Scientists want global warming skeptics prosecuted

Originally posted by stevemcc
You are immune to reason. You think the planet is cooling...and then you insist the other side provide reasons. I'll repeat: there is a certain level of ignorance that is breath-taking.

You are immune to reason. You think the planet is cooling...and then you insist the other side provide reasons.

I am quite willing to accept reason, and I also am aware that the planet has been much warmer in the past, when there were no humans to cause it. Climate change is ultimately a reality that planet earth is always changing, and the reality that there is little that humans can do about it.

All the proposals I've heard amount to bureaucrats collecting additional taxes from people who just want to live their lives as comfortably as possible. And these bureaucrats and "scientists" tend to be total hypocrites when it comes to them making sacrifices for their cause.

Instead of name calling, you might try to expose the "ignorant" to new facts. Believe me, we've already heard them, but go ahead and try.

Originally posted by normbenign
[b]You are immune to reason. You think the planet is cooling...and then you insist the other side provide reasons.

I am quite willing to accept reason, and I also am aware that the planet has been much warmer in the past, when there were no humans to cause it. Climate change is ultimately a reality that planet earth is always changing, and the real ...[text shortened]... expose the "ignorant" to new facts. Believe me, we've already heard them, but go ahead and try.[/b]

This is so true, I am fine with these people doing what they want with their money, and some of these people have bucket loads. but stop taking ours to line your own pockets and invest in the clean energy you say so many believe in. I know I would buy green, I already do, but not for the " saving the planet" rationale. As stated before, I care not for being "right or wrong" if "so many" believe then that "so many" should invest. To me it is a pure logic to diversify your energy sources as much as possible, and as that happens the demand for oil "will" drop.I also believe that they should stop giving money to oil company execs. You can bet your last dollar that the government subsidies end up,( at least in part) in their pockets.That is likely to be up front or in the form of profit based bonuses or linked to share price performance, etc.
.
As stated before, STOP THE GRAVY TRAIN.- these are the alarmists making money out of the fear factor.

Originally posted by jimmac
This is so true, I am fine with these people doing what they want with their money, and some of these people have bucket loads. but stop taking ours to line your own pockets and invest in the clean energy you say so many believe in. I know I would buy green, I already do, but not for the " saving the planet" rationale. As stated before, I care not for being " ...[text shortened]... ated before, STOP THE GRAVY TRAIN.- these are the alarmists making money out of the fear factor.

The IEA, within the framework of the World Energy Outlook, has been measuring fossil-fuel subsidies in a systematic and regular fashion for more than a decade. Its analysis is aimed at demonstrating the impact of fossil-fuel subsidy removal for energy markets, climate change and government budgets. The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $548 billion in 2013, $25 billion down on the previous year, in part due to the drop in international energy prices, with subsidies to oil products representing over half of the total. Those subsidies were over four-times the value of subsidies to renewable energy and more than four times the amount invested globally in improving energy efficiency.

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/

Originally posted by finnegan
The IEA, within the framework of the World Energy Outlook, has been measuring fossil-fuel subsidies in a systematic and regular fashion for more than a decade. Its analysis is aimed at demonstrating the impact of fossil-fuel subsidy removal for energy markets, climate change and government budgets. The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consum ...[text shortened]... improving energy efficiency.

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/[/b]

This is where we can tackle the issue without the need for "proving" any points.this is the other side of the gravy train and this also needs to be stopped. my point is mainly around the fact that there are so many out there that want to embrace clean energy, that in itself should be enough to get it happening. I read an idea somewhere about, rather than subsidizing green ( which I am not apposed to) allow green start-ups better tax breaks for x amount of time. so rather than costing tax payers directly for subsidizes for 1000+ plus companies ( of which many would be dodgy) you reward the ones that work.
.
This seems a good idea to me.

[i]Originally posted by jimmac[i]
This is where we can tackle the issue without the need for "proving" any points.this is the other side of the gravy train and this also needs to be stopped. my point is mainly around the fact that there are so many out there that want to embrace clean energy, that in itself should be enough to get it happening. I read an idea somewhere about, rather than subsi ...[text shortened]... of which many would be dodgy) you reward the ones that work.
.
This seems a good idea to me.

"my point is mainly around the fact that there are so many out there that want to embrace clean energy, that in itself should be enough to get it happening."

You fail to understand the economics of this industry. Initial costs are prohibitive and so the industry fails to take off without subsidy.

My counterpoint is that the fossil fuels lobbies work hard to prevent the replacement of their assets with clean energy. You are naive to think there is a fair playing field here. To take one example, a major growth area in Germany has been the use of roof panels to capture energy from the sun, but this is seen as a threat to the fossil fuel lobby (especially in the USA) who do not want to lose customers in this way. OMG- consumers can produce their own electricity without paying fees to a corporation and even charge the corporation for excess electricity fed back into the grid!! How can they get rich that way??? So they prevent subsidy of solar panels with dishonest appeals to "free markets" and freedom from state interference. However, the economics of alternative energy are that without a large up front initial investment, the future gains will not materialise, and without expansion of the market for renewables, the unit costs will not be affordable owing to economies of scale (and their lack). Free markets do not give the customer freedom to choose - they give vested interests a controlling advantage and as such they work against innovation and change. We need state intervention to level the playing field, permit fair competition and overcome vested interests. As long as the political system is corrupt, that will not be easy to achieve. What we need is better government, not less of it.