It appears hard core environmentalists are beginning to admit defeat. The reality that they really can't change anything has dawned on them and the begin to see themselves as a sacrifice to the dark mountain cult.
An alternative eco-festival going against the 'green' - CNN.com
What have they realised, You can't undo civilization and you can't consume your way out of environmental problems. What a revelation! Just when we have been told putting a price on carbon will fix everything, that the market economy is the answer

"We have to face facts," co-organizer of the festival Paul Kingsnorth told CNN.

"Mainstream environmentalism has failed over the last 40 years to have any real effect..."

Well gee, after the revelations Climategate is it any wonder? Just today, another report on flaws in the IPCC report emerged. They've been lying and manipulating "science" for 40 years, they're failure is earned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

[I]"Just today, another report on flaws in the IPCC report emerged. .

---

Ah yes but they were only little flaws like reporting that 55% of Holland is below sea level, so what? The Dutch like it that way otherwise they wouldn't have bothered pushing the sea back. They called for a more robust review process, I suggest employing some unbiased reporters

But didn't you hear ? After calling Michael Mann(hide the decline) in to testify at a hearing on his conduct ;and Mann assuring the panel he did nothing wrong... Penn State cleared Mann of any wrong doing in the East Anglia email/climategate fraud.
Mann Cleared in Final Inquiry by Penn State - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

There was a minor charge of sharing other people’s unpublished manuscripts without permission. That they sort of took him to the woodshed over . They called that practice “careless and inappropriate,” and told him next time, ask first. But the major charges were dismissed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

There was a minor charge of sharing other people’s unpublished manuscripts without permission. That they sorta took him to the woodshed over . They called that practice “careless and inappropriate,” and told him next time, ask first. But the major charges were dismissed.

---

Hi Tom I took a look at the articles attached to your thread and I came to a startling conclusion, call it miss use of data if you will, all we need to tackle this problem of CO2 emissions in developed countries is permanent recession. I think this is as valid a methodology of dealing with the problem as any that has been offered so far, and certainly a valid intrepretation of the research and it has far greater chance of success. As the recession deepens, emissions are lowered and the rate of decline is startling, more than matching the sharp incline in the temperature curve so bediviling governments of the last two decades

Yes and that is the prescription the lefty's really prefer... a permanent economic decline in the west. This talk of creating clean green jobs is bogus. The President just proposed a subsidy of solar jobs that will cost the taxpayers an estimated $400,000 per job created (if we believe the President's estimate on the number of jobs created...
as many as 5,000 green jobs.)

Obama commits nearly $2 billion to solar companies | Reuters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yes and that is the prescription the lefty's really prefer .... a permanent economic decline in the west.

---

Why do all "lefty's" want this?
And what is a "lefty"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Obama commits nearly $2 billion to solar companies | Reuters

---

This is exactly what should be happening. This is the only way some good will come out of the disaster in the gulf - if it loosens the grasp oil companies have on... well... everything... and allows resources to be dumped into renewable energies like this.

The number one argument against renewable energy is that it's inefficient and costly... but of COURSE it is! Every new technology begins that way. Unless sufficient resources are spent to make it mainstream, it'll never be anything but inefficient and costly. I really believe that our world could be powered by solar and wind (which really, is a derivative of solar) energy. Nature is powered by the same thing... I think it leads a great example for us.

Also that amount is .23% of your defense budget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yes and that is the prescription the lefty's really prefer .... a permanent economic decline in the west. This talk of creating clean green jobs is bogus. The President just proposed a subsidy of solar jobs that will cost the taxpayers an estimated $400,000 per job created (if we believe the President's estimate on the number of jobs created ...
as many as 5,000 green jobs.)

Obama commits nearly $2 billion to solar companies | Reuters

---

5000 green jobs, how inefficient. When Krudd was in power $2 billion invested in an ETS would have converted our entire economy into green jobs in a generation. Talk about more bang for your buck, he created 5000 green jobs just checking on stuffed up insulation instalations. I tell you you need that man and he is looking for a job. By the way he is a lefty, left handed that is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Why do all "lefty's" want this?
And what is a "lefty"?


This is exactly what should be happening. This is the only way some good will come out of the disaster in the gulf - if it loosens the grasp oil companies have on...well...everything...and allows resources to be dumped into renewable energies like this.

The number one argument against renewable energy is that it's inefficient and costly....but of COURSE it is! Every new technology begins that way. Unless sufficient resources are spent to make it mainstream, it'll never be anything but inefficient and costly. I really believe that our world could be powered by solar and wind (which really, is a derivative of solar) energy. Nature is powered by the same thing...I think it leads a great example for us.

Also that amount is .23% of your defense budget.

---

Investing in infrastructure after the technology is proven makes sense. Edison did not work on huge government subsidies. He proved the technology works and then the government invested in the infrastructure for the conversion.

Nobody has proven that wind and solar could fulfill more than a fraction of our present or future energy needs. Should it be developed ? Of course. There are plenty investors already betting on wind and solar .

To subsidize is to distort the market;and that never leads to good ends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Investing in infrastructure after the technology is proven makes sense. Edison did not work on huge government subsidies. He proved the technology works and then the government invested in the infrastructure for the conversion.

Nobody has proven that wind and solar could fulfill more than a fraction of our present or future energy needs. Should it be developed ? Of course. There are plenty investors already betting on wind and solar .

To subsidize is to distort the market;and that never leads to good ends.

---

No you miss it there are 14600000 unemployed, what is more productive than to have these people fabricating wind towers and putting them up, just think if you could build a million wind turbines you could employ all these people and do away with the need to build any other new generation, at 2 or 4 MW per tower just think of how much power you could generate and with so many towers the wind is always blowing somewhere and it will only cost a few Trillion dollars which you can take out of the unemployment budget.

Not only that but you become a world leader again, it's visionary. Which of course is why you won't do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

To subsidize is to distort the market;and that never leads to good ends.

---

The "market" has failed you time and time again.

You didn't answer my first two questions BTW.

Clete ,unless they are union employees they will be barred from doing the job. Better to use the remaining bucket list money and devoting it to hiring people to scoop up tar balls .It would be a more efficient use of resources .
If solar is a market of the future the market will recognize it and invest in it without government coaking . This reminds me of the Japanese wasting tax payer money to keep rice farmers employed... or the US government funnelling taxpayer money to farmers to convert a food item into inefficent ethanol (completely distorting the corn market both here and in Mexico) when it could be purchased from Brazil and it's sugar cane conversion, probably at half the cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Clete ,unless they are union employees they will be barred from doing the job. Better to use the remaining bucket list money and devoting it to hiring people to scoop up tar balls .It would be a more efficient use of resources .
If solar is a market of the future the market will recognize it and invest in it without government coaking . This reminds me of the Japanese wasting tax payer money to keep rice farmers employed ......or the US government funnelling taxpayer money to farmers to convert a food item into inefficent ethanol (completely distorting the corn market both here and in Mexico) when it could be purchased from Brazil and it's sugar cane conversion, probably at half the cost.

---

Tom what I'm hearing here is a reason why capitalism can't be trusted and a lack of visionary thinking. What you are saying is unemployed people are only good for dirty jobs because the unions won't let them do any thing else. Have you become wimps over there? I thought we were tied up by unions but our unions are forced to get out of the way.

The lobyists have control of your legislature and your politicians and you are paralised. Why aren't you growing your own sugar cane for fuel? Not enough illegal immigrants? What has happened is your protectionism is strangling you and keeping real solutions from being used.

Quote:

---

Why aren't you growing your own sugar cane for fuel? Not enough illegal immigrants? What has happened is your protectionism is strangling you and keeping real solutions from being used.

---

Exactly... and that isn't capitalism... it is mercantilism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Exactly .....and that aint capitalism ....it is mercantilism

---

No Tom it's capitalism, protecting it's patch, creating monopolies and cartels and strangling development, exploiting it's advantage in the market and it's workforce. It doesn't matter that such things are made illegal, they just move offshore

There is no protectionism in capitalism. Merchantilism on the other hand exists to so called protect the national economy . But it ultimately hurts the national economy and punishes the consumer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

there is no protectionism in capitalism. merchantilism on the other hand exists to so called protect the national economy . But it ultimately hurts the national economy and punishes the consumer.

---

Then by your definition the US is a merchantilist society, a nation of greedy merchants. You reap what you sow

I don't disagree. The government intervention in protecting certain segments and penalizing others is not capitalism... far from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I don't disagree. The government intervention in protecting certain segments and penalizing others is not capitalism... far from it.

---

You mean like "green" energy?

Quote:

---

The Cost of the BP Cleanup, in Corn [Kevin D. Williamson]

A little perspective:

BP's oil-spill cleanup bill, so far: $3.2 billion

Money BP is setting aside for the total bill: $20 billion

Annual cost of U.S. ethanol subsidies: $5 billion

Ethanol subsidies going to BP this year: $600 million

Conclusions: Every four years, U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing the energy firms by an amount equal to the maximum that BP expects to spend on the cleanup. BP specifically will collect an equivalent amount every 33 years. This year's BP ethanol subsidy by itself will offset about 20 percent of what BP has spent on the cleanup so far.

And that's just one subsidy program.

Tell me again why this "green economy" stuff is not a scam.

The banks paid back their TARP money, and the nation remains scandalized by that bailout. What are the chances the energy industry is going to pay back a penny of the billions we're pouring on them through green energy subsidies?

---

Quote:

---

Tell me again why this "green economy" stuff is not a scam

---

.

Of course it's a scam, but it is an emerging business that is some of it is.

Wind energy is a legitimate business with a large number of installations world wide, but solar is a scam with large subsidies needed to make it viable. You must face it, government needs buckets to pour money into otherwise they are going to have to start giving it back

Where I come from the government has started to buy properties and water rights for "environmental flows", now what sort of scam is this to subsidise inefficient acriculture