brenthutch

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    11,005

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by brenthutch

  1. brenthutch
    Maybe these guys can explain it better than me https://usa.oceana.org/oil-gas-subsidies-myth-vs-fact
  2. brenthutch
    Your making this more difficult than it needs to be. Is your point that the world’s oil industry would not survive without government support? Don’t you realize that there are literally dozens of countries that depend on oil revenues to survive. I am unaware of any country that supports itself on the revenues generated from wind and solar power. The notion that subsidies would somehow generate more in taxes is just bizarre and not what I meant at all.
  3. brenthutch
    I never said that subsidies lead to greater tax revenue. I said the taxes the oil industry provides to federal, state and local coffers, directly and indirectly, is greater than the amount they get in subsidies, as opposed to the renewable industries which receives massive taxpayers handouts and pays very little in taxes.
  4. brenthutch
    If you believe the planet will get so hot that we will be growing corn in Iceland, you would be a climate alarmist not a CAWG skeptic.
  5. brenthutch
    Yes it probably underestimated because it did not take into account the longer growing season here is something more recent from NASA https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
  6. brenthutch
    It also looks like this
  7. brenthutch
    “Probable effects of increasing global atmospheric CO2concentration on crop yield, crop water use, and world climate are discussed. About 430 observations of the yields of 37 plant species grown with CO2 enrichment were extracted from the literature and analyzed. CO2enrichment increased agricultural weight yields by an 36%. Additional analysis of 81 experiments which had controlled CO2 concentrations showed that yields will probably increase by 33% with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Another 46 observations of the effects of CO2 enrichment on transpiration were extracted and averaged. These data showed that a doubling of CO2concentration could reduce transpiration by 34%, which combined with the yield increase, indicates that water use efficiency may double.“ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0378377483900756
  8. brenthutch
    You are ignoring the $6 in state, local, and income tax for every $1 of federal tax contributed. So sorry, it’s not even close when compared to the subsidies vs tax revenue on renewables. It’s not even close, thanks for playing, you loose, have a nice day.
  9. brenthutch
    I never said that fossil fuel subsidies lead to an increase in tax revenue, I said the oil and gas industry pays more in tax revenue than it receives in subsidies.
  10. brenthutch
    I said CONTRIBUTED to not 100% responsible for. (Unlike the literal greening of the planet which NASA attributes to elevated CO2). I understand that infrastructure needs to be replaced however many on the Left think that wind and solar are environmentally benign, they are not.
  11. brenthutch
    I’ll make it easy https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/448794-debunking-democrats-claims-about-fossil-fuel-tax-breaks
  12. brenthutch
    Give me an example of what you are referring to when you say “subsidies” and I will break it down for you.
  13. brenthutch
    Net net oil and gas are NOT subsidized
  14. brenthutch
    The American oil industry pays more in taxes than it gets in subsidies making it viable. Not only viable but critical to state and local governments who depend on the tax revenues the oil and gas industry provides.
  15. brenthutch
    Economics is pushing out coal in favor of natural gas as it should. With regard to oil, I have no idea what you are talking about. Is there some magical substance that can power the global economy that is plentiful, easy to use and transport AND costs less than oil?
  16. brenthutch
    More like, 1. Climate changes, it always has and always will, it has been warming in fits and starts since the end of the Little Ice Age. 2. Climate related deaths have dropped dramatically during the last hundred years and the elevated CO2 levels have resulted in a literal greening of the planet and have contributed to record food production. 3. Fossil fuels have an energy density unmatched by renewables and we have a centuries+ worth in recoverable reserves. 4. If electric cars and renewable energy were economically viable they would not need government support. 5. Wind and Solar are not ecologically benign and require heavy industrial and mining processes for their production and have to be replaced every twenty to thirty years. 6. Wind and solar are unreliable and lead to skyrocketing energy prices where their adoption is widespread ($.30+kWh in Germany and Denmark) Fixed it for you.
  17. brenthutch
    Nice.....another insult. Why don’t you or Kallend deal with the points made in the video? Oh, that’s right....you can’t.
  18. brenthutch
    The article is NOT by Dennis Prager it is by Mark Mills, (a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, where he co-directs an Institute on Manufacturing Science and Innovation.) Don’t be so close minded that you don’t even consider other points of view.
  19. brenthutch
    If the NAE was so credible, why would they host a statement from a discredited charlatan? Either you are wrong or the NAE is not as credible of a source as you claim. In which case you would still be wrong. Take your pick.
  20. brenthutch
    So it’s no worse than 1933* got it. I don’t know why I am getting so much pushback, NOAA says there is no discernible trend. *In all reality, 1933 probably was much worse as we did not have satellite coverage and may have missed a few.
  21. brenthutch
    Enough with the name calling. I went to your preferred source, did a quick search and posted the first one. Nothing nefarious. I see that you continue to struggle with the actual content of the video I posted. Try watching it again.
  22. brenthutch
    Kallend didn’t like Prager, he said he trusts the National Academy of Engineering, so I quoted a source on their website. The fact of the matter is that views expressed on both articles are true and you are having difficulty dealing with the message so you attack the messenger. I guess Michael Moore is also a right wing hack in the pockets of big oil and big tobacco. (Face palm)
  23. brenthutch
    I used NOAA’s prediction of six to ten hurricanes with three to six being cat 3 or higher so we still have a way to go.
  24. brenthutch
    He can’t. That is why he has resorted to name calling and personal attacks. It is typical left wing tripe. Of course I give him some credit for obfuscating an otherwise loosing argument. The alternative is that he truly believes that solar panels and windmills last forever and are constructed by gnomes and fairies and not by fossil fuel intensive industrial processes.
  25. brenthutch
    How about the comments on the National Academy of Engineering with regard to wind and solar? I will refresh your memory, “Many people believe that wind and solar energy are essential for replacing nonrenewable fossil fuels. They also believe that wind and solar are unique in providing energy that’s carbon-free and inexhaustible. A closer look shows that such beliefs are based on illusions and wishful thinking.” Did you catch that? Illusions and wishful thinking. It reminds me of my original post.