Seems to be cooling a bit... http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/climate-change
Here is an article from an Alarmist trying to spin the lack of temperatures rising while CO2 emissions continue to escalate. Notice this sentence, which is a pretty big admission. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113533/global-warming-hiatus-where-did-heat-go
Oh. Well, who really gives a flying *gross and inflammatory homophobic, racial bigoted, maleficent, Laker loving, OSU football player sheep screwing, because of the children who read this crap expletive deleted*.
Very misleading way to present this topic. The article says the rate of temperature increase is not rising as fast as previously thought but it is still rising. that is not the same as cooling. If this article was about our national deficit not rising as fast as it was predicted would we still be alarmists for being concerned? Climate change is happening folks, that is not debatable. What is debatable is how fast it is changing and how much harm it will do to our way of life. Get with the program and out of big oils propaganda machine.
If it's rising at 1 degree C per century and it rose 1 degree 3 centuries ago, then there's zero correlation between industrialization and warming. No? That's the danger for the alarmists. That it's not going to show increases to cause the kind of panic that would cause governments to spend many $trillions to accomplish not much.
Assuming your correct, which is a big assumption. Don't you feel that alternative energy technology is important and valued investment? As oil is a finite resource. Fracking is buying us time and increasing America's output but eventually we will run out, and if global warming doesnt destroy our way of life then going cold turkey on our oil addiction sure will.
I think the best alternative energy technology has been abandoned - nuclear. Otherwise, I don't see the point in investing massive amounts of money in technology that costs so much and yields so little. And it's not an investment, it's more like a hole you pour money into and there's no bottom to the hole.
I will agree that Nuclear is a great option that should be revisited. Solar and wind are also viable and becoming more so every day though, and are well worth the investment in my opinion. There are also some good advancements in harnessing ocean waves as an energy source also. Bio fuel is pretty much crap at this point and not a direction I would like to see us go, however it should still be studied just not forced into circulation. There have been some interesting bio fuel production advancements, created by the waste products of bacteria.
From what I've seen, solar costs more energy to make than they produce, and the Chinese companies making the cheap panels have both technical issues and mounting debt. Germany massively subsidized their industry, but could not bear the losses anymore. http://www.spiegel.de/international...ny-to-rethink-energy-revolution-a-852815.html I looked at solar for my house and it isn't a positive deal for me. Not even close. I don't have a problem with putting these technologies to use, just that forcing them is a huge loser. In fact, I place a lot of the blame for the 2008 economic problems squarely on way overspending on these green deals. Pushed the price of everything higher so people on the edge could no longer afford their mortgages. Ethanol production alone drove up both fuel and food costs. Let the market sort it out. It's really good at determining the most efficient things to produce and the most efficient way to distribute. If oil gets scarce enough, people will figure out cheaper ways to do things that normally require oil.
I forgot to mention that ethanol gets you less BTUs per gallon. So your car's MPG goes down if you se it. Even the 10% mix loses you a theoretical 3% of your MPG, though it's closer to 10% observed by people who ave monitored their consumption, mileage, and thus MPG. You pretty much have to produce at least 33% more gallons of ethanol to get the same energy as gasoline. It's why gas is so popular...
Economists are a trustworthy source of scientific data. Just like politicians know what's best for sports teams.
For the most part I agree in theory. However the market is already not free, it is heavily weighted for the status quo and the cheapest or most profitable solution, regardless of any consequence. Oil has lobbyist, kickbacks and subsidies in their favor and so far the world is not an oven so there is no incentive to change anything. If we wait till we have to have an alternative, whether it be due to lack of oil or climate change, then it will be to late. The government shouldn't force alternative energies use on the public, but they need to get the ball rolling and make research an attractive option. Once the technology is there then there will be a demand. Innovation creates demand.
Oil isn't lobbying against renewables. http://www.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/biofuels/oil-companies-promoting-alternative-energy.htm Exxon invested over 1/2 $billion in renewable energy research. Funding that biofuel research you already mentioned. In spite of spending massive amounts on lobbying, the electric utilities are being forced to buy renewable energy at above market rates. Tesla Motors is building a product that appeals to early adopter types who have money to burn. The market is bidding up their stock, allowing them to raise big money selling their stock, or to use the stock as capital. They don't need the government subsidies, but why would they turn them down? Now they're wholly dependent on the subsidies. Go figure. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...aying-ridiculous-subsidies-for-electric-cars/ What would happen if people used all that money to pay their mortgage payments?
Do you have a problem with that? We're actually quite lovable. Now, call me a Husky fan and it's game on.
