if EPA decided to regulate agricultural sources of greenhouse gases, numerous farms would face costly and time-consuming process to acquire permits for barnyard burping.

The Farm Bureau quickly did the math and figured farms would have to pay about $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $20 for each hog to purchase permits for emissions.

The cow tax was born."

USA Today

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on July 8, 2015 at 8:05

Why am I the fanatic? I'm simply stating that once this gets going where will it end? The "cow tax" can be changed at anytime by Executive Order" of the President. That's the world we live in.

Again, Grow UP. Stop calling someone that disagrees with you names.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page