Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  3 4 5 6 7  Next ›  Last »  (19 total)
04:36 PM on 11/12/2010
We WILL see 20 feet of sea level rise. How quickly this happens is directly proportional to how slowly we get off fossil fuel. Finally, ALL SUBSIDIES TOWARD GREEN POWER SHOULD COME FROM TAX ON POLLUTING POWER, Bjorn.
jeremyv1980
Tough times don't last. Tough people do!
05:06 PM on 11/12/2010
Who do you think pays for the subsidies in the end? I am certain the consumer right? If its not profitable why would any corperation or person risk time and money? Take for example if i sell a non green product and i risk say 100 bucks and i wish to get 20 bucks out of my efforts for my time and risk. Now I am taxed at 15 percent so i will be paying 3 dollars of my 20 out which only nets me 17 bucks. well now im 3 short of what i wanted out of it. If i sell it for 123 and change i can account of the tax and net 20 bucks. Now if you penalize me for selling a necessary product lets say 40% on top of that now i am at 55% of profits. so now to make 20 bucks im forced to sell it at nearly 150$. It just adds to the consumer expense. Not good in a reccesion. or ever in that matter. It will happen, progress cant be forced or rushed, true inovation comes from people working toward a goal not redistributing the wealth. free money is almost always inefficient and wasted.
05:25 PM on 11/12/2010
The same people who pay the cost of using product that is not in the price of a product.

The "costs" of CO2 pollution are not in the price of fossil-fuel sourced energy. If they are real, then people will still have to pay those costs. It's unavoidable.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tulsey
I was Bill Hicks.
05:35 PM on 11/12/2010
"he knew the price of everything, the value of nothing." Wilde.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoeTheProgrammer
I love dogs.
05:30 PM on 11/12/2010
Sea levels rise and fall as a result of natural climate swings. There isn't a dang thing you can do about it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tulsey
I was Bill Hicks.
05:37 PM on 11/12/2010
Don't you have a "dang" fence to build in Arizona?
05:38 PM on 11/12/2010
Wrong. By making massive changes in albedo, mankind can drive sea level up or down.
04:30 PM on 11/12/2010
More politically motivated drivel. If Lomborg really cared about glbal warming he wouldn't just target Al Gore. Al Gore only relayed the message scientists were gagged from getting out for the thrity years prior to his book an Inconvenient Truth. Now watch how Lomborg tries to cash in on his movie to make moeny from geoengineering schemes by deliberatley downplaying the urgency of this crisis.
05:09 PM on 11/12/2010
Al Gore only relayed the message scientists were gagged from getting out for the thrity years prior to his book an Inconvenient Truth."

yea, right before scientists said we were all going to die in another ice age.
05:28 PM on 11/12/2010
From 1965 until 1979 there were 45 scientific papers published that predicted global warming.

From 1965 until 1979 there 7 scientific papers published that predicted global cooling.

There was never a consensus for global cooling.

There is a consensus for global warming.
05:56 PM on 11/12/2010
Except scientist never said that.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoeTheProgrammer
I love dogs.
05:31 PM on 11/12/2010
Might have helped if Al's book wasn't full of holes and lies.
05:38 PM on 11/12/2010
You are quickly catching up to whatever you think is the total.
05:56 PM on 11/12/2010
Such as?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:24 PM on 11/12/2010
"this too shall pass away"
04:18 PM on 11/12/2010
A day late and a dollar short Bjorn. You were a hack in the world of science who the Koch Brothers fell back on when they led the mob against the idea that our planet is becoming increasingly hotter. Now you have become a hapless hack. Do the rest of us a favor and find another vocation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GuiltD
04:16 PM on 11/12/2010
Scientists exaggerate Global Warming on rainforests.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1328853/Environmentalists-exaggerated-threat-tropical-rainforests-global-warming.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

We must get rid of humans because they breathe CO2 and Volcanoes!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bike Commuter
No More Hurting People
04:25 PM on 11/12/2010
Humans breathe volcanoes?
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
04:31 PM on 11/12/2010
The article discusses how rain-forests thrived in the context of rising CO2 60 MILLION YEARS AGO. They were very different kinds of plants and our ancestors were little screechy things.

At present CO2 is rising in the context of droughts which are damaging rain-forests.

As the article concludes:

"British forest expert Dr Simon Lewis of Leeds University said warmer, wetter weather could boost rain-forests. However, if climate change led to more droughts, it could be disastrous for regions like the Amazon. In the last five years, the Amazon has experienced two 'one in a century' droughts, he said.

'The 2005 Amazon drought was widely characterised as an unusual 1-in-100 year event, which caused tree deaths leading to rotting trees releasing over four billion tonnes of carbon dioxide,' he said.

'And now in 2010, another drought has stuck, which initial analyses show is more extensive than 2005, even though it is only five years later.

'These droughts are consistent with model projections showing a die-back of the Amazon, further accelerating climate change in a dangerous loop.

'The new paper is useful, but doesn’t address present-day concerns of drought-impacts that affect the forest itself and the millions of people who live there.'

The speed of modern day man-made climate change was much faster than the global warming of 60million years ago, he added.
05:07 PM on 11/12/2010
Plant growth has limiting factors: sunlight, nutrients, water, CO2, etc. The availability of CO2 would have to be the limiting factor in order more CO2 to be beneficial. So more CO2 is not necessarily going to help plants that are experiencing growth limitation because of some other factor. Where CO2 is a limiting factor, then more will help growth.

This is why the Bush administration canceled their tree CO2 experiment. The results were not what they wanted to see.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoeTheProgrammer
I love dogs.
05:32 PM on 11/12/2010
Droughts would be less severe if they would stop cutting down the rain forest.
04:14 PM on 11/12/2010
Al Gore? He is a self-made man and worships his creator.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realitytrumpsbull
Two 'alves of coconut!
04:09 PM on 11/12/2010
Whatever finally does end up happening with the climate, there'll be no shortage of Global Whining, that's for sure. People use energy, the byproduct is heat. Is that enough to melt the polar ice caps, or are other natural phenomena responsible? 

Of course, you consider that Al Gore was one of the big people behind the 'green' push, and well, he flies around on a personal jet, adding to the problem, so, how much intellectual honesty are we really talking about, here? 

Frankly, if they're really worried about the ice caps, and the problem is temperature change, and not just a bunch of Navy wiseguys or something, then they'll build some kind of gigantic nuclear-powered ocean-going icemaker, or for that matter, wind-powered icemaker ,put it on some equally gigantic pontoons, and let it orbit around out there on the high seas for a year at a time, crapping out ice cubes along the way, study how that works, then build a fleet of em. If human science and engineering caused the problem, then use more human science and engineering to solve the problem.

Iceland is right next to Greenland, so maybe they could even just use natural geothermal to run the icemaker, and keep the wind boats to tow the mini-bergs out into the ocean current where the cruise liners can run into them...
04:08 PM on 11/12/2010
Al Gore not only was not scary, but understated climate change.

If you want to be scared witless read multiple Nobel laureate biophysicist's, James Lovelock's, Gaia books.

Our grandchildren are already screwed. We have passed the tipping point. That is why climate scientists keep having to revise their annual projections of doom sooner and sooner each year.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GuiltD
04:19 PM on 11/12/2010
Yeah and those guys are Eugenicists. Let me guess you also read from Maurice Strong? He was the first one to introduce Global Warming to the UN, was the head of environmental affairs, and was an oilman dressed in snakeskin.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
captcct
03:59 PM on 11/12/2010
That guy looks like that f**ck*ng chef Gordon Ramsay who oversells the rubbish that he thinks is great cuisine.
03:39 PM on 11/12/2010
It did not scare me. It just reinforces the natural evolution of carbon on the planet and how this time around humans are accelerating the process. What scares me are those who deny the evidnece. The solution to slow this down is alternative energy, but first we need alternative thinking. It will not come from the big players today. It seldom does. They want to keep things just the way they are. Cleco and Entergy are happy with us changing a few light bulbs.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheFabOne
From the Bottom To the Top, The Cream Of The Crop!
03:32 PM on 11/12/2010
I think it's working the way he said, given the top of Mr. Lomborg's head.
jeremyv1980
Tough times don't last. Tough people do!
03:27 PM on 11/12/2010
Here is the delemma, are you actively in your daily life furthering the development of green energies or not? Are you just talking about it? Or are you actively researching, building, using green technology? Or are you just waiting on it? There is lots of hot air being blown on talking about it, making movies about it, burning supposed green house gasses flying around the world about it, but hardly any of these people are actually involved in truly making it a reality. Right now most of the technology is not competitive economically unless it is subsidised heavily or the equivalent energy thats not green is taxed heavily. For the supporters, go get educated formally (not from movies) putting your money and effort where your mouth is, and risk some of your money later in life to make it a reality. Do not demand government make it available at a cheap affordable rate, instead lobby your brain and financial resources to make it happen. Green energy is a great idea but it has to be sustainable on the market without subsidies or taxation of current energy sources. You can also purchase the products at the high prices which does help drive the cost down. Take the electronics industry for example, vhs was cheap and affordable and at the time decent technology until the cd and dvd came into play(in competition with laser disk i might add). not by subsidies but demand and economic feasability.
mothergrace
If they knock you down, bite 'em on the ankle.
03:33 PM on 11/12/2010
Current energy suppliers are heavily subsidized by the government. Only alternative energy is supposed to "prove" itself economically without any financial assistance from the government. Why should this be so? I do not want to give a pass to those that pollute while blocking innovative solutions to our dependence on fossil fuels.
jeremyv1980
Tough times don't last. Tough people do!
05:22 PM on 11/12/2010
I'm not sure i remember seeing a tax rebate from buying natural gas and electricity from my power company. But i do remember getting tax rebates from installing geothermal units, Updating my inulation and windows to better energy standards and buying 5star energy appliances, as well as solar panels. They would not be cose to cost effective as coal, naturalgas or anyother generally available powersource with out subsidies. But if you get a tax credit for natural gas and electricity instead of a penalty(look at your bill if you pay one, exise taxes, regulatory fees etc.) then look for a rebate section. Let me save you the trouble there isnt one.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GuiltD
04:07 PM on 11/12/2010
Well we have to work it at a ground level, using things such as solar panels, but also not overcharging electricity. Also the bankers have already figured out schemes to get us fooled into thinking of going with them ( in order to help the planet) and thats how Gore and Enron came up with carbon trade, which as the New York Times ( or just watch the hearings) proved was a big hoax. It also doesnt help, as NYT, pointed out, all the global warming initatives in the UN such as carbon taxes, aren't actually going into helping the earth and in turn will only enrich the world bank fraudsters even more. Also we have to stop following rich politicians. I mean seriously its a joke thinking Gore, Schwartzenneger, James Cameron, are in the fight against global warming when they have multiple private jets, huge mega mansions ( like the one Gore just bought alongside the ocean- shows how afraid he is of global warming haha) huge entourages, huge electricity spenders, etc. etc.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
04:35 PM on 11/12/2010
Nothing Al Gore or any of the other people around who you've constructed paranoid delusions say or do change the scientific facts of global warming. This isn't a problem that can be hated away.
jeremyv1980
Tough times don't last. Tough people do!
05:35 PM on 11/12/2010
Ground level is right. Im makin solar panels myself. Its easy simple solder skills and a few bucks. Take the risk, its a fun project and rewarding if you can get it right. And i agree these people are very wastefull but are quick to point out our short comings
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:22 PM on 11/12/2010
Lomborg is trying to find a way out of the corner he painted himself into years ago.

It's not fearmongering to raise a legitimate alarm. By sweet little Bjorn's standard, the watchman on the Titanic who cries "iceberg" is fearmongering and preventing meaningful action in the face of catastrophe. Gore's message was and is the message of the mainstream scientific community, as evidenced by reports from the National Science Foundation, American Geophysical Union, and dozens of the world's premier scientific societies.
03:26 PM on 11/12/2010
Ships miss most icebergs. Why should this one be different? The crew has better things to do, like polishing the brass.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wa-st-concerned
02:58 PM on 11/12/2010
Renewable energy needs to be totally divorced from the "climate change" debate. Renewable energy (non-polluting energy - without toxic wastes) are required to keep the planet from going into a state where we can't breathe, don't have clean water and can't grow food in toxic ground. This is NOT scare tactics, but common sense. "Global warming" is another argument altogether.....
03:13 PM on 11/12/2010
In point of fact, we can combust all of the earth's fossil fuels and emit little else than plant food: H2O and CO2.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
blueshield
03:20 PM on 11/12/2010
You might try connecting your car exhaust to a greenhouse and see how well the plants do.

The chemicals and compounds released by fossil fuels are much more complex - plenty of mercury from coal, for instance.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bike Commuter
No More Hurting People
03:23 PM on 11/12/2010
blueshield is correct. The byproducts of hydrocarbon combustion depend on different factors, but they can include carbon monoxide as well as release of impurities such as mercury and sulphur.
03:52 PM on 11/12/2010
Unfortunately, many technologies labeled green are not green at all. Wind Turbines are a great example. A normal power plant houses their turbines in a single building. Wind farms spread their turbines out over large distances, thus requiring more copper to wire them. In addition, one windmill turns a single turbine. That is a lot of aluminum (a metal that requires tons of electricity to refine) wrapped around a single turbine.

Many green technologies simply front load their pollution out of sight of the consumer.
04:14 PM on 11/12/2010
The cost of CO2 pollution is not included in the price of fossil-fuel sourced energy.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:55 PM on 11/12/2010
don't forget the low-frequency vibrations that are upsetting the health of people who live near wind farms.