Comments on: Gore wants carbon-free electricity production

By: Secured Investment Contracts

Secured Investment Contracts — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:17:48 +0000

Secured Investment Contracts…

I don’t mean to be too in your face, but I’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I’ll come to this blog more often….

By: Truth About Fuel Saving Products

Truth About Fuel Saving Products — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:05:33 +0000

Truth About Fuel Saving Products…

This article sounds well, but how everything is related together?…

By: lease to buy home nashville

lease to buy home nashville — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:09:39 +0000

lease to buy home nashville…

Now is the time to invest in US property, Don’t abandon it, invest in it….

By: Rage

Rage — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:12:09 +0000

Please share your delight with Grady’s excellent post by using a junk email address, and sending large attachments to:

Thanks!

By: Grady Cummings

Grady Cummings — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:21:16 +0000

What a first class text.

By: cosmos_originally

cosmos_originally — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:26:13 +0000

outlander,

I was just wondering what months Easterbrook included for 2008 — and I also don’t think it’s accurate to treat a few months the same as an entire year.

Easterbrook’s PDO isn’t the only forcing, and it does not explain the observed long-term warming trend.

‘Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?’
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-the-Smoking-Gun.html

By: BlueJay

BlueJay — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:26:23 +0000

“YOU, JR, are “anti-progress” not me.”

Hardly.

YOU are the one who said humanity would be dependent on fossil fuels, FOREVER.

Me I have just a little more faith in humanity and the American people than that.

You make the further mistake of accusing me of attacking the American way of life. I’m not.

But what I am in favor of seeing change, and what is indefensible by the way, is the American lifestyle.

We waste. Better than any other people on this planet, Americans consume and use and discard at a disgraceful pace. That must change. It has to.

Cosmos can probably throw me a link. China and India and the rest of the world? They aspire to our indefensible lifestyle. The planet simply cannot sustain that. And last I checked, habitable worlds are in short supply.

We can lead the world in changing how we use the Earth and its resources. We can take the rest of the world to a future that bypasses our wasteful ways of the last many years and still sustains all of the worlds inhabitants.

And bad news for you and yours in the ostrich community there paulie, it looks like THIS time, America won’t kick the problem down the road.

By: outlander

outlander — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:06:09 +0000

You are asking silly questions Cosmos. What is your point? Is the graph inaccurate? In what way?

Or do you not have a clue? I really want to know.

By: cosmos_originally

cosmos_originally — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:56:52 +0000

outlander posted,

“… and cooled more than 1°F this year (Fig 3).”

outlander,

1) What is the last month of 2008 on Easterbrook’s graph?

2) How many months are there in a year?

By: outlander

outlander — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:15:19 +0000

GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE

“Addressing the Washington Policymakers in Seattle, WA, Dr. Don Easterbrook said that shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) from its warm mode to its cool mode virtually assures global cooling for the next 25-30 years and means that the global warming of the past 30 years is over. The announcement by NASA that the (PDO) had shifted from its warm mode to its cool mode (Fig. 1) is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and is not an oddity superimposed upon and masking the predicted severe warming by the IPCC. This has significant implications for the future and indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction of global temperatures soaring 1°F per decade for the rest of the century.

Instead of a rise of 1°F during the first decade of this century as predicted by IPCC climate models (Fig 2), global temperatures cooled slightly for the past nine years and cooled more than 1°F this year (Fig 3). Global cooling over the past decade appears to be due to a global cooling trend set up by the PDO cool mode and a similar shift in the Atlantic. The IPCC’s prediction of a 1° F warming by 2011, will require warming of about 1° F in the next three years and unless that happens, the IPCC models will be proven invalid.”

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WashingtonPolicymakersaddress.pdf

Climate science is such swiss cheese. Against this backdrop of cooling global temperatures and energy scarcity, Al Gore tries to gin up the sense of urgency.

Let’s get started building the nuclear power plants.

By: cosmos_originally

cosmos_originally — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:04:41 +0000

‘Bush Hiding Truth: Global Warming Regulations Worth $2 Trillion Benefit»‘
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/06/30/bush-epa-suppression/
“Assuming gas prices in the range of $3.50 per gallon, “the net benefit to society could be in excess of $2 trillion” through 2040:”

H/T to http://desmogblog.com

By: cosmos_originally

cosmos_originally — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:03:23 +0000

econ,

Is it cheaper to invest $12 (in 2000 $) to save each barrel of oil, or buy that barrel at $140, or higher?

http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
“Saving half the oil America uses, and substituting cheaper alternatives
for the other half, requires four integrated steps:

* Double the efficiency of using oil. The U.S. today wrings twice as much work from each barrel of oil as it did in 1975; with the latest proven efficiency technologies, it can double oil efficiency all over again.
The investments needed to save each barrel of oil will cost only $12 (in 2000 $), less than half the officially forecast $26 price of that barrel in the world oil market.”

By: Franklin

Franklin — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:06:51 +0000

Jed
Sometimes people have reasonable complaints but they do not know how to process those complaints, or advance their case with an insurance company.

That is where I come in, at times.

You strike me more as a “crank” who feels entitled to benefits you did not pay for. Hate to prejudge your case, but your “me me me” style here leads me to doubt your knowledge and experience with these matters.

I am VERY aware of the government denying medical claims and disability claims. It happens all the time.

If you had a valid case, the Insurance Commissioner would have helped you. I have used that office frequently, over the years. I have written many complaint letters.

If that didn’t work, you had complete access to the courts.

Yes, there are some insurance companies out there that are hard to work with.

I will give you a bit of a hint: Large organizations are ALWAYS hard to work with, and they always have the same, bureacratic weaknesses.

The way YOU come off, on this Blog, I am guessing that no government employee and no insurance agent felt inclined to take up your case.

You come off like a paranoid crank and a jerk.

Show some respect, and lots of reputable people would probably have been able to either address your problem, or explain to you why you did not deserve the benefits you claim you deserve.

By: Franklin

Franklin — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:58:57 +0000

BJ
Here is a “lump of coal” for you:

http://www.sunflower.net/News/2008/FICOCourtDecisionAirPermit.pdf

By: Jed

Jed — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:58:23 +0000

Pall,
Yes, I’ve noticed the attorneys that advertise on TV. I’ve even known a couple of them, and they were at least as despicable as the agents that sold us the high premium no-pay insurance. Born liars all!
As opposed to insurance companies, I’ve had almost no problems with Medicare. They’ve done what they said they would, which is far better than your industry has.
As for you being on the side of clients against your own industry, I wouldn’t believe that for an instant. You’re always on your own side, and to hell with anyone else’s suffering. That’s been your subtext on this blog from day one!

By: Franklin

Franklin — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:55:49 +0000

Progress?

JR, you are anti-industrial, anti-growth, anti profit, anti-production —

YOU, JR, are “anti-progress” not me.

I am all for alternatives.

Compete. Show us what you got!

You got nothing, absolutely nothing that can substitute for carbon based fuels.

The most interesting “new technologies” out there are directed at shale oil and methane ice. BOTH of these sources are carbon-based.

We will use MORE carbon, in the future, not less.

You? You flatter yourself. You are not for “progress” — You are for retreat. You are for the complete destruction of the American economy.

By: ANTI

ANTI — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:55:35 +0000

Rimel me this,
Rimel me that,
Who can’t figure out which box to type in?

http://icantforthelifeofmefigureouthowacandidateschoiceoflapeljewelrymakesadifference,/

By: ANTI

ANTI — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:53:28 +0000

BlueJay is still and incompetent jackass-

http://icantforthelifeofmefigureouthowacandidateschoiceoflapeljewelrymakesadifference,/

By: Franklin

Franklin — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:51:36 +0000

BJ
Of course, I have always said that politicians should do the right thing, regarless of opinion polls.

However, please show me the opinion poll that shows any support, at all, for increasing the tax on gasoline?

Any “carbon tax” will increase the tax on gasoline.

Your grandiosity is amusing to a point.

We will end up with a “grand compromise” like we usually do, in this country.

Alternatives will be free to compete with carbon.

For the next several decades, carbon will be cheaper than any alternative.

For the next several decades, coal and natural gas and gasoline will win in the marketplace.

Nobody wants to slow or punish your alternatives.

NONE of your alternatives are truly ready for prime time. None of your alternatives can make it without direct government support.

By: BlueJay

BlueJay — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:43:19 +0000

You’ve already lost paulie.

And you know it too.

People like you are being looked at increasingly not just as simple vocal opposition.

You’re a type we just can’t afford anymore.

You are standing in the way of progress. You are an obstacle.

You know what happens when an unstoppable force meets an object that won’t move don’t you?

Change is gonna roll over you like a bus over a road apple.

By: Franklin

Franklin — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:30:38 +0000

Cosmos
Much of India and China are hungry, and tired of riding bicycles.
The world will use MORE carbon based fuels, every year, for the rest of our life times.
Only a nuclear war or a comet or asteroid striking the Earth, only some major catastrophe will stop our ever increasing use of carbon based fuels.

The world thinks you are crazy, and the world will not listen to you.

By: Franklin

Franklin — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:26:56 +0000

JR
HUH?
You are one of the most anti-military, anti-war left of center people on this Blog.
And you try to rally YOUR cause by bringing up our war effort, in WW2?

First of all, support for the United States entering WW2 was very weak, until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

Then, we FIRST attacked Germany, not Japan.

And, the USSR, our supposed “allie” would not let us use Russian soil to attack Japan, but the USSR felt free to “claim” Japanese territory, after the United States defeated Japan!

And, this entire time, the United States fired up HUGE coal plants, and pumped a great deal of oil, and we made a great deal of steal.

I am 100% in SUPPORT of re-industrializing the United States.

It is the liberals that make it nearly impossible to generate our own energy, or produce our own manufacturing products.

Besides, the cost/benefit analysis that I asked for, concerning global warming taxes, is a very valid request to make, of anyone asking for “sacrifice” or “change” —

I agree that WW2 was WORTH the cost.

Global Warming taxes are NOT worth the cost.

Only a raving lunitic will claim that global warming is a larger threat to the human race than the Axis Powers.

Also, we could DO something about the Axis powers.

There is NOTHING we can do about the climate.

Absolutely, positively NOTHING.

By: Regular

Regular — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:04 +0000

#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 20, 2008 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

econ posted July 20, 2008 at 1:33 am

“Produce as much energy as we possibly can, from every source available.”
———–

It’s cheaper to reduce the demand for energy than buy it.
————————–
Then shut off your computer, you’re expending energy.

By: cosmos_originally

cosmos_originally — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:56:10 +0000

econ posted July 20, 2008 at 1:33 am

“Produce as much energy as we possibly can, from every source available.”
———–

It’s cheaper to reduce the demand for energy than buy it.

By: BlueJay

BlueJay — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:48:50 +0000

“Until then, I will not accept guaranteed misery for a “perhaps” or a “maybe” — I will not sacrifice if I am not convinced that there is a reasonable cost/benefit equation involved.

Neither will the American people.”

Oh my.

If THAT sort of sentiment had prevailed in 1941?

Well, paulie would be peddling insurance policies in German and Japanese.

YOU are the voice of “can’t ” paulie. You are also the voice of “won’t”. Do some pedaling while you’re peddling.