On energy and climate change, President Bush’s team hinted at bold proposals in the State of the Union Speech. They didn’t materialize.
The president emphasized developing fuel alternatives such as ethanol, but noticeably missing was what many in industry and business see as inevitable: mandatory caps on carbon emissions.
A Wall Street Journal front-page article reported that many utilities see the writing on the wall in Congress for some kind of “cap and trade” carbon emissions system and want to be at the table for the regulatory overhaul.
Look for Congress to lead on this issue this year — Bush continues to follow events, not lead them.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
105 Comments
Oh bull hockey. It’s popular right now to say the Bush Administration hasn’t been doing anything to develop more fuel opportunities here in the US – but it’s a blatant lie.
As far back as 2001 – the Administration has been pumping funds into alternative energy development and cost effective ways to cut our dependence on foreign crude. It doesn’t happen overnight.
As far as more carbon emission standards? Why? They are already in place.
The folks who try to undermine the fossil fuel industry – like the author of this blog – rarely realize the results of the legislation should their agenda succeed.
Any President (personally) can’t lead each and every item on the table. They are only one person – not one thousand. That’s why committees are formed and appointed to oversee the progress.
Sheesh.
This president has never been a leader on this issue — with his and Cheney’s huge interests with big oil they have no motivation to make drastic changes. Nothing substantial will happen until we get a visionary leader in the white house — not from these sheep. Read more here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mJyewrlm-E&NR
To the same people who have bought into Algore’s global warming caused by hydrocarbon fossil fuels bullshit: Let’s say that all of your dreams come true, and fossil fuel production is reduced by 20%.
And then your taxes go up by 20% to compensate for the loss of tax revenue generated by the production of oil and gas (no, this is Kansas, they’ll go up about 35%, just to make sure), please don’t come wringing your hands and whining to me about that and dependency of foreign oil.
Fair enough?
In a business perspective article in the Wichita EAGLE on 11/30/06, entitled, “Upside of Ethanol can’t be ignored,” Wichita ethanol consultant Jesse McCurry said, “There are currently eight operating (ethanol) plants in Kansas in Russell, Phillipsburg, Campus, Garnett, Colwich, Garden City, Atchison and Leoti. There are also four new projects under construction, four nearly underway, and half a dozen others on the drawing board.”
McCurry cites some advantages such as creation of jobs, creating a market for corn and sorghum, additional construction projects and, of course, creating an alternative to fossil fuels.
BUT MR. MCCURRY FAILED TO MENTION THE TREMENDOUS DOWNSIDE OF ETHANOL PRODUCTION HERE IN THE SUNFLOWER STATE OF KANSAS:
Destruction of our ancient Ogallala aquifer of underground water in gravel stratas laid down eons ago as the Rocky Mountains heaved upward. Over millions of years, the Rockies eroded gravel eastward to the future Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas great plains. These miracle gravel stratas were filled with humongous amounts of relatively pure water providentially protected from evaporation by upper layers of soil. The amount of Ogallala aquifer water was once described as equal to the water in Lake Superior, the largest of the Great Lakes.
Now would you rather get our drinking water from this protected underground Ogallala water source or from above ground rivers, such as the Arkansas and Kansas rivers? These rivers are used by various communities along their channels for disposal of municipal, agricultural and industrial wastes, hopefully treated to some degree.
The Ogallala is being frantically used by thousands of irrigation pumps across Kansas in addition to use for municipal water sources. And, now, the “new” ethanol manufacturing plants are using or planning to use millions of gallons of the Ogallala water in an amount approximating the amount of water used by municipalities for Kansas’ 3,000,000 citizens.
Its obvious that our Kansas politicians such as the Governor and Senators/Congresspeople have their heads stuck in the sand on this issue.
A second issue is the potential of creating poisonous gases from failure to handle and dispose of the by-products of ethanol production as described in a public meeting recently in Colwich, Kansas.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: ITS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME UNTIL KANSANS WILL BE DRINKING RECYCLED SEWAGE TREATMENT WATER UNLESS MASSIVE CONTROLS ARE DEVELOPED OVER THIS IMPENDING KANSAS WATER USAGE TRAGEDY.
JWink – the Ogallala is already polluted. Recent tests have shown pesticides and nitrates from unscrupulous farming practices. It costs us as much to treat those as it does water from any other source. If we are talking about drinking it that is.
I drilled a deep water well – deeper than most in my area – 375 feet, in an attempt to hit pure water. No such luck.
Beneath the Ogallala, and virtually untapped by most municipalities, is the Dakota Formation. The water there tests virtually pure – at least for now.
But refilling is always a problem when our aquifers are replenished, due to soil percolation rates and the herbicides and pesticides employed in the typical farming practice.
Pulling the water out for plants, whether they are Ethanol or fossil fuel is the least of our problems.
We need to enact regulations on the toxicity of the crop applications used by the farmers as a first step – and then perhaps municipalites need to drill a little deeper – into the Dakota Formation for drinking water.
Many use personal Reverse Osmosis units – I do – and that may be the way of safe drinking water for the time being.
(February 12, 2007 issue)Impeachment: The Case in Favor
Elizabeth Holtzman
Approximately a year ago, I wrote in this magazine that President George W. Bush had committed high crimes and misdemeanors and should be impeached and removed from office. His impeachable offenses include using lies and deceptions to drive the country into war in Iraq, deliberately and repeatedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on wiretapping in the United States, and facilitating the mistreatment of US detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act of 1996.
Since then, the case against President Bush has, if anything, been strengthened by reports that he personally authorized CIA abuse of detainees. In addition, courts have rejected some of his extreme assertions of executive power. The Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees, and a federal judge ruled that the President could not legally ignore FISA. Even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s recent announcement that the wiretapping program would from now on operate under FISA court supervision strongly suggests that Bush’s prior claims that it could not were untrue.
Despite scant attention from the mainstream media, since last year impeachment has won a wide audience. Amid a flurry of blogs, books and articles, a national grassroots movement has sprung up. In early December seventy-five pro-impeachment rallies were held around the country and pro-impeachment efforts are planned for Congressional districts across America. A Newsweek poll, conducted just before election day, showed 51 percent of Americans believed that impeachment of President Bush should be either a high or lower priority; 44 percent opposed it entirely. (Compare these results with the 63 percent of the public who in the fall of 1998 opposed President Clinton’s impeachment.) Most Americans understand the gravity of President Bush’s constitutional misconduct.
Public anger at Bush has been mounting. On November 7 voters swept away Republican control of the House and Senate. The President’s poll numbers continue to drop.
These facts should signal a propitious moment for impeachment proceedings to start. Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment “off the table.” (Impeachment proceedings must commence in the House of Representatives.) Her position doesn’t mean impeachment is dead; it simply means a different route to it has to be pursued. Congressional investigations must start, and public pressure must build to make the House act.
This is no different from what took place during Watergate. In 1973 impeachment was not “on the table” for many months while President Nixon’s cover-up unraveled, even though Democrats controlled the House and Senate. But when Nixon fired the special prosecutor to avoid making his White House tapes public, the American people were outraged and put impeachment on the table, demanding that Congress act. That can happen again.
Congressional and other investigations that previously found serious misconduct in the Nixon White House made the public’s angry reaction to the firing of the special prosecutor–and the House response with impeachment proceedings–virtually inevitable. Early in 1973, once it appeared that the cover-up might involve the White House, the Senate created a select committee to investigate. The committee held hearings and uncovered critical evidence, including the existence of a White House taping system that could resolve the issue of presidential complicity. The Senate also forced the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Watergate. Other committees looked into related matters. None of the investigations were prompted by the idea of impeachment. Still, they laid the groundwork for it–and the evidence they turned up was used by the House impeachment panel to prepare articles of impeachment against Nixon.
The same approach can govern now. Senate and House committees must commence serious investigations that could uncover more evidence to support impeachment. The investigations should ascertain the full extent of the President’s deceptions, exaggerations and lies that drove us into the Iraq War. (They can simply in effect resurrect Republican Senator Howard Baker’s famous questions about Richard Nixon: “What did the President know and when did he know it?”) Congress should also explore the wiretapping that has violated the FISA law, the President’s role in mistreatment of detainees and his gross indifference to the catastrophe facing the residents of New Orleans from Katrina.
Investigations should also be conducted into Vice President Cheney’s meetings with oil company executives at the outset of the Administration. If divvying up oil contracts in Iraq were discussed, as some suggest, this would help prove that the Iraq War had been contemplated well before 9/11, and that a key motivation was oil. Inquiries into Halliburton’s multibillion-dollar no-bid contracts should also be conducted, particularly given Cheney’s ties to the company.
White House documents about Katrina that have not already been turned over to Congress should be sought to document further the President’s failure to discharge his constitutional duty to help the people of New Orleans.
Our country’s Founders provided the power of impeachment to prevent the subversion of the Constitution. President Bush has subverted and defied the Constitution in many ways. His defiance and his subversion continue.
Failure to impeach Bush would condone his actions. It would allow him to assume he can simply continue to violate the laws on wiretapping and torture and violate other laws as well without fear of punishment. He could keep the Iraq War going or expand it even further than he just has on the basis of more lies, deceptions and exaggerations. Remember, as recently as October 26, Bush said, “Absolutely, we are winning” the war in Iraq–a blatant falsehood. Worse still, if Congress fails to act, Bush might be emboldened to believe he may start another war, perhaps against Iran, again on the basis of lies, deceptions and exaggerations.
There is no remedy short of impeachment to protect us from this President, whose ability to cause damage in the next two years is enormous. If we do not act against Bush, we send a terrible message of impunity to him and to future Presidents and mark a clear path to despotism and tyranny. Succeeding generations of Americans will never forgive us for lacking the nerve to protect our democracy.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman
Cost of Pollution:
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/pollute.pdf
Childrens Hearts and Lungshttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070125185843.htm
http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/PollutionControls.html
If corn is the source for ethanol the price of corn will likely shoot through the roof not to mention the CO2 emissions associated with this process.
Also many grasses such as a switchgrass can also be used as well as industrial hemp. Let’s not continue down a road that will increase the cost of food.
What is your suggestion then, Heckler?
Damn, this ought to be on “pay per view”, coming to a town near you !!
G. “The Ann Coulter Clone” Sheridan vs. Richard “Original Thoughts, Huh?” Heckler !!!
Stay tuned, folks!
bush has never funded more than a pittance for alternative energy research. Why would he? He’s an oil man.
Little surprise that even the polluters are ahead of him in addressing this.
If you people think that Bush should be impeached, it is your moral duty to make it happen.Same with pulling out of Iraq.Your leaders in Congress are chosing not to do these things.Somebody is wrong on this. It’s either the leaders or it’s you.Which is it?
Fleett: The Congress is not choosing to do (or not do) anything. Dubya may not be the brightest candle in the chandelier of life, but he’s committed no impeachable offenses. If it was even close, Billary, Harry “There’s No Such Thing as the Mafia” Reid, and Nancy “My District Does Not Have a High Crime Rate, Just a Low Legal Compliance Factor” Pelosi would be scribbling a Bill of Impeachment so fast that you would think Washington had been invaded by a horde of Tazmainian Devils.
rm-Don’t tell me. Tell the flaming bastards on this blog.
Why impeach him?
HEh heh Long term? YOUR sob bush is the best thing that ever happened to democratics….
and moderates…
sane people in general….
For all will remember this painful time and not be inclined to repeat the mistake.
As much as he deserves impeachment, it is much more fun to watch him flail and fail.
And Billary, Harry and Nancy are the best things that ever happened to the Republicans, moderates and sane people in general. Ironic, ain’t it?
Chuck Hagel is looking better everyday.
BTW, I’ve now been ‘botted’ 4 times in a row. I can’t see well enough to go through the misery of trying to read the damned thing through distortion, so I’m out of here for a while. If they just want verification, that is one thing … but, in my opinion, this is an ADA violation … think about it, Beagle … you’ve been fairly warned.
“Let’s say that all of your dreams come true, and fossil fuel production is reduced by 20%.”
Nobody ever said anything about reducing production, the argument is for a reduction in consumption.
Bush’s speech indicated that he plans on doing nothing. He wants to reduce consumption based on projected figures. This is the same guy who predicted the war in Iraq would cost $3 billion and the cost of his prescription drug plan was only going to be $400 billion (it ended up being over $700 billion). So Bush can simply inflate the predicted amount of gasoline consumption and target that in a traditional Ministry of Truth fashion.
The increase in ethanol production is unrealistic with current technologies since the gain of energy is not much higher than the production.
There are two easy options that can be done right now. One is for a more accurate EPA rating since the current one measures highway speeds at 45mph. The second would be to raise fuel efficiency standards on all vehicles.
What Bush wants to do is raise fuel efficiency based upon auto size instead of the current fleet size. The end result would be a lower efficiency requirement. Another thing he plans on doing is fixing some magical thinking by giving fuel flex vehicles an automatic higher efficiency rating. So a Honda Accord which gets 35mpg would register as a 40mpg if it could take E85 without actually registering 40mpg.
So expect Bush to do what he did last year after his “addiction to oil” speech. Basically he’ll do nothing that’ll actually ween society off our addiction unless it just means more corporate welfare and give aways to oil companies.
GSheridan: One source of pollution of the Ogallala aquifer is the City of Wichita’s water department. It has a “recharging project” underway. That is, polluted water is taken from the Little Arkansas River near Halstead and “recharged” into the Equus Bed aquifer. Of course, the Equus Bed aquifer is merely an extension of the Great Bend-Pratt aquifer portion of the larger High Plains/Ogallala aquifer. This is one way of storing some water for future usage for City of Wichita in times of drought.
In regard to the Dakota formation as a source of water, I quote the following from a Kansas Geological Survey pamphlet #7, entitled “The Dakota Aquifer System in Kansas.” In a summary paragraph, it says: “Well yields in the Dakota (aquifer) are generally not as great as in the High Plains (Ogallala) aquifer. As a result, the Dakota should not be considered a replacement source of water for the High Plains (Ogallala) aquifer.”
The imperative immediate goal must be to preserve the integrity of the Ogallala/High Plains aquifer in Kansas. The alternative is to return central and western Kansas to the “Buffalo Commons” environment suggested by recent writers.
Doug: I realize it is a very, very complicated concept, but does the term “supply & demand” ring any bells to you? I’ve been in the $10/$11 bbl. oil business … ain’t goin’ back, ever. No production, no revenue, no tax — simple enough?
GSheridan,
“As far back as 2001 – the Administration has been pumping funds into alternative energy development..”
You must be drinking some very POWERFUL koolaid?http://democrats.senate.gov/energy/pdf/Bush_energy_rhetoric.pdf
GSheridan: “As far as more carbon emission standards? Why? They are already in place.”
Tell that to these business leaders. Or offer them some of your koolaid?
‘Big Business Pushes Bush On Carbon CapsTop U.S. CEOs Tell President Action On Climate Change Essential For Earth, American Business’http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/23/business/main2387501.shtml“The group, called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership or USCAP, is made up of chief executives of Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, PG&E, and PNM Resources…”
‘Business leaders welcome Bush climate change nod’http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/24/davos.climate.reut/“Bush declined in his annual State of the Union address to support mandatory caps on heat-trapping carbon gases that big U.S. companies such as General Electric have pushed for, …”
GSheridan: “The folks who try to undermine the fossil fuel industry… rarely realize the results of the legislation should their agenda succeed.”
You mean like lower energy costs, because less fuel needed with higher efficiency?Lower world oil prices (and lower revenues to “unfriendly” M-E nations) due to lower demand?Lowered risk of global warming/weirding, which could cause grave consequences, and be VERY expensive?Better health, and fewer deaths, due to less pollution? Less acid rain?
The ’stone age’ did not end because humans ran out of stones. The fossil fuel age needs to end.
Excellent story! Here are some valuable drinking water filtrationresources you can use in the future.
Solid carbon block technology is considered the most effective methodfor reducing contaminants of health concern. In addition to theremoval of cysts, a solid carbon block filter also reduces:· chemicals; MTBE, TCE· pesticides;· herbicides;· disinfections byproducts;· heavy metals;· cysts; Crypto bug· asbestos· particulates· chlorine.. Arsenic
This is Chris Anderson,I have been educating consumers & others in the drinking water fieldfor over 10 years.How do you choose a water filter? What does the filter actually reduceor remove? And finally what does it cost? These answers are found bydoing a little research or home work will call it. Doing such willsave you a lot of money and provide you with pure “healthy” drinkingwater. The bottom line is you must get a Data Performance Sheet by theNSF national sanitation foundation to compare filters. These “proof ofperformance” sheets show exactly what the filter does and for how manygallons. If you can’t get one from the manufacturer or from who everis trying to sell you one, simply say no thanks!
Please visit my Water Filter Facts site and bookmark it for future use.
http://www.solidcarbonblock.NET
The direct link to view products, prices and gather more information is here.
http://www.multipureusa.com/canderson
NSF International, The Public Health and Safety Company™, anot-for-profit, non-governmental organization, is the world leader instandards development, product certification, education, andrisk-management for public health and safety. For more than 59 years,NSF has been committed to public health, safety, and protection of theenvironment. While focusing on food, water, indoor air, and theenvironment, NSF develops national standards, provides learningopportunities through its Center for Public Health Education, andprovides third-party conformity assessment services while representingthe interests of all stakeholders. The primary stakeholder groupsinclude industry, the regulatory community, and the public at large.
Do your home work! Make a good choice for your drinking water needs.Visit NSF below:http://www.nsf.org/consumer/drinking_water/dw_treatment.asp?program=WaterTre
The Importance of CertificationIn the last decade, interest in home water treatment products hasgrown tremendously. Unfortunately, it isn’t always easy for consumersto know whether or not a particular product will actually be as safeand effective as the manufacturer claims at reducing variouscontaminants from your water supply.NSF has a long history of developing and running independent producttesting programs. In fact, we are the leading independent tester ofhome water treatment products on the market today. With ourstate-of-the-art laboratories and highly skilled staff, we have theknowledge and expertise to effectively evaluate water treatmentproducts, including:Adsorption filters (i.e. carbon, charcoal, KDF, ceramic)Reverse osmosis systemsWater softenersDistillation systemsUltraviolet disinfections products.As an added assurance for consumers, NSF requires that all productsmeet annual re-certification requirements. Unannounced plantinspections and periodic retesting of all certified products arerequired of all NSF-listed companies. This unique requirement allowsus to ensure that the products we certify continue to meet all statedrequirements year after year.
Note: NSF has tested & certified over 4000 different filters. It’simportant to understand we have 400 plus manufacturers of waterfilters alone world wide. Having said this “why” would you purchase awater filter that is NOT tested & certified by NSF. It all comes downto this: Talk is cheap and facts are hard to find in the drinkingwater filtration industry! NSF is were you will get the facts.
Ultimately it comes down to this: What does the filter do & how muchdoes it cost?
NSF Data performance sheets is were to find “what it does”.Price: For a $1.00 a week you can have pure healthy drinking water. Ifyou are spending “more” it’s costing you too much.
Ps. Should you have any questions in the drinking water field, please write.waterfilters@gmail.comThank you for your time and consideration,Chris Anderson Independent Distributor of Multipure Drinking WaterSystems #223193
Yeah, Chris, this isn’t a telemarketing service.
We’ll give you one freebie, next time we’ll come at you hammer and tongs.
Resident Bush said in his State of the Union last Tuesday that we need to address “global climate change.”
I still haven’t heard any of you Limb-bots explain why the Resident is worried about something that you claim ISN’T HAPPENING.
Who’s wrong–you and Rush O’Hannity or Worst. President. Ever?
If Chris is so desperate that he/she has to advertize on this blog, I don’t think I’d trust her/his recommendations, and/or advice.
You keep talking about how dumb Dubya is … Algore says he invented global warming … Dubya believes even him ! Relatively simple, when you think about it. Or relative simpletons, perhaps ?
rm6046,
“Algore says he invented global warming”
You probably also believe the stupid lies re ‘Love Story’, farm chores, fancy hotel, ‘Love Canal’, etc.?
Heh, you’re easy to fool… right?
Try criticizing this large, international group of respected scientists.’Contributors to the [2001] IPCC WGI Third Assessment Report’http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/558.htm‘Reviewers…’http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/559.htm
And good luck pushing your BS against human-caused global warming after the IPCC’s new report is released next Friday.
The scientific evidence has grown much stronger since 2001.
Nope. It’s just that you lefties all say we’re always picking on po’ Al … so I take him at his word, and you all don’t like that either. There has been a cyclical warming trend/cooling trend/warming trend, etc., going on since records have been kept, but that’s not my point. Al also claims he invented the Internet. Damn, don’t tell me he lied ! Maybe just “fudged” a little, ya’ suppose? Personally, and seriously, I’m a lot more worried about some rogue fanatic psychopath with a couple nukes who wants to make a statement for Allah or The Flying Spagetti Monster or Aunt Jemimah, for Christ’s sake, in the here and now, than whether the rain forests are going to evaporate in 10,000 years or whatever.
Take two deep breaths, Cosmos, you’re taking yourself way too seriously. None of us are going to get out of this alive anyway.
rm6046,
I’m not bothered by your “picking on po’ Al”. It just proves that you don’t understand the meaning of words, and/or basic grammar.Did Gingrich also lie?
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtmlAl Gore, 3/9/99: During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.
Newt Gingrich, 9/1/00: Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet.———
You seem unconcerned about Earth’s future generations.
Wrong again, Cosmo (or should I call you Mr. Topper?). Actually, I’m unconcerned about you. But, if you want to play English degree(s) poker, ante up!
rm6046,
“I’m a lot more worried about…than whether the rain forests are going to evaporate in 10,000 years or whatever….None of us are going to get out of this alive anyway.”
If you checked the science, you’d learn how human-added GHG’s can cause positive natural feedbacks, such as releasing HUGE amounts of GHG’s from thawing permafrost.
The “tipping” point may be less than a decade away, and the warming might then speed up dramatically — not “10,000 years” from now.
The warming could decrease our food supply, from oceans and land, and cause many other serious problems.
But you seem unconcerned about that, preferring instead to attack Gore based on falsehoods from the RNC and media.
So it does seems accurate to say you seem unconcerned about Earth’s future (and present) generations.
No, I’m not a scientist. But it seems that “you folks” (sorry, I don’t know how else to put it) pace back and forth, wringing your hands, blaming the rest of us, as if we were Marie Antoinette telling you to “eat cake”, because the “sky is falling” ! I’m sick and tired of being told I should feel guilty because I drive a car, for example. Those of us who are not scientifically inclined, expect that is what those of you who are get paid to do … in other words, you’ve discovered a problem that we neither knew nor cared particularly about, you all go fix it. We don’t expect you all to come and do what we do best or fix our problems. Do you understand what I am trying to say?
Of course you notice the websites that are linked to.Flaming Lib sites don’t count.Defeatists, Redistribution of Income, Anti-Captitalists= Dems
a few points. Al Gore never said “I invented the internet” – that is a fabrication.
Global Climate change is already causing crop failures as semi-arid areas become more arid. The Farrell/Hadley boundary is migrating toward higher latitudes and with it the desert regions are growing.
I realize the name “Weather Undergronud” sounds somehow “Flming Lib” but it is not. It is a professional weather/meteoroligal site.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/education.asp
The hing I like about that site is that it then provides links to everything else.
Also I can chack ski conditions …
http://www.wunderground.com/ski/
Yes. Ben, I know that … but he (Algore) said something, when taken tongue in cheek, implies that. And he’s such a great target. Not like Gerry Ford, who was laughing harder than anybody else. Because he is soooooo serious – no (public, at least) sense of humor, at all. In any event, that’s how this whole argument started. Glad you’re here. Maybe you can translate. :)
Good point. I’ll add a funny – I almost saved us all FROM the internet! (UCLA, about 1971 or so)
LMAO.
One night I crashed the entire ARPA Net. We got a call from Stanford wanting to know what the hell we were doing. Apparently I overloaded the system trying to invert a rather large matrix. Of course, today I could do that on my laptop with ease!
I’d be careful throwing around the term “Algore”.
It betrays you as a listener of Rush Limbaugh, who invented it. Ditto heads are not taken terribly serious here.
Hey I’m just sayin’
How funny. I remember being in Boeing’s mainframe room in the early/mid 60’s — it was huge, like a medium-sized warehouse. And everything was stored on 1″ or so wide magnetic tape. Everyone who worked in there was paranoid that some spy from the Soviet Union was going to get in there with a huge magnet and erase everything. Then ten or fifteen years later, a friend of mine who worked there told me that TI made a hand-held one at that time for $199.00 that could do God knows how many times more that that huge mainframe.
Yep! Our other joke was that when I ran that program all the lights in Westwood went dim.
J R: FYI, I haven’t seen nor heard Limbaugh, except in the newspapers regarding his Oxycontin problem for at least ten years. As best I can recall, he’s moderately entertaining in very small doses. The Algore thing has just stuck with me because I really don’t like him!! Nor his wife, Tippy or Buffy, or some such.
Speaking of spies – around 78 or so I attended a Soviet trade show in Los Amgeles. I met a fellow crystallographer there and suggested that after they shut down for the night we go up to CalTech and play around in the lab and then go up to JPL and watch the Mars shots come in. I think it shocked him that we could even talk about that.
He was spirited off th floor – probably by their security. I wonder what would have happened if we had done that … defection? It would have been interesting.
LMAO.
Security probably thought you were setting him up for an abduction. The professional spooks of the 60’s and 70’s saw the “bad guys” behind every tree. And it was literally true, because we and the Soviets both had at least five times more people than were needed.
that is what really makes it funny – our spooks probably also saw me as a threat – being a ‘leftie’ and all that.
I knew a real card-carrying Communist back in Boston back in the late 60s. He had a real hard time with me when I pressed him about the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. While European CPs broke savagely against the Soviets Gus Hall’s CPUSA slavishly supported them.
Idiots…
Yes. My late wife was 2nd generation Czechoslovakian. Her grandparents spoke English outside the home, but only Czech at home. I also have some close friends here in Kansas that are Czech and have family still there, or what’s left of it. I knew some card-carrying and self-proclaimed Communists in the 60’s also. It seemed most of them were more interested in pontificating the musings of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky as philosophical excuses for not actually getting a job than any sort of commitment.
In any event, many of my feelings I was discussing about Indonesia the other night are identically paralleled by my friends’ and in-laws’ feelings about the Czech Republic — profound sadness.
rm,
For a view of Al Gore WITH a sense of humor (it isn’t easy to play straight man), you should watch the video link below of the opening skit on SNL when Gore hosted.
Even YOU might laugh. (All tongue in cheek satire.)
http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crooksandliars.com%2F2006%2F05%2F14.html%23a8280
rm – funny thing is I knew more Marx than he did. We studied the flawed theories in school (MIT) as part of an overall syudy of economic theory. This poor guy had only what the Party told him.
RD: Funny as hell !! Thanks for leading me there. Remember when Bob Dole was running and was just dour and mean-seeming as hell, and then he lost, started showing up on the Tonight show, etc., and was a riot? Same thing, maybe?
Ben: I can believe that. Sounds a lot like the ones I knew. “Two weeks ago I couldn’t even spell Communist, now I are one!” As I said earlier, I still think most of them saw it as exculpatory to the fact they didn’t have a job. “What, work for a capitalist pig? I’ll starve first !”
“Psst! Wanna’ bet?”
rm6046,
It’s fortunate that more people don’t share your attitude:”you’ve discovered a problem that we neither knew nor cared particularly about, you all go fix it”.
So much for the “personal responsibilty” that “your” party claims?
Gore’s “invented” the Internet was NOT meant “tongue in cheek”. It was only a part of RNC’s HUGE BS smear campaign to make Gore appear to be a delusional, serial exaggerator.
It started with BS re ‘Love Story’, farm chores, fancy hotel, etc.
Then the RNC loaded all the info re Gore they could find, past speechs, etc into a database. They nitpicked EVERYTHING Gore said, and feed errors directly to MSM.
The “liberal”(sic) MSM was happy to spread every error that Gore made, and ignore the larger # of errors made by Bush.
But heh… if you can’t beat a candidate on facts, issues and policies, run a smear campaign instead.
And there’s the irony of deluding so many voters about Gore, who definitely was NOT delusional.
rm?
“”What, work for a capitalist pig? I’ll starve first !”"Psst! Wanna’ bet?”
Well I am not a communist.
Yet.
But that is EXACTLY my sentiment.
We get you rm. You got yours and screw everyone else.
But even to the point of the survival of the planet?
“Doug: I realize it is a very, very complicated concept, but does the term “supply & demand” ring any bells to you? I’ve been in the $10/$11 bbl. oil business … ain’t goin’ back, ever. No production, no revenue, no tax — simple enough?”
Did I claim oil prices were going to go down that low? Nice strawman argument but you are arguing with your own hallucinations. Nobody even mentioned anything about cutting production. What drugs are you taking?
BDP fleet,
“Defeatists, Redistribution of Income, Anti-Captitalists= Dems”
So fleet believes that Wal-Mart, and ALL the CEO’s of the big corporations in my http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/01/moving_beyond_b.html#comment-28367873 post, who realize that climate change is a significant problem, are “Anti-Captitalists= Dems”?
Perhaps BDP fleet is drinking GSheridan’s koolaid?
…Global Warming Solid Science…If solid then no defense needed…Technology will make Global Warming irrelevant…Sunglasses sales will increase…More oranges available year around…
Let’s keep in mind that if Global Warming IS caused by humans (and MANY sceintists disagree about that) – the GW gurus have formally announced that the GREATEST man-induced cause is from COWS!
While people are figuring out what to do about our energy emissions – there is a SIMPLE step that each and every one of us can do.
STOP EATING BEEF!
If there is ANY liberal out there that disagrees with fossil fuel contributors BUT is still eating beef – they are being hypocritical.
Doug/Cosmo: I don’t know how simplistic I have got to get to cut through the fog (or smog, whatever) that seems to have engulfed your minds, but I’ll try one more time.
If consumption is reduced by 20%, demand will be reduced by an approximately equal amount. Prices will fall. If it costs me $16 bbl. to get oil out of the ground that I can only sell on the market for $11, I AM GOING TO CUT PRODUCTION!I’m going to shut the well down. No production = no revenue = no tax basis = no tax revenue !!! You don’t have to be Alan Greenspan or Milton Friedman or even Kinky Friedman to understand this, do you?
rm6046, that’s your choice isn’t it. However I doubt that prices are going to drop from $60 to $11 by a 20% reduction in consumption in the U.S. I know this is a shock to you but other countries consume oil and they are increasing their consumption so the market won’t drastically drop. It’s amazing that you actually can run a business with such a poor perception of the market. I suppose if all you do is get dinosaur shit from the ground it doesn’t take that much brains though.
Now if you look to the Bush speech which you haven’t, Bush is only talking about reducing imports by 20% and we only import 65% of our supplies. So Bush’s 20% isn’t even a total 20% of consumption because Bush doesn’t actually want to do diddly. Then you also have to factor in that half of our oil consumption doesn’t even have to do with gasoline.
I really don’t think you know the subject very well.
GSheridan,
“the GW gurus have formally announced that the GREATEST man-induced cause is from COWS!”
More koolaid induced BS? Link please. Methane is a GW ‘forcing’, but CO2 is stronger, and stays in the atmos longer.
Doug/rm6046,
The cuts stated in the SOTU speech also refer to future usage, not current amounts. Future usage is predicted to rise. If, for example, it rises by 20%, and we “cut” by 20%, we merely maintain status quo.
I had pointed that out in a previous post but rm6046 reads whatever the magic mushrooms cause him to read. Perhaps the oil companies weren’t cheating the taxpayers out of royalties but they just had rm6046 doing the accounting.
“the GW gurus have formally announced that the GREATEST man-induced cause is from COWS!”
Oh? I hadn’t heard that.
“(and MANY sceintists disagree about that)” No, see:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/928.asp
United Nations IPCCAmerican Meteorological SocietyNOAAU.S. National Academy of SciencesNASAEPAAmerican Geophysical UnionNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchRoyal Society of the United KingdomCanadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Science, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Royal Society (UK)
Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK)
An impressive list of scientists who disagree with GSheridan
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/558.htm
…must protect King Leopolds wax seal!…
EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cosmos and HuiCAN YOU US A LIST OF SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE RECEIVED NO GRANTS AND NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING TO PROMOTE GLOBAL WARMING THEORIES, WHO ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOUR GARBAGE?YOU CAN’T.THIS IS LEFT WING PROPAGANDA FROM SOCIALISTS WHO HATE AMERICA AND HATE BUSINESS GROWTH.IT IS PROPAGANDA FROM THOSE WHO SUPPORT THEMSELVES ON GOVERNMENT AND LEFT WING GRANTS.FOLLOW THE MONEY!IF ANY OF YOUR LISTED ORGANIZATIONS PUBLICLY DECIDED THAT GLOBAL WARMING MIGHT BE HAPPENING, BUT THAT WARMING HAS ALWAYS HAPPENED WHEN SUN SPOTS AND SOLAR FLARES INCREASED, FOR EXPAMPLE, THE GOVERNMENT FUNDING WOULD DRY UP FOR THOSE “HERITICS”.ALSO, YOU LEFTIST ENVIRO-NAZIS WOULD TRY TO STRIP THE THE CREDENTIALS FROM ANY ORGANIZATION THAT DISAGREED WITH YOU!We don’t buy it.And remember, the majority of Democrats in Congress did not support the Kyoto treaty last time it came up, remember?Bill Clinton didn’t think much of the Kyoto Treaty either, as I recall!One other thing:Randy Scholfield, get your facts straight, the Bush White House NEVER promised a darn thing on Global warming.The British Press falsely claimed Bush was going to do a flip-flop.Randy, you were warned when you came out with your first post on this topic to wait for the actual speech.Now, you are trying to rewrite history, aren’t you?
Even without looking I can give you one – I receive no government funding. I don’t think Masters of wunderground does either. That makes two.
Now, can you give any who have not received any ExxonMobil who are on the skeptic side?
Econ–
You’re ranting. Take a breath.
Here’s exactly what Bush said in his SOTU address last Tuesday:
“And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.”
Now, Econ, why did Bush say that “global climate change” is a “serious challenge” if it’s not?
Either you and the right-wing are full of crap or Bush is.
Which is it?
Econ 101: FYI, Ben Huie is a respected, well known, published scientist and professor. He is not a fanatic. Cosmos and Doug are eco-terrorists — the flip side of the late Ken Lay and his thugs — only more dangerous. Lay, et al, were just thieves. Cosmos and Doug have a cause, at least in their minds, not unlike the UniBomber. This forum is their Manifesto. Just so you’ll understand the players. Beware.
RM–
You’re a parody of yourself.
Ken Lay destroyed thousands of people’s life savings and you’re saying that Doug is worse?
Why can’t you answer the question–why did Bush call global climate change a serious challenge if as YOU SAY it’s not happening?
Calling people “eco-terrorists” doesn’t answer the question.
Just focus and answer the question . . . if you can.
crickets chirping . . .
Even the gasbag Rush Limbergercheese is going to have to work overtime to figure out how to support Bush and ridicule global warming at the same time.
Thank goodness he has staffers for that kind of thing.
CapnAYou are asking alot when you ask the likes of rm to focus! That may account for the silence!
CapnI think a large meteorite striking the Earth would be a major challenge.I imagine Bush would believe the same thing.The “dust bowl” years were caused, in part, by drought, that was also a challenge.Did man cause the past draughts? Can man cause or stop a killer meteorite?NOBut the enviro WHORES must claim that man causes any warming or they won’t get any money!http://www.kn4lf.com/globalwarminglie.htm
…Notes that Global Climate change is the correct term…Global Warming is an incorrect term…Polite golf clap for rm6046…Global Climate change does not suggest causality…Global Warming foolishly suggests causality…Never bet on a horse named Foregone Conclusion…:-)…
Looks like PROLL Paul Rosell has returned, SCREAMING?
Hey Paul!Give us a list of the scientists who have recieved NO funding from fossil-energy and/or related businesses, that support your viewpoint.
And AGW climate scientists INCLUDE the solar forcing — it’s on their graph. http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/06.01.jpg
Capn: I wasn’t aware you had asked me a question. I was simply letting Econ know he/she was walking into an ambush, Are your feelings hurt that I didn’t include you in their conspiracy? I’m sorry. Beware the Capn., too.
… Global Clomate Change is the term I and my fellow scientists use. And it does connote causality.
From Econ (Paul Rosell’s) knf4lf link,
“Recently 17,000+ scientists signed a proclamation…”
The bogus Oregon Petition, printed in National Academy of Sciences format to con readers? And 1998 is NOT “[r]ecently”.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicinehttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
rm – I cannot vouch for cosmos as a scientist himelf but will point out that the links he provides are the scientific ones; not political ones. Paul Rossell’s cutesy link is totally unsubstantiated.
I like to go through wunderground.com simply because it is easy and convenient. It links to all sorts of others including some very good rebuttals of the so-called skeptics (paid for by the oil industry).
I also like wunderground for fun things like ski reports and this little story about hurricane Hugo:
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hugo1.asp
“She looks wide-eyed and excited. No doubt, though, she is wondering about the wisdom of hopping a ride with a band of nuts that would deliberately fly into nature’s most ferocious storms.
“Where are the parachutes?” she asks, when Lowell finishes the briefing and asks her if she has any questions.
Lowell and Jim and I look at each other, and smile. Same old question.
“We don’t carry parachutes,” Lowell answers. “Where we’re going, a parachute won’t do you any good.”"
Would YOU fly with those crazies?
OISM once claimed to have the guy who “invented” C-14 on their staff. Rather amusing since the Nobel for that went to Bill Libby of UCLA who scoffed at them. He was on my thesis committee.
rm6046,
You believe that I’m an “eco-terrorist”, “not unlike the UniBomber” because I support my opinions with data from IPCC, NASA, NOAA, etc, and real-world examples?
I guess you believe all those scientists are also “eco-terrorists”?
What do you label yourself, since you seem UNABLE to support your opinions? Delusional denialist?
Ben: Are you saying Econ is Paul Rossell? If you are, then I’m sorry I didn’t wait for the ambush … Rossell is nuttier than a peach orchard boar. I have noticed that he disappeared after I brought up the Clerk scandal, and I’m not familiar enough with his grammar and syntax to make a valid judgment from these couple posts with nothing at hand to compare it with.
rm – I will back up cosmos on this. he and I disagree on nuclear but do so based on sound arguements on both sides IMO. I think he is overoptimistic about what we can do with wind/solar/efficiency. But, eco-terrorist? Hardly.
actually it was cosmos – I, too, had noted the email. I guess he has finally recovered from the thrashing Raj Goyle gave Bonnie Huy.
…All the average US citizen needs to know about Climate Change…www-epa-gov-climatechange…Rest is politically motivated clap trap or Geek fodder…:-)…
If you will review this thread, I have barely touched on GCC. I’ve merely stated the economics of a small stripper well producer and laughed with Ben last night about Gore’s sense of humor (and the lack of it), paranoid spooks in the 60’s and 70’s and Czechoslovakia, and stated early on, that I was NOT a scientist.
And eco-terrorist was probably a little strong. :)
Watch out rm – over on the Roberts thread we have already eliminated you!
;^)
Good site …
“”The phrase ‘climate change’ is growing in preferred use to ‘global warming’ because it helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures.”"
Yes, there is MUCH more – especially serious changes in rainfall patterns and storm intensity. As I noted above, THIS scientists uses GCC instead on GW. So does wunderground.com.
Oh damn, you’ve already GOT the machine !!!! I’m finished, give up, white flag!
Ben,
Judging from the screaming (CAPS LOCK) in Econ/Rosell’s post, “recovered” might not by the correct term? ;)
Interesting… complaints that IPCC’s report is “sugarcoated” re recent melt-off in Greenland and Antarctica
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/01/29/some_scientists_protest_draft_of_warming_report/
;^)
I do think, rm, that if you re-read cosmos’ comments you will find him reasoned and well-documented. Both here and where he and I have differed on nuke.
You WERE more than a little strong on Doug and cosmos rm.
AND if you click “econ”? His email is indeed the much busted malignant liar that is Paul F Rosell.
Good catch COSMOS!
I THOUGHT the rant looked familiar……sorta like an old unpleasant smell that you have almost forgotten.
Paul you are a dead busted shill here. Do NOT plan to stay or I shall personally lead the torch parade!
Another gorilla left out – methane released by thawing tundra. Also decreased primary productivity of phytoplankton. Both of those are strong positive feedbacks.
Well, I’ll be damned. Apologies to Cosmos and Doug. It’s no excuse, but I could not understand why you both were attacking me about GCC, when all I thought I was talking about was simple stripper well economics in South Central Kansas. In any event, I’m sorry, guys.
BTW – they should probably wander over to the Roberts thread so they can know what the heck we have been talking about ‘on the side’
If they want a few good laughs, they definitely should, my friend.
And laughter helps place other things into perspective. ;^)
Sounding naive, he asked, “Has Rossell done this before, knowing his e.mail is a click away from anybody who bothered to look?”
And Ben, of course I would fly with them — in the words of Waylon Jennings, “I’ve always been crazy, but it’s kept me from going insane”. They fly a lot of those hurricane flights out of Pensacola NAS, but I never met any of them. I wish I had and got a ride.
I’d fly with them too – sounds like a lot of fun.
And who needs a stupid parachute anyhow?!
“Stay sane inside insanity” – Rocky Horror Picture Show
rm, vt – I have a pro bono case for you. Channel 12 just had a story abot a grandmother who is caring for her three abandoned grandkids. She should be able to get help from the state as grandparent being ‘foster parent’ but she doen’t have legal custody. The deadbeat parents have not relinquished. Legal costs would be more than she (disability 1100/month) could deal with.
She looks like the whole reason they passed that law.
rm6046,
Thank you for the apology. And I apologize to you — I tend to get ‘overwound’ on both the GCC, and Gore versus RNC/media attack issues.
Ben,
I’m not totally against nuclear power, but basically think that GCC needs the fastest/best reponse to reducing GHG’s.
If the “gorillas” kick in, we (hopefully?) will be scrambling to cut electricity demand from fossil-fueled plants. Efficiency, renewables, distributed generation, passive solar, etc ARE faster and cheaper than nuclear.
That means the new, expensive, and slow-to-build nuclear plants may overestimate demand. Not running at 100% capacity further reduces profits for them.
If we have lots of $’s to throw at GCC, then heh, no problem. But if we don’t…?
Ben: Just saw that story this morning. It is tragic, but she needs someone that (a) has experience in family law, and (b) start writing letters to anybody in the KS legislature who will listen to her. Family law/child custody are a world in and of themselves. I don’t even know enough to venture a guess as to whether she could get food, health, commodities, etc., vis-a-vis KSRS, based on income and the number of people in the household. But, I suspect she has already tried that, probably to no avail. I know that a related person, who is being supported by another, can be claimed as a dependent for tax purposes, which might be a basis for a KSRS claim, but I simply don’t know. VT’s area of expertise is trust/estate planning, and based on conversations we have had about other issues re: child custody/family law/SRS, I think I can safely say you could take the totality of our collective knowledge on this subject and put it in your eye without duress. I do know, from simple observation, that involuntary termination of parental rights is a bitch to acquire. Legal Aid might be an avenue for her, but they’re so backlogged that the kids might be grown before anything got done. But, then again, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
rm – thanks for the info. The frustrating thing to me is that she seems to be a good-hearted woman trying to do the right thing for her grandkids AND for society.
cosmos – my approach is to unleash ALL of my weapons – efficiencies, conservation, wind, solar, and nuclear. I have discussed some of these with the guys at Rocky Mountain and, while we disagree, we aren’t really all that far apart.
I use a line I stole from one of them: “At the end of the day I want a hot bath and a cold beer. If I can do that without using fossil fuels my lifestylr is intact.” I think that reflects their phiposophy well – we aren’t saying “do without”; just “do with but differently”