WE Blog

Astronomer Dr. Jeff Zweerink of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) studies gamma rays, black holes, and neutron stars and has declared himself a skeptic of man-made climate fears. “Many natural phenomena significantly affect the global climate. Atmospheric conditions are impacted by tectonic activity, erosion, and changes in Earth’s biomass, for example,” Zweerink wrote on December 18, 2006. “While politicians and activists focus on the effects of fossil fuel burning the breeding and domestication of cows and cultivation of rice, for example, actually does more harm than driving too many SUV’s,” Zweerink added.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/in_the_news/20061218_global_warming.shtml

Too bad there is not a reasonable position in this argument that I can support. Scientists almost always disagree and want to know more, that is the nature of their business. But, there are times to when a general position is accepted by most and this general position guides the majority of their work – which is what I understand is the nature of this subject area – as at least as it has been explained to me by people I respect – Ben Huie is an example.

All we have is extremists posting on this subject in this venue and it is a shame, I think. :(

Hank…it seems to me the biggest problem with GW is not a scientific argument but a political one. If it had been someone less politicized than Al Gore to highlight it, maybe it would have been more rationally discussed. But..the hard core Dems are buying into everything Al said, regardless of differeing scientific opinions. the old “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts” routine.

It seems that this has become the Y2K issue for this decade. But, this one is politicized, and anyone who doesn’t follow in Gore’s path is “the enemy”. Sad…working together could have produced some logical/practical analysis. But, once it becomes political, reason and rational go out the window.

I agree Taz. It’s the political part of the debate that bothers me.

That, and somehow I don’t believe that GW is necessarily a bad thing, even it it is happening.

What’s good about global warming, Hank? My AC bill was out of sight last year…I may have to move to Alaska…maybe the scuba diving will be great once the glaciers melt?

If the conservatives are all at work, Pat..then what are you doing on the blog this morning?

Gee, I see a bunch of neocons on the blog today. I’ll work at noon today (I lost a client- as in DIED, so I’m short on my Tuesday/Thursday time until I get reassigned).

Sorry for your loss Pmom…I’ve lost so many this month..two patients (one I took care of for almost 8 years) my nephew, and my brother in law. Seems like people die more in the winter. All it takes is a cold or other virus when someone’s immune system is weak. I’m about fed up with all the death…spring can’t get here quick enough for me.

Wake up libs, the conservatives are all at work, making money to support your bloggin all day.

Come up with your own jokes, Herron.

Just another interesting read. Highlights:

“On a first-lady goodwill tour of Asia in April 1995—the kind of banal trip that she now claims as part of her foreign-policy “experience”—Mrs. Clinton had been in Nepal and been briefly introduced to the late Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mount Everest. Ever ready to milk the moment, she announced that her mother had actually named her for this famous and intrepid explorer. The claim “worked” well enough to be repeated at other stops and even showed up in Bill Clinton’s memoirs almost a decade later, as one more instance of the gutsy tradition that undergirds the junior senator from New York.

Sen. Clinton was born in 1947, and Sir Edmund Hillary and his partner Tenzing Norgay did not ascend Mount Everest until 1953, so the story was self-evidently untrue and eventually yielded to fact-checking. Indeed, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton named Jennifer Hanley phrased it like this in a statement in October 2006, conceding that the tale was untrue but nonetheless charming: “It was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter, to great results I might add.”

Perfect. It worked, in other words, having been coined long after Sir Edmund became a bankable celebrity, but now its usefulness is exhausted and its untruth can safely be blamed on Mummy. Yet isn’t it all—all of it, every single episode and detail of the Clinton saga—exactly like that? And isn’t some of it a little bit more serious? For Sen. Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her “greatness” (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose.”

Read the rest yourself:

“The Case Against Hillary Clinton –
Why on earth would we choose to put the Clinton family drama at the center of our politics again?”

http://slate.com/id/2182065

Sol:

This speaks to Ron Paul’s unfitness better than I can. A sample:

“Imagine this scenario. You are an elected representative of Congress and a pamphlet has been produced in your name on a monthly basis for three decades. It’s been written in the first person and makes frequent reference to your family and other biographical details. You admit to being aware of its existence. Do you a) attempt to have its publication stopped for fear of how it might damage your reputation; b) oversee every aspect of its production to ensure its vicarious fidelity to your own opinions and style of expressing them; c) take only a passing interest in its contents?

Ron Paul would have us believe c) is as convincing as a return to the gold standard. He said he doesn’t know who wrote the now-notorious newsletters that James Kirchick painstakingly exposed and reprinted in the New Republic last week—they were titled Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report—but it sure as hell wasn’t him and he’d been over this before, when he ran for the House of Representatives in 1996 and a few choice selections from the newsletters found their way into the Texas press.”

And this:

“A common refrain of his apologists is that nothing in the excavated hate-rags sounds at all like their man. While one may not agree with Paul’s plans to abolish the Federal Reserve or withdraw all U.S. troops from foreign soil, they argue, one has to admit that Paul puts his case for these policies rationally and without resorting to black helicopter-type hysterics.

In some instances, however, the newsletters conform to this justification. Consider this almost unnervingly controlled notice about David Duke’s Louisiana primary victory in November 1990:

“David Duke received 44% of the vote in the Senate primary race in Louisiana, 60% of the white vote, and 9% of the black vote!. This totaled 100,000 more votes than the current governor when he won.
[…]

Duke’s platform called for tax cuts, no quotes, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing. “Tonight we concede the election,” he said, “But we will never concede our fight for equal rights for all Americans.”

To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, but the voters were willing to overlook that. And if he had been afforded the forgiveness an ex-communist gets, he might have won.

Liberals like Richard Cohen of the Washington Post say he got so many votes because Louisianians were racists and ignorant. Baloney.

David Broder, also of the Post, and equally liberal, writing on an entirely different subject, had it right: “No one wants to talk about [race] publicly, but if you ask any campaign consultant or pollster privately, you can confirm the sad reality that a great many working-class and middle-class white Americans are far less hostile to the rich and their tax breaks than they are to the poor and minorities with their welfare and affirmative-action programs.”

Liberals are notoriously blind to the sociological effects of their own programs. David Duke was hurt by his past. How many more Dukes are there waiting in the wings without such a taint?”

There are no raving redneck sermons here—only sinister rationalizations for them. (In a slightly different context, and forgetting who the subject was, we might have seen such a contrarian squib in the pages of The New Republic.) That early reminder that 9% of blacks actually turned out for a former grand wizard of the KKK is meant to downplay Duke’s racist appeal—“baggage from his past”—and suggest that, in every other respect, he was seen as a viable candidate by even the least likely demographic. Similarly, the analogy between Duke and an ex-communist running for public office hints at an understanding of his controversial past, which the author is, to all outward appearances, reluctant to embrace. (Paul has argued that his convictions prevent him from being a racist because racism, like communism, is a “collectivist” enterprise.) The writer also credits the liberal David Broder in order flout the conventional wisdom about race discourse in America. Besides, Duke has got more interesting things to talk about than white supremacy—“tax cuts, no quotes, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing.”

Read it all for yourself:

http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul_1.php

Does the NAACP often support white racists? GMC I thought you were smarter than this. Alas you have proven me wrong.
Austin NAACP President Defends Ron Paul
“Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has been under a vicious smear attack by opponents for charges of racism. The charge appears to be completely unfounded and Paul continues to advocate individual freedom.

The Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder came to Paul’s defense. Linder said that Paul is not a racist and said, “Lets face it Ron Paul is a thinker and he’s also a Constitutionalist”. He continued, “I like Ron Paul personally, I like what he’s saying, I think he’s sincere and I think he’s correct in what he’s saying”.

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=227844

NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.
Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.
“Knowing Ron Paul’s intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that….so I think it’s very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that’s what I’m hearing,” said Linder.
“Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he’s a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform,” he added.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1134.html

JamesM.–

What did your attorney say about the lawsuit you plan on filing against The Eagle and some of its bloggers?

Hank Price posted January 14, 2008 at 1:59 pm

“Many of the IPCC scientists are not climatologists. Many of the IPCC scientists that are included in the ‘concensus’ have had second thoughts and no longer wish to back the IPCC report.”

Dear Hank Price,

Really??? Okay, a simple challenge Hank — let’s see you back up those 2 claims.

The contributors of Working Group 1 are listed in the annex at,
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

1) Tell us which of those not climate scientists.

2) Which of them no longer “back the IPCC report”.

Or… admit that you are wrong.

While you’re at it, list what is scientifically wrong with the papers listed in the “References”, for example at the end of Chaper 2.

CapnAmerica,

That would be none of your business.

Attorneys have their own schedules, they don’t stop what they are doing just because I show up.

“A high-meat diet also produces very large amounts of CO2, and causes deforestation”

—————–

Now, I admit I’ve had some really bad gas, but nothing like that!

26 to nothing cosmos. You got nothing.

Hank Price posted January 15, 2008 at 6:13 am

“Many natural phenomena significantly affect the global climate. Atmospheric conditions are impacted by tectonic activity, erosion, and changes in Earth’s biomass, for example,” Zweerink wrote on December 18, 2006.

Dear Hank,

Please give examples showing how the above three factors have caused the observed warming since the 1970’s.

For example, which continents have moved significantly since 1970?

Does Hank Price consider humans destroying rain forests a “natural phenomena”?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080114134505AAzHGGS

Why are the Republicans scared of Ron Paul?
Paul is the only candidate who is a conservative. His economics scare the Republican party, and they scare the living you know what out of them. He wants to fix our economy not make it worse. He raises very good questions. Upon doing this, he has been subject to the machine of politics who want to make him out to be a lunatic.

McCain = Status Quo, will give all illegals a pass if he could, stay in Iraq indefinitely until we all our broke.

Guiliani = 9/11 want-a-be hero, what does marriage mean to him?

Huckabee = Close to Paul in wanting to fix our country, but will keep the foregin policy the same.

Romney = For big business only, does not care about the working class, has strong points though on immigration.

Thompson = Snipes at everyone, does not introduce anything he would do, good at point out the weaknesses, an arm chair QB

Why are conservatives so afraid of being responsible stewards of the Earth? According to most, God gave us dominion over His creation – that means we have a responsibility to ensure that the Earth remains a viable entity.

So, how does environmentalism fly in the face of conservatism?

Annie the deciding factor for me as to why I will not vote for Ron Paul: He has no foreign policy except that he will not protect us against outside attacks. He will talk with the instigators. We would all be toast by the time he gets them to the table. The world in which we live can’t be ran in this way. Sad but true.

“An Inconvenient Paranoia”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={CEF3E658-C92B-458C-A5C4-0BB768109A3C}

Good morning Clark,

You continually seem to ask questions that have a false premise.

“So, how does environmentalism fly in the face of conservatism?”

I guess that before I can address this question I’d have to aggree with the premise. I don’t.

Most conservatives are good stewards of the earth.

As a conservative my question would be:

“How does using environmental issues for purely political gain make you a good steward of the earth?”

The liberal patron saint of environmentalism is a perfect example. Al Gore is all talk when it comes to the environment but in reality he is one of the biggest abusers of the earth.

“Most conservatives are good stewards of the earth.”

Really, Mr. Price? So some examples of Republican policies that prove that point.

And this statement is patently false…….

“You continually seem to ask questions that have a false premise.”

By the way, care to answer my question as to how the GOP plans to pay down the National Debt?

WS last week I took a test that was in the Eagle to see if I was ‘green’. I failed and I drive a Prius, keep my utilities turned no higher that 68 in the winter and no lower than 76 in the summer.

It would be interesting to see what Al Gores score was. I know I do much better than he would and he is the GW spokesman. He also makes a great deal of money off the movement.

It is no wonder that people are doubtful when he expresses something as gospel.

I would invite the GWers here to take the test and see what is expected of you. I bet none of you are doing things right. It is impossible unless you live in a large metro area.

It’s like the movie “Groundhog Day” when WE Blog gets into the global warming debate.

First the Cons complain that there’s no such thing as global warming.

Evidence is presented which proves global warming is real.

Then the Cons admit global warming exists but claim human activity has nothing to do with it.

Evidence is presented which proves that fossil fuels are serious contributers to greenhouse gasses and global warming.

Then the Cons alleged that global warming is a good thing.

Evidence overwhelms them with the disasterous consequences of continued global warming.

Then there’s a snow storm of a cold snap and the Cons claim there’s no such thing as global warming.

And it all starts up again…

More fun from the NYT opinion page. this is what happens when identity politics clashes head on with identity politics:

“Clinton wants to have it both ways. She wants to be emblematic of her gender and liberated from race and gender politics. As she told Tim Russert on Sunday: “You have a woman running to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling. I don’t think either of us wants to inject race or gender in this campaign. We’re running as individuals.”

Huh?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15brooks.html?ex=1358139600&en=d6425b0148edd576&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

And a snippet of why at this point I’ll support Thompson:

“A woman asked him if he would “as a Christian, as a conservative” continue President Bush’s programs to combat global AIDS.

“Christ didn’t tell us to go to the government and pass a bill to get some of these social problems dealt with. He told us to do it,” Thompson said.

“The government has its role, but we need to keep firmly in mind the role of the government, and the role of us as individuals and as Christians on the other.” ”

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/12/politics/fromtheroad/entry3704820.shtml

Go Fred.

The bush Corporate friendly SC has just ruled in favor of corrupt corporations. The held that even though Charter Comm. engaged in bogus transactions to pad their books, the investors could not sue because the transactions were conducted in secret and the investors did not rely on the info. to invest. Sounds like kind of warped logic, with implications for ENron.

Ophelia Cagel
Posted January 15, 2008 at 8:01 am | Permalink
“Atmospheric conditions are impacted by tectonic activity, erosion, and changes in Earth’s biomass”

Six Billion humans is a change in earth’s biomass.

So Ophelia,

Your solution – kill all the humans so the Earth will be a cooler place to live.

Or Ophelia, maybe you decide who lives and who dies.

Out of here for now – have to do some wiring work and cable running for my daughter – back later.

While I am gone, could you Republicans get together and come up with a plan to pay down the National Debt and fund the mandates?

I would be interested in your responses.

Jeez, imagine that, a fiscal responsible Democrat asking the GOP’ers for their plan.

Who wudda thunk?

The debate is OVER. The greatest source of untapped energy we have is conservation in it.

The forces of big fossil fuels are running ads wall to wall to try and get the Humbolt coal fire plant built. That’s a plant that will use KANSAS water and pollute KANSAS air to produce electricity for people skiing in Colorado. Write your state representative. Tell them NO to coal fire power plants.

GMC70 posted January 15, 2008 at 11:55 am

“No, science shouldn’t be politics. But it is, like it or not.”

Science is about science — policy is about politics.

‘The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes’
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5702/1686

But instead of believing the solid, peer-reviewed science, the deniers prefer to believe unqualified people, like a TV weather director.

From Hank Price’s “400″ list,

http://www.wbko.com/unclassified/1270907.html
“My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people’s minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what’s going on. …
…
Okay, I am not a scientist – and I don’t have a college degree…”.

No, just heard it on cnbc breaking news. Logically, though, if a business inflated its books with bogus transaction, the end result would show up in the financial statements on which investors do rely. The SC said it would be going beyond previous precedence, if it didn’t rule as it did.
Caveot Emptor!

Dear JR,

Thank you for conserving. There are many thing one can do to conserve. Computers use electricity. We suggest shutting yours down.

Thank you,
Westar – Your Friendly Evil Big Power Corp.

Dear Westar

Build wind turbines. If you do not, the state of Kansas will. Your monopoly on power is at issue. I can just as easily send my smaller payment for electricity to the state as to you.

Ksgrm posted January 15, 2008 at 11:34 am

“It is no wonder that people are doubtful when he expresses something as gospel.”

Instead of straw man, ad hominem attacks on Al Gore, why don’t you attack the science in IPCC’s report?

Have you even read it?
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

“Listen punk and listen good.”

Hahahahahah…that gave me shivers of the Dirty Harry style. Not really…but it did make me laugh.

DNFTT, Chas.

Thank you,

The Management

That’s code for “Do Not Feed The Troll”

Clever. SO, I guess “troll” means one that mocks your BS.

CapnAmerica,

No details of the case have been revealed, who will be involved and who won’t be.

If you have paranoia about it, then that’s your problem, not mine.

Attorney-client privilege, you may have heard of it.

ORANGE COUNTY (CALIFORNIA ) NEWSPAPER

This is a very good letter to the editor. This woman made some good points. For some reason, people have difficulty structuring their arguments when arguing against supporting the currently proposed immigration revisions. This lady made the argument pretty simple.

NOT printed in the Orange County Paper………………..

Newspapers simply won’t publish letters to the editor which they either deem politically incorrect (read below) or which does not agree with the philosophy they’re pushing on the public. This woman wrote a great letter to the editor that should have been published; but, with your help it will get published via cyberspace!

New Immigrants

From: “David LaBonte”

My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to “print” it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined.

Dave LaBonte (signed)

Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:

Dear Editor:

So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren’t being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today’s American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture.

Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity. Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy ,France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people. When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country’s flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are in 2006 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I’m sorry, that’s not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900’s deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life . I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn’t start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.

(signed) Rosemary LaBonte

heh

The only thing worries me is JM will confront me in public and assault me with his wrist canes and used depends undergarments.

Tsk…..see JR mocking the handicapped. Shameful.

SOB: “The programmer is plugging in formulas regarding the object. He doesn’t need to understand the formulas to put them into code.”

But if the programmer is a climate scientist, many of the “formulas” do not exist. S/he has to develop (read “understand”) the “formulas”.

Hank loses… again.

Regular posted January 15, 2008 at 9:07 am

“The Debate is over”

Too bad Lindzen cannot write any credible science to back up his claims.

But his many years of being a denier has polished his speaking (and writing) skills, especially to a non-scientific audience.

Al gore, Defender of the Environment, yet his house uses 12x the amount of energy than average…
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

Al gore or George Bush? Who is more eco-friendly?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Yes SOB… there are programmers who do not work in the climate science field.

SOL — Gore may use 12 times the energy of an “average” home… BUT — his home is at least FOUR TIMES the size of an average home, and aadditionally functions as an OFFICE as well as a Home… Too bad snopes.com wont let you cut and paste from their web site… But that is clearly stated in their article…

Regular,

Lindzen needs to write to the approval of his peers… but he cannot.

So. . .cosmos, are you ready to concede the point that a scientist need not be a ‘climatologist’ to have a credible opinion on GW?

Number two on your list does’t appear to be a ‘climatologist’ either. Is he even ‘peer reviewed’?

Lawsuits??? We dont need no steenkin lawsuits!!

LOL

Treehugger.com Of course.

I heard “America the Beautiful” when I read that last post. Sniff.

SOL — Have you missed the various news items that have already reported on the things Gore is planning on doing to make his Mansion “green”??

And of course, my reference to Fox News is most definitely intended to be fully sarcastic!! As you so keenly noticed!!! LOL

OHHH OK Thanks Cosmos… I missed that post!! I knew he was planning on doing work, but wasnt sure when!! Thanks again!!

“energy use at the home decreased 11 percent during Tennessee’s sultriest months, ”

wooooooow!!! 11% decrease. Give that boy a gold start cosmos. And he got it all done by Dec 2007. When did his little documentary come out? When did he win his peace prize???

If everybody just does SOMEthing, it can make a huge dent in energy conservation!! What I cant do with my house, I make up for with my car… 3 cyl. 5-speed, 45-50 MPG…

100+ year old houses…

Hey I just heard on the radio that Wolf Creek nuclear power plant has been offline for 5 days.

Obviously, this isn’t big news. My just now knowing about it?

Now I’ve heard of no power shortages. Nobody is in the dark.

So…

Just why would we need an expansion of the coal fire power plant in Holcomb?

Admit the obvious? So. . .is that a yes, cosmos?

Ready to concede that scientist doesn’t have to be a climatologist to have a valid opinion on GW?

Oh, by the way, #3 on your list of IPCC ‘concensus scientists’ doesn’t seem to be a climatologist either.

nimrod

Global warming is a myth.

Attention Bloggers!! DNFTT

Hank is gonna be like one of those Japanese soldiers left on an island who missed the end of World War II.

That or a little kid who sticks his fingers in his ears and goes “lalalalalalala”.

Chas.
Posted January 15, 2008 at 2:32 pm
“So, I have just put in more insulation, and I am looking into solar panels for heat.”

Right…hope ya don’t mind if I don’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen, ha.

Chas,

An interesting idea re radiant floor heating — on warm/hot days, run the incoming cold tap water thru the radiant floor tubing.

That helps cool the house a little, plus adds a little heat to the water going into the water heater.

Interesting idea Cosmos… I will add that to my list…

AgHawk?? How the hell would you know what I am planning at my house?? Idiot!!

Huckabee should be completely knocked out of the race after this comment:

Wants to change the constitution to reflect the bible.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_Amend_Constitution_to_meet_Gods_0115.html

““While politicians and activists focus on the effects of fossil fuel burning the breeding and domestication of cows and cultivation of rice, for example, actually does more harm than driving too many SUV’s,” Zweerink added.”

Actually, Hank, if you were paying attention you will note that CH4 HAS been mentioned frequently. It is a more potent greenhouse gas molecule-for-molecule than CO2. BOTH CH4 and CO2 are issues.

“have two choices: either admit it’s just more RepubliKhansas BS or”

Wow! The Capn is certainly obsessed with the ole Kansas. Don’t you ever get tired of posting all that crap? I sure get tired of scrolling over it.

Hey Ben,

I’ve been paying attention. Just looks like I was sleepin’.

Here’s an article I read on Bloomberg a while back. Looks like methane may be a future investment opportunity!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aiUsVKaqDA7g&refer=japan

Dear Hank Price,

We are still waiting for your answers…
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/01/open-thread-115/#comment-274264

Not sure I like that one Hank but trapping landfill gas (also methane) is a win-win. I would add another conflict I have had with Sierra Club – I favor trash incineration with energy recovery (WTE). My reasoning is multi-fold – but two of them are (a) displace another energy source and (b) decomposing garbage makes methan which is worse than CO2. The other half of the carbon from decomposition goes to CO2 so I amy as well get energy in the process.

Ben,

What is your proposal for controlling methane from livestock, wetlands, tundra plains and swamps?

According to the Max Planct Institute:

“The largest anoxic sources of methane are wetlands and rice fields, as well as the digestion of ruminants and termites, waste disposal sites, and the gas produced by sewage treatment plants. According to previous estimates, these sources make up two-thirds of the 600 million tonnes worldwide annual methane production.”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/m-tfm011006.php

Also, from the same Web Page:

“Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics have now discovered that plants themselves produce methane and emit it into the atmosphere, even in completely normal, oxygen-rich surroundings. The researchers made the surprising discovery during an investigation of which gases are emitted by dead and fresh leaves. Then, in the laboratory and in the wild, the scientists looked at the release of gases from living plants like maize and ryegrass (see image 1). In this investigation, it turned out that living plants let out some 10 to 1000 times more methane than dead plant material. The researchers then were able to show that the rate of methane production grew drastically when the plants were exposed to the sun.”

So if living plants expel 10 to 1000 times more methan than dead plant material, how do you propose that humans control methane release?

YOW!

Political_mama that is a DEVASTATING catch.
maybe

Has anyone heard audio or seen video of Huckabee saying that? I would think it would be all over TV.

If this is true? Huckabee is done.

PM — i figured it was gonna happen sooner than later that one of the neo cons would want to trash the constitution and replace it with the bible… what a terrible day that would be for this country!!

This SHOULD be all over TV.

Americans will let alot of statements go. But saying you are going to write your religion into the Constitution?

Hey GMC?

Could he even DO that without the Amendment process? I though alterations to the Constitution was pretty set in stone.

Hank – they are making a LOT of money on landfill gas all across the country. Like I said – a win-win. A caveat however – it should NOT be put in the pipeline for domestic use due to impurities. Use in a power plant of some sort. Unless scrubbed I guess but that gets expensive in a hurry.

Regular – there are a number of issues there – and yes, there is natural methane. One problem is that we are generating so much of that and other crud that we are overwhelming hydroxyl radical cleanup mechanism.

Ben,

you wrote: “Regular – there are a number of issues there – and yes, there is natural methane. One problem is that we are generating so much of that and other crud that we are overwhelming hydroxyl radical cleanup mechanism.”

How do we control methane release from living plants?

In fact Regular, that is an almosst exact quote from a book — “Ronald Reagan’s Reign of Error”

I’m not playing your games tonight, Regular… You are just trying to create another problem for the Blog… Go flame somebody else for a while…

I didn’t realize asking questions was a problem Chas?

One does have choices on this blog. They can answer the questions or ignore them.

Perhaps your perception of questions causing problems is steeped in an ideological brew? :cool:

Good research Chas.

However, I don’t see a “word for word” comparison there.

The discovery that living plants expel more methane than dead plants wasn’t discovered until recently. That was by the Max Planckt institute in Germany.

BTW, that institute are the same people that help write the the computer climate models for climate change.

Or, do you want to discredit them because they are not a credible scientific source? :cool:

Oh, my mistake Chas. I must have misinterpreted your statement.

#
Chas.
Posted January 15, 2008 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

In fact Regular, that is an almosst exact quote from a book — “Ronald Reagan’s Reign of Error”

Reagan didn’t mention methane, nor did he reference the amount of methane being more than from living plants that dead plants.

But other than that, the statement that I made was “an almosst exact quote.”

Perhaps you were thinking in terms of Reagan and I speaking a common language – English?

That can be confusing where words can sound similar and the connotation of said words be construed to mean similar things.

What’s your take on the following phrase Chas?

“Can you dig it?”

Thank you Chas for your efforts and re-defining what exact quotes are and are not.

When people learn more about Romney and his….unusual church, he will be be toast too.

I do so LOVE the GOP candidates this year!

JR — first the Huckster.. next the Mitt wit…

I’m sitting here watching the Democratic debate, being reminded that I’ve had phone calls from four Republicans asking me who THEY should support.
It must really suck to be a Republican this year.

#
Chas.
Posted January 15, 2008 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

“How do we control methane release from living plants?” {Regular}
==========================

Regular, that is a very OLD Reagan trick, from when he was the governor of California… Didnt work for him then… wont work now!! LOL
#
Chas.
Posted January 15, 2008 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

In fact Regular, that is an almosst exact quote from a book — “Ronald Reagan’s Reign of Error”
=================

I don’t know Chas, perhaps you can further explain the two posts that were sequential chronologically and referring to my statement as a “Reagan trick and almosst exact quote from a book.”

Chas, have you ever swam backwards upstream in a river wearing a snorkel and divers mask?

#
Chas.
Posted January 15, 2008 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

Your statement IS an almost exact quote from that book… the book that is full of bogus Reagan quotes… Your problem is??

#
Chas.
Posted January 15, 2008 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

“How do we control methane release from living plants?” {Regular}

—————-

Chas, please be so kind to point out a page number in that book you referenced where I can find the question I wrote:

“How do we control methane release from living plants?”

I would be interested in what Reagan had to say on methane release from living plants.

NO Regular/James/Kansas… NO Go buy the damned book yourself… YOU find it!! I never said Reagan said one word about methane…. I said it was an “almost exact” quote…. NOT an exact quote… What words are you having problems with here??? ALL of them??? You are such a stupid, flaming, IDIOT!! Its no wonder the Blog wants you gone!!

I agree PMama — but remember how the crowds cheered for Hitler too!! Very scary!!

Chas,

Being as my question on methane was addressed to Ben, who I figured is much more qualified that Reagan or you, what did you have in mind responding to the question?

For the record, I was not talking about Methane… Or did you miss that little FACT??

Ben hasnt been around for quite some time… My challenge to YOU Regular had nothing to do with your discussion with Ben… but only that your comment was almost an exact quote of something Reagan had tried many years ago!!

My challenge was directly aimed at your statement on Methane… and I dont care if you were talking to Ben, or to George Bush… My comment was directed ONLY to your statement on Methane, which, in an of itself was a flaming statement, and part of your ongoing argument against man-made global warming… which is basically irrelevant…

Just walklin on by!! Nite!!

Good night; Good luck;
God bless; whatever you conceive God to be!

Blessings all!!

I don’t believe a single thing you say, James McClure.

Cram it.

“Thanks for the examples of your hatred towards me CapnAmerica, it will prove quite useful.”

Hatred of an individual is not against the law.

If it were, there would be millions upon millions of people in jail.

Be afwaid CapN. Be vewwy afwaid!

“So if I don’t live through this thing, there will be a written record of what I was trying to do.”

Christ, no one cares that much about you to do you bodily harm, James. Give it a rest. You are acting like a delusional paranoid schizophrenic again.

This is a freakin’ blog for Christ’s sake.

Give it up.

Nada Stotland, the president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association, falsely suggests that abortion poses no problems for women, holding that something else must be causing the severe, long-term depressions, substance abuses, mental and sexual aberrations, breast cancer, infertility, later premature births and a host of other maladies in post-abortive women. The carefully placed Stotland is a member of the board of directors of the pro-abortion Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and obviously cares more about abortion mill profits than the prevention of post-abortion mental health problems.
- – -

A 24-year-old Wayne, MI man is in custody for punching and kicking his 19-year-old pregnant girlfriend on January 3, for refusing to commit an abortion. The woman then gave birth to a premature infant that died Saturday.
Most of the time, mothers entering filthy, unsafe
Kansas abortion mills are being prodded, coerced, or threatened by a man. Some have been assaulted. The leading cause of death among pregnant women is murder.
Abortion is not just a woman’s choice.
- – -

Mackenzie L. Gruenewald, 27, of south St. Louis
County, MO was charged with first-degree involuntary manslaughter in the stillborn death of her late-term 39-week baby from methamphetamine in August, 2006. The child and Gruenewald both tested positive for methamphetamine at the time.
Gruenwald is now again pregnant and has again tested positive for meth, which should logically rule out any mercy from her jury or judge.
- – -

“Whoever is responsible for this, we’re going to track you down like dogs. We’re not going to stop until we find you and put you in a cage where you belong.”
. . . Marion County, IN Sheriff Frank Anderson, on the savage killing of two mothers and the babies in their arms, with multiple gunshots to each victim
. . .
Charlii Yarnel, a 4-month-old baby girl, Jordan Hunt, 23 months; his mother, Gina Hunt, 24; and Charlii’s mother, Andrea Yarrell, 24 were shot to death Tuesday in Indianapolis, IN. The infant was the only victim to live long enough to die in a hospital. People questioned would not name or describe two men seen running from the crime.
A code of silence may protect even such depraved butchery in drug crime areas, where the price of a bag of poisonous drugs outweighs any respect for human life.
How’s the drug crime in your area, and does it get as much attention as enforcing a smoking ban?

i thought i had seen almost everything… boy was i wrong!! Regular has flipped out!!

I’m glad you are back WS.

Ya know JM?

We lost a lot of good posters here because of you.

And not just on my side.

There are many posters for your side of things I don’t see any longer.

Now you TRY and make up for them in your various personalities. But thing is? It doesn’t work. Your illness shows through. And you are not a terribly interesting personage in the first place.

I cannot imagine why those on your side tolerate you. How awful it is for them that any new poster along your line of thinking is immediately figured to be you in yet another nic.

I don’t hate you. There is only one poster to this forum that I hate.

You would be his natural ally. Except he doesn’t do allies. He is on his own game here. SO he won’t be getting your back. Even if you and he try to get on mine.

Like I say, I don’t think you are a bad person. I think you are an ill person. And while your politics make it great fun to use your own weakness against you? Making you the blog punching bag?

It really is not what I’m about.

So if you think you have something to use against me use it. Then PLEASE get the help you need.

I have better battles to fight and less worthy opponents.

Whoever wrote the letter was dumb enough to use their own hand writing. My sister (not me) that whoever wrote it, is somewhat illiterate or lacking in education.

That last was posted while JM was making his revelation and refers only to his threats of lawsuit.

I got threats myself in the early days of the blog. I’ve as I said my own personal nemesis here.

I could put his address out for all to see. It aint secret. He used to use his real name.

I don’t fight that way.

Thanks Blog Editor,

The double barrel 10 gauge has been cleaned and loaded with double o. It kicks like a mule and can knock a tractor over at 20 feet. :cool:

Yes Capn, the WE is responsible for your irresponsible comments.

The People cannot be allowed to speak for themselves. They need big Blog Editor to keep them in line.

In the future Capn, please email all of your posts to the Wichita Eagle IN ADVANCE of when you want to post.

Then we will let you know if and when you can post, and we will censor as needed.

Freedom cannot be allowed to continue because you just can’t control yourselves.

But WE can control you.

WE control the horizontal.

WE control the video.

WE control the audio.

And WE control you.

Now you may carry on, but watch your step or we may have to intervene if you continue with your rude and obnoxious behavior Capn, JR, and WS Clark.

It’s for WE to know, and you to find out.

But don’t go too far Clark, or we’ll snap your leash tight.

Clark, you ever wonder why that little boy put that leash around your privates instead of your neck?

The boy knew you could run faster with the leash around your neck, but you wouldn’t make that squeeling sound that way.

Squeel away Clark.

It amuzes us at WE greatly.

heh,

Well J R, Blog Editor is not me. But do feel free to feed your paranoia about that.

JR, that sounds like threatening comments about Regular.

Watch yourself or your leash will be pulled.

BTW, Regular on that 10 gauge double barrel, would that be the famous side-by-side 3-trigger version used by Wyatt Earp?

1st trigger fired the left barrel.

2nd trigger fired the right barrel.

3rd trigger fired both barrels at once and the target would easily be cut in two pieces.

That be the one?

Damned, this is funnier than SNL back in the day when it was actually funny!

If I were wearing boots, I would be shaking in them right now. Fortunately for me, I am wearing house slippers because it is almost time for beddy-bye.

So I ain’t shaking.

I have to say, however, that this is some seriously funny shit.

Not much of a gun historian Blog Editor. It has “Baker – something” on it and operates in the way you describe. Been in the family for years. My grandfather said he bought before he was married, so before 1920 for sure. It’s old and very heavy. :)

What color are your slippers Clark?

Do they have little bells on them?

Do they smell like your feet?

How would you know it is a “nothing” letter Capn?

Do you know what is written in it?

J R,

Very well said at 11:49 PM.

http://www.briley.com/articles/grampas_shotgun.html

As an [i]American Rifleman[/i] contributing editor, I answer dozens of letters each year asking the question,”I’ve got this shotgun that grandpa had … and I want to know everything about it.” Most are seeking information and the value of an heirloom, while others are seeking a fore-end, buttstock or other long-lost significant component. For the most part, the majority of these shotguns are worth little–save sentimental value–most are unsafe to shoot, and replacement parts nonexistent. But that sounds very dour and bleak, so for those who have grandad’s shotgun, here’s some of the things I’ve learned over the years answering the mail.

Damascus or twist-steel barrels are made by layering alternate strips of steel and iron then welding them together. The strips are then twisted until they resembled a screw, three of these wound strips are then welded together, wound around a steel mandrel, then welded and hammered into a barrel tube. Laminated steel barrels are a bit different. They start with a ball of steel and iron that is then hammered into long strips and twisted, then, like their Damascus cousin, wound around a mandrel, welded and hammered into a barrel tube. Inherently, these barrels are quite strong, and many best-quality Damascus barrels pass nitro proof. However, because of the iron content and welded manufacture, twist barrels have a propensity for rusting within the barrel material. Added to that is the fact that these guns were primarily used with non-corrosive priming, and are therefore potentially honeycombed with weak spots. While there are first-quality Damascus Parker and Purdey barrels that can be shot with modern ammunition, most if not all are not up to the task. Briley Manufacturing [(800) 331-5718] can either make full-length tubes of a smaller gauge–20 ga., 28 ga. and .410 bore in a 12 ga.; 28 ga. in an existing 16 ga., etc.–or, provided the barrels are good condition, install steel chamber sleeves of one gauge smaller–12 ga. in a 10 bore, etc.–enabling the use of smokeless-powder ammunition. Shooting these old hammer guns is real fun. Organizations like The Vintagers [(413) 339-5347] are devoted to shooting and keeping alive the tradition of these old guns through clay-target competitions. As much fun as shooting these guns is, safety is the prime consideration, and one should never, ever consider shooting a Damascus, twist or laminated-steel barreled shotgun without first having it inspected by a truly competent gunsmith, and, if necessary, altered by an outfit such as Briley.

Sorry, J R, I agree that it is sad – almost tragic, but the line between comedy and tragedy is a thin one, and this one has crossed over for me.

He lost me with the “if I don’t live through this thing” line.

You are right, but I have a hard time keeping a straight face reading this stuff.

Must be the hour of the night…….

And for anyone that gives a shit, my slippers are brown leather, no bells and they smell just fine, thank you all.

“It [the shotgun] has “Baker – something” on it.”

Probably Barker, an Belgian imitation of the American Parker.

Google it. There’s lots of information about guns on-line.

Listen guys, it is totally within the realm of possibility that we are dealing with someone who is truly mentally ill. If this is factual, it would be heartless and insensitive to continue to egg him on.

Just remember that.

Clarkie, your slippers are pink sillie! I can see them!

And Momma, you do remember you have an appointment with your shrink on Thursday?

Don’t miss your apointment again!

Great post there Jed… My Dad brought back a German artillery shell from WW II… With a little work, he made it into a very nice looking lamp… darn thing still works, too… Even has a pull chain for a switch!!

Interesting story, Jed.

Hadn’t thought of that, use the barrels for decorative jewlry . . .

Ksgrm should have read her link.

It completely refutes what she’s saying:

“The President (by then John Adams) sent the treaty to the Senate in late May 1797. It was, according to the official record, read aloud (the whole treaty was only a page or two long), including the famous words, on the floor of the senate and copies were printed for every Senator. (It should be noted that the controversy about the Arabic version is irrelevant here: all official treaty collections from 1797 on contain the English version, and all include the famous words of Article XI.) A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification. Twenty-three Senators voted to ratify: Bingham, Bloodworth, Blount, Bradford, Brown, Cocke, Foster, Goodhue, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Martin, Paine (no, not Thomas Paine), Read, Rutherfurd, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tattnall, Tichenor, and Tracy. We should ask ourselves whether we should not consider these 23 (and President Adams) great freethought heroes. In a very public way, they voted to say that “As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, . . .” the Muslims of Tripoli therefore need not fear a religious war from the U.S. The vote was recorded only because at least a fifth of the Senators present voted to require a recorded vote. This was the 339th time (I went through the Journal for the first five Congressional sessions and counted them myself) that a recorded vote was required. It was only the third time that a vote was recorded when the vote was unanimous! (The next time was to honor George Washington.)There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty.”

Don’t let the facts interfere with your preconceptions, Ksgrm.

That’s the CON way to think.

Cool…

Nice

Cool…

Sorry :(

interesting

Cool…

Cool…

Cool…

Cool…

Nice

interesting

Nice!

interesting

Sorry :(

Cool!

Cool!

Interesting…

Sorry :(

Cool!

Interesting…

Interesting…

Nice!

Cool!

Interesting…

Cool…