I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[Hersh]

 

Maybe using solar to replace other forms of energy isn't YOUR goal in the immediate future, but I guarantee if YOUR president and many others could get away with it they'd ban coal and nukes right now. Remember obama's "energy prices will necessarily skyrocket" speech?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/25/obama-admitted-energy-prices-would-skyrocket-under-his-policies/

 

I get what you're saying, but what I was saying is that the cost is way too much for that stuff right now with the tech as it stands, and I don't want to pay for their failures. We have a cheap, plentiful resource that we should be able to use, which will save us money and keep it in OUR pockets vs lining someone elses.

Remember Solyndra? 535 million flushed. That's what I mean by chasing bad money with good.

and at the time of this article, 2011, they had guaranteed an additional $400 million in loans for two more solar plants.. God knows how much has been squandered on that endeavor alone.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277271/obama-s-solar-scandal-michael-barone

 

What you aren't taking into account are all the other costs associated with burning fossil fuels.

 

 

How much would electricity cost in the United States if the retail price reflected the health impacts of burning fossil fuels? A paper recently published by researchers at the Environmental Protection Agency finds that accounting for such costs would add an average of 14 to 35 cents per kilowatt-hour to the retail cost of electricity. Nationwide, these hidden health costs add up to as much as $886.5 billion annually, or 6% of GDP

 

I intentionally posted the article from forbes since they aren't accused on a regular basis of being a liberal publication. I would encourage you to do your own research on the issue. Too often in discourse about an issue, the issue is discussed in a vacuum rather than how it ties into other issues. Pollution ties into increasing health care costs which lessens how much money people have in their pockets.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Hersh

[twa]

I'm certainly saving money over the long run as the solar panels will pay for themselves in 6-8 years depending on the weather. The state and federal governments will get less money from me over the next couple of years as I take advantage of the tax credits but I don't consider that someone else paying for it since I'll still be paying taxes.

 

in the future you can also expect to be taxed on the solar and a surcharge for accessing the grid 

 

kinda like the taxes on electric vehicles being proposed to make up for lost revenue

 

enjoy the sweet spot while it lasts though 

[Larry]

Enjoying watching the raising of the boogeyman that some day we'll be passing special taxes targeted on green technology.

Can't raise the tax on gasoline to match inflation. That can't be done. But green-only taxes? Yeah, I'm sure that's going to pass, any day now.

[twa]

it is already happening Larry....Boo 

[Larry]

it is already happening Larry....Boo

Wow, you're right. (At least the charge to access the grid for solar and wind generators.

Obviously, we need to stop whichever political party it is that's going out of their way to try to prevent people from switching to more advanced power technologies.

----------

And it looks like politicians in several states have decided to blame electric car drivers for the fact that gas taxes haven't kept up with inflation. (Or are at least making noise about it.)

And I thought they were really gouging people on their electric car taxes. (I'd read that federal taxes on gas were actually very low, and assumed, incorrectly, that state taxes were a small fraction of that. Turns out that most states seem to charge higher taxes, sometimes much higher, than the Feds do.)

Instead, it seems that, at least in the case of Washington, they're charging electric car owners quite a bit less than the average gas car would pay.

[twa]

Wow, you're right. 

 

 

Always 

[twa]

Wow, you're right. (At least the charge to access the grid for solar and wind generators.

Obviously, we need to stop whichever political party it is that's going out of their way to try to prevent people from switching to more advanced power technologies.

 

 

paying a minimal fee/tax is going to prevent switching despite the subsidies?.....the tech must really suck 

 

it is not one party, but rather localities suffering from loss of revenue while expenses like roads and transmission lines remain/increase

[Mad Mike]

Pentagon Signals Security Risks of Climate Change - NYTimes.com

 

 

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Monday released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages. It also predicted rising demand for military disaster responses as extreme weather creates more global humanitarian crises.

The report lays out a road map to show how the military will adapt to rising sea levels, more violent storms and widespread droughts. The Defense Department will begin by integrating plans for climate change risks across all of its operations, from war games and strategic military planning situations to a rethinking of the movement of supplies.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, speaking Monday at a meeting of defense ministers in Peru, highlighted the report’s findings and the global security threats of climate change.

[twa]

and a request for additional funds

[Mad Mike]

and a request for additional funds

 

Yeah, thats right.... Scientists all over the world, NASA, and the US military are all in it for the money. But the Koch Brothers, oil and coal companies are denying climate change out of the goodness of their freedom loving hearts. [/sarc]

[twa]

and you have more choice in who you fund....if ya have funds of course.

 

 

 

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTnV5lk_MD84lFJqZqT9NNExCb4eJb5BZPjfh30FMXAF9LNcQ6V-g

 

how about a Telsa and a solar array on your dime with a side of algae fuel......I'll float ya a loan if ya got collateral

 

Germany and Spain are already in hock 

[pjfootballer]

The republicans need fans. Order some fans.

[grhqofb5]

So we building any more nuclear power plants?  Is there still a moratorium on that one?

[PeterMP]

So we building any more nuclear power plants?  Is there still a moratorium on that one?

 

We're building some.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/09/us-usa-nuclear-nrc-idUSTRE8182J720120209

 

But building nuclear power plants is an expensive proposition that only pays off over the very long term, and given what's happen with natural gas several places where there was talking about building have at least slowed down.

[Slateman]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

 

Best add John Coleman to the list, OP.

[pjfootballer]

I want to sue them for a lack of fans. They should promise to make sure every American has a fan on the dinner table.

Edited October 23, 2014 by pjfootballer

[China]

Or under their podium

[SkinsFTW]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

 

Best add John Coleman to the list, OP.

 

Yeah I saw that yesterday, guess we're all going to be able to breathe again after all.

 

 

"THE debate about climate change is finished - because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world's leading meteorologists has claimed.

 

ohn Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible. 

Instead, what 'little evidence' there is for rising global temperatures points to a 'natural phenomenon' within a developing eco-system.

 

In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: "The ocean is not rising significantly.

"The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.

"Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).

"I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid."

 

Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an 'independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.'

He added: "There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.

"Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.

"There has been no warming over 18 years."

[Predicto]

Ummm... this isn't news.  Coleman has been denying global climate change for a decade.

[RedskinsFan44]

Yeah I saw that yesterday, guess we're all going to be able to breathe again after all.

 

 

"THE debate about climate change is finished - because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world's leading meteorologists has claimed.

.....

 

"Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.

"There has been no warming over 18 years."

And yet 2014 is on track to be the warmest year on record:

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

[PeterMP]

And yet 2014 is on track to be the warmest year on record:

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

 

It does depend on the data source you use.

 

All of the data sources show it is going to be the warmest non-El Nino year on record (1998 and 2010 being right there and having an El Nino) where for various reasons that we actually understand pretty well El Nino's tend to cause warmer years.

 

With last year being #2 with respect to non-El Nino years (this year is almost certainly going to warmer than last year).

 

The fact that we are talking about a non-El Nino year being the #3 warmest year (based on some of the data sets) on record is all you really have to know about the situation.  Even in the late 1990's that would have be unheard of.

 

And we're probably just reaching the peak of this 11 year old solar cycle, and there is normally a lag of a few years between the peak of the solar cycle and the warmest years so next year will probably be even warmer.

 

And it looks like maybe an El Nino is going to form.

 

If it does, it is likely that 2015 and/or 2016 will become the warmest year on record in all the data sets.

Edited October 24, 2014 by PeterMP

[Larry]

Ummm... this isn't news.  Coleman has been denying global climate change for a decade.

But that was before he spent a decade studying the issue by reading reports of a lobbying group founded for the purpose of denying human effects:

 

From slateman's article: 

 

"I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid."

Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an 'independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.'

 

[s0crates]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

Climate Science Is Not Settled is the title. Can't figure out how to cut and paste on my iPad. Curious about thoughts.

Nothing in science is ever settled, that's a basic principle of scientific theories (that they be falsifiable), not a criticism of them.

[Mad Mike]

OK. Here's a question for the board... 

 

If Republican leaders are not selling out our nation's (and the world's) future to big oil and coal, how come they are not listening to their own constituents?

 

A National Survey of Republicans and Republican-­‐Leaning Independents on Energy and Climate Change | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

 

More highlights and a full report in PDF form after the link. 

 

By a margin of 2 to 1, respondents say America should take action to reduce our fossil fuel use.

 

Only one third of respondents agree with the Republican Party’s position on climate change, while about half agree with the party’s position on how to meet America’s energy needs.

 

A large majority of respondents say their elected representatives are unresponsive to their views about climate change.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Mad Mike

[Bang]

Do those poll numbers come with bags of cash?

No?

Then **** off.

 

~GOP Leaders