“Jeremy: In science, the word "theory" has a different meaning than in lay language. A scientific "theory" is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. In the case of climate change, it is indeed a scientific theory, and it is real and dangerous.”
“There's a lot about this country that is shameful, but the poor should not feel that they are. It's not like that was their goal, and there are those in this country who make sure that they never climb above it.”
“Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina may be toasting this discovery, but his government--like preceding ones--is persecuting the direct descendents of the people who created this "extraordinary" piece of art.”
“Scientific institutions worldwide accept the scientific reality that human activity--namely burning fossil fuels and destroying rainforests--is driving up average world temperatures and wreaking havoc with climate. You are the radical, highstreet, by clinging to an indefensible, baseless position. For more on the wide range of scientific institutions that support Holt's view, see http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus”
highstreet on Jul 25, 2013 at 13:06:03
“We all realize that there are slight majorities on the boards of these institutions, and that they have been able to put out policy papers in support of your position. This doesn't mean that any more than a slight majority of the members are believers. And most certainly NOT alarmists like Holt.
It is hardly a "baseless" position to be a skeptic that CO2 is as strong as the IPCC contends when heavyweights like Joanne Simpson and John Theon from NASA are skeptics.”
“It's not surprising that Steve Lonegan denies the reality of climate change. The story should have mentioned that Steve Lonegan's Americans for Prosperity was founded by and is funded by the Koch brothers, the billionaire owners of Koch Industries, the coal, oil and gas conglomerate. AFP also gets funding from the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry's trade association. Given I wrote a six-part series in the Huffington Post about how news organizations routinely fail to disclose that such groups as AFP are fronting for the fossil fuel industry, it's depressing that a Huffington Post reporter didn't mention it. For my series, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/unreliable-sources-how-th_1_b_3367567.html.”
highstreet on Jul 24, 2013 at 22:19:58
“And it's not surprising that Holt is an alarmist and denies the facts of moderate, mostly natural climate change. This story should have mentioned that he works as a professor and gets his department plenty of grant money from the govt AGW mill. Whether or not he makes it into office, he surely did his job using the bully pulpit to bring attention to his radical views. If he does get into office, JPM, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs will surely give him a nice bonus for pushing the Cap and Tax.”
“You can buy a car for a lot less than $30,000, and there are other car companies with plants in the United States that don't have unions and they charge similar prices. If you have studies that show unions have a significant effect on the price of a car, then cite it. Otherwise you are just making it up.”
“There is a big difference between Cuba and democratic socialist countries in Europe. No comparison. They have private market economies and democratic elections. Beyond that, what about corporate welfare in the United States? Why are we still giving the oil and gas industry $4 billion in subsidies annually? It's been getting those subsidies since 1918! Time to take the oil, coal and nuclear industries off the dole. They're sucking this country and the working class dry!”
MiamiKnight on Sep 18, 2012 at 22:48:08
“The truth is most of the Money that you pay at the Gas pump is Taxes to the Feds. A better question to ask is why are we giving Billions to the Muslim Brother Hood and other countries that want to destroy us. ”
r442w30 on Sep 18, 2012 at 22:42:51
“How about stop giving aid to countries who are not our ally like egypt, syria, pakistan etc,etc, 1 billion plus to egypt for submarines when the congress set certain guidelines that needed to be followed to get money and Hillary gives them an exemption. get out of there and keep the money at home”
“If you are going to claim that Krugman makes stuff up, you'd better give some examples and provide the evidence to back it up. Otherwise you have zero credibility. On top of it, you should identify who you are and provide your credentials. It is too easy to sling mud anonymously on the Internet.”
“Paul: That estimate is based on business as usual. It is long past time the historically worst carbon polluter on the planet, the United States, stepped up to show some leadership on addressing global warming. If the rest of the world, especially China and India, see that we are serious, let's hope they and other countries will take action. Your attitude that we shouldn't do anything is appalling.”
MrBIgp on Jul 1, 2014 at 14:58:29
“Where did I say we shouldn't do anything? I advocate a complete solution to the problem. The three general steps are:
1. Massive commitment to nuclear power, replacing all energy from fossil fuels.
2. Technology to remove c02 from atmosphere. google Klaus Lackner
3. Technology to synthesize fuel from c02 and hydrogen. google los alamos green freedom.
The 2100 goals would be:
Negative 10 billion tons net c02 emissions per year.
Standard of living brought to western levels for all people.
Secure supply of energy for at least 1000 years.
The solution to co2 emissions can make us MORE prosperous. This can happen with a world war II type effort.”
“This is just the beginning, Mr. Whatever Your Last Name Is. You have to start somewhere. And there will be pressure on the administration to strengthen the target. You should like this initiative, Paul. It may give a boost to nuclear power plants.”
“The approval of all taxpayers is not at all practical. That's why we elect representatives at the local, state and federal levels. In theory, they are supposed to review the evidence (including the science, one hopes) and make choices on how best to spend our tax dollars. The system is distorted by the fact that elected representatives have to spend a lot of time raising money to run for reelection. And it's not surprising that they tend to cater to the individuals and corporations that contribute money to their campaigns directly or attack their opponents on their own.
It was the federal government that did the heavy lifting to invent the programmable computer, the internet, and even directional drilling fracking techniques. If it were not for government underwriting, would have ever been developed? In any case, there was no way to know in the beginning if any one of those efforts would pan out.
Too often the private sector is unwilling to take chances. Toyota went out on a limb to develop the Prius and lost money on the car initially. U.S. automakers are playing catch-up. They stuck with gas-guzzlers because they fattened their quarterly profits, but they weren't thinking long-term. Inertia is also a problem. I remember meeting with a Ford executive more than 10 years ago who said Ford had big plans to produce fuel-efficient cars. He also conceded that changing the company mindset was like trying to turn around an ocean liner.”
“Individuals beyond the uber rich like the Koch brothers don't have much impact on their own when it comes to investing in any particular technology. In any case, that's how the government works, like it or not. The federal government uses our tax dollars to subsidize commodity crops, for example, which makes junk food cheaper, but doesn't subsidize vegetables and fruits, other than apples, which get very little. The government wastes billions on Cold War-era weapons systems we no longer need, and since 9/11, the U.S. military budget has been at Cold War levels. The United States spends more on its military than all other countries put together.
The government makes choices that I don't like all the time. That's the way it works. In fact, that's the way it works just about everywhere. We do have the ballot box, and in theory we can vote for candidates who represent our interests or run for office ourselves, but the system is rigged, and the way we fund campaigns here with private money is a major problem. In some other democracies, such as Germany, corporations are not allowed to contribute money to candidates.
On the other hand, if you want corporations to make public policy decisions instead of the government, that would be much worse. The limited-government crowd somehow believes that the marketplace will take care of us all. I don't believe that for a minute.”
Uncle Todd on Apr 27, 2014 at 11:56:28
“Not being curt to be rude; time constrained.
P1 I disagree; I know of several small companies in Huntsville that are developing technology with their own money. Not all are seeking to make the gov a customer either, as many in H'ville do.
P2 You do make the good point that there are subs that you don't support, but then go on to say that's the way it is, and later still express little faith in limited gov. What if we did reduce the role of gov where it is no longer subsidizing anything that requires the approval of all the taxpayers? I would add that just because that's the way it is doesn't mean that's the way it has to stay.
P3 Almost. It's not that I want corporations to make public policy, it's that I don't want Gov to make private decisions. I'm no anarchist, we need Gov and we need Regulation, but they need to make real sense based on results, not intentions and interests.”
“Let's get one thing clear about the wind production tax credit. It is not a subsidy. It is a tax break. And the government, whether you like it or not, has been giving energy technologies subsidies and tax breaks for more than 200 years. But given what we now know about global warming, it makes no sense to continue to grant subsidies and tax breaks to energy sources that are threatening the climate. It does, on the other hand, make sense to promote carbon-free and low-carbon energy technologies to protect us and future generations.
Sometimes the federal government, representing the public good instead of the narrow goals of the private sector to turn a quick buck, can jump-start technologies that will benefit us all. And that's how I see federal support for renewable energy. You would rather the federal government continue to lavish nearly $5 billion in subsidies and tax breaks on the oil and gas industry, which doesn't need it? Three of the top five Fortune 500 companies are oil companies!”
Uncle Todd on Apr 27, 2014 at 08:47:52
“Beyond Rockefeller subsidizing his own creation of the oil industry, I didn't say anything about subsidies.
I said, and I paraphrase, you put your money where your mouth is and I won't complain when you are proven to be successful, but leave me out of it. Your reply was that sometimes we have to put public interests over private interests for the public good, including the force of taxation, that includes thinking with which I totally disagree, as you place a value on carbon dioxide emissions and I don't. But let's say that I did agree with you on carbon emissions, but I thought that solar was viable for the future but wind was not. And for the sake of argument let's say that I was correct about solar. By your method, I would have to have invested in both the winning technology and the losing technology, not only wasting part of the capital but also denying it to the eventual winner, which may have come about sooner had the funds not been denied. You deprive me of choice and somebody both wins and loses undeservedly as a result. Multiply this by millions of people and you see that you are presuming that the government can choose better than the people.”
“There were a number of independent nvestigations into the manufactured controversy over emails stolen from climate scientists at East Anglia University in Great Britain. All of them exonerated the scientists of any wrongdoing. No fudging. For more on that tempest in a teapot, see http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html . As far as your maverick former NASA scientist, you are taking the word of one naysayer against mainstream science institutions worldwide? Please. If you actually believe there is an international, government-subsidized conspiracy among scientists, you are delusional. Show me the peer-reviewed science that debunks mainstream climate science. Send me the links. Global warming is all to real, it is happening now, and unless we take action to cut carbon emissions, it will get much, much worse.”
“As I have pointed out before, the oil and gas industry's fluid waste pits annually kill two to three times more birds than wind turbines. For more on turbines' relatively small threat to birds compared with other man-made threats, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/wind-energy-threat-to-bir_b_4321113.html. Meanwhile, older U.S. coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants that rely on a “once-through” cooling process draw hundreds of millions, if not billions, of gallons of water daily from the closest water body, killing at least a billion fish, crabs and shrimp annually. Wind and solar don't kill fish and don't produce dangerously radioactive waste that has to be sequestered for hundreds of years. Nuclear power plants do.”
fabricius on Apr 28, 2014 at 02:34:36
“Look to Denmark. 30+% of electricity is made by wind. The eddiciency rate in the power grid is about 100% better, (You Loose 15-20% of all power in the grid) our powerplant that being natural gas or coal have an efficiency rate of around 95 compared to yours 40. (we use the spill energuy for reginonal heating) If every American used the same amount of energy as we did, and our standard of living is almost the same, easch of you would pay around 2500 dollars less to the energy industry. WHO will Loose from the energy efficiency in US. The energy industry, approx 1 trillion dollars . that requires Investments in new technology that is at hand , and it requires your houses are refurbished to energy opimize them. That creates domestic jobs, but for the energy industry sadly no profit. The main problem in US is the Price of energy. It is too cheap. A gallon gas in Denmark cost 8 dollars, and still we drive around 12-15,000 miles a year in our cars in average, but the car runs 50mpg compared to the average US car around 20-25. So we pay more or less the same in gas to drive the same distance, and just to let you know we do it in average 20% faster.”