And while previous extinctions have been driven by natural planetary transformations or catastrophic asteroid strikes, the current die-off can be associated to human activity, a situation that the lead author Rodolfo Dirzo, a professor of biology at Stanford, designates an era of "Anthropocene defaunation.""
General Mills - Policy on Climate "The imperative is clear: Business, together with governments, NGOs and individuals, needs to act to reduce the human impact on climate change. Government policies that provide proportionate and clear guidance on mitigation and adaptation are essential for large scale progress. Business investment in innovations that help reduce natural resource use and create energy alternatives is essential to reach scalable practices and technologies. And, helping individual consumers make more sustainable choices is essential to reducing the collective human impact on the environment."
"General Mills, Inc. is an American Fortune 500 corporation, primarily concerned with food products and headquartered in the Minneapolis suburb of Golden Valley, Minnesota. The company markets many well-known North American brands, such as Betty Crocker, Yoplait, Colombo, Totino's, Pillsbury, Green Giant, Old El Paso, Häagen-Dazs, Cheerios, Trix, and Lucky Charms. Its brand portfolio includes more than 89 other leading U.S. brands and numerous category leaders around the world." Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 08-08-2014).]
Article: World's top PR companies rule out working with climate deniers "Some of the world’s top PR companies have for the first time publicly ruled out working with climate change deniers, marking a fundamental shift in the multi-billion dollar industry that has grown up around the issue of global warming."
The sock puppet is doing the Internet equivalent of shouting down speakers with whom he disagrees. It is a typical leftist tactic. Leftists cannot stand dissent.
The sock puppet is doing the Internet equivalent of shouting down speakers with whom he disagrees. It is a typical leftist tactic. Leftists cannot stand dissent.
You can't even refute anything he says. It's scary that you immediately make this political by calling him a leftist instead of having a reasonable discussion.
You know what's never going to get old? Watching you obliviously tell the world how wrong you are, waiting for the moment it finally sinks in, just to watch you cower away, change subjects, and pretend it never happened. Textbook denial.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: It is a typical leftist tactic. Leftists cannot stand dissent.
For the record, I am a conservative. You're just teetering over the edge, left of you is still very right. Yet facts and evidence don't have a political party. So I'm not sure how politics even matters.
But hey, I heard the local theatre is casting for Wizard of Oz, you should audition for the strawman. You've certainly mastered the part.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: [YOUTUBE]watch?v=5c4XPVPJwBY
You can't even refute anything he says. It's scary that you immediately make this political by calling him a leftist instead of having a reasonable discussion.
It is no surprise that is your opinion. You obviously have not been paying attention.
It is no surprise that is your opinion. You obviously have not been paying attention.
I've read almost this entire thread and I'm fully aware of how ignorant your position is.
Remind me of how you are SO SURE that AGW isn't real?
Remind me how the classic denier position, "Since we are not 100% sure that AGW is true, we are 100% sure AGW is false", makes ANY sense whatsoever? Have you realized that 90% of denier narratives follow this logic even though its completely flawed at the most basic level?
Why are you so willing to listen to deniers and skeptics who obviously have a vested interest in carbon intensive industries, and yet refuse to listen to the scientific community? Could it be that you find it convenient to keep your lifestyle the way it is and don't want to change?
Of course, you will write all of this off as leftist drivel from a Obama loving liberal and address none of the points whatsoever, just like how you ignore every other point of discussion.
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 08-12-2014).]
Germany, the model for Ontario’s wind and solar developments, now regrets its spending spree
Germany – the country on which Ontario modelled its approach to renewable energy development – has a $412-billion lesson for Ontario. That’s the amount the country has spent on subsidies in support of solar and wind energy, among other renewables, over the past 20 years, all in the push to wean the country off fossil fuel and nuclear generation.
On the surface – and according to many news sites – the program has been a success, and not just because of the 378,000 people renewables now employ.
By the end of 2012 (the most recent year for data), wind and solar provided about 13% of all German electricity consumption. Adding in hydro and biomass, renewables provided more than 23%. And in May, headline writers around the world proudly trumpeted that renewable energy provided 75% of the country’s total electricity consumption.
But scratch a bit below the surface and an entirely different picture emerges – one with households being pushed into “energy poverty” as renewable subsidies lead to soaring power bills, handouts to the country’s big businesses and exporters so they can avoid paying for those subsidies and a systematic bankrupting of traditional utilities. As for that one day in May when headlines celebrated that 75% of power generation came from renewables, well, it was a Sunday when demand for power is at its lowest level.
Germany’s decision to support renewable energy at all costs has, ultimately, cost the country’s ratepayers billions of dollars and led to a doubling of monthly electricity bills over the past decade. Households now pay the second highest rates for electricity in the EU – second only to Denmark, the world leader in wind turbines. The country’s feed-in tariff program – which offers renewable energy producers a guaranteed rate for their power – has already cost $412-billion, but could, according to one estimate from the former Minister of the Environment Peter, produce an $884-billion price tag by 2022. Germany will hand out $31.1-billion of renewable energy subsidies in this year alone.
The price of electricity paid by German households has increased from 14 cents (euro) per kilowatt hour in 2000 to 29 cents per kilowatt hour last year – marking a 107% increase, while inflation over that time period was about 22%. The biggest reason for that increase is the renewable energy subsidy, which amounted to 1.4% of the total bill when it was first introduced in 2000, but now accounts for 18%. That renewable levy now costs the average household in Germany more than $320 a year. Advertisement
Rising electricity prices for households led Der Spiegel, one of the country’s most respected magazines, to warn that electricity was becoming a “luxury good.” More than 300,000 households each year are being left in the dark because they can’t afford electricity.
German households are being hit particularly hard by the cost of renewable subsidies because the country’s largest businesses – many of them exporters and in energy-intensive sectors – have been exempt from paying for them. Regulators and politicians – fearing that that high electricity prices would hurt the economy and result in job losses or plant closures – gave big business a free pass and instead shifted the costs to households.
The renewable subsidies have distorted Germany’s power market to such an extent that traditional utilities are being pushed to the brink of collapse. Electricity generated from solar and wind has no relationship with the market. Because the price the producers receive is guaranteed and is not based on demand, they dump their output whenever it is produced. This glut of power has, at times, pushed the price of wholesale power below zero – meaning the utilities need to pay someone to use it. This has skewed the price to such an extent that traditional generators can’t economically produce power – they simply stop producing when the price goes too low.
While the answer would seem to be to close those uneconomic generators, that’s not possible since renewable energy is intermittent – at times it will produce no power, while at others it will produce too much – and traditional generators are needed to provide a secure, reliable source of power. Utilities are being asked to keep producing power even though the economics of it don’t make sense anymore. To prevent utilities in Germany from pulling out of the business of generation, the government now offers more than billion dollars in “balancing payments” – sometimes 400 times the price of power – to stabilize the grid.
The rise of renewable power has also led to coal making a comeback. The amount of generation from coal actually increased from 43% of all output in 2011 to nearly 45% in 2012. Electricity generation from lignite, a cheaper and dirtier form of coal, has also been on the rise because, according to one Germany utility, it’s the only thing that can compete with subsidized renewable energy.
The energy situation in Germany has become so disruptive and politically untenable that the government has recently done everything it can to pull back on subsidies and other support for renewable energy, much to the dismay of renewable producers that still can’t survive on their own.
Far from being a success, Germany’s rush into renewable energy has crushed households, taxpayers and utilities. Ontario needs a better model.
"German households are being hit particularly hard by the cost of renewable subsidies because the country’s largestbusinesses – many of them exporters and in energy-intensive sectors – have been exempt from paying for them. Regulators and politicians – fearing that that high electricity prices would hurt the economy and result in job losses or plant closures – gave big business a free pass and instead shifted the costs to households."
Planet is getting warmer because of human greenhouse gas emissions.
Draw up and implement a plan to fix it.
Monitor results and conclude that fix-it plan is flawed.
Next step :
Look for ways to improve the fix-it plan?
or
Try to convince myself that the planet is not getting warmer because of human greenhouse gas emissions.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-12-2014).]
Those are your strawman arguments. You are quite adept at beating them up. I feel no need to help.
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti:
I've read almost this entire thread and I'm fully aware of how ignorant your position is.
Remind me of how you are SO SURE that AGW isn't real?
Remind me how the classic denier position, "Since we are not 100% sure that AGW is true, we are 100% sure AGW is false", makes ANY sense whatsoever? Have you realized that 90% of denier narratives follow this logic even though its completely flawed at the most basic level?
Why are you so willing to listen to deniers and skeptics who obviously have a vested interest in carbon intensive industries, and yet refuse to listen to the scientific community? Could it be that you find it convenient to keep your lifestyle the way it is and don't want to change?
Of course, you will write all of this off as leftist drivel from a Obama loving liberal and address none of the points whatsoever, just like how you ignore every other point of discussion.
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: But it's good for the planet.
Germany immediately shuttered 40% of it’s nuclear capacity after Fukushuma and made plans to close the rest within 10 years. I find it odd the price impacts of that decision are not mentioned in the article at all.
I also find it odd an article slamming renewable energy admits the wholesale price is WAY below the retail price they’re complaining about. Renewables are so cheap they have to artificially inflate the price. Know why? Probably debt financed.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 08-12-2014).]
You clearly don't understand what a strawman argument is.
I asked a few extremely basic questions, pointing out clear contradictions in the denier narrative.
Do you know what a stawman argument is? Let me give you an example:
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti: Remind me how the classic denier position, "Since we are not 100% sure that AGW is true, we are 100% sure AGW is false", makes ANY sense whatsoever?
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: I’m not going to indulge your creepy desire for my identity. It's irrelevant to the discussion and only shows you can't stay on topic.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
He's a creationist. Science to him is 'superstition'.
It's not a strawman if essentially every denier argument is based off it. Notice that deniers never can claim certainty with anything - because they have no solid ground to stand on - its always trying to introduce doubt and using it as an excuse to do nothing.
I find it ironic that you claim its a strawman because its such a terrible argument and so easily debunked. I agree with that!
Just realized that video was the 4th consecutive youtube video you've posted that has been completely discredited. In typical denier fashion, you just moved on to a new subject.
Report from Australian Government - Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority: Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2014 “… the greatest risks to the Great Barrier Reef have not changed. Climate change, poor water quality from land based runoff, impacts from coast development, and some remaining impacts of fishing remain the major threats to the future vitality of the Great Barrier Reef”
