[Gabriel]

Yes....a wonderfully placed speck...that is all it takes to create insight if you be the one to point out the speck in the future to someone

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Yes....a wonderfully placed speck...that is all it takes to create insight if you be the one to point out the speck in the future to someone

Problem is that some are happy to call this "speck" a "beam", or make a mountain out of nothing more than a mole hill.

The mountain issue in the environment is STILL clean air and water.
So man-made emissions are still an issue for me, and I feel it is important to continue to offer tax incentives for those corporations who show that they are reducing harmful emissions.
I also will continue to support increasing fines for those who repeatedly pour more than the allowable amount of pollution into our air and water systems.
But don't carve the legislation with the farcicle banner of global warming as a result of humanity, else I will not support it.
Tell people the truth about what they are consuming, and watch people rally to that truth. Tell people the sky is falling, and you will never get them to believe you when it actually does.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Problem is that some are happy to call this "speck" a "beam", or make a mountain out of nothing more than a mole hill.

The mountain issue in the environment is STILL clean air and water.
So man-made emissions are still an issue for me, and I feel it is important to continue to offer tax incentives for those corporations who show that they are reducing harmful emissions.
I also will continue to support increasing fines for those who repeatedly pour more than the allowable amount of pollution into our air and water systems.
But don't carve the legislation with the farcicle banner of global warming as a result of humanity, else I will not support it.
Tell people the truth about what they are consuming, and watch people rally to that truth. Tell people the sky is falling, and you will never get them to believe you when it actually does.

but methinks the issue now is regulation, don't you?....some form of proactive gov intervention, be it thru incentive, restrictions, some combination.....the big bizzes see it coming....

imo, ALL of this is tied to an energy policy that looks towards the future.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by iltos

but methinks the issue now is regulation, don't you?....some form of proactive gov intervention, be it thru incentive, restrictions, some combination.....the big bizzes see it coming....

But they are using the header of slowing or reversing Global warming. That ain't gonna happen. Regulating, restricting and economically encouraging will have no effect on naturally occurring global warming.
Perhaps mass suicide may help slow the increase ..... a little. (Shows you just how ridiculously ill-conceived is Kyoto)
Stop pushing the mythical aspects of man-made Global warming and push these incentives, restrictions, and interventions under the truthful cause of clean water and air.

imo, ALL of this is tied to an energy policy that looks towards the future.

How much petrolium oil does the planet have left?
Some say 10 years, some 50. It stands to reason that as the supply dwindles , the price will naturally increase. (note; naturally, not due to some Chicken Little Liberal's tax increases) As the price goes up, the incentive for alternative fuels will NATURALLY cause investors to place their money where it will make a better profit.

Does the government need to make itself prepared for that? Not really. It will happen by economic revolution, not by political revolution.

The sky is not falling, and the free market works.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

A thoughtful post, as usual, Jack.

I will even concede that man has contributed to some accelleration in the warming process of the climate.

What I won't buy into is that man is anything more than a miniscule contributor to a cycle which occurs naturally, or that a drastic alarmist reaction will do anything at all to slow the cycle, let alone reverse it.

But please don't paint me into the corner that thinks industry doesn't pollute the air and water.
I strongly support EPA regulations and the preservation of land for natural habitat.
(ANWR is a very small portion of a vast preserve, and would likely do more good for the wildlife than harm in the surrounding area)

How about the companies that aren't interestedd in ANWAR:

...
Critics point to their own changes. Foremost is a pronounced lack of interest in ANWR from some big oil companies. BP, ConocoPhillips and ChevronTexaco have withdrawn from Arctic Power, the business coalition formed to lobby for drilling in ANWR. Among big oil companies, only Exxon Mobil Corp. remains.

.......http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...21_anwr28.html

[Davec]

The cause of global warming is obvious. If someone would plot the data I guarantee a correlation between the number of individuals admitted to the bar and average temps. Not just from the hot air being released, but additional effects from the high methane content.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

But they are using the header of slowing or reversing Global warming. That ain't gonna happen. Regulating, restricting and economically encouraging will have no effect on naturally occurring global warming.
Perhaps mass suicide may help slow the increase ..... a little. (Shows you just how ridiculously ill-conceived is Kyoto)
Stop pushing the mythical aspects of man-made Global warming and push these incentives, restrictions, and interventions under the truthful cause of clean water and air.

that's reasonable...we can push 'em under any heading that makes you happy, LAN

How much petrolium oil does the planet have left?
Some say 10 years, some 50. It stands to reason that as the supply dwindles , the price will naturally increase. (note; naturally, not due to some Chicken Little Liberal's tax increases) As the price goes up, the incentive for alternative fuels will NATURALLY cause investors to place their money where it will make a better profit.

Does the government need to make itself prepared for that? Not really. It will happen by economic revolution, not by political revolution.

The sky is not falling, and the free market works.

of course the free market works....so do proactive govs...there is no reason they cannot work together.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Davec

The cause of global warming is obvious. If someone would plot the data I guarantee a correlation between the number of individuals admitted to the bar and average temps. Not just from the hot air being released, but additional effects from the high methane content.

LOL

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

But they are using the header of slowing or reversing Global warming. That ain't gonna happen. Regulating, restricting and economically encouraging will have no effect on naturally occurring global warming.
Perhaps mass suicide may help slow the increase ..... a little. (Shows you just how ridiculously ill-conceived is Kyoto)
Stop pushing the mythical aspects of man-made Global warming and push these incentives, restrictions, and interventions under the truthful cause of clean water and air.



How much petrolium oil does the planet have left?
Some say 10 years, some 50. It stands to reason that as the supply dwindles , the price will naturally increase. (note; naturally, not due to some Chicken Little Liberal's tax increases) As the price goes up, the incentive for alternative fuels will NATURALLY cause investors to place their money where it will make a better profit.

Does the government need to make itself prepared for that? Not really. It will happen by economic revolution, not by political revolution.

The sky is not falling, and the free market works.

But they are using the header of slowing or reversing Global warming.

Who are 'they' ?

That ain't gonna happen. Regulating, restricting and economically encouraging will have no effect on naturally occurring global warming.

As far as reversal, correct, It's illogical considering the portion man adds.
But in regards to slowing global warming, all you've done is post an opinion that's unsupported.
From a practical position, it will be global agreements that bring about adjustment of conditions and Kyoto seems a failure.......so I'm doubting any serious attempts for a while ( in terms of decades, most likely)

Perhaps mass suicide may help slow the increase ..... a little. (Shows you just how ridiculously ill-conceived is Kyoto)

Perhaps that was an underlying motive for the neocon movement to engage in MidEastern affairs and start large scale killing. It does fit in with the neocon 'lifeboat' theories. Make every one else die to save yourself?

Stop pushing the mythical aspects of man-made Global warming and push these incentives, restrictions, and interventions under the truthful cause of clean water and air.

Sure.
In return..............
Stop inferring everyone that comments on the problem is out to destroy the economy while you appear distant to progress that will make this country an even greater industrial leader in the world.

How much petrolium oil does the planet have left?
Some say 10 years, some 50. It stands to reason that as the supply dwindles , the price will naturally increase. (note; naturally, not due to some Chicken Little Liberal's tax increases) As the price goes up, the incentive for alternative fuels will NATURALLY cause investors to place their money where it will make a better profit.

And as that date approaches, more wars will likely ensue for the control of the global supply lines. Think it's bad now, in 20 years it will be worse.
As far as profit goes, he who controls those dwindling reserves will profit greater than investing in new tech. That's a no brainer.
And as discussed before, there will also be a consideration of whether to eat or fuel a car with those alt fuels. Alt fuel steal from arable land base, the ability to raise food crops.
Sure, you can stop driving and save, but you still have to eat to survive.

Does the government need to make itself prepared for that? Not really. It will happen by economic revolution, not by political revolution.

Great things often have come from government subsidies and economic incentives.
From nuclear energy to medicine, the federal government has stimulated what the business sector sees as too risky or too big an investment.
Keeping these incentives out of the loop of progress is only an attempt to milk the existing business climate for all it's worth and retain the status quo for short term financial gains.

The sky is not falling, and the free market works.

The free market works. And it works even better when what it can't accomplish is infused with the needed support to 'make it happen'.
Personally, I view the neocon position as being non supportive of needed technological progress.

Looks to me like two radical political groups scamming the public.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by bassetman

How about the companies that aren't interestedd in ANWAR:

...
Critics point to their own changes. Foremost is a pronounced lack of interest in ANWR from some big oil companies. BP, ConocoPhillips and ChevronTexaco have withdrawn from Arctic Power, the business coalition formed to lobby for drilling in ANWR. Among big oil companies, only Exxon Mobil Corp. remains.

.......http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...21_anwr28.html

Exxon Mobil has staked a claim on the prime location.

This others simply want to stifle their main competition.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by iltos

that's reasonable...we can push 'em under any heading that makes you happy, LAN

The truth is always better than a lie.

of course the free market works....so do proactive govs...there is no reason they cannot work together.

Co0nfiscatory taxation is not the right way to handle it, IMO.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

The truth is always better than a lie.



............

..........that concept likely could have prevented the current war in Iraq.......

[iltos]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Co0nfiscatory taxation is not the right way to handle it, IMO.

ok.....is that the only option?

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Who are 'they' ?

The anti-capitalist global warming lobby.

As far as reversal, correct, It's illogical considering the portion man adds.
But in regards to slowing global warming, all you've done is post an opinion that's unsupported.

Niether is the opinion that the warming can be significantly slowed by altering emissions.

From a practical position, it will be global agreements that bring about adjustment of conditions and Kyoto seems a failure.......so I'm doubting any serious attempts for a while ( in terms of decades, most likely)

no disagreement from me there.

Perhaps that was an underlying motive for the neocon movement to engage in MidEastern affairs and start large scale killing. It does fit in with the neocon 'lifeboat' theories. Make every one else die to save yourself?

So ..... where's the oil?
If what you say were true, We'd be occupying Iran and Saudi Arabia, not Iraq & Afghanistan.

Sure.
In return..............
Stop inferring everyone that comments on the problem is out to destroy the economy while you appear distant to progress that will make this country an even greater industrial leader in the world.

One of the great things I see in America's economic future is the development in alternative fuels. I'm all for it. But I oppose confiscatory taxes on people at the gas station in order to pay for the research. It is a free market, supply/demand problem. It will require a free market, supply/demand answer.
Not a global warming scare lobby from the left who make unrealistic movies and claim they depict a possible reality.

And as that date approaches, more wars will likely ensue for the control of the global supply lines. Think it's bad now, in 20 years it will be worse.
As far as profit goes, he who controls those dwindling reserves will profit greater than investing in new tech. That's a no brainer.
And as discussed before, there will also be a consideration of whether to eat or fuel a car with those alt fuels. Alt fuel steal from arable land base, the ability to raise food crops.
Sure, you can stop driving and save, but you still have to eat to survive.

To assume that all the oil will suddenly dry up on a specific date is ludicris.
I agree that in 20 years it may be worse. But it may not as new oil is being found in several locations including our own gulf (though in pretty deep water)To assume those evil oil corporations will not invest in alternative fuels to save their own bacon is to ignore the power of stockholders. THAT is the no-brainer.
I doubt whether anyone will have to choose between eating and driving. That's a no-brainer. But consider the fact that as gas becomes more expensive, so will the food. Costs money to fuel those trucks too!

Great things often have come from government subsidies and economic incentives.
From nuclear energy to medicine, the federal government has stimulated what the business sector sees as too risky or too big an investment.
Keeping these incentives out of the loop of progress is only an attempt to milk the existing business climate for all it's worth and retain the status quo for short term financial gains.

I won't disagree with that. But I disagree with placing it all under the false banner of doing it to stop global warming.
Do it because the supply is winding down, and sell it on that premis, not on a lie.

The free market works. And it works even better when what it can't accomplish is infused with the needed support to 'make it happen'.
Personally, I view the neocon position as being non supportive of needed technological progress.

Well if that's the case, I guyess I am not a NEOCON.
There's absolutely no evidence that the free market will not rise to the occasion when it is needed.
Please give me an example where government support was "needed" in order to cause the free market to do something that it could not do on its own......Make sure you choose something for which the free market needed to take responsibility as well.

Looks to me like two radical political groups scamming the public.

Perhaps. But the greater scam is coming from those who want to suck money out of our wallets to claining it is to solve an unsolvable natural occurrance.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by iltos

ok.....is that the only option?

It's the only plan I have heard so far.

Some people have the idea that governemt is the only place from which research can occur.
Some people don'[t like the idea of private businesses reaping winfall profits from the risks they take when investing in R & D.

Take the drug industry for example. Many looneys get angry when they hear the Merck makes record profits, but they are the first to sue the company if they don't work as expected in a minority of the people using the drug. What they don't realize (or refuse to see) is that the exclusivity on drugs only lasts a few years before the patent expires and anyone can make the drug and sell it for a much lower price.
These "evil profits" are ALWAYS pumped back into R & D for business survival.

And that saves more lives!