Now its Global Cooling

[knapplc]

 

 

Can you answer the question? How will US industry be damaged by reduced emissions?

Is this a serious question?

Regulations, regulations, regulations.

Obsessive, obscene and punitive

 

It's a serious question not being given serious answers, unfortunately.

 

Can you, specifically, talk about those and how they affect our industry? Which regulations? Instituted when? How punitive are they, and in what way?

 

 

Speaking of deflections, I'm beginning to think this whole Obama tangent was a deflection to distract attention from someone trying to have an honest dialog about this issue.

 

I'm still looking for an answer to this. It's a real question, on-topic and everything.

[Junior]

 

If the person you know has published, peer reviewed works refuting AGW, then please post which those are and in what journal. If they're published, they're out there anyway and there's no reason to hold that back. What a person says in interviews or on a personal basis is pretty much irrelevant when compared to their published works on a topic. So let's have the paper titles and journals they were published in.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I was simultaneously responding to multiple posters for a while there), but I don't recall saying he is published on this topic. I believe I said he is a respected tenured member of the faculty and his degree and expertise is in the climatology area. And he has become the object of being a "denier" because of his beliefs.

If I gave the wrong inference, it was unintended.

And, again, I don't feel I should name him in this forum publicly since he is an unknowing subject.

Hopefully, that clears this up once and for all.

 

 

I can assure you, if he's not published in the field, he certainly isn't a respected faculty member in the field.

[GSG]

 

"I don't really give a sh#t. And I don't give a sh#t about Romney's transcripts either. Why the hell would a potential president's grade in general chemistry during his freshman year in college matter on his election 30 years later?"

Really? Nice deflection !

Reference President Obama's college transcripts in a topic about climate change? Check!

Accuse another of deflection for not caring about President Obama's college transcripts in a topic about climate change? Check!

 

 

 

 

Off topic: I went to college with that guy

[carlfense]

Certainly not everyone is going to publicly disagree when there are grants to chase.

This isn't how science works.

[carlfense]

 

 

If the person you know has published, peer reviewed works refuting AGW, then please post which those are and in what journal. If they're published, they're out there anyway and there's no reason to hold that back. What a person says in interviews or on a personal basis is pretty much irrelevant when compared to their published works on a topic. So let's have the paper titles and journals they were published in.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I was simultaneously responding to multiple posters for a while there), but I don't recall saying he is published on this topic. I believe I said he is a respected tenured member of the faculty and his degree and expertise is in the climatology area. And he has become the object of being a "denier" because of his beliefs.

If I gave the wrong inference, it was unintended.

And, again, I don't feel I should name him in this forum publicly since he is an unknowing subject.

Hopefully, that clears this up once and for all.

 

I can assure you, if he's not published in the field, he certainly isn't a respected faculty member in the field.

 

Right. Between that and the idea that someone would struggle to find funding for research that chips away at existing scientific thought regarding anthropogenic climate change . . . well . . . I find it difficult to conclude anything other than the poster is unfamiliar with the scientific process.

[EbylHusker]

 

If the person you know has published, peer reviewed works refuting AGW, then please post which those are and in what journal. If they're published, they're out there anyway and there's no reason to hold that back. What a person says in interviews or on a personal basis is pretty much irrelevant when compared to their published works on a topic. So let's have the paper titles and journals they were published in.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but I don't recall saying he is published on this topic.

 

As I suspected. The end.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

Can you answer the question? How will US industry be damaged by reduced emissions?

Is this a serious question?

Regulations, regulations, regulations.

Obsessive, obscene and punitive

 

It's a serious question not being given serious answers, unfortunately.

 

Can you, specifically, talk about those and how they affect our industry? Which regulations? Instituted when? How punitive are they, and in what way?

 

 

Speaking of deflections, I'm beginning to think this whole Obama tangent was a deflection to distract attention from someone trying to have an honest dialog about this issue.

 

I'm still looking for an answer to this. It's a real question, on-topic and everything.

 

Knapp, I gave personal experiences in another thread about jobs that went elsewhere because the company could build a plant in an area that doesn't have as high of regulations. You ignored those posts.

 

Here is an article about what is happening in California. The gist of the article is that the author pretty much is wishy washy about the affect on the economy. However, this snippet is pertinent to your question:

 

Similarly air-pollution regulations have cleaned up the air - but they have done so partly by driving "dirty" industries to Arizona, Nevada and Mexico. The air's cleaner here, but it's not clear that this has had a net benefit either to California's economy or the world's environment.

 

If companies can move to places that have less regulation, they will because it's cheaper. that doesn't matter if it's from state to state or from country to country.

Now, I have said over and over again, I am not for lessing the current regulations. Maybe we could make them more efficient and get rid of some that don't actually help the environment. But, all in all, I don't want the US more polluted than it is now. BUT, there are countless examples of jobs lost because various regulations made it easier to do business elsewhere.

[knapplc]

So the problem isn't that the regulations are hurting businesses, it's that businesses are willing to screw the environment over by moving wholesale to another location, even country, to continue to pollute.

 

That isn't a compelling argument against regulations, it's a compelling argument against amoral businesses.

 

 

Knapp, I gave personal experiences in another thread about jobs that went elsewhere because the company could build a plant in an area that doesn't have as high of regulations. You ignored those posts.

Where?

[zoogs]

Businesses gotta survive. I don't think it's a moral issue. It's no different than say, choosing to purchase a conventional car over a full electric because the financials are better.

 

That's the tricky part about policy, you kind of have to be "all in" or it might not achieve the desired effect. I'm sure they do tax incentives as well and that's a great way to get things going.

[knapplc]

"Business gotta survive" cannot be a carte blanche permission to do whatever, whenever, to make a buck. Businesses should not exist parasitically so that they destroy the very environment they need to live.

[BigRedBuster]

Nobody is giving businesses "permission" to pollute other than other countries. The problem is, Americans LOVE those products made in those other countries. They don't give a flying rats azz that those products are polluting the planet. But..hey....they have a nice blue sky above them.

Nobody is arguing against regulations. It's a problem though when those regulations continue to get more and more out of whack where companies in say California, Nebraska or Texas have to compete with other companies located in places like China.

 

Chinese companies dump loads of product on our market where it is very difficult and (sometimes) impossible for a local company to compete and that local company has to do something.

 

I know some people just don't want to accept that but that is a reality in the business world. We continue to regulate and regulate and regulate. Meanwhile, China is laughing (coughing) all the way to the bank because they are kicking our azz in many markets.

 

Again, I am not for deregulating the US. But, like the example in California, companies will simply move and there isn't any benefit for the environment.....but hey....some people get that warm and fuzzy feeling.

[BigRedBuster]

So the problem isn't that the regulations are hurting businesses, it's that businesses are willing to screw the environment over by moving wholesale to another location, even country, to continue to pollute.

 

That isn't a compelling argument against regulations, it's a compelling argument against amoral businesses.

 

 

Knapp, I gave personal experiences in another thread about jobs that went elsewhere because the company could build a plant in an area that doesn't have as high of regulations. You ignored those posts.

Where?

 

I believe it was in the global warming thread where I have said the exact same things and given examples of local companies leaving due to these regulations. Then, you still act like more regulations have no affect on the economy even though I have given examples of people losing their jobs. This article also gives examples of people losing their jobs in California.

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

"Business gotta survive" cannot be a carte blanche permission to do whatever, whenever, to make a buck. Businesses should not exist parasitically so that they destroy the very environment they need to live.

+100000000000000000

[knapplc]

 

So the problem isn't that the regulations are hurting businesses, it's that businesses are willing to screw the environment over by moving wholesale to another location, even country, to continue to pollute.

 

That isn't a compelling argument against regulations, it's a compelling argument against amoral businesses.

 

 

Knapp, I gave personal experiences in another thread about jobs that went elsewhere because the company could build a plant in an area that doesn't have as high of regulations. You ignored those posts.

Where?

 

I believe it was in the global warming thread where I have said the exact same things and given examples of local companies leaving due to these regulations. Then, you still act like more regulations have no affect on the economy even though I have given examples of people losing their jobs. This article also gives examples of people losing their jobs in California.

 

I think you're thinking of the Obama / Jinping deal thread. If so, "ignored those posts" was a gross mischaracterization of my participation in that thread. I also missed the part where you gave personal examples of people losing their jobs because of regulations, unless maybe it's this post, which doesn't do anything to further the point that those jobs belong in America:

 

 

 

Yes, their labor costs on a per hour they pay their worker basis is extremely low compared to ours. But, when you consider how cheap power production is if you don't have to worry bout pollution, it's ridiculous. Many of their newer plants are automated just like ours. So, the labor cost factor is probably less now than it was say 20 years ago.

 

I know of a company that used to produce huge amounts of product in the US. Their plants they no longer use are extremely contaminated due to the processes they used to clean and finish steal. The ground water under these plants can no longer ever be used and that company is still paying out millions of dollars in maintaining the remediation.

 

Now, that company should be required to pay out those huge amounts of money. I'm not saying they shouldn't. HOWEVER, now compare that to being able to just dump crap where ever you want with no regulations forcing you to even clean it up. The figure is huge.

 

I know my example is ground water contamination and we are talking about carbon emissions. BUT, problem is the same. Rightfully so, we have stiff regulations in this country on what industry can and can't do to the environment. The problem is, that isn't the case elsewhere and the difference in costs is a major factor.

 

Because if the choice is having those jobs here with no regulations protecting the environment, or having those jobs move to China where they're willing to trash the environment to catch up on their industrialization, I'll help pack up the material to send the jobs over there.

 

And to carry the answer I gave to this into this thread, far from ignoring the point, what I said is true - those jobs are moving to China whether we have a 0.00% emissions policy or no curb on emissions whatsoever. It is a cost-of-labor issue far, far more than an environmental regulation issue.

 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

So the problem isn't that the regulations are hurting businesses, it's that businesses are willing to screw the environment over by moving wholesale to another location, even country, to continue to pollute.

 

That isn't a compelling argument against regulations, it's a compelling argument against amoral businesses.

 

 

Knapp, I gave personal experiences in another thread about jobs that went elsewhere because the company could build a plant in an area that doesn't have as high of regulations. You ignored those posts.

Where?

 

I believe it was in the global warming thread where I have said the exact same things and given examples of local companies leaving due to these regulations. Then, you still act like more regulations have no affect on the economy even though I have given examples of people losing their jobs. This article also gives examples of people losing their jobs in California.

 

I think you're thinking of the Obama / Jinping deal thread. If so, "ignored those posts" was a gross mischaracterization of my participation in that thread. I also missed the part where you gave personal examples of people losing their jobs because of regulations, unless maybe it's this post, which doesn't do anything to further the point that those jobs belong in America:

 

 

 

Yes, their labor costs on a per hour they pay their worker basis is extremely low compared to ours. But, when you consider how cheap power production is if you don't have to worry bout pollution, it's ridiculous. Many of their newer plants are automated just like ours. So, the labor cost factor is probably less now than it was say 20 years ago.

 

I know of a company that used to produce huge amounts of product in the US. Their plants they no longer use are extremely contaminated due to the processes they used to clean and finish steal. The ground water under these plants can no longer ever be used and that company is still paying out millions of dollars in maintaining the remediation.

 

Now, that company should be required to pay out those huge amounts of money. I'm not saying they shouldn't. HOWEVER, now compare that to being able to just dump crap where ever you want with no regulations forcing you to even clean it up. The figure is huge.

 

I know my example is ground water contamination and we are talking about carbon emissions. BUT, problem is the same. Rightfully so, we have stiff regulations in this country on what industry can and can't do to the environment. The problem is, that isn't the case elsewhere and the difference in costs is a major factor.

 

Because if the choice is having those jobs here with no regulations protecting the environment, or having those jobs move to China where they're willing to trash the environment to catch up on their industrialization, I'll help pack up the material to send the jobs over there.

 

And to carry the answer I gave to this into this thread, far from ignoring the point, what I said is true - those jobs are moving to China whether we have a 0.00% emissions policy or no curb on emissions whatsoever. It is a cost-of-labor issue far, far more than an environmental regulation issue.

 

 

 

 

Where is there no regulations protecting the environment in the US?

 

And, you are willing to pack up those companies and have people lose their jobs even though it has no affect net net on the global environment.

 

But...hey...I guess it makes us feel good.

 

 

 

 

 

And, yes, in the Global Warming thread i gave an example of a local company that moved it's plant due to environmental regulatlions.

 

 

 

 

 

And...oh yes, the wonderful agreement we are now in with China that says...."Hey....you go ahead and pollute more and we will go ahead and put more regulations on ours." It's funny how I'm told that our overall world pollution needs to DROP or we are all going to die. BUT...hey.....you just keep polluting more and more. I don't think the world environment really cares that China is going to max out it's pollution in 2030 when it's over polluting already.