Joel Connelly's Friday column:
University of Washington climatologists have advised for more than a decade that global warming will bring deluges and high winds to the Northwest in late fall and early winter. Even before events of last week, three big storms in this decade had washed away roads, downed trees across trails and pulverized campgrounds in the Cascades and Olympics.That's pretty darn funny in light of Monday's op-ed by UW climatologist Cliff Mass:
As an environmental scientist, I am frustrated by the poor information distributed by public officials, the media and others regarding the current and predicted frequency of extreme weather events. It is time for the scientific community to set the record straightPosted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 15, 2009 09:46 PM | Email This
....
How many times have you heard that severe windstorms and heavy rains will increase in the Northwest under global climate change? The truth is, there is no strong evidence for these claims and the whole matter is being actively researched.
"As a geologist, I love Earth observations. But, it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a 'consensus' that humans are causing global warming when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise. 'Consensus,' as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making.""Now in the past nine months, the science has grown even more convincing that global warming is not a crisis. Also suggesting this 'crisis' is over are opinion polls in the U.S. and around the globe and political events, including the decisive defeat of 'cap-and-trade' legislation in the U.S. Senate last spring. The crisis has been cancelled by sound science and common-sense."
- Astronaut Jack Schmitt, twelfth person to walk on the Moon, PHD from Harvard in Geology
"This is George Orwell. This is the 'Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.' It's that kind of propaganda. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that's a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.""I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow. Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken."
- William Happer, former Director of the Office of Energy Research, US Department of Energy, Professor of Physics, Director at the George C. Marshall Institute
No doubt the Global Warming Alarmists will argue that they are wrong, evil, corrupt, delusional, deniers, blasphemers, blah, blah, blah.
Posted by: Reality on January 15, 2009 10:02 PMIf the weather had been typical, that tub o lard would have said the same thing. Now, because we're having an unusual weather patter, that moron blames it on the ubiquitous, money making for the "wolf" shouting GW morons (Gore, for example, has made tens of millions off these suckers.)
When the PI finally ends its death throws and goes under, JC will not be missed.
Posted by: Hinton on January 16, 2009 12:13 AMIf the weather had been typical, that tub o lard would have said the same thing. Now, because we're having an unusual weather patter, that moron blames it on the ubiquitous, money making for the "wolf" shouting GW morons (Gore, for example, has made tens of millions off these suckers.)
When the PI finally ends its death throws and goes under, JC will not be missed.
Posted by: Hinton on January 16, 2009 12:14 AMMy longtime co-worker's father is a former NASA colleague of Schmitt's, another Apollo astronaut, named Phil Chapman. Chapman -- the first Australian astronaut in NASA -- never went to space, but was the Mission Scientist for Apollo 14 (Schmitt was the backup LM pilot for Apollo 15, and finally flew in Apollo 17).
Chapman -- like Schmitt -- is a scientist, a physicist, as our new Secretary of Energy will be. But unlike Chu, Chapman is -- like Schmitt -- a global warming skeptic.
I don't know whether significant global warming is happening, or whether it's significantly manmade. I do know, however, that -- as Schmitt said -- "the 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making."
Posted by: pudge on January 16, 2009 12:33 AMDoughton is hopeless, but Mass should be congratulated on his recent Times article.
I plan to do so to him and the Times Staff.
I was appalled a few years back to learn that Mass's climate models for the Puget Sound area did not include temperature and precipitation data in their projections. As far as I can tell, temperature and precipitation IS climate.
I saved that e-mail and still puzzle over it.
But, of course, climate is OVER all our heads in every sense of the phrase.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on January 16, 2009 04:50 AMFinally today it will make it above zero.
WRT a little global ''warming'': BRING IT ON !!
Jim Jones headed the peoples temple cult
David Koresh headed the Branch Davidians cult
Marshall Appelwhite headed the Heavens gate cult
Al Gore heads the Church of Global warming cult
Joel Connelly's already drunk the Kool-aid and laced up his tennis shoes, he's just waiting on the word to board the plane to Guyana.
Posted by: Rick D. on January 16, 2009 05:52 AMWhat next? A discovery that you can't loan to people with no track record of payment and no verifiable income?
Posted by: Handy Randy on January 16, 2009 05:58 AMWhen AG is finally faced with the 'facts' on this he may well say...'No, you see I was talking about global worming all along...and simply trying to show that the worms were doing a good job at aerating the earth'...ha
Posted by: Duffman on January 16, 2009 06:21 AMhttp://www.economicsforaroundearth.com
With all good wishes,
Charles Pierce
http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com
.
Posted by: bbbrown45 on January 16, 2009 07:25 AMFor several decades after our family left Minot, the winter temperatures seemed very mild. Now, it seems they are getting back to what I remembered in the 50s and 60s. Until the last few years, the warm midwest temperatures in the winter caused a doubt in my mind about global warming. Now, I am totally convinced it is a manmade scam.
Posted by: swatter on January 16, 2009 07:55 AMKeep up denying our use of fossil fuels, and raising carbon dioxide levels are cooking our planet. We already know how much higher cancer rates are in the cities because of the pollution.
By the way. Better get to Glacier National Park while there are still glaciers there..... I'm just saying....
http://arcticfocus.com/2008/07/17/noaa-studys-rate-of-greenland-ice-sheet/
Warming deniers. Don't click on that link.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on January 16, 2009 08:38 AMAn interesting conference will be held this coming March sponsored by the Wall Street Journal.
The advertised speakers include Bjorn Lomborg (The Skeptical Environmentalist), T. Boone Pickens (Wind Farmer Extraordinaire), Vaclav Havel (Czech President, current EU President, and Climate Skeptic), and Al Gore (High Priest of the Church of Global Worming).
As far as I know this is the first time Al Gore has has agreed to speak at an event where contrary views are allowed to be presented. He is scheduled to be the last speaker - I suspect this is so he will not have to endure other speakers refuting his views.
I'd love to attend, but alas the mortgage is calling. I'll just have to be satisfied with reading about it.
Posted by: deadwood on January 16, 2009 08:54 AMhttp://economics.wsj.com/program.php
The sun has always been and will always be the biggest impact on our climate...dwarfing the impact of man. Al Gorbasm is using fear for his personal gain. He's an idiot
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 16, 2009 09:02 AMWashington is suppose to be the most educated state in the US. Apparently, the educational hurdle in Washington is pretty easy to jump over.
Posted by: Thomas B. on January 16, 2009 09:37 AMIf you are as aligned with my thought process as you say you are Facts, then start thinking.
If they can't run computer models for tomorrow's weather, how can they model the climate milleniums ago and claim we are in a global warming cycle?
BTW, I am a scientist and did a thesis on a model which generally was accurate but definitely not one you can predict with a whole lot of certainty. The formula I ended up with anyways was a factor of 10 better than before but it still was only a best fit of a limited amount of data. Earth temperatures have not been recorded for the duration needed nor for the density (i.e. numbers) of measurements that are required to be "dead" certain. And I think you need to be "dead on" if you plan on worsening the world economy.
Posted by: swatter on January 16, 2009 09:53 AMOnly the most arrogant of arrogant - like the angry child, 'facts' - believe man can impact the Earth's climate in any significant way.
The climate has been changing from warm to cold to warm to cold ... for 4.6 billion years. And there's not one, damn thing man can do about it.
Deal with it.
Posted by: jimg on January 16, 2009 10:03 AMI've posted this before (and the full accounting of it is up on my blog) but I simply asked Connelly what makes him think that the climate we are trying to so desperately to preserve right now is the right one? His answer was to compare me, as a warming denier, to a Holocaust denier! Ridiculous on it's face as I didn't deny anything. I just asked.
Like I said, he's a moron. Maybe a nice guy or a generous grandpa but a moron.
Posted by: G Jiggy on January 16, 2009 10:26 AMCO2 is a trace gas, with man contributing almost nothing to the overall quantity of CO2 itself and that's the best man can do to influence warming. CO2 is mostly sequestered by the oceans and has been at much higher concentrations in the past without the disastrous consequences predicted by the limited models that Al Gore and his pseudo-science politically motivated hacks.
If Gore's IPCC models can't predict past, current or very near term climate, then how can they be expected to predict long term climate? Answer, they can't and don't. The IPCC models are based on a limited set of inputs that ignore very important feedback effects of water vapor, or completely reverse the importance of water vapor. For example, the IPCC models predict that CO2 will cause water vapor to have a runaway positive effect on temperature, when all evidence shows that water vapor and natural cloud and ocean processes actually have a very negative feedback impact on temperature. The Gore IPCC models exist in the wishful thinking and grant money motivated fantasy world of these politically motivated faux climate scientists, meanwhile, you can find now hundreds of real climate scientists that will tell you, and demonstrate with empirical evidence why Global Warming and man made climate disaster is not happening.
For example, just recently, Dr. Roy Spencer took an interesting and very revealing approach to test the Gore/IPCC models. Instead of creating huge and fantastic doomsday models with lots of inputs that can be tweaked for maximum Hysteria, and then generating a climate output scenario for mass media publication like the AGW models do, Dr. Spencer did the opposite. He took the observed climate from empirical satellite data and then created some very simple models based on the observed data and a few large inputs to the climate system. Dr. Spencer's work forms a devastating critique of the IPCC Hysteria based models. Because Dr. Spencer's models show that instead of the incredibly sensitive hair trigger doomsday analysis of our climate system as proposed by Gore and his acolytes, our climate system is actually a relatively insensitive and very robust system that protects itself well, using negative feedback. The empirical evidence matches the Spencer models, but does not match the IPCC models. This should cause pause for even the most die hard political supporter of Global Warming Hysteria. But, most of them have chosen to bury their heads in the ground an plunge onward in to the political abyss that awaits.
All of the climate hysteria is a bunch of lies based on tenuous models and manipulation of the surface temperature data set by Dr. Hansen. I will happily bet my house with any Global Warming fool who wants to place faith in the IPCC models based on any of their future predictions. Even since the first IPCC reports, predictions have been downgraded drastically. And we've had seven years of cooling, when we were told 20 years ago by Jim Hansen that there would be nothing but warming.
And the myths continue. The Greenland Ice sheet myth looks at the expansion on the edges of the ice sheet with ominous claims like "ice the size of Manhattan." Of course Manhattan's actual area is a tiny But, most of them have chosen to bury their heads in the ground an plunge onward in to the political abyss that awaits.
All of the climate hysteria is a bunch of lies based on tenuous models and manipulation of the surface temperature data set by Dr. Hansen. I will happily bet my house with any Global Warming fool who wants to place faith in the IPCC models based on any of their future predictions. Even since the first IPCC reports, predictions have been downgraded drastically. And we've had seven years of cooling, when we were told 20 years ago by Jim Hansen that there would be nothing but warming.
And the myths continue. The Greenland Ice sheet myth looks at the expansion on the edges of the ice sheet with ominous claims like "ice the size of Manhattan." Of course Manhattan's actual area is a tiny But, most of them have chosen to bury their heads in the ground an plunge onward in to the political abyss that awaits.
All of the climate hysteria is a bunch of lies based on tenuous models and manipulation of the surface temperature data set by Dr. Hansen. I will happily bet my house with any Global Warming fool who wants to place faith in the IPCC models based on any of their future predictions. Even since the first IPCC reports, predictions have been downgraded drastically. And we've had seven years of cooling, when we were told 20 years ago by Jim Hansen that there would be nothing but warming.
And the myths continue. The Greenland Ice sheet myth looks at the expansion on the edges of the ice sheet with ominous claims like "ice the size of Manhattan." Of course Manhattan's actual area is a tiny But, most of them have chosen to bury their heads in the ground an plunge onward in to the political abyss that awaits.
All of the climate hysteria is a bunch of lies based on tenuous models and manipulation of the surface temperature data set by Dr. Hansen. I will happily bet my house with any Global Warming fool who wants to place faith in the IPCC models based on any of their future predictions. Even since the first IPCC reports, predictions have been downgraded drastically. And we've had seven years of cooling, when we were told 20 years ago by Jim Hansen that there would be nothing but warming.
And the myths continue. The Greenland Ice sheet myth looks at the expansion on the edges of the ice sheet with ominous claims like "ice the size of Manhattan." Of course Manhattan's actual area is a tiny
Further, Sunspots are at a deep minimum, and we have accurate sun spot information dating back several centuries. Consistently, low sunspots correlate with climate minimums, not maximums. Further, the Gore induced Sun Spot Cycle predictors keep saying that cycle 24 is coming on with a vengeance, and then they keep pushing their predictions out. This has been going on now for about 24 months. The reality is that they don't know when the sun spots will return, and they certainly have nothing to do with your SUV.
It's all a bunch of nutty hysteria. Go read all the info and judge for yourself. More and more people are coming around to the truth, despite the mass and expensive propaganda campaigns waged by Gore and company. And let them wage their expensive lies. Eventually they won't be able to afford more lies. The public can plainly see that the sea level is not rising at any meaningful rate that will affect even our grandchildren or great grandchildren. And that it's cold now,and has been cooling since 1998. You can easily see that average too by looking in Time magazine and seeing their frantic hysteria pieces go from cold to hot, etc. every thirty years or so. We are due soon for the Ice Age Hysteria as soon as Al Gore figures out that his warming lies are not working.
The empirical evidence tells the real story that the doomsday climate models do not.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 16, 2009 10:29 AMThere is such a thing as being educated beyond one's intelligence.
Posted by: Fed Up on January 16, 2009 10:33 AMWhat I love most about this blog is the infantile logic that says, "It's cold now, here in MN, or Fargo, or Enumclaw...so I can't fathom how global warming could be possible."
These same morons stand in the rain and are blown away when someone tells them it's sunny and dry in southern California right now. Wow. Amazing. How could it be? Mind blowing! (turns on Nascar and watches for hours cars making lefts around a circle)
Posted by: Dick Nixon on January 16, 2009 10:38 AMWhat I love most about this blog is the infantile logic that says, "It's cold now, here in MN, or Fargo, or Enumclaw...so I can't fathom how global warming could be possible."
These same morons stand in the rain and are blown away when someone tells them it's sunny and dry in southern California right now. Wow. Amazing. How could it be? Mind blowing! (turns on Nascar and watches for hours cars making lefts around an oval)
Posted by: Dick Nixon on January 16, 2009 10:39 AMFor example, a school could educate and graduate children teaching them that 2+2=5, but would that degree mean they understood mathematics? In North Korea children are taught that Korea defeated the United States and Japan in WWII. Does that make North Koreans "educated"? Yes, they're educated to be ignorant of the truth.
I would argue that every single one of us with a college degree remembers at least one history, political science, or economics professor that was a leftist and pushed a very liberal view of their material. I remember several at my school, and it wasn't even considered a liberal school. How many remember a conservative pushing that viewpoint of history, politics or economics?
If anything, the argument that San Francisco and Seattle are the most educated cities in the nation is the largest example of failure in higher education that anyone could cite. And unfortunately for this nation, the greatest failure of this leftist educational system is the seemingly impenetrable barrier on liberals' ability to apply reason or evidence contrary to their belief systems. That is why liberals cannot be debated with. Your time would be better spent focusing on teaching your pet a new trick. It will be easier than trying to get a liberal to abandon one of their embedded beliefs.
Remember, belief and truth are two entirely different things. They can align with each other, or as occurs too often in the liberal mind, they can diverge to extremes.
Posted by: Reality on January 16, 2009 11:06 AMWhy insult anyone? Making fun of them is far more satisfying. Pointing out hypocrisy. Bringing the light of truth into their Friedman fantasy fueled dementia.
Now that America is paying the price for de-regulating banks, ignoring the crimes on Wall Street, and the GOP attack on government at every level, it is time to tell the "cons" to once and for all sit down and shut up.
As for the global warming deniers? Well, they should ask themselves something. What if they are wrong?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on January 16, 2009 11:17 AMThe problem with this question is even if we "deniers" are wrong, the solutions proposed by the GW believers will not save us according to their models. The reductions that the models say are needed cannot be accomplished unless about 2/3 of the population commits suicide and the remaning folks go back to living in caves and become hunter/gathers. Ain't going to happen. So you believers just need take that bit of fantasy off the table and spend our time learning how to adjust to a warmer earth.
Now here's a question for you. What is the "correct" temperature for the earth? How do all of you believers know for certain that a little warmer climate is not a good thing?
Posted by: RJK on January 16, 2009 11:47 AMWhat if YOU are wrong? Are YOU willing to destroy the world economy for something that MAY NOT be true?
Please no subterfuge or dodging the question. A simple yes or no will suffice.
Posted by: formermoonbat on January 16, 2009 12:16 PMAnd the 50 cubic miles of ice that melt from the Greenland Ice Sheet every year is just delusion right?
No. The assertion that it is necessarily related to "global warming," or "anthropogenic global warming," is delusion.
I can't help but to think back to the days when they burn people at the stake for saying the earth revolved around the sun, rather than the other way around.
Yes, exactly: the "consensus" today says that the sun revolves around the earth, and anyone who disagrees is burned at the stake. See, the problem is that science IS NOT on your side.
Keep up denying our use of fossil fuels, and raising carbon dioxide levels are cooking our planet.
Keep refusing to admit the fact that you cannot reasonably prove the assertion that they ARE. Even the IPCC admits the fact that they cannot reasonably prove your assertion.
We already know how much higher cancer rates are in the cities because of the pollution.
Assuming that's true (I don't know, but for the sake of argument), so what? A scientist would not say something so insipid as "well, since higher cancer rates are caused by pollution, therefore global warming must be, too!"
Why insult anyone? Making fun of them is far more satisfying. Pointing out hypocrisy. Bringing the light of truth into their Friedman fantasy fueled dementia.
But in order to do that, you need to have good points and present them well. You don't.
Now that America is paying the price for de-regulating banks, ignoring the crimes on Wall Street, and the GOP attack on government at every level, it is time to tell the "cons" to once and for all sit down and shut up.
No serious person believes bank deregulation caused any problems we're seeing, and only complete fools think any crimes on Wall Street have been ignored. Government CAUSED the problems we're in: while you attack "trickle down economics" you ignore the unassailable fact that our housing and credit markets are the two most heavily regulated markets we have in this country. Government almost completely controls credit, and then you blame the market when the government controls result in failure. Insane.
As for the global warming deniers? Well, they should ask themselves something. What if they are wrong?
You refuse to ask yourself that question, so why should we? You never consider the catastrophic effects of your socialist environmental policies. One of the biggest problems in this country is lack of work on infrastructure, and THE SINGLE BIGGEST reason why those problems are not getting done is increased cost, and THE SINGLE BIGGEST reason for increased cost is increase environmental requirements.
But I do ask myself that question, and the answer is: WE DO NOT KNOW. We can't know. Even less convincing than the "science" that "proves" man is causing global warming is the mysticism that pretends to know what effects it will have. It is just as likely that global warming will be a GOOD thing as it is that it will be a bad thing.
In fact, if you take even a cursory look at Al Gore's famous "CO2 vs temperature" graph, you will see that -- according to Al Gore himself, though he won't say it -- global warming is preventing another ice age. Note that Al Gore assumes that we should be seeing the same patterns as before: CO2 and temp go up, and then come down, but instead of coming down, they keep going up and up, and he says this is because of manmade CO2. The obvious corollary is that without manmade CO2, we would be in another ice age.
SO HOORAY FOR GLOBAL WARMING.
Wow. This blog is full of ignorance.
Then why do you resort to ad hominem fallacies instead of addressing ANY of the actual points made?
What I love most about this blog is the infantile logic that says, "It's cold now, here in MN, or Fargo, or Enumclaw...so I can't fathom how global warming could be possible."
No one said that. Your straw man fallacy is a lie, Dick.
Fact.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on January 16, 2009 12:45 PMOver time flood damage to transportation infrastructure, property, mass earth movements, etc have been exacerbated by flood control and misguided environmental protection measures. Specifically, channel dredging was stopped years ago. The result is that river beds continue to rise from accumulation of gravel and sediment deposits. In turn this raises floodwater levels, facilitates overrunning of levies, and increases the area of dispersion.
The construction of levies has probably destroyed more riparian wetlands than all other land uses combined. These levies block flood waters from natural inundation of riparian (flood zone) areas.
The combination of levies and un-dredged river beds is lethal. The quantity and intensity of flood waters delivered to riparian areas is increased exponentially. In turn water quality is degraded by contamination and results in damage to fish and wildlife habitat. These forms of harm are far worse than what would result from dredging.
Moreover, impacts from dredging are temporary and can be mitigated by timing and technique. Dredging produces commercially valuable rock and gravel that partially offsets the cost.
The flood control hubris of the Corps of Engineers and misguided environmental protection policies are responsible for increasingly destructive floods. Old time residents know this first hand. Floods waters are higher and damage is greater since dredging stopped and levies were built.
The preferred solution involves removal of levies, combined with regular dredging of river channels. Those who live in flood zones need to raise the level of building foundations above flood level or move. The hight of flood waters will be less when the concentration factors are eliminated and they are allowed to disperse.
Fact
Posted by: formermoonbat on January 16, 2009 12:58 PM"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Of COURSE there is global warming. There has to be. Because the winter is so cold."
Yes, I really did hear this. I'm kidding about being convinced.
Posted by: Angela in Bothell on January 16, 2009 01:11 PMIt was the 21st consecutive month of falling numbers and brought the jobless rate for December down to 8.4 percent from 8.6 percent the previous month - the lowest level since March 1993.
Yet.
_____________
The German labor market is working better because the unions have lost power,
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/09/candour-from-beeb.html
Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 16, 2009 01:25 PMBobby Kennedy Jr. says it is trillions. I would rather believe him than the CEO of Exxon, and his paid scientists.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on January 16, 2009 01:32 PMFirst, turbines produce only a fraction of their "installed capacity" (in the U.K., around 25 percent), so the amount of power they actually provide is derisory. To achieve the same quantity of electricity that a conventional 2,000 megawatt power station generates would require covering hundreds of square miles of countryside or sea with giant windmills.
Second, so unpredictable are the instances when the wind blows at sufficient strength that conventional power stations must be kept permanently running, ready to step in at any moment to maintain a consistent power supply. Unless this "spinning reserve" is provided by nuclear reactors, this means that any supposed CO2 savings from wind power are largely if not entirely negated. Thus the chief argument to justify the E.U.'s great drive for wind power turned out in practice not to exist.
The third problem, thanks to this unpredictability, is that the more a country comes to rely on wind energy, the more it risks destabilizing its grid through sudden surges or drops in the energy from its turbines.
The first E.U. country to recognize these problems was Denmark. It discovered that, although on paper, wind power represented nearly 20 percent of its generating capacity, in reality the turbines were generating only 6 percent of its electricity (a staggering 84 percent of which then had to be exported to Norway, because when the wind was blowing, much more power than Denmark could use was created). In 2002, Denmark put a moratorium on building any more turbines, followed by Ireland in 2003
Of course, most of these things would probably be forbidden by environmental laws, local homeowner's associations, building permit hoops, and other usual obstacles.
Posted by: Angela in Bothell on January 16, 2009 01:40 PMWhat a nut.. The plastic keyboard your typing on fool is made of what?
Jezzz another David M.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 16, 2009 01:41 PMBetter not stay in any hospital or have a medic come see you. Most medical stuff and fire fighting equipment is made from "plastic" which is made from what? (oil) LOL
And that IV bag that keeps you alive, yep plastic too.
I understand the steps needed to be taken are drastic, but our use and toss lifestyle is just as unsustainable.
That is your faith-based opinion, of course. It's not a fact, at all.
I just don't like oil companies telling me how to live my life.
Good. They don't do that, so what's the problem? On the other hand, YOU are trying to get the government to tell me how to live MY life.
If big oil, and big coal weren't subsidized to the tune of trillions, burning their crap would be far more expensive than renewable energy.
False. As much as I too am against such subsidies, it's simply not true at all that they would cost more than "renewable" energies as a whole. Sometimes renewable costs less, such as hydro ... unfortunately, your leftwing compatriots believe hydro isn't renewable. Sometimes wind can cost less too. But wind and hydro are not nearly as scalable as coal, they can't be done everywhere. And every other renewable energy source costs a lot more than coal right now, especially solar.
Then there's nuclear, which isn't renewable, of course.
Fossil fuels are called carcinogens. The price of treating the cancers their use causes, along with other health problems, plus the military cost of keeping our supplies safe, add up to trillions.
False. Your military argument is utter nonsense. You appear to buy into the lie that the only reason we are in the Middle East is for oil. Obviously false. And anyway, oil is completely beside the point because, unlike with coal, there currently IS NO replacement for oil. We could replace coal, though it would take a long time and be expensive, but we don't need the military to protect it. We cannot replace oil, period, any time soon.
So you're mixing apples and oranges here. Coal and oil must be discussed separately.
It's not like we pay for the asthma at the pump.
Heh, you think asthma is caused by pollution? Pull the other one.
This is without even accounting for environmental damage of mountain top mining, mercury poisoning etc.
And we could also list the many problems of wind and solar and hydro and nuclear and everything else.
Bobby Kennedy Jr. ...
... is a damned liar. This is the guy who lied about vaccinations causing widespread autism, lied about Katrina being caused by global warming, and lied about Republicans stealing Ohio in 2004. (For the latter, I even personally conversed with one of the DNC's own statistical experts on the DNC's 2004 Ohio report, who told me that RFK Jr. was full of crap.)
Seriously, hold to whatever opinions you wish, but RFK Jr. won't win you any points with me.
Reminds me of the liberal lies about "secret patents" on electric cars. No such thing exists... never did, never will.
Posted by: Thomas B. on January 16, 2009 02:31 PMhttp://www.ev1.org/
So pudge. Bobbie is a liar, or do you just hate him because he is a "Kennedy" eh? So the jury is back in on mercury in vaccines causing children's health problems. Not likely. Some drug company must have had their profits impacted, so you get to take up their cause right?
"wind and solar and hydro and nuclear" all have environmental costs involved. It is about the break even point. Where is the Cherynobyl break even point? Nuclear is so dangerous that no insurance company will insure the reactors, so the guvvmint hast to run the plants.
So your plan is drill baby drill right? Palin/Pudge 2012?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on January 16, 2009 03:33 PMI love how the EV people ask questions as though the answer is obvious, and then can't answer the question. They have never answered, with any seriousness, why those EV cars were killed. They just want to *imply* that the answer is "because GM is evil." But there's no evidence for it.
Bobbie is a liar, or do you just hate him because he is a "Kennedy" eh?
Um. I already told you: he's a liar. I didn't hate Jack Jr. I don't hate Caroline. Everything I said about RFK Jr. is based entirely on what he says and does: he lies. He lied about vaccines, lied about Katrina, and lied about the 2004 election.
So the jury is back in on mercury in vaccines causing children's health problems. Not likely.
I never said mercury in some vaccines did not cause problems. I said RFK Jr's statements about them were wrong. Or, in the words of the Democratic statistician from Berkeley who believes Al Gore should have won Florida in 2000: RFK Jr.'s claims about autism and vaccines are "misconceiving, socially damaging and simply wrong."
That does not mean mercury cannot contribute to the onset of autism. But that is not all RFK Jr. said about it, as you should know.
Some drug company must have had their profits impacted, so you get to take up their cause right?
Again with your ad hominem fallacies.
If you'd like to actually discuss the merits of RFK Jr.'s claims, and my claims that he is a liar, we can do so. I've offered lots of evidence for you to get started, and you ignore it and just attack me instead. Typical.
Where is the Cherynobyl break even point?
I am not advocating Russia should use nuclear power, so Chernobyl is irrelevant. Or are you trying to make the false claim that Chernobyl has anything significant to do with nuclear power usage in the U.S.?
Thankfully, no one of significance in the Obama administration agrees with you on nuclear power.
So your plan is drill baby drill right?
Of course we should drill more. There is absolutely no reason NOT to. I've only ever heard two reasons given for why we should not drill more, and they are both false: that the drilling hurts the environment, and that if we're drilling it will slow down the search for alternatives. No truth to either claim. What it WILL do, however, is decrease the cost of energy in the meantime, as we find and implement alternatives.
Offshore tax havens of the US corporate elite
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Offshore_tax_havens_of_US_corporate_0116.html
"3M, American Express, Caterpillar, Cisco, ConocoPhillips, Dell, Dow Chemical, Exxon Mobil, FedEx, GM, Kraft, Merck, Pepsi, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Wachovia, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which tallied a whopping 782 foreign subsidiaries in 14 countries."
We get to pay more because they get to pay less. Sound fair?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on January 16, 2009 04:14 PMWhat a buffoon! And why are corporate CEOs moving their money offshore? Because selfish and greedy parasites on the left think it's fair for 40% of Americans to pay no taxes, while another large percentage pay pennies on the dollar compared to those that fund the left's growing socialized Amerika.
It's the logical outcome of any parasitic relationship when the blood-suckers are taking too much and threatening to kill the host. The suckee either dies or gets out of Dodge.
You're not upset at the unfairness of it, but the fact that they make oodles of money that you don't and you're upset that they don't voluntarily give it to parasites on the left. The left is sucking America dry and we've just elected a president who has promised to spend Amerika into oblivion.
When you're old enough to get a job and finally graduate from college with one of those UW Liberal Arts degrees, and if you're so upset that those that pay thousands of times in taxes what you'll ever pay are fighting to keep what is theirs, why don't you just sign over everything you own to the government and show us all what it's like to be a real patriot? According to Joe Biden, of course.
Posted by: Reality on January 16, 2009 07:14 PMWell at least the "idiots" know how to hit the post button so they don't end up with multiple posts.
And factless, you aren't fooling anyone with "Dick Nixon"
Posted by: pbj on January 16, 2009 08:08 PMThe 40% of poor Americans that you say pay no taxes, (you must be talking about income taxes) probably pay a larger percentage of their income in other "fees" and "taxes" than the Buffets of this world. The fact that they were born without a silver spoon in their mouth, or on 3rd base doesn't mean they don't deserve a doctor when they get sick, a non toxic place to live, or an education for their kids.
I take it you would rather give trillions in tax dollars to corporations to pay their ceo's hundreds of millions a year, than help a family in Appalacia without jobs, education, hope, or any future except the Army. The latter would be "welfare" and the former would be "capitalism" right?
BTW Reality. I bet I pay more in taxes than you make. I own 3 businesses, and I don't exactly live in a basement. If society doesn't work then I won't make any money. Your fantasy of turning America into a 3rd world country ain't gonna happen. Bush tried as hard as he could, with the help of blind dishonest fools (traitors if you ask me) like yourself, but America survived. Now shut up, and get out of the way. Time to fix this nightmare. Accountability is gonna return.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on January 17, 2009 07:36 AMUm so if Warren Buffet is a tax cheat compared to the poor, then why did the Messiah pick him as one of his advisors?
Posted by: TheTruth on January 17, 2009 10:34 AM"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: "The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent." "
No I know this doesn't make sense to the people who's greed runs their lives, and controls their thought processes, but when Rainier blows, it might make sense to have a government around to clean up the mess.... You know. FEMA and stuff...
You need more quotes, or are you gonna help the next Enron (like we have just seen) rob a few more grandma millies "One trader is heard on tapes obtained by CBS News saying, "Just cut 'em off. They're so f----d. They should just bring back f-----g horses and carriages, f-----g lamps, f-----g kerosene lamps."
It's not just global warming, the problem is unbridled, in your face GREED.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on January 17, 2009 11:15 AMThe me generation.....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on January 17, 2009 11:22 AMIf "facts" has 3 businesses then I'm the Pope.
More than likely "Facts" teaches at the UW, or one of our public schools.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 17, 2009 03:20 PMWithout fail the libs come unglued and soon the discussion becomes all about Bush, Cheney, hate filled Repubicans, evil corporations and well, you name it.
Libs know "global warming" is a big hoax and they've nearly pulled it off. Every child in America is terrified of it. Suddenly the evidence is mounting that the earth is not warming, and perhaps it's cooling. It just pisses these people off. If they weren't such nasty liars to begin with I might even feel bad.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 17, 2009 03:32 PMSolar and wind are subsidized at 100 times the rate of natural gas and petroleum, per MWhr output. That's a fact.
Greenland's ice sheet is growing - considerably - every year. That's a fact.
Those are the REAL facts, as opposed to your flights of fancy.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 17, 2009 04:29 PMIf they had half the brains they were born with they would clearly see that people such as Al Gore with his private jets and mansions are taking them for a ride. And laughing all the way to the bank, I might add.
Global Warming is the greatest con job of the modern era. Liberals are oh so fond of accusing conservatives of "fear mongering". It's one of their pet slogans. Uh, what exactly is the whole "global warming" scam other than "fear mongering"?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 17, 2009 04:52 PMUmmm, "facts", sorry to tell you this, but the Democrat party is the party of hate. Your heads will still be exploding even when Bush leaves office.
The party of tolerance and understanding sure gave Sarah Palin a fair shake, didn't they?
We conservatives and Republicans have some problems to deal with but being a "party of hate" certainly isn't one of them.
It's a big dishonest game the liberals play. Thet portray conservatives as bigoted, racist, intolerant people who want to pollute the earth in the name of corporate greed.
That's nuts of course but you can interview any 20 or 30 somethings in Seattle or elsewhere and you'll find they believe this garbage entirely.
It's hard to discuss the advancement of civilization with people who think the apex of human development was reached when people lived in mud huts and threw spears at each other.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 17, 2009 05:14 PMRead the shock doctrine by Naomi Klein. I dare you.
Yeah, that's about the only way you can get anyone to read her drivel, is on a dare.
Friedmanomics won't work here ...
... because economics is more than a metaphor.
The 40% of poor Americans that you say pay no taxes, (you must be talking about income taxes) probably pay a larger percentage of their income in other "fees" and "taxes" than the Buffets of this world.
Unlikely. The average tax of the top 1 percent is well over 15 percent (perhaps under 20 percent), and for the people who pay no income tax it's much smaller.
Buffet is a realist. I never said he was a tax cheat.
No, but you implied it. If he pays significantly less than 15 percent income tax, then he is likely a tax cheat.
He understands that he will make more money if we have a tax policy that has the people that make more of the money paying more of the taxes. Not putting the burden on the middle class and the poor, while the super rich pay a much lower rate in the end.
Which is, of course, what we got with Bush: lower taxes for everyone, but a higher portion of the taxes paid by the wealthy.
"The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter."
Nope. He was making that up. Unless he's a tax cheat.
The fact that they were born without a silver spoon in their mouth, or on 3rd base doesn't mean they don't deserve a doctor when they get sick, a non toxic place to live, or an education for their kids.
Fine. But just because I have a good job doesn't mean anyone has the right to take from me to give to them.
I take it you would rather give trillions in tax dollars to corporations to pay their ceo's hundreds of millions a year, than help a family in Appalacia without jobs, education, hope, or any future except the Army.
I know that was not directed at me, however, my answer is: not at all. Indeed, I am against such subsidies to corporations, including these bailouts. And yes, I do want to give (and do give) to people in need ... I just don't want the government forcing me to do it.
The latter would be "welfare" and the former would be "capitalism" right?
Nice straw man. You will find few right-wing people, in here or anywhere else, who would defend corporate subsidies.
Your fantasy of turning America into a 3rd world country ain't gonna happen. Bush tried as hard as he could ...
Riiiiiight. Tax breaks for ALL income tax payers, shifting MORE of the tax burden to the wealthy, that is trying to turn America into a third world country. Riiiiiiight.
Accountability is gonna return.
Oh, so now that Obama is in the White House, the Democrats are finally going to agree to put tighter regulations on GSEs, on Boeing, on agriculture, on civil servants, on unions, on the many other industries the Democrats have been protecting FROM accountability for your lifetime?
You need more quotes, or are you gonna help the next Enron (like we have just seen) rob a few more grandma millies
You know that happened under Clinton, right?
And I will be the first to admit that greed is not a "Republicon" or a "Democrat", or an American thing. It is however what we need to deal with as we build a new world without robbing future generations of a habitable non toxic planet.
Wow. The last Republican deficit was well under $200b, and shrinking. The first Democrat deficit was a huge increase, more than double, and the next Democrat deficit will likely be about TEN TIMES the last Republican deficit. And you want to talk about robbing future generations?
As to "habitable non toxic planet," that's unscientific hogwash.
All the "liberal" blogger show up and laugh at the GOP's circular firing squad antics weekly....
Are they afraid to post about us online, to our virtual faces?
It seems like we have something to drink to every tuesday while the Party of Hate implodes.
Um. Look at the last two campaigns, in 2004 and 2008. Sorry, but it seems to me the Democrats are the Party of Hate. Look at Kerry, Gregoire, Obama. The only way they know how to run a campaign is to say, "they are evil and we are good, vote for good."
Posted by: pudge on January 17, 2009 06:18 PMThe liberals actually are admitting this among themselves! They live to be angry and "outraged". They elected Obama and still they are pissed off about anything they can find to be pissed off about.
So happy to not be one of them.
Can you say mean, nasty, controllers? I knew you could.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 17, 2009 07:07 PMHow's that strategy of division and hate been working out at the polls pudge?
I have some news for you. Mankind is causing climate change. The trial is over. Reality is reality, regardless how many Exxon sponsored studies get air play. The polar ice cap may be ice free at any time from what I hear. This will really cause some problems, whether you believe it or not.
Being Republicon means never admitting you are wrong, even when everyone knows it..... Sad, very sad. Life is better when all facts support your positions, rather than having to defend a fantasy world.
Bill C. Read The Shock Doctrine. A little economics education would serve you well. Your "unfriendly city Seattle has become" quote is nothing new. I am from Eastern Washington, and never liked the too snooty, thin skinned, whiney complainers either.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on January 17, 2009 10:33 PM"they are evil and we are good, vote for good" as you said pretty much sums it up. I couldn't have said it any better!
Exactly, because you are from the party of hate. :/
Race baiting.
I've seen only leftwing race baiting of late. Gregoire's racist ad against Rossi, all the leftists race baiting regarding Obama (and lately, Obama's replacement) ...
Gay bashing.
I see FAR less gay bashing from Republicans than I see religion-bashing from Democrats.
Calling me a traitor for demanding Bush tell the truth for once.
Calling me a traitor for voting for Bush.
How's that strategy of division and hate been working out at the polls pudge?
Well, Obama won, so I guess it worked out pretty well for you. By far, the left has been the more divisive party of late.
McCain's campaign was: "I am more qualified, I'll do a better job, vote for me." Obama's was: "You hate Bush, so you will also hate McCain, so vote for me." Rossi's campaign was: "Gregoire messed things up, I'll do a better job, vote for me." Gregoire's campaign was: "You hate Bush, so you will also hate Rossi, so vote for me."
Of course both sides use division and hate. But the Democrats have lately turned into a damned art form.
Mankind is causing climate change.
That's an interesting theory, but it's not been proven, not even close.
The trial is over.
You could only say that if you don't really understand the science, or you're just being dishonest.
The polar ice cap may be ice free at any time from what I hear.
What you heard is categorically false, and EVEN IF it were true, there's no serious evidence that man caused it.
Being Republicon means never admitting you are wrong, even when everyone knows it
Prove one thing I've said is wrong. And while you're at it, show me where you've admitted that YOU are wrong, even though I've proven it many times.
It can't be said enough. Liberalism by it's very principles attracts the most unpleasant among us. Perhaps that explains why Marx and Lenin always looked as if they had a permanent case of indigestion.
"Facts" will doubtless accuse me of insulting him/her personally. Liberals love to pretend they are offended. It is right out of the playbook.
There are a lot of things I dislike about liberals,(and I know how liberals think because I used to be one). The thing I can't stand above all is that they lie constantly and do it without any evident shame.
Liberals created the entire "global warming" (or is it now "climate change"?) lie in order to scare the hell out of people and gain political control. That's why people like "Facts" flip out anytime the "global warming" myth is challenged.
As an aside, since we are about to have a new President; where are all the lefties that were convinced Bush, Cheney, and Rove were going to use the Iraq war as a reason to establish a dictatorship?
Wasn't so very long ago we heard that nonsense constantly from the far left. Will we hear any of them admit they were wrong-headed loons? Of course not.
Will we hear these same nuts admit they were wrong about "global warming"? I'm sure not going to hold my breath.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it. LOL
The gig is up fool.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 18, 2009 09:33 AMIt's a mental disease.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 18, 2009 10:17 AMOh you must be talking about the Kennedy's and George Soros.
Posted by: TheTruth on January 18, 2009 10:59 AMCare to comment on the FACTS that solar/wind is subsidized at 100X times higher than oil/natural gas, and that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing?
Thought so... Facts just get in the way of your dogma.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 18, 2009 04:02 PM"Facts" claims to own 3 businesses. I doubt that he knows how many rolls of toilet paper remain in his bathroom.
It would be one thing if leftists would stand up and debate their political principles. Instead they post with phony handles, they lie about who they are, they make stuff up, and finally they disapppear only to resurface on another thread with some other stupid internet disguise.
I've got the bumper sticker right here in front of me and it says, "liberals make me sick".
I can't imagine why I might feel that way.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 18, 2009 05:58 PMRight, because we all know Bobby Kennedy and Al Gore have no agenda, nor do the people funding them.
Posted by: FromEachAccordingToHisAbilities, ToEachAccordingToHisObamaDonation on January 19, 2009 02:12 PM