rickyp wrote:Fate

I eagerly anticipate reading the documents that show oil companies knowingly are destroying the planet

Well, they knew about climate change and CO2 and their contribution..
Why are you waiting . There's plenty of information about this revelation you could access. Unless you really aren't eager to learn.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... years-ago/

If that article shows what you say it does, then quote it. I'm not going fishing.

Fate

***As an illustration of poor priorities: California is largely desert. Its population has grown quite a bit over the last 50 years. Guess what hasn't? Its water infrastructure (dams, reservoirs, etc.). So, there's a drought and . . . Californians are suddenly supposed to turn their neighbors in. Anyone who ever lived in the Los Angeles area knows what happens whenever it rains: all the water is sent on the fast track to the ocean

Although more efficient collection of rainfall would store the rain that does come would be beneficial its also important to understand that rainfall is only going to get less plentiful unless atmospheric conditions caused by green house gases change,....

That's a presupposition.

Climate change has likely played a pivotal role in exacerbating the California drought. A team of Stanford researchers have shown that one driver for this is a persistent region of high atmospheric pressure off the state's coast, keeping storms and rainfall away from land. These conditions are much more likely to occur with the high greenhouse gas concentrations that we are experiencing today. In exploring climate model projections, it appears that the situation will get worse

.
http://www.livescience.com/51891-why-ca ... worse.html

This is also a presupposition. And, even if true, it misses the point: there are things California can do to prepare for (what you claim is) "the inevitable." Here's a hint: no one can drink a high-speed train.

From your link (with my emphasis added):

There are many factors at play here, notably a complex water cycle and conveyance network, as well as a somewhat archaic legal landscape. One thing that all Californians can agree upon is that we need to find solutions, because the drought is affecting livelihoods and the environment in a serious way.

Climate change has likely played a pivotal role in exacerbating the California drought. A team of Stanford researchers have shown that one driver for this is a persistent region of high atmospheric pressure off the state's coast, keeping storms and rainfall away from land. These conditions are much more likely to occur with the high greenhouse gas concentrations that we are experiencing today. In exploring climate model projections, it appears that the situation will get worse.

So, this is finely-written speculation. It says there are several factors, then uses words such as "likely," "more likely," and "appears."

That ain't proof.

Fate

There should be some kind of "Manhattan Project" to develop an efficient and cheap form of energy.

The Manhattan Project was a government program. Totally funded and run by the government.
And yet you have loudly oppose even subsidies for alternative fuel companies...

There is in fact a rush to solutions...Including some American companies like Tesla. (Their batteries even more than their cars are making a contribution)
But you dump over all of those things regularly too.

Um, as always, you remain singularly incapable of comprehending the English language. Allow me to demonstrate with a question or two:

1. How are Tesla cars a "form of energy?"

2. Which of the "alternative fuel companies" invested in by the government has developed "an efficient and cheap form of energy?"

Well, I do agree that electric lines should be put underground. That's just a matter of money, right? No one is in against them put underground.

I think high-speed rail is a great idea. We lag woefully behind other countries in this area. Imagine if we integrated the country with high-speed rail going 200 miles per hour and you could get on a train at 6 pm at night and be in New York the next morning. I think it would be great if our transportation system could be integrated such that you could use bus, rail, air, or taxi (uber) to go where you need to and you could access available transport and departure times from your phone. Walk out your front door with just your phone (linked to credit card or bank account) and go anywhere in the country--that's the kind of huge project I would like to see. I'm thinking car companies are not thrilled with that idea...

As for oil companies and their concern about the planet ...is it so hard to believe that they would be far more concerned about huge individual gains now than being concerned about the long-term effect on humanity as a whole, of which they are a small part of? If that were not true then companies would never pollute rivers, air, ocean,etc--but we know that companies are happy to make profits and leave the rest of us (of course they are part of the rest of us but individually they got the financial gains why only constitute only a fraction of the rest of us) to pay for clean-up costs. It's called negative externalities and companies (at least some) are happy to push pollution costs on the rest of us if they can get away with it. Why would oil companies not be willing to push global warming costs on the rest of us when they can reap huge financial benefits? I think you have a very optimistic view of the character of oil executives.

Now I don't know enough to know if oil companies knew about global warming a long time ago, but I don't think that would have stopped them from drill baby drill.

freeman3 wrote:Well, I do agree that electric lines should be put underground. That's just a matter of money, right? No one is in against them put underground.

And yet, with all the money frittered away, it's not been done. In fact, I don't believe there is a serious program to do this anywhere.

I think high-speed rail is a great idea. We lag woefully behind other countries in this area. Imagine if we integrated the country with high-speed rail going 200 miles per hour and you could get on a train at 6 pm at night and be in New York the next morning. I think it would be great if our transportation system could be integrated such that you could use bus, rail, air, or taxi (uber) to go where you need to and you could access available transport and departure times from your phone. Walk out your front door with just your phone (linked to credit card or bank account) and go anywhere in the country--that's the kind of huge project I would like to see. I'm thinking car companies are not thrilled with that idea...

It's the airline companies that would be concerned.

That said, we should spend many trillions of dollars on this national network? If it's so great, let the private sector do it.

The bigger point: it will be a debacle in California. Write it down. Hold me to it. After a year, ridership will be so low that they will be raising taxes to pay for operating the lines.

As for oil companies and their concern about the planet ...is it so hard to believe that they would be far more concerned about huge individual gains now than being concerned about the long-term effect on humanity as a whole, of which they are a small part of?

Yes, because the doomsayers claim the end is coming soon.

I remember a song by Sting, "The Russians." In it, he said that some things would not happen "if the Russians love their children too."

For liberals, apparently, oil companies are either not made up of human beings OR they are humans who are more vile and evil than the Soviets--because they apparently care nothing for their children.

If that were not true then companies would never pollute rivers, air, ocean,etc--but we know that companies are happy to make profits and leave the rest of us (of course they are part of the rest of us but individually they got the financial gains why only constitute only a fraction of the rest of us) to pay for clean-up costs. It's called negative externalities and companies (at least some) are happy to push pollution costs on the rest of us if they can get away with it. Why would oil companies not be willing to push global warming costs on the rest of us when they can reap huge financial benefits? I think you have a very optimistic view of the character of oil executives.

If you're right, not only do they hate their kids, but they also are missing out on an opportunity. They should be playing both sides of this by hyping AGW fears and investing in other techs. They would have us coming and going.

Oh, I'm sure if I were an oil executive making millions if dollars I could easily rationalize that global warming would happen a long time in the future and humanity would solve the problem, or that it was just an unproven theory. What is your explanation as to why tobacco companies spiked nicotine levels to get people addicted, denied that tobacco was harmful, and funded studies saying tobacco was safe? It's all greed--I am surprised you are even making this argument.

freeman3 wrote:Oh, I'm sure if I were an oil executive making millions if dollars I could easily rationalize that global warming would happen a long time in the future and humanity would solve the problem, or that it was just an unproven theory. What is your explanation as to why tobacco companies spiked nicotine levels to get people addicted, denied that tobacco was harmful, and funded studies saying tobacco was safe? It's all greed--I am surprised you are even making this argument.

There was no risk to the tobacco executives. Don't smoke. Easy.

On the other hand, if the oil executives KNOW about AGW and are convinced the Earth is heading for either Water World or some form of Earth becomes Mars, then they are certifiable as either lunatics or homicidal psychopaths.

http://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/2016_proposed_budget.pdf

Please look at page 39. This shows the budget numbers for the last 2 years and the next years projections.

28% recoup of cost.

Light rail is fine if it makes money. If not, then try something else. I liked my train trip.

BTW, is AMTRAK making money?

http://articles.philly.com/2016-02-13/news/70572072_1_joseph-boardman-amtrak-engineer-gas-prices

breaking my self-imposed ban.
Anyone calls me a homophobe because I simply disagree with them, then I delete this account in it's entirety!

I see Ricky is still posting facts that suit his position while ignoring those that don't
Beijing is closing 4 coal plants so that means all of China is doing it's part to reduce Coal power?
Uhhhh
China has 155 new coal plants in the pipeline to be made
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/1 ... rcapacity/

But hey, they are closing 4 so they are doing their part?

Some are doing a good job here of sticking to facts and are pointing to a lot of assumptions that "\make sense" and may be true but so far the "facts" have a ways to go and projection models have all failed over and over. Liberals should remember their mantra, "question authority" and when the scientific authority is paid to find cause for concern, yes they should be questioned. You should of course question dissent as well! Oil companies that show otherwise should also be questioned but do not simply assume these findings are pure "science" either!

Welcome back.

Yes. We could use a right-centrist point of view. Well, we have RJ but it's tax season and apparently he's been stuck in a cubicle with a 10 key--I guess he's still recovering...

Good point about the difference between tobacco executives and oil executives--the oil executives would feel the impact of what they are doing while tobacco execs could avoid it. However, with regard to the morality of it, tobacco executives would have known with certainty that they were causing harm to people in a relatively close time frame--the effects of global warming would have been far less certain and in a much longer time frame. So I don't think it would have been too tough for oil executives to rationalize their behavior if they did cover up internal findings regarding global warming. Any cover-up regarding global warming is in my view not as bad as what tobacco companies did, so I don't have any problem believing it could have happened.

tom

I see Ricky is still posting facts that suit his position while ignoring those that don't
Beijing is closing 4 coal plants so that means all of China is doing it's part to reduce Coal power?

Well you could have refered to the other things I posted to support the fact that China is reducing coal consumption for instance ....

Greenpeace/Energydesk China analysis found China’s coal use dropped by 8 per cent and its CO2 emissions dipped by 5 per cent in the first four months of the year, compared to the same period in 2014, and the decline is accelerating.
As part of a reform of the sector, China has ordered more than 1,000 coal mines to close and coal output is down 7.4 per cent year on year

.

or

Nationally, China planned to close more than 2,000 smaller coal mines from 2013 to the end of this year, Song Yuanming, vice chief of the State Administration of Coal Mine Safety, said at a news conference in July.

or

Our analysis shows that China will achieve both its 2020 pledge and its 2030 plans. The announcement that China will peak its CO2 emissions will have a significant impact on global CO2 emissions in the period after 2030, as most projections foresee increasing emissions for decades after that. As the target consists of changes in the energy mix, additional energy efficiency measures reducing the absolute energy use could decrease emissions even further.

But you picked one. On balance, China is reducing coal use. And significantly.
Or you could have read further on the reason the coal plants are being built and wonder whether they are actually going to be used.. (China has a way of building capacity in industries, never using it, and mothballing it. See Steel, Cement)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/world ... .html?_r=0

Fate

If that article shows what you say it does, then quote it. I'm not going fishing.

If you don't want to learn about the science by reading about it, I guess you won't.
hence my comment about your willful ignorance...

Fate

1. How are Tesla cars a "form of energy?"

what I said

There is in fact a rush to solutions...Including some American companies like Tesla. (Their batteries even more than their cars are making a contribution)

Their batteries, who's development came as a byproduct of their car development allows for the efficient use of solar and wind and cheap electricity from the grid . How? By charging when the alternative energy is being generated over the capacity of a homes use ... or by charging in the middle of the night when the power from the grid is cheapest and using the stored energy during pea consumption periods. This saves money for the owner but also reduces the peak capacity use of the grid which is the biggest problem for the current electric grids.
The cars contribute by reducing the use of oil based fuels .... And if combined with the home batteries transfers energy use from cheap production periods to more expensive. Also means that an electric distribution company can purchase from base line production like Hydro or nuclear or wind more .... since they are 24 hour producers... and use the oil and natural gas which can be turned off and on fairly quickly to meet peak demand periods.

Fate

2. Which of the "alternative fuel companies" invested in by the government has developed "an efficient and cheap form of energy?"

Is the United States government a savvier investor in green technology than Silicon Valley’s masters of the universe?
It sure looks like it, judging from the U.S. Department of Energy’s new report on the performance of its $34.3 billion portfolio of investments in solar power plants, wind farms, and other renewable energy projects. The Obama administration in 2009 charged the DOE’s Loan Programs Office with jump-starting cutting-edge green technology ventures deemed too risky and expensive to attract cash from private investors.
As of September, that portfolio had a loss rate of 2.28 percent and has made a profit of $30 million.
The typical loss rate for a venture capital firm’s portfolio? As many as 40 percent of those companies fail, according to a 2012 Harvard Business School study.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/11 ... ing-profit

Now this is a couple of years old...But it does indicate that the investments have largely paid off, and that the companies are contributing to the growth of the alternative energy sector.
There isn't going to be a singular answer to the complex problem... But there will be all kinds of contributions made by many different solutions . And in fact this is already happening.

freeman3 wrote:Good point about the difference between tobacco executives and oil executives--the oil executives would feel the impact of what they are doing while tobacco execs could avoid it. However, with regard to the morality of it, tobacco executives would have known with certainty that they were causing harm to people in a relatively close time frame--the effects of global warming would have been far less certain and in a much longer time frame. So I don't think it would have been too tough for oil executives to rationalize their behavior if they did cover up internal findings regarding global warming. Any cover-up regarding global warming is in my view not as bad as what tobacco companies did, so I don't have any problem believing it could have happened.

A conspiracy to cover up AGW, even knowing that most life on Earth would perish, is not as bad as a relatively few dying younger than they would have?

Hmm.

rickyp wrote:Fate

If that article shows what you say it does, then quote it. I'm not going fishing.

If you don't want to learn about the science by reading about it, I guess you won't.
hence my comment about your willful ignorance...

Bull feathers.

That YOU post a link does not obligate me to read the whole thing. If YOU want to make a point, you should post the relevant part(s).

I have no obligation to do your research for you. Stop being lazy. If you want to MAKE an argument, that's on YOU.

Fate

1. How are Tesla cars a "form of energy?"

what I said

There is in fact a rush to solutions...Including some American companies like Tesla. (Their batteries even more than their cars are making a contribution)

Um, yeah, EXCEPT you were responding to what I said.

Doctor Fate wrote:There should be some kind of "Manhattan Project" to develop an efficient and cheap form of energy.

So, your move to Tesla autos is a non-sequitur.

Fate

2. Which of the "alternative fuel companies" invested in by the government has developed "an efficient and cheap form of energy?"

Is the United States government a savvier investor in green technology than Silicon Valley’s masters of the universe?
It sure looks like it, judging from the U.S. Department of Energy’s new report on the performance of its $34.3 billion portfolio of investments in solar power plants, wind farms, and other renewable energy projects. The Obama administration in 2009 charged the DOE’s Loan Programs Office with jump-starting cutting-edge green technology ventures deemed too risky and expensive to attract cash from private investors.
As of September, that portfolio had a loss rate of 2.28 percent and has made a profit of $30 million.
The typical loss rate for a venture capital firm’s portfolio? As many as 40 percent of those companies fail, according to a 2012 Harvard Business School study.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/11 ... ing-profit

Expletive desired.

No, no, no. I did not ask if the government ever makes good investments. I don't care to examine that.

Here's what I said--and YET again you miss the point:

"an efficient and cheap form of energy?"

Now, please show how profit/loss = "efficient and cheap form of energy."

Now this is a couple of years old...But it does indicate that the investments have largely paid off, and that the companies are contributing to the growth of the alternative energy sector.
There isn't going to be a singular answer to the complex problem... But there will be all kinds of contributions made by many different solutions . And in fact this is already happening.

No, it shows you lack the ability to respond appropriately to what is written.

Well, I think you are taking it to an extreme position. Why would they think most life would perish? In the next 100 years some coastal cities would be flooded, huge amount of property damage, dislocation of people, there would be more extreme weather, etc. , but it's not going to threaten the existence of human beings. It's pretty hard for people to think on that kind of time frame, assess the probability of it happening, assess the consequences in 100 years (almost impossible to do), and assess the cost of covering it up. Compare that to Tobacco company executives knowing that a large amount of smokers would have their lifes shortened due to tobacco use--that is a much more certain calculation.