georgia’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Mandates?

  So we just mandate cars that people don't want and people can't afford?  Do the "people" get a say in the matter?  Or are the so-called smart people just going to tell us how to live?

  Then, we can mandate that every home be powered with a fuel cell.On Los Angelenos narrowly reject city-wide solar plan posted 8 months, 1 week ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Pass it quick

  As more information comes in about what is in this bill, it becomes clear why those that support it don't want to debate it, but pass it quickly without any scrutiny.  I read the fist 85 pages or so.  I didn't find one item that could be considered anthing more than passing out money to supporters and creating new government programs.  I read in an article that there are 32 new government programs, but I could only stomach reading any further, so I can't verify that figure.

  $2 billion to help subsidize child care.

  $650 million for coupons to help consumers convert their TV sets from analog to digital, part of the digital TV conversion.

  $600 million to buy a new fleet of cars for federal employees and government departments.

  $75 million to fund programs to help people quit smoking.

  53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs.

  $13 billion to repair and weatherize public housing, help the homeless, repair foreclosed homes.

  $10.3 billion for tax credits to help families defray the cost of college tuition.

  This bill has more pork in than all of the earmarks in both the Bush and Clinton Admins combined.  This spending will prolong any recover, cause a big spike in inflation and probably result in many higher taxes and fees. When it fails, we will be told that we just didn't spend enough!  Good grief.  

  For those of you that want government healthcare, this is their way of getting it via the back door.  Let's not debate it and let's not let the people know what we're doing.  But don't complain when care eventually has to be rationed and your choices for treatment are limited and you have to wait 2 years for an MRI, if the machines still work.On House passes stimulus package with more than $100 billion in green spending posted 9 months, 1 week ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Thanks for the insults!

  cavecanem - water vapor is a GHG along with O2, are they pollutants?  The theory of the greenhouse represents a gross misunderstanding of our atmosphere.  It assumes that radiation is the only game in town and it fails to recognize how the earth effectively sheds heat (convection).

  If you look at studies of CO2 absorption, you'd see that by experiment, there is a diminishing returns effect after about 325ppm.  Thus, even if CO2 were to be doubled or quadroupled, the impact on warming would be too small to detect outside of natual variation.

  I work for the CT DEP.  We designate standards for groundwater and surface water and create goals for cleaning up rivers and streams.  We are constantly working towards those goals.  For example, we have restored over 7,000 acres of impacted tidal wetlands in the last 10 years. These improvements are made due to local decisions and priorities.  We have reduced the amount of nitrogen discharged to Long Island Sound.  These are real environmental accomplishments.  I can tell you one thing from experience.  Any time the federal government (EPA, USFW, etc) is involved, projects slow down to a crawl and eventually nothing positive gets done.

  Archigeek - are you saying that there are no oil seeps off our coasts?

  How did the coral react when CO2 was 20X higher than today.  The ocean emmits or at least absorbs less CO2 when it warms.

  Teh theory just doesn't explain the history of our climate.  Wishing it did does not make it so.  This is why your scientists refuse to debate with those that take a counter view.

  Finally, where is the evidence that CO2 drived T outside of a GCM? It's just not there...On Few Americans are ever likely to see George W. Bush's greatest environmental legacy posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  No fan of Bush...

  But I have to agree with the over 31,000 American scientists, mathematicians and PHDs that it would be harmful to humans and the environment to reduce CO2 emissions.  CO2 is not a pollutant and does not drive global T up.  Another 650 top scientists from around the world recently chimed in likewise.  Many were former contributors to the IPCC.  They have seen the snow job and now are speaking out.

  We should put our money, or what's left of it, into reducing actual, known air pollutants and doing a better job of managing nonpoint source pollution.

  For the most part, environmental parameters have improved during the Bush Admin., maybe not becuase of it.  In my state for example, land use practices have impreved greatly.  Our streams and rivers are cleaner and our air quality has improved.  Again, not necessarily due to Bush policies, but that is the record.

  Trying to restrict/reduce CO2 is mostly futile.  Just look at the failure of the countries that did sigh Kyoto.  Their CO2 rose faster than US emissions.  But also look at the truly foolish and wasteful decisions that have resulted.

  AGW has brought us ethanol. Very dumb.  It will probably make us build many more wind mills.  I wish they were a good idea, but they are not.  Just look at the results in Europe (disasterous).   The jury is out on what type of long term impacts to birds they would have.  We simply don't know enough yet to go gangbusters without knowing much more.

  Even cleaner fuels like natural gas over coal have been torpedoed for CO2 reasons.  Some people think there is an energy miracle out there that will replace fossil fuels, if they just wish hard enough.  Other sources just can't supply anywhere neer the BTUs needed.

  We have huge oil seeps, one off the coast of CA that, if drilled, could greatly reduce impacts to the ocean and wildlife.  But drilling, which makes the most sense both environmentally and economically there is opposed on the grouds that people hate big oil.  Again, dumb.

  We need to let the markets work.  There are lots of potentially viable energy alternatives and efficiency improvment projects in the works.  Lets let the cream rise to the top instead of a few politicians that can benefit individually make the decisions.  We can see the poor results they get.On Few Americans are ever likely to see George W. Bush's greatest environmental legacy posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I'm still open to data

  I plucked a few articles/analysies out of many dozens that I have. Yet you did not choose to argue the contents of the article, you chose to attack the writer, his credibility and the lack of a peer review.

  So please, send me solid science that proves that anthropogenic GHGs cause global T to rise.  I'll read it immediately.  Can you point to something besides GCMs?

  What I'm saying is that I started this search with no horse in the race and I followed the data.  What I consistently found was that websites and organizations (like the Union of Concerned Scientists) that support AGW presented mostly emotional arguments or assumed that CO2 drives T and thus never tried to prove to the reader the scientific connection b/t CO2 and T.  Conversely, those that questioned AGW took a decidely strict scientific approach and left emotion largely out of the question. Where is an objective mind supossed to lean.  I'm trained in science.  I don't buy into emotional arguments.

  Theories need to be proved, especially when massive public investments and regulations are being proposed.  They ought not be assumed and adopted just becuase they are posited.  But that seems to be what advocates want.

  Then when you look at the solutions that AGW folks suggest, they can't possibly have any significant impact on CO2.  They reject nuclear, the only viable carbon free source of energy capable of impacting our overall carbon footprint in any significant way.  You have to wonder if they belive in what they are selling, or are they mostly interested in making lots of money and becomeing very powerful from controlling the issue.

  On top of that, when those same folks use pictures of polar bears floating on ice (like they naturally do) and one report of 4 bears drowning in a storm to drive public opinion, I have wonder why they don't rely on their scientific evidence to inform the public.

  So I have to wonder why those that are so convinced that CO2 is such a problem are so unwilling to make the scientific argument based on solid scientific investigation.  It is clear that the IPCC process is political.  It ignores it's own reports and comes to unsuportable conclusions.  By the way, the latest report uses a lot of studies you would deem outdated (pre-2000) These conclusions are then held out as being above criticism based on a scientific consensus that does not exist.

  So what is an objective mind to make of all this?On U.N. says ignore the cold, warming is still a problem posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 17 Responses