Arctic Ice Melt "has the momentum of a runaway train."

reply to post by dragonridr


And what about the banks that got far bigger bailouts, and the oil comp airs that have been propped up like no other business in history.

Can you allow yourself to face this reality?

48 billion saved the auto industry -- you said it was whittled down to 12. Ford is only doing well because GM is still alive. If GM had gone down so would the suppliers -- electronics interiors glass pumps tires wheels gears axles brakes belts lighting. All gone believe it or not is impossible to build a Ford if a GM supplier goes toes up.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr

 

And what about the banks that got far bigger bolts, and the oil comp airs that have been propped up like no other business in history.

Can you allow yourself to face this reality?

No as i said earlier free market if a bank goes under someone else will swoop in and buy there assets city wide comes to mind on this one. The government has no business bailing out any company.Now oils subsidies are not as cut and dry as you think most of the subsidies goes into oil exploration basically trying to find more energy. But that aside attacking the oil industry might satisfy the left’s bloodlust against corporate America, and it might play well in press conferences. But targeted tax hikes against industries one might not like is not an answer to the high price of gas. The call to end subsidies isnt nothing more then an eccuse to target them with taxes. I say want to do whats right end them all but that includes solar wind nuclear etc again the government cant pick winners and losers. However i warn you you end those susidies to oil companies and prepare for the price of gas to double in the US just ask europeans what they pay for gas

PS i dont hate oil companiesthey supply me with gas to drive and i like driving hate walking ya know. Bottom line we need energy or give up all the cool stuff we have like the PC your typing on. And as i said the global warming crowd hates corporate america i get it the 99 percent stuff.But thats not why co2 is rising this is merely an agenda to many people are buying in to.

Originally posted by spyder550
48 billion saved the auto industry -- you said it was whittled down to 12. Ford is only doing well because GM is still alive. If GM had gone down so would the suppliers -- electronics interiors glass pumps tires wheels gears axles brakes belts lighting. All gone believe it or not is impossible to build a Ford if a GM supplier goes toes up.

Saved the Auto industry but yet they went bankrupt anyway did the auto industry come crashing down doesnt seem like it to me. So what exactly did we get for bailing out GM so they wouldnt go into bankruptcy which of course was only delayed? And by the way in a free market economy the demand for cars doesnt decrease just because one company goes down all those parts suppliers etc would just be having to meet the demands as ford and other car companies ramp up production to sell cars to all those GM consumers. GM could disapear today and people would still need cars and other companies will make said cars and those parts for those cars will still need to be made.

Originally posted by spyder550
48 billion saved the auto industry -- you said it was whittled down to 12. Ford is only doing well because GM is still alive. If GM had gone down so would the suppliers -- electronics interiors glass pumps tires wheels gears axles brakes belts lighting. All gone believe it or not is impossible to build a Ford if a GM supplier goes toes up.

Saved the Auto industry but yet they went bankrupt anyway did the auto industry come crashing down doesnt seem like it to me. So what exactly did we get for bailing out GM so they wouldnt go into bankruptcy which of course was only delayed? And by the way in a free market economy the demand for cars doesnt decrease just because one company goes down all those parts suppliers etc would just be having to meet the demands as ford and other car companies ramp up production to sell cars to all those GM consumers. GM could disapear today and people would still need cars and other companies will make said cars and those parts for those cars will still need to be made.

Originally posted by spyder550

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by Mamatus

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by spyder550
And Nero keeps fiddling ..... This a perfect example of mixing partisan politics with science -- the science gets ignored and the my side says science is bad shouts it from the roof tops. Tick Tock

All the phony science and falsified data presented a few years ago in support of global warming probably set the whole movement back by years.

Some people think that the ends justify the means, specially if I know better than you what is right.

Just because some folks to a shortcut (junk science) to try to prove Global Warming does not mean it is not happening..... Many scientists are funded via studies, studies often paid for by one side or the other. When this happens they scientists often find results favoring their provider of paychecks.

One can't deny the visual evidence.

I wasnt suggesting that there is no climate change. I was suggesting that jerks using psuedo-science and falsified data hurt more than helped the cause.

I know there is climate change happening, and indeed would be surprised if it weren't. As a former geologist this period we are currently in has been unusual in it's mild weather/climate. Historically earth has been very different and will most assuredly be very different again. To expect the mild climate of the last couple of hundred years to continue without change is naive at best.

If you will do a little reading you will find that the falsified data thing -- I assume you are talking about the emails. Turned out to be nothing other than joking between colleagues. The "pserdo-science" I take issue with that people doing this kind of science are actually pretty serious. But to that the Koch brothers spent a whole bunch of money - with a skeptical scientist at Stanford. He came back -- well yeah this was sound methodology, not really what the Koch's wanted to hear, to their credit they didn't bury the investigation. These facts are easily available from reputable sources, Sources unlike where ever you found your information.

NO! I am talking about a couple of studies produced by supposedly reliable and trustworthy scientists, funded and supported by a university (govt) that made up reams of data regarding virtually anything involving global warming.....this was a huge stink.

Not talking about some jerks joking in emails.....holy crap.

What do you have to say about the ice sheet increase of Antarctica? IF, you are so worried, do some research of your own. Don't rely on those writings of people who have a monetary interest because it's obvious which way they will lean. NO ONE said ANYTHING about Global Warming until, there was a way to make money for the idea (Carbon Tax, Carbon Credits, and Green Technology). Really, what do you think you're going to do about the Sun and the wobbling of the Earth? If I were you, I'd be behind the movement to find an Inhabitable Planet that we could reach within the next BILLION YEARS.

reply to post by dragonridr


In a market system, if a bank or any business goes bankrupt, its assets are auctioned off to the public, where people can get some level of their property back.

In this supposed free market system you think is so great, the ability of average people to participate is locked out, and only privileged groups get to bid.

Like in a communist system everyone is supposed to get their fair share, but the privileged groups get everything.

Now oils subsidies are not as cut and dry as you think most of the subsidies goes into oil exploration basically trying to find more energy. But that aside attacking the oil industry might satisfy the left’s bloodlust against corporate America, and it might play well in press conferences. But targeted tax hikes against industries one might not like is not an answer to the high price of gas.

WOW! and you don't see the double speak In this post of yours?

While attacking GM is a bloodlust sport of the right, pretending that taxpayer money should payroll the oil industries risks in oil exploration is about as hypocritical as it gets.

Personally, I believe in the market system. If oil gets too expensive than alternative energy sources will emerge, necessity being the mother of invention, new and better energy sources will be developed.

The only thing oil subsidies do is keep a bunch of emperialistic jerks in power at the cost of everyone else.

I think your choice is whether you choose too believe in the market system, or the con of the free market ideology.

reply to post by pistolerooo


Just WOW!

You couldnt be more wrong if you tried

Have you ever considered that some people are motivate far more by other things, like the pursuit of truth, than they are money?

reply to post by poet1b


Not going to happen. This is the last gasp of the folks who want to push global warming on us, make wild claims and hope somebody gets suckered into supporting them for a little while. In 10 years they'll have abandoned the idea and taken the cash and moved onto another climate based crisis.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
There's those words again.

Could - Climate Models - Predicted

Climate models are fantasy, that's why they are MODELS!
Where's all the flooding? I thought we were supposed to be under hundreds of feet of water when the ice had even half melted!! I remember them saying that!

So, in two years time when we're all still here can we dispense with this highly profitable nonsense?

Quick! Defend the sanctity of business!

NO! I am talking about a couple of studies produced by supposedly reliable and trustworthy scientists, funded and supported by a university (govt) that made up reams of data regarding virtually anything involving global warming.....this was a huge stink. Not talking about some jerks joking in emails.....holy crap.

I presume you have a citation for this?? No citation no fact.

Originally posted by spyder550

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by spyder550

 

See this is stupid also the government shouldnt be picking products to back. We have a free market if you build a better widget and people want said widget youll make money. The government has no business promoting an agenda at the tax payers expense. If a solar power company isnt feasible without government money it needs to disapear. This isnt the same as the government promoting research this is the government giving people money to sell a product GM should never have been bailed out. They should have went into bankruptcy which they did any way i might add and let another car company buy there assets.Thats how the free market works oh and your wrong about gm by the way. But the truth is, even once all that stock is sold, GM's "repayment" will be well short of that $49.5 billion. And that could turn out to be a big problem for General Motors.

GM has satisfied the terms of the $49.5 billion bailout that gave the giant automaker a new lease on life in 2009, paying back the debt as agreed -- with a mix of cash and stock.
Here's the problem in a nutshell: Unless GM's stock price goes way up, and soon, the amount of money ultimately recouped by the Treasury is likely to fall short of that $49.5 billion -- probably about $12 billion short.So as of right now the treasury dept owns alot of GM and tax payers are going to take a huge loss.

So how much is saving the American automobile industry worth -- If GM went down the so would Chrysler and Ford. Even more importantly the supply chain for automobile industry in the US. What would be the tax revenue hit with a massive job loss and industry failure, of all the symbiotic relationships. So that is not worth 12 billion to you.
.
Ford sits in the corner breathing a sigh of relief,

BTW - What you see as picking bets I see as jumpstarting a critical industry, with job growth potential. Not really the first time we have done that - I would think the development of the transcontinental railroad was mostly enabled by the government. And why do we just give money to the oil companies.

edit on 7-5-2013 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-5-2013 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-5-2013 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)

It's an absolute fallacy to think that GM would have just closed it's doors and stop producing cars. Debt reorganizing would have been the words of the day and, much like other companies before it, life would go on.

I am proud of Ford for refusing the money when offered.

Originally posted by pistolerooo
What do you have to say about the ice sheet increase of Antarctica? IF, you are so worried, do some research of your own. Don't rely on those writings of people who have a monetary interest because it's obvious which way they will lean. NO ONE said ANYTHING about Global Warming until, there was a way to make money for the idea (Carbon Tax, Carbon Credits, and Green Technology). Really, what do you think you're going to do about the Sun and the wobbling of the Earth? If I were you, I'd be behind the movement to find an Inhabitable Planet that we could reach within the next BILLION YEARS.

The earth doesn't wobble it precesses

Really? Research is by reading papers - what do you think it is? Research is expensive that is why governments fund it. You do know that it is more than a couple of guys on jet skis with a case of beer, don't you.

Did you know that the build up of the Antarctic ice is caused by the warming of the atmosphere - this has caused a change in the wind that is actually helping to pile up ice in the Antarctic. Please do not let the fact that a warmer atmosphere can cause a cooler climate, it can and your head won't assplode. On the other hand the fact that the ice on the south pole has no effect on what we are talking about, which is the methane release because of the melting ice at the north pole.

You appear to be so steeped in politics that you have no comprehension of the science.

reply to post by bbracken677


And if the oil industry paid back all the money they have gotten from the fed gov, the fed wouldn't be in debt, and SS would be funded for a hundred years.

But doesn't fit in with the right wing programmed mentality.

reply to post by bbracken677


So you are proud of Ford for not taking the money..

Let's just see what Ford's Chief executive Mr Mulally has to say about that.

Mulally's comments weren't offered as a criticism of Romney. Rather, he was defending Ford's decision to go to Congress with GM and Chrysler in 2008 to call for a federal rescue. Ford didn't need the money itself -- it had previously arranged a multibillion-dollar line of private credit. But Mulally said he believed then, just as he believes now, that GM and Chrysler threatened to drag the entire country into a depression.

La times

reply to post by spyder550


This myth that Antarctica is losing ice keeps getting repeated.

Antarctica is losing ice.

www.nasa.gov...

In a landmark study published Thursday in the journal Science, 47 researchers from 26 laboratories report the combined rate of melting for the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica has increased during the last 20 years. Together, these ice sheets are losing more than three times as much ice each year (equivalent to sea level rise of 0.04 inches or 0.95 millimeters) as they were in the 1990s (equivalent to 0.01 inches or 0.27 millimeters). About two-thirds of the loss is coming from Greenland, with the rest from Antarctica.

It is sad how people cling to anything to maintain their delusions.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
There's those words again.

Could - Climate Models - Predicted

Climate models are fantasy, that's why they are MODELS!
Where's all the flooding? I thought we were supposed to be under hundreds of feet of water when the ice had even half melted!! I remember them saying that!

So, in two years time when we're all still here can we dispense with this highly profitable nonsense?

I think you're referring to the scenario if all the ice in Greenland and/or in Antarctica would melt.

The sea levels would only rise a little if all the ice in the Arctic Sea melted because those ice are already 90% submerged, only the top 10% would be added to the overall volume of the all the oceans which is a very little.

A different story if all Green land and/or Antarctica ice melts because more than 50% of those ice are above water and much larger than the volume of the Arctic Sea ice.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by spyder550

 

This myth that Antarctica is losing ice keeps getting repeated.

Antarctica is losing ice.

www.nasa.gov...

In a landmark study published Thursday in the journal Science, 47 researchers from 26 laboratories report the combined rate of melting for the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica has increased during the last 20 years. Together, these ice sheets are losing more than three times as much ice each year (equivalent to sea level rise of 0.04 inches or 0.95 millimeters) as they were in the 1990s (equivalent to 0.01 inches or 0.27 millimeters). About two-thirds of the loss is coming from Greenland, with the rest from Antarctica.

It is sad how people cling to anything to maintain their delusions.

He is talking about the Rights current talking point denying science.

Over all the ice caps are shrinking -- The winter ice - ice that forms because it is winter and melts because it is summer has increased -- the reason for the increase is because the earth is warming -- a paradox but a not a mystery.

worldnews.nbcnews.com...

reply to post by cholo
Why don't you come up with some facts instead of ridicule?

Haven't you gotten your talking points yet?