Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAcross the country last week thousands of Americans gathered at more than 850 house-parties organized by the Sierra Club to watch a new documentary, Coal Country.
I meant to write about the doc last week but better late than never especially as the movie's screenings have been met with intimidation and outright threats of violence in several places, with the unseen hand of big coal working with local officials to try to prevent the movie from being shown.
A stunning film that exposes the devastation of mountaintop removal coal mining to the forests, streams, and communities of Appalachia, Coal Country puts the personal stories of residents of the hardscrabble coal towns at the heart of the story -- both working miners whose livelihoods depend on the mines and longtime locals organizing against the devastation of their native preserves. Far from a one-sided polemic, the film is an intimate portrait of the complex issues facing these areas with a keen understanding of the need for jobs, and the relative prosperity that coal brings to areas that desperately need cheap energy.
The trailer gives a sense of the power, beauty, tragedy and inspiration of the film.
Produced by Mari-Lynn Evans and Phylis Geller, Coal Country brings us inside the lives of Appalachian residents who are directly threatened by mountaintop-removal, a destructive mining practice where mountaintops are blasted away to expose the coal with waste then dumped in the waterways of nearby communities. As it takes us through each stage of coal mining and processing, Coal Country reveals new dimensions to the cost of America's over-reliance on coal.
As a bonus, the film has an awesome soundtrack with music inspired by the Appalachian Mountains and the important place they've played in American music, and songs contributed by John Prine, Natalie Merchant, Bonnie Raitt, Ralph Stanley, Gillian Welch, Diana Jones, and Willie Nelson.
Buy a copy of the DVD and the accompanying CD, and support the Alliance for Appalachia, a regional coalition with the goals of ending mountaintop removal coal mining, putting a halt to destructive coal technologies and supporting a sustainable, just economy in Appalachia.
PS: If you have extra time on your hands and want to follow me on Twitter -- a micro-blog -- click here. You'll find (slightly) more personal posts, breaking news, basketball and lots of links.
Share this article
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
So, how do you maintain a sustainable economy if you stop coal mining in Appalacia and else where?... govt jobs?
No one is for ruining the streams and mountains,, buit there is most likely a way restore the mountains and prairies after mining like they do here out west.
As far as killing off coal, our most abundant and cheap source of energy...
my question is,....
as your enviro types also want to kill off oil, now coal, and are against building nuke plants...what is left to use for energy?
All the lib hot air and still we will not generate energy, muchless jobs.
No offense Peter, but these "green" groups will have us in the black if we listen to them...
as in BLACK OUT.
Stopping coal is going to get you a quiet meeting in the middle of the night by what you love to call "Big Coal" or the "Coal Interests"......
otherwise known as...
United Mine Workers...union, dude,...the union will want to have a nice little chat with you.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 11:04am
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 11:04am
Sort of a contradiction, isn't it, Maasch?
Aren't you the one telling us how the "unions run things in the DNC and on the Left"...then why worry about "enviro-types killing off coal"?
Unless it's because keeping you scared is the point, even if the things you're supposed to be scared of ...contradict each other???
Posted by Mask at 11/23/2009 @ 11:35am
yeah i want to kill off coal. i want to kill off oil too.
not tomorrow, perhaps, nor even next year...hell, it could take a decade or two or three.
the way i want to kill it is responsibly and in stages, as we develop and implement clean alternatives to replace it all.
fifty years? after i'm dead? sure, i'll take it.
these mountains are lovely and the people who make them their homes are suffering from the results of this practice. and they are working in these mines too, i know...
its not an easy problem to solve.
but coal is simply too plentiful to choke off right now.
regardless, the more difficult it becomes to chop off mountain tops, the more impetus there will be to retool and develop clean energy alternatives.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 11:48am
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 11:04am
Sort of a contradiction, isn't it, Maasch?
Aren't you the one telling us how the "unions run things in the DNC and on the Left"...then why worry about "enviro-types killing off coal"?
Unless it's because keeping you scared is the point, even if the things you're supposed to be scared of ...contradict each other???
Posted by Mask at 11/23/2009 @ 11:35am
No Mask, no contradiction...the unions will have the midnight meeting with the Dems and the Dems will listen to the unions...they would be afraid not to listen, all that cash and guarenteed votes every year for only dems, no matter what the conditions in the nation......
no contradiction...what we will get is an exemption for the union for all the carbon taxes and clean up costs, as they are passed on to all non dems support groups who oppose higher tqxes or carbon taxes...
the unions get want they want, no real restrictions on mining, the dems get the votes, the greens get "new regulations" that are basically a tax on the users and evil corps who pass it on to the only guy getting screwed...the voter...
and the costs go up.Thats the point.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 12:36pm
"what we will get is an exemption for the union for all the carbon taxes and clean up costs"----Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 12:36pm |
Uh, Maasch....how exactly would an "exemption for the union" from carbon taxes and clean up costs be created....if the union owns none of the mines, power plants, etc.....to begin with?!?!??!?!?
Isn't that like saying "If assault rifles are banned, Dem special interests who don't own them will get an exemption!!!!"
Posted by Mask at 11/23/2009 @ 1:21pm
Near Mount Rainier in Washington state is a coal burning power plant. It has been found that over the twenty years or so of it's operation it has been polluting the whole area around the mountain with mercury. That means that birds, fish, deer, and all other types of life have been and are being adversely effected. Not to mention the incredibly large hole in the ground where they mine the coal.
It's not going to stop here.
It's not going to stop in Appalachia.
There are too many people. By proxy, they buy this coal.
The tsunami of need that drives our search for sources of power will eventually drain the world of life and of diversity in all things. This is our nature; to mindlessly procreate and destroy. Cut down the trees. To pee in the water. Ever been on a camping trip and noticed how some people feel driven to urinate into a stream or lake? Not behind a tree, but right into the water. The human 'race' is exactly right. We are hurrying towards the end as fast as we can go.
Posted by ficheye at 11/23/2009 @ 1:38pm
Posted by ficheye at 11/23/2009 @ 1:38pm
Wow, doesn't all that koolaid stain your teeth?
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/23/2009 @ 2:01pm
Posted by ficheye at 11/23/2009 @ 1:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
"This is our nature; to mindlessly procreate and destroy."
this is the way we shaved apes have evolved. for thousands of years these traits served us well in the struggle to survive and thrive, to out-compete our rivals.
we are the products of our evolutionary environment and the natural world against which we struggled to eke out an existence, was rightly seen as an obstacle to be overcome, an enemy to be conquered.
but we have largely won that war and now the challenge is to change our way of viewing and interacting with our environment. what a hollow victory it will be if we conquer our environment so thoroughly we destroy it!!!
well, no species is alive today that could not adapt to changing conditions. those that do live are the direct results of those members of that species which were able to adapt and change to fit - those who could not died out. the universe will not forever tolerate parasites nor luddites...
so here we are on the raggedy edge of the results of our triumph, at a real nexus.
homo inferior cannot adapt. homo inferior and the results of homo inferior will result in the death and suffering of countless millions eventually.
homo superior must continue the struggle, however, with the hope that one day homo inferior will die off and go the way of every other extinct species while homo superior adapts, changes, survives and thrives.
its the way of the world. unfortunately for them and us, homo inferior, as a result of his semi-cogency, does ever misidentify himself with homo superior, adopting wicked and stupid ideologies to compensate for inherent and learned inferiority.
this is one reason the space program is crucial...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 2:03pm
regardless, the more difficult it becomes to chop off mountain tops, the more impetus there will be to retool and develop clean energy alternatives.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 11:48am
exactly right. I would add that publicity (such as the film) also generates impetus of the same sort.
Coal is complex, but generally the worst things are done in the dark. Unfortunately gov't and private corps. alike hide from exposure to the majority of their decisions and processes.
it always makes me wonder, if they're so good and on our side, then why do they try to hide everything from us?
Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/23/2009 @ 2:14pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 11:48am
For me the real argument is that there is no alternative to cheap and abundant coal as an energy source. The prosperity of the whole world and employment in a wide spectrum of industries is dependent on it. It is inconsistent that the Left almost universally is against the use of this energy source but at the same time is decrying the loss of jobs. That is cruel insincerity or more likely blind stupidity
Here is an interesting article in today's Australian, that gives some measure of the unease that is beginning to gain traction with the public as it begins to realise the massive cost in jobs and change in life style that proposed limitations on the use of coal would guarantee.
"Moreover, there is a strong moral argument too. The reason we use carbon-based energy is simply that it is far and away the cheapest source of energy, and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.
Switching to much more expensive energy may be acceptable for us in the developed world. But in the developing world there are still tens of millions of people suffering from acute poverty, and from the consequences of such poverty, in the shape of preventable disease, malnutrition and premature death. So for the developing world the overriding priority has to be the fastest feasible rate of economic development, which means, inter alia, using the cheapest available form of energy: carbon-based energy."
More here: http://tinyurl.com/y9f7c3d
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/23/2009 @ 2:17pm
and are against building nuke plants
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 11:04am
hey, john, how much uranium is there left on this planet?
and where is it found?
better check......
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/23/2009 @ 2:19pm
"It is inconsistent that the Left almost universally is against the use of this energy source but at the same time is decrying the loss of jobs. That is cruel insincerity or more likely blind stupidity"
the vast majority of jobs being lost are not due to increased environmental regulations.
just for the record.
Posted by darladoon at 11/23/2009 @ 2:23pm
Wow, doesn't all that koolaid stain your teeth?
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/23/2009 @ 2:01pm
Take off the blinders. You can't see in the dark.
I am an earth honoring person, and you, by your comment, are an earth dominating person. It's up to the individual to decide what's best for them... and leave the planet out of course. It's just a resource.
Get busy screwing your way to oblivion. I'll have very little say in the matter and you will be happy. Isn't that what's important?
Now go pee in a stream.
Posted by ficheye at 11/23/2009 @ 2:29pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/23/2009 @ 2:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
yeah...i, like most, am caught here...
i LOVE the mountains and people who make them home, but understand the current need for coal.
i also think that with the right policies, we can wean ourselves off the polluting fuel crack within a few decades...
and, if done properly, perfect the implementation of clean, renewable energy and then go save the third world while making an ass of money in the process...
triage! the secret of mass survival!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 2:33pm
Uh, Maasch....how exactly would an "exemption for the union" from carbon taxes and clean up costs be created....if the union owns none of the mines, power plants, etc.....to begin with?!?!??!?!?
Isn't that like saying "If assault rifles are banned, Dem special interests who don't own them will get an exemption!!!!"
Posted by Mask at 11/23/2009 @ 1:21pm
No,...
Its like the exemptions the unions will and are getting in the health care robbery...they are exempt from taxes(everything) on "golden Coverages"...
come on Mask...you know very well.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 2:55pm
and are against building nuke plants
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 11:04am
hey, john, how much uranium is there left on this planet?
and where is it found?
better check......
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/23/2009 @ 2:19p
Plenty in Canada.
and right now we are generating electricity (10% If correctly reported) from nuke plants come from Russian war heads Reagan purchased out of service...
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 2:59pm
"An alternative to mountaintop removal mining in West Virginia" www.treehugger.com
The miners have the hands- on smarts & the adaptability to fill the jobs created by a project like the one outlined above. First pick for them would be welcomed by any employer.
The miners of today are not carbon copies of their fathers. Who would not move into a green job without reservation, if it meant continuing to support their families, was well paid and preserved the land (including human health) that they love?
If Peter has already spoken of this or a similar project, I second it.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/23/2009 @ 3:12pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 2:55pm
No, please explain how the coal miner's union would get an "exemption" from paying carbon taxes or "clean-up" that they would "normally" get???
Posted by Mask at 11/23/2009 @ 3:19pm
ficheye,
1. If somebody pees behind a tree, which one is supposed to do I guess instead of in the water...then eventually it (the pee) will end up in the water anyway because of runoff.
2. In the meantime, the pee is in the groundwater....isn't that as bad?
3. Kids at public swimming pools pee in the water sometimes.....everybody knows this.....is that OK because the water is chlorinated? Or have a just opened up a new pandora's box by mentioning chlorine?
4. Peeing in the water is wrong (or as I have pointed out, behind a tree would be just as bad), but before all the modern technology and industrialization that some condemn as wrong, that is all anybody was able to do. Was peeing in the water back then OK, then?
5. As we know, automobiles are bad, but before the auto most cities had horse crap all over the place. Was that better?
6. If peeing in the water is bad, was pee going into outer space OK? When the astronauts went to the Moon, they ejected the pee from the capsule periodically....why bring it back to Earth? But was that polluting outer space? Did the astronauts commit wrong? How about on the Moon? There are no trees to pee behind on the Moon...what were the Astronauts supposed to do there?
Posted by sjchermak at 11/23/2009 @ 4:06pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/23/2009 @ 4:06pm
Urine is sterile until it hits the air. I believe Fisheyes science is like ALGORES.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 4:26pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 2:55pm
No, please explain how the coal miner's union would get an "exemption" from paying carbon taxes or "clean-up" that they would "normally" get???
Posted by Mask at 11/23/2009 @ 3:19pm
I believe the union would be exempt from any thing coming down the enviromental pike...and I believe, as I mentioned, that the union will want to talk to the enviro nuts...and as a result the mining will not stop, and if anhything would come of the enviro demands, it would be negoiated into a tax or fee, some of which would be direct to the greenies...and paid by us.
The exemptions,should it come to that, would be similar to the exemptions gven to the unions in the current health care money grab.
before you wander off down another thread that isnt there, Mask,
the point of the article and the orginal post by me is that all the demands to go green in this part of the country will most likely be headed off by the union and then disappear,ergo, there is no point to answer what exemptions when my premise is there will not be what Peter wants to happen there, with the locals all supporting his cause., and as such..no need to discuss exemptions.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 4:33pm
The miners have the hands- on smarts & the adaptability to fill the jobs created by a project like the one outlined above. First pick for them would be welcomed by any employer.......
Posted by Sorelish at 11/23/2009 @ 3:12pm
Are there some green companies currently set up in Appalacia that are going short of workers, that mining jobs could be eliminated and nature "saved"?
Or are you thinking about some kind of gvovernment program coming to save the day there with "new green jobs"?
Be careful there,
take note...
A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year..
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels is approximately 5 hours worth of US consumption. More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil, at $70 per barrel, costs about $350 million dollars.
So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million. (Do the math - it's a mere 880% loss!)
We spent $857 for every dollar saved. What a deal.
Liberal Govt Math..brought to you by your school system.
How about our SECOND LOUISANA PURCHASE'?
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 4:39pm
Plenty in Canada.
and right now we are generating electricity (10% If correctly reported) from nuke plants come from Russian war heads Reagan purchased out of service...
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 2:59pm
and when will peak uranium arrive, john?
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/23/2009 @ 5:09pm
and when will peak uranium arrive, john?
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/23/2009 @ 5:09pm
I dont know anymore than you know when oil will peak. But because it has a finite amount doesn't mean we should not use it...better than your oil or coal according to you or should we just turn out the lights?
Doesnt matter anyway, Canada has it and we are gonna get it...!!!!
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 5:17pm
"it would be negoiated into a tax or fee, some of which would be direct to the greenies"
(quote of the day)
Posted by darladoon at 11/23/2009 @ 5:32pm
I wonder what those Appalachian coalminers think about gay marriage.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/23/2009 @ 5:47pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/23/2009 @ 4:06pm
ficheye,
1. If somebody pees behind a tree, which one is supposed to do I guess instead of in the water...then eventually it will end up in the water anyway because of runoff.
** Oh yeah, Mr. Science. Ever hear of 'plants'? Pee would not just sit there until it rained. Maybe in your back yard.
2. In the meantime, the pee is in the groundwater... isn't that as bad?
** Isn't this eventually going to be about ALGORE? Your understanding of ecology in general is pretty dim.
3. Kids at public swimming pools pee in the water sometimes... is that OK because the water is chlorinated?
**Yes. You could drink it! I recommend this for you. Your post becomes increasingly idiotic, but hey, what could you expect? You had nothing to do today so simulating thought seemed like a good idea. But you're having fun. Wheee!
4. Peeing in the water is wrong (or as I have pointed out, behind a tree would be just as bad), but before all the modern technology and industrialization that some condemn as wrong, that is all anybody was able to do. Was peeing in the water back then OK, then?
** You mean before there were 6,798,957,979 people? You figure that one out, genius. Go downtown and pee in the fountain. Report back later.
5. As we know, automobiles are bad, but before the auto most cities had horse crap all over the place. Was that better?
** This is hilarious. You mean, again, before the 6 billion number? I live in a town with a lake that we can't swim in because of nitrogen pollution from cow shit. The city won't allow it. Did I or ALGORE have anything to do with this?
6. If peeing in the water is bad, was pee going into outer space OK?
** God almighty, you have beaten your own record for stupidity. I'm gonna save this one, dufus.
Posted by ficheye at 11/23/2009 @ 5:59pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/23/2009 @ 4:06pm
Urine is sterile until it hits the air. I believe Fisheyes science is like ALGORES.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 4:26pm
Neither you or CHERMAK have anything to say here except that you are happy screwing up the environment at a record pace. Coal burning is a huge source of mercury pollution. Mercury bad, fool.
Here's what you do: Pee in a bucket for instead of the toilet. Leave it in the house. When you notice a funny smell after three or four days just tell the wife you are trying to prove something to old ficheye. Tell her that that urine was sterile when it came out. Tell her ALGORE is causing you to do this!
When you find a new apartment get back to me. Hint: They'll want you to use the toilet.
Posted by ficheye at 11/23/2009 @ 6:09pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @4:39pm
Think you'd probably have a different opinion if you lived under one of those blown mountaintops.
I know most of you cons believe time cures all wounds & that everything will be alright after the next ice age. In the meantime it's NIMBY for the top dogs, although you can probably dredge up some deranged company mogul who sprinkles coal dust on his oatmeal.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/23/2009 @ 6:27pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 4:33pm
Maasch, if the "mining would not stop"...
wouldn't that mean an exemption...
for the MINE OWNERS as well????
Posted by Mask at 11/23/2009 @ 6:37pm
Has anybody ever seen pictures of the buffalo slaughter back in the 1800's? All those piles of skinned buffalos, just rotting under the sun, going to waste; the hides being the only thing of value to the "market." That's the way the so called "free market" works: The only rationale is profit! Absolutely nothing else matters, and that's why there are carcinogens in the air we breath, the water we drink, the food we eat. It is an irrational, destructive, unsustainable model. Only ignorant, greedy, self-serving fools want to perpetuate it.
Posted by mtspence05 at 11/23/2009 @ 6:40pm
Doesnt matter anyway, Canada has it and we are gonna get it...!!!!
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 5:17pm
yeah, we seem to be your bitches.
I paraphrase our leaders on climate change:
"we'll blink when the U.S. does"
Frosty, what is the answer to the peak U question? I have heard enough known reserves for about 40 yrs. Is this close?
Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/23/2009 @ 7:07pm
ficheye proclaims ".... Mercury bad, fool....."
Then why are people in governments world wide (people who tend to lean leftward) so hot-to-trot to eliminate incandescent light bulbs, since many will be replaced by compact fluorescent lamps that contain, hmm, mercury?
==========
There is evidence of panic buying of incandescent bulbs ahead of the EU lightbulb ban. Many retailers in Britain, Poland, Austria, Germany and Hungary have reported bulk purchasing[40][41][42][43][44], and in Germany, sales rose by up to 150% in 2009 in comparison to 2008.[45] Two-thirds of Austrians surveyed stated they believe the phase-out to be "nonsensical", with 53.6% believing their health to be at risk of mercury poisoning.[46] 72% of Americans believe the government has no right to dictate which light bulb they may use.[47] The Czech Republic President, Vaclav Klaus, urged people to stockpile enough incandescent bulbs to last their lifetime.[48]
The phase out has been referred to as "Light bulb socialism".[45] The overwhelming consumer preference for light bulbs in the EU is for incandescent bulbs, with many complaining of the ugliness[40][49] and the cold, flat, unnatural, dull light emanating from CFLs.[41][45][50][51][52][53]. Objection has also been raised to being forced to adopt CFLs[54].
CFLs, like all fluorescent lamps, contain small amounts of mercury[67][68] as vapor inside the glass tubing, averaging 4.0 mg per bulb [69]. A broken compact fluorescent lamp will release its mercury content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs
Posted by sjchermak at 11/23/2009 @ 7:40pm
Rev Anti Larry is just like Osama. Extreme claims to being on the Ultimate divinely morally logically and forever and in all ways ultra righteous side, justifying their raison d'etre, which they spew ad nauseam.
As a new book shows, they both (love to) hate their enemies more than they actually love, actively, really, love their own "loved ones".
Omar Bin Laden's book is "Growing Up Bin Laden"
"His son eventually concluded Bin Laden hated his enemies more than he loved his family."
Pointing out hypocrisy paradoxically these sorts to bolster their self deception.
So whither you "ignore" or go for it - so long as he learns nothing, he loses! Time marches on. Know what I mean?
Posted by winyahn at 11/23/2009 @ 7:47pm
oh yeah, right...
the internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium
Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/23/2009 @ 8:01pm
In 2006, about 4 million tons of conventional resources were thought to be sufficient at current consumption rates for about six decades (4.06 million tonnes at 65,000 tones per year).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium
Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/23/2009 @ 8:05pm
Miscellaneous thoughts:
1. If plants keep pee from running off into lakes, then how come people in the town where ficheye lives did not do any planting around the lake there? If they had, then the plants would have kept the nitrogen from the cow shit from running off into the lake, and ficheye could go swimming.
2. ficheye can't swim in the lake with the cow shit because the city won't allow it....typical lib, waiting for government guidance and direction.....me, and most other Conservatives would most likely choose not to swim in a lake full of cow shit even if the city DID allow it!!
3. ficheye wants me to go downtown and go pee in the fountain, but then says I should pee in a bucket and leave it in the house. Which am I supposed to do? I had better not drink any fluids until I get further direction.
4. In Downtown Cincinnati there is Fountain Square. Are the people in Cincinnati supposed to pee in the fountain there, also? If they do, is the city supposed to rename the square to Public Restroom Square?
5. ficheye says I am to blame Algore for peeing in a bucket and leaving it in the house.... If I go to a new apartment ficheye says I will be told to use the toilet.....jumping the gun, a bit here ficheye, aren't we? I would think some environmentalists think toilets are probably wrong........the people at the apartment may want me to use the toilet, but will the day come down the road when environmentalists say no and then the government says no, also? And then you do have to use the bucket?
Posted by sjchermak at 11/23/2009 @ 8:05pm
typical lib -- Posted by sjchermak at 11/23/2009 @ 8:05pm
waiting for big mommy government to outlaw lynching, mercury & lead & poison in toys and tuna and drinking water
waiting nor government to outlaw yelling fire at movies, murder, rape, Wall Street fun n games, etc.
GOING ROGUE ON REGS, it's : teabaggin' sjchermak
Posted by winyahn at 11/23/2009 @ 8:58pm
That looks dangerously overoptimistic, says Michael Dittmar, from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology* in Zurich who publishes the final chapter of an impressive four-part analysis of the global nuclear industry on the arXiv today.
Perhaps the most worrying problem is the misconception that uranium is plentiful. The world's nuclear plants today eat through some 65,000 tons of uranium each year. Of this, the mining industry supplies about 40,000 tons. The rest comes from secondary sources such as civilian and military stockpiles, reprocessed fuel and re-enriched uranium. "But without access to the military stocks, the civilian western uranium stocks will be exhausted by 2013, concludes Dittmar.
It's not clear how the shortfall can be made up since nobody seems to know where the mining industry can look for more.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24414/
*ETH is ranked among the top universities in the world. It is a founding member of the IDEA League and the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU). It is a member of Top Industrial Managers for Europe network.
who knows?
but it will come, probably sooner rather than later, and will probably involve military conflict.
TO QWIKI!
"In 2005, seventeen countries produced uranium, with CANADA (27.9%) and AUSTRALIA (22.8%) being the largest producers and KAZAKHSTAN (10.5%), RUSSIA (8.0%), NAMIBIA (7.5%), NIGER (7.4%), UZBEKISTAN (5.5%), the UNITED STATES (2.5%), ARGENTINA (2.1%), UKRAINE (1.9%) and CHINA (1.7%) also producing significant amounts. KAZAKHSTAN CONTINUES TO INCREASE PRODUCTION AND MAY BECOME THE WORLD'S LARGEST PRODUCER OF URANIUM BY 2009
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/23/2009 @ 9:04pm
this is what john maasch wants for his kids:
Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.
HIGH-LEVEL MEETING Mr. Clinton with Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, president of Kazakhstan, in September 2005.
Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/23/2009 @ 9:09pm
Someday the earth will have no more oil reserves and coal mines left. No-one knows for sure when that day will come but it will probably be sometime in our children and grandchildren's lifetime. I'd like to see politicians worry less about socialized health care and cap and trade and start getting serious about alternative fuels before it's way too late.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/23/2009 @ 11:03pm
" I'd like to see politicians worry less about socialized health care and cap and trade"
which at least we've found a way to pay for, as opposed to those two trillion dollar wars.
"start getting serious about alternative fuels before it's way too late"
so you want "socialized fuel"?
Posted by darladoon at 11/24/2009 @ 12:34am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/23/2009 @ 11:03pm
You are of course, correct about health care and the other social engineering boondoggles than have cost man countless opportunities and trillions.
The market will produce the technology and the products when that day that cost and demand cross appears, the same way the auto replaced the horse and buggy....the senario with todays libs would have a subsidised buggy factory still in business today, unionised, of course. They still have unionised brakeman and fireman on the trains....
the future energy supply is water...hydrogen and oxygen....and like electricity and electrical power, oil and natural gas( and the products it provides),and automobiles...
the carbon and nuke fuels will end but that does not mean we stop using it and plunge ourselves backward, nor does it mean we panic and hobble ourselves with ALGORES of the world. The earth will not boil or freeze because the cows fart or my car drives me to the airport.
The solution will come from the same place it always does with FREE men...it will come from the private sector...not from govt. But if we continue down the road to socialism and collectivism we will suffer needless and harsh shortages of everything..history shows this, but some are unable to see it.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/24/2009 @ 12:52am
this is what john maasch wants for his kids: ...
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/23/2009 @ 9:09pm
Frosty knows amuch about what John wants for his kids like as he knows about the economy, nuke reserves and climate issues...
which is nothing....
he is a guitar player..nothing more ..nothing less..which makes him an expert in knowing his guitar..
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/24/2009 @ 12:56am
ficheye proclaims ".... Mercury bad, fool....."
Then why are people in governments world wide (people who tend to lean leftward) so hot-to-trot to eliminate incandescent light bulbs, since many will be replaced by compact fluorescent lamps that contain, hmm, mercury?
Posted by sjchermak at 11/23/2009 @ 7:40pm
You've heard of the phrase "You can't get there from here"? Well, surprise! You managed to get there. Now you have to figure out just where that is.
Because you think that I am a leftist you seem to make the leap that I must believe in those light bulbs with the mercury in 'em. I do not. I've known about those darn energy efficient bulbs far longer than you, Mr. Science.
You seem like you are in a particularly good mood today. You are amused with yourself and you decided to make a grand stab at humor. But you are out of luck if you think that you are going to annoy me. I watch your posts with fascination. Exponential stupidity... it is a stupidity that is like the sea and the sky... ever changing and never changing, a causality loop feeding upon itself. And you watch, ever vigilant for 'those on the left'. They will get you, sad sack.
Yes, you should pee in a bucket, definitely. Or the fountain. Take your pick. No one is going to stop you. Don't you worry about the mercury. Or anything else, for that matter. Blame everything on ALGORE, pray for Sarah to become the POTUS, but for gods sake stop picking your nose. Now, get on back to rightwingnews.com where you belong, creature of the night. Do you hang upside down when you sleep? It's gonna make it really hard to hit the bucket.
Posted by ficheye at 11/24/2009 @ 02:05am
Just when you think the enviro-wacko koolaide cults can't wallow in the wrong-headed economic mire they have helped create any more we see the return to appalachia.
Yea, leave the area to its natural habitat of "unfit for human habitation" and 3rd world poverty economics! What we need is a abject poverty "reservation" of more entitlement welfare recipients contributing nothing to the nation except Demoncrat voter blocks!
With the nation sinking in unecessary Demoncrat induced debt lets be sure to kill any economic advantage and industrial "edge" our coal reserves might provide.
Sure reclaimation is important and necessary but so is development of natural resourses for national economic reasons. Otherwise, we will arrive at a point where they are useles to us, but valuable to someone else who WILL buy and exploit them!
Has Japan, China, and other nations stopped buying our trees or salvage metal that we don't or won't use?
Posted by BigPasture at 11/24/2009 @ 02:41am
It appears that Nation bloggers keep a close eye on environmental matters.
That is why I wait with great anticipation somebody's commentary on the 160 megabytes of emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in which prominent "climate change" scientists admit they've manipulated scientific data to support their religion, destroyed contrary evidence, and even blantantly admit--in private--that they can't explain why the earth isn't getting cooler.
That and emails thankful that Britain doesn't have a FOIA, and that if it did, they'd start deleting data rather than let it go public.
The whole climate change/global warming religion is a hoax perpetrated to both garner research grant money and further an anti-capitalist political agenda. It is a whole damn cottage industry built on lies so that a few can continue to work in their ivory towers without having to get real jobs.
And the very "scientists" perpetrating it pretty much admit it in the body of these hacked emails.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 07:45am
It appears that Nation bloggers keep a close eye on environmental matters.
That is why I wait with great anticipation somebody's commentary on the 160 megabytes of emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in which prominent "climate change" scientists admit they've manipulated scientific data to support their religion, destroyed contrary evidence, and even blantantly admit--in private--that they can't explain why the earth isn't getting cooler.
That and emails thankful that Britain doesn't have a FOIA, and that if it did, they'd start deleting data rather than let it go public.
The whole climate change/global warming religion is a hoax perpetrated to both garner research grant money and further an anti-capitalist political agenda. It is a whole damn cottage industry built on lies so that a few can continue to work in their ivory towers without having to get real jobs.
And the very "scientists" perpetrating it pretty much admit it in the body of these hacked emails.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 07:45am
"The whole climate change/global warming religion is a hoax ...."----Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 07:45am
So, maybe you know, CC....why doesn't the Republican Party say that in its official literature????
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 07:51am
it always makes me wonder, if they're so good and on our side, then why do they try to hide everything from us?
Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/23/2009 @ 2:14pm
I'll field that one for our right wing rednecks. We can't handle the truth!!!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/24/2009 @ 07:57am
ficheye,
You tell me:
"......Yes, you should pee in a bucket, definitely. Or the fountain. Take your pick. No one is going to stop you. Don't you worry about the mercury. Or anything else, for that matter. Blame everything on ALGORE...."
I beg to differ with you. Suppose I go pee in the fountain in let's say, Fountain Square, I think there are some people, perhaps the Cincinnati Police, who might take issue with that.
Would the judge in court give me a break if I blame it on Algore? You tell me.
What about Algore? If Algore were to go do that, would that inspire a whole bunch of lemming like libs to take up the practice, advocate it and say it is the way to go? (and say that anybody who disagrees with peeing in the fountain is a denier?) Would Fountain Square turn into a public urinal?
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2009 @ 08:13am
So, maybe you know, CC....why doesn't the Republican Party say that in its official literature????
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 07:51am
Armed with the release of these "climategate" emails detailing suppression of dissent through intimidation, manipulation of data, deletion of contrary evidence, and more...perhaps the GOP finally WILL make it a cornerstone of their campaign.
I'd like it. But you know what I'd like more? I'd like it if the Democrat Party collectively came out of the fog, looked at these "climategate" emails and condemned the whole thing as the hoax it is.
Think of all the money we've spent on something it's own proponents admit in private is a flimflam?
Have a look at it. One "scientist" ADMITS he can't explain why the earth isn't getting hotter. Other emails talk about how reports were doctored to obtain the results needed to support their agenda.
At what point do we stop calling this "science" and admit to ourselves that this is a religion as corrupt as any seedy televangelist?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 08:15am
So, maybe you know, CC....why doesn't the Republican Party say that in its official literature????
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 07:51am
Armed with the release of these "climategate" emails detailing suppression of dissent through intimidation, manipulation of data, deletion of contrary evidence, and more...perhaps the GOP finally WILL make it a cornerstone of their campaign.
I'd like it. But you know what I'd like more? I'd like it if the Democrat Party collectively came out of the fog, looked at these "climategate" emails and condemned the whole thing as the hoax it is.
Think of all the money we've spent on something it's own proponents admit in private is a flimflam?
Have a look at it. One "scientist" ADMITS he can't explain why the earth isn't getting hotter. Other emails talk about how reports were doctored to obtain the results needed to support their agenda.
At what point do we stop calling this "science" and admit to ourselves that this is a religion as corrupt as any seedy televangelist?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 08:15am
Yep, any minute now one of Nation's bloggers is going to post a new story here about these emails [looks at watch].
Uh, huh. At some point today Peter Rothberg or Eyal Press or somebody is going to post a blog basically saying, "Son of a bitch! The whole damn thing is a flimsy house of cards perpetrated by a bunch of pseudo-scientists with a political agenda. We were misled! Forgive us, oh readers. We were lied to. They can't prove mankind has done ANYTHING and they admit it!"
Yep...it's just a matter of time.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 08:27am
Yep, any minute now one of Nation's bloggers is going to post a new story here about these emails [looks at watch].
Uh, huh. At some point today Peter Rothberg or Eyal Press or somebody is going to post a blog basically saying, "Son of a bitch! The whole damn thing is a flimsy house of cards perpetrated by a bunch of pseudo-scientists with a political agenda. We were misled! Forgive us, oh readers. We were lied to. They can't prove mankind has done ANYTHING and they admit it!"
Yep...it's just a matter of time.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 08:27am
http://tinyurl.com/yexns28
There's a link to the "Climategate" emails, for those who are interested.
National Review is pointing out that the New York Times, which had no problem linking to hacked Sarah Palin emails, is refusing to link to these "illegally obtained" emails.
Funny how they selectively apply journalistic integrity, ain't it? It's okay when it is a conservative pol who's the butt of jokes among the Manhatten glitterati. But a true coup unmasking the greatest scientific scandal in human history? One that upsets a key liberal agenda?
Nope. Time to get selective. Here's a few excerpts...
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." --Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
So why keep that to yourselves, Kevin? Why not hold a press conference and admit you don't know what the hell is happening? Oh...that might stop the grant money.
"Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
--Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at U. of East Anglia
The email above was about deleting emails that were part of a "Freedom of Information Act" type request. The good doctor was doing something highly illegal telling them to destroy requested information.
Have a look for yourselves. The greatest scandal in scientific history.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 08:55am
http://tinyurl.com/yexns28
There's a link to the "Climategate" emails, for those who are interested.
National Review is pointing out that the New York Times, which had no problem linking to hacked Sarah Palin emails, is refusing to link to these "illegally obtained" emails.
Funny how they selectively apply journalistic integrity, ain't it? It's okay when it is a conservative pol who's the butt of jokes among the Manhatten glitterati. But a true coup unmasking the greatest scientific scandal in human history? One that upsets a key liberal agenda?
Nope. Time to get selective. Here's a few excerpts...
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." --Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
So why keep that to yourselves, Kevin? Why not hold a press conference and admit you don't know what the hell is happening? Oh...that might stop the grant money.
"Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
--Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at U. of East Anglia
The email above was about deleting emails that were part of a "Freedom of Information Act" type request. The good doctor was doing something highly illegal telling them to destroy requested information.
Have a look for yourselves. The greatest scandal in scientific history.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 08:55am
Wow, doesn't all that koolaid stain your teeth?
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/23/2009 @ 2:01pm
It always amuses me and disturbes at the same time how assholes like you consistently confuse "koolaid" with the truth. The truth is not a beverage. And the truth will not stain your teeth.
Coal is a dirty form of energy. Ask the people in Appalachia. Why do you think it was buried in the ground? When you dig up dead things already buried, what good can come from it? Some things were mean't to remain where the Earth put them. And Coal is most definitely one of those things.
All those mountain tops that have been blown away might have put to better use as wind farms. At least a wind farm does not kill everything around it with extreme air and water pollution.
People in mining communities have a 70 percent increased risk of kidney disease. They have a 64 percent increased risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and are 30 percent more likely to report high blood pressure. And that doesn't include all the people who live downstream or downwind and are subject to poisoning by mercury, uranium, selenium, thorium, arsenic and other heavy metals.
Yup, great stuff that Coal, kills thosands and thousands of people every year. Not to mention much of the wildlife in the area.
Coal is a Dirty, Disgusting and Deadly form of Energy. And that "Truth" has nothing to do with "Koolaid".
Posted by chaoszen at 11/24/2009 @ 09:03am
"All those mountain tops that have been blown away might have put to better use as wind farms. At least a wind farm does not kill everything around it with extreme air and water pollution."
Posted by chaoszen at 11/24/2009 @ 09:03am
Problem with wind and solar power is that you have to put windmills or solar fields really close to that which you wish to power.
Electrical power loses it's potency the further away you transmit it down power lines. Not a problem with coal, gas, nuclear or hydroelectric plants, as they generate such vast amounts of energy the power loss is negligeable.
Comparitively speaking, wind and solar are pathetic, expensive, and inefficient lightweights.
Windmills on those hilltops MIGHT be able to power a nearby suburb. A small one.
The coal from those hills can power entire cities containing hundreds of thousands of people and the industries and businesses that fuel our economy and put food on people's tables.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 09:21am
"All those mountain tops that have been blown away might have put to better use as wind farms. At least a wind farm does not kill everything around it with extreme air and water pollution."
Posted by chaoszen at 11/24/2009 @ 09:03am
Problem with wind and solar power is that you have to put windmills or solar fields really close to that which you wish to power.
Electrical power loses it's potency the further away you transmit it down power lines. Not a problem with coal, gas, nuclear or hydroelectric plants, as they generate such vast amounts of energy the power loss is negligeable.
Comparitively speaking, wind and solar are pathetic, expensive, and inefficient lightweights.
Windmills on those hilltops MIGHT be able to power a nearby suburb. A small one.
The coal from those hills can power entire cities containing hundreds of thousands of people and the industries and businesses that fuel our economy and put food on people's tables.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 09:21am
Have a look for yourselves. The greatest scandal in scientific history.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 08:55am
The scandal is the fact that we still have nutbags running around like the village idiot with their hair on fire screaming at the top of their lungs that a clearly defined scientific fact is untrue. And those people are not Scientists or Climatologists. Or they are paid off pseudo-scientists who have sold their soul to Big Oil or Big Coal or both.
And anyone who refers to or quotes The National Review or NewsMax or the like is intellectualy challenged anyway.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/24/2009 @ 09:26am
The scandal is the fact that we still have nutbags running around like the village idiot with their hair on fire screaming at the top of their lungs that a clearly defined scientific fact is untrue.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/24/2009 @ 09:26am
Clearly defined scientific fact?
Again, this is from an email written by Kevin Trenberth,head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
I don't think you understand. Trenberth is ONE OF YOUR GUYS. Not one of mine. He is a leading advocate for anthropogenic climate change [formerly known as "global warming"]
And here, in the privacy of an email to his like-minded PEERS, he is admitting that the warming he has probably been "predicting" all his career ISN'T HAPPENING and HE DOESN'T KNOW WHY.
And he never intended for you or I to SEE that email in which he expresses doubt and consternation.
And guess what? Some of the people in those emails have already CONFIRMED the emails are real.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 09:46am
Windmills on those hilltops MIGHT be able to power a nearby suburb. A small one. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 09:21am
Even when a madman swings a hammer he may occasionally hit a nail.
Wind and Solar energy even on a small scale are generated by wind turbines and solar panels that are very efficient nowadays. They channel electrical energy into high voltage transformers that feed electrical energy into the grid. The loss of energy even over great distances is minimal. And with improvements in the grid will eventually be negligible.
But the real use of most solar and wind generated electrical energy should be used locally anyway. Most communities could become energy independent with local co-ops. The sad thing is, like here in Iowa, is that almost all of the locally produced wind power is being "shipped" to the markets that charge more for the energy.
Local governments should establish their own independent solar and wind power utilities and grids with federal subsidies and then sell any excess power to others in order to help support the local system. This way every community could be essentially energy independent.
With the introduction of electric cars this would also reduce our dependence on oil.
Your small minded refusal to accept global warming as a manmade problem doesn't help anyone.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/24/2009 @ 09:59am
<"Eighty percent of the gases in the atmosphere are the result of emissions by the developed countries, and on a per capita basis it is even more," he says>
That's all I needed to read to know that this article is just leftist "hot air"
Posted by antisocialist at 11/24/2009 @ 10:00am
And anyone who refers to or quotes The National Review or NewsMax or the like is intellectualy challenged anyway.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/24/2009 @ 09:26am
Whereas dismissing an argument because you don't like the source, also known as the ad hominen fallacy, is a sign of intellectual strength and integrity, right?
The fact that a blogger on National Review is pointing out The New York Times has a double standard when it comes to linking to hacked emails does not change the fact that The New York Times appears to have a double standard.
Much as you might like to dismiss it as otherwise.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 10:07am
And anyone who refers to or quotes The National Review or NewsMax or the like is intellectualy challenged anyway.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/24/2009 @ 09:26am
Whereas dismissing an argument because you don't like the source, also known as the ad hominen fallacy, is a sign of intellectual strength and integrity, right?
The fact that a blogger on National Review is pointing out The New York Times has a double standard when it comes to linking to hacked emails does not change the fact that The New York Times appears to have a double standard.
Much as you might like to dismiss it as otherwise.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 10:07am
chaoszen says:
"....All those mountain tops that have been blown away might have put to better use as wind farms. At least a wind farm does not kill everything around it with extreme air and water pollution. ...."
Instead the wind farms kill birds.
Do wind turbines kill birds? by Julia Layton http://science.howstuffworks.com/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm/printable
Question on windmills and birds http://www.democraticunderground.com/ discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x785826
I wonder if ficheye will note my second source? Ficheye thinks I am close minded and spend my whole Internet day at rightwingnews.com. (at least the portion of my day in front of the computer, when I am not going out to go down to the airport to fly to Cincinnati to go to the bathroom in Fountain Square.)
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2009 @ 10:16am
Note:
On the democraticunderground link above, there may be a space or a "%20" in the link after pasting into the browser that will need to be taken out.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2009 @ 10:20am
Again, this is from an email written by Kevin Trenberth,head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 09:46am
So you are attempting to debunk anthropogenic climate change because of some hacked and stolen e-mails? Any hacked and stolen e-mail can be taken out of context or forged. This kind of crap within weeks of Copenhagen is typical of those who are desperate and have nothing.
Climate Scientists admit that they do not understand or have perfect knowledge of this complex science. And criminals hacking a computer and stealing internal e-mails is proof of nothing other than the scientists admit more work needs to be done to refine the models.
It has nothing to do with the basic conclusions that we have a manmade climate crisis.
This is just the sort of cheap and dangerous criminal behaviour we can expect from your side. Which really isn't even a "Side" to begin with. It's just a bunch of staus quo greedy evil people trying to continue exploiting this planet.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/24/2009 @ 10:23am
Posted by Mask at 11/23/2009 @ 1:21pm:
The companies own the mines but the unions own the jobs, so they are tied together.
Posted by pyeatte at 11/24/2009 @ 10:37am
The coal from those hills can power entire cities containing hundreds of thousands of people and the industries and businesses that fuel our economy and put food on people's tables.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 09:21am
and poison your kids, too!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/24/2009 @ 10:39am
Instead the wind farms kill birds. Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2009 @ 10:16am
Leave it to the schworm to try this one out.
Modern wind turbines no longer spin at rotation speeds that can injure many birds. Turbine blades are now solid with a wide surface area and spin at low speed while producing more electrical energy. Technology advances schwormey.
As a matter of "fact" and I know you morons still don't have a grasp on that, but:
Wind Turbines account for between 10,000 to 40,000 bird deaths a year. As a comparison, Windows both residential and commercial account for 100 million to 1 billion bird deaths a year. And automobiles account for 60 million to 80 million bird deaths a year. Pesticides account for 70 million bird deaths a year.
Looks to me like wind turbines are a minor player in bird deaths. And your stupidity in even bringing it up shows how desperate your kind are to undermine efforts to become energy independent. Which is patently un-american, traitorous and subversive.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/24/2009 @ 10:48am
The companies own the mines but the unions own the jobs, so they are tied together.
Posted by pyeatte at 11/24/2009 @ 10:37am
The people of Appalachia would be better served by being educated and trained to do jobs other than wallowing in coal dust for no good reason. Those forests and mountains can grow a wide variety of hardwoods, a very valuable and renewable resource that can be managed in a sane and scientific fashion.
How about using the Appalachian's hardwoods to provide jobs in furniture manufacture? Everbody likes well made hand crafted furniture right? High dollar stuff to. And the job's that would create in forestry management and furniture manufacturing could be a boon to the local economy. And give the people of Appalachia constructive and satisfying work. Instead of disease and the raping of the land everyday which eventually demolishes the human spirit.
Just an idea. Forget the black death that lies under the ground. That stuff is just a bad use of local resources. And is death to the local economy and it's people.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/24/2009 @ 11:11am
The companies own the mines but the unions own the jobs, so they are tied together.----Posted by pyeatte at 11/24/2009 @ 10:37am
Right...so it'd be an exemption for the MINE OWNERS too, wouldn't it?
A point, Maasch..."forgot" to mention.
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 11:19am
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 10:07am
Citi, as before, if Global Warming Denial is not a fringe position...
which major political party supports it???
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 11:20am
I'd like it. But you know what I'd like more? I'd like it if the Democrat Party collectively came out of the fog, looked at these "climategate" emails and condemned the whole thing as the hoax it is.
--woulda been nice if republicans did the same thing before bush invaded iraq.
Think of all the money we've spent on something it's own proponents admit in private is a flimflam?
--ditto iraq.
Have a look at it. One "scientist" ADMITS he can't explain why the earth isn't getting hotter.
--where were those wmds?
Other emails talk about how reports were doctored to obtain the results needed to support their agenda.
--everything was on the up and up in iraq, right?
At what point do we stop calling this "science" and admit to ourselves that this is a religion as corrupt as any seedy televangelist?
--i'm guessing you had no problems with the invasion of iraq--indeed, i bet you defended it, A LOT.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/24/2009 @ 08:15am | ignore this person | warn this person
--
Posted by urmygyro at 11/24/2009 @ 11:28am
chaoszen,
You say:
"......Looks to me like wind turbines are a minor player in bird deaths. And your stupidity in even bringing it up shows how desperate your kind are to undermine efforts to become energy independent. Which is patently un-american, traitorous and subversive...."
1. Then I would think not tapping into known sources of oil would be un-American, too. I would also think all of the restrictions that have slowed down and actually effectively stopped the development and implementation of new nuclear power plants would be un-American as well.
That's right, though....one doesn't dare question a lib's patriotism! Ooops!
2. I saw all of the data and information you cited, after all it was in the sources I posted. Wind turbines may be a minor player in bird deaths, but it is a player nonetheless....which is something that libs no doubt did not forsee or forecast when promoting wind energy......these unintended consequences seem to keep popping up when libs promote things, but by the time they do the lib is off promoting the next cause or righting the next wrong or screaming about the next injustice or the lib politician is safely retired and not held accountable.
Incandescent light bulbs are now proclaimed wrong - libs say replace them with bulbs that contain mercury.
DDT was banned years ago - but now the mosquito population in Africa has flourished and malaria is an epidemic again that kills lots of people there.
3. Why do some think nuclear energy is wrong? We are supposed to allow Iran to have it (and their nuke bombs, too)..France is powered mostly with nuclear power...If France does it you would think amongst libs that would be a slam dunk case closed in favor of it.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2009 @ 11:33am
"Wind turbines may be a minor player in bird deaths, but it is a player nonetheless....which is something that libs no doubt did not forsee or forecast when promoting wind energy"
actually, they kill a lot of birds. but liberals knew of this prior.....
"Comparitively speaking, wind and solar are pathetic, expensive, and inefficient lightweights"
they're definitely not "pathetic" (we have them here, and power the entire house). they are "expensive", but we've already re-couped our losses (less than 5 years). and they're anything but "inefficient." they're incredibly efficient.
and when you say "expensive", you have to factor in the human/nature costs. which you haven't.
Posted by darladoon at 11/24/2009 @ 11:50am
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2009 @ 11:33am
SJ, curious....do you ever wonder why the environmental policies you're told to support, all help out some big corporation...oil, coal, nuclear...
and the environmental policies you're told to ridicule and mock, all would be free and of limited profit to a big corporation.....wind, solar?
Just a remarkable coincidence that the "right energy policy" helps Exxon-Mobil...while "phoney energy policy" wouldn't line their pockets?
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 12:44pm
Ficheye thinks I am close minded and spend my whole Internet day at rightwingnews.com. (at least the portion of my day in front of the computer, when I am not going out to go down to the airport to fly to Cincinnati to go to the bathroom in Fountain Square.)
Posted by CHERMAK at 11/24/2009 @ 10:16am
DDT was banned years ago - but now the mosquito population in Africa has flourished and malaria is an epidemic again that kills lots of people there.
Posted by CHERMAK at 11/24/2009 @ 11:33am
It's just too bad that some of those mosquitos don't find their way over to the states, somewhere around Cincinnati, say, where a hapless dweeb with a 'Keep to the Right' bumper sticker is being arrested for peeing in the fountain. He is heard to exclaim (shortly before the onset of this life-threatening illness), "It's the fault of Ficheye and ALGORE!" A cop raps him smartly upside the head with a baton before they stuff him in the car. ................
I THINK that you're close minded? I can understand your resentment of ALGORE. But when it comes to blowing off mountain tops for coal and the resulting ponds full of mercury and chromium tainted water, you reconfirm what we all know.
But you seem happy. That's what's important. Now, stay away 100 yards away from the playground as you've been ordered to. Friends? ;-)
Posted by ficheye at 11/24/2009 @ 1:13pm
SJ, curious....do you ever wonder why the environmental policies you're told to support, all help out some big corporation...oil, coal, nuclear... and the environmental policies you're told to ridicule and mock, all would be free and of limited profit to a big corporation.....wind, solar? Just a remarkable coincidence that the "right energy policy" helps Exxon-Mobil...while "phoney energy policy" wouldn't line their pockets?
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 12:44pm
that's not the REAL mask!
IMPOSTOR!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/24/2009 @ 1:52pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/24/2009 @ 1:52pm
Nope...nothing sensible or moderate about continueing a oil-based economy ad infinitum, FZ.
Just finding a happy medium between shutting us down in some neo-Luddite move over a few years (no names mentioned)...or the sjcher position of "Change nothing, especially if hurts Exxon or Duke Power's bottom line!"
Neither extreme is the answer.
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 2:28pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 4:39pm |
"...will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year."
Note the "per year".
-- "They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year."
Again..."per year".
-- Out of a nation of 300M people with HOW MANY potential clunkers burning an extra 300 gallons "per year" (notice a theme)?
-- "... 5 million barrels of oil, at $70 per barrel, costs about $350 million dollars."
C'mon...say it with us, "per year".
-- "So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million. (Do the math - it's a mere 880% loss!)"
To save $350M PER YEAR on 224M gallons PER YEAR.
Break-even == 8.5 years, well within the expected lifetime of the newly purchased cars.
But I'm guessing that it'll pay off within two terms of Obama at the rate oil will appreciate within that span; $100-140/bbl == $500-700M/yr...break-even at 4-6 years max.
-- "Liberal Govt Math..brought to you by your school system."
And your 'reasoning skills' have us speechless as well, just not for the reasons you'd hoped.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/24/2009 @ 5:55pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/24/2009 @ 12:52am |
Your fervent belief in the capability of economies to make bat-turns in response to supply shocks is more than a little overly simplistic.
We had decades to make the adjustment from horses to cars and there was precious little pressure to make the switch outside of war zones...we'll get no such luxury with climate change / peak oil.
-- "The earth will not boil or freeze because the cows fart or my car drives me to the airport."
How many cows, how many cars, how many airports, and for how long? Its not just you and not just one trip to the airport.
If all the cows in China and India farted in unison, would you notice the emissions then?
I notice every time I take a trip down interstate 5 in CA with the windows rolled down.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/25/2009 @ 07:38am
And your 'reasoning skills' have us speechless as well, just not for the reasons you'd hoped.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/24/2009 @ 5:55pm
And your faith in liberal govt solutions to problems that dont exist(Global Warming)...leaves most of us speechless...
The point of the email joke, and it was an email joke, is govt wasted our money on the clunker program...
and like govt jobs, clunker programs, stimulus horse shit...like the "growth" in the economy the Dem media is cheering is(2.8%) WITH 6-7 YEARS OF HIGH UMEMPLOYMENT, this aint growth......it is only a reflection of govt spending. The govt stops spending(wasting) the money, the growth and the jobs are ....gone, ergo, no wealth or jobs created, just another expenditure.
Jobs are created only when wealth is created...
and your inability to understand this leaves those of us who create jobs...speechless....
if I were you..I would leave the "reasoning skills judgement", to someone else...and think about your skills in that arena.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/25/2009 @ 09:00am
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/25/2009 @ 09:00am |
What is it with you cons and putting carts before horses?
Jobs are created when wealth is created...you throw me the idol: I throw you the whip.
You think you're doing your employees a favor by letting them build your wealth and for this they should bow and scrape?
Go suck a tailpipe (they're harmless, right?).
As someone who has created his own job, I'm not all that impressed by "those of us who create jobs"...since I still have mine, but there's no sign of the millions of 'secure jobs' supposedly 'created' by your fabulously deregulated casino capitalism to be found...just empty houses.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/25/2009 @ 10:12am
snowball777,
You said up above (talking about cow emissions):
"......I notice every time I take a trip down interstate 5 in CA with the windows rolled down...."
Then take Route 99 instead!!!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 11:05am
Seems with all the "Climategate" talk about this week...
perfect opportunity for RNC Chairman Michael Steele to come out and state that the Republican Party's official position is that there is "no such thing as man-made Global Warming."
Oddly....or not really....I don't anticipate that endorsement of the Deniers' position any time soon.
Do they?
Posted by Mask at 11/25/2009 @ 11:24am
So you are attempting to debunk anthropogenic climate change because of some hacked and stolen e-mails? Any hacked and stolen e-mail can be taken out of context or forged.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/24/2009 @ 10:23am
There's a few problems with this. First, the people on those emails have yet to deny them or condemn them as forgeries.
In fact, Professor Phil Jones just released a statement condemning the release of the hacked emails as an attempt to derail Copenhagen.
You know what was blindingly absent from his statement? A denial. Any denial. He merely called the release politically motivated and that was that.
Chaoszen, have you even looked at those emails? Seen anything that could've taken out of context? Can you give me an example?
Because here's another email excerpt from Professor Phil Jones, one of those emails you and I were never supposed to see:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
http://tinyurl.com/yexns28
Chaoszen, we have a scientist here in an email talking about a trick he uses to HIDE a result.
And yet you claim that the "science" behind climate change (I prefer the term global warming) is settled?
Is there anything that can cast a doubt on what you believe? Even strong evidence from the very scientists you CITE to support your claim suggesting they are CHARLATANS?
For if your answer is "No", then you are not discussing science. You are discussing faith.
Based on what? This fake, doctored, cooked-book stuff put forth by your side?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/25/2009 @ 1:16pm
So you are attempting to debunk anthropogenic climate change because of some hacked and stolen e-mails? Any hacked and stolen e-mail can be taken out of context or forged.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/24/2009 @ 10:23am
There's a few problems with this. First, the people on those emails have yet to deny them or condemn them as forgeries.
In fact, Professor Phil Jones just released a statement condemning the release of the hacked emails as an attempt to derail Copenhagen.
You know what was blindingly absent from his statement? A denial. Any denial. He merely called the release politically motivated and that was that.
Chaoszen, have you even looked at those emails? Seen anything that could've taken out of context? Can you give me an example?
Because here's another email excerpt from Professor Phil Jones, one of those emails you and I were never supposed to see:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
http://tinyurl.com/yexns28
Chaoszen, we have a scientist here in an email talking about a trick he uses to HIDE a result.
And yet you claim that the "science" behind climate change (I prefer the term global warming) is settled?
Is there anything that can cast a doubt on what you believe? Even strong evidence from the very scientists you CITE to support your claim suggesting they are CHARLATANS?
For if your answer is "No", then you are not discussing science. You are discussing faith.
Based on what? This fake, doctored, cooked-book stuff put forth by your side?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/25/2009 @ 1:16pm
Then take Route 99 instead!!! Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 11:05am |
Driving directly through Bakersfield does not improve farm animal emissions controls one bit (I've missed the turn to remain on 5N a couple times).
The coastal route down PCH 1 is nice, if you have good steering and the time or inclination to visit Hearst's hideous excuse for a 'collection' (more like a hoard of nice pieces from throughout history deprived of more appropriate venue).
I've been using GotoMeeting to great effect as a remote debugging facility for customers lately...beats the hell out of writing off airfare and spending hours out of radio contact (though planes ARE on par with a Prius per person-mile and were damned convenient before the thousands standing around appeared).
Posted by snowball777 at 11/25/2009 @ 2:47pm
"You think you're doing your employees a favor by letting them build your wealth and for this they should bow and scrape? "
Posted by snowball777 at 11/25/2009 @ 10:12am
If you ever hire someone to work for you in order to do him a favor, then you will not be in business very long. You had better hire someone because he can help build your business...and you compensate him for that service...he agrees to what you are willing to pay...then it doesnt matter what your liberal neighbor thinks about your arrangement, does it?
So, based on your post snipit above...
I say,
Why would I do that? I need the best workers since we are in a tech business. I can't use anyone that comes out of high school since they are not taught amnything useful in the real world . Those from the universitys that have majored in Ethnic studies, English lit., art history, anything feminist or anything other than a science degree...are usless...perfect for govt or a liberal non profit.
In the mean time, those we hire are free to find a better job if they desire...and that fact that you think I treat them like slaves while I build wealth shows that you are not going to make it in the real world with that view of building a business.
FYI, I do not take ANY salary at all....I put it back in and use it to improve the product or God forbid, hire another slave...who makes more than most 2 Americans..we pay for knowledge and what they can do with it as it benefits all of us in the company(they get a piece of the company)....and they do not get paid for showing up....
we leave that to agenius like Chaosen. And we have no room for other genius types like Frosty.. We are drowning in Frosty and Chao types, which is part of the problem.... t
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/25/2009 @ 2:59pm
peeing, going to the bathroom, what happened to that good old fashioned anglo saxon word pissing?
Posted by emile duBois at 11/25/2009 @ 3:01pm
5. As we know, automobiles are bad, but before the auto most cities had horse crap all over the place. Was that better?
Posted by sjchermak at 11/23/2009 @ 4:06pm
What you, jomamma and even snowball seem to forget is that trollies and trains had largely replaced horses long before the mass consumption of automobiles. What, do you think we won World War II by transporting all of those workers, raw goods, munitions and soldiers by horse and cart? And it took a front corporation owned by auto and tire companies to buy up and rip out most of the trolly systems before cars and buses could take over the cities.
I imagine the birth of the interstate highway system - like the rise of the railroads and the demise of the trollies - was equally corrupt and yet another example of how far this country has always been from your fairy tale ideas of capitalism.
Posted by cka2nd at 11/25/2009 @ 3:33pm
Jobs are created only when wealth is created...
in other words...
jobs are created if and only if wealth is created.
or more simply stated:
Wealth creates jobs
Wall Street is providing ample evidence that this is not necessarily true.
Jobs create wealth.
A little humility might allow for the remotest possibility that no single individual may unilaterally determine all that has value. The arrogance of a universal statement asserting as a matter of absolute truth that the liberal arts are not factors in the calculus of wealth would be staggering if it came from a reflectively sentient being.
On the other hand, just par for the course from some of the regular posters here.
Posted by canaarak at 11/25/2009 @ 6:18pm
emile,
I guess it is six of one and a half-dozen of the other.
Whether I were peeing at Fountain Square or taking a piss at Fountain Square, the Cincinnati police would probably object either way.
And they probably would not buy my excuse that Ficheye told me to do that.
In the town were Ficheye lives, it probably is different.
If someone took a piss in that lake in his town that is full of cow shit, I doubt the police would object - what would be the point?
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 6:48pm
cka2nd,
And what powered the trollies and trains?
Isn't electric consumption bad also? Especially back then when much of the electricity I would think was probably generated by utilities burning coal.
Didn't the steam trains belch smoke into the air?
Pollution!! Wrong!! Bad!!
And Algore wasn't around back then to stop it.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 6:51pm
"......I notice every time I take a trip down interstate 5 in CA with the windows rolled down...."
Then take Route 99 instead!!!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 11:05am
Ahhhh... a true environmentalist.
If the air is stinky, then just go where it smells good. Somehow I knew that SJ would be an expert on cow flatus.
Posted by ficheye at 11/25/2009 @ 6:58pm
If someone took a piss in that lake in his town that is full of cow shit, I doubt the police would object - what would be the point?
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 6:48pm
Not full of cow shit SJ. Polluted with nitrogen from the manure runoff that occurs several miles upstream. So it's more like manure juice. Moreover, the police would probably object to you or anyone else pissing in the lake since urinating in a public place is illegal. But don't let that stop you, SJ. Jail is fun.
It seems that this pissing in the fountain thing has really got you all worked up. It's the little things that matter the most, I guess. You have me chuckling with your 'pro-pollution' slant as well. Is there ever a point where something is pollution and not the joyous exudations of the industrial free market? No? I thought not.
That being said... Have a Happy Thanksgiving! We're having a free range organic turkey that was mercifully killed by a small meteor, but we did remove the feathers with a blow torch. Mmmmm.
Posted by ficheye at 11/25/2009 @ 7:17pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/25/2009 @ 2:59pm |
-- "Why would I do that? I need the best workers since we are in a tech business..."
But you don't want to pay taxes that might help to improve your chances of having a pool of decent candidates.
Your tax dollars at work: http://tinyurl.com/yc7g73e
-- "...or anything other than a science degree...are usless...perfect for govt or a liberal non profit."
And this exclusion might explain the lack of decent science education in high school and before.
-- "...you think I treat them like slaves while I build wealth shows that you are not going to make it in the real world with that view of building a business."
I've worked in landscaping, food-service, high-tech electronic test, and videogame software...I've seen good managers and biz guys and very, very bad.
Some business models basically require high turn-over and inhumane work conditions (e.g. the people who load trucks for Wal-Mart as temps who can't unionize for niceties like AC in the SoCal compound).
-- "...we pay for knowledge and what they can do with it as it benefits all of us in the company(they get a piece of the company)....and they do not get paid for showing up...."
So less like Wall St then (they apparently DO get paid even when they fail at basic risk management).
-- "We are drowning in Frosty and Chao types, which is part of the problem."
Chaos gets the mail where it is supposed to go; you never mail anything..Fed-Ex only?
Frosty teaches kids how to play music (I think).
I personally like having people of all shapes and sizes having something useful to do and spending money with businesses that do the same, but I also want to have a decent environment.
My optimism about tech solutions sees these goals as not mutually exclusive.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/25/2009 @ 7:17pm
If someone took a piss in that lake in his town that is full of cow shit, I doubt the police would object - what would be the point? Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 6:48pm |
At one point after college, I lived in Hollywood (around the corner from Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles...mmmm #13: a thigh and a buckwheat waffle, but I digress).
I also lived around the corner from the high-rise in which my employer was housed and walked to work daily.
One time I was crossing the street and noticed two cops were hassling one guy while another was freely pissing (for you, Emile) in the street with great abandon not 30ft away.
Good times...good times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQOGPCK1WaA
Posted by snowball777 at 11/25/2009 @ 7:24pm
Thela Hun Ginjeet!!
So hot.
Posted by ficheye at 11/25/2009 @ 8:02pm
perfect opportunity for RNC Chairman Michael Steele to come out and state that the Republican Party's official position is that there is "no such thing as man-made Global Warming."
Oddly....or not really....I don't anticipate that endorsement of the Deniers' position any time soon.
Do they?
Posted by Mask at 11/25/2009 @ 11:24am
You look increasingly ridiculous, you DO know that, right?
Why would conservatives, by far the more respectful of real science than Libs, make a claim when there is UNCERTAINTY?
It's reasonable to assume man has some effect on earth....a statement that is almost indisputable regardless of ideology. In the realm of temperature, our "effect" could be warming, cooling or none. Without good records stretching into the hundreds of millions of years, before and after the arrival of humans, all we'll have are guesses; and not very good ones so far?
The average person have figured this out but the faithfuls, continues to "cling" to their God (that's Al Gore) and their IPCC bible.
Where are the increased hurricanes the Believers staked their reputations on? Where is the Hot 2009 the Big Computer predicted?
It will be a pleasure to see you continue to "cling"....I predict you'll be the last one and unlike most rats abandoning ship, you'll go down with the ship and be damned proud of it.....that, I can respect....LOL!
Posted by Happy at 11/25/2009 @ 10:31pm
Posted by Happy at 11/25/2009 @ 10:31pm |
"Why would conservatives, by far more respectful of real science, make a claim when there is UNCERTAINTY?"
Buaahahahaha.
"Without good records stretching into the hundreds of millions of years, before and after the arrival of humans, all we'll have are guesses; and not very good ones so far?"
Ice cores going back 800,000 years aren't good enough for you?!
"The average person have figured this out but the faithfuls, continues to "cling" to their God (that's Al Gore) and their IPCC bible."
Bzzzt. Wrong...only 2/3 of Pugs and less than 44% of independents and 22% of Dems even think that climate change warnings are 'exaggerated' according to Gallup, much less that the science they've done is wrong.
"Where are the increased hurricanes the Believers staked their reputations on? Where is the Hot 2009 the Big Computer predicted?"
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/ 2009/2009GL040222.shtml
<We use measurements of time-variable gravity from the GRACE satellite gravity mission to determine the ice mass-loss for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets during the period between April 2002 and February 2009. We find that during this time period the mass loss of the ice sheets is not a constant, but accelerating with time, i.e., that the GRACE observations are better represented by a quadratic trend than by a linear one, implying that the ice sheets contribution to sea level becomes larger with time. In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr to 286 Gt/yr. In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr to 246 Gt/yr.>
Did you check your ass or was your head blocking the view?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/26/2009 @ 06:17am
Posted by Happy at 11/25/2009 @ 10:31pm
Fine, Happy....I'll be glad to see Steele come out and say "It is UNCERTAIN if global warming, which is real, is man-made!"....or REALLY glad if he comes out and says "It's UNCERTAIN if global warming is real at all."
When will he?....given "the science" is on your side?
Posted by Mask at 11/26/2009 @ 07:17am
When will he?....given "the science" is on your side?
Posted by Mask at 11/26/2009 @ 07:17am
I would just ignore AGW theory as really, really low on the priority list......below how fast my nose hairs are growing....ROTFLMAO!
Posted by Happy at 11/26/2009 @ 09:56am
Ice cores going back 800,000 years aren't good enough for you?!
Posted by snowball777 at 11/26/2009 @ 06:17am
This is the only legitimate question in your comment, so.....
Ever been to the Grand Canyon?
I've been there 3 times, the most recent just in October, on the North Rim (for the first time).
Do you know how long it took to carve that canyon down to the current riverbed? Dow you know how many named geologic `Age' there are from rim top to riverbed? Did you know that on the top, it was once under a not-small sea?
Once you have some idea, then get back w/me on how "good enough" would "800,000 years" be for serious scientists!
By the way, since I'm a stock player....
The stock market has been around about 100 years and the earth has been around 6 BILLION years....
800,000 years relative to 6 Billion for the earth is equivalent to......5 Days to 100 years for the stock market.
Now, how much stock (pun intended) would you give my opinion if I used 5 days of stock market activity to project what the market will look like even for next week, much less the next decade?
Posted by Happy at 11/26/2009 @ 10:13am
Taking out her [url=http://www.gucci-handbags.org]Gucci Bags[/url] hairpin, [url=http://www.gucci-handbags.org]Gucci Bag[/url] Replica watches [url=http://www.gucci-handbags.org]Gucci Purses[/url]the Goddess scratches a [url=http://www.gucci-handbags.org/Class/Bigproducts_22_1.html]Gucci Joy[/url] river in Rolex Replica the sky to separate the two lovers [url=http://www.gucci-handbags.org/Class/Bigproducts_37_1.html]Gucci Tote[/url]forever thus forming the Milky Way .
Posted by qqlovee at 11/26/2009 @ 8:01pm
<a href="http://www.replicahandbags963.com">Designer Handbags</a> <a href="http://www.replicahandbags963.com">Louis Vuitton replica handbags</a> <a href="http://www.replicahandbags963.com">Replica Handbags</a> <a href="http://www.rolexreplica123.com">Replica Rolex</a> <a href="http://www.rolexreplica123.com">Replica watches</a> <a href="http://www.rolexreplica123.com">Rolex Replica</a> <a href="http://www.rolexreplica123.com">Rolex shop</a> <a href="http://www.rolexreplica123.com">Rolex</a> <a href="http://www.gucci-handbags.org">Gucci bag</a> <a href="http://www.gucci-handbags.org">Gucci handbags</a> <a href="http://www.gucci-handbags.org">Gucci</a> <a href="http://www.louisvuittoninfo.com">Louis Vuitton</a> <a href="http://www.louisvuittoninfo.com">LV Bags</a>
Posted by qqlovee at 11/26/2009 @ 8:02pm
A young louis vuitton replica cowherd named Designer Handbags designer replica bags Niulang the cowherd happens across designer handbagsseven fairy sisters bathing in a lake. Encouraged by his replica louis vuitton mischievous companion the ox,
Posted by qqlovee at 11/26/2009 @ 8:04pm
Does any conservative ever read a publication that shows for example the difference in the glaciers in Alaska?How much the glaciers have receded in the past 20 or so years?How about smaller polar ice caps that are creating ocean floor mapping expeditions by competing nations?Norway,Russia,and the United States to name 3 of the countries.Yes,ancient glacial ice cores that have been covered for hundreds of thousands of years.Since the conservatives hate Al Gore they spit at global warming.I don't like him either but just watch shows on the Science Channel or NatGeo.These guys are filming the wonders of the natural world.A better example would be a simple family trip.Go out to the Rocky Mountains and see all the holes in the sides of the mountains.Then see all the reeds and browns that are below the holes. That is the color of the chemicals that ran down the side of the mountain after a rainstorm.Don't believe me,read an article or book on the subject.Then after you have learned something do me this favor.Find who Big Pasture is and enroll him in a course so he can get his GED. That way he would have the minimum amount of intelligence developed to allow him to have a rational thought without being blinded by ideology. So if you blow the top of the mountain off what would rationally happen to the environment.How on this post could we as posters blow 40 comments on pissing in a lake?We don't want to use wind power?Why,isn't there a way to convert power from them onto the power grid?Of course we can debate it and then have the Chinese own our wind farms(see Texas)or at least build them.I suppose that make sense to investors. C'mon America wake up!
Posted by whatozz at 11/26/2009 @ 9:40pm
Posted by Happy at 11/26/2009 @ 10:13am |
"Now, how much stock (pun intended) would you give my opinion if I used 5 days of stock market activity to project what the market will look like even for next week, much less the next decade?"
Since "future performance is not guaranteed" as so many prospectuses proclaim, not much...you could've looked at the entire history of Lehman and not successfully predicted that they would be the seatless player in musical chairs.
In my experience the market is prone to shocks related to outside events, like when I cleaned up shorting AAPL on the news about Steve Jobs illness, then not, then illness...that's why my 'value' portfolio is dwarfed by my PDT and blackbox activity.
Why isn't looking at the data from after the Industrial Rev most relevant (or do you think that knowing the early history of your 'stock' is more valuable than last week's candlesticks)?
And what if I can see a stock market crash in 1929 and use it as a predictive tool to identify a similar scenario in 2007?
How much data does one need with an obvious artifact of CO2 forcing to tease out that there's a relationship at play?
How much corroborating evidence in the form of warming seas, melting glaciers, and big ass hurricanes?
Sure modeling complex non-linear systems is difficult, exponentially so over longer timespans, but you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/26/2009 @ 10:17pm
"It is inconsistent that the Left almost universally is against the use of this energy source but at the same time is decrying the loss of jobs. That is cruel insincerity or more likely blind stupidity"
the vast majority of jobs being lost are not due to increased environmental regulations.
just for the record.
Posted by darladoon at 11/23/2009 @ 2:23pm
America and no other country around the world, that is dependent on cheap energy (coal fired power plants) to maintain extensive manufacturing and the associated jobs, has in place the sort of restrictions that the ACC alarmists are proposing. So of course the phasing out of coal that would leading to massive job losses is not in play at present.
I had noticed here that the Left wing emphasis was on maintaining those sorts of "real" jobs with no interest in America becoming a serviceeconomy. My guess is that the "insincerity" involved is not merely the inconsistency but also trying to keep some class conflict bubbling along.
There is little doubt that China and India despite making the right noises about climate change amelioration will continue down its path of industrialisation with the cheapest and most abundant energy source on earth; coal.
This from May 2009:
China is making other efforts to reduce its global warming emissions. It has doubled its total wind energy capacity in each of the past four years, and is poised to pass the United States as soon as this year as the world's largest market for wind power equipment.
But coal remains the cheapest energy source in China by a wide margin. China has the world's third-largest coal reserves, after the United States and Russia.
"No matter how much renewable or nuclear is in the mix, coal will remain the dominant power source,"
http://tinyurl.com/ybwlecy
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/27/2009 @ 06:54am
There is a very interesting political play going on in Australia at present. The ALP government, which does not control the Senate, has been trying to do a deal with the very Left leaning leader of the opposition conservative party.
Its leader, Malcolm Turnbull has long been a supporter of ACC and the need for an ETS or carbon tax. He thought he had done a deal with the Rudd government and silenced the "deniers" or skeptics plus those opportunists, in his party, who think they see a swing in the electorate against doing anything about ACC until other nations come on board.
The vote in the Senate was meant to have been held by 3.45pm Friday. In the mean time the skeptics et al have called for a Liberal (conservative) Party spill of the leadership with some of Turnbull's shadow ministers resigning from shadow cabinet because they will vote against the bill in the Senate. One touted leader to replace him, if Turnbull can't muster the numbers in the party room, is an avowed skeptic who could not keep quiet any longer.
The ALP has recalled the Senate for a vote on Monday 30th. If Turnbull is rolled that will be the end of the carbon tax bill until after Copenhagen. As this would be a second rejection of the bill it provides the trigger for a double dissolution of parliament.
Very interesting and it may put a bit of intestinal fortitude into the GOP when it comes to consider an American version.
http://tinyurl.com/ykw8jrh
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/27/2009 @ 07:24am
Please listen to me. It is your freedoms at risk too.
Politcal powers have stacked the deck against real investigations into the climate. They have stacked the deck against any opinion deemed troublesome in the press. They have denied a terrorist attack at Fort Hood.
Perception is reality...up to a point, and then it is just plain dangerous for people on the right, OR THE LEFT.
True liberals will step back and ask questions of their handlers. If the responses don't hold up I am not asking you to vote for Sarah Palin, but for goodness sake do not go quietly into the servitude that is planned for you.
Posted by EgonE at 11/27/2009 @ 09:12am
Posted by Happy at 11/26/2009 @ 09:56am
Ignore it?!??!?!?! IGNORE IT????
Why, Happy, the Dems, libs, enviro-nuts are using that HOAX of man-made global warming to FOOL the people in accepting their Stalinist-Hitlerian agenda on destroying capitalism.
And you want the GOP to just....ignore that? And not come out and tell the people the TRUTH about how it's not real, much less man-made?!??!?!?
Good God, Happ. Why do you want the Republicans to "keep silent" and let the "con job" of AGW keep going?!!?!?!??!????!?!!!???
Posted by Mask at 11/27/2009 @ 10:23am
Why do you want the Republicans to "keep silent" and let the "con job" of AGW keep going?!!?!?!??!????!?!!!???
Posted by Mask at 11/27/2009 @ 10:23am
Time has proven to be the Con/Repubs' friend, you do remeber my very, very accurate statement of this past year?
It's hard to keep a "con job" going for long.......eventually, those easily susceptible, like you, are all on board the Bernie Madoff Express headed for the cliff....
The AGW hoax, like Madoff's, are houses of cards and as lies upon lies are piled up, it's not hard to see the end game.
You need to read up on Rand and discover your own MIND! Don't be led by the nose bone wearing your mask!
Isn't it an Inconvenient Truth that the same folks who bought into Hope and Change, bought into AGW? coincidence? I think not!
So much similarites beween Obamamania and AGW worshipping....it's uncanny.
Posted by Happy at 11/27/2009 @ 2:11pm
I will call you Happy this time. You talk like you know something,but what is it?Plenty of periodicals and articles show smaller glaciers,smaller ice masses,and a higher world temperature. Find your own independent thoughts. Take you out of your stock market bragging sessions and your posts are pretty thin.Why don't you read some more yourself so you actually provide some analysis? For example I did learn from you that the Las Vegas real estate market has yet to bottom out.So quit being a talking point and bring more than bullshit to the table.Prove your ideology,bring a fastball faster than 78. Nolan Ryan you are not.
Posted by whatozz at 11/27/2009 @ 4:59pm
They do say ignorance is bliss and Happy seems to reside there.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/27/2009 @ 6:54pm
Coal,cheap and plentiful in China.Wasn't it interesting that industry took a vacation during the Beijing Olympics? The people making jeans for us breathe clean air all the time right?The naysayers on global warming don't look through the smog of L.A. of the past do they.Maybe they need a China trip to see pollution at it's best.
Posted by whatozz at 11/27/2009 @ 6:55pm
I can remember going to California as a kid and my eyes would water and I'd have trouble breathing, and that was a very long time ago, its horrid now! Don't believe anyone when they tell you pollution isn't real, and that it doesn't lead to global warming.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/27/2009 @ 7:01pm
Coal,cheap and plentiful in China.Wasn't it interesting that industry took a vacation during the Beijing Olympics? The people making jeans for us breathe clean air all the time right?The naysayers on global warming don't look through the smog of L.A. of the past do they.Maybe they need a China trip to see pollution at it's best.
Posted by whatozz at 11/27/2009 @ 6:55pm
You probably are getting your air pollutants mixed up.
The main greenhouse gases emitted from power plant smoke stacks are CO2 and CH4. Both are colorless and odorless so the stuff you see coming out of smoke stacks that causes reduced visibility (smog) and breathing difficulties are not GHG.
Here is a little free education, courtesy of Wikipedia, for you and my favorite lib women, #29:
"Smog is a kind of air pollution; the word "smog" is a portmanteau of smoke and fog. Classic smog results from large amounts of coal burning in an area caused by a mixture of smoke and sulfur dioxide. Modern smog does not usually come from coal but from vehicular and industrial emissions that are acted on in the atmosphere by sunlight to form secondary pollutants that also combine with the primary emissions to form photochemical smog."
Did you notice that gas, SO2? That is the main smog culprit and until sulphur was removed from fuels, like coal, the cause of acid rain in Europe.
Now there is something about SO2 we learned when acid rain was tackled. It is not, not a GHG but rather acts to cool the atmosphere by reflecting ultraviolet (sunlight) radiation. The funny thing about GHG is that ultraviolet whizzes straight through it like it wasn't there but when sunlight is reflected from the earth as heat viz as infrared radiation the stop sign goes up and the heat is trapped in the troposphere.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/27/2009 @ 8:58pm
Photochemical Smog (wiki)
"This forms when sunlight hits various pollutants in the air and forms a mix of inimical chemicals that can be very dangerous. A photochemical smog is the chemical reaction of sunlight, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere, which leaves airborne particles (called particulate matter) and ground-level ozone."
"Nitrogen oxides are released by nitrogen and oxygen in the air reacting together under high temperature such as in the exhaust of fossil fuel-burning engines in cars, trucks, coal power plants, and industrial manufacturing factories. VOCs are released from man-made sources such as gasoline (petrol), paints, solvents, pesticides, and biogenic sources, such as pine and citrus tree emissions."
This noxious mixture of air pollutants can include the following:
* nitrogen oxides, such as nitrogen dioxide * tropospheric ozone * volatile organic compounds (VOCs) * peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN) * aldehydes (RCHO)
"All of these chemicals are usually highly reactive and oxidizing. Photochemical smog is therefore considered to be a problem of modern industrialization. It is present in all modern cities, but it is more common in cities with sunny, warm, dry climates and a large number of motor vehicles.[1] Because it travels with the wind, it can affect sparsely populated areas as well."
Now what #29 saw in California and you would like us to go to China and observe have absolutely nothing to do with global warming, at least on the positive side but rather they act as coolants. Of course there are lots of things in coal that when burnt can be very bad for our health and various flora. However these can be removed and the effect mitigated.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/27/2009 @ 9:03pm
They do say ignorance is bliss and Happy seems to reside there.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/27/2009 @ 6:54pm
nah, HAPPY has that quality which is even MORE blissful.
certainty.
Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/28/2009 @ 12:23am
Blair Wooff, Scary, no?
Posted by Denise29 at 11/28/2009 @ 09:46am
The point was that they were reactants in the atmosphere.My point on China was that their lack of pollution controls caused their heavy industry to shut down during the Olympics.At the same time we don't care how polluted it is there because it is thousands of miles away.How short sighted is that.My thinking is that weather doesn't stop at national borders.I don't know the chemical compounds or names,I just know that our time to make sure we manage them correctly is now.
Posted by whatozz at 11/28/2009 @ 10:28am
You haven't heard it from America's mainstream media yet – even Fox News hasn't covered it – but the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John P. Holdren, is a key player in the Climategate e-mails flap, which is shaping up as the biggest scandal in the history of modern science.
Holdren is an intractable global warming activist with no time for climate change skepticism. In a New York Times article, he contended that such questioning "has delayed – and continues to delay – the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge."
He has also become something of a celebrity, rubbing shoulders with the Hollywood luminaries at President Obama's state dinner Tuesday night honoring Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and repeatedly appearing as a guest on the David Letterman show.
Special: Get Sarah Palin's New Book – Incredible FREE Offer -- Click Here Now.
But the Canada Free Press this week revealed that the former Harvard professor and Al Gore global warming adviser features prominently in the thousands of e-mails and other files made public after the hacking last week of a computer server used by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.
The most embarrassing item for the Obama Administration may be a 2003 exchange between Holdren and TCSDaily.com editor-in-chief Nick Schulz. Schulz challenged Holdren on whether downplaying the significance of the Medieval Warm Period required "what lawyers call the burden of proof."
Posted by BigPasture at 11/28/2009 @ 10:57am
Holdren's retort contained a remarkable assertion coming from a scientist: "In practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing – it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows."
Canada Free Press columnist and Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball says of the correspondence with Schulz that Holdren's "entire defense and position devolves to a political position."
The CRU documents also find Holdren disparaging solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, contrarians regarding surface temperatures over the past millennium, who were colleagues of Holdren at Harvard, and Ball wonders if Holdren may have intimidated the two scientists before they "suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray," as Ball describes it.
AGW or Climate change is just another political power grab by our socialist power hungry Obamanation admin. and the the Demoncrats period!!!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/28/2009 @ 11:00am
Yea Big P, that Obama administratian is just making stuff up, like global warming hasn't been around for at least 40 years , sarcasm off. Big P, even rightys know that GW is real, Lieberman, Lindsey, and a host of other rightys KNOW that GW is REAL.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/28/2009 @ 11:08am
"The naysayers on global warming don't look through the smog of L.A. of the past do they.Maybe they need a China trip to see pollution at it's best. "
Your "naysayers" on global warming don't look through the smog of L.A. looking for causes of GW simply because most of them are too well informed about its suggested causes. Most of the components of smog act as atmospheric coolants and not as heat retaining atmospheric GHGs.
I'm pretty sure that many anthropogenic global warming believers are ignorant of the basics of the science and are thus incompetent to ascertain what impacts on global warming. You've demonstrated that.
Get properly informed about the science and you too may find it hard not to have some skepticism about the wilder claims of what causes climate change. There are only two possibilities; natural and man made causes. Which combination of these two factors are causing the present changes in climate is the as yet unanswered question. That is why when challenged on their data and hypotheses many will say "well its better to be sure than sorry".
If climate change is driven primarily by natural causes that approach will not only needlessly impact on world prosperity but will also not be dealing with the measures that would need to be taken if natural climate change moves in one direction for say the rest of this century. That's why we need to get the science right and not be overly influenced by paranoid alarmists.
That is the long answer as to why it is important not to be beguiled by the irrelevant side issue that you introduced.
(China, if you like to check, is now building state of the art coal fired plants that do a pretty good job of removing those components that cause smog. Better in fact than most American coal fired power stations).
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/28/2009 @ 12:39pm
From Australia's Herald Sun:
Climate researcher and IPCC co-author Eduardo Zorita calls for Climategate scientists Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf to be barred from the IPCC processes:
"I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files …
I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere – and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now – editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture'.
By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. "
Posted by Happy at 11/28/2009 @ 1:47pm
I wish I had the money to go to the Northwest Passage,Northern Alaska,Norwegian fjords,and the South Pole.Why you may ask? I would like to take photographs and compare them to 20 or 50 year old photos.If things are the same I will quietly go away. If there are drastic differences I would shout as loud as I can.That is how simple this topic is.Last week England experienced it's greatest level of rainfall in 24 hours in it's history.Something is occurring,I am not a scientist but I am interested in the planet.
Posted by whatozz at 11/28/2009 @ 4:23pm
Yea Big P, that Obama administratian is just making stuff up, like global warming hasn't been around for at least 40 years , sarcasm off. Big P, even rightys know that GW is real, Lieberman, Lindsey, and a host of other rightys KNOW that GW is REAL.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/28/2009 @ 11:08am | ignore this person | warn this person
You don't like nay saying since the global scientists LIE LIE LIE to you and you eat it up like a pig at the trough no matter what garbage they dump on you!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/28/2009 @ 5:58pm
There is more projecting on the right on these threads then there has ever been, that includes you Big P.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/28/2009 @ 6:16pm
Posted by whatozz at 11/28/2009 @ 4:23pm
I live in Victoria, Australia (south east corner of the continent) and for about the last 15 years we have had different summers from those I remember as a boy. Then we used to get 5 or 6 days where the temperature was continuously over 40C (104F) and 110F to 115F were not uncommon. What I do remember is that those hot periods were followed by very heavy, thunder storm rains. Jan-Feb which were our very hot months were also sometimes the wettest for the year.
We have been in a very dry spell or semi drought conditions for about 15 years but the summer temperatures have been very moderate. So we have had cool dry summers.
The ACC mantra here generally is; " hotter days and less rainfall". In this last month ( Nov-late spring) we had a string of days approaching 40C. The ACC believers said, "ah didn't we tell you?" ACC in action. Well what happened? On the last hot evening, mid Nov, the heavens opened and we got more than the Nov average in a few hours and it has rained on and off since and is raining as I type.
That is merely an indication of the cyclical nature of weather and the various factors, in our case blasts from the antarctic via the Great Southern Ocean, the Indian Ocean and, in summer influences from our sub tropical north. Throw in El Nino, the Southern Oscillation Index and La Nina and no one needs to even consider climate change to explain our weather variability.
ACC proganadists have the game sewn up with a certain type of disciple.
If it's overly dry, it's ACC. If it's too wet (as in England), it's ACC. If it's unseasonably cold, it's ACC. If it's hotter than expected then it's ACC.
Give us a break. One would have to be a genuine certified pisswit to not get a laugh out of that.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/28/2009 @ 9:44pm
Big Pissture-You want to change my mind, simply point me to photographs in a number of periodicals that show nothing has changed.I don't believe you can do that. I have met Will Steger the arctic explorer.He told me of the changes in the last ten years in the Arctic. He talked about open water instead of ice jams on his expedition course.So the next time you diss Denise I will tell you this,talk to someone who has been there and has seen the change.From your point of view get footage or corroboration that nothing has changed.Then you can shoot off your mouth.Until then piggy get your dirty ass out of our pigpen and eat some of the trash you throw out on a regular basis.
Posted by whatozz at 11/28/2009 @ 9:46pm
I wish I had the money to go to the Northwest Passage,Northern Alaska,Norwegian fjords,and the South Pole.Why you may ask? I would like to take photographs and compare them to 20 or 50 year old photos.If things are the same I will quietly go away. If there are drastic differences I would shout as loud as I can.That is how simple this topic is.Last week England experienced it's greatest level of rainfall in 24 hours in it's history.Something is occurring,I am not a scientist but I am interested in the planet.
Posted by whatozz at 11/28/2009 @ 4:23pm
I came across John Christy by accident ie not searching for an ACC skeptic, and discovered that he is perhaps your most highly credentialed climate scientist and though he accepts the likelihood that humans do contribute to climate change, he rejects any notion that any negative consequences will flow from that. Though he was a lead author of the 2001 IPCC report he totally rejects the alarmist position of the semi paranoid Hansen.
Here is what he says about glaciers, which of course, if true, makes those experts concerned about melting glaciers as a measure of ACC, seem like a bunch of hillbillies
Q: I know you think there's been something of a hysteria in the media about melting glaciers. Could you explain?
Christy: Ice melts. Glaciers are always calving. This is what ice does. If ice did not melt, we'd have an ice-covered planet. The fact is that the ice cover is growing in the southern hemisphere even as the ice cover is more or less shrinking in the northern hemisphere. As you and I are talking today, global sea ice coverage is about 400,000 square kilometers above the long-term average - which means that the surplus in the Antarctic is greater than the deficit in the Arctic.
http://tinyurl.com/qqfrwz
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/28/2009 @ 10:16pm
There is an interesting side note to the melting of glaciers (you need to read up on how there are pressure mechanisms ( under the weight of ice) rather than temperature changes that cause glaciers to melt.
Haven't come across this one, so just a suggestion, but look up albedo effect of ice and snow. As you know when sunlight hits the earth it warms it up and the all the resultant infrared radiation cannot (small proportions do) escape beyond the GHG controlled atmosphere.
However, think what happens when ultraviolet passes through the GHG coming in as sunlight and hits the ice. It is not absorbed, as would happen if it impinged on a non reflective surface like soil, but it is relflected back toward space unchanged ie it is still ultraviolet and can escape through the GHG "shield" into space.
The albedo effect thus reduces the amount of infrared heading from the earth into the atmosphere and so it tends to somewhat negate the greenhouse effect.
When glaciers melt the albedo effect is reduced (as sunlight is absorbed by the non-reflective surface under where the ice was and is thus converted into infrared radiation. That could lead to a non-anthropogenic rise in temperature and may be at least part of the reason for some of the temperature anomalies observed in the Arctic.
Here is a you tube series with John Christy in debate with William H. Schlesinger, a highly qualified ACC supporter, that can only add to one's sounder knowledge of the parameters of the debate at the science level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ml9zs9aZQ&feature=related
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/28/2009 @ 10:47pm
Incidentally I just thought I was a genius working that out but probably read it somewhere and forgot. As I found out when I re-checked on the albedo effect
The relatively large rise in temperature in the Arctic is attributed by some sources, not to anthropogenic causes, such as an increase in atmospheric CO2, but rather to the loss of the albedo effect due to the normal melting of glaciers under pressure mechanisms.
ie it would have similarly happened before the industrial revolution etc.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/28/2009 @ 11:22pm
From The Sunday Times
November 29, 2009
Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals -- stored on paper and magnetic tape -- were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. Related Links
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU's director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data......
============================
Should anyone worthy of being called a `scientist', discard original field data?
Is it just me or there has been a huge conspiracy?
Posted by Happy at 11/28/2009 @ 11:33pm
Posted by whatozz at 11/28/2009 @ 9:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Lapping up the lies and losing it steadily eh? Funny how leftist sheepel myopically ignore reality in face of exposed lies by their judus goats!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/29/2009 @ 12:35am
So what research did you do to come up with that conclusion?You went to the cupboard and found a dictionary.With it's help you once again screamed through a computer at someone.Luckily a technician at the state hospital heard you and re tightened the restraints.Just think at 9:00 A.M. you will have 15 minutes of free time to do it again.
Posted by whatozz at 11/29/2009 @ 08:18am
So glacier melting is causing higher temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere ,interesting.Put 20 people in a room and the room warms up.Put 3 billion people on the planet Earth and it would get colder?Now let's throw in natural and man made chemicals and not bother filtering them for years.Over the years we can cut down their use and concentration levels.As a result of enormous profits China is building "clean"coal plants.As an issue global warming is not on the top of my list.However,the hysteria of some posters and their vicious attacks on the enemies of the state,"liberals" has me bothered.
Posted by whatozz at 11/29/2009 @ 08:39am
From UK's Telegraph:
Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row
Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data - dubbed Climategate - have agreed to publish their figures in full.
By Robert Mendick
Published: 8:55PM GMT 28 Nov 2009
.....David Holland, who describes himself as a David taking on the Goliath that is the prevailing scientific consensus, is seeking prosecutions against some of Britain's most eminent academics for allegedly holding back information in breach of disclosure laws.
Mr Holland, of Northampton, complained to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) last week after the leaked emails included several Freedom of Information requests he had submitted to the CRU, and scientists' private responses to them.
Within hours, a senior complaints officer in the ICO wrote back by email: "I have started to examine the issues that you have raised in your letter and I am currently liaising with colleagues in our Enforcement and Data Protection teams as to what steps to take next."
The official also promised to investigate other universities linked to the CRU, which is one of the world's leading authorities on temperature levels and has helped to prove that man-made global warming not only exists but will have catastrophic consequences if not tackled urgently. Mr Holland is convinced the threat has been greatly exaggerated....
===============================
Looks like a new avenue to tap into by tort lawyers!
In the US, the Fraud Claims Act could be a lucrative tool to go after `researchers' who concocted fraudulent proposals based on doctored data to gain Gubber grants.....whistle blowers can get up to 30%!!
The Climategate show is just getting started!
Posted by Happy at 11/29/2009 @ 11:02am