Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
Thanks, your right we won't see the issues from the same point of view most of the time. I was pretty new to public forums and have mellowed some with practice.
I tend to favor our founding fathers principles and philosophy. It's still amazing how such a diverse group of people could have wrote, IMO, the two most noble documents ever set to paper. These people had beliefs that ran from the strictly religious north east, to the folksy hard working center, ending up in the european style grand estate mentality in the south.
How these people with lifestyles and attitudes that were so different from each other could put aside their petty squables and set in motion the founding of this nation still amazes me.
We would be truely blessed if those in power today would take a moment and reflect on this fact. Then maybe they would sit down,openly debate the issues, then come to an agreement that was fair and agreeable to all.
holly1Not that my opinion matters, but I just want to commend you for changing your method of getting your point across… I thought you initially came on like gangbusters but you’re most recent posts show you to be a mild-mannered poster that has a valid and researched point of view. We won't always agree but we don't have to be disagreeable or just resort to name-calling.
I don't disagree with the points you made but I am leaving us the battle of global warming/climate change to the climatologists.
I imagine we all have our favorite philosopher, columnist, author, or people that we admire for their profound outlook...Tom Friedman is one of mine…I agree with what he wrote on global warming, in the New York Times, yesterday.
“If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.”
WaywardwindLet me begin with a little house cleaning…You said "You're one of those who are ignoring the improvements made over the last three-plus decades in, not only our air quality, but also water quality.”… Texas has a lot of room for improvement, since it emits about 630 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere; number one in the country, according to this article I linked..Improvements I would want to see is the trend of respiratory illness in those areas coming down.…. I probably have petrochemicals companies inside my small portfolio, I want them to succeed. It's not always a neither or situation.
White House rhetoric has been around for a long time and so has the views of opposing legislators. Have you forgotten about the three different but co- equal branches of our government? I will list another exert from an article I posted earlier in this blog. "The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new-vehicle emissions standards to control the pollutants that scientists say contribute to global warming…It works both ways. No conspiracy.
The White House knows that sometime next year the oil lobbyists, Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush and the Tea Parties will hold their town meetings to try to derail any type of Cap-and –Trade or carbon tax legislation. The current rhetoric throws a shot across the bow, saying that the new EPA standards on CO2 will change their strategy.Telling the lawmakers to come to some kind of legislative consensus before the special interest groups take into la la land ;like they tried to do with Health Care Reform and don't leave it to stricter EPA standards. As I continue to say, the calculator has a plus and minus key… The petrochemical industry does not have to pay needless fines for polluting the atmosphere or for lobbyist trying to extend their limits… . The industry employs scientists, lawyers and engineers, so it wiser for them to come to some kind of consensus. I don't think the EPA will pull numbers out of the air to come up with their data, I don’t think any administration that wants to get re-elected; wants to choke the economy.
Mike..."The EPA is well aware that there are accountable to Congress."
Uh huh. When has congress exercised oversight over the EPA? You're one of those who are ignoring the improvements made over the last three-plus decades in, not only our air quality, but also water quality. Heck, the Houston Ship Channel has fish in it again and it hasn't caught fire for many years. Are things perfect? No, they're not. Are they as good as we'd like them to be? Again, no. Are things improving without killing business? Yes, they are. Houston, LA, Chicago, New York et al still have their bad days but not as many as in the '60s and early '70s.
From Fox News on the Drudge Report:
"The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a "command-and-control" role over the process in a way that could hurt business."
"The warning, from a top White House economic official who spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity, came on the eve of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's address to the international conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark."
Mike, this doesn't have anything to do with my personal feelings about BO. They're threatening to throw their considerable weight around if congress doesn't do their bidding. The republicans are threatening to prevent passage of any new laws in this area: "Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., ranking Republican on the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, said Tuesday he is going to attend the Copenhagen conference to inform world leaders that despite any promises made by President Obama, no new laws will be passed in the United States until the "scientific fascism" ends."
With this impasse in congress, the EPA is threatening to bully the country by passing rules that have the force of law without input from the lawmakers of the nation.
The last time I looked, the EPA worked for the Executive Branch and that means BO is their boss. If they are threatening to "take a "command-and-control" role over the process in a way that could hurt business."like this, obviously the boss approves or he'd tell'em to shut up.
As far as our emission levels go, we are starting to level off and reverse our emission levels. This is due largely to the fact that we don't make anything here anymore. We have shipped all those jobs overseas.
Thats the big problem with the numbers. There has been a very active volcanic period since 1980 or so. That alone has put way more greenhouse gasses into the air than we ever could. Right now at any given time there is at least one erupting gases into the atmosphere. The one in hawaii has been continually erupting for the last 20 years. Not to mention all the black smokers they have discovered on the sea bed.
Granted humans have been polluting the air at high levels for the last 50 yrs or so and it will only get worse when china and india get fully industrialized. With that said the US should not have to bear the brunt of all these new laws. The U.N. wants us to fund these programs at the same percentage as our funding of the U.N. which is roughly 25% of their budget. It's high time that china and india carry their share of the costs since between the two of them they have almost half the worlds population. Both of them emit as much as we do and have no plans to reduce their levels by any significant amount. So as usual it's the US that has to lead the way and suffer the hit. We as a nation need to promote more green ideas but should not have to foot most of the bill as well.
The Environmental Protections Agency will have the same powers it had under previous administrations; hating the current president will not change that.
The EPA is well aware that there are accountable to Congress. To be absolutely fair, I agreed with RedXIII when he said producing these findings just before the Copenhagen meeting, created an air of suspicion… I am not against a congressional investigation but I'm not aware of any Congressman denying the recent findings but I am more sure that the agency has data to back up their findings unlike your unfounded suspicion that someone in the administration wants to shut down the petrochemical industry...lol
I'm not aware of any eco-nuts but I think every industrial plant wants to comply with the Air-Quality Control Board, their children and grandchildren have to breathe the same air we do.
The EPA is obliged to take action on health concerns and a recent Supreme Court decision supported them.i.e. The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration yesterday for refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, siding with environmentalists in the court's first examination of the phenomenon of global warming.
The EPA will be bringing dictatorial powers to the climate change discussions. At least anything that comes from Congress will come from people who have been elected by the people and are somewhat answerable to the people. EPA "Command and Control" of greenhouse gas emissions will come from people who are not accountable to anyone but BO and we all know that will be brutal if it happens.
What amazes me is the progress in cleaning our air has been ignored by these eco-nuts. Go to any large city and the improvement is obvious. I lived in Houston before moving to Victoria. Houston's air is vastly cleaner than in 1968 when I moved there. Now, it's still not perfect, but it never will be unless the EPA has the power to shut down the petro-chemical industry in the US. I don't doubt for one minute that there are people in this administration who would love to do just that, but understand what it would kill the economy. The administration isn't ready to foment a revolution over air quality or some perceived global warming -- yet.
As I stated yesterday, the recent EPA findings will bring the polluters to the table because the EPA standards will be much stricter than a Cap-and-Trade bill that can be negotiated.
Continuing to ignore the problem will only make it more costly in the future; this is not only a government issue but it is a human issue… The China Olympics should remind us the consequences of greenhouse emissions that are not regulated.
The problem is that cap and trade will do little to curb carbon emissions. That has been the European experience. The main reason is that cap and trade's primary goal is to generate revenue, and there appears to be a lot of political corruption associated with the granting of permits - gosh go figure.
Secondly even the CEO of EXXON/Mobil agrees that fossil fuel consumption needs to be reduced, but he went on to add that cap and trade is not the way to do it because it will introduce another variable into the pricing of enegy, making it more volatile. He favored a carbon tax because it was simpler and easier to administered, less prone to corruption.
But no matter what is done out of control government spending must stop otherwise global warming/cooling will be the least of our worries.
That last post was a summary of the politics of global warming showing both parties guilty of not addressing this issue but because of the length of my comments I had to post twice.
Times have changed; on February 2007 during a senate hearing on global warming, the CEOs of DuPont, BP, Caterpillar, Alcoa, Duke Power and Florida Power urged the senate to impose mandatory limits on greenhouse emissions. TXU Utility of Dallas was originally going to build up 11 coal fired plants, but then they were bought out by two Wall Street firms that were convinced that it would be a bad idea. TXU canceled eight of the 11 coal fired plants after making a deal with the environmentalist groups.
I continued to say that I will let the scientists sort out the data but until they can definitely say that X. amount of carbon will produce a 1° hotter planet or the out-of-control deforestation efforts in the rain forest are contributing to the extinction of plant life; they will have their doubters. I just read an article by Bjorn Lomborg (Dec 14, 2009 issue of Time) that supports my belief that our methods to curb greenhouse emissions are too drastic it will be fought with litigation, politics, and protest by the oil companies. He states that global warming effects will cost the earth $3 trillion yearly but it would cost the world $40 trillion to implement the proposals that will come out of Copenhagen or to simplify it: $35 a gallon for gasoline. We will never do it, so why not divert our attention to alternative fuels as a more economical way to achieve our goal.
I went back in viewed an April 26 2007 PBS Front Line special on global warming last night ,to jog my memory…. The ice core samples from Antarctica and Greenland have been analyzed; the scientist said that we are producing more carbon dioxide today than we have in the last 100,000 years.
We became aware of global warming in 1988 after Dr. James Hansen of NASA told a congressional investigation that he was 99% confident that we were experiencing man-made global warming. It was getting close to the 1992 presidential election and a young Bill Clinton was using this issue as his platform, pushing the George H.W. Bush administration to do something about greenhouse emissions. President Bush started to take notice but the first Gulf War came up and then in 1991 Mount Pinatubo (Philippines) volcano erupted sending 20,000,000 tons of SO2 high into the stratosphere: this cooled the earth for a brief period. It became like the 70s when President Carter warned us about the finite of fossil fuels but then oil prices came down, President Reagan was elected in we all know the rest of the story.
In 1992 President Clinton found out how strong the special interests' groups were when he tried to propose a BTU tax to curb greenhouse emissions. Robert Byrd led the democrats to derail this legislation before it even got started. The coal industry lined the pockets of the republicans and the automobile trade unions did the same for the democrats. In 1995 Bill Clinton signed a tough Kyoto treaty, but it was soundly defeated in the senate 95-0. President Clinton never put up much of a fight.
In the 2000 presidential election candidate Al Gore rarely mentioned global warming but his opponent George W Bush made it the mainstay of his campaign. Govenor Bush bragged about Texas initiatives to curb greenhouse emissions, and he vowed to do the same when he took over in Washington. One of President Bush's first appointments was former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman, who was a strong environmentalist. It wasn't long after that,when vice president Cheney let her know that he was in command. Vice president Cheney held the secret energy meetings and the Bush administration would no longer worry about global warming. In fact, the Bush administration ordered the EPA to delete all references to the $10,000,000 study on climate change and its effect on agriculture, the Forest, water, and the coastline. Dr. James Hansen had the clear all his speeches on global warming through the White House.
Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995.
Here is the funny part about this.. I am watching Southpark and the show is discussing global warming. Kind of funny how they portrait both sides, comical. I read and I believe that Gore is a hypocrite but at the same time, we need to do something about global warming or at least deforestation.
Not to mention all the power wasted on brightly lit up signs and un-needed equipment. Do we really need clocks and remotes on everything we own. these things waste huge amounts of power just keeping us from having to get up to change the channel. We have become a society of lazy people who would rather waste electricity than be put out by having to get up off our butts and do things ourself. I love my remote as much as the next person but i could live without it. Almost everything we own uses power in standby mode nowdays. Getting rid of all this waste would also help rid us of global warming.
1 Thing most every one here is ignoring is that the current electrical grid is obsolete and wastes around 1/2 of the power generated just to push the electricity around the grid. If we could figure out how to eliminate that waste we could generate 1/2 the power and still meet our needs. This would go a long way in eliminating global warming alone!!!
Mike..."I think if it leads us into alternative energy; it will be a win-win in the long run…"
I have long advocated alternatives to oil, and coal as fuel for electricity generation. I don't think, given the massive amount of electrical energy consumption in this nation, that windmills and solar panels are the answer. I think they have their place as part of the solution. I believe that eventually, the hydrogen fuel cell is going to be a very popular way to generate electricity in the home and for powering automobiles. Once the technological problems are solved for economically extracting hydrogen from seawater, not only a new form of generating electricity will be common, but whole new industries will be developed to support hydrogen fuel cell for home use, cars, boats...virtually anything that uses carbon fuel now could be powered by hydrogen. And by using seawater for a source, the source is endless. It is also a clean source of energy. The only emission is water vapor. Of course, Al Gore will write a book and produce a movie about how water vapor is bad for not only the environment but personal health.
This comment was removed by the user.
I think neanderthals were socialists, that's why they went extinct.
Rollinstone said "And finally you claim to know nothing about global warming."
No I have been saying that for at least four years..I am not a climatologist or a cut-and -poster looking for credibility.
I never said we should change our entire economy just our neanderthal mindset;sorta like that cold-war mindset(Socialist)..lol
Do you think that we could have much more info on this subject if they would just study the ice cores from greenland and antartica. These cores represent over 100,000 years of weather history. Why are we not seeing any data from them? I would think that 100,000 years of data is a whole lot more reliable than just the last 150 years that england has. Should we not spend a little more time looking at the last 100,000 years data before we rush head long into a plan which may not be based on true fact but twisted info that suits liberal scientist's agendas. If the data holds up than so be it but for now another year or two of studying all the facts might be better than plunging off the deep end head first because some eco-liberals want to control the global economy by putting oppressive regulations and taxes in place. There is a lot of data that would support global cooling as well. We all know that numbers can be twisted to support any position. Lets get the numbers right and then see where they lead instead of making the numbers support one idea or another. True science would take all the available data and then put forth the results. These results would be based on real data not some hypothetical models. If the results say we are warming then lets do something about it. I think that by using the ice cores as data sources Many more factors would be accounted for such as volcano's, fires, tilt of the axis of the planet and other factors recorded in the ice. Lets not forget the 26,000 year cycle of our solar system moving up and down in the galactic plain as well. this might have major effects on the earths climate as well. WE NEED MORE DATA not more laws at this point in time.
Duh,is not a rebuttal,it's what my teen age grandchild says....This what is being reported,they may in fact be wrong but I was listening to that subject being discussed last night on my satellite radio.... I have said a couple times,I am open for an investigation...But then we must go on to something else.
I freely admit that I lean towards the idea that man may be contributing a little bit to climate change but contradictory hard data can change my mind. I certainly agree with the EPA finding that greenhouse emissions are harmful to our health… You don't have to be a rocket scientist to remember the mask the Chinese were using in the past Olympics. I do believe that CO2 is a heat trapping gas and we are putting more into our atmosphere than we ever have. When the developing Third World countries start using coal-fired electric grids and start to buy all the electronic gadgets and automobiles; my little brain just sees more pollution… I can just go to La Porte, Texas and see all the haze that the petrochemical plants produce. I remember telling you about my view of Houston from the top of the Medical Center; not a pretty sight. I remember you telling me that they have cleaned up their act; so that’s a good thing.
I really don't listen to Al Gore., Nancy Pelosi or the CEOs of the oil companies when it comes to climate change. Last year, I said that the watered-down Cap-and-Trade bill that was passed by the House is a terrible bill. I read Business Week, Discover, and try to view as many documentaries so I can to try and better understand the bigger picture.
I think if it leads us into alternative energy; it will be a win-win in the long run… I may be wrong.
You said: The controversial emails centered on tree ring measurements, nothing else...And you want to be taken serious? Do you not know we all can read them? duh!
Who said anything about Joe McCarthy? I was talking mainly about the current administration that actively supports people like Andy Stern, Saul Alinsky's, Bill Ayers, Paul Krudman, etc. people like that.
I did not accuse them of being socialist, ala Joe McCarthy, they admit it, he11 they are proud of it - and they want to make all of us proud little Marxists whether we want to be or not.
And finally you claim to know nothing about global warming but you seem to think you know an awful lot about the economics and feasibility of "green energy" - enough to recommend we change our entire economy.
Mike...I don't disagree that the climate is changing. I am NOT convinced that it is caused by man. The glaciers and ice caps have melted before and then glaciers and ice caps have covered most of the European and North American continents and then they melted. There are cycles to the earth's climate and we are in the middle of a change. It wasn't so long ago that we were being warned about a new ice age coming. Now, we're being told the earth is warming up drastically even though the last decade has seen temps going down.
I'd be a lot more willing to believe the people doing the warning if they weren't such hypocrits. Look at the summit. Twelve hundred limos with only one person in each and over a hundred private jets. If one of those a@@%&*^$ tells me that I have to change my thermostat to save the world, I'll remind him of his G-V (or 747) and stretch limo that he took to the summit. I notice that the savior of the world, Al Gore is sill living in his mansion that uses more electricity in a week than my house uses in a year. I'll also remind Nancy Pelosi that she uses a government supplied 757 on her weekly round trip to California. How large do you suppose HER carbon footprint is? This is the problem with the do as I say not as I do crowd. They think they'er too important to be inconvenienced but they want all of us to return to the stone age. Oh, wait, we can't do that because we'd be burning wood for fuel. Since CO2 is supposed to be the new worst gas, I guess the only way we can make that bunch happy is for us to die.
Those that can be swayed that climate change is about a four day event or a local weather report really just take their marching orders from what they are spoon fed....Cute little sound bites does not elevate the discussion.
I am very familiar with right wing talking points, right wing blogs and rhetoric from hate radio.
Global=Involving the entire earth; not limited to Al Gore or the United States...Warming= see today's WMO report.....I leave science for the scientist..They may be wrong but they a lot more data than we do.
If you read my blog,you would see I am not an global warming alarmist (I don't know enough about the subject)but I have always been for alternative energy.
Mike, you have to be kidding me, bears falling from the sky, 1200 limo’s, 140 private jet and 5 electric cars… Have you not one once of common sense these people maybe WRONG!!!!!!!!
VictoreWhere do I come up with all this stuff is a pretty vague question? I do think for myself, do you think you have privy to all the facts??????... I can't imagine anyone thinking that everything is just a money grabbing far left agenda…. It’s like being stuck on socialism.
I notice you didn't contradict anything in the blog because I doubt that you even read it,you just wait for one of your buddies to come in attacking and then you will follow suit.
In a country that has about 320 million people, about 200 million are adults; you would think we would have different opinions or a starting point for a civil discussion.Not likely in this city or forum.
When you have to use exaggerations and labels to make a point you lose all your credibility you might have had…. I freely admit that I am not a climatologist; I know it will cost more but I also believe status quo will catch up with us. Third World nations will not create green jobs and innovations that will keep us afloat and secure our future... You may not believe that;you are entitled.
Mike, where do you come up with this stuff, OMG are you that gullible to believe every thing you read. It is about money and the far left agenda. Damn Mike you have lost all of your common sense, can you not think for yourself???????
I do not have any intention of debating cut-and-paste material from the Australian or any other material for that matter... I leave the science for for scientist.... Yes Cap- And -trade will cost and so will taxes; we have been on a free ride for eight years with our heads in the sand;ignoring the inevitable.
As I've said before,if the emails are that important to the overall study of climate change;then by all means have an investigation.
Joe McCarthy strikes again.
When gas is $10.00 a gallon and home heating and energy bills are $1500.00-$2000 a month I guess you and your band of idiots will be pleased. We will be a third world nation with these idiots in charge, this is all about obama's agenda to spread the wealth, use junk science and lies to terrify fools and then offer them a solution which conviently include massive taxes and fees to be paid.
Hmmm, "All four agencies that track earth's temperature [the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California] report that it cooled by about 0.7 C in 2007." This, he says is "the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."
Moreover, he says, there is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold, noting that it snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.
Chapman wrote that the global warming dogma should be put aside, "at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850."
The errant e-mails are more than fudging tree ring data they fudged almost all the data. There computer programs were set up to "manipulate" the data to make the "hockey stick graph" look more dramatic.
In addition the e-mails were also about how they could eliminate the publishing of research that refuted global warming. They seem flummoxed about the recent cooling and how to explain it.
And finally Cap and Trade will introduce another variable into the cost of energy. This will make investment decisions difficult. Throw all of this crap in with the current fickle subsidies for "green energy" and you have a recipe for shortages and rationing. The data is not there to launch our country on the stupid cap and trade path to poverty.
But rationing and control of the economy and everything else is a socialist dream come true - it don't get any better than that.
That is correct, many companies will once again have to up the anty for EPA standard upgrades yet, third world/developing countries do not tend to have to live towards those standards...thus, the lure of globalization of companies closing here and moving to those countries
Well Red,The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
The UK, and the Guardian have joined with 56 other newspapers in 45 countries to run the same front-page editorial (WMO’s findings) yesterday, urging action on climate change.
I do have to agree, that the timing of the of the EPA’s announcement may be suspicious but they are accountable, I would not be against Congress calling them in to answer questions. At some point we need to start believing in something.
You are right,I have a engineer friend who said he was looking through some vendor catalogs for his company because they are about to purchase some new CO2 alarms and software interlocks to comply with the coming EPA standards...
First the EPA's findings are nothing NEW...rules and regulations were put together the amounts of pollution that can be released. Companies have been spending billions to upgrade to standards for many years...(Stimulus for the economy)
Now, to have the EPA suddenly announce that greenhouse gases cause illnesses on the eve of this climate thing is only politics working to fool the people's mind set that Global Warming is going away and Global Cooling has begun...it is on its eleven year cycle and only about dollars for the green groups...http://www.rightsidenews.com/20090107...
Its called wagging the dog...to take your attention away from the real issues