Talk-Polywell.org

The loon himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltyicIEd ... e=featured
Advocating taxing and redistribution of wealth. Here is the agenda of the climate cabal, raw. Not an independent, a Progressive. A good ending though. A lot like Charles at Nuclear Green. Still a loon though.

Nuclear gets a boost from carbon taxes:



From DOE NREL: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/ewits.html

Nuclear gets a boost from carbon taxes:

So does China. Moving production from the more efficient USA to the less efficient China.

Typical push on a balloon thinking vs systems thinking.

MSimon wrote:So does China. Moving production from the more efficient USA to the less efficient China.

China gets set back by import taxes. Production moves back to the USA. But we've had this discussion.

It does not in fact help China one iota.

Josh Cryer wrote:

MSimon wrote:So does China. Moving production from the more efficient USA to the less efficient China.

China gets set back by import taxes. Production moves back to the USA. But we've had this discussion.

It does not in fact help China one iota.

Ever hear of WTO?

Josh Cryer wrote:

MSimon wrote:So does China. Moving production from the more efficient USA to the less efficient China.

China gets set back by import taxes. Production moves back to the USA. But we've had this discussion.

It does not in fact help China one iota.

Two words:
Smoot Hawley. Look it up. Stupidest thing the Federal Govt ever did.

It is expensive. And it is not politically feasible. But let's not kid ourselves that it hurts us more than China.

Josh Cryer wrote:It is expensive. And it is not politically feasible. But let's not kid ourselves that it hurts us more than China.

And you want to hurt the Chinese?

Why?

Socialism is a nihilist cult.

They're a totalitarian communist state whose rise to superpower status threatens the human race.

Josh Cryer wrote:They're a totalitarian communist state whose rise to superpower status threatens the human race.

And your answer is to give our government control of our energy supplies turning us into the same kind of government.

Are you nuts? Or just too young to know any better?

MSimon wrote:And your answer is to give our government control of our energy supplies turning us into the same kind of government.

Are you nuts? Or just too young to know any better?

The government already subsidies fossil fuels to the point of lubricity.

Josh Cryer wrote:

MSimon wrote:And your answer is to give our government control of our energy supplies turning us into the same kind of government.

Are you nuts? Or just too young to know any better?

The government already subsidies fossil fuels to the point of lubricity.

Subsidy is one thing. Control is another.

According to the Energy Information Administration, electricity production subsidies and support per unit of production (dollars per megawatt hour, MWh) in the U.S. vary greatly by fuel: electricity from coal (the fuel that produced the most electricity, 1,946 billion kilowatt hours, kWh, in FY 2007) got 0.44 dollars/MWh, while refined coal (72 billion kWh) got 29.81 dollars/MWh, solar (1 billion kWh) got 24.34 dollars/MWh, and wind (31 billion kWh) got 23.37 dollars/MWh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

24.34/.44 = 55.3 It is AE that is getting greased.

====

And you are aware of the Edison vs Westinghouse Current wars?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

How can you be sure you aren't enlisted in a similar fight?

Oil, Gas, Nuclear, Wind, Solar vs coal. And other permutations and combinations.

In any case our government has too much control and you want to give them more because they already have some?

Climate logic.

I own a car, I run in to someone, I have to pay for repairs to that car. I buy insurance for this reason.

I am burning trash in my backyard (as a kid we used to do this because the garbage dump would charge by the pound, so ashes tended to be more compact than raw trash), my fire spreads to the woods because I was being careless. The neighbors shed burns down. I have to pay to have the shed replaced and whatever other damages are accrued.

That's fine. I'm with that. I take responsibility for my actions.

Sea level rises because of moderate warming caused by CO2 emissions. I don't take responsibility for it. I laugh at the billion plus people displaced. And I get incredulous when they want to migrate to where I live.

The last scenario I am showing is not something you will live to see (unless you believe in cryonics, but then once you were revived you'd only see it historically speaking). I should live to see it to some extent, if the science is sound.

So far you have not convinced me that the science is unsound, every time someone gives me something to look over, the science is confirmed and I can see the "tricks" that "skeptics" utilize to mess up the analysis. Either it is confirmation bias on their part, or they are intentionally malicious. I can't say.