tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post2221892980961996938..comments2023-12-23T13:25:43.770-08:00Comments on Rob Kremer: Is the gig up for the global warming alarmists?Rob Kremerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13842508120324878364noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-37812854519611109362010-05-19T21:26:33.865-07:002010-05-19T21:26:33.865-07:00Tell your boy to put THIS in his pipe and smoke it...Tell your boy to put THIS in his pipe and smoke it! It's an excerpt from today's Facebook. Posted it here because I know crotchety old men don't make it there often.<br /><br />Thanks for the reminder. I hate to be vindictive, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Chuck Weise is a leading NW denier, using meteorologist and Northwest Airlines pilot credentials to mislead many locally. I will have the honor of interviewing Crown Prince Alexander, of the Netherlands next week. Point being, his family are the majority share owners in KLM and adamant about action on climate change. Given that KLM owns Northwest Airlines, perhaps something along the lines of, "Do you find it frustrating advocating for action on climate change, when employees of your own corporation are spreading disinformation, and using your corporation's name to bolster their credentials?"<br /><br />I would think "local vacation" this year Chuck.<br /><br />Have something much more creative in mind for Karshlock!Mitchell Gorehttp://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=735232944&ref=tsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-78169505054381493262009-01-12T13:56:00.000-08:002009-01-12T13:56:00.000-08:00jk: Where's David? Do you suppose David finally re...<B>jk:</B> Where's David? <BR/>Do you suppose David finally realized that the warmers have no proof, only emotional hot air from liars like like Al Gore, Jim Hansen and Micheal Mann?<BR/><BR/>Thanks<BR/>JKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-6610682780813668692009-01-07T01:07:00.000-08:002009-01-07T01:07:00.000-08:00Sorry,The figure is 384 parts per million and roun...Sorry,<BR/><BR/>The figure is 384 parts per million and rounding off the percentage is .04%<BR/><BR/>My error.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-68961910148535343882009-01-05T08:18:00.000-08:002009-01-05T08:18:00.000-08:00Always focus on the science because that's where t...Always focus on the science because that's where the man-made "global warming" argument is weakest.<BR/><BR/>But scientific evidence is the only justification for such a all-encompassing government intervention and regulation.<BR/><BR/>It turns out that this crusade for man-made "global warming" originated as a political movement, and used science for a cover. <BR/><BR/>And, yes, global temperatures cooperated for a time, as part of the natural cycle, but now the cycle is on the cool side -- that's what these man-made "global warming advocates feared.<BR/><BR/>Their goal: Have the "green house" gas regulations in place before natural global cooling took effect, so they could claim their regulations were responsible.<BR/><BR/>But that didn't happen.<BR/><BR/>The natural cycles of solar increase and decline in activity are being revealed.<BR/><BR/>We are in a phase of solar activity decrease.<BR/><BR/>The idea that 370 parts per million of CO2 or .00037% would throw the planet into "runaway" heating was always ludicrous.<BR/><BR/>It's amazing the hard-core luddites (and that's the kernal or core-belief for the true-believers) got as far as they did.<BR/><BR/>There is a certain madness to all their gyrations because the best science available doesn't back their claims at all.<BR/><BR/>Regrettably it's testimony to the weakness of Man's science, today, that it could be used for such a naked political agenda.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-71790171326371614082009-01-05T05:21:00.000-08:002009-01-05T05:21:00.000-08:00Hey David!Whats up doc?ThanksJK<B>Hey David!</B><BR/><BR/>Whats up doc?<BR/><BR/>Thanks<BR/>JKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-2020173152605370902009-01-03T09:53:00.000-08:002009-01-03T09:53:00.000-08:00JK - Without checking into each claim, I would hav...JK - <BR/><BR/>Without checking into each claim, I would have to say on the face of it they are all potentially troubling, and, at the very least, should raise some questions. I think it is fair to ask if money for research comes with strings: does the foundation, trade group, or company have a vested interest in the results of the research? Or, say in the case of Gore, is he being cynical? Is he ginning up the case for global warming simply to a quick buck? Or is he investing his money in "green industries" because he believes in what he says and is making money and hoping to do something worthy at the same time? I'm sure that is fodder for a debate all in itself.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Max -<BR/><BR/>I'm probably more open minded than you imagine, but I also doubt you'll believe that. I can assure you that in my professional life, I'm very careful to purchase books for my collection that represent both sides of contentious issues. I'm very aware that a significant number of my patrons are conservative, and that they have a right to have their views represented since they are footing the bill through their taxes. <BR/><BR/>Having said that, I also think it is OK, in my personal life, to have strong opinions and to express them. I'm sorry if that conflicts with your stereotype of librarians. Let me destroy another one: I don't wear my hair in a bun. So, I'm not quite sure what my being a librarian has to do with anything. I truly appreciate, however, your ad hominem attack and the contribution it makes to this discussion.R. L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03053985408837497512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-48261325814471181172009-01-02T16:43:00.000-08:002009-01-02T16:43:00.000-08:00JK,As usual, spot on. Your return to Apple was ex...JK,<BR/><BR/>As usual, spot on. Your return to Apple was excellent. Your reply to the librarian made me laugh.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm a 50 year old librarian living in what, to me, is one of the most beautiful places on earth. Now, if we can get the narrow minded and uptight to just relax a little, everything will be good.</I><BR/><BR/>It's nice to see that R.L. the librarian is so open-minded....MAX Redlinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12040240474444763721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-79133480297483448842009-01-02T15:54:00.000-08:002009-01-02T15:54:00.000-08:00J.K.You blew Appell out of the water.Appell has no...J.K.<BR/><BR/>You blew Appell out of the water.<BR/><BR/>Appell has no credibility and hasn't for a long time.<BR/><BR/>Good work, J.K.<BR/><BR/>I mean, "come on," Appell sticks up for Che Guevara, enough said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-75538892176611132132009-01-02T05:40:00.000-08:002009-01-02T05:40:00.000-08:00R. L. said... JK: Using a study by one tobac...<B> R. L. said...</B><BR/> JK:<BR/> Using a study by one tobacco company hack to defend another is really funny:<BR/><B>JK:</B><BR/>My point was that the cited study was published in a credible journal, so to attack another researcher in the field (Singer) merely because of publishing in the field makes David a fool. I should have said disingenuous.<BR/><BR/>Was there any evidence that the study’s conclusions were false, or is this just the usual radical left wing Clintonesque ad hominian innuendo?<BR/><BR/>Since you seem to care about money so much, what do you think of Hansen getting $250,000.00 from a left wing foundation? <BR/><BR/>What do you think of Al Gore getting millions from his scaremongering speeches and his profits from “green” investments?<BR/><BR/>What do you think of Nick Stern being vice chair of a carbon rating company?<BR/><BR/>What do you think of the father of the IPCC, Strong, being head of a carbon trading exchange?<BR/><BR/>Thanks<BR/>JKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-19846449122555947302009-01-01T23:44:00.000-08:002009-01-01T23:44:00.000-08:00JK:Using a study by one tobacco company hack to de...JK:<BR/><BR/>Using a study by one tobacco company hack to defend another is really funny: "The court's Final Opinion contains a detailed timeline (starting in Section 5, paragraph #3781, on Page 1380) describing communication between Philip Morris and Enstrom to produce the 2003 BMJ study." <A HREF="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom" REL="nofollow">Sourcewatch</A>. Enstrom himself evidently took money and direction from the tobacco industry. That's a whole lot of irony. Honestly, using one apologist to bolster the reputation of another? I think jumping to the conclusion he is a fool is a little premature.R. L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03053985408837497512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-25620695280063276942009-01-01T20:54:00.000-08:002009-01-01T20:54:00.000-08:00JK: David Appell belittled one of our premier sci...<B>JK:</B> David Appell belittled one of our premier scientists on the radio yesterday. Here is the truth behind what he said.<BR/><BR/>David, you said the following:<BR/>1. Dr Fred Singer is “a paid hack from the oil industry”; <BR/>2. Dr. Singer “received funding from the tobacco industry to oppose second hand smoke”<BR/>3. “He opposed findings on ozone depletion that came out in the late 80s” “there’s an ozone hole CFCs are causing it. It s a serious problem, ask any Australian.”<BR/>4. “No journalist I know takes him seriously”<BR/>5. “he doesn’t publish in the peer-reviewed literature”<BR/>All of these occurred within about one minute, about 20 minutes into a commercial free version of the program.<BR/><BR/><B>With regard to “received funding from the tobacco industry to oppose second hand smoke”,<BR/>here is what I found (published in the BMJ, one of the most well respected medical journals in the world):</B><BR/><BR/><I><B>Design</B> Prospective cohort study covering 39 years.</I><BR/><I><B> Setting</B> Adult population of California, United States.</I><BR/><I><B> Participants</B> 118 094 adults enrolled in late 1959 in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS I), who were followed until 1998. Particular focus is on the 35 561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.</I><BR/>....<BR/><I><B>Conclusions</B> <B>The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality,</B> although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.</I><BR/>from: BMJ VOLUME 326 17 MAY 2003 (some bold added) bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057<BR/><BR/>David, to accuse Singer of being a tobacco company shill, in view of the above, is simply the mark of a fool.<BR/><BR/><B>With regard to “He opposed findings on ozone depletion that came out in the late 80s”. Here is the paper you are ignoring:</B><BR/><BR/>26 September 2007 | Nature 449, 382-383 (2007) | doi:10.1038/449382a<BR/>Chemists poke holes in ozone theory, Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.<BR/><BR/><I>As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.</I><BR/><BR/>How did you miss the paper? You said you keep up on the literature.<BR/><BR/><B>With regard to “he doesn’t publish in the peer-reviewed literature”. Here is what I found.</B><BR/><BR/>Editor Bias on Climate Change?, S. Fred Singer; and Donald Kennedy, Science 1 August 2003 301: 595-596 [DOI: 10.1126/science.301.5633.595b] (in Letters)<BR/><BR/>Ozone Depletion Theory, S. Fred Singer, Science 27 August 1993 261: 1101-1102 [DOI:10.1126/science.261.5125.1101] (in Articles)<BR/><BR/>Note the second paper is on the very topic you mentioned as discrediting Singer. If it was so discrediting, why was it published in a peer reviewed journal?<BR/><BR/>A few quotes:<BR/><BR/><B>Al Gore:</B> <I>. . . I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is,. . .</I><BR/><B> Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research</B><I>. . . we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might. have. </I><BR/><B> Jim Hansen: (He controls NASA’s historical climate records):</B> <I> Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate. . .</I><BR/><BR/>Isn’t it time for you to admit that you have no case except that built on lies, deceptions and incompetents?<BR/><BR/>Thanks<BR/>JKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-15788892976128510922008-12-31T00:57:00.000-08:002008-12-31T00:57:00.000-08:00Appell a "revolutionary with concrete beliefs"Appell <BR/>a "revolutionary with concrete beliefs"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-27630644918909339772008-12-31T00:24:00.000-08:002008-12-31T00:24:00.000-08:00Appell, that says it all.Appell, that says it all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-34470859022414748962008-12-30T20:36:00.000-08:002008-12-30T20:36:00.000-08:00I never, ever said that I supported Che Guevara or...I never, ever said that I supported Che Guevara or his philosophies. Or that i didn't. I merely posted a quote of his that I thought was thought-provoking. <BR/><BR/>I do, though, think that CK demonstrated devotion and dedication to his cause, whether it was true or not. And who really knows what causes are true, or not? CK was a revolutionary with concrete beliefs, and unlike all of us here he had the balls to follow them and fight for them, instead of sitting behind his computer drinking beer, denigrating people anonymously whom your barely know before you collapse into bed. So were some Americans -- a few --- circa 1776, or some French circa 1815.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-74948258701596376292008-12-30T16:34:00.000-08:002008-12-30T16:34:00.000-08:00Jack,I give you credit for responding to my commen...Jack,<BR/><BR/>I give you credit for responding to my comment. One, because the comment thread was old, less my comment, and, two, because I was very tough on your opinion piece.<BR/><BR/>That alone goes a long way to reviving my respect for you.<BR/><BR/>It's not easy reading or responding to a trashing of one's opinion (people say politics isn't personal, I disagree; political opinions are personal, often heart felt, it's not easy getting ripped for an opinion; but it's part of politics -- that's why politics isn't for the thin skinned).<BR/><BR/>That said, I still disagree with you.<BR/><BR/>Jack, you may not have said (in paraphase), "count noses to determine scientific truth," I'll give you that, but it was much clearer that you were "counting noses" to determine political policy for Republicans.<BR/><BR/>Jack, you state: "What I was trying to say is that the downside to ignoring the risk is much greater than the downside to working to reduce CO2 emissions even if it turns out that this is not what is causing global warming."<BR/><BR/>One, I repeat -- KNOW THE SCIENCE -- to your personal satisfaction before expressing an opinion.<BR/><BR/>I have looked at the science to the best of my ability (and I held back expressing an opinion for along time because I didn't know and didn't want to "burn the planet"), but after reviewing the science, I am very dubious of the claims for MAN-MADE global warming.<BR/><BR/>It's not about global warming per se, but man-made global warming.<BR/><BR/>There are simply too many assumptions that go into the computer modeling and there are too many contradictory pieces of solid scientific evidence opposed to man-made global warming.<BR/><BR/>(I say confront Democrats with the science, there is a substantial body -- I will not be cowed and turned into a "girlyman" as your friend Arnold might say.)<BR/><BR/>I suggest you dig into the science until you are satisfied either way.<BR/><BR/>Because I agree with Rob, Democrats need to OWN these policies, with absolutely NO COVER from Republicans.<BR/><BR/>If they wreck the economy -- Democrats OWN that, lock, stock, and barrel.<BR/><BR/>Regulating CO2 emissions is the greatest government intervention in my lifetime. The "downside" can't be underestimated in my opinion.<BR/><BR/>If Democrats go overboard -- they need to own that. Period.<BR/><BR/>Jack, you state: "The problem I have with your position is that you seem to assume we have only two choices: Either deny global warming or else accept Kyoto, cap-and-trade and the rest of the environmental agenda in toto."<BR/><BR/>No, I don't accept that characterization of my opinion at all. And your characterization is upsetting because that's a Democratic characterization of my position.<BR/><BR/>My opinion is that the science is flawed or an outright fraud that supports global warming (Jack, the scientists admit the Earth has had 10 years of steady temperatures with a slight decline in the last year or so. Al Gore said Earth was in the middle of the "hockey stick," it doesn't add up).<BR/><BR/>My position is that the disputing science (to man-made global warming) needs to be spread, if need be, one person at a time. Because once Democrats get their way, they will claim credit and this regulatory straight jacket will be permenant.<BR/><BR/>Stop the madness by presenting the best science available.<BR/><BR/>Jack, you state: "My position is that continuing to increase CO2 emissions is irresponsible."<BR/><BR/>How so?<BR/><BR/>You admit you DON'T KNOW the science, so how can you make that sweeping statement?<BR/><BR/>Jack, you state: "You are arguing for your right to remain irrelevant."<BR/><BR/>I don't accept that characterization of my position, again, that is a Democratic characterization of my postition, and, again, that is disappointing to hear from you.<BR/><BR/>Everybody who cares about this issue MUST dig into the science and MAKE a decision based on the scientific evidence based on and using the empirical scientific method.<BR/><BR/>Everybody should care because basic freedoms are at stake.<BR/><BR/>Jack, you want a say in the shape of the jail cell and whether it has T.V.; I don't accept the characterization that "it's a 'done deal'.<BR/><BR/>Your attitude says it's like the Texas weather, nothing to be done about it, so better make the best of it.<BR/><BR/>I don't trade away my freedom so lightly.<BR/><BR/>(If Democrats enact the policies, I want everybody to know who my jailer is and how Democrats made the jail cell and furnished it.)<BR/><BR/>In politics, you gotta know when to fight like a wild-cat and when to compromise. This issue is not the one to compromise on. It's a basic freedom, and in my opinion the science is against man-made global warming.<BR/><BR/>The real political fight will be when actual legislation hits the legislative floor -- that hasn't happened, yet.<BR/><BR/>But when it does, I'll fight (I'll fight before that as well).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-83391367776513821522008-12-30T07:31:00.000-08:002008-12-30T07:31:00.000-08:00Anon 5:37:Either I didn't write very clearly or yo...Anon 5:37:<BR/><BR/>Either I didn't write very clearly or you didn't read very carefully but at no point did I suggest that we should simply count noses to determine scientific truth. What I was trying to say is that the downside to ignoring the risk is much greater than the downside to working to reduce CO2 emissions even if it turns out that this is not what is causing global warming.<BR/><BR/>The problem I have with your position is that you seem to assume we have only two choices: Either deny global warming or else accept Kyoto, cap-and-trade and the rest of the environmental agenda in toto.<BR/><BR/>My position is that continuing to increase CO2 emissions (and what's happening in China and India suggests a potentially huge increase) is irresponsible. But that doesn't mean we have to buy into the command-and-control approach to regulation that will make the world poorer and leave us in a worse position to deal with the challenges presented by climate change (whatever the actual cause might be) as well as all the other challenges we will face in the future.<BR/><BR/>You are arguing for your right to remain irrelevant. I'm not willing to accept that. I think if we want to have a positive impact on this debate we need to get past denial.Jack Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05051441976722558504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-74920101144581300022008-12-29T05:37:00.000-08:002008-12-29T05:37:00.000-08:00It's a sad day for Jack Roberts, when I read his s...It's a sad day for Jack Roberts, when I read his stupid opinion piece in The Oregonian. Jack, basically said that, "I don't know the science, yes, there are plenty of deniers, but there are more proponents of "global warming", count noses and go with "global warming".<BR/><BR/>If you are going to write an opinion piece on the subject -- KNOW THE SCIENCE -- to a point that satisfies yourself. Jack admitted he doesn't know.<BR/><BR/>I used to respect Jack Roberts. I supported and voted for him in 2002 for govenor in the primary.<BR/><BR/>Now, I feel like I've been had.<BR/><BR/>Jack Roberts is the new organ grinder's monkey for The Oregonian. Chained with tin cup in hand, chatterering...well, er...like a monkey.<BR/><BR/>But this time, it's not cute...it's just sad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-13563563473890108012008-12-28T02:28:00.000-08:002008-12-28T02:28:00.000-08:00The real reason for the CO2/global warming hysteri...<B>The real reason for the CO2/global warming hysteria: </B><BR/>(these are all excerpts out of the Financial Post article linked below)<BR/><BR/>According to the World Bank, the value of carbon trading reached US$64 billion last year, up from US$30 billion in 2006 and US$10 billion in 2005. In fact, CO2 has emerged as an entirely new asset class, with an entirely new trading infrastructure... Some estimate the trade will reach the trillion_dollar threshold within a decade.<BR/>...<BR/>London, the epicentre of the rising global carbon market, is already littered with specialty hedge funds and private equity funds trading carbon_emission credits. Similar funds are popping up in other countries, including Canada, where trading is poised to gain momentum with the recent opening of the Montreal Exchange's new platform for trading greenhouse gas emissions, MceX<BR/>...<BR/>In North America, the development of carbon markets has been bogged down by the refusal of the U.S. to sign the Kyoto Accord and foot_dragging on the part of successive Canadian governments in coming up with a national strategy to combat greenhouse gases.<BR/>...<BR/>Another alternative to the MCeX is the carbon funds being set up by the likes of Toronto's Front Street Capital, which is investing heavily in acquiring a portfolio of carbon offsets, either by signing agreements with green technology companies, or by becoming equity investors in projects that throw off credits,<BR/>....<BR/>"The entire carbon market is driven by policy. If we get that right, there's no reason it can't reach a trillion dollars," Rogers says. "The challenge will be to integrate those regional and national policies into a true global market. How we do this remains to be seen." Adds Deloitte's Chort: "It depends on how the emission caps are set going forward, and whether everyone can be held accountable. In practice, it's supposed to work."<BR/><BR/>Finiancial Post, Tuesday, June 03, 2008, http://www.financialpost.com/magazine/fp500/story.html?id=532840Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-57665844963272479032008-12-24T23:09:00.000-08:002008-12-24T23:09:00.000-08:00It reminds me when I used to argue with my cell ph...It reminds me when I used to argue with my cell phone carrier about<BR/>charges on my bill. <BR/><BR/>They would tell me it's not a land line so there's always some glitches. <BR/><BR/>So I asked them, if they are just glitches why do they always make my bill higher and there's never any glitches that make it lower?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-45631119577905382442008-12-22T23:01:00.000-08:002008-12-22T23:01:00.000-08:00JK - You're right. I was thinking of illiterate as...JK - You're right. I was thinking of illiterate as meaning unable to read or write, forgetting that it can also mean a lack of knowledge in a certain field...sorry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-10897217957422151342008-12-22T10:49:00.000-08:002008-12-22T10:49:00.000-08:00In rereading my post above, I assumed JK was Rob K...In rereading my post above, I assumed JK was Rob Kremer (J perhaps being a first initial). I now doubt it is Rob. JK, please take my post as applying to you rather than to Rob.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-4344553862002052602008-12-22T10:41:00.000-08:002008-12-22T10:41:00.000-08:00Rob said: "Nuclear would be a big help, but the il...Rob said: "Nuclear would be a big help, but the illiterate paranoids that control our state government have outlawed it."<BR/><BR/>I agree that nuclear will have to be a part of our energy policy in the US.<BR/><BR/>But I'm calling you out on your name calling. "Illiterate" and "paranoid" contribute nothing to the debate. "Illiterate" is simply not true...paranoid may or may not be true, but you're not a psychiatrist. "Illiterate politicians" is, again, nothing but name calling. Politicians are not illiterate. Obama an illiterate? <BR/><BR/>Our country would be a better place to live if you reactionaary, paranoid, close-minded, bigoted and hateful conservatives would keep your mouths shut. See? Nothing is gained with this kind of name calling. I thought you were above this. You're sounding like Rush and Lars now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-87363125828600757552008-12-21T18:35:00.000-08:002008-12-21T18:35:00.000-08:00Huck said... Rob - I don't accept your unsubstanti...<B>Huck said...</B> Rob - I don't accept your unsubstantiated position that the proposals for addressing GHG emissions would destroy the economy.<BR/><B>JK:</B> It is very simple - we have no viable replacement for fossil fuels. Wind & solar are simply too unreliable, intermittent and costly. Forcing us to use these will dramatically increase energy prices. Further the twits in Salem are proposing increasing gasolene prices so we will be forced to walk, bike or transit more. They care little for our time that they will waste and the people that will die using these more dangerous forms of transport.<BR/><BR/>They are also proposing increasing the cost to heat our homes.<BR/><BR/>Anyone who thinks that these measure will not hurt people are simply deluded. BTW, the plan is for a 44% reduction in just 12 years. <BR/><BR/>Nuclear would be a big help, but the illiterate paranoids that control our state government have outlawed it.<BR/><BR/><B>Huck said...</B> I get the theory, but transitional disturbances do not imply long-run collapse. <BR/><B>JK:</B> So how many people will spend ten or twenty years in poverty to get to the long run? Does that matter to you? (It clearly does not matter to the average progressive that posts on this subject.)<BR/><BR/><B>Huck said...</B> What are you getting at? I'd be very interested in hearing your view how it would play out over 5-50 years.<BR/><B>JK:</B> No one knows. We have no alternative energy now. We have no certainty that we will have an alternative. We have no ability to predict the future of technology. (Fusion has been ten years away for the last 40. We have had a 10-20 year supply of oil for the last 100 years.)<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately the technically illiterate politicians have bought the steady stream of deluded crap coming out of the enviros about how we just have to put a little money into their pockets and instantly solar will become cost-effective and tidal power will save us (as they complain about al the enviro damage that will occur.) <BR/><BR/>Thanks<BR/>JKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-42456396078622529952008-12-19T15:41:00.000-08:002008-12-19T15:41:00.000-08:00Most Recent Anon 12/19 @ 10:06:Gray would be less ...Most Recent Anon 12/19 @ 10:06:<BR/><BR/>Gray would be less "entertaining" from a talk show perspective.<BR/><BR/>Gray would be less "fair and balanced" from a FOX news perspective.<BR/><BR/>Gray would be too tolerant of the "enemy" for the zealots (on both the right and the left - I was raised by a left-leaning social group where many of the members were as intolerant of conservatives as conservatives are of gays, muslims, and people with dark skin - yes, modern conservatives count among their members the vast majority of racists, bigots, and phobes of the world, don't try to argue they don't).<BR/><BR/>Well said. We can't paint with such large brushes. <BR/><BR/>AGW seems to be a theory. The way I read it, it suggests that human-activity-related greenhouse gas increases have not caused warming, but have exacerbated a natural warming cycle. If the natural cycle is indeed shifting to a cooling period, it seems that the same human activities would mitigate that cooling. But who knows, maybe it would only mitigate for a while, then exacerbate the cooling too. We don't know exactly how it will work, but it does seem that human activity has effects that should be accounted for in out capitalist economy.<BR/><BR/>Rob - I don't accept your unsubstantiated position that the proposals for addressing GHG emissions would destroy the economy. I get the theory, but transitional disturbances do not imply long-run collapse. What are you getting at? I'd be very interested in hearing your view how it would play out over 5-50 years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-5838806930645810102008-12-19T10:06:00.000-08:002008-12-19T10:06:00.000-08:00Ooops....I left out one paragraph from my post abo...Ooops....I left out one paragraph from my post above (about Eric Sten's brother's classroom and the 19 yr. old college student):<BR/><BR/>Though my history and PE classes were taught by staunch conservatives, I did not then and don't know consider myself to have been brainwashed. Nor was I brainwashed by my college advisor, a "peace-nik" in those times. Let's all be willing to spend more time in the gray and try less to make everything black and white.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com