Global Warming News

[Loren49]

Not sure I would classify list as science facts. I'm not criticizing the list.

Don't think Spain's goal was jobs -
Renewable energy in Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Spain has the target of generating 30% of its electricity needs from renewable energy sources by 2010, with half of that amount coming from wind power. In 2006, 20% of the total electricity demand was already produced with renewable energy sources, and in January 2009 the total electricity demand produced with renewable energy sources reached the 34.8%.[1]
Some autonomous regions in Spain lead Europe in the use of renewable energy technology, and plan to reach 100% renewable energy generation in a few years (objetive "all electricity from renewable sources, AERS). Castile and León and Galicia are especially near this goal, producing in 2006 70% of their total electricity demand from renewable energy sources, and 5 communities produce more than 50% from renewables.

Where are the jobs from the 10s of millions of oil subsidies over the years.


Just for a little balance - here on some sites which expose the funding of skeptics to climate science over the past 15 years:
ExxonSecrets | Greenpeace USA
Close to $100,000,000 here:
EnvironmentalChemistry.com: Who is funding the climate change skeptics?
Global warming skeptics - SourceWatch
Should Global Warming Deniers Pay Through the Nose Like the Tobacco Companies Did?

Seems like funders of skeptic organizations would work out in the open. I'm sure Exxon, etc., have our best interest in mind.

Loren

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Not sure I would classify list as science facts. I'm not criticizing the list.

Don't think Spain's goal was jobs -
Renewable energy in Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Spain has the target of generating 30% of its electricity needs from renewable energy sources by 2010, with half of that amount coming from wind power. In 2006, 20% of the total electricity demand was already produced with renewable energy sources, and in January 2009 the total electricity demand produced with renewable energy sources reached the 34.8%.[1]
Some autonomous regions in Spain lead Europe in the use of renewable energy technology, and plan to reach 100% renewable energy generation in a few years (objetive "all electricity from renewable sources, AERS). Castile and León and Galicia are especially near this goal, producing in 2006 70% of their total electricity demand from renewable energy sources, and 5 communities produce more than 50% from renewables.

Where are the jobs from the 10s of millions of oil subsidies over the years.


Just for a little balance - here on some sites which expose the funding of skeptics to climate science over the past 15 years:
ExxonSecrets | Greenpeace USA
Close to $100,000,000 here:
EnvironmentalChemistry.com: Who is funding the climate change skeptics?
Global warming skeptics - SourceWatch
Should Global Warming Deniers Pay Through the Nose Like the Tobacco Companies Did?

Seems like funders of skeptic organizations would work out in the open. I'm sure Exxon, etc., have our best interest in mind.

Loren

Could be why the Spanish economy is tanking.
And No I don't think that Exxon has our interest in mind, Do you think that the government has your best interest in mind?
The function of a corporation is to maximize the profits to thier investors.
The function of our government is set forth in our Constitution, and I find no reference to health care.

 

[westcliffe01]

To be sure the quote regarding Spain is put in the right perspective: Lets remember that the Green Jobs all involve capital intensive projects with 20-30 year expected useful lifetimes.

If I think back to a refinery project I worked on in the mid 90's, there was a total of 30 000 people employed on the project over a period from 1989 to 1992 before it went into production. It involved a deep water platform, the drilling of multiple wells in over 400ft of water, the dual pipelines to shore, a SPM mooring to load tankers, a tank farm at the mooring site, and a multi thousand acre refinery site. Back in the day, the project cost $14 billion or $466.66k per worker. Nearly 2 decades later, $758k for "expensive" green energy per worker employed sounds almost cheap.

How about someone digging around for cost estimates for nuclear power stations ? Those "nuclear jobs" would make your eyes water when broken down in the same way.

Here is the Heritage's Foundation's take on Obama's State of the Union speech in regards to energy production. I find the last half, about the Spanish experience, especially enlightning.

Quote:
Energy Production
His calls for new nuclear power, offshore oil and gas exploration, and other new energy technologies are certainly welcome. The problem is that his program of subsidies, special tax treatment, and government support will not work. While government programs can create jobs in specific sectors, the President ignores the evidence that these programs end up killing more jobs than they create. Spain has already gone down this road, and its experience should give the President caution. Between 2000 and 2008, the Spanish government spent $36 billion in taxpayers' money on wind, solar and mini-hydro development. Each green job created cost on average $758,471.

 

[keegs]

We have a 42 MW wind farm behind our place in ME. There's a 51 MW farm going up not too far away in Oakfield and they're exanding one in Danforth. All three bring well paying construction jobs and long term technical maint. jobs to a region that really benefits for them. The local Northern Maine community college offers a windpower technology degree program.

This is all good IMO. I say bring it on.

 

[IH3444]

See that's the trouble today, if it ain't on Fox then it can't be republican can it?? I miss the days when a republican could entertain an independent thought and make up his own mind.

Fox News Finishes Week #1 in All of Primetime Cable - mediabistro.com: TVNewser

The comments after are very informative as to the view point by Americans of the other news stations.

 

[20 20]

We have a 42 MW wind farm behind our place in ME. There's a 51 MW farm going up not too far away in Oakfield and they're exanding one in Danforth. All three bring well paying construction jobs and long term technical maint. jobs to a region that really benefits for them. The local Northern Maine community college offers a windpower technology degree program.

This is all good IMO. I say bring it on.

There is talk about putting in a 500MW windmill farm in NY. Can't remember where, heard it on the news, I'll see if I can find it.

 

[turbo36]

Fox News Finishes Week #1 in All of Primetime Cable - mediabistro.com: TVNewser

The comments after are very informative as to the view point by Americans of the other news stations.

I'm sure when the Romans where throwing Christians to the Lions they had a pretty good audience, ****** had good poll numbers also.

 

[turbo36]

To be sure the quote regarding Spain is put in the right perspective: Lets remember that the Green Jobs all involve capital intensive projects with 20-30 year expected useful lifetimes.

If I think back to a refinery project I worked on in the mid 90's, there was a total of 30 000 people employed on the project over a period from 1989 to 1992 before it went into production. It involved a deep water platform, the drilling of multiple wells in over 400ft of water, the dual pipelines to shore, a SPM mooring to load tankers, a tank farm at the mooring site, and a multi thousand acre refinery site. Back in the day, the project cost $14 billion or $466.66k per worker. Nearly 2 decades later, $758k for "expensive" green energy per worker employed sounds almost cheap.

How about someone digging around for cost estimates for nuclear power stations ? Those "nuclear jobs" would make your eyes water when broken down in the same way.



Quote:
Energy Production
His calls for new nuclear power, offshore oil and gas exploration, and other new energy technologies are certainly welcome. The problem is that his program of subsidies, special tax treatment, and government support will not work. While government programs can create jobs in specific sectors, the President ignores the evidence that these programs end up killing more jobs than they create. Spain has already gone down this road, and its experience should give the President caution. Between 2000 and 2008, the Spanish government spent $36 billion in taxpayers' money on wind, solar and mini-hydro development. Each green job created cost on average $758,471.

Well said! If Upfront costs were the sole determining factor in all spending decisions no of us on this would even own a tractor because the cost of that first hour of use would be astronomical. Sure hope my wife doesn't start using the upfront method to control the purse strings

 

[texbaylea]

Just remember that polls can be designed to elict the desired results, or also the results can be interpreted to support the issue you want. The only polls I trust are those by Scott Rasmussen

Health Care Reform - Rasmussen Reports

Any poll by a major news outlet is as generally biased as its sponsors. IMHO

Back to the original topic.

I doubt that many here are against pursuing cleaner more efficient energy sources but resent that certain groups are trying to stampede us into drastic supposed solutions that give them greater power by pushing a scientific hoax. It is telling, to my mind, that it is now "climate change" rather than "global warming". I think that they want to be ready to swing the other way when AGW blows up in their faces.

Vernon

 

[IH3444]

I'm sure when the Romans where throwing Christians to the Lions they had a pretty good audience, ****** had good poll numbers also.

Bill would enjoy reporting on those two regimes. Shame he would have only lasted one night.

 

[Loren49]

My opinion on Fox News rating - Their coverage and commentary is unique - most of the other "unfair and unbalanced" stations share the rest of the audience.


On constitutionality of Health Care - it doesn't appear that there has been a constitutional question with medicare and medicade.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HEALTH CARE REFORM

Seems that since the current bill is working within the for-profit system that there is debate on whether people should be able to be fined for not buying insurance.

How can insurance companies be forced to accept all unless everyone is required to carry insurance?

What reform is suggested by those who want to throw this out and start over. We could continue with the lead taken by the congress and administration of the prior 8 years and do little. Costs are going up by double digit percentages per year and it is killing business. What small business can afford 5-15 thousand per employee for family coverage and what average employee can afford it without help.

Loren




Loren

 

[IH3444]

1. Tort reform.
2. Remove state boundries for insurance providers. let them compete.

Not easy to do either, but will begin the process of good reform, with bipartisian support. It might just fly through both congress, and senate on it's own without backroom deals, unions, and states given exemptions.


"My opinion on Fox News rating - Their coverage and commentary is unique - most of the other "unfair and unbalanced" stations share the rest of the audience. "

Election night was running 5 to 1, fox viewers. That 1 was shared by all the other news stations.

 

[texbaylea]

All I have seen have anecdotal comments about how good European countries health care systems are. I have not seen any in depth analyses of each system. Also, if their systems are so good why did not our congress critters invite their representatives over to talk about what works well and what does not. Are they containing costs or running deficits. It would be interesting to see polls of the citizens of those countries as to what they think. It might be revealing

Vernon

 

[SpringHollow]

Actually, there was a reporter who spent several years investigating the rest of the industrialized world's health care systems. The simple summary, all the major ones worked better than ours at a much lower cost. All the complaints of the French system, for example, could be covered by increasing taxes to a level where health care would still cost much less than what health care costs here. But the French were not willing to do so because they received good health care. It was a very interesting hour long interview with comments from drs, patients, etc in these countries. His basic conclusion was that any system (gov. insurance/gov. health, gov. insurance/private health, private insurance/government health, private insurance/private health) worked as long as the insurance companies were all government or non-profit with government oversight.

In Germany I believe it was, most of the private non-profit insurance companies were divisions of for profit insurance companies. Everyone was required to have insurance. When asked, the insurance companies said it was a great system since they competed strongly for the clients because if you provided them with affordable good health care, they would purchase their mortgage, life insurance from the same place. The patients were happy. The drs felt underpaid.

The only system that seemed not to work was employer based health insurance with little oversight of for-profit insurance companies.

Ken

 

[keegs]

2. Remove state boundries for insurance providers. let them compete.

I'm not sure letting the insurance companies do to health care what the banks did with/ to credit lending is such a bright idea.

 

[keegs]

Actually, there was a reporter who spent several years investigating the rest of the industrialized world's health care systems. The simple summary, all the major ones worked better than ours at a much lower cost. All the complaints of the French system, for example, could be covered by increasing taxes to a level where health care would still cost much less than what health care costs here. But the French were not willing to do so because they received good health care. It was a very interesting hour long interview with comments from drs, patients, etc in these countries. His basic conclusion was that any system (gov. insurance/gov. health, gov. insurance/private health, private insurance/government health, private insurance/private health) worked as long as the insurance companies were all government or non-profit with government oversight.

In Germany I believe it was, most of the private non-profit insurance companies were divisions of for profit insurance companies. Everyone was required to have insurance. When asked, the insurance companies said it was a great system since they competed strongly for the clients because if you provided them with affordable good health care, they would purchase their mortgage, life insurance from the same place. The patients were happy. The drs felt underpaid.

The only system that seemed not to work was employer based health insurance with little oversight of for-profit insurance companies.

Ken

I think this was the Frontline segment:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld

I agree it was timely and informative and it's available for viewing online.

I think that most who oppose the current proposals do so for ideological reasons. Their position seemingly questions whether the problem exists and so consequently there are no lessons to learn.

 

[keegs]

There is talk about putting in a 500MW windmill farm in NY. Can't remember where, heard it on the news, I'll see if I can find it.

The ME cost has excellent wind conditions. There must be much higher costs involved with operating offshore though. I'm guessing with scale though, the net pluses have to be there.

 

[IH3444]

I'm not sure letting the insurance companies do to health care what the banks did with/ to credit lending is such a bright idea.

So what would be the difference, auto insurance is sold cross state lines.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

My opinion on Fox News rating - Their coverage and commentary is unique - most of the other "unfair and unbalanced" stations share the rest of the audience.


On constitutionality of Health Care - it doesn't appear that there has been a constitutional question with medicare and medicade.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HEALTH CARE REFORM

Seems that since the current bill is working within the for-profit system that there is debate on whether people should be able to be fined for not buying insurance.

How can insurance companies be forced to accept all unless everyone is required to carry insurance?

What reform is suggested by those who want to throw this out and start over. We could continue with the lead taken by the congress and administration of the prior 8 years and do little. Costs are going up by double digit percentages per year and it is killing business. What small business can afford 5-15 thousand per employee for family coverage and what average employee can afford it without help.

Loren




Loren

Thank you so much for bring this document to my attention. I had no idea that JANET RENO and WEBSTER HUBBELL were saying that BILL CLINTONs health care proposal was constitutional.
Setting aside the sterling reputation of both these people(is Hubbell out of prison yet?), is your reference to Medicaid and Medicare is somehow to negate my point that it is unconstitutional?

I repeat, we do not live in a democracy, and if you do not understand the difference between one and our form of government, then you really should inform yourself.
Even if one were to entertain the notion that the majority is in favor, In a representative republic, you cannot take rights from one person to give to another.

 

[IH3444]

I've got a copy. What should I do with it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_(Plato)

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

Red Skelton:
http://www.poofcat.com/july.html