Boehner hits the nail on the head
President Obama’s soon-to-be-revealed second-term climate change proposal is “absolutely crazy,” Speaker John Boehner said Thursday.
The Ohio Republican was incredulous when asked to react to reports that the White House plans to regulate carbon emissions from power plants as part of its climate change strategy.
“I think this is absolutely crazy,” Boehner said at his weekly press conference. “Why would you want to increase the cost of energy and kill more American jobs at a time when American people are asking, ‘Where are the jobs.’ “
From:The Hill’s E2-Wire
David Riser says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:52 pm
Well this should have some interesting side effects….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Don’t worry they will be banned.
Remember the ultimate goal is to move Americans out of their homes and off their land into cities composed of Bloomberg’s micro-mini apartments because we are now seeing Micro-Apartments Built Across America in the Name of Sustainability <—(read this one)
For those like _Jim who think I am crazy try this article: L.A. County’s Private Property War or this one from the Wall Street Journal California Declares War on Suburbia: Planners want to herd millions into densely packed urban corridors. It won’t save the planet but will make traffic even worse. or ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability: Sustainable City or Tips for Selling the ‘Urban’ Experience to Suburbanites “Today’s article is by my friend Lee Epstein, an attorney and land use planner working for sustainability in the Mid-Atlantic region….”
Or this one that says it all:
I recommend watching Rosa Koire’s youtube or visiting her blogs DEMOCRATS AGAINST U. N. AGENDA 21 and THE POST SUSTAINABLE INSTITUTE
Jai is given too much credence here. He’d be the guy calling someone a witch in Salem, MA in the late in the 1700’s, well after the hysteria had already ended in the 1690’s. Jai, you’re late to the AGW party. Your ilk is dwindling, and soon you will look back on your life with more self loathing.
The arctic sea ice page for this site is late updating the arctic ice comparison graphic I linked to. Not sure why it is late being updated. . .probably the linked site, Anywhoo, the most recent arctic picture can be found here
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
and you can compare it here:
http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg
Who cares what the arctic ice is doing… It’s foolhardy to think that if ice melts or freezes, CO2 caused it. It’s just a distraction, like you Jai.
Totally beats me how you can have an environmental movement which:
(1) created Goebbels-style the Big Fracking Lie (refer Gaslands etc.) in order to try to stamp out coal seam and shale gas extraction even though it demonstrably reduces net CO2 emissions and allows much more thermal-grade coal to stay in the ground for much longer; and also
(2) bitterly opposes trials of oceanic cyanobacteria stimulation to sequester CO2 in the deep ocean, probably the most viable, achievable means for a safe, emergency bulk sequestration and ocean acidification reversal if the current best understanding of the oceanic geochemical record is anything to go by (refer numerous issues of Nature Geoscience over the last 5 years).
Clearly the real problem is the rise of a sort of weird, crypto-religious, post modernist cult which has swept through the halls of science and political life like the Great Plague.
Let’s stamp that plague out real soon now.
Us Aussies are starting the ball rolling this September 14 when we annihilate our rabid Labor-Green federal government at the ballot box.
The pertinent question facing Representative Boehner is not the condition of the president’s mental health, but what is Mr. Boehner going to do to block the president’s plans? The Congress has to date done little to thwart the administration’s economy crippling carbon dioxide agenda.
It’s too bad that nobody ever bothered to look at where Obama came from. I’m not talking about where he was born. At this point it’s irrelevant. I’m talking about where he grew up; which was Indonesia and Hawaii. And his education was at Columbia College (so he says) which is in New York and also at Harvard. So, the first question has to be: ‘Why did he come to Illinois, of all places, to launch his political career?’- Illinois, arguably one of the most corrupt states in the Union. And not just Illinois, but Chicago, the epicenter of that corruption. Supposedly he was lured here by the ‘fixer,’ Anthony Rezko. Guess where Rezko is now? Prison? And Barack and Michelle bought their first home in Chicago’s near south neighborhood of Hyde Park through the arrangements made by Rezko. Alice Palmer, who served in the Illinois Senate in the state capital of Springfield, was based in Chicago. She showed young Obama around and took him under her wing. When Mel Reynolds, who served in the U.S. Congress for that district, went to prison for returning the affections of an underage campaign staffer (oh, and also corruption), Palmer left her Senate seat to run in the primaries for Reynolds’s vacated seat. When Jesse Jackson Jr. entered the same primaries Alice Palmer knew she could not compete with the Jackson name recognition or war chest so she went to return to her former Senate seat. Guess what? Obama had slid into her seat unopposed and then stabbed his former mentor in the back, taking Alice Palmer to court on voter fraud. Voter fraud in Chicago? Shocking! Oh, and by the way, guess where Jackson’s headed? The slammer? Now, when Barack Obama ‘served’ (I use that term loosely) in the Illinois Senate he gerrymandered his district. Hyde Park contains Frank Lloyd Wright’s Robie House, the renowned University of Chicago, and a small liberal enclave, but it’s primarily a poor south side Chicago ghetto. So Obama redrew it, adding Chicago’s influential lakefront residences to the mix. Around this time he ran against the wildly popular, former Black Panther, Bobby Rush, for a seat in the U.S. Congress, and he lost big time. Apparently this loss actually threatened Obama’s marriage, and there’s indications that it may be the reason his long term family doctor was not invited to his inauguration. (Draw your own conclusions.) Sometime later, Carol Moseley Braun (yes, I actually did campaign work for her) would be soundly ejected as an Illinois Senator in Washington due to the gross shenanigans in her first term (vacation junkets). The Republican contestant would find himself embroiled in a scandal due to the disclosure (blatantly illegal) of sealed court records in his divorce proceedings. So Barack Obama pretty much slid into the Illinois Senate seat in Washington unopposed. Does one see a pattern here? Now, when Obama went to run for the presidency, Illinois law authorized the governor to name a temporary replacement for that vacated seat. The governor at that time, Rod Blogojevich decided this was worth some money so he went to sell it. Well, he went to prison for that, and he’s perhaps socializing with the preceding Illinois Governor Ryan, also in prison. Barack Obama maintains he never discussed his vacated seat with Rod which is probably technically true, but during Rod’s trial it was revealed that Obama discussed it with a union steward who subsequently discussed it with Rod. The person Obama recommended; Valerie Jarrett.
This is your president folks. This is the man who has unilaterally determined that we can do without about 1/3rd of our electrical generating capacity. This is the man who’s earlier career was as a community organizer; a profession owing its legacy to Saul Alinsky. This is the man formerly affiliated with the SEIU, Acorn, and Reverend Wright. This is the man, who in his earlier days, went by the name of Barry Dunham [the last name of which more accurately represents his true name since his father (already married) could not have legally been married to his mother], but then reverted to the more exotic sounding Barack Obama.
Hope and Change!
Jai: with regard to your opinions on green energy. You must wonder why people take offense to your harmful nonsense. It’s because your ilk have their hands in our pockets. Without being able to take our money, so called green energy is not possible. Without the wealth created by a prospering nation, people like you would need to actually take care of yourself –and then people like you would have to shut your pie hole and get to work doing something which fulfills someone’s needs. But such is not the case, and you’ve been made into a useful “you know what” preaching to people who don’t have a clue about science.
That you can read and are capable of looking at the evidence presented before you, yet continue with your banter, is mind boggling. But then again, liberalism is really a mental disorder.
I feel so much better that Boehner plans to stand up to DingleBarry and the AGW hoax. Oh wait. Boehner can’t even seem to distinguish between illegal aliens and legal immigrants.
Note to John, the illegal aliens are the one that break and enter our house by climbing over the fence and other methods. They’re easy to identify because there is no record of them signing in at a border crossing and they have no documentation. Boehner is yet another Mr. Magoo inexplicably handed the gavel of power in the people’s House. God help us all.
Note 2 to John, the weather and climate has no business being discussed, debated or voted on in Congress, period. Only in the most insane world can the weather be used as a political tool.
jai mitchell says:
June 20, 2013 at 6:20 pm
=================
A true believer and yet you have not quantified how carbon is doing anything. Nor have you explained how its doing it with scientific methods which are repeatable and repetitive with the same results.
I have read all the talking points none of which are supported by real science.
It is almost as if someone here was a paid shill for the Obama EPA trying to justify itself. To many talking points and all the baseless hype.. Or simply a troll..
@jai mitchell, June 20, 2013 at 11:18 am
All you have proven with this post is that the US intelligence and defense establishments were duped like the rest of us by the claims of the AGW hysterians at the IPCC and other agenda-driven groups.
I’m sure most people who contributed to that report would admit that their projections of impending doom are now “inoperative,” to quote an oft-used term in government jargon. Why can’t you?
“How does Texas do it?”
They are painting all the drilling rigs in Eagle Ford green.
jai mitchell says: @ur momisugly June 20, 2013 at 6:20 pm
….Once the arctic begins to be ice free in June the average arctic temperature in the summer will climb by over 8C and your fantasy of a steady-state thermal system in the 400+ ppmv CO2 world will be proven as a complete delusion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It seems William McClenney should have had you read his article on a more recent paper: Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?
The key phrases from the paper are “… the first major reactivation of the bipolar seesaw would probably constitute an indication that the transition to a glacial state had already taken place…….Thus, glacial inception occurred ~3 kyr before the onset of significant bipolar-seesaw variability…” translated that means the decrease of Arctic ice while the Antarctic ice is increasing comes 3,000 yrs AFTER the transition, and the bipolar-seesaw is exactly what is happening now.
The paper goes on to say
…Comparison [of the Holocene] with MIS 19c, a close astronomical analogue characterized by an equally weak summer insolation minimum (474Wm−2) and a smaller overall decrease from maximum summer solstice insolation values, suggests that glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240±5 ppmv (Tzedakis et al., 2012).”
Actual paper:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/cp-8-1473-2012.pdf (PDF raw)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/cp-8-1473-2012-hlt.pdf (PDF highlighted)
Here is another paper by scientists who support CO2 as a factor in climate change
Others think we will approach the critical TSI but remain in an interglacial
So you have a span of summer insolation minimum values needed to initiate glaciation somewhere between 474Wm2 (Tzedakis et al., 2012) and 416 Wm2 (Sirocko & Seelos) and we are now at 428 Wm2.
On top of that snow has been increasing in the Northern Hemisphere for the last few years.
NOAA graphs:
NH snow Oct. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201210.gif
NH snow Nov http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201211.gif
NH snow Dec. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201212.gif
NH snow Jan. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201301.gif
NH snow Feb. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201302.gif
So We know
1. The Holocene is a few centuries over half the present precession cycle length.
2. The Transition Periods can have abrupt warmings (within a decade)
3. The present solar insolation is in the window for glacial inception.
4. The reactivation of the bipolar seesaw constitutes an indication that the transition to a glacial state had already taken place.
5. During the last glaciation scientists found Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
6. Other scientists have found plants grow better and need less water with an increase in CO2.
7. Carbon dioxide plays one of the central roles in respiratory alkalosis. Note, however, that tissue hypoxia due to critically-low carbon dioxide level in the alveoli is usually the main life-threatening factor in the severely sick. As we discussed before, CO2 is crucial for vasodilation and the Bohr effect.
8. CO2 Heals Lung Damage and Lung Injury
So with the earth’s temperatures decreasing over the long term as the sun’s insolation hovers near glacial inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again, WHY in the name of the thousand little gods would anyone in their right mind quit producing the magic gas that makes life possible for plants and animals and also might keep us out of the deep freeze!
Mac the Knife says:
June 20, 2013 at 11:38 am
‘Apparently, ‘stopping AGW’ is akin to a civil right, according to Jonathan Overpeck, co-director of the Institute of the Environment at the University of Arizona: “Lincoln would have tried to stop it….”’
How? By reducing the amount of munitions expended by Grant’s army?
I find that I must disagree with Speaker Boehner; Obama’s plan is perfectly rational and in fact, Brilliant – ONCE you realize just which game Obama is playing!
This has nothing to do with “climate change”, and Obama knows nothing will pass Congress while he’s in office. He even knows that he doesn’t dare cut loose the EPA for fear of killing the economy. THIS is Obama’s plan:
– Pay lip service to the spectre of Global Warming, not with the intention of actually doing anything , but just enough to keep the always gullible Warmistas on his side and contributing to the Cause; and then when nothing happens blame it all on those Evil “Deniers” and demand even more money in order to continue to do battle. Then, siphon all the money off to his friends and supporters and after 3 more years are gone, go off to live a life in luxury in Hawaii for the rest of his life.
Like I said, Brilliant.
Let’s see… The US has a $17 Trillion national debt, $221 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, we’re in the worst recession/”recovery” since the Great Depression, The FED is printing $85 billion/month to keep the stock and real estate bubbles temporarily inflated, US bond prices are falling and bond yields are rising quickly, an immigration bill will soon be passed, which will add an estimated to add $60~100 billion/year in entitlement expenditures to cover 11~20 million new “US persons” (aka new Democrat voters), a $500 billion annual trade deficit, the US$ is tanking, Obamacare is a train wreck now projected to cost $20,000/yr for a family of 4, 50 million people are now on Food Stamps (and growing at an unprecedented rate), the Labor Participation Rate is the lowest since 1979, REAL unemployment is projected to be 16%, REAL inflation is projected to be around 6%, oil will soon be over $100/bbl, the US savings rate is the at the lowest levels ever, the US already waste $1.75 Trillion/yr on business rules/regulation compliance costs and Obama wishes to pour more gasoline on the fire by adding more CO2 taxes/regulations.
What could possibly go wrong?….
It’s almost like Obama wishes to purposefully collapse the existing US political socio-economic system and replace it with one that will “Fundamentally Transform the USA”. It seems that Obama is implementing the 1966 Cloward-Piven strategy of overwhelming/collapsing the system in order to replace it with a gigantic centrally-controlled nanny state.
I really to know how the US survives this assault.
We should worry about Obama turning the US into Siberia with all the gulags he must be planning.
With the appearance of the prospect of Global Cooling, it is now a race for politicians to “do something” so they can take credit when they finally decide that the government funded scientists should start talking about a reversal of our climate fortunes.
jai mitchell says:
June 20, 2013 at 6:26 pm
The proximate cause appears to be that a page I tried to access, http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20130619.jpg returned some sort of error. I can handle a HTTP 404 response, it looks like the connection didn’t happen.
I just tried it again, and got the 404 response, so the script tried 6/18 and was successful.
So the comparison image is now 6/18.
You can also see it at the source, http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=18&fy=2007&sm=06&sd=18&sy=2013
jai mitchell says:
June 20, 2013 at 6:20 pm
William McClenney says:
June 20, 2013 at 5:20 pm
you said,
blah blah blah
Thank you.
1) Tell us Jai, what part of Green Energy is actually green?
YOUR RESPONSE:You change the question “I am sure that is not your question”. Repeat and expand on claims, but provide no verifiable information. This question remains to be answered.
2) I, and I suspect a lot of others here, would be interested to know how green energy will “prevent the loss of life that is detailed in this report.” Would you be so kind as to expand on this? I am particularly interested to know how an intermittent energy source which nominally produces at about 10% rated output will have any effect on “major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020.”
YOUR RESPONSE:”blah, blah, blah”
MY RESPONSE: I did not detect a response to the question asked. I did not ask if “with an aggressive transformation effort, we can reduce the emissions of CO2 to a point where we may, and I stress, MAY prevent the early loss of life and the collapse of our modern civilization by 2065.”? I asked how it would. I detected no response to “I am particularly interested to know how an intermittent energy source which nominally produces at about 10% rated output will have any effect on “major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020.”
3) Speaking about “major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020 “, I, for one, found it fascinating to consider cities sunk beneath rising seas and Siberian climate in the same sentence. It strikes me as just a little bit odd that rising seas are associated with a Siberian climate. I thought rising seas were associated with a tropical climate weirding the poles. So the question here is did you bump your head?
YOUR RESPONSE: Non-responsive.
MY RESPONSE: Did you, or did you not, bump your head?
4) Jai, are you truly concerned about climate change? I mean the catastrophic variety? If so then you really should go read http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/
YOUR RESPONSE: Non-responsive. “The Holocene has already ended, we just don’t know it yet. If humanity survives an additional 1000 years we will look back and say the Holocene ended in 1860.”
MY RESPONSE: References please. peer-reviewed if you do not mind, .
YOUR RESPONSE: “I read your link, not a whole lot there actually. The Eemian is well understood, the theory that we will stay in a “goldilocks” interglacial through the next Milankovich cycle is not something I have seen before and it’s certainty is highly doubtful, given that they don’t really have a way describe the mechanism of comparison of the Holocene to MIS-11. ”
MY RESPONSE: Good dismissal. I quote extensively from the peer-reviewed literature, and you do not. The Eemian is not at all well understood. If it were then we would know what the hypsithermal highstand really was, instead of one paper referencing a dozen others for a range of from +6 to +45 amsl, with an outlier at +52 amsl. The intended salient point here, Jai, is that even on things which actually have happened the science is not that particularly well settled. Which makes consideration of the science being settled on things which have not happened yet, a bit unsettling. We do not actually know how much higher the sea-level highstand actually was during the second thermal pulse of the last interglacial. But we do know it was something like 10-100 times higher than the best anthropogenic prediction you fear.
YOUR RESPONSE: “and the “possibility” (actually the results of the ENTIRE body of scientific evidence) that, at the near end of the Holocene, the latest iteration of the genus Homo unwittingly produced enough GHG into the atmosphere to raise the global temperature significantly so that within the course of only several hundred years, that the CO2, Methane and the earth’s temperature and sea levels reached that of MIS-31.”
MY RESPONSE: It would be in your best interest to restrict the conversation to post-MPT time. MIS-31 occurred well before that, so strictly speaking, it is not nearly as relevant as the eccentricity paced interglacials. Which also means it occurred in a much warmer time as we decayed from the PETM. Even though your response was non-sequitur, you did actually get marginally close to the heart of the matter before us. Assuming CO2 is the thermal variable it is made out to be, and assuming we really do not know if we will mimic MIS-11 or not, what would you propose we do? Remove it? That sword cuts both ways. There are only two choices here. We either are, or are not, going forward into an extended interglacial. If we are, and you are right about your presumptions regarding CO2, then a repeat of the extended interglacial, MIS-11, will be quite brutal, climatewise http://si-pddr.si.edu/jspui/bitstream/10088/7516/1/vz_Olson_and_hearty_a_sustained_21m_sea-level_highstand_during_mis_1.pdf
The problem here, of course, is if we saunter down the 87.5% probability and that you are right that the Holocene is over. The act of removing your climate security blanket at such a time might actually remove your only known climate speedbump to the next glacial. Are you suggesting this is the appropriate anthropogenic response? Or does the possibility that, given the last 5 million years of cooling-off and becoming more climate extreme http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/Lisiecki_Raymo-d18O_Stack-Pa05.pdf we are heading back up the realclimate scale to warmer, obliquity-paced conditions as occurred during MIS-31?
5) If +45M amsl right at the end-Eemian doesn’t scare you out of your tree, then you will need to climb another 7 meters higher if Astrid Lysa et al’s measurements are correct http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf Given that 45+7=52, and that 52 meters converts to 170.6 feet, the question is will your treehouse up in NorCal be situated 170.6 feet above present mean sea level?
Because, you see, none of this really matters. The low-ball highstand that occurred during the second thermal pulse of the end-Eemian (right at its end) is +6M amsl, or an order of magnitude greater than IPCC’s 2007 AR4 worst case estimate of sea level rise by 2100. My, your, our worst case gold standard of science anthropogenic signal comes in at less than 10% of the lowest estimate of end extreme interglacial climate noise. If we compare the AR4 +0.59M CAGW worst case to Astrid Lysa et al’s +52M amsl estimate we shrink to 1.1% of the end extreme interglacial climate noise.
YOUR RESPONSE: Non-responsive. ” You’re desire to compare the AR4 2100 sea level rise to prior interglacials shows your habit of minimalizing AGW.”
MY RESPONSE: Incorrect. What my question does show is cognition of the rather basic paradigm of signal to noise ratio. I am not minimalizing AGW, I am asking you to man-up. I see your 2007 AR4 worst case scenario(bet) by 2100, and I raise you +6M at the end-Eemian.
You say “In addition, once the EES (equilibrium) is met–usually considered about 1.5 times the temperature of the CS (short term) the melting of the glaciers and the Land-based ice sheets will take an additional several hundred years to complete their melt. so, does 150 Meters sound bad?” Alas, all I can reference is a paltry +52M at the end-Eemian….. BTW, where do you get +150M of sea level from? Just curious. References??
YOUR RESPONSE: “YES, will it look like that in 2100, no way. Will it look worse than 5 meters by 2100. Yes, I can pretty much guarantee it.”
MY RESPONSE: With MIS-11 +21.3 amsl, and MIS-5e somewhere between +6 to +52M amsl, we can be said to agree on this point.
6) Oh, and let us know about those Texas green energy jobs. I mean I have read all the reports on the green energy revolution in Europe, and the numbers didn’t look all that good. How does Texas do it?
YOUR RESPONSE: Non-responsive. I await a discussion as to the economics you assert. In Texas. As compared and contrasted with Europe. Please respond.
YOUR RESPONSE: “Once the arctic begins to be ice free in June the average arctic temperature in the summer will climb by over 8C and your fantasy of a steady-state thermal system in the 400+ ppmv CO2 world will be proven as a complete delusion.”
MY RESPONSE: Non-responsive. Off-topic. At this point I am going to assume that “fantasies” consist of statements that do not provide substantiating links or references (that I have to look up by myself).
CONCLUSIONS:
Please respond to the questions asked.
OPTIONAL:
Please provide on-topic, succinct, links and/or locatable quotations.
William
jai mitchell says:
June 20, 2013 at 1:57 pm
George e Smith,
you said,
Tesla Motors, the darling of the green energy set, recently announced a profit. The only reason they made a profit, was because tax paying real workers paid a bundle for each of those 416 horsepower race cars, I heard the figure was $7500 for each Model S car sold. And they also made a profit selling “carbon credits” to other companies.
————-
well, If you want to take away tax credits for tesla then I suppose you think it is ok to take away tax credits for oil, gas and coal developers in the U.S. as well. . .
—
What tax credits for oil, gas and coal?
You are confusing tax credits with accelerated amortization of R&D costs, which are available to all businesses. You are incredibly naive and misinformed.
Thanks Ric,
I figured it was the linked site.
Reg,
What tax credits for oil, gas and coal?
———
if you take the actual impact of u.s. coal it comes out to about 500 billion dollars (including health and transportation costs.)
this study checked all the externals passed onto the public (including transportation issues, land use issues, water and health, including mercury)
it also included “direct subsidies”
http://www.wvgazette.com/static/coal%20tattoo/HarvardCoalReportSummary.pdf
comes out to about 500 billion dollars a year. and that’s just coal.
——
really? they only get the same subsidies that everybody else gets? hmmm I wonder why the oil industry spent 36 million dollars lobbying over the last 15 years. (not including campaign contributions)
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=E01
—
and those are the ones we know about. . . you saying there are no special provisions in the tax or legislative code that afford them extra profits at the expense of the taxpayer, consumer???
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/news/2011/05/05/9663/big-oils-misbegotten-tax-gusher/
getting rid of only a few of the largest tax subsidies for the oil industry would raise 22 billion dollars in additional revenue between now and 2017
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Oil_and_Gas_Breaks.JPG
William
goodness, you are a tough nut. . .
you compare the Eemian maximum directly to the AR4 2100 sea levels. How can that possibly be a truthful comparison. It is inauthentic and deceptive. The sea level maximum will only be reached in the following scenarios. The maximum sea level rise (steady state) and comparable to the Eemian (or any other interglacial) is a steady state value not a transitory one. It will only be reached when a plateau of warming is reached and then we stay there for several hundred years while the ice shelves melt.
any other comparison to previous interglacials is disingenuous.
—————-
I said the green part is the non-polluting part (and then qualified it as the “less” polluting part) to say that I did not answer this is also disingenuous. Do you often mischaracterize other people’s answers?
—————-
The fact is that sea level rise is the least of our concerns, I know that you profess a significant attention to that one issue but the reality is that the changes in rainfall and food resource patterns will much more rapidly affect our civilization.
jai mitchell is not only credulous, he is also an economic illiterate. He says:
“getting rid of only a few of the largest tax subsidies for the oil industry would raise 22 billion dollars in additional revenue between now and 2017”
That sounds exactly like something jai mitchell would say, if he believed that money belonged to the government. But it doesn’t. It belongs to the shareholders, and the green-eyed jealousy that prompts comments like that sound like they come straight from V.I. Lenin.
And:
“… the oil industry spent 36 million dollars lobbying over the last 15 years.”
That is nothing. The oil industry is HUGE — a multi-billion dollar part of the economy. $36 million is an insignificant drop in the bucket, and simply intended to maintain the industry’s existing position against ravenous parasites like mitchell. [Note that Obama spent more than $1 BILLION on his 4-year re-election campaign.]
jai mitchell knows as little about the economy as he does about science.
dbstealey
you didn’t check that the money I mentioned is actually tax subsidies given by the government to the shareholders. Most of whom moved it offshore.
I don’t think you checked this graphic when you replied. you should:
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Oil_and_Gas_Breaks.JPG