Former Texas regulator Kathleen Hartnett White’s commentary in today’s Opinion pages in support of the Holcomb coal-plant expansion deserves some response.
She would have approved the plant, she argues, because it “complied with all applicable legal requirements.†But Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby’s decision was based on his legal authority, upheld by a Kansas attorney general opinion, to intervene to protect Kansans’ health.
She also makes misleading, unsupported assertions on science, claiming that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change portrays global warming as an “uncertain, remote, gradual risk with impacts predicted in 100 years or more.â€
To the contrary, the panel’s study is unequivocal on the high risks of warming, the environmental damage already under way, and the urgency of controlling carbon and greenhouse gases now.
A further note: White left her position last year under a storm of criticism. The Dallas Morning News said in a scathing editorial: “She has been an apologist for polluters, consistently siding with business interests instead of protecting public health. Ms. White worked to set a low bar as she lobbied for lax ozone standards and pushed through an inadequate anti-pollution plan. She also voted to approve TXU’s pollution-intensive Oak Grove coal units, ignoring evidence that emissions from the lignite plant could thwart North Texas’ efforts to meet air quality standards.â€
69 Comments
There hav been numerous scientist that have stated and shown that global warming is not true.
But I guess that you prefer to support the liars.
“There hav been numerous scientist that have stated and shown that global warming is not true.”
Uh huh.
There are also lots of people who believe in a flat Earth or Noah’s ark.
But the decision on this plant is now soley for Kathy Sebelius. I guess we will see what she is made of.
Interesting comments Randy Scholfield. I agree on pollution controls (not co2) and wondered about the sting in Randy Scholfield’s article against Kathleen White.
Opposite sides of the political spectrum or is it that the gal from Salina has a bigger public debate “stick” than Scholfield? :)
Researching, I found this interesting tidbit.
“Randy Scholfield, Kansans for Clean Water…”
Hmmm, is it that Randy Scholfield is involved locally in Environmental issues that piques his interest in Kathleen White or is it because they sit on opposite sides of the ideological fence? :)
The Wichita Eagle article referencing Kathleen White’s commentary can be found in the Editorial Page of the Wichita Eagle.
About Kathleen White (Texas Policy dot com):
Kathleen Hartnett White grew up in Salina. She is
director of the Center for Natural Resources for
the Texas Public Policy Foundation (is part of the
Texas based Conservative Think Tank.)
Also:
(Texas Governor’s Press Releases)
Kathleen Hartnett White of Valentine, who will
serve as an ex-officio member, is the chairman of
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. She
is a member of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle
Raisers Association, the American Hereford
Association, the National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association and the Jack Russell Terrier Club of
America. White serves as a board member of the
Texas Water Foundation, the Texas Natural Resource
Foundation and the Jack Russell Terrier Club of
America Research Foundation. She received her
bachelor’s degree and master’s degrees from
Stanford University, and a law degree from Texas
Tech University.”
Hank Price will like her, she’s a dog person! :)
From the public press releases of the Center for Natural Resources
US Policy Outpacing Kyoto Treaty
by Drew Thornley
“Between 2000 and 2005, the CO2 emissions
of the EU-15 increased 3.8%,
while the U.S.’s emissions went up 2.5%.
During the same period, the U.S.’s
economy grew 40% faster than the
EU-15’s, and the U.S. population grew
twice as fast. U.S. CO2 emissions fell
1.8% from 2005 to 2006—and all greenhouse
gas emissions dropped 1.5%—”
Imagine that, the U.S. is doing a better job controlling co2 than Europe. :)
while the U.S. economy grew 2.9%.”
Could it be that Randy Scholfield’s Editorial objectivity is being skewed by his ideology?
Naw… (smirks)
(chortles)
(URL’s left out because Word Press was rejecting them)
There is no global warming. This lady is correct in my opinion. We can not control the weather. I expect regulations on emissions and carbon yet too come witch is ridiculous. Bring on the coal plants. Kathy does not want progress for business however she will want more taxes for social programs.
It would be nice to read other, well thought out, opinions on this thread, but I suspect it will be the liars against the liars again, with nothing new, and certainly nothing progressive in the terms of intelligent dialog. Too bad.
“She has been an apologist for polluters, consistently siding with business interests instead of protecting public health. ”
Well, thank God The Eagle ran her column then.
The reason to oppose the Holcomb plant do not start and stop with the CO2 threat.
There’s also the clear and present danger of mercury blown to the winds, a known neuro-toxin affecting children’s brains and IQ.
Also, the billions (yes, that’s billion with a B) of gallons of water the coal plant will need is reason alone to veto it.
‘Coal-power boom falters in stampede to alternative sources’
http://www.desmogblog.com/coal-power-boom-falters-in-stampede-to-alternative-sources
“About 45 coal-fired power plants were either cancelled or delayed in the past 12 months, according to the US Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, reversing the craving for coal plants.
Natural-gas and renewable projects have now outpaced coal plants, according to Global Energy Decisions. Non-coal plans total more than 70,000 megawatts while coal has dropped to just 66,000 megawatts in the pipeline.”
More at link.
“Kathleen Hartnett White is director of the Center for Natural Resources for the Texas Public Policy Foundation in Austin.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Texas_Public_Policy_Foundation
“The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) is a conservative think tank founded in 1989 by James R. Leininger.”
‘Recipient Grants: Texas Public Policy Foundation’
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=1997
Interesting point from a link at DeSmogBlog’s page,
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=348
“Texas is now the country’s number one state for wind-power with Kansas not far behind.
Indeed, the Kansas wind power industry is growing so fast, companies there cannot find enough qualified workers.“
Researching, I found this interesting tidbit.
“Randy Scholfield, Kansans for Clean Water…”
Another one o’ them thar clean water commies! Can’t trust a thing he says ‘less he’s a mud grubbin’ Repubican. Get a life, or at least a brain.
______________________________________________
but I suspect it will be the liars against the liars again, with nothing new,
JMWalker, ya got that right LOL
______________________________________________
Well, thank God The Eagle ran her column then
Cap’n, gotta give the Regulars, et.al something to spin on.
Randy
Tbe United Nations report is FULL of wiggle room, hedges and question marks.
Try to read past the “summary” which was written by the politically motivated, and get to the actual meat of the reports.
As I have tried to explain, before, there are several different stages to this debabe:
1.) Is Global Warming really happening?
2.) Does mankind contribute to any such warming?
3.) What is mankinds contribution to any such warming?
4.) Can mankind stop, reverse or slow any Global Warming, if it is happening?
5.) Is the cost of such action worth the price of such action?
6.) Can the United States really do anything, acting alone, on this issue? (Won’t the reduction of carbon fuels use, in the United States, only make the price of such fuels cheaper, in the rest of the world, which will INCREASE the use of such fuels, for NO NET REDUCTION in CO2?)
7.) If foreign governments must also be involved, are we willing to restrict United States economic growth, based on promises of straving countries to restrict the growth of their economies? (Make no mistake, restrictions on energy ARE restrictions on growth!)
8.) Are we willing to go to war, or impose other sanctions, against foreign governments that violate “Global Warming Treaties”??
9.) If we are not willing to go to war, over such treaties, what good are they? In the end, we are punishing United States businesses so that foreign governments can make promises that they won’t keep, promises that the United States will not force them to keep.
—-
So, from a logical standpoint, there is nothing that we can do, on this subject.
The Sun is the most important issue, as far as warmth is concerned. Solar radiation fluctuates all of the time.
Salt content of the oceans can change ocean currents. It is speculated that Great Lakes area drainage alternated from the Misssissippi River to the St. Lawrence Seaway, which caused another cooling period, as the cool, fresh water interupted normal atlantic currents.
Melting glaciers, TODAY, might have the same effect. Any warming, which melts ice, forming cool, fresh water currents, might “self correct” any warming!
When the history of life on Planet Earth is considered, in its entirety, it is periods of COOLING which seem to cause the most trouble for living organisms, including Humans.
Sorry, the “Science” supporting “Global Warming” will not hold up, over time.
I do not doubt that the radical Greens will cause much damage, to the economy and to freedom. But history will regard the entire “global warming” issue with much curiosity and amazement.
Why were we willing to sacrifice our entire way of life on a weak theory, trying to implement radical changes on a hungry, starving world?
Make no mistake: the reduction of world economic growth will cause many people to die MUCH sooner than any warming of the planet!
J M Walker posted March 13, 2008 at 7:16 am
“…but I suspect it will be the liars against the liars again, with nothing new, and certainly nothing progressive in the terms of intelligent dialog. Too bad.”
No, it’d be the huge amount of science, such as reported at
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
“against” stupid, wild guesses and irrational arm-flailing from people like econ101, and JimmyMac.
But like they say… you can’t fix stupid.
econ101 posted March 13, 2008 at 10:27 am
“The Sun is the most important issue, as far as warmth is concerned. Solar radiation fluctuates all of the time.”
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
“Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation
The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis.
2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the “El Niño of the century”. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when SOLAR irradiance is at a MINIMUM and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.”
Without the “greenhouse” effect, Earth would be about 60 degrees F. COLDER.
Cosmos, you know I totally am on your side. But this?
“Indeed, the Kansas wind power industry is growing so fast, companies there cannot find enough qualified workers.“
It’s a true statement on its face, except that ALL industries and businesses in Kansas are experiencing a shortage of qualified workers. Including the oilfield, food service, and the home builders in Rooks county.
There may be a shortage of qualified workers, but it isnt only because of the “growth” of the wind industry. It’s happening across the board.
And make no mistake. Wind power, as we know it today, is an INDUSTRY. It deserves to be called “big wind” just like “big oil
and “big ag” and “big pharma”.
except that ALL industries and businesses in Kansas are experiencing a shortage of qualified workers
They’re all at the Board’s conference table trying to hire a consultant to determine why there’s a shortage of qualified workers.
Cosmos
Without the “greenhouse effect” we would all be DEAD!
So, is that what you want?
paulthecon
Too much greenhouse effect and we turn Earth into Venus.
Surface temperature 900 degrees.
“They’re all at the Board’s conference table trying to hire a consultant to determine why there’s a shortage of qualified workers.”
Now THAT’s funny!
Paul, without water we’d be dead but with too much we’d be dead too. It’s called drowning. I’m wondering if you think before you post.
“companies there cannot find enough qualified workers.“
They aren’t moving to Kansas. Everyone heard about the requirement to teach evolution in our schools, and caveman’s stand against energy use and settled somewhere else.
They also heard the the governor say our wine sucks. Being trendy young people, they only wanted the finest wines.
Being trendy young people, they only wanted the finest wines.
then they’re coasty people anyway. Real people between california and New York drink fermented grain beverages. Then again, more N. European stock settled west of the cumberland and N. Euro was stuck with grain because of a grape infestation a few hundred years ago, and they became ingrained.
Doug and JR:
“Without the “greenhouse” effect, Earth would be about 60 degrees F. COLDER.”
This is what Cosmos said.
Your negative comments, towards me, could just as well be directed at Cosmos.
Yes, there is a balance in nature.
I simply think that balance will be decided, by nature, and that man has little or nothing to do with it.
“because of a grape infestation a few hundred years ago”
Actually, it was global cooling. And in the midwest, it was prohibition.
You must be a rice beer, Budweiser type common man?
Econ101 posted March 13, 2008 at 11:24 am
“Without the “greenhouse effect” we would all be DEAD!
So, is that what you want?”
Congratulations econ101! You finally figured out that GHG’s are important.
And no, I don’t want to eliminate GHG’s — just get them back to the levels they were before “man” changed them.
Or maybe a little lower, to offset the warming that already has happened, the loss of natural carbon sinks, etc.
Cosmos
Human effects on GW are minimal, at worst or best, depending.
Solar activity, El Nino, Ocean currents, way too many variables.
China just had their coldest winter in 50 years.
You will tell me that doesnt matter. Then you will show me figures and temperatures that you think DO “matter” —
Face it, you are brainwashed.
There is no evidence that would ever make you change your mind.
If I am wrong there, please tell me what numbers would convince you to give up the GW fight?
econ101,
China is only one region.
We’re at a solar minimum. We’re in a La Nina (cool) phase.
And we still had the “16th warmest” winter on record.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html
“Global Highlights
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 16th warmest on record for the December 2007-February 2008 period (0.58°F/0.32°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C).
The presence of a moderate-to-strong La Niña contributed to an average temperature that was the coolest since the La Niña episode of 2000-2001.”
What happens when solar increases, and we have a strong El Nino?
econ101 posted March 13, 2008 at 1:55 pm
“Human effects on GW are minimal, at worst or best, depending.
…
Face it, you are brainwashed.”
econ101, since your name (and profession) are known, why don’t you be a “hero” in the future, and post three items.
1) List your sources that convinced you that the “[h]uman effects on GW are minimal”.
2) Define those “minimal” effects on GW.
3) I agree with the scientific consensus re AGW. Explain why you believe that all of the scientists in the IPCC reports, and all of the other scientists that agree with them, are “brainwashed”.
Your family, clients, et al will “enjoy” reading your responses, in the future decades.
And we still had the “16th warmest” winter on record.”
Translated – since there have been temperature recording devices.
There were obviously warmer periods on the planet earth.
Half-truths or Half-lies, however one wants to say it, is cosmos’s speciality. :)
Cosmos
How long have we had scientific, precise measures of “global temperature”????
Please list the average, daily temperature, every day, for the last 100 years, would you please?
Can’t do it?
Why not?
Consensus?
OK, tell me, what is the total number of people in the entire world that have any “standing” (in your opinion) to have a scientific opinion on this matter?
Of that total, how many agree, precisely, with you?
Can’t answer me?
Why not?
You are a bully, nothing more.
There is no “consensus” — show me even one world renown “scientist” who claims that His or Her projections are the ONLY sound projections on this subject?
You are using POLITICAL terms that the true “scientists” are not using.
The true scientists are full of doubt, they hedge and they explain the complications in the data, in the historical measurements, in the variables involved and in causation vs coincidence.
No true scientist has spoken with anywhere near the certainty and stridency that you use, here on this Blog.
Yes, SOME would tend to favor your view. But the CYA in their analysis is telling.
“Human effects on GW are minimal, at worst or best, depending”
Paul – that may be your freshman econ view; it is not the view of most scientists.
So JimmyMac…
Find anything yet to support your stupid belief in E. G. Beck’s bogus CO2 claims?
‘More Nonsense about CO2′
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
‘Hissink, CO2 and conspiracy theories’
http://timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3
“It just isn’t possible for the CO2 concentration to change by that much in one year —- the difference corresponds to about 500 billion tons of carbon which is about the same amount of carbon in all plants in the entire world.”
JimmyMac only has ad hominems and wild arm flailing, since he has no science to support his false AGW claims.
So, what is the percent of co2 in the atmosphere of total green house gases?
Anyone dumped a table spoon of chlorine (10 percent hypochlorite) into a swimming pool lately and see if it has an effect? :D
That should be man-made co2
econ101,
Thank you for proving that you don’t even know the scientific consensus on AGW. Nor the temperature data.
In the future, your family, clients, et al will “enjoy” your posts.
cosmos
You can not answer my questions, can you?
What was the average daily temperature every day for the last 100 years?
What is the total number of people, on the Earth, who have a background that would lend you (and Ben) to believe they had any scientific “standing” on this issue?
Of that total, when was the last time they all got to “vote” on this issue?
Please substitute “JimmyMac” for “Kansas” in this old, August 2007 post. (”Kansas” is one of many of JimmyMac’s old nics.)
Doesn’t Kansas know that a NATURAL DROP in CO2 seems to have triggered an ice age?
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wethring.htm
“The rise of the Appalachian Mountains may have caused a major ice age approximately 450 million years ago, an Ohio State University study has found.
The weathering of the mountains pulled carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, causing the opposite of a greenhouse effect — an “icehouse” effect.
…
It also reinforces the notion that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a major driver of Earth’s climate.”
Now, go ahead Kansas, and give all of us YOUR theories on WHY if a NATURAL DROP of CO2 caused an “icehouse”, the recent human-caused INCREASE of CO2 would NOT cause global warming.
All I hear about Man mad global warming is possibles, maybes and perhaps. Not exactly something to hang your hat on. The libs couldn’t even get the benefits of daylight saving time right.
Liberals have come up with something that is IMPOSSIBLE to measure.
There is no way to measure “global temperature” — therefore there is no way to disprove “global warming” —
Forget that liberals can not prove it. They are so arrogant they do not think that they have to prove anything.
Liberal greens are demanding massive economic changes, but they insist that those who oppose their global warming theory must “Prove” our point of view.
It is not possible to prove or disprove any of this, in the short term.
That is why they truly love this issue.
The goal is more government and more taxes.
For what?
Even if Kyoto had been ratified, it would NOT have made any real difference, according to those who supported Kyoto!
econ101,
Thank you yet again.
You don’t want average “daily” temperatures — you want long-term trends. A 5-year mean is commonly used.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif
And please provide a list of any credible scientists who claim to have refuted the “consensus” re AGW.
‘Climate MYTHS: Many leading scientists question climate change’
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11654
U.S. efforts greater than Kyoto Treaty.
US Policy Outpacing Kyoto Treaty
by Drew Thornley
“Between 2000 and 2005, the CO2 emissions
of the EU-15 increased 3.8%,
while the U.S.’s emissions went up 2.5%.
During the same period, the U.S.’s
economy grew 40% faster than the
EU-15’s, and the U.S. population grew
twice as fast. U.S. CO2 emissions fell
1.8% from 2005 to 2006—and all greenhouse
gas emissions dropped 1.5%—”
Imagine that, the U.S. is doing a better job controlling co2 than Europe. :)
while the U.S. economy grew 2.9%.”
Also, the retreating glaciers in North America once drained into the Mississippi River.
When that drainage shifted to the St. Lawrence, that shift of cold FRESH water made a huge difference in the Atlantic currents.
This was roughly 10,000 years ago, I think.
It got really cold again. The huge glaciers moved forward again. The earliest Humans, in North America, were pretty much forced out or froze to death.
Then, the glaciers melted again. For some reason, this time, ocean currents were not affected so much.
The point, of course, is that many things can change or affect the climate.
In this case, warmer climates caused melting ice which caused changes in ocean currents which caused colder climates.
This is accepted geological theory, as far as the Great Lakes glaciers are concerned.
Won’t the fresh water, from any melting ice, cause more changes in ocean currents?
Won’t any “warming” actually set the stage for future “cooling”???
econ101,
“but they insist that those who oppose their global warming theory must “Prove” our point of view.”
And thank you yet again.
Actually, your side is supposed to refute the AGW theory — and provide a credible hypothesis, with observations/data, that explains the recent observed warming.
You have failed to do that.
econ101,
Palaeoclimate is in chapter 6 at, http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
cosmos, the U.N. designated butt kisser along with the GORACLE.
Too bad the U.S. is doing a better job in emissions than the Europeans who bow down to their U.N. idolatry.
Paul has no credibility on this matter.
He has admitted a vested interest in the fossil fuels industry.
He has also decreed that humanity will be dependent on fossil fuels “forever”.
Kathy Sebelius will veto the plant. She knows her political future depends on it.
JimmyMac only has ad hominems and wild arm flailing, since he has no science to support his false AGW claims.
Paul – I assume you are referring to a “Younger-Dryas” type event? We studied that in paleoclimatology. And, it is the basis of the fictional movie “Day After Tomorrow.”
http://www.wunderground.com/education/thedayafter.asp
Maybe you should enroll in some meterology or climatology classes over at WSU. Especially if you can get through the capstone graduate level paleoclimatology class. It is fascinating.
Cosmos
The side of the argument that wants a change in the status quo always has the burden of proof.
YOUR side wants to tax us to death and change our lifestyles, for a theory that YOU have not proven to be true.
Ben
If you were to get EVERYTHING you wanted, out of the United Nations and out of the U.S. Government, what positive effects would we see?
What change in temperaature?
What change in climate?
How long would it take, to notice the difference?
You can not answer those questions.
cosmos
“recent observed warming”???
Where?
In China?
At the South Pole?
Where and over what time period?
And, you are glossing over the final stages of the GW debate:
Is global warming happening?
Does man cause global warming?
Can man stop global warming?
I have shortened my list, of course.
to focus on this fact:
Man can NOT stop any global warming even if it is really happening!
Scientifically speaking, CO2 is but one small part of the “green house gas” issue.
Carbon is a very small variable, compared to Solar radiation, Earth Orbit, Air Currents and Ocean Currents.
More to the point, even if man DOES cause global warming, through use of fossil fuels:
YOU ARE ASKING THE WORLD TO STARVE AND FREEZE JUST SO YOU CAN FEEL BETTER ABOUT YOURSELF!
Much of the world is dirt poor.
They will only burn more oil and burn more coal, if we quit using the stuff.
No treaty in the history of mankind has ever lasted very long.
BTW – the Younger-Dryas was not global; it was concentrated in northern Europe and eastern North America. The regions that would have been warmed by the (disrupted) Gulf Stream – not everywhere else.
Man can NOT stop any global warming even if it is really happening!
FALSE
Carbon is a very small variable, compared to Solar radiation, Earth Orbit, Air Currents and Ocean Currents.
FALSE
Is global warming happening?
Does man cause global warming?
Can man stop global warming?
YES, YES, and YES
Howeevr, Paul, I WILL admit one thing. The study of climatology is a bit beyond freshman economics.
I think there may be insidious strategy to Kathy not vetoing this right away.
She MAY be waiting for the votes to overturn her own veto.
I think the Eagle should publish a full list of the vote on this plant. This unpopular plant should not get a veto overide. Make ALL senators and reps on record and make them share the blame if this plant is built against the will of the people.
What change in temperaature?
What change in climate?
How long would it take, to notice the difference?
It would take decades to begin to reverse the trends. A lot would depend on just how much we did. Just stop the INCREASE in CO2 and CH4 or actually start increasing sequestration?
There are any NUMBER of easy and otherwise positive things we can do to address fossil fuels.
For instance?
The habitat of the gorilla is being systematically burned to the ground.
Ask me why?
Thanks.
The people in the region burn the trees to make charcoal for cooking.
Their problem could be solved, their lives made easier, the forest and gorillas saved. All it would take is introducing propane cooking to these people.
You are probably correct JR that propane would be less bad than wood in these cases.
FALSE
Carbon is a very small variable, compared to Solar radiation, Earth Orbit, Air Currents and Ocean Currents.
——————-
TRUE:
Man Made co2 emission is an EXTREMELY small variable.
0.038 percent of the total.
That’s 38/100th of one percent of the one million size sample ppm
1000 ppm of CO2 or higher in a ground level office building that is near a busy street is usually found when sampling.
380ppm wouldn’t even be worthy mentioning as a trace.
Regular – the scientists disagree with you. The level of CO2 in a closed container has nothing to do with global climate.
More wild arm flailing from JimmyMac, since he has no science to support his false AGW claims.
The tiny amount of Ebola virus that could kill a human “wouldn’t even be worthy mentioning as a trace.”
The important factors of CO2 are its radiative efficiency, and lifetime in Earths atmosphere.
Ten grams of lead (a good-sized bullet) is about 100 ppm in a good-sized man. So, since that isn’t even worthy mentioning as a trace I guess shooting someone doesn’t matter.
Or, how about an increase of sulfur hexafluoride in Earths atmosphere by 100 ppm? That would warm things up a bit. /sarcasm off
Ben,
Did the GW scientists stop using ppm/V measurements for gases?
What does a closed container have to do what I wrote?
—————————-
Ben,
The bullet example is irrelevant. The harm there comes with velocity, mass, resistance of target, distance of target and of course size of target.
A rabbit shot with a 38 slug is going to feel more impact than an elephant.
Irrelevant analogy and nothing to do with gas volume relative to an atmosphere.
————————-
cosmos,
You are not a scientist.
And still more wild arm flailing and ad hominems from JimmyMac, since he has no science to support his false AGW claims.
And sometimes scientists use ppt for gases.
http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html
Oh golly cosmos, ppt – welcome to the world of scientific terms.
You might want to check out all the different ways pressure can be named as well, as it is used in calculating precision volume constructs.
Oh golly yourself JimmyMac — welcome to the world of high global warming potential GHG’s.
Climate Panel is on Hotseat:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html
Coolest Winter since 2001:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html
“Econ” Paul F Rossel is a known trader in the fossil fuels industry.
One Trackback
[...] on a basic level. Game theory and Pareto efficiency suggest that acceptifourreasonswhy.comCoal plants an environmental boon?Coal plants an environmental boon? Yesterday6:02 a.m. Former Texas regulator Kathleen Hartnett [...]