URGENT! Call you congressman NOW and tell him to vote NO on the
Waxman Markey bill. This bill introduces the largest tax increase in
American History that we will be paying. ALL utilities, including gasoline,
will have huge tax increases . It is expected that each family will pay an
additional $3k in taxes PER YEAR to start with increases over the next 10 years.

Capitol Switchboard 202-224-3121.
Heard the DC offices are overloaded with calls...so call
their local/state offices.

DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO US!

wow, that's one hell of an alarmist post you made there. perhaps you could post a link to said proposed bill and maybe an article pointing out it's faults.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Well..the bill passed so too late now. Enjoy old people! taxes and bills must suck. - if you aint on your hustle.

algore started this bullshit.

how egotistical to believe that man can do anything to a fucking PLANET!

It was here millions of years before us, and will be here millions of years after we've gone. FUCKING MASSIVE VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS could only alter the climate for 1 or 2 years (Mt Pinatubo), GIGANTIC METEOR Strikes could only alter the climate for a few thousand years. Yet, Puny humans are going to have any sort of impact on the climate? Give me a fucking break. Even when we were lighting off dozens or hundreds of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons a year in above ground testing, we couldn't create any sort of impact on the planet or the climate. The most powerful thing created by mankind, and it couldn't even do what a single volcano in the philipines was able to do.


The politicians who support this shit don't actually believe in it, they just hope enough silly people do believe in it to make it easy for them to grab more power and taxes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2009 11:40PM by Thurston Moore.

im with you on the whole global warming possibly being natural, possibly being bullshit. but, what i do agree with is the whole green movement. Not so much that we are killing the planet, but i see nature dissapearing. Humans are turning into a virus that spreads and kills off as we grow (thanks for the analogy matrix). I think this planet would comfortably handle about 1/10th of the current population. We need a good asteroid/earth quake/volcano/virus to help out with population control.

You're an idiot.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> algore started this bullshit.
>
> how egotistical to believe that man can do
> anything to a fucking PLANET!
>
> It was here millions of years before us, and will
> be here millions of years after we've gone.
> FUCKING MASSIVE VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS could only
> alter the climate for 1 or 2 years (Mt Pinatubo),
> GIGANTIC METEOR Strikes could only alter the
> climate for a few thousand years. Yet, Puny
> humans are going to have any sort of impact on the
> climate? Give me a fucking break. Even when we
> were lighting off dozens or hundreds of nuclear
> and thermonuclear weapons a year in above ground
> testing, we couldn't create any sort of impact on
> the planet or the climate. The most powerful
> thing created by mankind, and it couldn't even do
> what a single volcano in the philipines was able
> to do.
>
>
> The politicians who support this shit don't
> actually believe in it, they just hope enough
> silly people do believe in it to make it easy for
> them to grab more power and taxes.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wow, that's one hell of an alarmist post you made
> there. perhaps you could post a link to said
> proposed bill and maybe an article pointing out
> it's faults.


Here's one: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24232_Page2.html

The complex bill mandates a 17-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and a 83-percent cut by 2050, reductions that will be accomplished by putting a price on carbon dioxide through a cap-and-trade system. It mandates that 20 percent of electricity comes from renewable sources and increased energy efficiency by 2020. And the legislation gives electric utilities, coal plants, energy-intensive manufacturers, farmers, petroleum refiners, and other industries
special protections to help them transition to new, less-fossil fuel-intensive ways of doing business.

It will also raise electricity prices for consumers by $175 a year per household by 2020, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office, significantly less than the $3,000 price hike predicted by Republicans who say the “energy tax” will increase energy bills and the cost of consumer goods.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> algore started this bullshit.
>
> how egotistical to believe that man can do
> anything to a fucking PLANET!

Mining, construction, and our waste have to have some kind of impact on the earth, (or at least on those inhabiting it) but that doesn't mean it is destroying it. I think different = bad to a lot of people.
>
> It was here millions of years before us, and will
> be here millions of years after we've gone.

I agree, but do humans actually care about the Earth after we're gone?

> FUCKING MASSIVE VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS could only
> alter the climate for 1 or 2 years (Mt Pinatubo),
> GIGANTIC METEOR Strikes could only alter the
> climate for a few thousand years. Yet, Puny
> humans are going to have any sort of impact on the
> climate? Give me a fucking break. Even when we
> were lighting off dozens or hundreds of nuclear
> and thermonuclear weapons a year in above ground
> testing, we couldn't create any sort of impact on
> the planet or the climate. The most powerful
> thing created by mankind, and it couldn't even do
> what a single volcano in the philipines was able
> to do.
>
>
> The politicians who support this shit don't
> actually believe in it, they just hope enough
> silly people do believe in it to make it easy for
> them to grab more power and taxes.

I am getting really sick of all the fear mongering for profit. How does worry and panic ever help? Quit telling me how to feel and quit exploiting your brothers. I think most of the politicians FORCE themselves to believe their own hype just to sleep at night.

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> im with you on the whole global warming possibly
> being natural, possibly being bullshit. but, what
> i do agree with is the whole green movement. Not
> so much that we are killing the planet, but i see
> nature dissapearing. Humans are turning into a
> virus that spreads and kills off as we grow
> (thanks for the analogy matrix). I think this
> planet would comfortably handle about 1/10th of
> the current population. We need a good
> asteroid/earth quake/volcano/virus to help out
> with population control.


I totally disagree that this planet cannot support 6 billion people.

The way things are now, of course, it cannot. However, that is only because powerful people who stand to lose out on enormous profits if the status quou is changed fight hard and nasty to keep things the way they are. They are even part of this "global warming" campaing/religion.

We have the technology, we have the know-how, to build homes, and other structures in sustainable ways, homes that can be practically "off-grid" or even homes that sell energy BACK INTO the grid. We know how to grow food organically, without destroying the farmlands like monoculture farming and industrial fertilization and pest control does. We can even grow 100% organic, non-chemically tainted food in warehouses, abandoned skyscrapers, you name it.

The problems are fighting against a status quou, and a lack of an integrated "systems management" approach to applying all the technologies and knowledge our society has accumulated over the years into a coherent and cost-effective methodology.

This planet could easily, using the things we know right now, sustain 10 billion people. And with a population of 10 billion, our collective knowledge would be such that we could engineer and manage the resources to support yet another 10 billion. And so on, and so on. This planet has no maximum capacity sign at the door, all of the capacity constraints are artificial, based on current methods and an unwillingness to abandon those outmoded ideas and methods.

Granted, the industries that contribute to the artificial scarcity and other limiting factors didn't set out to create them, they just wanted to make money using technology and information from a bygone era. Unfortunately, they are powerful enough and make enough money with these outdated systems that they are reluctant to change and vigilant against allowing any change.

Yes, if we keep doing the things we've been doing since the beginning of the industrial revolution some 150+ years ago, then we will eventually end up in an unsustainable environment and economy. But we already have the tools, the technology and the knowledge, if we ever choose to put them all together, to go forward with incredible populations levels enjoying unheard of prosperity and standards of living.

Right now, it's just more profitable to keep doing the same shit over and over again.

Here's a simplified example: A home builder could, using basic off-the-shelf technology and building techniques, build a home that is 70 to 90% more energy efficient than the homes being built today. He could even build one that would actually MAKE money for the homeowner by generating more energy (solar panels, wind power, geothermal, etc) than the house uses, selling it back onto the grid.

Unfortunately, that would cost the builder 50 to 80% more per house. Granted, a house that cost half as much more to build than a traditional house would end up costing the owner 300% less to own over the lifetime of the house, if not actually make money for the homeowner, but the builder isn't going to spend the extra money when he can build the same house he's been building for years, getting the same margins. Part of the blame there is the builder, part of the blame is the buyer, part of the blame is lack of awareness. It doesn't matter. Better houses could be built today, but they aren't being built.

If you want to put it into "green house gases" perspective, then we are going to create a whole new tax regime to solve a problem that has a much more technological and academic solution. The only people who will benefit is the ruling class. If we went the other way, homeowners, average citizens could live in off-grid homes, some even earning money from the electric company by selling excess electricity.

I guess if you like power and money, it's easy to choose which path to take.

im with steven hawking on this one- if we dont colonize space, we be dead.

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> im with steven hawking on this one- if we dont
> colonize space, we be dead.

I agree with that, too.

But he's talking about a much grander scale in time and space.

Earth will eventually be absorbed into the sun when the sun goes into the red giant stage. If civilization is to live longer than the earth, it will need to find a way off this planet and to seed the solar system, galaxy and ultimately the universe. If we don't, we have a finite existence.

However, we aren't going to achieve the science and technology without learning how to grow our population safely and efficiently to numbers that can create the critical mass of intelligence to figure out interstellar travel.

Civilization advances by collective knowledge and wisdom. That means MORE people, over time, NOT LESS.

i thought when he was talking about this he was referring to us destroying ourselves, through war etc. I dont see us living on this earth for much longer unless somehow we can get a 1 world government going. But, if i had to guess, civilization probably wont make it that far. we be dead.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Civilization advances by collective knowledge and
> wisdom. That means MORE people, over time, NOT
> LESS.


oh and I see the flaw with this, religion. No matter how advanced we get, no matter how intelligent we are, there will always be a religion there to divide culture/technology/knowledge.

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thurston Moore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Civilization advances by collective knowledge
> and
> > wisdom. That means MORE people, over time, NOT
> > LESS.
>
>
> oh and I see the flaw with this, religion. No
> matter how advanced we get, no matter how
> intelligent we are, there will always be a
> religion there to divide
> culture/technology/knowledge.


Nah, man. REligion and war are the things that impede progress, and they are really only tools of the people who currently profit and wish to maintain the status quou.

Religion is going to go away at some point. Not a belief in a higher power, but the blind adherence to an organized, established religious heirarchy will eventually be as anachronistic as the idea that the universe revolves around the earth.

Becoming enlightened requires civilization to let go of all the past power and control structures and to embrace science and logic and reason, and to explore and invent new understandings of the physical and spiritual world.

We've made great strides in the past, loosening the grip of established religions, breaking free from the "heresy" of scientific knowledge, etc.

It might take another 500 years to make really great strides in science, but every asswipe and intellectual half-wit who is holding on to these old and tired ideas of creationism and religion as the answer are only holding back civilization's progress towards our ultimate destiny.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kenny_Powers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thurston Moore Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Civilization advances by collective knowledge
> > and
> > > wisdom. That means MORE people, over time,
> NOT
> > > LESS.
> >
> >
> > oh and I see the flaw with this, religion. No
> > matter how advanced we get, no matter how
> > intelligent we are, there will always be a
> > religion there to divide
> > culture/technology/knowledge.
>
>
> Nah, man. REligion and war are the things that
> impede progress, and they are really only tools of
> the people who currently profit and wish to
> maintain the status quou.
>
> Religion is going to go away at some point. Not a
> belief in a higher power, but the blind adherence
> to an organized, established religious heirarchy
> will eventually be as anachronistic as the idea
> that the universe revolves around the earth.
>
> Becoming enlightened requires civilization to let
> go of all the past power and control structures
> and to embrace science and logic and reason, and
> to explore and invent new understandings of the
> physical and spiritual world.
>
> We've made great strides in the past, loosening
> the grip of established religions, breaking free
> from the "heresy" of scientific knowledge, etc.
>
> It might take another 500 years to make really
> great strides in science, but every asswipe and
> intellectual half-wit who is holding on to these
> old and tired ideas of creationism and religion as
> the answer are only holding back civilization's
> progress towards our ultimate destiny.


you'd think in the age of google, and where you can fly around the world in a day, superstition would have gone away by now. I think as long as there is a belief in a higher power, there will be people claiming to have the answers. It's been 2000 years and people still believe the Bible more than they would the scientific community. I can only hope that you are right, but time will tell.


see more Fail Blog



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2009 05:01AM by Kenny_Powers.

There are two problems with cap and trade. First, unless China and India are doing the same thing, it puts the U.S. at a huge competitive disadvantage. There is no point in industrial companies setting up operations here. Second, this CO2 market idea is like the Tulip Bulb market. It has no intrinsic value and is going to be manipulated. In the end you will do nothing to curb CO2 and it will damage the U.S. economy while fueling fraud.

WashingToneLocian(2) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are two problems with cap and trade. First,
> unless China and India are doing the same thing,
> it puts the U.S. at a huge competitive
> disadvantage. There is no point in industrial
> companies setting up operations here. Second, this
> CO2 market idea is like the Tulip Bulb market. It
> has no intrinsic value and is going to be
> manipulated. In the end you will do nothing to
> curb CO2 and it will damage the U.S. economy while
> fueling fraud.

The tulip bulb market at least had tulip bulbs backing up the speculative bubble.

This carbon credit stupidity is based on an assumption and a well planned and well marketed conceptualization that carbon is bad for the planet. It is a trading scheme based on nothing more than inventing a problem and then offering a solution.

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you'd think in the age of google, and where you
> can fly around the world in a day, superstition
> would have gone away by now. I think as long as
> there is a belief in a higher power, there will be
> people claiming to have the answers. It's been
> 2000 years and people still believe the Bible more
> than they would the scientific community. I can
> only hope that you are right, but time will tell.
>
> see more Fail Blog


I love to fuck with the creationists by asking them to explain MRSA and other antibiotic resistant viruses. Anyone with a microscope and a few hours can actually observe evolution occuring in real time with bacteria and viruses.

Don't worry, secularism is on the rise. It doesn't require people to stop believing in a god, it just requires them to stop believing that their belief is superior and needs to be forced upon everyone else.

Once people are intelligent enough to have a belief (or not) yet recognize that scientific progress and intellectual expansion are for the benefit of mankind, nothing is going to stop the human race from advancing to the point where intergalactic and interstellar travel will only be a few hundred years away.

I'm still a little disturbed by your eugenic leanings, talking about a one world government and all that bullshit.

Have you ever hear the cliche saying "All politics is local"??

Look around at the various "functional" governments on this planet. Very many of them exploit their people, or severely restrict their liberties, and oppress and even kill dissenters.

Would you really want to abandon the principles of the United States and band together a central government run by people from parts of the world that don't view human rights and liberty in the same way we do?? Even the various European countries are starting to see the flaws in having a European Union where one year it's a french leader, another year it's a slovakian, another year it's a swede, and so on.

No nation should be subjugated to any "world" or "regional" government. Hell, we often have a hard enough time with a federal government sometimes superceding state powers. Like in California, where they want to allow medicinal marijuana, but the federal government will not tolerate such insolence and independent governing.

Seriously, having a single world government would be the worst of all monopolies. Most of the wars fought after the end of the cold war were not to consolidate power, but to further subdivide it. Look at the balkans, Yugoslavia is now HOW MANY countries?? 3, 4, 5? Kosovo, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Macedonia, Serbia. That's 7 countries that emerged from a war, rather than the globalist way of having a war and creating fewer nations.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2009 03:06AM by Thurston Moore.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> scientific progress and intellectual expansion are
> for the benefit of mankind, nothing is going to stop
> the human race from advancing to the point where
> intergalactic and interstellar travel will only be
> a few hundred years away.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Attachments:

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------



Fuck. That kitty has unlocked interstellar travel!

I can haz cheezeburger now?

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 02:27PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Too bad most people are stupid.

Makes it really frustrating for the few of us who can read, write, think and reason, doesn't it?

damn st8t it does. End all institutions of USA and create new ones of science and reason! The revolution must begin!

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 02:26PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Global Warming. The Homeless. The Green Movement.
>
>
> Got to give'em credit. What a great money maker!
>
> Too bad most people are stupid.


Why give the Republicans all the fun of scaring the shit out of people.

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 02:23PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, yeah, the Republicans are soooo scary.
>
> Obama & Socialists have spent more money in the
> past 6 months than any administration in the
> history of this country.
>
> Obama & Socialists have taken over the banks and
> the auto industry.
>
> Obama & Socialists are pushing through an energy
> bill which will squeeze the middle class and give
> the Federal government control over every one of
> your phony carbon foot prints.
>
> Obama & Socialists are going to destroy our
> healthcare system. And, in doing so, your taxes
> are going to skyrocket, while you wait in line
> over a year for an MRI.
>
> Obama & Socialists will use Acorn, an
> organization under investigation in numerous
> jurisdictions for election fraud, to collect
> extremely personal information from you, as agents
> of the new Census Bureau, now, under complete
> control of the White House. Go to the Census
> Bureau web site. It says the long form has been
> eliminated. What freak'n liars. They have simply
> added a 28 page SURVEY, which will ask you very
> personal questions and, if you don't answer, you
> will be fined and harassed. (The Acorn agents WILL
> go to your neighbors to gather information about
> you.)
>
> Obama & Socialists are creating a Federal
> Government which will control every aspect of your
> life.
>
> Thanks to all of you weenies who voted for big
> DADDY. What weak little faggot babies you are.


Umm, I hate to bring up the past and all that, but it was BUSH who took over the banks. Obama just inherited that.

Can you remember that? Who kept Citibank and Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and many others from going insolvent with huge infusions of taxpayer money in November 2008?


And oh yea, wasn't it Obama who allowed many of them to pay back the Bush loans and decouple themselves from Government oversight?

l



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 02:22PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bullshit.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/bushs-big-bank-bailout/

Both the Wall Street Journal and conservative economist Lawrence A. Kudlow are defending the Bush Administration's big-government-socialist bailout of Bear Stearns. The taxpayers are bailing out a big bank while millions of Americans may be losing their homes in the financial meltdown. Where are the conservatives protesting this?



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/13/bush-requests-tarp-funds-for-obama/

Bush requests bank bailout funds
Better use of dollars promised to Congress
By David R. Sands (Contact) | Tuesday, January 13, 2009

The move came as Mr. Obama's top economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers, seeking to overcome deep skepticism on Capitol Hill, promised new aid to homeowners and tighter controls on banks if Congress approves use of the remaining $350 billion from the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP [signed by George W. Bush].

"We should not allow our disappointment at the Bush administration's poor handling of the TARP program to prevent the Obama administration from using the funds in more appropriate ways," said House Financial Service Committee Chairman Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat.

Echoing complaints from both parties on Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama said TARP's deals must be more transparent in the future and must focus more on helping smaller banks and homeowners, not just the nation's financial giants.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2009 03:42AM by Thurston Moore.

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 02:21PM by Alias.

i agree with you on everything except that the republicans are about smaller government. That may what they used to be based on (or is it use to? spunky please enlighten me), but the republican party is now anything but. They are about taking away personal freedoms (i.e. anti-terrorism, partriot act, war on drugs, etc) and telling us all what "morality" is. Its really sad, I think the only reasonable thing to be is a constitutionalist or liberatarian, getting hung up on republican/democrat politics really gets us nowhere.

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 02:18PM by Alias.

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I think
> the only reasonable thing to be is a
> constitutionalist or liberatarian, getting hung up
> on republican/democrat politics really gets us
> nowhere.

I am a constitutionalist.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
White males are
> supposed to feel guilty for being both male and
> white, and this is a festering wound, which is
> exploding.


r u crazy? Where did you get that idea?

being a white male is like winning the $10 lottery every day... it may not be alot, but its pretty fuckin awesome.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2009 06:50AM by Kenny_Powers.

I will disagree and say that CO2 is a problem. We certainly produce too much of it. Now, you can debate how that ultimately impacts the climate all you want. My issue is with the concept of this "market." It reminds me of the Enron Bandwidth Market. After a couple of years, it became apparent that Enron wasn't trading bandwidth. They were promoting bullshit and it helped take down a FORTUNE 500 company and tens of thousands of investors.

This CO2 market idea strikes me as the same damn thing. Do you really want to trade in a market that relies on what some Ugandan Industrial Ministry says is its country's CO2 output? I don't.

if we REALLY wanted to cut CO₂ emissions then they would pass a bill forcing new cars to be hydrogen fuel based and phase out gasoline altogether. this half-assed effort is just bullshit and crocodile tears.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

I agree! Give me a god damn hydrogen car already. When I run out of fuel, I want to turn on the hose and fill 'er up.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bullshit.

That's exactly your agenda, Gaylias.

§- Please lick my ballz

Only if you lick Alias balls first.

He's the gayest of all.

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only if you lick Alias balls first.
>
> He's the gayest of all.


How about u lick both our ballz and my poop hole! Milk milk lemonade and around the corner fudge is made!

hai you dee ghey troll can go back to gheyryland.

Enough w/ the ball licking comments...unless there are women involved!

edit by Cary: Account password compromised, disabled by administrator.

tahts ghey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hai you dee ghey troll can go back to gheyryland.


We try to speak english here no ebonx..ok yo!

u gay

§ \



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 02:32PM by Alias.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will disagree and say that CO2 is a problem. We
> certainly produce too much of it. Now, you can
> debate how that ultimately impacts the climate all
> you want. My issue is with the concept of this
> "market." It reminds me of the Enron Bandwidth
> Market. After a couple of years, it became
> apparent that Enron wasn't trading bandwidth. They
> were promoting bullshit and it helped take down a
> FORTUNE 500 company and tens of thousands of
> investors.
>
> This CO2 market idea strikes me as the same damn
> thing. Do you really want to trade in a market
> that relies on what some Ugandan Industrial
> Ministry says is its country's CO2 output? I
> don't.

All the arguments for not having hydrogen cars are going out the window. Now we don't really have any major automobile manufacturers to worry about for re-tooling since most of their plants are shut down. We have a glut of oil at the moment, and the only reason gasoline is still so expensive is because the refineries reduced output so they could keep prices inflated when oil prices dropped. Now this CO2 BS is going to increase taxes on all of us, and that is all it is about. There is an article today where Missouri is allowing their utilities to increase the cost of electricity use, to supposedly pay for their efforts to reduce electricity use... seriously?

(paraphrasing)
"So hey, it is in your best interest to reduce electric use... and thanks, now we can charge you more so your 40% reduction in use equates to 10% less on your bill - neat huh?"

With new charge, saving electricity could end up costing Missourians
http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/1307200.html

Water vapor is the largest component of greenhouse gas, that is a proven fact. Warmer oceans = larger amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere = more greenhouse gas. Largest contributor to ocean temperatures? The Sun. It almost makes you wonder... if we convert to hydrogen cars, which produce water vapor as output, will we really be reducing "global warming" fears or not...

Right now the US and China are the largest contributors of CO2 to the atmosphere. China is not closing down on producing coal fired power plants, and with their large population that is starting to turn into more of a consumer driven economy like the US, soon they will easily outstrip us in CO2 output. Does it really makes sense to introduce cap and trade now, before we even have significant alternative energy on the table? Our nuclear power plants are over 30 years old, they have just started giving them licenses to allow them to run at least 60 years... It's almost like we are going to cripple our energy needs right at the time when we can least afford to, and China will just continue on their way. What - soon we will have to buy electricity from China too?

They are going full bore trying to get something passed in the Senate. Lets hope they take a harder look at the most recent evidence before they decide to screw us all...

Austrlia and their battle with Global Warming Legislation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5804831/Climate-change-The-sun-and-the-oceans-do-not-lie.html

Quote

...
Meanwhile a remarkable drama has been unfolding in Australia, where the new Labor government has belatedly joined the "consensus'' bandwagon by introducing a bill for an emissions-curbing "cap and trade'' scheme, which would devastate Australia's economy, it being 80 per cent dependent on coal. The bill still has to pass the Senate, which is so precisely divided that the decisive vote next month may be cast by an independent Senator, Stephen Fielding. So crucial is his vote that the climate change minister, Penny Wong, agreed to see him with his four advisers, all leading Australian scientists.

Fielding put to the minister three questions. How, since temperatures have been dropping, can CO2 be blamed for them rising? What, if CO2 was the cause of recent warming, was the cause of temperatures rising higher in the past? Why, since the official computer models have been proved wrong, should we rely on them for future projections?

The written answers produced by the minister's own scientific advisers proved so woolly and full of elementary errors that Fielding's team have now published a 50-page, fully-referenced "Due Diligence'' paper tearing them apart. In light of the inadequacy of the Government's reply, the Senator has announced that he will be voting against the bill.
...

WSJ Article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

Quote

...
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief.
...

RealClearPolitics Article About Australian:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/24/could_australia_blow_apart_the_great_global_warming_scare_97148.html

Quote

...
Fielding went to the US to assess the American evidence for global warming at close quarters. As Melbourne's Age reported on June 4:

Senator Fielding said he was impressed by some of the data presented at the [US Heartland Institute's] climate change skeptics' conference: namely that, although carbon emissions had increased in the last 10 years, global temperature had not.

He said scientists at the conference had advanced other explanations, such as the relationship between solar activity and solar energy hitting the Earth to explain climate change.

Fielding has issued a challenge to the Obama White House to rebut the data. It will be a novel experience for them, as Fielding is an engineer and has an Australian's disregard for self-important government officials. Here is how The Age described his challenge:

Senator Fielding emailed graphs that claim the globe had not warmed for a decade to Joseph Aldy, US President Barack Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, after a meeting on Thursday…. Senator Fielding said he found that Dr. Aldy and other Obama administration officials were not interested in discussing the legitimacy of climate science.

Telling an Australian you're not interested in the legitimacy of your position is a red rag to a bull. So here is what Fielding concluded:

Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive….

As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct.

What Fielding's questioning represents is just the tip of the kangaroo's tail. He speaks for a growing number of Australians who will no longer take green propaganda on trust.
...

Meteorologist in Acadiana, LA
http://www.klfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=10666569

Quote

...
The United States has perhaps the best climate monitoring system in the entire world. But the climate record is extremely short - only around 140 years for some of the longest stations. And in that time changes to the local environment and urbanization have undoubtedly given temperature readings a warm bias.

A comprehensive study by Anthony Watts reveals stunning problems. Eight hundred and fifty-four (854) of the 1221 official climate monitoring stations across the country were surveyed and nearly 90% are not properly sited.

Some are located next to buildings and heat-generating electrical equipment. This alone taints the climate record and leads to erroneous warming. Other changes have imparted irregular warming, such as changing the coating on the Stevenson screens, the shelters used to house thermometers, from a whitewash to latex paint in 1979.

An experiment by Watts proves the latex-painted shelters are slightly warmer than the whitewashed shelters. And then you have to account for the change in the actual thermometers, from those requiring manual readings to the new electronic version that's been gradually phased in since the mid 1980s.

But even with the warm bias in the records, it is safe to say we have seen a warming trend in recent decades. However, if you look at the temperature of the atmosphere just above the ground using satellite data, you'll actually see a gradual cooling trend since 2002. What's also worth pointing out is the global temperature spike in 1998 that was caused by a natural phenomenon - an historically strong El Nino in the Equatorial Pacific.

To figure out the climate record before thermometers and satellites we rely on ice core data, boreholes, tree ring analysis, and other means. Since the beginning of earth there have been distinct periods of warming and cooling. Well before man dominated the landscape.

So why the fuss lately about man-made global warming? The melting Arctic? Do you know we've only been monitoring the extent of Arctic ice via satellites since 1979? And while Arctic ice coverage has declined, it's actually been rising since 2006. And have you heard Antarctic sea ice has increased by nearly 14% since 1979?
...

Also from 1989 - where the UN Warned we only had a 10 year window to address Global Warming:
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MH&s_site=miami&p_multi=MH&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB33CF66D507218&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

From the Australia Herald Sun:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_consensus_and_no_warming_either#36855

Good Analysis of the IPCC Authors:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf

Site with all the documents that Australian Senator Fielding Generated in his Inquiries:
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/the-wong-fielding-meeting-on-global-warming-documents/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2009 10:11PM by Registered Voter.

All those "facts"...and still wrong! Amazing!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All those "facts"...and still wrong! Amazing!

Prove it.

You have no proof - but please, show me how their facts are wrong. Because wow, they actually presented facts, unlike the consensus behind GW.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > All those "facts"...and still wrong! Amazing!
>
> Prove it.
>
> You have no proof - but please, show me how their
> facts are wrong. Because wow, they actually
> presented facts, unlike the consensus behind GW.


No..the debate is over..it's time to act!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

As usual, you are singularly useless Vince. If you want to debate the facts, do so, otherwise STFU.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As usual, you are singularly useless Vince. If you
> want to debate the facts, do so, otherwise STFU.

The discussion needs to be on solutions...not whether the world is flat.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Well - if that is what you believe (that the world is flat) not much I can do for you there.

Somehow common sense doesn't appeal to you (actually no real surprise there) - so you may as well go up there and sit with all your other close brained friends. Common sense is a pretty good answer, I am guessing folks with no common sense in the first place will never understand that - ie you.

What's the matter Vince, your name been invoked too many times? Seriously - learn to put up a good argument once in a while. Your little bits of wisdom do nothing but inflate your sense of self-worth, good for you, now go have a cookie and take your pills with that glass of milk.

ok RV...global warming is a myth...cap and trade just another attempt by Obama to tax...to take over another industry...you win! Boy that settles a lot!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

I don't think Obama is trying to take over another industry. Again, you can't even post lame ass attempts to agree with me convincingly. I think they are going to pass the largest tax increase to fund a new "religion" of GW prevention. And the funny part is, the folks who are going to be most affected by it will be the poor people of the entire world, not just the ones here in the US. And yet all these people are buying into it - when there isn't even empirical proof of the final answer. If that isn't a religion I don't know what is.

Why is it that everyone is so ready to accept massive intrusion into their lives over a mythical threat - regulated thermostats, carbon footprint mapping, mandated eating habits just to name a few? The threat of brownouts? France doesn't have this issue - over 70% of their electricity is provided from nuclear power plants - and yet we can't even move forward on the T Boone Pickens plans (which Obama and the democrats supposedly embraced before the election) before we have to adopt this tax and cap mandate? They need to work to make clean energy more affordable, not more expensive - instead we are going to put in regressive policies and taxes for what? Unproven - yes unproven - science. Brilliant.

Cheaper fossil fuel based sources of energy is the same "solution" we've had for the last 100 years...not the future.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Nuclear power is not considered a fossil fuel. NG is, but it burns 50% cleaner than coal - why not embrace that in the short term? There are plenty of sun-based technologies that are coming up to speed right now - why not fund them with these billions of dollars so they can start mass producing them?

I am not sure of the the risks associated with nuclear power are truly known. We have loonies on both sides of the argument making claims. If a factual analysis of those risks and costs could be made..Id probably agree with their recommendations.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

By the way there were a few issues I agreed with Bush on...

No Child Left Behind
His Immigration Policy
Allowing the CHina company winning the port operations contract

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nuclear power is not considered a fossil fuel. NG
> is, but it burns 50% cleaner than coal - why not
> embrace that in the short term? There are plenty
> of sun-based technologies that are coming up to
> speed right now - why not fund them with these
> billions of dollars so they can start mass
> producing them?


While we still haven't figured out what to do with the spent fuel from reactors, nuclear may be the only viable option for so-called "clean energy." I we replaced the dirty coal burning plants with nuclear, we could promote the use of electric and hybrid vehicles that really would have zero emissions. As things stand now, we are worried about what will happen to the Earth 5,000 years from now while we are currently destroying it with coal and gas.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not sure of the the risks associated with
> nuclear power are truly known. We have loonies on
> both sides of the argument making claims. If a
> factual analysis of those risks and costs could be
> made..Id probably agree with their
> recommendations.

I'm not so sure that there are that many "loonies" on the pro-nuclear side. Most of the people who are pro-nuclear are not fanatical about it, they just think it would be a good idea, a cheap, long lasting source of electricity. You don't see too many heated protests or rallies supporting nuclear power.

As far as risks. Just go visit France. Or even go visit Three Mile Island. You can take tours there. I took a tour there about 24 years ago, and I don't glow, my lymph nodes are normal, I'm as healthy as ever. The only real risks of nuclear power are that improperly cooled water can be release back into a river at too high a temperature, possibly killing spawning fish and their eggs, and other aquatic plant and animal species, and that Federal laws (created by both parties) prevent the proper storage and disposal of spent reactor rods.

Meltdowns and other major catastrophes just don't happen. Chernobyl is the only real exception, and that had more to do with a failing state and failing system and plant workers afraid of the ramifications of reporting a problem, allowing it to grow into a disaster.

I just looked up some numbers. The US produces the most nuclear electricity, 19% of total, while France produces the highest percentage, 78% of its total. There are 439 reactors in the world, and I'm not sure if that includes the 150 or so nuclear powered ships. But, either way, if there are so many risks, I think we'd be seeing a lot more trouble and way many more disasters than we've seen over the last 50 years (one disaster in 50 years).

So exactly what are the risks? That someone would make another really bad movie like the China Syndrome? Again, ONE disaster in 50 years.


Also, Man Made Global Warming is a religion, based partly on myth, partly on science. The reason I say this is because it discredits any science that it disagrees with, and raises myth to the level of science anytime it serves the papal order in charge of the religion. It is also attempting to legislate a system of indulgences.

Is the planet getting hotter? Some scientists say yes, some scientists say no. MMGW religious adherents say the debate is over and anyone saying no is a heretic.

If the planet IS getting hotter, is there any proof that it because of Man's activity? Some scientists say yes, some scientists say no, and even more scientists say the earth and climate systems are too complex to ever know for sure. MMGW religionists say that there is no doubt that man is at fault.

If the planet IS getting hotter, is there any proof that any proposed solution can reverse or even slow or stop it? Most scientists say no. Not very many scientists will go out on a limb on this one to say yes. MMGW religionists insist that whatever the trendy solution being proposed at any given moment, they will fix this thing with the help of government. You know, the "We're from the Government, and we're here to help" people, who usually just make things worse ("You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!").



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2009 12:20AM by Thurston Moore.

There are a few things that are the "bad" parts of a nuclear reactor, the core, the spent control rods, and the accumulated build up over time of sediments that get trapped in the primary coolant loop. Also I suppose the primary coolant loop water itself.

The core is generally good for 13 years or something like that, and then you need to replace the material. I can't remember the life of the control rods - they are some form of composite material (I know what it is, just don't want to go into it here) that are designed to absorb excess neutrons. Over time, due to the high pressure and heat, the metals in the piping and pumps reacts with the radioactive water and produces some REALLY long term nasty stuff like strontium-90 and such. Stuff that has a very long half-life. That stuff is removed with periodic maintenance and has to be disposed of, and then the piping and pump themselves will be removed and replaced over time so I suppose they have to go somewhere too - but they last for quite a while with proper maintenance. That is why they were pushing Yucca Mountain - a place where they had a very large storage chamber with no access to the water table and sealed to ensure everything would remain in a properly controlled environment.

I dunno, I always wondered why they didn't just plan to put the by-products into a large rocket and boost them to mercury or something... :)

When 3 mile island had that steam escape, it was from primary coolant loop water that flashed to steam due to pressure loss (not enough water to maintain pressure) in the primary loop and core. A bit of faulty indicators and a supervisor that didn't follow procedures didn't help their cause either. Then the containment building vented and the radioactive steam got into the atmosphere. Not really that much all things considered, and really not something that happens that often at all. Nuclear power plants are very well regulated, and most of the plant operators come directly out of the Navy programs where they receive very strict training.

There have been other minor incidents over the years, but other than a nuclear sub that suffered some other failure, and Chernobyl, nuclear reactors are consistently one of the cleanest, most powerful forms of power generation in the world. I would have no problem living next door to a reactor if they wanted to build one near my home - but usually the nimby folks and environmentalists use their own forms of fear mongering to make sure none get approved. We'll see.

As far as GW, the larger belief is starting to turn toward natural cycles, and ocean warming. Since water vapor is the largest component of green house gases, it makes sense that the warmer the oceans are, the more water vapor is formed by evaporation. Even the polar melting and glacier melting over the water is due to the higher water temperatures which were largely driven by the solar cycles. In the meantime, they have been reporting that the ice mass in the interior of Greenland and Antarctica has been increase over the same period of time. The jury is still out - and until they have empirical evidence of cause and effect, and not just model results (which can barely predict the weather accurately let alone long term weather trends) I don't believe we, as a nation, should commit to solution that will most likely cripple our economy. Better to make an investment in ways to generate what we use more cleanly, and put funding into pushing early adoption of commercially viable alternative energy solutions such as photosynthetic solar cells.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are a few things that are the "bad" parts of
> a nuclear reactor, the core, the spent control
> rods, and the accumulated build up over time of
> sediments that get trapped in the primary coolant
> loop. Also I suppose the primary coolant loop
> water itself.
>
> The core is generally good for 13 years or
> something like that, and then you need to replace
> the material. I can't remember the life of the
> control rods - they are some form of composite
> material (I know what it is, just don't want to go
> into it here) that are designed to absorb excess
> neutrons. Over time, due to the high pressure and
> heat, the metals in the piping and pumps reacts
> with the radioactive water and produces some
> REALLY long term nasty stuff like strontium-90 and
> such. Stuff that has a very long half-life. That
> stuff is removed with periodic maintenance and has
> to be disposed of, and then the piping and pump
> themselves will be removed and replaced over time
> so I suppose they have to go somewhere too - but
> they last for quite a while with proper
> maintenance. That is why they were pushing Yucca
> Mountain - a place where they had a very large
> storage chamber with no access to the water table
> and sealed to ensure everything would remain in a
> properly controlled environment.
>
> I dunno, I always wondered why they didn't just
> plan to put the by-products into a large rocket
> and boost them to mercury or something... :)
>
> When 3 mile island had that steam escape, it was
> from primary coolant loop water that flashed to
> steam due to pressure loss (not enough water to
> maintain pressure) in the primary loop and core. A
> bit of faulty indicators and a supervisor that
> didn't follow procedures didn't help their cause
> either. Then the containment building vented and
> the radioactive steam got into the atmosphere. Not
> really that much all things considered, and really
> not something that happens that often at all.
> Nuclear power plants are very well regulated, and
> most of the plant operators come directly out of
> the Navy programs where they receive very strict
> training.
>
> There have been other minor incidents over the
> years, but other than a nuclear sub that suffered
> some other failure, and Chernobyl, nuclear
> reactors are consistently one of the cleanest,
> most powerful forms of power generation in the
> world. I would have no problem living next door to
> a reactor if they wanted to build one near my home
> - but usually the nimby folks and
> environmentalists use their own forms of fear
> mongering to make sure none get approved. We'll
> see.
>
> As far as GW, the larger belief is starting to
> turn toward natural cycles, and ocean warming.
> Since water vapor is the largest component of
> green house gases, it makes sense that the warmer
> the oceans are, the more water vapor is formed by
> evaporation. Even the polar melting and glacier
> melting over the water is due to the higher water
> temperatures which were largely driven by the
> solar cycles. In the meantime, they have been
> reporting that the ice mass in the interior of
> Greenland and Antarctica has been increase over
> the same period of time. The jury is still out -
> and until they have empirical evidence of cause
> and effect, and not just model results (which can
> barely predict the weather accurately let alone
> long term weather trends) I don't believe we, as a
> nation, should commit to solution that will most
> likely cripple our economy. Better to make an
> investment in ways to generate what we use more
> cleanly, and put funding into pushing early
> adoption of commercially viable alternative energy
> solutions such as photosynthetic solar cells.


I see cap and trade as putting the power of the market place to solving our energy problems. It will create a market for carbon credits..that only more efficient energy producers can generate...and have the more inefficient energy producers pay for those credits. A natural market based system that will encourage market based solutions.

As fas as your analysis of nuclear energy...you may be right, you may be wrong...Im looking for wider concensus then that.

As far as the natural or unatural causes of GW...none of that refutes the need to cut our dependency on fossil fuels both domestic and foreign, for scientific as well as political and national defense reasons.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2009 11:36AM by Vince(1).

if everyone who thinks global warming is a problem would just kill themselves, the rest of us would be a lot better off because global warming would be solved. it would get rid of a lot of cut pollution, get rid of a lot of idiots in the gene pool and stop the retarded banter from said idiots about global warming.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if everyone who thinks global warming is a problem
> would just kill themselves, the rest of us would
> be a lot better off because global warming would
> be solved. it would get rid of a lot of cut
> pollution, get rid of a lot of idiots in the gene
> pool and stop the retarded banter from said idiots
> about global warming.

+1

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if everyone who thinks global warming is a problem
> would just kill themselves, the rest of us would
> be a lot better off because global warming would
> be solved. it would get rid of a lot of cut
> pollution, get rid of a lot of idiots in the gene
> pool and stop the retarded banter from said idiots
> about global warming.

Your solution to every problem. Perhaps the real answer is closer to home.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Here's a good site on Global Warming:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a good site on Global Warming:
>
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/


Here's a quote from your web site..

While it’s advertised as a “market-based” approach to pollution reduction, it really isn’t since the market did not freely choose cap-and-trade…it was imposed upon the market by the government. The ‘free market’ aspect of it just helps to reduce the economic damage done as a result of the government regulations.

This is typical propaganda....as if it isnt the rightful and responsible job of governments to create economic motivations to accomplish social golas. Sorry, your web site is nothing but right wing propaganda.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Here's a good site on Global Warming:
> >
> > http://www.drroyspencer.com/
>
>
> Here's a quote from your web site..
>
> While it’s advertised as a “market-based” approach
> to pollution reduction, it really isn’t since the
> market did not freely choose cap-and-trade…it was
> imposed upon the market by the government. The
> ‘free market’ aspect of it just helps to reduce
> the economic damage done as a result of the
> government regulations.
>
> This is typical propaganda....as if it isnt the
> rightful and responsible job of governments to
> create economic motivations to accomplish social
> golas. Sorry, your web site is nothing but right
> wing propaganda.

Right.... a former NASA scientist who has never done a study for a major corporation. If you take a look at the guy's site, it is pretty clear he is anything BUT an advocate for either side. He is just trying to present the FACTS - and contrary to popular belief, the majority of educated Americans do NOT believe that the government is the solution for all ills. In general, propaganda is generally more effective when used on the uneducated - so lets see, who would that be again?

...

He's anything but unbiased when he makes stupid statements like I quoted.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

You make a lot of stupid statements Vince, what should we conclude?

That you are stupid?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2009 10:43AM by Registered Voter.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He's anything but unbiased when he makes stupid
> statements like I quoted.

That's stupid.

Sorry, but this quote from his website makes it clear where he is coming from:

Quote

...

But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.

It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants in the U.S.

You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ’skeptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate.

Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.

And from his analysis, and conlusion:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

Quote

...
5. CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION

What I have presented here is, as far as I know, the most detailed attempt to reconcile satellite observations of the climate system with the behavior of climate models in the context of feedbacks. Instead of the currently popular practice of building immensely complex and expensive climate models and then making only simple comparisons to satellite data, I have done just the opposite: Examine the satellite data in great detail, and then build the simplest model that can explain the observed behavior of the climate system.

The resulting picture that emerges is of an IN-sensitive climate system, dominated by negative feedback. And it appears that the reason why most climate models are instead VERY sensitive is due to the illusion of a sensitive climate system that can arise when one is not careful about the physical interpretation of how clouds operate in terms of cause and effect (forcing and feedback).

Indeed, climate researchers seldom (if ever) dig into the archives of satellite data and ask the question, “What are the satellite data telling us about the real climate system?” Instead, most climate research money now is funneled into building expensive climate models which are then expected to provide a basis for formulating public policy. Given the immense effort that has been invested, one would think that those models would be more rigorously tested.
...

rightard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > wow, that's one hell of an alarmist post you
> made
> > there. perhaps you could post a link to said
> > proposed bill and maybe an article pointing out
> > it's faults.
>
>
> Here's one:
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24232_Pa
> ge2.html
>
> The complex bill mandates a 17-percent cut in
> greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and a 83-percent
> cut by 2050, reductions that will be accomplished
> by putting a price on carbon dioxide through a
> cap-and-trade system. It mandates that 20 percent
> of electricity comes from renewable sources and
> increased energy efficiency by 2020. And the
> legislation gives electric utilities, coal plants,
> energy-intensive manufacturers, farmers, petroleum
> refiners, and other industries
> special protections to help them transition to
> new, less-fossil fuel-intensive ways of doing
> business.
>
> It will also raise electricity prices for
> consumers by $175 a year per household by 2020,
> according to a report by the Congressional Budget
> Office, significantly less than the $3,000 price
> hike predicted by Republicans who say the “energy
> tax” will increase energy bills and the cost of
> consumer goods.

Cause the Obama administration hid the true numbers from you.....

"The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."