Everybody knows that House Speaker Melvin Neufeld (in photo), R-Ingalls, thinks the coal-fired plant expansion proposed near Holcomb is a good thing for Kansas. But Neufeld also thinks global warming is a good thing for Kansas. “We’re raising better crops. Our farm economy is better. Our cattle are better off than they were 100 years ago,” Neufeld told Harris News Service.
Cornfields will offset the plants’ carbon emissions, he said, and no one is sure what’s causing global warming. But “certainly climate change is a benefit,” he said.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
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
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
172 Comments
It is good for Kansas. Soon you might even have nice warm winters there with no snow!
g.d. where do these d.a. people come from.
i can see several people who comment here agreeing with this …ahhh, person.
does anyone still wonder why we have spent 100’s of billions in crapraq, and will waste even more?
“It is good for Kansas. Soon you might even have nice warm winters there with no snow!”
Posted by: Kev | September 30, 2007 at 01:10 AM
Future generations, will get more than “no snow”.
http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/glimpactmigrating.html
Yeah soil erosion and less water for agriculture will do wonders for Kansas. Is there a requirement that Republicans like Neufield have below average IQ to be in office?
Global Warming will help some regions and devastate others.
Some warming is good for us. But! It may be good for grazing cattle and some crops, but not corn. If farmers continue to grow corn in our temperate climate with heavy irrigation, they will drain the aquifer.
Plus our agri-business relies heavily on government subsidies. The farmers are nothing but socialist welfare queens.
We don’t grow peaches or watermelon anymore like we did in the past. Kansas was known to be the best place for watermelon, but it takes a lot of labor to pick it and care to grow it. They decided that grain crops is better, because government subsidizes it. Government doesn’t subsidize fruit.
Old cold war relic policy when we used to grow grain to send to USSR to negotiate. We don’t do that anymore. All those grain elevators you see dotting the Kansas landscape was all paid for by the Federal Government to use to negotiate policy for grain with 3rd world countries. Now they just take the excess grain off the market to keep the market artificially high and let it rot on the docks of Houston, Texas.
Even new crops growing in Kansas like cotton, sunflower and safflower is all subsidize.
“Is there a requirement that Republicans like Neufield have below average IQ to be in office?”
Naw, they’re born that way.
Finally, a topic for Cosmos!
I have never been a winter person, I only rode the beautiful new sled my parent got me for Christmas once. While every kid on the block could claim to have ridden it many times. But even I am worried about the lack of real winter. No to me his thinking is like the thought of eating babies, they are full of protein, an abundant source of food and would end the need for abortion. Though at first there could be a arguable logic to it. The end result would be one of ending the species and not benefiting it in the long run.
A Modest Proposal Writerdog!
Makes too much sense!
Yes making sense seems to be my greatest downfall at times. LOL
They’re forecasting a milder winter than normal this year.
That’s been kind of a trend for Kansas for a number of years. I remember going to my cousin’s house to watch a football game, maybe the first Super Bowl? We trudged through hip deep snow in sub-zero temps that had hung on for almost a month (I was 90 miles north of here).
You just don’t see that kind of weather here anymore. The temp dips below zero maybe 2-3 times a year.
Something is going on. What causes it? Who knows for sure?
‘xxx’ wrote: “Something is going on. What causes it? Who knows for sure?”
EXACTLY! So lets not destroy our economy until we know more.
Kansas used to be number one in apples, but many were made into cider. Prohibition came along, and no more apples. Same happened to our grapes and wines. The Jesus freaks prevailed in KS I believe until 1948. By that time, California and the west coast had all of our business. A lesson to religious conservatives. Your way not only sucks, but sucks economically.
Well, it looks like Political Mom was right about Jerry Moran. No good can come from praising a repuke. Give them a couple of days and they will disgrace themselves again.
Republicans FOR the holcomb plant will give kathleen, and steve miller, exactly what they want.
No water in western kansas. And they can make kansas ANOTHER laughing stock. And this time? It has nothing to do with the jesus freaks. Nope. This is too stupid even for them.
So if melvin and the rest of the repukes have joined in with the no nothing democrats in kansas to drain the water…
Who will help us save the water in kansas?
(crickets chirping)
What are these right wing nut jobs thinking? Wait, did my question imply that they actually think?
70% of the population of this country lives within 100mi of a coastline. Should all the polar ice melt and raise the sea level by 300ft, Kansas real estate is going to go through the roof! We’re sitting on a potential gold mine folks.
Republicans like this guy never cease to amaze me. Turning global catastrophe into a regional plus.
They’re like freaking Monty Python singing “Always look on the bright side of life”Hey he missed one. Since Kansas is about as inland as it gets, we shall have hordes or refugees from both coasts fleeing the rising waters to come live here! Real estate values will skyrocket!
When talking about global warming, there are a few questions that must be dealt with.
First, is climate warming? The answer, though not definitive yet, is probably yes. We can readily see some evidence of that happening.
The Earth is a dynamic system, which means it is constantly in flux. Average temperatures are continually moving up or down. Equilibrium would mean that the system was dead. In spite of what Al Gore says, there never has been a time of equilibrium in the system, and that’s a good thing.
Second, if temps are going up, what is the cause? Is it Man’s contribution of greenhouse gases? Conventional wisdom (as portrayed in most of the media, anyway) says ‘yes’. But the truth is that that is a hypothesis, not even a full-fledged theory yet, and certainly not an established scientific fact. Let me explain:
Obviously we can’t put the Earth into a laboratory and experiment on it. Experiments must be done on climate models. Scientists formulate a hypothesis, plug their assumptions into the model, and then see if the model can predict reality.
Even the best climate models don’t predict reality very well. Thirty-five years ago NASA’s James Hansen was designing climate models that showed an ice age was imminent; today he designs models that show the climate is heating up. But the track record of the models is just as dismal. Heck, the Old Farmer’s Almanac does a better job of predicting weather patterns and climate trends. The assumptions that are programmed into the model must be incredibly complex. In fact, more complex than our understanding of climate at this point. It’s really no big surprise that the models don’t have a great track record. It’s not something to feel too bad about or be embarrassed about. It’s just the way it is.
So what’s going on? Why all the hysteria? Some say that the “reality of global warming” is even worse than predicted. Could that be?
That’s one explanation offered by the manmade global warming enthusiasts, but a simpler, scientific, and less hysterical explanation is simply that one or more of the assumptions programmed into the models are incorrect. That just means the hypothesis is flawed. Perhaps something else is going on than the researcher expected. It does not prove or disprove the scientists’ opinions, or establish cause and effect. Garbage in, garbage out, as the saying goes.
But is there a “consensus”?
I love to point out the fact that there are still scientists studying gravity, and that’s one area most people thought was settled long ago, right? Can I see a show of hands? And another thing to think about is that ‘consensus’ really isn’t a scientific term. It’s more of a political term.
So how do we get from a flawed hypothesis to a sound scientific theory? The short answer is: we don’t. The hysteria is due to politics and propaganda.
How do we get from politics and propaganda to an established scientific fact? Again, we don’t, obviously. What we get is more politics and perhaps public policy.
Why? In two words: money and power.
More taxes. Higher prices on energy (and everything that uses energy to make or transport – Have you noticed what has happened to the price of grain, for instance? Stop and think about the effect of higher food and heating costs on the world’s poor.) Control of energy sources. Sales of books, ‘carbon offsets’, and myriad ‘green’ merchandise.
Does it bother the True Believer that Al Gore has 200 million dollars in the bank from selling carbon offsets, which do nothing to actually help the environment? That his prediction of a 10-foot rise in sea level is echoed by not one scientist anywhere? No, of course not. Some people want to be scared. Impending catastophe is supremely sexy.
Does it bother the True Believer to learn that many of the scientists involved in the IPCC project sued to have their names removed from the report?
Does it bother the True Believer that the grandfather of global warming politics is a man named Maurice Strong, a big UN muckety-muck who happens to be a communist, eugenicist and de-populationist? No, of course not. Those same people craving catastrophe probably don’t understand the implications of those words.
It is an understatement to say there is disinformation and subterfuge coming from all sides on this issue. This very piece you are reading could be chock-full of disinformation, so it’s imperative that you do your own research.
An example of disinformation is Greenpeace members protesting, calling for President Bush to sign Kyoto, when they know full well that the US signed Kyoto way back in 1998 under Clinton/Gore! The fact is, Bush CAN’T sign it, since it’s already signed, but that doesn’t stop the protesting and name-calling does it? And apparently not one journalist has noticed the disparity. (and Bush has never mentioned it, either. Go figure.)
That is disinformation in a nutshell. Watch for it.
Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace and current board member of the Sierra Club, once said “If you don’t know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then … make it up on the spot.”
Al Gore once said something similar: “When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler.”
Carl Amery, a founder of the German green movement, has said “We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.” Read that sentence again and let it sink in. It would take a LOT of propaganda and programming to pull that off, wouldn’t it?
Paul Watson again, says “We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.” He doesn’t say exactly how he would like to accomplish that, but disposing of 6 billion people would be problematic. Doesn’t he know that rotting corpses give off greenhouse gases?
Lyall Watson (no relation, other than their faith), biologist and author, says that “Cannibalism is a radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.” Yes, he really said that.
I’m sure the majority of environmentalists aren’t this far off their rockers, but these are some of the leaders of the movement. And think again about those higher food and energy costs and billions of poor folks struggling to make ends meet.
Maurice Strong (mentioned above), a senior UN advisor and director of the Temple of Understanding, is a little more laid back: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring about?”
But politics and global evil aside, should we be concerned about climate change? The answer to that is an unqualified ‘maybe’. So wouldn’t it be nice to just let the scientists work without all the propaganda and hysteria?
Bottom line: Don’t let anybody take your money or freedom based on a hypothesis. Real science is not done by a show of hands. Recognize the doomsayers, propagandists, and slanted journalists (and bloggers) for who they are and get on with life.
And think carefully about the people who tell you “the science is settled and it’s time for action”. Please don’t perpetuate the politics and the disinformation at the expense of the science. As Lenin famously pointed out: “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”.
Also, don’t twist anything I’ve said to mean that I’m some sort of anti-conservationist. I’m all for conservation (as we all should be), whether we are talking about energy, or species, or habitat, or preserving air or water quality, or other ‘green’ technologies, or whatever. That’s not really what this argument is about. It’s about controlling energy use, and robbing people to pay for it (okay, TAXING for the ‘progressives’ and other business-as-usual-types) – to create a ’solution’ to a ‘problem’ that is still in the hypothesis stage scientifically.
Thank you Ron that was…
Well it was long.
Addressing climate change proactively has no downsides. Well except for the fossil fuels industries anyway.
The fossil fuel industry will be around when everyone reading this is dead and burried.We will all be transported to our grave by a hearse burning gasoline or diesel.Or cremated by Natural gas.
Neufeld is simply being realistic: There is NOT a THING we can do to control the weather.
Therefore: DEAL WITH IT!
Change is coming EconPaulie.
Your portfolio aside, change is coming.
The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of rocks.
Why are some so doubtful of the ingenuity and goodness of the American people? Don’t they love their conuntry and want it to be better? Don’t they want us to be independent of the resources of other nations?
Oh yeah, the portfollio.
For the record?
I don’t love my conuntry. I don’t even know what that is other than my bad fingers :)
I do love and believe in my country and its capacity to bury the fossil fuel age and all its attendant difficulties.
JRLook, you come up with a good alternative, and I will be first in line to sign up for it.
There is NO such thing on the horizon.
NOTHING will completely replace carbon-based fuels.
Yes there are some promising ideas for conservation.
There is a new idea on how to “burn” water.
Anything that saves us money or time will be purchased. Anything that can turn a profit will generate investments.
There is NOTHING out there that can even come close, today.
JROil companies sue people, including oil companies, all the time.Investors take oil companies to court all the time.There is no “grand conspiracy” keeping any “great discovery” from the rest of us.The markets are dictated by profit motive.If a new idea comes along that makes some sense, the OIL COMPANIES will be the first to use that idea, and invest in that idea.Ever notice those solar panels on the energy pipelines, for data transmission?
Hatred for “big oil” will not substitute for driving people to the grocery store or the hospital, or for powering the tractor that produces crops, or for heating our homes and keeping our food from spoiling.
Hatred for “Big Oil” — and for capitalism in general, does go a long way towards explaining the “Global Warming” hysteria, however.
There is NO viable alternative to carbon-based fuels in our lifetimes.
We can supplement.
I am all for wind power, but we can’t expect wind to substitute for Coal or Natural Gas or Gasoline on a large scale, anytime soon.
The right thing is rarely the easy thing Econ. Change aint only hard, it’s opposed by those with a vested interest in the status quo.
I want better for America than that.
I’m gonna admit something here that no one would ever expect from me.
We have to stay in Iraq.
Let me qualify that. If we do not find ways to conserve and new energy sources to supplant and replace fossil fuels, we have no choice but to maintain a US military garrison on the Arabian peninsula (the mid east).
We are reaching peak oil. The demands for oil from China and India are increasing exponentially. Our entire economy and way of life is dependant on not just petroleum but cheap petroleum.
The handlers of bush I give credit. They saw this coming. They had a choice. They took the easy one. Well, easy if you are not on the ground in Iraq or have a loved one there.
It’s up to us. Do we want to pay the price in blood and money for cheap oil? Or do we want to hurt a little for the short term in order to find a new way not just for us but for the world?
Anything that saves us money or time will be purchased. Anything that can turn a profit will generate investments.
There is NOTHING out there that can even come close, today.
Posted by: Econ101 | September 30, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Econ is a “free-marketeerian.” Like a Presbyterian or Episcoplian, they have a faith based belief in their religion: free-marketeerianism.
Let’s say I want to buy an electric car. How am I going to buy that car since no car manufacturer makes said car? How am I going to recharge the batteries on long trips since there is no “gas stations” for electric cars?
Or let’s say I need a new furnace. I can buy a geothermal unit that runs pipes deep into the ground that will save me 80 percent on my fuel bill. However, it costs three to four times what a conventional furnace costs.
Since the average American only lives in their house for four years, it makes no economic sense to do the right thing by buying the fuel efficient unit.
However, if gov’t provided massive tax breaks for fuel efficienct heat or provided no cost loans to spread the cost out over time, people would take advantage of it.
Likewise, if gov’t FORCED car makers to sell electric cars, people would be able to buy them. If it provided infrastructure like re-fueling stations, people would buy them.
We’re using internal combustion engines in our cars based on technology from the early 1800’s. A model T got the same gas mileage that an average car today gets.
Your faith-based free-marketeerianism is killing this country, Econ, because it locks us into a narrow framework of maintaining the status-quo.
“We’re raising better crops. Our farm economy is better. Our cattle are better off than they were 100 years ago,”
God Bless him. It will not be too much longer and I’ll really be in business.
(BTW, I can’t wait to see what Cosmos has to say on this. :-) )
Look on the bright side. If all you have is lemons make lemonade. Even if you are worried sick about GW, you might as well face the fact that even if the entire world STOPPED adding to the atmosphere today (not likely ever), it will take decades or centuries to reverse any man-made affect. Further, there is evidence we are going into a normal warming cycle. So make the most of what we have.
Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits
Reuben P. Keller*,, David M. Lodge*,, and David C. Finnoff
*Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556; National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, 735 State Street, Suite 300, Santa Barbara, CA 93101; and Department of Economics and Finance, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
Edited by Harold A. Mooney, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved November 6, 2006 (received for review July 10, 2006)
International commerce in live organisms presents a policy challenge for trade globalization; sales of live organisms create wealth, but some nonindigenous species cause harm. To reduce damage, some countries have implemented species screening to limit the introduction of damaging species. Adoption of new risk assessment (RA) technologies has been slowed, however, by concerns that RA accuracy remains insufficient to produce positive net economic benefits. This concern arises because only a small proportion of all introduced species escape, spread, and cause harm (i.e., become invasive), so a RA will exclude many noninvasive species (which provide a net economic benefit) for every invasive species correctly identified. Here, we develop a simple cost:benefit bioeconomic framework to quantify the net benefits from applying species prescreening. Because invasive species are rarely eradicated, and their damages must therefore be borne for long periods, we have projected the value of RA over a suitable range of policy time horizons (10–500 years). We apply the model to the Australian plant quarantine program and show that this RA program produces positive net economic benefits over the range of reasonable assumptions. Because we use low estimates of the financial damage caused by invasive species and high estimates of the value of species in the ornamental trade, our results underestimate the net benefit of the Australian plant quarantine program. In addition, because plants have relatively low rates of invasion, applying screening protocols to animals would likely demonstrate even greater benefits.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/1/203
Also, the idea that we are slaves to fossile fuel for the foreseeable future is just plain FALSE.
Habitat for Humanity is building low cost houses that generate MORE ENERGY than they use and pumping the excess back into the electric grid.
See the documentary “Kilowatt Ours” for communities, schools, and houses that are using a combination of conservation, energy efficiency, and new technology to break the dependance on coal and oil, reducing energy bills and CO2 in the process.
Habitat for Humanity is building low cost houses Posted by: CapnAmerica
Does HH produce homes for upper middle class people and above? I think our energy needs are not the same as those of someone in low-cost subsidized housing. Not sure the application would work on large scale projects (e.g. multi-unit apartments, high rises, etc.).
Not doubting you. It’s a start. But it is far from a solution to GW.
Even the left coast is looking at the silver lining to GW:
GLOBAL WARMINGposes significant risks toCalifornia’s economy, butthe latest economic researchdemonstrates that climate action canbe profitable in the Golden State.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:7EhxYMrNLx0J:www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Econ-fact-sheet-final.pdf+study+on+global+warming+produces+benefits+california&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
Our neighbors to the north will see great benefits too. The Canadian dollar (looney) is already now on par with the George Washington. Just wait until they gain agricultural strength:
Study says Alberta will benefit from global warmingLast Updated: Thursday, July 12, 2001 | 2:39 PM ET
CBC News
A United Nations study says global warming will allow countries, such as Canada, with colder climates, to become more productive.
Brian Heidecker, with the Agriculture and Food Council of Alberta, says food production in the province could go up by 15% to 20%, as the length of growing seasons increase.
Graffiti Troll–
It would be much EASIER to do it for larger, more upscale houses.
The cost as a percentage of square footage would be lower for instance.
The film also showed a house that I would value at roughly 200-300 thousand that was essentially living off of the grid in Tennessee.
The family used solar and wind energy to power batteries to run appliances, they used solar hot water that provided them all the hot water they needed for 9 months out of the year.
Can’t remember what kind of heat they had . . . but anyway, practically no coal or oil.
On a large scale, this kind of technology is MORE, not less, economically feasible.
“Is there a requirement that Republicans like Neufield have below average IQ to be in office?”Posted by: J M Walker
Name calling is not the answer here J M. There are plenty of studies which support positive benefits from global warming. It is the attitude of many people that need adjusting. And the correct way of doing that is education. Teach people both sides of the GW issue. Emphasize the negatives and the positives must be mentioned too.
To label everyone as “stupid” resolves nothing.
We are using wheels on our cars from technology available to the Egyptians.
Silly argument.
But what if short-sighted STUPID people are running this country, as I believe, AG?
Identifying the problem is the first step in solving it.
Only somebody STUPID could look at a climate-change models which threaten mass-extinction and world-wide death and say, “but look on the bright side.”
Thank goodness neo-cons like Paul weren’t in charge during WW2. Gee, it’s going to be really hard to change American manufacturers to develop munitions and military vehicles. Goodness, I’m being asked to recycle scrap for the war effort and use ration cards. The Nazis are just going to take over, DEAL WITH IT!!!
Asking Americans to be more efficient, less wasteful and conscious about their actions isn’t an unheard of task. In a few years our country which barely had a military managed to organize and defeat three major military powers, we developed a space program which got us on the moon and beyond, we banned chemicals that were destructive to the ozone layer, we’ve built huge structures like the Hoover dam and monuments like Mount Rushmore but then there are people like Paul who whine that doing something might take an effort so we should just eat cheese and surrender.
Thankfully many of us don’t have a crater in the couch like Paul and Neufeld and are up to the task of making a positive change.
Capn
When the Government gets involved, we get run away Ethanol production, threats to our water supply, and inflationary pressure on corn and on livestock which eat corn.We also see even more hardship South of the border, where corn is more of a staple.
Nope, the government is no good at picking winners and losers.
Wow, great come-back, Econ.
Too bad about another one of your tenants of faith running headlong into the bayonet of reality.
According to “free-marketeerians,” gov’t interference in the free market is always bad.
However, TeamBush criminal negligence in controlling the sub-prime mortgage market is threatening to take down the entire economy.
That’s why the Fed — itself an institution born of the inability of the free-market to self-correct — had to drop interest rates.
See the dollar tank. Tank, dollar, tank. See the international investors take a bath. Bathe, investors, bathe. See the economy suck. Suck, economy, suck.
It’s the corporate interests who are pushing for corporate welfare for ethanol. They’re the same “free market” corporations who want corporate welfare but no ‘guvmint’ interference when it comes to labor standards, pesticide use, corporate mergers, etc. They use good ol’ capitalism to bribe politicians to produce subsidies and the corporate press preaches how great more ethanol will be (and accepts ad revenue in exchange).
DougThe “science” concerning Ozone and the Ozone layer if far from settled.
Again, the SUN has more to do with Ozone than Freon.
The Ozone Hole scare is another failure, not a success. We were frightened into something that gives us more expensive refridgeration, increases the cost of goods, makes medical relief to poor countries more expensive, and really doesnt solve anything.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050301_ozone_thinning.html
Yup, you got, Doug.
It makes perfect sense for big corp.s to act the way they do . . . especially if they don’t give a damn about anybody but themselves.
The question is why so many powerless working stiffs have bought into the free-marketeerian religion.
This Econ will nit-pick one to death with junk science.
Okay, Econ. How about the fact that we FINALLY made effing LEAD paint and LEAD gasoline illegal?
When they first started putting lead into gas, the oil co.s had to “charge more” because of the expense of the process.
When they had to stop putting lead in gas, they had to “charge more” because of reduced performance.
Make sense?
You bet it does, if you’re a price-gouging big corp. who’s bought and sold every pol in Washington with special interest money . . .
CapnThe economy does NOT suck.
What, exactly, do you want the federal government to do concerning “sub-prime” mortgages?
Interest rates were naturally climbing during a booming economy.
The sub-primer market is a small percentage of the total market.
A small percentage of that small percentage of mortages is having trouble.
It is way overblown. There is still collateral, on those loans, even if values of the property might have been overstated.
This is mostly the result of individual failures, not any grand government mistake.
People bit off more than they could chew. People mistated their own income figures.
By the way, a “cheap dollar” is actually very good for exports and bad for imports.
When liberals insist on more government involvement in the economy, Conservatives point out what a bad job government usually does in such ventures.
Then liberals call us hypocrits, somehow giveing “conservatives’ some kind of policy ownership for the government involvement that already exists out there.
No, it doesnt work that way.
EVERY instance of government mismanagement in economic matters is evidence, strong evidence, to avoid such involvement in the future.—-By the way, the FED actully let rates go too high.The Fed is paranoid about inflation and not friendly enough towards growth.
It is entirely possible to have growth without inflation, but many fed governors do not understand that point.
Econ writes, “What, exactly, do you want the federal government to do concerning “sub-prime” mortgages?”
You mean, what should the Bush government HAVE DONE?
How about keeping them illegal like they used to be?
But that was before Reagan-Bush-Bush dismantled the regulatory system that protected consumers against predatory banking practices.
It’s no coincidence that Neal “Hong Kong Prostitutes” Bush was named in the Savings and Loan melt down some years ago . . .
Let’s see, first there was no such thing as GW; now, GW is a good thing.
We’re making progress here, of a sort.
“Teach people both sides of the GW issue. Emphasize the negatives and the positives must be mentioned too.” — Amazing Grace –=========================
Let me see… where have I heard almost those exact words??? Oh, yes, I remember — Creationists babbling about teaching their NON science in schools…. Yea, thats where I heard it…. And from many of the same people!! LOL
“The farmers are nothing but socialist welfare queens.”
Everyone please note that the above socilist welfare queens vote REPUBLICAN.
Also please note that the largest recipients of crop subsidies are corporations.
Joe loves bad-mouthing farmers, but he fails to mention that the majority of crop producing land is now owned by corps.
Thank you Dr. Professor Neufeld. Here I was ignorantly thinking that droughts, insects, etc were BAD things. But, as you so profundly point out, we can golf on more days without rain and the amatuer entimologists have more specimens to study!
/sarcasm off
A METEOROGIST’s take on Ozone:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp
Econ writes:
“We will all be transported to our grave by a hearse burning gasoline or diesel. Or cremated by Natural gas.”=======================
Econ, I got news for you… We are not only CREMATING bodies without using Natural Gas, we are even making STEEL without using Coal OR Gas!! The electric Steel Mill has been around for MANY years… And a whole lot of Crematories are using Electric furnaces to cremate remains…. You dont want to believe me, fine!! But just check it out… I AM right on this one…
ALSO, we can eliminate Natural Gas for heating, IF we want to… We can use Solar powered Heating… We can use electric heating (powered by wind generators) Hey, I got one you can even try out fairly cheap…
Hook up your Hot Water Heater (if it is gas) to solar panels, and see how much you save on your Gas Bill…. It will amaze you… ALSO, you can install an electric hot water heater that doesnt use a storage tank… It heats the water going through the pipe… costs a little money, but what it saves overall is worth it…
Try it sometime… Get a copy of the DVD CapN has called
“Killowatt Hours” and watch it… it will blow your right wing conservative mind!!
Oh, I almost forgot… some of the Mortuary’s that are attached to Cemeteries, are already using either total electric or hybrid vehicles for hearses on their own grounds… saves them a TON of $$$ on transportation costs…
Oh yea, almost forgot… There are a couple of funeral homes back east, that have gone back to the horse drawn hearses… Of course, strangely enough, they have to get special permits to use them… LOL
Global Warming is providing a positive benefit to big business and particularly big business in rural states. We will pay the price for converting the country to ethanol. That will become the big joke in the future when people realize we have been had. Again, overreacting to Global Warming. But big business will have destroyed the Kansas landscape first.
ITHACA, N.Y. — Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.
“There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel,” says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. “These strategies are not sustainable.”
Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html
Oh, I almost forgot… some of the Mortuary’s that are attached to Cemeteries, are already using either total electric or hybrid vehicles for hearses on their own grounds… saves them a TON of $$$ on transportation costs…
Posted by: Chas. | September 30, 2007 at 01:42 PM
How’s the CO footprint of the natural gas incenerators? Or do they just compost them now.
In Europe they stack the bodies on top of each other.
Saves space and valuable land.
Fights sometimes occur over who is on top. It is a spacesaver!
Cremation would be best, as long as the remains are not contaminating the soil or water.
Keep turning a blind eye to the benefits of GW if you want. The studies and facts are out there. But is so much easier to complain. Here is the positives for the Clinton’s home state (or Bills anyway):
Like the nation as a whole, preliminary analysis shows thatthe impacts for Arkansas are also largely positive. While theutility sector would suffer losses of about 400 jobs statewide,these would be more than offset elsewhere, leading to a netincrease in employment of about 800 jobs. The gains wouldbe spread throughout the economy; though the constructionand metals industries would particularly benefit. In additionto these benefits, Arkansas stands to gain in a number of ways.For example,
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:DRWbAkqsKlAJ:www.rprogress.org/publications/e2_arkansas.pdf+study+on+global+warming+produces+benefits+california&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
Cremation … actually there is no reason the remains should be a ‘contaminant.’ Ashes to ashes dust to dust. Return the remains from whence they came – the earth.
Some religions do not allow cremation. They think the dead body needs to be embalmed and kept in a waterproof casket, which is inside a water proof cement vault.
It will be much easier for the resurrection if the body is not dust. Difficult to get them out of the 2 boxes that are buried 6 feed under. Still easier then recreating man from dust.
I think if we can believe in the resurrection of the dead we need not quibble over the condition of the corpse.
I think the anti-GW folks have it all wrong personally…. They keep saying how much WARMER we are going to be… I disagree… If you look at the way the Arctic Ice is melting, to open up that Northwest Passage…. The COLDer climate is moving SOUTH… because of the Polar warmth… With that comes more precipitation… errr… snow….
It is already snowing in the Central Rockies in Colorado as of today!! And more coming all week long… see US Weather Service….
I think maybe we better be looking at the GLOBAL effects of GLOBAL WARMING, instead of this insane freaking over what is happening in the local weather forecasts!! Local forecasts are NOT GLOBAL!!
for the resurrection if the body is not dustPosted by: Mike Herron
O.K., Mike, I gotta ask, how do you resurrect the ashes which were released into some Rocky Mountain stream bed ten years ago?
Good reason to question that whole “resurrection” concept, eh Mike??? Hey, you must be related to Pat Herron… You both have the same mentality!!! LOL
at the GLOBAL effects of GLOBAL WARMING, instead of this insane freaking over what is happening in the local weather forecasts!! Local forecasts are NOT GLOBAL!!
Posted by: Chas.
Hey Chas, leave some room for Cosmos. He will need lot’s of space here when he wakes up. Dont steal all his thunder.
Troll Palm Trees… Read Resurrection as “mythology”
“”Is there a requirement that Republicans like Neufield have below average IQ to be in office?”Posted by: J M Walker”
Posted by amazing whatever.
Uhh, I didn’t post that. Go back and reread my original post. come back and get it correct.
Also, I am fully aware of the importance of the global warming issue, but, unlike some here, I have an open mind and a wide range of tastes. Some of them are even politically incorrect; some of them I even post here.
If that bothers you, call some one who gives a sh*t.
Well, Troll Palm Trees for Sale, maybe I can make the point better without all of the links… Just try common sense for a change!!
Chas is correct to point out the difference between global and regional climate. The regional effects of overall global warming can only be guessed at.
Or as a wiser man says, “And the great experiment continues.”
CapnWhen have “sub prime” mortages ever been “illegal”???
What business is it of government to tell ANYONE what can and can’t be contracted?
If I am willing to loan someone money at high rates, due to bad credit history, or if I am willing to borrow at high rates, why should government prohibit such action?
Well…. JM Walker…. This was what you had posted…. However, I dont know where you lifted the quote from in your post — but undoubtedly, somebody thought it was yours >>>>
“Is there a requirement that Republicans like Neufield have below average IQ to be in office?”
Naw, they’re born that way.Posted by: J M Walker | September 30, 2007 at 02:55 AM
===========================
I couldnt find your quote anywhere up thread from there… unless it was from a thread from yesterday
Naw, they’re born that way.J M Walker
Whatever JM, you confirmed and agreed with the logic of the poster. I saw no other post presenting your opinion on GW, until your latest. You won’t last here with the Sky is Falling crowd.
However, I DO agree with your conclusion…
Gracie?? Everybody is out of Troll food today… sorry!!
ChasAnd how, pray tell, did that electric cremator come by that electric power?There is better than a 50% chance that the electricty was generated by coal.
If I am willing to loan someone money at high rates, due to bad credit history, or if I am willing to borrow at high rates, why should government prohibit such action?
Posted by: Econ101
Gosh, you mean all those double digit credit card rates are ILLEGAL??????
Wow, I’m going to call my bank!
Not in the instances I know of Econ… One I know of was on Nuclear power… I know of another that uses their own wind generators….
So sorry to disappoint you!!
Hey, Econ, I could use a $5,000 loan, even at a high rate… for say, 2 years??? Any ideas??? My credit rating isnt great either…
Hey, if they start using Sharia Law banking standards, they wont be able to charge ANY interest!! It is forbidden by Sharia Law as Usury….
My credit rating isnt great either…
Posted by: Chas.
We all gathered that from the hours you spend posting. Interesting fact about not having a job is your credit score. Govermnent can’t help you there.
You have to (don’t cry), well I mean (be strong now), actually,
get a J.O.B. to bring in some income. (sorry if that hurt)
J M Walker won’t last long?
Amazing Grace (obviously a newbie or pretending to be?) wins the comedy awared for the day.
comedy awared for the day.
Posted by: Rox
Hey, I’ve posted here before. Just not very often. Usually too busy for blogs. So does that make me a newbee?
Besides, I didn’t see your name listed as a regular on the Open Thread, so who are you really?PMOM?
From link in header,
“Garden City Rep. Jeff Whitham isn’t convinced climate change is a problem.
“I’m not convinced CO2 is causing climate change,” Whitham said.
“We’ve been through so many climate changes, over thousands of years. This is apparently one more warming.”
… House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, who signed the letter favoring new coal plants, said climate change always occurs…”—–
Why are Neufeld and Whitham unable to understand that past natural climate changes do NOT prevent human-caused changes?
Why are they unable to understand that Earth’s climate is non-linear?
Why are they unable to understand the dangers of natural positive feedbacks? Human-caused global warming can trigger natural warming, causing even more warming.
The recent rapid melting of Arctic sea ice is an excellent example. Less ice = more heat absorbed = faster melting.
Palm Trees,
Did you read about the author of those very long columns you copy/pasted earlier?
“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.”
Posted by: Palm Trees for Sale | September 28, 2007 at 11:34 PM
The University of Winnipeg did not have a “climatology” department when Ball was there.
‘Ball Bails on Johnson Lawsuit’14 Jun 07http://www.desmogblog.com/ball-bails-on-johnson-lawsuit
“But Calgary Herald satisfied itself as to the accuracy of Dan Johnson’s letter, and rose in defence. In a Statement of Defence filed with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, the Herald dismissed Ball’s “credibility and credentials as an expert on the issue of global warming,” saying: “The Plantiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”
In the face of this rebuff, and of the earlier Statement of Defence filed by Dan Johnson, Ball discontinued his lawsuit.”
See also,http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball
Gracie, I DO have a job, and I DLO work… So, shut your pie hole, if you dont know what you are talking about — or else somebody might tell lies about YOU!!!
Proves only that the author 1: Is a scientist 2: the politicians got to him 3: He gets money from the same places Hillary does.
It did not persuade me that his comments were not truthful and based upon his observations.
Struck a nerve close to home heh Chas?
There is help available. I can refer you to a number of financial planners who are certified.
Gracie is just another darned Troll poster, who cant do anything but lash out with LIES and ad hominems about things that IT knows nothing about!!
Just walk on by!!! and wave to the Troll world under the bridge with the rest of the helpless homeless
Chas, do you know where 250 W Douglas Ave is? Take your pick.
I offered to help you.
Econ–
Yeah, you’re right. There is no such thing as usury or banking regulations.
I pity the fools that invest with you, man . . .
Gracie…. I dont NEED your help… whoever the hell you are!!
Melvin Neufeld, Jeff Whitham, and all deniers should read this column, and think carefully about the issue.
‘The Race Against Warming’http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801400.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
“Arctic ice is melting on an unbelievable scale — …Forget the Petraeus report — what historians will note about September 2007 is that the Northwest Passage was free of ice for the first time since humans started keeping track.
Shaken scientists see every prediction about the future surpassed by events. As Martin Parry, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told reporters this month, “We are all used to talking about these impacts coming in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren. Now we know that it’s us.”
More at link about deadlines, legislation, etc.
Arctic Ice – isn’t that a regional occurrence? :)
You are absolutely right, Cosmos…
“It did not persuade me that his comments were not truthful and based upon his observations.”
Posted by: Palm Trees for Sale
His funding is secret, he retired in 1996, and he has no scientific observations on which to base his comments.
Cosmos, just scroll over those Palm Trees, et al, names… they are all phony Trolls
It is my humble observation, that the opening of the Northwest Passage will have far reaching effects to the benefit of those who know that global warming is a reality. And, further, it will go a long distance toward moving many governments to invest research funds, and teams of scientists, to work together, to see what things humans can do to stop the problem from getting worse; not to mention what nations can do to be ready for the effects of melting arctic ice floes.
Arctic Ice – isn’t that a regional occurrence? :)
Posted by: Kansas
It’s a very important region, with global climate consequences.
Much of the ice is young (thinner) and will melt easily in futrue years.http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html
‘Arctic Ice Retreating More Quickly Than Computer Models Project’April 30, 2007http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml
I guess like the glaciers that used to be over Kansas that melted and are now buried glacial valleys now. :)
I had originally hoped that the melting Arctic ice could be attributed to an undersea volcanic eruption at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. But I have seen no plausible evidence for that.
That reminds me. I have seen numerous posters here say that there is no concensus in science.
That is simply a False Statement.
Science is done by the very work of concensus. Unfortunately, there are other arenas of life that also use the word concensus; such as in business groups, and in social policies, and in decision making of many kinds.
Scientific concensus is not like those others. If only people would look up their terms, before they attempt to discredit other people for speaking the truth.
Now, I have to prepare for an evening presentation. But I will be back again. May you all have a good evening.
I’m kinda feelin’ amazing whatever is one of many troll names one specific individual is using. He or she may or may not blogged here in the past, but what difference does it make: It’s like the same guy playing ring around the chairs: which ever one he lands on, that’s what he’ll write as. Not a whole lot of intelligence needed there, and it shows.
The Arctic Hare fossil remains can be found in the plains of Illinois. The Hare was in Illinois about 16,000 years ago when the climate was the same as Northern Canada.
Must have warmed up a bit since then. Hmmm? Why is that? Climate change? :)
Kansas,
Loss of Arctic sea ice is very different than past glaciers.
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html“Climate models have long told us that as greenhouse warming takes hold, rises in surface temperature over the Arctic Ocean will be especially large compared the rest of the Northern Hemisphere. A key part of this so-called “arctic amplification” is the growing impact through time of the very process just described. Namely, with increasingly less sea ice at the end of summer as the years pass, the heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere in autumn also grows.”
Melvin Neufeld, Jeff Whitham, Pat George, and other Kansas House GOP members who want the new coal-fired plants should do some more research.
If those plants are built, consumers will be hurt.
Their rates will increase to pay for the (expensive) new plants — and increase again when carbon taxes are added.
‘Carbon Risk, Coal, and Higher Electricity Prices
Why coal-generated electricity will cost more than utilities claim’http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/fossil_fuels/carbon_risk.html
Melting ice may lead to another Ice Age.
Several researchers say the cooling 8,200 years ago may have been triggered by the collapse of ice dams holding back the waters of Lake Agassiz – a vast glacial reservoir covering the Great Lakes region of the US and Canada at the end of the last ice age. It would have flushed enough fresh water into the right places in the North Atlantic to shut down the conveyor.
CapnUsury laws have hardly ever applied to collateralized debt, like a mortgage.Also, in the “sub prime” mortgage area, the interest rate is rarely as high as the rate most of us pay on credit cards.Again, you overreach.Sub prime mortgages have NEVER been illegal, on a national basis.
There is no consensus that man is causing global warming or that man can solve it.
“There is no consensus that man is causing global warming or that man can solve it.”
NOT TRUE. For a professional meterologist’s take on that:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/928.asp
Ever take a graduate level climatology course Paul?
BenThat you say everyone is in agreement does not make it so.
There is NOTHING we can do about it, and that is the major point.
The controls and standards and regulations seem to be the entire point. You want to control everything, and this GW gives you the excuse.
First of all, you know as well as anyone that science does NOT work on “consensus” — In fact, many scientific breakthroughs went AGAINST scientific opinion of the time.
Second, you are fully aware that many well respected scientists dispute the “man made’ global warming theories.
Third, even if man is the cause, there is absolutely NOTHING we can reasonably expect to do about it.
On a cost/benefit analysis, if we took the most drastic measures that the tree-hugger left wanted, killing the economy, starving people world wide, we STILL would not be able to reduce world temperatures.
Even if we do EVERYTHING your side proposes, we will STILL have climate change.
(A big hint that maybe the SUN causes climate, not people!)
I ask again – have you ever taken a graduate level course in climatology?
Obviously the sun is our energy sourse; however it has not shown the variability in output over th past centuries (especiall recent years) that you seem to claim.
I’ll take the interpretations of scientists over those of a stock seller.
(A big hint that maybe people who SERIOUSLY STUDY things know more than an amatuer.)
Paul?
Are you just a luddite? Is it financial concerns to your own means that drives you as to this?
The atmosphere of the Earth is by comparison to the Earth about the thickness of the varnish on a globe.
It defies reason to argue that 6 billion human beings in that thin veneer have and can have no effect on it. We could alter the planet in serious ways EASILY if we wanted to do so. And it is indisputable that in MOSTLY unconscious ways, we already are.
If there are negative costs to addressing global warming proactively? I wish you would list them.
J R – Paul has a vested interested in the carbon-based energy markets. His experience selling investment instruments makes him an expert scientist. just like Neufeld.
/sarcasm off
1 course…
Ben,
Have you seen these videos of Tony Jones interviewing and debunking Martin Durkin, producer of ‘Swindle’?
They’re funny… Durkin stammers, and gets the flop sweats.
Global Warming Swindle Interview Pt1 8:43http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE
Global Warming Swindle Interview Pt2 9:57http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8
BenCare to post the NET effect of Kyoto, or any other proposal?What will the “benefit” be if we do what you want?
Either you cant tell us, or the “benfit” of your plans is so small to be laughable.
By the way, NONE of the signers of the KYOTO treaty are in compliance with the Kyoto Treaty.
JR, you of all people should resist these global plans to punish American and benefit our global competition!
Paul?
Has it not occurred to you that in the face of peak oil the nation that leads the world in developing alternatives to fossil fuels will have the whole planet for a market?
Hell, China is building more fuel efficient cars now than our manufactures are mandated to do in 10 years!
Luddite?
When have I ever smashed up an electricity generating windmill or an electric car?
BRING ON the “New” technology, if it really exists.
It is the environuts that put spikes in trees and try to stop production in its tracks, in all forms.
The Luddites were against industrial revolution style machines.
They seem to have more in common with the anti industrial greens of today than they have in commonw with me.
You greenies are ludites in reverse.
You are POSITVE that new technology will come along, so you want to DESTROY what we have, in our existing economy.
Luddite?
When have I ever smashed up an electricity generating windmill or an electric car?
BRING ON the “New” technology, if it really exists.
It is the environuts that put spikes in trees and try to stop production in its tracks, in all forms.
The Luddites were against industrial revolution style machines.
They seem to have more in common with the anti industrial greens of today than they have in commonw with me.
You greenies are ludites in reverse.
You are POSITVE that new technology will come along, so you want to DESTROY what we have, in our existing economy.
JRChina is building one coal fired electrical plant per WEEK.
Figures you would tout China, however.
Corn ethanol for fuel can be cleaned up to food grade for about $0.50
The fed tax of $17 might add $170,000.00 profit per truck load
Does ATF care?
Clean Air Performance Professionals
Sub prime mortgages have NEVER been illegal, on a national basis.
Posted by: Econ101
Hehehe, okay, Econ.
It’s just coincidence that it happened when George “I hate gov’t regs” Bush happened to be Pres.
http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/7172007_Mortgage_Regulation.asp
At the end of June the five agencies that regulate federally chartered banks and their subsidiary lending corporations issued final guidance to those institutions regarding subprime lending, particularly the so-called exotic or non-traditional loans that are threatening to bring down those lenders who haven’t already filed bankruptcy or shut their doors.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13607
Jim Hightower’s take:
That’s when avaricious mortgage hucksters and high-finance manipulators looked upon this broad pool of needy, vulnerable castoffs and suddenly shouted, “Eureka, GOLD!” With interest rates remarkably low, housing prices seemingly on a nonstop rise, and (this is the Big One) practically no regulation of this low-income market, the money changers promptly began to devise clever, Enronian schemes to entice such “subprime” borrowers into high-interest, high-fee loans. Never mind that these families really could not afford (and mostly did not understand) the level of debt being piled on their backs. That was a matter for manana. Today was for raking in profits from the poor.
The subprime schemes are run through an intricate, intertwined system of loan brokers, mortgage lenders, Wall Street trusts, hedge funds, offshore tax havens and other predators. To entrap borrowers, the industry created an arsenal of arcane financial devices and maneuvers known by such exotic names as “exploding ARMs,” YSPs, teaser rates, low-doc mortgages, loan flipping and equity stripping. Ultimately, these schemes are scams, extracting high payments from the families, sucking out any equity they might build up and stealing their homes.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/20/BUGK2N2M011.DTL&ref=patrick.net
Foreclosures more likely, report warnsPrevalence of subprime loans invites future financial crises; research group calls for reformMarni Leff Kottle, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
As many as 2.2 million Americans with subpar credit could lose their homes through foreclosure over the next several years, a new report said.
California will see some of the sharpest increases in foreclosure rates among what are known as subprime borrowers because the deflation of the housing market here is making it increasingly difficult for distressed homeowners to sell or refinance, according to the report released Tuesday by the Center for Responsible Lending.
Nationwide, subprime loans, which once made up just a fraction of the mortgage market, accounted for nearly a quarter of loans written in the first 10 months of the year, the report found. Subprime loans are made to borrowers who are considered high risk because of low credit scores.
The number of subprime loans has jumped over the past five years in California as the housing boom drew people into the market who were counting on rapid price appreciation to pay down debt.
“Subprime lenders are selling the most dangerous loans to the most vulnerable borrowers,” said Michael Calhoun, president of Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit research and policy group. “One in 5 families who get subprime loans today will lose their homes to foreclosure.”
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-te.bz.mortgage30aug30,0,5913570,full.story
With the mortgage-sparked credit crisis expected to worsen over the next year, Maryland lawmakers are exploring legislation aimed at protecting consumers and forcing lenders to examine a borrower’s qualifications more carefully before offering loans.
“We need to prevent people from getting into loans that set them up for failure,” Maryland’s secretary of labor, licensing and regulation, Thomas E. Perez, said yesterday at a hearing in Annapolis. “Foreclosures not only tear families apart, but they undermine communities.”
About a dozen states have begun to make legislative and regulatory changes aimed at protecting subprime borrowers. Gov. Martin O’Malley and Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler have convened task forces to examine the subprime market and find ways to help forestall foreclosures. Legislative fixes could become a major thrust of the General Assembly session that begins in January.
Problems in credit markets, which have hit disparate segments of the global economy, began with rising defaults and foreclosures on subprime mortgages, those extended to borrowers with weak credit histories.
As many as 45,000 subprime loans that originated in Maryland during the housing boom in 2004-2006 – one in five – will end in foreclosure, according to projections by the Center for Responsible Lending, a consumer advocacy group.
Here’s your chance to invest in Carbon Credits. Invest your $$$ with me and I will buy futures on the carbon market in Uruguay. In no time your per $1000 investment will turn into a profit of $200 for you and $500 for me.
You can sleep all cool and fuzzy, then continue to use those BTU’s to air condition your house as usual.
Send me those checks! We can fight global warming with carbon credits in fabulous investment scams! oops I mean schemes. :)
Econ 101 — “It is the environuts that put spikes in trees and try to stop production in its tracks, in all forms.”
Remember what caused the boom of the nineties, and how computer science fueled that boom; and how, after a mere six years of Republican congress, the boom ended?
There’s a reason for that: conservatives resist all change. Now, when you read of breakthroughs in fusion generation or quantum computers, most come from Europe. Mutual funds which invest in alternate energy technologies have few choices except to invest in European companies.
Remember what happened when Fundy droolers took over Kansas. Prior to prohibition, we were a leading producer of apples, wine and grapes, but as we remained prohibitionist long after the amendment was overturned, those industries went elsewhere.
Now, I fear, after a mere 12 years of total conservative rule, so has the future.
CapnIf someone lies about their income and networth, that person is responsible for the consequences.
Also, the JUNK BOND market has been one of the best places to have your money over the last 7 years, again, very sub-prime.
You want to DENY services to segments of society.
That is NOT your job.
This is between lenders and borrowers, with guidlines, of course.
My point stands.
There have ALWAYS been loans, at higher rates, for those who do not have AAA credit.
Door King
The tech market fell, and the recession began, when BILL CLINTON took Microsoft to court.
Please dont forget that.
PLEASE!
george bush had been talking down the economy during his entire campaign!
Door King
Yes prohibition was a bad idea, you would not expect a Catholic of Spanish and Irish decent (among the Heinz 57) to disagree, would you?
However, your attacks are nuts, in themselves.
How you can bring that issue into this enviroment issue, or gw issue is really weird.
Stay on point.
Yeah, the GW groups are so wise, just like the tree huggers who prevent clear cut fire breaks.
Now, we have record setting massive fires in our national forests because the tree hugging environmentalists know better than anyone else.
JFK’s father was a professional “hootch” seller during the days of prohibition.
Fire is a natural part of nature. Some trees cannot reproduce without it. This is an evolutionary adaptation to the very natural element of fire.
JRSo when Clinton called it “The worst economy in 50 years” (It wasnt of coure) — Well, Clinton’s lies against George H.W. Bush were not “talking down the economy”??That is crazy JR.Look at any stock market chart. The markets brush off everything politicians say.The Federal Reserve Board? Well, that is a different matter.However, the markets almost never care what a politician has to say.The investment markets ARE the barameter of the economy.Besides, Bush was RIGHT, the Clinton tax increases and his regulatory excesses were starting to hurt the economy.—-Having said that, I will state, for the record, that Presidents have VERY LITTLE to do with the economy.Presidential candidates have virtually nothing to do with the economy.
Econ is a perfect example of a free-marketeerian.
It’s all just a private matter between loan-er and loan-ee. Don’t need to concern gov’t at all, nosiree, just two parties involved, that’s all.
Hey, Einstein, what happens when the whole effing country goes into a steep recession because of all the foreclosures? What about failing banks that have to get bailed out by the FDIC, which is funded by your and my tax dollars?
What happens to the tax base when property taxes go down because housing prices go down because there’s a glut of houses on the market?
We need gov’t regulations to protect OURSELVES, not just the people who are immediately devestated by these predatory loans.
You free-marketeerians refuse to see that the misfortune of one can lead to the misfortune of others completely innocent of any deal making.
GW plan:
Outlaw everything we don’t like.
New technology will come.
No one will loose their job or starve!
Trust us!
Presidential candidates have virtually nothing to do with the economy.
Posted by: Econ101 |
Yup, pure coincidence that the markets boomed when Clinton-Gore paid down the national debt, balanced the budget, and reduced poverty.
No causal effects whatsoever.
Nothing to see there, keep moving, folks . . .
CapnThe system is WORKING!It is correcting itself.
I did not say that there should not be any rules in the mortgage game.
I called you out when you stated, falsely, that Republicans had somehow made this mess possible.
The economy will ALWAYS have bubbles, excess, “irrational exuberance” which will correct itself.
You posted much info on STATE involvement, these days. Well, states should be involved. It is the county and the state that tax realestate. It is the County that handles forclosures.
As far as the feds? The subprime problem is mostly a problem of valuation.
The market realizes that “X” numbers of loans, of any type, will go bad every year. The market realizes that this number goes up as loan quality goes down.
The problem is that many of these loans were issued on “stated” income. In other words, the borrower overstated income, had his “sworn” statement accepted, and now the borrower cant handle the burden, as rates go up and payments go up.
That is the borrowers fault.
Sorry, but remember how all you pro Gambling people insisted that the family man who blew the mortgage at the casino was NOT your responsiblity?
I just dont get it.
You tell us we are not in any way responsible for the gambler, but we ARE responsible for a guy that might not have told the truth on his mortgage ap?
More to the point, many of these mortgages were rolled into mutual funds or REITs. We are not sure, today, how to value some of those funds.
In time, once payments are made for a year or two, the values will stabelize.
I am NOT saying that things were all just fine in this market.
I am saying that there is little or nothing the Feds can do to prevent occasional problems like this.
With ALL of its problems, the mortgage market is a much better investment, today, than “carbon credits.”
Capn
Name the law that Clinton supported that accomplished any of those things?
Clinton came to power with the Reagan-Bush supply-side tax rates still largely intact.
Clinton vetoed Welfare reform a few times before finally signing it into law, even though Clinton RAN on welfare reform.
Clinton came to power at the peak of the baby-boomers earning years and investting years.
Demographics is everything.
I can show you predictive charts about what would happen, in the 80’s, long before Clinton was elected.
Again, there is very little a President can do about the economy.
Providing an environment for risk-taking, with low taxes and low regulations, is about the only thing they can do.
Or comming to power at the top of the Baby Boom wave after a supply-side administration?
That helps too.
By the way
Do you liberals have ANY idea how much Democrat campaign money comes from Real Estate interests and Mortgage lenders?
Don’t forget, Castle Grande and Whitewater were BOTH Clinton scams to rip off retired people!
sorryI can show you predictive charts about what would happen in the 90’s too, long before Clinton was elected.
Paul – as you know Kyoto is planned to be ONLY a start. I, among all other serious scientists, agree that we MUST get India, China, etc on board. However, we also agree that we should start with the ‘low-hanging fruit’ which is what Kyoto is about.
A comment about the sub-prime mess. It seems from what I read that there is plenty of blame to go around – including Greenspan. I agree with you Paul about the liars being responsible when they get stuck in their ‘liars loans’ (self-stated income). However I also put a lot of blame on the brokers etc involved.
One BIG lesson of this is the problem we have with financial illiteracy in this country. Time and time again I read that the homeowner didn’t understand the terms of the loans they signed. Paul, if I were like you I would that these frauds typify the financial profession of which you are a member. However I recognize that they are a distict minority.
The level of financial illiteracy in this country might be ALMOST as bad as the level of scientific illiteracy.
Look up Harry Dent, “The Great Boom Ahead”http://www.amazon.ca/gp/reader/1562827588/ref=sib_dp_pt/701-7461468-4730736#reader-link
BenI am angry at the mess, of course.
The realestate problems have caused stock market and insurance people lots of headaches.
I just don’t see a Federal fix in all of this.—-Now there is an area where Prison time is warranted: Fraudulent appaisals.Overstate the value of the house, then borrow 130% of the overstated value on an adjustable mortgage.Rates go up.Whoops!
Hey, I worry about going “tits up” from time to time.
The self employed person who doesnt is not very smart.
However, there is a HUGE difference between an honest failure and failure due to fraud.—-Ben,
Also, take a look at the Florida Condo market.That was a REAL bubble.At one time, a survey showed that over 50% of the outstanding contracts for condos, in some areas were to people who had NO intention of ever living there!
Firemen, policemen, taxidrivers, nurses. They all have a right to speculate.
However, sooner or later, if no one buys the end product —
POOF, it goes up in smoke!
This WAS caused by “easy money” — people put up pennys on the dollar, for down payment, thinking they could “flip’ the property before any payments would be due.
“You greenies are ludites in reverse.
You are POSITVE that new technology will come along, so you want to DESTROY what we have, in our existing economy.”
Posted by: Econ101 | September 30, 2007 at 06:59 PM
FALSE. The technology is here TODAY.
The stone age did not end because they ran out of stones.
The fossil fuel age will end because 1) it has to, to stop global warming, and 2) there are better solutions.
Carbon fiber composites, lightweight steel, hydrogen, etc…http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
‘Energy’ libraryhttp://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid113.php
Distributed (decentralized) electrical resources,http://www.smallisprofitable.org/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/
‘Energy, technologies, issues and policies for sustainable mobility’http://www.greencarcongress.com/
Paul – on this we largely agree. Heck, I STILL see ads for mortgages at 3%!
I have used ARMs in the past – tied to the one-year T rate. An index I can look up in the WSJ. But definitely NOT one of thise negative-amortization things.
There is that ‘tough lesson’ reality for many people: those of us who don’t really ‘need’ a lot of credit have no problem at all in getting what we need. I even keep a HELOC in reserve ‘just in case’.
I remember discussing with a Small Claims judge I worked with the need for lessons in financial literacy – that would have significantly eased our case load.
I’m old enough to remember JFK pledging that we would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Many scoffed – we had nowhere NEAR the technology needed. Our rockets mostly blew up on the launch pad. However, Kennedy set forth the vision and we mobilized. And I remember vividly man’s first steps on the moon, fulfilling JFK’s pledge.
Today we DO have the technology to meet this challenge. And this scientists is anything BUT a Luddite. The problem is we lack the vision and the will.
One big difference here is that we also need to share technologies. It is important that other countries also deal with their energy needs in the most technologically advanced means possible. Again, we have the means; we simply lack the will.
So the answer to the original question, “Is global warming good for Kansas?” will remain unanswered.
Instead I see you have managed to hash out:
1. The cause of GW2. Can we change (or reduce) GW
But no discussion the long term affects on our climate of the accumulated temperature change over Kansas?
Even if Congress or the next president tapped some genius from the WEBLOG to reduce green house emmissions – the effects are already here and coming.
Regardless whether or not you save the future world.
Psssst!
A legal opinion released Friday by Attorney General Paul Morrison opines that Gov.Sebelius’ administration has wide latitude to reject a coal-fired electric power project in western Kansas. The opinion launched a flurry of action surrounding the proposal by Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to build twin 700-megawatt plants near Holcomb next to its existing 360-megawatt plant. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), which is considering permits for the plants, immediately sought to delay litigation filed by a Lawrence couple who want to stop the plant’s construction. And KDHE announced it would make a decision on the Sunflower permit within 30 days. KDHE is led by Secretary Rod Bremby, a Cabinet official appointed by Sebelius, a Democrat.Meanwhile, western Kansas legislators, mostly Republicans, who want the plant built said they will appoint a panel next week to find out why the permits for Sunflower Electric haven’t been granted yet. And one of them said Sebelius’ opposition to the project has politically charged the decision on whether it goes forward. “The bottom line is that politics has held this up for a ridiculously long time,” said Sen. Jay Emler, R-Lindsborg, and chairman of the Senate Utilities Committee. Emler said, “It will be denied and it will be all politics.”KDHE said, however, that political considerations would not play into its decision and have had no effect on the length of time it has taken to decide on the permits. “The secretary is reviewing the permit application and reviewing all the comments that have come in,”said KDHE spokesman Joe Blubaugh. Sunflower submitted its air quality permit application on June 1, 2006, and the period for hearings and public comment on the proposal ended in December 2006. Morrison’s legal opinion, which was sought by KDHE after the agency was sued over the plants, allows the agency to consider the effect of unregulated pollutants such as carbon dioxide when granting air quality permits. In other words, KDHE could reject Sunflower’s permits “to protect the health of persons or the environment.” But the opinion said KDHE probably couldn’t delay the issuance of permits if it decided to try to adopt regulations on carbon dioxide emissions. In other words, the agency’s regulatory scheme at the time of the permit application is what governs the outcome.Once the A.G.’s decision was announced, Sec. Bremby asked a Shawnee County District judge to delay oral arguments scheduled for Oct. 12 in a lawsuit filed by Sarah and Ray Dean, the Lawrence couple that sued KDHE to force it to impose restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, which many scientists believe causes disastrous climate change. Bremby said KDHE needed more time to analyze whether Morrison’s legal opinion would have any impact on the lawsuit. Of course, the A.G.’s opinion is just a lawyer’s opinion, not a court finding . . . but it is based upon careful research by knowledgeable attorneys. “Because of the pending litigation and the importance of this issue, we felt it was appropriate to seek an opinion from the attorney general,” Bremby said. “This guidance will now be analyzed and deliberated throughout the remainder of the decision-making process.”Rhetoric has increased about the proposal. Last week, dozens of Republican legislators wrote KDHE, urging the agency to permit the facility, while Sebelius and Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson continued to publicly state their opposition. Environmentalists say pollution from the plant will cause health problems and add to global climate change.
They also warned that a large part of Kansas residents live down wind from the proposed plants. After speaking at a renewable energy conference earlier this week, Parkinson told reporters that development of the project would hurt efforts to increase wind energy. And Sebelius has said one reason she opposes the Sunflower project is because about 90% of the energy would be sold out of state.Supporters say the plants will be among the cleanest-burning coal facilities in the nation, and help the western Kansas economy.
“Supporters say the plants will be among the cleanest-burning coal facilities in the nation, and help the western Kansas economy.”
Posted by: Palm Trees for Sale
But the plants will still emit CO2, and cause more global warming.
‘Stop coal, stop global warming, says architect’
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9782715-7.html?tag=nefd.blgs
The problem with coal is two fold: it spews a lot of carbon dioxide, among other materials into the air, and the world has a lot of it, making it tempting to use. In the U.S. alone, there are 151 coal plants in the planning and construction phase.
The emissions from a single coal-fired power plant for one month will negate the efforts Wal-Mart is putting forth to curb its emissions. Wal-Mart wants to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent in seven years, he said.
Home Depot has announced it will plant 300,000 trees to offset is carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, those 300,000 trees will have to live 100 years before they offset the fumes from ten days from a coal-fired plant, he said.Replace every incandescent bulb in America with compact fluorescents? The benefits are eradicated by the carbon dioxide from two coal-fired plants over a year, he said.
“The silver bullet is no more coal,” he said.”
Paul says, “Again, the SUN has more to do with Ozone than Freon.” Then provides a link to:http://www.livescience.com/environment/050301_ozone_thinning.html
This is just another example of why Paul just can’t be trusted on scientific issues. The article he links to says, “The decline is due largely to man-made chlorofluorocarbons released into the atmosphere.”
Paul, if you are actually going to use science then perhaps it’s best to actually read the articles you are going to reference so you don’t disprove your own arguments.
“So the answer to the original question, “Is global warming good for Kansas?” will remain unanswered.”
Posted by: Melvin | September 30, 2007 at 09:50 PM
It’s impossible to answer that question.
And Melvin Neufeld has NO proof to support his pro-coal claim, that global warming is a good thing for Kansas.
The future climate change in Kansas (and worldwide) depends on too many unknowns. Four example reasons,
1) How soon, and how sharply, will humans reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
2) How much will (known and unknown) natural positive feedbacks amplify our human-caused warming?
3) Global warming events (Arctic sea ice melt, etc) are happening FASTER than scientists had projected.
4) Scientists are not yet able to accurately project regional climate changes.
The optimal climate, sea level, etc is the one ALL life on Earth has lived in for the past many centuries.
And… if we do not like the future climate changes, it will be probably be impossible to reverse them.
“So the answer to the original question, “Is global warming good for Kansas?” will remain unanswered.”
Posted by: Melvin | September 30, 2007 at 09:50 PM
It’s impossible to answer that question.Posted by: cosmos
Well then just as certainly you cannot say GW will be bad for Kansas either, nor to what extent.
“Well then just as certainly you cannot say GW will be bad for Kansas either, nor to what extent.”
Posted by: Melvin
No, but it probably will be. Hotter temperatures = more evaportion and water demand. Native plants and animals will be stressed, etc.
And GW will definitely be bad for the worlds coastal areas (sea level rise). A warmer, more acidic ocean will be bad for coral reefs and marine life. Water supplied by glaciers will be gone. Heat waves and storms will be more severe, etc.
A rational human race would not risk the many known negatives worldwide, for some possible, but unknown positives in a few regions.
DougIf I post a source that is 100% on my side, you won’t even look at that source.So, I often post links that I do not agree with, 100%.That particular ozone link contradicts itself.It clearly states that the sun is a large player in the Ozone issue.Then it discounts the suns effects when it touts the Freon restrictions and their, supposed, effects.
“It clearly states that the sun is a large player in the Ozone issue.”
Posted by Econ101.
No, it clearly states that very intense solar storms around Halloween 2003 AND a massive low pressure system caused the Arctic ozone drop..http://www.livescience.com/environment/050301_ozone_thinning.html
That does not refute the science re CFC’s and loss of ozone in the Southern Hemisphere.
Sorry Paul, how can you claim I never read your link when I quoted from it? Perhaps you ought to read it again, here’s the quote drawn from your source:
“The decline is due largely to man-made chlorofluorocarbons released into the atmosphere.”
From Paul’s link:
“The upper-level ozone layer has thinned dramatically in the Southern Hemisphere in recent decades, creating a dangerous hole through which UV rays stream. The decline is due largely to man-made chlorofluorocarbons released into the atmosphere.”
Also mentioned is a cooling of the stratosphere making the northern hemisphere effect worse. This too is anthropogenic:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/strato_cooling.asp
Note also that if warming were caused by an increase in solar output you would expect WARMING of the stratosphere; not cooling.
BenId say “gotcha” but — I am sure you can explain:
“Note also that if warming were caused by an increase in solar output you would expect WARMING of the stratosphere; not cooling.
Posted by: Ben | October 01, 2007 at 04:52 PM
WE ARE GETTING GLOBAL WARMING ARENT WE?
So, the sun isnt warming enough to warm the stratosphere, but the rest of Globe IS warming?
Wouldnt Man Made Global Warming also warm the Stratosphere???
How can we have simultaneously, “BAD” warming AND “BAD” cooling????
Most of the warming econ101, is done through scattered or absorbed radiant energy provided by the sun. It gets absorbed, refracts or reflects.
Short-wave Radiation- Direct sunlightLong-wave Radiation- Absorbed and reradiated energy
Absorption is radiant energy absorbed. All sorts of things absorb energy, water, earth, gases (co2 – etc.)
The albedo effect is when radiant energy is reflected back (white=snow) Snow’s high albedo helps keep temperatures low by reflecting solar radiation away.
Basically, two types of radiation addressing the matter here:
The Earth’s oceans and land masses eventually radiate heat back out. Some of this heat makes it into space (troposphere etc.) The rest of it ends up getting absorbed when it hits certain things in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane gas and water vapor.
The argument in my opinion is the duration of time of the absorption with co2. My side of the argument argues it is statistically insignificant what man made co2 does in the atmosphere because it is in such a small amount and the effective yield of absorption over time wouldn’t really correlate very well with the amount of man made co2 released and the gradual increase in temperature (heat) we are seeing. (this has to do with the nature of blackbodies – won’t go into that here)
Anyway, time to shower…
There are too many other factors that are poorly considered by the Kyoto Protocol researchers because they don’t know much about them or give them little weight which they shouldn’t do, just to promote their pet theories.
Some light reading on black body radiation… :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
And also here, a bit easier to read:
http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html
And, more in depth here:
http://staff.imsa.edu/science/geophysics/atmosphere/energy/planck1.html
And how they try to plug this into a climate model (it doesn’t work, they have to ‘rig it’)
http://staff.imsa.edu/science/geophysics/atmosphere/ebm/ebm1.html
Kansas,
The Earth is not a black body, and Heinz Hug’s CO2 work(sic) is a joke.
Ron, if you don’t want to appear to be an ignorant fool, you should do some research.
“Average temperatures are continually moving up or down. … In spite of what Al Gore says, there never has been a time of equilibrium in the system, and that’s a good thing.”
Posted by: Ron | September 30, 2007 at 10:26 AM
Gore’s documentary had a graph that very clearly showed how Earth’s climate had wide temperature swings during the last 600,000+ years.
Ron: “Thirty-five years ago NASA’s James Hansen was designing climate models that showed an ice age was imminent;”
Hansen did not write, nor endorse the 1971 paper re cooling.
Hansen wrote his first paper on climate in 1976 (31 years ago) on how human-made methane and nitrous oxide were likely to be important GHG’s.Details at,http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Grandfather_70924.pdf
Ron: “But the track record of the models is just as dismal.”
Actually, it’s very good. See graphs, etc at,
‘Climate MYTHS: We can’t trust computer models’http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11649
Please excuse me Ron, for not wasting my time debunking the rest of your post.
Found this while looking for something else:
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=thanks_to_climate_change_by_2050_america&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Nice to know Neufeld is looking after wheat farmers!
“Wouldnt Man Made Global Warming also warm the Stratosphere???
How can we have simultaneously, “BAD” warming AND “BAD” cooling????”
Paul – I recommend that you take at least one climatology course; preferably graduate level after the pre-requisites.
I’ll try to make it simple for you. If I improve the insulation in my attic in the winter then I BOTH keep my house warmer AND make the roof colder. That is because the heat is not escaping from my house as easily.
If, on the other hand, my house is warmed because it is hot outside then my roof would likely be warmed even more.
Thus the difference between the effect of increasing solar output (warming throughout the atmosphere) and ‘better insulation’ (split warming/cooling)
Oh, and Paul – you might actually try READING the extensive scientific literature linked in the WUNDERGROUND link I provided.
Econ101,
More about the cooling trend in the stratosphere — and you will enjoy the title. :)
‘The sky IS falling’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling
“Found this while looking for something else:
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=thanks_to_climate_change_by_2050_america&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Nice to know Neufeld is looking after wheat farmers!”
America’s maple farmers have lost a lot of their business because of rising temperatures shifting more maple production to Canada. We used to get 80% of maple from U.S. farmers but now we only get 20%.
Doug,
Thank you for the sciam link,
‘Thanks to Climate Change, by 2050 America’s Breadbasket Will Be in Canada’
and also the included link,’New crops needed to avoid famines’http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6200114.stm
Perhaps Max will now post something about how Hillary’s campaign funding is more important to the U.S. (and the world), than global warming? :)
That dude is an idiot. I hope he goes home and shoots himself in the head.