LogicRules’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The problem with many environmental activists is that they too often employ false information and mis-guided enthusiasm.  Ethanol from corn is an example of environmental activism gone mad.  Gore's error and lie-filled infomercial for carbon trading is such an egregious example of exploitation it should have been banned.  The resistance to nuclear power is counterproductive and without justification (try not to get emotional about it and consider the advantages).  To gain credibility, stop exaggerating and get behind some real solutions.  Suggesting that the answer is to go back to the Stone Age only removes any credibility you might have earned.  Rejecting technology, or trusting to some future technology alone to solve all the problems, is not rational.  Show people how you will improve their lives, reduce their workload, simplify their lives and cut their expenses. 

  On The fallacy of climate activism posted 3 months ago 100 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  A U.S. Cap and Trade bill is an effort in self destruction, nothing more.  Unless your intent is to destroy the economy and drive industry out of the country, it will be a failure.  The biggest issue with Cap and Trade is that most of the world will have no incentive or ability to reduce their emissions, they have coal, and it is cheap.  I suggest reading a paper by Peter Huber available at http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=4377 for a discussion of the issues. 

   

  On Martin Feldstein uses Washington Post op-ed page for cap-and-trade scare-mongering posted 5 months, 3 weeks ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Splashy, please check the facts first.  The MSM is overwhelmingly liberal.  Ownership doesn't appear to matter too much.  The percent of liberals in the media is worrisome, in fact.  It is the function of the media to provide all sides of a story, and not to inject their own bias into what is intended to be news, not commentary.  I find it almost unbelievable that anyone would not know this.  The quote below is from http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

  "Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.  Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter."

  And this is a report from one of the most liberal institutions in the most liberal state.  This much bias is a danger to the country because it is a form of brainwashing.  Be a little skeptical of anything you hear.

  On How the 'OMB memo' non-story happened posted 6 months, 1 week ago 19 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The point raised, that regulations could hit many small stationary sources, is a fair one to make.  It depends on what EPA determines is a major source.  Where the cutoff is set will have a huge impact on costs. 

  I had a job in which I had to deal with EPA.  The pointless reports, permits, emissions models, and limits that have no basis in science are hard to keep up with.  They don't always get it right.

  A more significant item came out recently.  EPA did not do a cost-benefit analysis, did no research themselves into CO2 as a cause of global warming, and did not even verify that the information they used for their NPRM was done to established standards.  This is not the first time they've done this, but this issue has far greater impact than most of what they have done to this point, and should be done right.

  Regarding the media, study after study came to the conclusion that they have a left bias.  I try to get both sides of a story, whatever it is, but it is pretty much impossible.  I have been involved personally in a few stories reported in newspapers and TV, and there is very little similarity in their reporting to what actually happened.  They have an inherent desire to make industry look as bad as possible without getting sued.  Sorry, but that's the truth as I have seen it.

   

  On How the 'OMB memo' non-story happened posted 6 months, 2 weeks ago 19 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I have seen charts of sunspot activity that correlate better with the global temperature than CO2 concentration does.  I would like to know why this is.

  Also, the passes in the Alps had to be ice free when Hannibal crossed them in about 283 BC.  His army could not possibly have crossed them today, even though the glaciers are smaller now than in 1870 (according to the History Channel, a real devotee of AGW).  Why was it warmer then?  Was CO2 at a high level? 

  Below I pasted a couple out of perhaps hundreds of links to sites that discuss sunspot activity and the correlation to global temperatures.  After looking at many such sites, and also many that claim no correlation, I am convinced that there is a good correlation between sunspot activity and temperatures.  I have absolutely no confidence in the models.  The models obviously are missing something because they don't correlate well at all with past or present temperatures.  Accurately modeling cloud cover and humidity at various levels in the atmosphere is incredibly complex, but critical to an accurate model.  My reading indicates that this is where the models break down.  They are apparently centered more around CO2 as the cause, because that is what the models were created to prove, after all, and it's pretty straightforward.  How then to account for the cooling over the last 11 years?  I may have to be put into stasis, and come back in 100 years, to determine who was right.

   

   

   

  http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/23/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/

  http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/

  On Changes in the sun are not causing global warming posted 6 months, 2 weeks ago 1 Response