After years of inaction on global warming, President Bush has announced plans for a major climate summit next month of the world’s leading polluters to try to reach agreement on “substantial” reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a belated but welcome acknowledgment by Bush that climate change is cause for concern and action — and that America’s leadership is needed.
Bush still is resisting European calls for mandatory emissions targets — and with some justification, noting that some of the world’s worst polluters, such as India and China, refuse to agree to strict caps. Without all nations on board, a global climate action plan doesn’t have much chance to work.
But America, as the world’s largest economy and most advanced technological society, has a duty to lead on this issue.
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
- LonnythePlumber on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- XXX on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- DavidB on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Monkeyhawk on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Monkeyhawk on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- DorisKing on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
90 Comments
If Bush’s attempt to build a legacy for himself in Iraq hadn’t failed so disastrously, he wouldn’t be spending five seconds on this issue. Hasn’t he made it plain in the past that he didn’t think that man-made global warming was real?
Beyond which, the use of “Bush” and “leadership” in the same sentence is an oxymoron that must have been coined by an omnimoron.
It is unlikely that mankind will cut their greenhouse gas emissions so drastically, so fast, as to avoid either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming. Not only are we burning all the oil and natural gas recovered, but must increasing burn coal too (worldwide electricity demand is expected to double by 2030). Furthermore, as the earth warms, carbon sinks are becoming carbon emitters, not only dramatically increasing natural emissions, but reducing the CO2 nature removes from the air.
The extremely high cost of completely rebuilding our energy infrastructure is creating political gridlock. Instead, I suggest the low cost method of remove CO2 from the air by improving nature with genetic engineering-perhaps seeding a GMO into the ocean.
Randy did you fall and bump your head? He’ll lead us alright…right off the edge of a glacier.Shiat.
Bush couldn’t lead a horse to water!
China is now the worlds biggest polluter. But they get a pass! Why?
I am a regular reader of your article. And I am very impress with your blog upon Global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon effects and causes of Global Warming. This blog is collection of news & reviews like the study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.
All you do-good types are you willing to make personal sacrifices to “solve” Global warming?
Oh, please tell me who is willing to:
1. Lose their job.
2. Stop using air-conditioning.3. Stop using toilet paper, reading newspapers, magazines, McDonalds wrappers, etc….4. WALK or ride a bike to work. (If you still have a job)5. Have your kids WALK or ride a bike to school.
6. Raise your own personal taxes by $2,000 to pay for envirnomental clean-up mass transportation, and other COSTS of CONTROLLING the Environment.7. Heat your home to just 50 to 60 degrees in the winter time.8. Sell your cars and trucks and start using busses and trains.9. Spend $20,000 of your OWN money on home energy projects like solar, wind, geo, etc…10. Turn off your PC and stay off the Internet.
None of you are. But, some are looking for distractions to real issues, for more government programs and more free handouts.
Fix the REAL problems first!
Energy Dependence on Oil
Social Security/Medicare Fiscal Crisis
Illegal Immigration
Having a right wing meltdown so early this morning Max?
Very constructive comment Drwg, you should be proud!
Tough facing the facts Drwg?
Can’t answer the question?
What sacrifices will YOU make?
None, I bet.
Bush leadership is the last thing the world needs!Pentagon loses track of weapons for Iraqi forces By David Morgan
Mon Aug 6, 12:49 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Pentagon cannot account for 190,000 AK-47 rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, or about half the weapons earmarked for soldiers and police, according to a government report.
ADVERTISEMENTThe Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress, said in a July 31 report to lawmakers that the Defense Department also cannot account for 135,000 items of body armor and 115,000 helmets reported to be issued to Iraqi forces as of September 22, 2005.
The GAO said the Pentagon concurred with its findings and has begun a review to ensure full accountability for the program to train and equip Iraqi forces.
“However, our review of the 2007 property books found continuing problems with missing and incomplete records,” the GAO report said.
The report raised concerns that weapons provided by the United States could be falling into the hands of Iraqi insurgents, just as lawmakers and policymakers in Washington await a September report on the success of U.S. President George W. Bush’s surge strategy for stabilizing Baghdad.
One senior Pentagon official told The Washington Post some weapons probably were being used against U.S. troops. He said an Iraqi brigade created in Fallujah disintegrated in 2004 and began fighting American soldiers.
Many in Washington view the development of effective Iraqi army and police forces as a vital step toward reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.
Since 2003, the United States has provided about $19.2 billion to develop Iraqi security forces, the GAO said. The Defense Department has recently asked for another $2 billion to continue the train-and-equip program.
Congress funded the program for Iraqi security forces outside traditional security assistance programs, providing the Pentagon with a large degree of flexibility in managing the effort, the GAO said.
“Officials stated that since the funding did not go through traditional security assistance programs, the DOD accountability requirements normally applicable to these programs did not apply,” the GAO report said.
Military officials in Iraq reported issuing 355,000 weapons to Iraqi security forces from June 2004 through September 2005, including 185,000 rifles and 170,000 pistols, the GAO said.
But the Defense Department could not account for 110,000 rifles and 80,000 pistols, the GAO said. Those sums amount to about 54 percent of the total weapons distributed to the Iraqi forces.
The GAO quoted officials as saying the agency responsible for handling weapons distribution was too short-staffed to record information on individual items given to Iraqi forces.
Accountability procedures also could not be fully implemented because of the need to equip Iraqi forces rapidly for combat operations, the GAO found.
11. Stop the BBQ. No more gas or charcoal grilling.
12. No more cows or other farm animals. They cause global warming. Become vegetarians.
13. No more Gas lawn mowers. Use a push mower, or better yet, plant prairie grass all over your yard and never mow it.
The Phantom,
Yeah, weapons in Iraq fit right into the Global Warming Debate.
The funny thing is that all these leftist on here scream green, actually they want the government to be green, force rich people to be green (unless your Al Gore or a leftist Democrat Candidate or Democrat Party finance supporter), and of course force the evil corporations to go green. Yet they don’t do a damn thing to be green themselves.
I for one, don’t care about Global Warming or Climate Change, I however do care about pollution. So I go green as much as I can. Self-powered lawnmower, electric moped, CF bulbs, practice conservation, and compost waste.
What say you Leftist?
http://republikan.typepad.com/environmental_thoughts/
The OOPS Factors of Global Warming Alarmists
A May heat wave in western and central Russia broke several temperature records. In Moscow, temperatures on the 28th reached 91.2F, the highest temperature recorded in May since 1891.
Wait a minute! It was warmer back in 1891 with no cars! What’s going on here!
Sixth Highest Temperature on Record in U.S. Caused by El Nino Again! OOPS!
NOAA reports that February’s combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the sixth warmest on record, but a strong El Niño in January helped push the winter to its highest value since records began in 1880.
Our oceans will rise to Flood Stages and will drown many Coastal States!Fourth Assessment from IPCC lowers Global Sea Rise. OOPS!
The biggest story in the summary was largely missed by the environmental media. The IPCC now projects, in its mid-range scenario for carbon dioxide emissions, that the maximum-scenario rise in global sea level in this century will be around 17 inches.
That’s a reduction of 30 percent from what was in the Third Scientific Assessment, published just six years ago.
Satellite imagery: There are 630,000 cubic miles of ice up there. Dividing 25 into 630,000 and multiplying by 100 gives the rate of loss: 0.4 percent of Greenland’s ice per century.
Snows retreating in Northern Hemisphere proved to be false. OOPS!
Data from the Global Snow Laboratory at Rutgers University show total Northern Hemisphere snow cover has been unchanged for the past 20 years.
Hansen, Father of Global Warming changes mind about Carbon Dioxide Emissions. OOPS!
Dr. James Hansen, who in 1988 issued the opening volley in the debate over global warming, argued recently that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), not carbon dioxide released from burning fossil fuels, are the actual culprits of climate change.
Hansen claims now that carbon dioxide is not a main culprit in climate change. Methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and diesel and coal soot trap heat more effectively than does C02, explained Hansen. He also noted these are more easily reduced than C02 emissions and would face fewer of the political hurdles that currently slow efforts to curb global warming.
“Had anyone followed Hansen’s policy prescriptions 10 years ago,” noted Ken Green of the Reason Public Policy Institute, “the wasted resources would be in the billions, for no gain, and in fact, could have exacerbated the problem, if there is a problem.”
I am willing to sacrifice for global warming. Whatever I can do to speed it along. I heard passing gas is useful, I can do that provided someone provides the beer.
I’m looking forward to a few palm trees in my backyard.
Corona beer commericals filmed in Kansas!
Max–
Now that Fleettwood has stopped posting, you may be the next “blog’s dumbest post-er” or BDP for short.
We don’t need to live like Amish-men to have a huge impact on C02 emissions.
Slightly more efficient cars, more wind and solar power, better windows and insulation, geothermal heating and cooling, switching out incandescent lighting for flourescent . . . many little changes add up to something big.
Housing-for-humanity are building low cost houses that generate MORE energy than they use and pump electricity back into the grid.
The green technology is here right now. What we need is the political leadership to do something about it.
Bush obviously isn’t that man.
Worst.President.Ever.
Stupity is believing that we can take trillions of tons of coal and oil–carbon–that has been stored in the ground for geological epochs and burn it as fast as we can without changing the environment in any significant way . . .
Joe! Figures I have seen still put China behind the US. And, in a per capita sense FAR behind us.
That said, China (and India) MUST be included. However, the US must lead; especially with technology.
A Catch-22 for some of my environmentalist friends: dealing with this will require NUCLEAR, and lots of it. Not nuclear alone – wind, efficiency, etc – but still lots of nuclear.
Thus my ’swords into plowshares’ nuclear proposal.
Stupidity is also misspelling “stupidity.” Oops, my bad.
I’m not so sure about that, Ben.
Nuclear power plants take a helluva lot of oil to BUILD, and they only last about 25 years when they become so radioactive they are unsafe.
Then you’ve got the energy required to store and transport the spent fuel . . . (unless you turn it into tank shells and blow it all over a battlefield like we’re doing in Iraq, but I digress).
Putting solar panels on all the flat topped buildings in our major cities would generate about HALF of all the electricity those cities use at much lower cost and environmental impact.
The green technology is here right now. What we need is the political leadership to do something about it.
Democrats in congressobviously aren’t the ones.
Worst.Congress.Ever.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
After weeks of uncertainty, House Democrats have decided against a confrontation over automobile fuel economy when they take up energy legislation later this week.
Two proposals to boost the required mileage for new automobiles were submitted Wednesday for consideration as amendments to the energy legislation, but they were withdrawn by their Democratic sponsors.
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., sponsor of a proposal to boost vehicle mileage to 35 miles per gallon by 2019, said he decided not to pursue the matter after consulting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Yup, the Dems are so busy “positioning” themselves for the next election, the world goes to hell around them.
They couldn’t take a principled stance if their lives depended on it, which it does . . .
Mandatory C02 “Caps” = OUTSOURCING JOBS TO CHINA AND INDIA!
Sacrifice?
That is for the “little people” — While Al Gore and John Edwards and John Kerry each use more “carbon” than the average city block!
When the federal government enacts MPG ratings they do more to discourage the building of “green” cars than if there was no regulation at all.
Private enterprise and competition is driving green and hybrid cars.
Ford and GMC are rapidly gearing up to compete with the hot selling Honda’s and Toyota’s already out there.
Why? BECAUSE DEALERS CANNOT KEEP HYBRIDS ON THE LOT. They are selling like hotcakes.
But if the government gives industry until 2020 to reach standards which hybrids already exceed today -
you have squashed the rapid development.
Putting solar panels on all the flat topped buildings in our major cities would generate about HALF of all the electricity those cities use at much lower cost and environmental impact.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 06, 2007 at 08:52 AM
That doesn’t sound right to me. THe solar panels I have checked into don;t generate anywhere near that power per square footage.
Can – consider this:
Take obsolete decommissioned warheads. For example, the US bought Ukraines warheads after the fall of the Soviet Union to get them off the market. Back-mix the highly-enriched weapons-grade material with Depleted Uranium (the stuff we have been using as tank shells). That creates ‘low-enriched’ fuel-grade material. THAT becomes the fuel.
The waste problem is real – but it is with us anyway. We have all this stuff in storage today; I am simply calling upon us to use it.
Estimates I have seen are that there is sufficient fissile material available to fuel us for centuries. This is not using ALL warheads; only those slated for decommissioning anyway.
Why do we expect Bush, an oil man, to give one hoot about global warming? Greedy oilman and global warming do not go together.
“Ford and GMC are rapidly gearing up to compete with the hot selling Honda’s and Toyota’s already out there.”
Are they? Head of GM recently stated otherwise.
Next time you are buying a car go into your local Chevy dealership and ask for an EV-1. Watch their reaction.
The Bush Ranch in Texas is more “green” and energy efficient than the home of ANY leading Democrat.
In his personal life, Bush has shown far more leadership than Al Gore, John Kerry or John Edwards or the Clintons!
Do you have some backup on that ‘green ranch’?
Ben-Just a couple of posts
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm
“Bush leadership is the last thing the world needs!”
Ditto.
I dont think the “world” can stand or would tolerate any more of the preznit’s “leadership”.
And because the democrats in congress serve the same masters as the republicans, and because they dont want to get their lilly white hands dirty…
…I guess they will be content to let bushco run out the clock and then run out of the country so they wont be punished for their crimes.
Meet the new boss same as the old boss. “Leadership” out of washington?
hehehehe. That’s about as good as expecting sebelius to live up to her nic as “governor leadership”.
Remember the old joke? “Where are they? How many of them were there? Which direction were they heading? I must know, I AM THEIR LEADER!”
LJ–
I got that statistic (about solar power generating half the power needs of the city) from a documentary film entitled “Kilowatt Ours.”
Here’s their site: http://www.kilowattours.org/
Thanks lj. Too bad that is not practiced more widely.
He interviews a guy who converted his entire 5,000 square foot house into an energy PRODUCING complex, with solar hot water, solar power and wind power.
It cost 20K–the price of a new car–and his energy bills (except for maintenance etc.) will be ZERO forever.
He’ll recover his costs in ten years or less and be forever free of the grid and rising fuel costs . . .
An observation. When I visited the Cosmosphere recently I saw re-plays of JFK’s speech “we will put a man on the moon.” They also showed clips showing the state of our technology – rockets blowing up on the launch pad.
I remember that speech. we all scoffed – there was no way we could do it. WE DID.
Back then we did NOT have the technology but JFK gave us the will and leadership. Today we have most of the technology. Howeverm we do not have the will or leadership.
CapnAmerica-
SunPower says it has managed to increase efficiency of the silicon cells from 20 percent to 22 percent. Further, the 5-foot by 3-and-a-half-foot panels will pack 96 individual cells within them, compared to the 72 contained in the company’s current product.
Extra: Bloggers consider forming labor union Overall, these changes result in a 43 percent increase in power, said Julie Blunden, vice president of external affairs at SunPower. Each panel can generate 315 watts of electricity and will have roughly the same cost per watt as the existing line, she said.
5 x 3 1/2 foot panle = 345 watts.
I realize this is just one source, But I can find nothing in literatur that descrives output such as would be needed. Plus, add the storage capacity needed because of nighttime, smnog, clouds, etc. I just don;t see it possible yet. However, research is ongoing.
And the guys house is where? Huge factors of location, genreal surroundings, etc all come into play. and one house is not a city.
Good for a technology research and demonstration product, but I personally have trouble extraoplating that to 1/2 of a major cities needs. Some of which never (sleep).
I am not against solar, I just don;t think it’s there yet
“In Moscow, temperatures on the 28th reached 91.2F, the highest temperature recorded in May since 1891.
Wait a minute! It was warmer back in 1891 with no cars! What’s going on here!”Posted by: Kansas | August 06, 2007 at 07:12 AM
1998 was the warmest year ever recorded.
‘2007 global temperature the 2nd-warmest ever recorded’http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2007-07-17-global-temperatures_N.htm“The Earth’s temperature for the first six months of the year was the second-warmest ever recorded, government scientists reported today.
The average temperature of the planet was 1.13 degrees above average, which trails only 1998 for the warmest January-June period on record. January-June 1998 was 1.15 degrees above average….In Moscow, temperatures on the 28th reached 91.2°F, the highest temperature recorded in May since 1891.”
Ben
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14206712/site/newsweek/
“Sixth Highest Temperature on Record in U.S. Caused by El Nino Again! OOPS!”Posted by: Kansas | August 06, 2007 at 07:12 AM
‘Global December-February Temperature Warmest On Record’http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070316164359.htm
“The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the sixth warmest on record in February, but a record warm January helped push the winter (December-February) to its HIGHEST value since records began in 1880 (1.30 degrees F/0.72 degrees C above the 20th century mean).
El Niño conditions CONTRIBUTED to the season’s record warmth, but the episode RAPIDLY WEAKENED in February, as ocean temperatures in the central equatorial Pacific cooled more than 0.5 degrees F/0.3 degrees C and were NEAR AVERAGE for the month.”
So… where’s repuke today? Did he get his ass banned finally or do you think he is just sleeping of the meds and alcohol?
Hmmmm…. no porno or viagra spam today either….
It will be interesting to see how this works out:
“World’s first carbon-free cityGet ready for the world’s first carbon-free city — smack-dab in the center of the oil-rich Middle East. Business 2.0 Magazine reports.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/08/01/100138819/index.htm?postversion=2007080611
Paul, about Bush’s estate, he bought it right before he ran for President so he could give the impression that he’s some sort of rugged Texan, rather than some frat boy from MA who lives in a mansion. Naturally a recently built home will be more energy efficient than a house nearly a hundred years old.
David Heymann, the architect of the estate, is a known environmentalist so the green aspects of the house were a part of his design and nothing to do with Bush whose top requests were to have a king size bed and a good shower.
Thanks for once again promoting some half-truths Paul, at least you’re consistent.
Bring on Global Warming!!
See the changes on the planting Zone Hardiness Mapfrom 1990 to 2006. I may be able to buy my Palm Treesbefore too long!
(caution: This map may shock deciduous tree huggers)
http://www.arborday.org/media/map_change.cfm
Better order your Palm Trees today:
http://www.sunpalmtrees.com/Cold-Hardy-Palm-Trees.htm
A ranch in Texas can grow palm trees:
http://www.bigpalmtrees.com/
How far north will palm trees survive?
Certain varieties of palms will survive in single digit temperatures with light snow, other varieties must have at least 40 degrees to survive.
From mother nature’s changes.
“The IPCC now projects, in its mid-range scenario for carbon dioxide emissions, that the maximum-scenario rise in global sea level in this century will be around 17 inches.”Posted by: Kansas | August 06, 2007 at 07:12 AM
Source:’What’s Hot, and What’s Not’by Patrick J. Michaels
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8149
‘Patrick MichaelsPaid by fossil fuel industry’http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1567
‘FACTSHEET: Patrick J. Michaels’http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.htmlFrequently Asked Question 5.1′Is Sea Level Rising?’An important uncertainty relates to whether discharge of ice from the ice sheets will continue to increase as a consequence of accelerated ice flow, as has been observed in recent years. This would add to the amount of sea level rise, but quantitative projections of how much it would add cannot be made with confidence, owing to limited understanding of the relevant processes.
Capn
Those solar panels are not without their own environmental costs to build, transport, and install. I don’t know what that cost is but it’s something to consider.
I’m with Ben, Go nuke. Bigtime.
“From mother nature’s changes.”
Posted by: There is much to gain | August 06, 2007 at 11:29 AM
“Mother nature” did not cause CO2 in our Earth’s atmosphere to rise sharply — humans did that.
‘Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter’http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638
Not to mention the sharp rise of human-added methane, N2O, CFC’s HFC’s, SF6, etc..
Heckler – but also go wind, solar, biomass …
What exactly is the harm in CO2?
Ben
My concern is not global warming/climate change. My concern is energy independence, so my priorities may not be as “green” as yours. While I have nothing against solar energy ( A.S. in Solar Energy Utilization Technology from KTI in Salina) I don’t see it as a high impact solution like widespread nuclear energy.
Doug
Compare “Bush’s Estate” to the energy use and waste of Gore, Clinton, Clinton, Kerry and Edwards!
For the record, Gore is installing a geothermal heating and cooling system, so his 10,000 sq. foot mansion with three offices in it will soon be using about 1/5th the energy it was using before.
Those stats you Repukes keep throwing around are already out-dated.
But don’t let the facts stop you from repeating your convenient lies . . .
But don’t let the facts stop you from repeating your convenient lies . . .
Posted by: CapnAmerica
Relax your manhood, I don’t think anyone lied. Maybe they had information from a different source than you. Maybe it was not as current.
Maybe it is still current untilGore’s expensive installation is complete (and someone compares the energy expended to install it to what he would have used).
But I don’t think people deliberately LIE on this blog.
Why would someone do that? What would be the purpose?
They have to realize other posters will verify the information posted. So why lie?
One problem with nuclear is it’s not cost-competitive.
(emphasis added)http://www.oilendgame.com“In round numbers, electricity from new light-water reactors will cost TWICE as much as from new windfarms, FIVE to TEN times as much as distributed gas-fired cogeneration or trigeneration in buildings and factories (net of the credit for their recovered heat), and THREE to THIRTY times as much as end-use efficiency that can save most of the electricity now used.
Any one of these three abundant and widely available competitors alone could knock nuclear power out of the market, and there are three, with more on the way (ultimately including cheap fuel cells).”
It also takes a long time to build nuclear plants. And if a large # are built, fuel costs will probably rise.
A few new nuclear plants will probably be built (with tax-payer subsidies) — and then the economic realities will likely block additional ones.
Thanks for reposting what I posted cosmos, but all are facts.
And in the case of the sea level, that is an admission from the fourth IPCC (your heroes) as they had to revise (once again) their scare campaigns.
Just because you don’t like the scientists cosmos, doesn’t mean their information isn’t accurate according to their interpretation.
Notice how this summer in Kansas has had the fewest temperatures above 100 degrees in decades? Where is the press on that? The MSM and Alarmist would rather pull quotes from Death Valley or some other extreme temperature location.
Notice how quiet the alarmists are on temperature recording locations? The ones setting near heat reflecting tarmacs in airports or the ones setting in boxes near mechanical air condition units. You won’t hear about these artificially skewed temperature recording devices in the MSM or anywhere else because the alarmist want to continue to scare you with bad or incomplete data.
Or that Climate Models which almost the entire IPCC climate change predictions are based on are incomplete and use mathematical modeling theories that are contested by even the modelers themselves. Even cosmos has admitted that the models do not use all the data from every aspect of climate to come to a conclusion.
So these Climate Models which are incomplete, use disputed formulas and ignore data from all aspects of climate are what we are basing our future on?
Let’s do it the correct way and do slow, deliberate and careful science. Not the rush rush, “buy my vacuum cleaner” science of the IPCC.
How cares about global warming in the future?
It’s like someone posted the other day on Social Security: “Are you going to be around in the year 2080?”
(and no, I’m not interested in a day long discussion on SS. Please, disregrad this post if that sets SS folks off.)
LJ–
The guy’s house was in Tennessee.
DATE: 6/2007
Gore’s renovation project, which he said has been in the works for months, seeks to meet the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, standards established by the U.S. Green Building Council.
Once his upscale neighborhood changed zoning laws earlier this year, Gore was able to place solar panels on his roof, and he’s now preparing to install a geothermal system that will, among other things, drastically reduce the cost of heating his pool.
Gore is also upgrading windows and ductwork, installing more energy-efficient light bulbs and creating a rainwater collection system for irrigation and water management.
The home houses offices for Gore and his wife, Tipper, as well as a commercial kitchen for formal events.
*****
His neighborhood didn’t even permit solar panels, but he got it rezoned.
It’ll be interesting to see what his energy bills look like after all this work.
Also, what we’re talking about is C02, not cost. The Gore’s spend a lot more money on their energy bills because they buy carbon offsets and green energy.
That is expensive.
But there’s no slime so slimy that the global-warming deniers won’t throw it.
Capn
Buying energy offsets is like paying someone else to not eat and saying you are on a diet. It’s a scam.
But there’s no slime so slimy that the global-warming deniers won’t throw it.
Posted by: CapnAmerica |
No slime so slimy.
You need to patent that.
Energy Offsets are the new “indulgences” given out by the Church of Goofy Greendom.
Paul, when were those houses built compared to when Bush’s was built? As usual you ignore the facts to promote your propaganda. You’re a proven liar and you just keep on proving it.
BTW, where’s that loyalty oath I had to sign?
Many-named Kansas,
So basically:
You can’t understand the difference between GLOBAL and regional areas (Siberia, Kansas, etc..)?
You can’t understand that 1998 (not 1891) was the warmest year?
You can’t understand that 2007, with a weak El Nino, will be almost as warm as 1998, that had a strong El Nino?You can’t understand that the IPCC says it can’t predict future sea level rises due to uncertainty related “to whether discharge of ice from the ice sheets will continue to increase as a consequence of accelerated ice flow, as has been observed in RECENT years”?
You can’t understand that the Urban Heat Island effect has been factored out.
You can’t understand that the computer climate models HAVE successfully predicted the observed warming during recent years.
‘Climate myths: We can’t trust computer models’http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11649 (see graphs)
And you can’t understand that our inability to 100% accurately predict future REGIONAL climate is a very strong reason to reduce human-added GHG’s — and try to minimize the changes.
Bush and Leadership shouldn’t be used in the same sentence. Damn I did it too!
Anyone read about Lake Superior about to set a record low, and has recorded a record high water temp.?
“Let’s do it the correct way and do slow, deliberate and careful science. Not the rush rush, “buy my vacuum cleaner” science of the IPCC.”
Posted by: the many-named Kansas
1) There has been a HUGE amount of “slow, deliberate and careful” peer-reviewed climate science done since the 1970’s.
2) The IPCC does NOT do climate science — they only compile the science into reports.
3) The IPCC reports are conservative, and don’t include some very important factors such as postive natural feedbacks.
4) The IPCC reports don’t include the most recent (unpublished) climate science.
Yes phantom – I read that. And the great experiment continues …
Ben,
Too bad we can’t all move to the experiments “control” planet Earth.
It’s also a carbon source,’Shrinking Lake Superior Also Heating Up’http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070803-shrinking-lake.html
“) The IPCC does NOT do climate science — they only compile the science into reports.”
I don;t have a horse in this race, but are they selective in the reports they compile?Just wondering.
littlejohn,
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm
“The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.”
Thanks Cosmos,Then I assume all peer reviewd and published literature is used in their assessment, not just selective. I appreciate the information.
10,000 experts can’t be wrong.
“Oh, please tell me who is willing to:
1. Lose their job.
2. Stop using air-conditioning.3. Stop using toilet paper, reading newspapers, magazines, McDonalds wrappers, etc….4. WALK or ride a bike to work. (If you still have a job)5. Have your kids WALK or ride a bike to school.
6. Raise your own personal taxes by $2,000 to pay for envirnomental clean-up mass transportation, and other COSTS of CONTROLLING the Environment.7. Heat your home to just 50 to 60 degrees in the winter time.8. Sell your cars and trucks and start using busses and trains.9. Spend $20,000 of your OWN money on home energy projects like solar, wind, geo, etc…10. Turn off your PC and stay off the Internet.
None of you are. But, some are looking for distractions to real issues, for more ”
Who says that none of us are?
1. More jobs will be created and few will be lost. For example, shutting down an old coal power plant might lose 200 jobs. But building and running a big new nuclear plant will add probably 1000 jobs!
2. You don’t have to stop using air conditioning. You have to use highly efficient air units that are equipped with addrssable switches that allow the power company to manage peak demand by cycling AC units. We have an efficient heat pump in our house.
3. Newspapers are a highly wasteful and inefficient way to spread news content these days. With the internet and 24 hour a day cable news channels, newspapers need to marry TV and the internet and have their own 24/7 video and written content. As for toilet paper, yes we still need it but we can switch to single ply- well then again maybe not!
4. Don’t walk but did ride a bus and subway for years. Have a company vehicle now becaise I do field service. But if I still worked in Midtown, yes the subway worked fine and was cheaper than parking.
5. Kids walked to grade school, ride the bus to high school.
6. I don’t mind paying a bit extra but it probably is not $2000 or anywhere near that much. We pay 1 cents in sales taxes for the Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transportation system. I don’t mind it at all. Well worth the money and even 2 cents!
7. In the winter, 60 degrees is fine at night and in bed. use blankets. Use a programmable thermostat summer and winter.
8. See #4. We have our vehicles but do not use them on a daily basis. My wife uses her car maybe 2 times weekly.
9. You can do very simple things and not spend lots of money. You can do things like weather sealing, change you bulbs to the new floerescent ones or LED lights (I think incandesant bulbs should be banned as Australia has shown the wisdom to so).
10. Not a chance in Hell! But unlike some people, it doesn’t stay on 24/7 when not in use.
“But I don’t think people deliberately LIE on this blog.
Why would someone do that? What would be the purpose?
They have to realize other posters will verify the information posted. So why lie?”
Posted by: Nobody lied | August 06, 2007 at 12:34 PM
They do posts LIES, because:
1) That’s what they base their opinions on.2) They are unable to admit that their opinions are based on lies.
As others have pointed out cosmos, when I put in quotes from scientists , that is the scientist opinion.
If you want to accuse the scientist of lying that’s fine, just be prepared to prove every detail that they are lying and be prepared to debate them face to face. If you can’t then I wouldn’t put some a bold statement that someone is lying.
A reasonable scientist would not make such a statement from either side cosmos. Do you think Al Gore would approve of such rhetoric cosmos? Of course he wouldn’t, but Vice President Gore appears to be much more mature than you cosmos.
You can disagree with people without calling them liars. It’s very simple cosmos, you should try it.
I am so confused… What happened to the big deep freeze we were supposed to be in by now? Wasn’t it in the 1970’s these environuts started telling us we were going to die when we were over run by ice bergs, wooly mammoths and saber tooth tigers? The change from deep freeze to heat wave has never been explained, has it? How did we defeat that disaster only to be mixed up into the new disaster? Oh well, I guess ALGORE must know the real story, right? After all he is the one who invented the Internet and Carbon Credits!
“As others have pointed out cosmos, when I put in quotes from scientists , that is the scientist opinion.
…You can disagree with people without calling them liars. It’s very simple cosmos, you should try it.”
Posted by: the many-named Kansas
Okay… PROVE that the IPCC does this kind of science.
“Not the rush rush, “buy my vacuum cleaner” science of the IPCC.”Posted by: Kansas | August 06, 2007 at 12:48 PM
And then prove your INACCURATE claims that the IPCC reports are “op-eds”, the Airborne targeting laser is megawatt-class, and the New Orleans levees failed because of Sierra Club lawsuits against them.
cosmos, I don’t have to prove anything do I?
I suggest extremely, very strongly that you move on from your constant harassing dialog.
This is your very last warning.
This is your very last warning.Posted by: Kansas | August 07, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Or what? Is this another threat, troll?
What are you going to do? Show up at Cosmos’ house uninvited? Burglarize Cosmos’ business? Punch Cosmos in the face?
Exactly what does “very last warning” mean? What do you intend the consequences to be?
Share with us. Don’t be shy. Don’t be coy.
Be honest.
For a change.
No, it means I will report him for multiple daily postings of him calling me liar. It’s all documented and packaged ready to go.
Don’t threaten. Just do it.
See where it gets you.
“This is your very last warning.”
Posted by: Kansas | August 07, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Does that mean you’re leaving this blog?
EXCELLENT! This blog should have, and support an honest, accurate, and non-threatening debate.
No, I believe everyone deserves a chance.
I’ve written cosmos several times about this issue and he refuses to stop.
I don’t make the consequences for this Blog, so I submit what I feel is disruptive or objectionable behavior.
“I am so confused… What happened to the big deep freeze we were supposed to be in by now? Wasn’t it in the 1970’s these environuts started telling us we were going to die when we were over run by ice bergs,” (blah, blah blah).
Posted by: yitsme | August 07, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Yes, you do seem to be VERY confused,
‘Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s’http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643
Let’s see…
Disruptive and objectionable vs. threatening and intimidating.
Which should I pick?
Hmmm…
“I don’t make the consequences for this Blog, so I submit what I feel is disruptive or objectionable behavior.”Posted by: Kansas | August 07, 2007 at 12:36 AM
And I consider your posting LIES about the IPCC, the Sierra Club, myself, other posters, etc. VERY “disruptive or objectionable behavior”.
Not to mention your threatening posts, which were deleted.
So please complain (again?) to Mr. Brownlee about my posts, and let him decide if I should be banned.
Fine cosmos, consider all my postings lies and I will consider all of your postings lies and leftist eco-terrorist propaganda.
See, two can play your games.
Don’t feed the VERY reading-comprehension challenged troll…