News-Record.com

"When Hillary Clinton used the term “vast right-wing conspiracy” to describe her husband’s detractors, she was ... " also correct.

Hard to tale politics out of the gorebull warming debate when the vast majority of the scientists (whose livelihood depends on political scaremongering) are funded by politicians.

I love this:
"Remove politics from global warming debate"
Promptly followed by this:
"coming from the “cuckoo” wing of our political right."

A more honest headline would have read:

"Remove any dissenting opinions from the global warming debate".

We cannot leave this debate to the scientists, the left has already drug it front and center. Lots of money to be made perpetuating this fraud, as Al Gore has proven.

But more importantly, there is power to be had. The cap and trade plans of Obama, purporting to solve a problem that may not exist, will be a tax on every single American. It will increase the cost of every single good and service produced in this country. He admitted that, saying that energy costs would "necessarily skyrocket" when his plans are carried out.

Obama does a masterful job of going after the evil corporations, and the average Obama supporter isn't intelligent enough to realize that corporations don't pay taxes; their customers do. Next time an Obama voter buys a rap CD and discovers that the price has gone up, he will blame the recording studio. Yes, sir, the Odious One slapped a cap-and-trade bill on Columbia, and they passed the bill straight to you. The more the government seeks to help us, the more it hurts.

The climate has been changing ever since the time that the planet cooled down enough to have a climate. We've gone through Ice Ages lasting thousands of years, then the climate changed and the ice melted. Over and over again.

And Obama is going to override the power of the cosmos, eh? I suggest he straighten up the tilt in the earth's axis, setting it perpendicular to its orbit around the sun. That way, the sun would be directly over the Equator, as it is during the spring and fall equinox. That way, it would be like spring and fall all year round. For us, anyway.

Oh, and while they're fixing things, how about doing something about all those leaves falling off every year? Think of all the wasted energy and the pollutants added to the air by raking and burning them. Should be a peice of cake for the Big O.

"That message claims the entire notion of global warming to be “a fraud perpetrated by liberal politicians” for the express purpose of getting “more control over our lives.”

I don't know too many people who deny that the planet warms and cools, geologic history has proven that. The problem is that certain advocacy groups and politicians want to use this phenomena to control the population and surrender it to a world governing body as was done with Kyoto.

The cat is out of the bag Mr. Yaner. Global warming, now known as 'climate change', is now more of a political issue than a scientific one.

Sawdust--

"Next time an Obama voter buys a rap CD and discovers that the price has gone up, he will blame the recording studio."

And black crimes will go up too?

Zing. Nice one brainwashed.

Isn't sawdust the one singing the praises of mountaintop mining on another thread? Do any of the "cons" (my answer to "libs") on this blog think at all about the future? Sure, we could blow the tops off mountains, "drill baby drill", doubt science, and drive our SUV's until we literally run out of fossil fuels, but wouldn't it be more logical, proactive, and better for future generations if we try to develop alternative solutions. It seems to me that that's exactly what Obama is trying to do, as he promised in his campaign.

If scientists are wrong about human causes of global warming and it's just a natural cycle, alternative energy would not be a waste - we would still create less pollution, leave a more pristine environment (e.g. Appalachians) for our children, and rely less on foreign despots for energy. If scientists are right about climate change and it truly is an impending catastrophe, then Obama's "liberal agenda" could also be a start toward saving our planet for its human inhabitants. I guess Dan, Sawdust, and neocon prefer the approach to global climate change espoused by our last administration, but, again, what about the future? The electric car, solar power, and the like have been in the works for thirty years, but cons like you have kept them from breaking through the status quo. Do you doubt that these initiatives would help our economy and create jobs? Do you doubt that they will make the air cleaner and the earth and its inhabitants "healthier"? Do you really think that we can rely upon fossil fuels indefinitely? Or are you perhaps so colored by your politics, as the letter-writer suggests, that you are doubting reality in favor of the party line?

I agree, sawdust, that cap-and-trade, research into alternative fuels, and other forward-looking programs will cost taxpayer dollars, but I am willing to spend this investment in the future to help create jobs and ensure a better future for our planet. If the tiny minority of scientists who doubt global warming is caused by humans (but admit that it exists) are right, dan, I will still believe the investment was worth it. I wonder if you guys can say the same in the opposite direction: if global warming is indeed an impending disaster, as the evil MSM portrays it, will your wait-and-see approach do anything to keep America afloat or the earth inhabitable. This might be a case where we should err on the side of caution, lest some of us find ourselves underwater. That last sentence, by the way, was a bit of hyperbole. Sort of like when you say that people are trying to "control the population and surrender it to a world governing body" when they suggest that we look for and invest in alternative energy in the hopes of slowing warming.

One last thing for sawdust - on another thread there was a debate about whether we were cowards about discussing race in this country. I'd say your comment about Obama voters and rap CD's speaks to this. I voted for Obama, and have been very impressed with his performance thus far. Perhaps my favorite thing about him is that he is remarkably articulate (in stark contrast to his three immediate predecessors). There are those out there who would say that my last statement was racist (google "articulate racist"). Those people are loons. Likewise, anyone who denies that your statement about Obama voters and rap CD's is at the least racially-charged is a loon. This forum includes a huge number of the latter and, as far as I can tell, none of the former. In other words, and I apologize for getting so far off the thread, is there anyone on here who legitimately is offended by me referring to Obama as "articulate"? Is there anyone on here (besides brainwashed) who thinks that sawdust's comments about Obama voters buying rap CD's was in poor taste, racially-charged, and/or racist?

Can't wait to hear from my goodbuddies neocon and dan on this one. Let's try to keep the sarcasm and character assassination to a minimum. I'll go ahead and cast the first stone at myself: I'm wordy. :)

The funny thing about cap-and-trade is that it may actually work at lowering emissions without 'skyrocketing' energy costs.

A Stanford graduate student gave a presentation on some new technologies being utilized by power companies in my thermo class last semester. I forget the exact numbers, as it's been a while.

I think it was Norway that imposed a rather high carbon-dioxide tax on power plants, something like 55 dollars a ton. Obviously, the best way to not pay the tax is to emit less carbon. For essentially a cost of some $80 million, they installed an underground carbon sequestering system, lowering their emissions to a point where they were paying barely more in taxes than previously. So....it worked. We all know that companies will stick with older, cheaper technologies unless we make them more expensive.

Cap-and-trade will probably work at lowering emissions with little impact on cost. I think the two questions are something like ,"Is lowering emissions worthwhile?" and "Is it proper for the government to impose it?"

Science, despite the cries of a 'liberal hoax,' answers "Yes," to the first question. The second question.....

I found some useful info about cap-and-trade and other potential approaches to reducing carbon emissions here.

http://www.sightline.org/research/energy/res_pubs/climate-pricing-primer

Oops didn't post my link did I? I also have a nice photo of gorgeous mountaintop mining for sawdust at http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/images/2007/08/24/mountaintop_2.jpg

"I guess Dan, Sawdust, and neocon prefer the approach to global climate change espoused by our last administration, but, again, what about the future?"

The word 'guess' fits. It is a common misconception among lefties that conservatives want to use all the world's resources without consideration of future generations, live on a dirty planet and breath dirty air.

I'm in favor of electric cars and other technology that can reduce pollution and save energy, although electric cars need electricity which is produced by power plants, some coal fired.

I bought a very gas efficient car a year ago for business travel that gets 40 mpg hwy. Still keep the SUV to haul the kids around but only put about 5K miles on it last year.

Where I differ is that I don't buy the alarmist attitude of algore & Co. and don't want our nation to sign an agreement under the authority of other countries that will dictate our lifestyle, like what kinds of cars we can and cannot buy for example.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/new-eu-regulations-threaten-european-sports-car-makers.html

Ditto for other products such as low flow toilets. The damned things clog so easily you sometimes have to flush multiple times, thereby using more water.

Compact florescent lightbulbs, they won't fit in many lamps and create a mercury problem for landfills. If you break one you have to evacuate the room!!

From the EPA:

Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room

* Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
* Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
* Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.

Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces

* Carefully scoop up glass pieces and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
* Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
* Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
* Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

http://www.epa.gov/hg/spills/#fluorescent

And the latest being the ban on phosphate containing dishwasher detergent in Spokane Washington. The replacement 'green' detergent doesn't work, forcing residents of Spokane to drive to Idaho to buy good 'ol Cascade and Electrasol and 'smuggle' it back into Washington!! Think about how much more gas is being used to drive out of state for dishwasher detergent. Amazing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090328/ap_on_re_us/bootleg_detergent

This is my point eric, many of these laws are likely passed with good intentions, but the law of unintended consequences seems to rear it's head each time. Laws on climate change will certainly have the same effect, just on a much larger scale.

btw, don't worry about character assassination on my part eric, you keep it friendly and so will I. Ask rahrah, we disagree on some issues but we're buds, even though he's a NCSU fan :)

Dan,

Again I appreciate your civility, especially in contrast to some others on your side on here. You made good points about cars, CFL's, and even dish detergent, but I think you're overlooking the overall point. While I agree about the problems with CFL's, I don't think that means we shouldn't use them, given the alternative. It's not CFL's or no light, it's CFL's or incandescent.

While I completely agree about unintentended consequences (i.e. that there will be many), I think there is a strong argument that these (unknown) consequences are likely to be far less harmful than the (known) results of what we are currently doing. I agree with you that some environmentalists are being alarmist, and that we should never "sign an agreement under the authority of other countries that will dictate our lifestyle". The problem is that, while you make personal choices that may on balance "reduce your carbon footprint", the CEO of Alcoa is not making choices on the same basis. Bush and co. tried voluntary regulations on industry, and Jimmy Carter wore a sweater, but we are making very little progress because many companies prefer short-term profits over long-term prosperity for the earth and the greater good. Such is the nature of capitalism.

We do need to remember that it was "liberals" who created the EPA, the Clean Air Act, etc.. There are already plenty of regulations designed to protect the environment. Cap-and-trade and other programs are not some government take-over; they are merely stronger versions of previous regulations that have been ignored because they were voluntary. It's a lot like when people accuse Obama of trying to "spread the wealth", etc. because he favors increasing marginal tax rates by a few percent. It seems to me the alarmists are largely on your side. Witness language such as "perpetuating this fraud" (sawdust), and "control the population and surrender it to a world governing body" and "dictate our lifestyle". Is that really what they're doing, or is this maybe a bit of hyperbole?
It seems to me like Obama said we should inflate our tires and insulate our houses, not sacrifice all we care about to the altar of Al Gore.

http://www.lighting.philips.com/assets_global/dynamic_popup.php?src=/global/image_global/masterled/e27_bulb_popup700.jpg

Here ya go, Dan. The mercury-free future. Currently like $56 a bulb, but it's bound to decrease. 45000 operating hours though...wow.

Homework for the curious:

How did a stable country like Iceland (Geothermal energy)go bankrupt?

"It seems to me like Obama said we should inflate our tires and insulate our houses, not sacrifice all we care about to the altar of Al Gore."

Not yet, but give him time and be ready to pay more for your electricity. There will be lots and lots of unintended consequences from the cap & trade system and even more from any future Kyoto style agreements.

Meanwhile, please express sympathy for the residents of Spokane, WA who have to drive to another state in order to have clean dishes. It sounds funny but it's actually sad that too many politicians want to control the populace and too many citizens let them do it.

"We do need to remember that it was "liberals" who created the EPA.."

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the federal government of the United States charged to regulate chemicals and protect human health by safeguarding the natural environment: air, water, and land. The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970, when its establishment was passed by Congress, and signed into law by President Nixon,..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency

Nixon also signed OSHA into law.

Cool lightbulb rahrah but not for 56 bucks.

> Not yet, but give him time and be ready to pay more for your electricity. There will be lots and lots of unintended consequences from the cap & trade system and even more from any future Kyoto style agreements.

I would be happy to pay more for electricity if the money was going toward alternative energy. In fact, I already do – I give $5 on each bill to NC Green Power. I’d also be happy to pay more for gasoline if that money went toward alternative fuels. This is an investment in the future. Did the price of electricity and gasoline stay stagnant during the Bush years, when very little progress was made toward alternative fuels, regulators were mostly industry hacks, and we were not part of Kyoto? Of course not. They still went up, to record highs, but the extra bucks went toward record high profits, campaign contributions, and PR, not finding energy solutions. It’s just like taxes – we get all these threats from the cons about how they’ll go through the roof. My taxes are lower now than they were for the last eight years, AND I might actually get something back for what I pay in.

> Meanwhile, please express sympathy for the residents of Spokane, WA who have to drive to another state in order to have clean dishes. It sounds funny but it's actually sad that too many politicians want to control the populace and too many citizens let them do it.

I would think a good Republican like you would be in favor of good old fashioned elbow grease. While this is again one incredibly isolated example of environmentalism run amok, what is far more common are cases where industry tries to avoid regulations, when they exist at all. This makes sense, in terms of profits. Regulations may indeed burden industry and sawdust is right (gasp!) that companies pass these costs on to consumers, but would we rather live in a country without laws regulating pollution and emissions? Last I heard we don’t have any rivers of benzene here, but they do in China.

>> "We do need to remember that it was "liberals" who created the EPA.."
> The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the federal government of the United States charged to regulate chemicals and protect human health by safeguarding the natural environment: air, water, and land. The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970, when its establishment was passed by Congress, and signed into law by President Nixon,..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency
> Nixon also signed OSHA into law.

Nice job truncating my quote. Guess I had you on the Clean Air Act and nearly every other environmental regulation. Sadly, by the standards of today’s Republicans, Nixon was a “liberal” on many issues. Thanks for the link, though. It was informative.

What I haven’t seen from any on your side are alternatives to these plans. We tried voluntary standards. We tried letting industry regulate itself by appointing hacks and ex-lobbyists to regulatory positions. How do you know what the unintended consequences will be? Are you, like me, willing to pay extra for a cleaner more sustainable planet? Can we afford not to?

rahrah, thanks for the link on the light bulb. Very, very interesting. Ditto for the info on Norway.

Brainwashed: look at the news. Iceland is broke for the same reason the rest of the world is: bad banking decisions. It has nothing to do with how they produce their energy.

Sawdust: I agree that cap and trade has its problems. I see it as more of a political shell game than as a tax. It's a way for politicians to say they're doing something about climate change and pollution, without anyone actually having to change.

The stats from Norway ARE interesting. In the US, it will take the political will to make the cap high enough for it to have an effect. I'm hoping that happens, though I'm not optimistic.

Read an interesting article today on rising sea levels. The reasons for changes in sea levels have to do with warm and cool trends. Using data collected over 50 years, sea level rise has excellerated. The reasons why are more complex. Warming of the ocean has stabilized, but sea level rise has not. Melting glaciers are the reason why.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/03/scientists-track-the-oceans-rise-as-the-globe-warms.ars

Global warming is real. The effects are real.

It has also been politicized. It's easier to talk about solutions rather than actually implement one. And the solution isn't radical. Reduce pollution.

eric said, "If scientists are wrong about human causes of global warming and it's just a natural cycle, alternative energy would not be a waste - we would still create less pollution, leave a more pristine environment (e.g. Appalachians) for our children, and rely less on foreign despots for energy."

He's right. I don't think the scientists are wrong. But right or wrong, we need to change for the reasons eric cited.

Thanks, panacea!

Your post was the best-written I've seen on here today. It is true that global warming is both real and politicized. I imagine everyone on here can agree with that statement (if we do not address the causes of the warming). Let's take that a step further: cons, if global warming is not caused by humans, but is rather a natural cycle, isn't it possible that we could still mitigate its effects by reducing carbon emissions? In other words, since our massive carbon emissions do contribute to the greenhouse effect, which warms the earth, isn't it likely that reducing these emissions substantially would help to combat any warming, even if that warming were primarily caused by natural cyclic factors? To deny this possibility is to deny the existence of the greenhouse effect. There are no, literally zero, scientists who do this. While reducing carbon emissions may seem prohibitively expensive, the cost is nothing compared to such costs as relocating coastal cities and feeding those whose source of food has been lost to drought. Even if global warming is caused by natural factors, it still poses serious problems. If we do not combat the problem through carbon emissions, do we do nothing and just hope for the best? This doesn't sound like a very good plan to me.

“How did a stable country like Iceland (Geothermal energy) go bankrupt?”

It had nothing to do with Energy. Iceland was HEAVILY involved in Financials .. meaning making money playing with other people’s money. They had a relatively huge percentage of the population working in the banking & insurance industries and were therefore one of the first to fall.

NORWAY .. the copuntry that nationalized their oil supply and put aside the profits. They have no debt and almost half of GPD stashed away.

That would be like the USA having no debt, no deficit, and 8 Trillion Dollars just sitting around.

But then, Norway is an evil socialist country.

"And the solution isn't radical. Reduce pollution."

I'm not convinced that will really do it. Reducing pollution is an excellent idea from a fiscal standpoint, but the steps we take should be based on best dealing with the inevitable.

The side benefit to that approach is it removes the political BS. Do what is right simply because it is right. Clean your own mess simply because it is right. Come up with Tech' advances that use less energy simply because it is right. Use less. Save oil for something more useful than just pouring it in a stupid car ... simply because that makes sense - it is the right thing to do.

"I would think a good Republican like you would be in favor of good old fashioned elbow grease."

Translation: lower your lifestyle standards, use your dishwasher with 'green' detergent and then use even more water to hand wash your still dirty dishes to 'save the planet'. Or, use more gas to drive to another state to get detergent that actually cleans your dishes.

Yes this is but one small example, but indicative of a larger mindset of the law of unintended consequences.

I'll think of you eric if I have to flush my toilet twice tomorrow morning.

Thanks for the acknowledgment of the creation the EPA and OSHA.

"Guess I had you on the Clean Air Act and nearly every other environmental regulation."

The first "Clean Air Act", at the time called the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 was created in, well, 1955 by Dwight D. Eisenhower, another Republican.

Yes it was investigating at the time with no specific regulations but perhaps Dwight noticed a problem in LA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Pollution_Control_Act

Been working JDR? I love Norway, beautiful place except a Diet Coke will run you over 5 dollars.

Been working JDR?

Yea .. 12 hour days. Really. I got a new assignment with an old client and it's running me ragged ... in a good way. The unemployment numbers from NC are scary, huh?.

Between work and music, I'm super busy. If I ever play in Greensboro I'll send you an invite.

Cybernalt@triad.rr.com

music?

Thanks for answering my question.

Selling out. Greedy bankers. Gotcha.