Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is announcing a major set of proposals today to combat global warming. But first, some breaking news on global warming from today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "Earth's warming likely irreversible, scientists say"
Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years as an aftereffect of the warming and polar melting that followed the last ice age, which ended about 10,000 years ago. Discriminating between that residual effect and any new influence from human actions remains impossible for the moment, many experts say.But Mayor Nickels is pushing his faith-based initiative to reverse global warming anyway, the cornerstone of which is:
If Seattle is going to do its part to slow global warming, people are going to have to get out of their cars.A few things here are at odds with Nickels other proposals and his own behavior.
If the goal is to deemphasize automobiles and also invest more money in transit, why is Nickels wedded to the most expensive alternative for replacing the Viaduct? Why wouldn't he propose a less expensive alternative so that more funds are available to invest in transit? (Unless maybe these are all just excuses for expensive boondoggles)
Second, Nickels has his own chauffeur-driven limousine (I took these pictures of Nickels and his limo at a Sound Transit event in 2004)
 |  |
Does Nickels intend to give up his taxpayer-funded limo and start walking, bicycling and taking the bus? I'm skeptical, but I'll call his office and ask. I'll let you know what they tell me. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 24, 2006 09:39 AM | Email This
I'm sure Nickels and Co. are still trying to get to the good old days of the USSR where there were special lanes for the ruling elite. Is it possible that is what the tunnel is for?
Posted by: Fred on March 24, 2006 09:57 AMhttp://www.cybersalt.org/cleanlaugh/images/06/bikesquarewheel.htm
Posted by: JDH on March 24, 2006 10:06 AMDid Gore take a private fuel guzzeling jet out this morning and limos down to the "Save our environment Bush bash!
What absolute hipocrits!
I would love to hear his response to your question Stefan
Posted by: GS on March 24, 2006 10:58 AMOh and the fact he's a member of the GOP probably helps!
Posted by: A Watchdog on March 24, 2006 11:08 AMIf you folks aren't bitching about public transit, you're bitching about the lack of it.
Posted by: A Moderate on March 24, 2006 11:24 AMNikels is out pontificating about how cars are bad for the environment. He takes a chauffer driven car that uses lots of fuel.
Bloomberg uses public transportation.
You see, it appears that Republicans encourage by example, Democrats by preaching that it is good for you to do it, but not me. Then just to top it off, Ds try to make out that Ds are so concerned about the environment and Rs are positively acting to destroy it.
It is not that significant that Bloomberg takes a subway, just that he takes public transit. Nikels does not take public transit. Seattle also has public transit, actually quite a few public transits, spending tons of money which improving the areas transportation is the last thing it achieves.
Posted by: Fred on March 24, 2006 11:41 AMWhy doesn't Seattle have one by now? Topography issues, the Lake in the middle of the urban area preventing more east-west routes, density of the Seattle city limits combined with the topography? Is it geologic concerns from earthquakes? Exactly why doesn't Seattle have a subway?
And then we can go to why do people think we need one now? Have conditions changed? The track record of Sound Transit and the Monorail Board says that we can't keep costs under control.
So what exactly, other than the "it just feels good" reason do we need all these transit scams?
So, to convince me, you need to think a little deeper and get away from your surface disgust with our questions. If you can come up with some good reasons and facts that things have changed, I am all for a subway or light rail. Otherwise, flame on about nothing.
Posted by: swatter on March 24, 2006 11:49 AMJim Posted by: Jim Clark on March 24, 2006 11:51 AM
Jim Posted by: Jim Clark on March 24, 2006 11:51 AM
Jim Posted by: Jim Clark on March 24, 2006 11:51 AM
It's obvious from your example that hypocrisy is not only a Liberal trait, but a requirement. When Teresa Heinz-Kerry was here for one of her fund raisers prior to the Presidential election she preached about Americans love affair with excess. This from a women who flew here in her private G5 Gulfstream.
Democratic supporters must love being one of "The Little People".
Posted by: swassociates on March 24, 2006 11:58 AMWill Rogers had this lame-brain in mind when he said:
"There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government, including Mayor FatA$$, working for you!!"
Mayor Fat-Ass looks more and more like Teddy Kennedy every day!! Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 24, 2006 12:10 PM
of WATATO French Fries. I'll have Joel Horn and his buddies run the numbers on what it will cost to convert the entire city fleet! Posted by: Christine on March 24, 2006 12:19 PM
yeah, and the "scientific consensus" 30 years ago was that we were headed for another ice age. "consensus" is meaningless--the consensus 200 years ago was that slavery was just fine, and that water from a stump would cure warts. If you bothered to do your research, you'd find that the science is not as settled as you'd like to believe.
Posted by: libertarianobserver on March 24, 2006 12:33 PMThere is alot of resistance on implementing policy changes that cost more money - especially if the effect isn't going to affect anything, as should be the case - common sense. The Federal Government and private industry need to partner in this effort if it is going to happen on a large scale.
Posted by: KS on March 24, 2006 12:38 PMPosted by mypov at March 24, 2006 12:37 PM"
Actually mypov, I respectfully disagree.
If Mayor FatA$$ spent less time in the office, he would do less damage to the City and it's finances. You might re-think that.
What size hat does Nickels wear? Looks like about a size 20! What a "Toadhead" he's got.
I think you could tie a rope around his ample waist, pump a little helium into him and he'd make a great addition to the Freemount Gay Pride Parade.
"And our next float is Mayor Nickels!" Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 24, 2006 12:48 PM
Posted by dinesh at March 24, 2006 12:48 PM"
So we are being lectured about Global Warming by a Berkeley Grad???????????
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAHA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAHA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAHA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAHA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAHA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA
Can you explain why the incredibly enlightened French & Co are only giving Koyoto lip service? They are all ignoring the requirements they signed onto as it is destroying their already weak economies. At least the US isn't being hypocritical about it.
With human activity contibuting only around 3.5% of CO2 created each year we are not that significant. If we cut our output by 10% we would be producing 3.15%. How much would that cost our economy and consequently lives for that?
That is from the Woods Hole Research Center http://www.whrc.org/carbon/images/GlobalCarbonCycleLG.gif.
As libertarianobserver deftly pointed out, "scientific consensus" is BS, and really means that "we have some scientists that are willing to get in front of a mic and say what we want to make our point." What is "consensus" in science? The world is flat was one consensus, along with the sun rotates around the earth. It sure seems to me as if this means "we have absolutely no proof (scientific or otherwise), but it will give us power if we can con enough people into following us". It sounds good and has some emotional pull. But facts (the basis of science) - totally devoid!
Posted by: Fred on March 24, 2006 12:54 PMnice selective excerpt, bad fact checking. if you would have clicked on the next tab at the woods hole site, you could have read the following:
"What the Skeptics Don't Tell You"
"Laypeople frequently assume that in a political dispute the truth must lie somewhere in the middle, and they are often right. In a scientific dispute, though, such an assumption is usually wrong." - Paul Ehrlich
....
"There is, for the most part, a scientific consensus that human action is causing a warming of the earth. Scientists who subcribe to this view recognize, nonetheless, that there is uncertainty as to the specific outcome of the warming. The oil and mining industries have chosen to focus on the word "uncertainty" in their sound bites and media campaigns. Regrettably, they have disingenuously sought to extend the notion of uncertainty from the "outcome" of global warming to the global warming phenomenon itself - a flagrant and unjustifiable attempt to discredit what we already understand."
http://whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/skeptics.htm
So you would "... much rather see him being chauffeured around the city than waiting for a transfer at the bus stop". That is great! He is too important to use public transport, but the rest of us scum can. We do not have anything nearly as important to do as devising methods to scam more money out of the people he "represents" to fulfil his tunnel dream. But me? I can stand at a bus stop in the rain waiting for a transfer instead of having time with my family.
As I said, the USSR and the Seattle ruling elite need to have everything they preach to the masses they should not have!
Posted by: Fred on March 24, 2006 01:05 PMouch.
http://whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/culprits.htm
"The Culprits
While the concentrations of almost all greenhouse gases have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide has had the greatest effect on changing the climate. During the 1980's humans released 5.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually by burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) for heat, transportation, and electricity. An additional 1.6 billion tons was released from anthropogenic (human-induced) changes in land-use (i.e. clearing land for agriculture, pastures, etc.) mostly through deforestation in the tropics.
Where does that 7.2 billion tons of atmospheric carbon go? Ocean modelers find that the ocean takes up approximately 2 billion tons a year. Around 2 billion tons are taken up by a presently unidentified "sink" or reservoir of carbon (see The Missing Carbon Sink). This leaves a remainder of 3.2 billion tons of CO2, and global atmospheric measurements indicate that this amount is simply being added to existing concentrations already present in the atmosphere. The result is that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate of approximately 1.5 ppm (parts per million) per year and overall it has increased about 30% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
These flows or "fluxes" within the Global Carbon Cycle may be summarized using the formula:
Atmospheric increase = Emissions from fossil fuels + Net emissions from changes in land use - Oceanic uptake - Missing carbon sink
Human beings are causing the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at rates much faster than the earth can cycle them. Fossil fuels - oil, coal, natural gas, and their derivatives - are formed through the compression of organic (once living) material for millions of years, and we are burning billions of tons of these fuels per year. Why is this disconcerting? Because the CO2 expelled into the atmosphere through these activities does not disappear immediately or even over the course of a year. As a matter of fact, the residence times of greenhouse gases (how long they remain in the atmosphere) are on the order of decades to centuries. This means that the CO2 we emit today will likely be affecting the climate well into our children's future and likely into the futures of our grandchildren.
Despite the widespread recognition of this fact, worldwide emissions of fossil fuels continue to increase at a rate of about 1% per year (IPCC, 1995). Emissions will increase even further as the developing world moves towards greater industrialization. As of 1995 the industrialized world (the United States, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and the Former Soviet Union) contributed more than 70% of the total world emissions. If use of fossil fuels continues to increase at present rates, by 2035 humans will annually be contributing 12 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, about 50% of which will be due to developed nations and about 50% of which will be due to developing nations (IPCC 1995)."
Tim Hill had the R behind his name.
Posted by: JCM on March 24, 2006 01:18 PMDoesn't contridict the 3.5% created by humans on that site. Their chart says that clearly - the "scientific concensus" drawn from that is a different issue which I did not address.
But here is an article of someone who has been studing ice cores for a while. They are unreliable, and until global warming became part of the PC agenda was stated as such.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
Posted by: Fred on March 24, 2006 01:22 PMThanks so much for citing Paul Ehrlich. Wasn't he the one who wrote the best-selling 1968 book, "The Population Bomb," which predicted that during the 1970s "the world will undergo famines -- hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now?" He was only off by a few hundred million... also in October 1980, Ehrilch bet Julian Simon that the prices of any 5 metals he [Ehrlich] chose would be *lower* 10 years later--indicating that they were not becoming more scarce--not higher. Ehrlich lost...
All the chicken littles have been saying the same crap for hundreds of years. They've always been wrong. The only question is, why do people keep listening to them? Could it be the money involved in getting research grants? Hmmmm.....
Posted by: libertarianobserver on March 24, 2006 01:25 PMSwatter: What's changed? Really? *That's* the argument you want to make? Do you ever *use* the roads? I dunno, guy...something tells me that it would be Good (tm), if we could commute from North Seattle to South Seattle in under an hour and a half during rush hour (and that's just for starters.)
Swastika (or whatever your name is): I am a moderate. Just because I don't march in lock-step with the Fox News propaganda of the week, doesn't mean that I will disagree with you on every issue. It's part of the luxury of thinking for yourself....
Posted by: A Moderate on March 24, 2006 01:26 PM"With human activity contibuting only around 3.5% of CO2 created each year we are not that significant."
the site to which you refer does not state anything which suggests that "we are not that significant".
that is your conclusion, which is not supported by the woods hole site.
Posted by: dinesh on March 24, 2006 01:34 PMPS -- before you get all bent out of shape on my 'loser-cruiser' comment, I was kidding - I fully support public transit and would use it myself if it didn't turn my 15 min. commute into over an hour. Posted by: mypov on March 24, 2006 01:41 PM
Any change in temperature, however imperceptible, and however unqualified in our almost negligible period of measurement as compared with geologic time is that of the Sun. And even if such changes are relatively quite large, the impact will not be felt over days, months or even years, but more like decades and centuries. The simple fact is that the water level in Hawaii is not going to suddenly rise ten feet any time soon. And whatever does happen due to the effect of the Sun's energy hitting the Earth, it will be over such a long period of time as to give mankind more than enough time to modify our habitat to account for the changes.
Go read the honest scientists who do not have political, economic, or other agendas. You will see that almost scientists with intellectual integrity agree that we really don't know anything about the effect we are having on the earth as a whole, because it is impossible to measure, and that in relation to the Sun and its cycles, all else is negligible.
Global Warming is patent hysteria was invented to create an ambiguous crisis from which to bilk you of your tax dollars. That is all. Nickels is simply pandering to the ignorant leftist, gullible nature of Seattle's residents.
Why wasn't a subway or similar system built in the past? Were we not so enlightened?
And to quote the crap you did about rush hour traffic as being a reason is totally ridiculous. It is "feel good" politics.
Do we or do we not have the density, topography and geology necessary to have a good functioning system?
Even your transit gurus admit the latest multi-billion dollar boondoggle won't help the rush hour traffic one bit. They just say we need it "because" and "at any cost".
Posted by: swatter on March 24, 2006 01:58 PMPosted by dinesh at March 24, 2006 12:48 PM"
So we are being lectured about Global Warming by a couple PINHEADED Berkeley Grads???????????
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAHA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAHA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAHA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAHA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA
dinesh--lighten up. You Berkeley-types tend to be so uptight, a John Deere couldn't pull a pin outta yer a$$! The scarey part is you KLOWNS actually believe all the stuff you spew as facts. Did I see you down by Westlake Mall last Sunday with a long scraggly beard, the stench of cheap wine and no bath for a month and a "The World is coming to an End!!" sign???
I thought that was you!
Any luck panhandling dinesh??
There's always the bus, dipstick.
Posted by: Fred on March 24, 2006 11:41 AM
Great slam dunk!!
Posted by: swatter on March 24, 2006 11:49 AM
Thanks for the assist.
Posted by: A Moderate on March 24, 2006 01:26 PM
Stop the canards, folks. Canards are for fighter planes, not for comment threads!!
Posted by: A Watchdog on March 24, 2006 02:09 PMSee above. Blame the damned sun, already! The rest of the planets are warming too. Regulate THAT!
Never vote in any public official who is named after money. He obviously wants our nickels.
I, for those reasons + costs, frankly prefer biodiesel vanpools whenever possible.
Posted by: A Watchdog on March 24, 2006 02:27 PMBut he probably thinks creationism should be taught in public schools, and that Terry Schiavo was alive because Bill Frist watched a videotape.
Even if Jeff doesn't believe that, many of the rest of you do. I'm here every day, and I remember what I read.
Watch that ocean level creep up and up, all you steely-eyed, jut-jawed conservatives. We can measure it, you know. Even *you* can measure it.
Posted by: ivan on March 24, 2006 02:28 PMwhy don't you go play with the Kos kids and leave conversation to us adults?
buh-bye
Posted by: libertarianobserver on March 24, 2006 02:30 PMPS -- I bet my dad can beat up your dad. Posted by: mypov on March 24, 2006 02:49 PM
I couldn't help myself. And you might be right about your dad beating up my dad, but my MOM would kick your dad's @ss.
(tee hee)
Gore's got a history of pandering to the left and to other ignorants who are anti-mankind, anti-progress, anti-energy, etc. Gore wants to see Kyoto like wealth redistribution based on energy consumption, and he needs some palpable fear scenarios like Global Warming to get US taxpayers to sign on to his socialist schemes.
As opposed to slack-jawed imbeciles like ivan...
Posted by: alphabet soup on March 24, 2006 03:45 PMyou left out "mouth-breathing bottom feeder." Oops, now I sound like one of the Kos kids.
Posted by: libertarianobserver on March 24, 2006 03:47 PMI left out drooling, hamster-brained, wiper~of~other~people's~bottoms, too.
(I was shooting for brevity, but you're absolutely correct that I should strive for accuracy as well ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on March 24, 2006 03:54 PMand, don't forget to wipe your feet before coming inside.
Posted by: dinesh on March 24, 2006 04:47 PMHIPOCRITS
DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO
Is the New Seattle / King County leadership model.
If the Sky is falling they sure are contributing to it in a big way!
When they both buy and use bicycles, or jump on the bus, they can talk to me about Environmentalism! Not a day before!
Posted by: GS on March 24, 2006 07:33 PMDowntowners keep voting this POS in. They get what they deserve.
Posted by: ERNurse on March 24, 2006 09:39 PMAbout 10,000 years ago, just before the end of the last ice age, there was a tribe of cavemen. One day, several members of the tribe were sitting around the fire, drinking a strong beverage made from ground beetles, picking lice from each other's hair, and generally feeling sorry for themselves. Let's call them liberals.
Other members of the tribe were not sitting idly by the fire. They were hunting for food, gathering wood and tending the fire, standing guard, and making tools and warm clothes from animal hides to protect everyone from the bitter cold. Let's call them conservatives.
The liberals were bemoaning the "fact" that fire was contributing to "global warming." Their worry was that the earth would warm, the glaciers would melt and sea level would rise, killing all the animals and destroying the garment making industry. "What would we do without the taxes from the garment makers?" they whined. "We can't live without taxes. Fire is warming the earth and will destroy our way of life. We must ban fire."
One conservative was less pessimistic. There was only one conservative there listening, as the rest were working. "Our fire is too small to melt the huge glacier, and without fire we can't cook our food, cure the hides, and keep our children from freezing to death."
But the liberals persisted. "Look at the ice melting around the fire. Soon the entire glacier will melt and our world will be destroyed. Can't you stupid conservatives see that our fire is having an enormous destructive impact?" The conservatives countered. "There is so much we don't know about the mysteries of Mother Nature. Perhaps other forces are at work."
Soon the rest of the conservatives of tribe returned from the hunt, and the liberals of the tribe demanded their "fair" share of the bounty. The conservatives balked, but everyone agreed to settle the dispute by secret ballot. Every adult, i.e., voting member of the tribe, was given two stones; one red, one blue. In turn they would put one stone - just one - in a woolly-mammoth-skin bag. A red stone meant that the hunters would keep what they caught. A blue stone meant that everyone would share in the bounty out of a nebulous sense of "fairness." The votes were cast.
The vote counters (liberals, since they don't contribute to society) took the bag into the cave to count the stones. The decision, by the smallest of margins (one blue stone) was to share the fruits of the hunt. The conservatives were puzzled. Why were there more stones in the bag than voters? The liberals gave the bag to the conservatives, who found it full of grey stones. Thus was born the term, "holding the bag."
The tribal elders were not interested in the number of stones in the bag. They were busy feasting at the public trough. The elders dismissed all complaints.
Quickly the talked turned to global warming. Passions were inflamed, and the two sides prepared to fight; but there was a problem. The liberals had unilaterally given up their weapons in the name of "Peace," and were no match for the conservatives. The liberals were forced to surrender.
The tribe agreed that they could not live together, that they should part ways and form two tribes. Sure enough, the glaciers did recede. The liberals always blamed the conservatives. The enmity between the two tribes continues to this day.
The conservatives stayed in what is now known as the Scottish Highlands. They continued to use fire, invented soap, developed more tools, feasted on haggis, and steel cut oats, and invented the modern world. To this day they are fierce fighters.
The liberals moved south and settled in what is now known as France. They gave up fire and soap, learned to make cheese, grew grapes, made wine from the grapes, and created a socialist paradise. To this day they surrender.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 24, 2006 11:01 PMThe last I heard cities do not make foreign policy. If Nickels wants to make Kyoto the law of the land I suggest he run for President.
Posted by: Bill K. on March 24, 2006 11:51 PMPosted by Obi-Wan at March 24, 2006 11:01 PM"
Obi-Wan
FABULOUS! Perhaps we should start teaching this valuable History Lesson to our Youth beginning in Kindergarten.
We may also want to add that over the past 10 years, the French have had a much, much lower GDP rate increase than the US and nearly DOUBLE the unemployment rate (almost 10%) along with a nearly 50% tax burden.
The French have drown themselves in Progressiveness!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 25, 2006 07:09 AMGlobal climate cycles:
Daily rotation, day to night.
Earth annual orbit, seasons.
I don't think these two need a link.
The following cycles that effect climate are extra-terrestial influences, the sun and orbital effects.
Milankovitch 21,000 year cycle
I am sure somehow Bush is responsible for solar and orbital cycles.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation
In other words there are dozens if not hundreds of known climate oscillations on time scales of hours, day to night, to 10's of millennia. How many oscillations have we not discovered because we only have direct recorded scientific weather data of less than 300 years. We have the geological record, but how many variables are not geologically apparent.
What happens when many of the peaks of these cycles occur at the same time?
Global Warming
None of the cycles are attributable or affect by humans, no matter how many laws Nickels passes.
John
Posted by: John on March 25, 2006 07:36 AMThe weather is looking great outside today. Wonder how the liberals screwed this one up. (fools)
I also read in the paper just the other day that the French youths have something like a 25% unenployment rate.
They wonder why they riot? It's the only thing to do?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 25, 2006 07:36 AMPoliticians would not make so many laws if they thought they would actually have to live under them like common people. They are not like you. They are elite and special and wise. They make laws to help you do the right things. But they don't need to be under all those laws because they already do all the right things. They are better than you.
If you don't think so, then stop voting for Democrats, Republicans and "experienced" politicians.
Posted by: ken on March 25, 2006 09:31 AMWhat happens to old commies and socialists after the demise of the Warsaw Pact and the Cold War?
They become radical environmentalists.
What happens to bitter liberals when they can't win national power at the ballot box? They police garbage cans, build $11 million drunkard hotels and seek to limit our peronal choices. When the Dead Kennedys sang about "California uber alles" in the 1980's little did we know the suede shoe police would be riding in hybrid cars or bio-diesels, ready to ticket all who are un-cool and un-PC.
What a bunck of pathetic hosers are lefties.
The weather is looking great outside today. Wonder how the liberals screwed this one up. (fools)
Posted by Army Medic/Vet at March 25, 2006"
LEFTIST PINHEADS are the Mr./Ms./Other of THE GLASS IS HALF-EMPTY BRIGADE. They will invent something for us all to fear, just like every other day. They live for being against stuff. But when they are 100% in charge.....well,just look at the Cost of Living and Traffic in Seattle. Enuf said.
I'm going to mow the lawn. I have an attachment to hook to the back of my SUV. Only takes about 5 minutes to mow at 55 MPH!
Nickels and company talk nonsense. Manufacturing bio-diesel consumes more energy than tapping into natural oil and gas. But is sounds good. Countries though out the world rely on nuclear energy designed and built by American companies. Not so for America.
In summary, we have closed off major supplies of national oil and gas supplies. Increased the number of formula used in refining oil for fuel, which in turn increases the price of fuel. And stopped building nuclear facilities in America.
In an effort to offset the government created shortages, WaTF plans to manage crop growth and development to produce bio-diesel fuel led by the likes people who headed up the defunct monorail project. Nonsense. Pure nonsense. Its to bad that cars and truck can't be power of such BS.
Its unfortunate that reporters of the main stream press are also worshipers of the new religion. Otherwise the local political fruitcakes would be laughed out of office.
By the way subways (and bus systems) of New York City were built, operated and managed by private enterprise at no cost, aside for reasonable fares, to the taxpayers of New York. In fact NYC received lease payments from the companies. Those were the good old days when private enterprise was respected and government was constrained.
Posted by: Snuffy on March 25, 2006 11:17 AMI suppose it shouldn't amaze me that the liberals are such hypocrites. Their view of a socialist utopia is that everyone knows their place and stays in it. Obviously our place is on mass transit, and their place is in a palace with an expansive view and luxurious transportation.
Read the bios of King Ron and Hizzoner. What pathetic losers. Two entire lifetimes in government, no wonder they don't know squat about the real world.
Is the earth warming? Maybe. Is CO2 the cause? Maybe. Are humans to blame? Maybe. But the leftist klowns have adopted global warming as their religion. Keep in mind their goal is not to reduce "greenhouse" gasses, but to destroy civilization. Reminds me of that beer commercial where the guys are bowing down to the "magic fridge." I can see the socialists now, bowing and scraping to "global warming."
The idea of reducing emissions is a noble one, but look at how foolish the klowns ideas are. Electric cars. So we plug them in and no emissions, right? WRONG! Where do we get electricity? Coal fired plants? Bad, acid rain. Hydroelectric dams? Bad, kills salmon. Burn oil, natural gas? Bad, oil is bad, and we can't drill in ANWAR, off the coast of FL or CA. Wind farms? Bad, cuisinart for birds, and they spoil Kennydrunk's view. Solar cells? Bad, toxic chemicals are used in their manufacture.
There's a word for the socialist's beliefs, truthiness. "Truthiness is the quality by which a person purports to know something emotionally or instinctively, without regard to evidence or to what the person might conclude from intellectual examination." - Wikipedia
I hate environmentalists. They are so full of it. All talk, no walk. That's every single environmentalist I've ever met. To any of you people that say you're an environmentalist, I'm calling you a liar.
They have the opportunity to do environment-friendly things, and they choose not to. My hand to your god, if you bought me an environmentally friendly car, I'd drive it. I kid you not. I would dump my gas-guzzling SUV and drive a hybrid.
But, I'm not going to buy it myself. Why should I? I don't give a damn about the environment, or global warming, or raising gas prices (I can afford it), or depleting fossil fuels. These are not things I worry about, nor things place value on. Repeat: I do not care about them. If YOU do, if those are things YOU value, then it's YOUR job to perpetuate those values, not mine.
How dare ANYONE force me to perpetuate, at my expense, someone else's values? How would you like it if I came along and said, "You may not be a Christian, but you should have to build churches for them at your own expense."
It's the same exact thing.
Why should I sacrifice my time, my energy, or my money to forward a cause I don't give a rats ass about? I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to buy a hybrid car, or recycle my glass, or plant trees, or invest in green technology. These things will benefit me and my ends in NO WAY. I have no objection to it if that's something YOU want to do with YOUR time, energy and money - you do with your life what you think is right - just don't you DARE shove YOUR values down my throat by mandating my actions.
If any so-called "environmentalist", really wanted to get SUV's off the road, they could take the initiative and get MINE off the road. But I'm not going to do it for them. Why should I? I don't care about getting SUVs off the road, YOU do. Why should I do something YOU care about, and I don't?
If any so-called "environmentalist", really wanted to see more plastics and bottles be recycled, they can come get mine. I won't stop them from doing it. But I'm not going to do it for them. Why should I? I don't care about recycling, THEY do. Why should I do something THEY care about, and I don't?
But they WON'T do these things. They have the opportunity to perpetuate their ideals, but they choose not to. Their so-called environmentalism is selfish and lazy. They depend on the altruism of others. They won't lift a finger to get MY SUV off the road, they expect me to do their work for them.
Well screw that.
If they're not willing to do the work, then they have no right calling themselves "environmentalists" - not when they have the opportunity to get another SUV off the road, or another bottle recycled, and they choose not to. They're no friend of the environment - not if they have the power to help, to make a difference (if only a miniscule one) but they choose not to.
The offer is open for any so-called environmentalist to prove that he or she TRULY wants SUV off the roads. Let's see if any of them actually put their money where their mouth is.
we should all be free to do whatever we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else or prevent them from doing what they want. Most people (and the overwhelming majority of scientists) think that human actions are altering the environment. Maybe they're all wrong, but it seems likely that the behavior you find so offensive is motivated by (what is at least perceived to be) a legitimate concern. Posted by: Eric h on March 25, 2006 06:05 PM
Sorry, so much of what you know just isn't so. While global warming is occurring, the scientific community is not on board with human cause.
Read the peer review journals and you'll see that. Combine the effects of the cycles I posted earlier and you see that just those cycles peaking simultaneously have orders of magnitude greater effect than humans could ever dream of causing.
Science by press release is not science. It's politics. The vast majority of "global warming" articles include socialistic social engineering solutions.
Many real solutions that have been proposed are always opposed by the global warming crowd.
Nuclear energy.
Exploration for natural gas.
The global warming hysteria is about socialist politically not environmental concerns.
Posted by: JCM on March 25, 2006 06:26 PMYou're missing my point, and no that's not what environmentalists are saying. What I think they are saying is that harm is being done to other people (pollution). You may disagree with their assessment of the situation, but that is their basic argument; people are mucking the place up and making it uninhabitable for other people. Christians are saying that God told them how everyone should live. That seems different to me. Posted by: eric h on March 25, 2006 06:32 PM
You're assuming things that I haven't said. I thought that AD was mischaracterizing the nature of his disagreement with environmentalists. AD seemed to think that thay were trying to enforce their lifestyle choices on those who prefered other things. I'm sure that there are some people like that out there, but the main argument of environmentalism does not seem to be "everyone should adopt my neat hobby", but a genuine concern that human actions are harming the environment, and thus othe people. They could be wrong, but that is the argument they are making. Posted by: eric h on March 25, 2006 06:39 PM
Oh I see - so it's wrong when Christians tell how how to live our lives, but it's OK when environmentalists do it?
Let me guess... because if we don't do what they say, "people suffer" is that it?
Newsflash - Christians (and Muslims, for that matter) say the same thing.
Posted by: AD on March 25, 2006 07:18 PMyou said: "Gee, isn't that what the Christians always say? They know what's best for us and the rest of the world?"
I responded: "You're missing my point, and no that's not what environmentalists are saying. What I think they are saying is that harm is being done to other people (pollution). You may disagree with their assessment of the situation, but that is their basic argument; people are mucking the place up and making it uninhabitable for other people. Christians are saying that God told them how everyone should live. That seems different to me. "
You're making a false analogy between religious views and public policy debates regarding pollution. That's my point. It may not be much of a point, but no one seems to be noticing it.
Posted by: eric h on March 25, 2006 08:09 PM" Eric H. what have you given up for your cause?"
What cause have I claimed? I was discussing (somewhat unsuccessfully) with JCM whether his religion/public policy differences analogy was a good one. I think that religious views are different than views on public policy. I don't see why everyone is responding to me as though I am a token greenie into whose mouth they can put whatever they heard from some environmentalist with whom they disagreed.
Posted by: eric h on March 25, 2006 08:15 PM"Exactly what inconveniences have you tolerated for your favorite cause? Are you just another IV zealot?"
My favorite cause? What are you talking about? I found this an interesting subject to discuss, that's all. I doubt that I agree with most of the posts in this link, but I don't agree with everything environmentalists have to say either. Should I avoid discussion until I've attained ideological purity? How did you conclude that environmentalism is "my favorite cause"? You don't know me, nor did you understand what I wrote.
What is an "IV zealot"
One world government. One world finances. One world religion. Greenism. Posted by: ljm on March 25, 2006 09:47 PM
They all limit individual freedom. From the choice of light bulbs to the choice of cars, to how much an individual can have of a commodity.
Every since Carter the mantra has been conserve, well we have had 30 years of conservation which has forestalled the need for new oil refineries or electrical generation plants. Every process has a point where the amount of effort put in to get a given amount of return. Conservation is at the point it takes 10 times the effort to get 1/10 the return.
At this point it is time to talk new power generation. What one method has ZERO carbon emission, no toxic output into the environment. With new technology is physically incapable of accidental release.
Nuclear.
But that item is completely off the table because of irrational unfounded fears.
If anyone was really serious about global warming. They would at least discuss nuclear power.
They won't.
Therefore I am forced to concluded their agenda is something other that non-global warming power.
The same thing extends into other areas of the argument. Warming advocates talk about doom and gloom but real technologies and real solutions are off the table the only solution is social engineering with a socialist theme.
If the warming crowd won't talk solutions, ask why?
Posted by: JCM on March 25, 2006 10:23 PMRecent examples include the property use laws as defined by laws designed to enhance salmon breeding. In the name of "certain human actions" are destroying salmon, regulations and laws are passed and written that basically preempt property rights. This body of regulation and laws have greatly impacted properties outside the city. Of course the IV zealot was not impacted. The block they live on was not disturbed. They have no idea or understanding of the upset caused by the people they elected. And I doubt if they knew, they would care. Just a point of discussion for them. No loss of time, money or retirement dreams. Salmon is available at the local market and all is well.
The latest trendy discussion regarding "Global Warming" seems to be supported in part by IV zealots. It is fashionable for the IV zealot to argue in favor of junk science to remedy the harm caused by certain actions of people who don't understand. Small matter that IV zealots have little if any investment in the outcome of what they demand of others. Small matter they have little experience or knowledge in implementing successful solutions. What is important is that they agree with their peers.
Consider the following junk science solution recently established by IV zealots in Seattle.
Recycling of your garbage or pay the penalties.
Suffice to say that recycling may be more expensive, do more damage and use more energy. But it sounds so good. Wash out the bottles, stack the papers and rinse the cans or else the trash police will ticket you.
These example and many others is the type of nonsense that enslaves people to the religion of Environmentalism. Global Warming being one manifestation of Environmentalism.
I probably don't know the people who post at this blog. That is why I ask questions. Eric H you seemed offended by my questions. If so, why?
Posted by: snuffy on March 26, 2006 09:34 AMYou gotta love it . . .
Dinesh formula: Atmospheric increase = Emissions from fossil fuels + Net emissions from changes in land use - Oceanic uptake - Missing carbon sink
this is "real Berkeley science" eh? Malthusian-like post hoc apocalyptic drivel.
Not one single established scientific fact supports this surmise, but . . . wet sidewalks mean rain? You and Al Gore are perfect for eachother.
Posted by: Amused by pretentious chicken little liberalism on March 26, 2006 10:22 AMSo did Al gore drive a Yugo here?
Posted by: GS on March 26, 2006 05:26 PMwhat offense? you just don't know me, what my favorite cause might be, or, apparently, what I was talking about. Maybe you should pay attention to what people are saying and not just what you think they might be saying. Posted by: eric h on March 27, 2006 02:59 AM
Anyone who can read the first few pages without going to sleep or laughing out loud (especially after time has passed and his predictions have failed to become manifest) deserves to call themselves a liberal.
If (as the pinheads believe) Katrina was truly the result of global warming as emergent from man's activities, why are liberals moving back to New Orleans in droves?? A la Berkeley theory, Helios (the Sun) was fired up at hasty drivers of non-hybrid vehicles in the Crescent City and started a new pi$$ing match with Boreas (the North Wind). Because Helios was so chapped, Boreas decided to enlist Poseidon to slake the glow. Boreas and Poseidon (having a wily wit but short span of attention) became bored with bashing the poor recalcitrant liberal morons in the "Chocolate City" so they went back to his cave on Mount Haemus for a celebratory toke on the bong. And New Orleans continued to live happily in their poverty and liberal Democrat victim status ever after.
Wow, this global warming theory is fun.
Very amusing indeed.
Posted by: Amused by arrogant liberal morons like Dinesh on March 27, 2006 11:54 AMAre you too busy being sanctimonious and obtuse to respond to what I said (aside from "Eric H you seemed offended by my questions. If so, why?")?
It might be easier to understand you if, instead of inventing new phrases like "IV zealot", you could speak plainly and intelligibly. I know some people mistake vacuous and opaque language for sagacity and insight, but maybe you could just say that you don't like people who live in cities or whatever your complaint of the day is.