Comments georgia has made

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 10 months ago 6 Responses

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 10 months, 2 weeks ago 7 Responses

Yes I've looked...

Bob,

I got started in my search for information, primarily because for work, We (my department) are very concerned about impacts to tidal wetlands.  Our state has lost thousands of acres to filling activities prior to 1970.  Thus, potential impacts from accelerating sea level rise are important to understand and try to mitigate if possible.  

Like you, I had no reason to be suspect of the greenhouse effect theory and how CO2 was thought to be a primary contributor to the warming that had been going on since the mid 1970s.

However, the more I searched for data about sea level rise, the more I came to understand that the process had been political, not scientific.  The rules of scientific study and inquiry were cast aside.  Principles of forcasting were overlooked.

In science, someone with a new theory welcomes all challengers to prove them wrong.  This is how science is advanced.  Ask Einstein.  His theories were put to the test.

However, when I see executive summaries that include recommendations/projects that are not supported by the underlying report, yes I get skeptical.  When executive summaries are released months before the report so that the media and the politicians can run with the so-called results ahead of the data, yes, I become skeptical.

When the IPCC report states that impact of clouds are one of the most significant factors in affecting temperature, yet they knwo not whether they represent a net positive or a negative feedback, and then they go on to say that with high confidence humans are causing the warming, yes, I get skeptical.

When pictures of polar bears floating on summer ice are used to play on peoples emotions, facts be dambed, yes I get skeptical.

When politicians spend large amounts of tax-payer money on very dumb ideas like ethanol and wind turbines based on an unproven theory, yes I get skeptical.

When scientists and ex-politicians make extreme and unsupportable statements like "if the greenland glaciers melt," sea level could rise 7 meters, yes I get skeptical.

An finally, we people like me enter the debade and are attacked personally because we see the issue differently and process the data diferently, yes I become skeptical.  I wonder, why is your side afraid of having a debate but at the same time insisting that the debate is over.

So I sit here still trying to find any credible evidence that anthropogenic CO2 increases global T outside of computer model predicitons and I find nothing but maipulated data, name calling, claims of consensus when no such consensus exists, and powerful people getting very rich off carbon credits and the like.  So yes I'm very skeptical.

I wondering Bob, why aren't you!
On U.N. says ignore the cold, warming is still a problem posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 17 Responses

You have me confused

Bob, I'm not following you.  I thought that you agreed with the IPCC position.  Now you're saying that additional water vapor in the air doesn't matter.  This is counter to the AGW theory, where the additional water vapor, prompted by CO2, does most of the work/heating.

I'm not sure I can agree with your assumption that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for centuries.  I'm sure some molecules do, but on average, it would have to be far less.  Otherwise, the CO2 concentration would have to be much higher right now.

I really think you should read the following analyses.

http://www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

As I mentioned in one of our earlier exchanges, I try to read everything I can and try to draw my own conclusions.  I guess I don't put my trust in others.

Enjoy.
On U.N. says ignore the cold, warming is still a problem posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 17 Responses

Bob oh Bob

Bob - Infrared radiation doesn't cause heat!  

Fine, there are gases in the atmosphere that get excited (if you will) when they receive/intercept specific wavelengths of energy.  O2 traps heat as well as CO2 and is clearly much more prevelent.  CO2 intercepts a very small range of wavelengths, thus most of the energy passes by.

Water vapor absorbs a significantly broader range of wavelengths including the range that CO2 absorbs.  The AGW theory states that the increase in CO2 will cause more evaporation and thus put more water vapor into the air.  The water vapor then is responsible for most of the warming.  By their own definition, it would be much more effective to simply reduce our open use of water to reduce evaporation.  All we would have to do is stop watering our lawns and golf courses, stop transporting water via open ducts, and stop irrigating our crops.  Why go after H2O indirecttly when we could go at it directly.

What the greenhouse effect fails to account for is how the earth sheds heat.  Heat is moved poleward and upward primarily by convection (Hadley cells, jet streams, storm fronts, etc).

The sun not only heats the earth, but uneven heating leads to pressure gradient forces which drive wind and weather patterns.  IT DOES NOT COOL VIA RADIATION!

:)On U.N. says ignore the cold, warming is still a problem posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 17 Responses

Not the weather

Yes, it's not the cold weather events that support or refute global warming.  It's the lack of any connection b/t CO2, natural or anthropogenic, and global temperature that has not only not been proven, it has been disproven on numerous front.  To name a few - CO2 absorption studies, historical proxy records, archeological, records, and IPCC's own report.

The only evidence of a connection lies within climate models, which have to make so many assumptions to even run, that they are unquestionalbly unreliable and useless in predicting future climate perameters.

Also, you have to wonder why none, and I mean none, of the handful of scientists that are ringing the alarm bells (plus Al Gore) always refuse to debate any of the so-called global warming skeptics?  Are they fraidy scared to walk the walk?On U.N. says ignore the cold, warming is still a problem posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 17 Responses

Not a denier.

I'm not a climate change denier. Our climate is in constant flux.  However, I haven't seen any credible connection between CO2 and global temperature.  Historically, there is no correlation.  Last century there was no correlation.  Right now there is no correlation.  CO2 is a scarce and very weak GHG.  Absorption studies have show that after about 325 ppm, little additional heat is trapped no matter how much CO2 is added.  You can double or tripple the concentration and the impact on T would be imperceptible.  We would not be able to detect or measure its impact.

As for wind, its getting private funding because it gets subsidized and because it is anticipated that they will make money from carbon credits.  As you say and I agree, other technology is coming.  However, to pursue alternatives to reduce CO2 is a big mistake in my opinion based on my research.On Another attempt to dispute the disproportionate attention paid to gas taxes posted 11 months ago 21 Responses

Maybe we have too much time on our hands.

I love all this central planning and the few deciding how the many should behave and live.

Once again, you're debating possible solutions to a NON-problem.  Take some time to get away from this group think and do some research into the matter... looking at the actual research, not projections and exagerations by the same band of columnists that couldn't understand a basic scientific paper, let alone one relying on mathematics or physics.  Yet we look to these ivory tower blowhards to tell us what to think about everything from polar bears to mass transit.

Every one of these ideas would cripple the economy, which I think many of you would actually like to see.

Public transportation can only work in a few areas, otherwise it needs massive govt. funding.  Alternative/additional energy will come to the market when someone invents a better, more efficient technology.  Many such inventions and ideas are now advancing.  Look wht govt. has screwed up by sticking their know-it-all noses into things.  We are now stuck with ethanol, which Grist has exposed many times as a boondoggle.  The Govt. mandated MTBE, then wanted to sue companies for producing it.  I know.  Lets trade groundwater pollution for air pollution!  Brilliant!

Making people use inferior products is nothing more than forcing their standard of living down.  Who do you think gets hurt the most when that happens.

Regarding carbon, do you really think that China and India are going to somehow reduce their use of coal and oil with populations emerging from third-world standards?On Another attempt to dispute the disproportionate attention paid to gas taxes posted 11 months ago 21 Responses

HMMMMM

We don't fully understand clouds yet they are one of the most influential climate factors!  I recall that our current GCMs don't handle precipitation and cloud cover very well.  Therefore, if they can't account for one of the most influential factors, I'd say they are useless at best and misleading at worst.On Global warming increasing rainfall and intense storms posted 11 months ago 3 Responses

Show me the list!

If we're going to relegate the country to a permanent recession because of a debunked theory of AGW, we at least deserve to be able to know which scientists that would be willing to put their names and reputations on the line and state unequivocolly that anthropogenic CO2 drives climate!  If such a list were made, I'd be stunned if such a list would garner more than 100 signatures.On The moral voice on climate can become policy brokers or enviro activists posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 5 Responses

Worthless chatter

Mr Romm, in your article you stated: "Indeed, failure to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, would put the entire world back on the path of unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions, which will lead to a warming of up to 6 degrees centigrade, a rapid rise in sea level, widespread desertification and countless other devastating impacts."

Maybe you could refer to some scientific studies that back up your claims, because recent observations do not support your statement.  Sea level has actually fallen since 2005 as ocean temperatures have slightly declined, temperature peaked in 1998 and is falling as predicted by many climate scientists studying the sun, and where are the devastating impacts that can be pinned to higher CO2 levels.

I would suggest you read chapter 5 of the latest IPC report on sea level rise.  Any objective reading of this chapter easily reveals that there are so many uncertainties stated in the report that their conclusions are not supported by their own report.  And still, each IPCC report has smaller SLR predictions than the previous report.

Your side keeps referring to a tipping point as the rationale for immediate action.  However, the current economic downturn will do more to reduce CO2 emissions (not that they are harmful in any way) than any ridiculous cap and trade or carbon tax system, until they lead to a more severe economic downturn of course.

Look at the results of other cap and trade systems.  Europe's system is doing nothing but hurting their citizens.  Investments into wind with massive government subsodies have failed.  Their CO2 emissions have grown faster than in the US since Kyoto.

Maybe you could produce for me a list of climate scientists that agree with your premise.  It probably wouldn't be longer than 100 names.  Sorry -  you can't include politicians and social scientists!  Did you know more than 83% of meteorologists think AGW is bunk?  Did you know that no survey of scientists has never shown a majority share your view.  Yet you and others spout a consensus when clearly none exists.  

Why should the public support your economy-killing policies without at least knowing which scientists to blame down the road?  
On NRO's media critic waxes moronic about my Salon piece posted 11 months, 4 weeks ago 1 Response

More CO2, not less

Just because 5 judges decided that CO2 is a pollutant doesn't make it so.  Without it plants will die, and we will follow.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND PAST TEMPERATURE INCREASES.  All the science points to this.

CO2 concentrations have been up to 20 times higher than today's level, and runaway warming did not occur.  In fact, ice ages happenned.

The key is this.  Our atmosphere does not warm/cool strictly by radiation.  Convection, and other natuarl cooling mechanisms such as clouds,  which keep the earth from reaching about 170 degrees F (which it would be in a pure radiative environment), render the greenhouse effect theory useless.

Sea level, which is incredibily difficult to even measure is not increasing at an increasing rate.  Our best guesses, and that's what they are, tell us that sea level fluctuates, but has been rising at about 7 inches/century for the past couple.  If you read the latest IPCC report (not the executive summary written by political types), they state that a recent acceleration, albeit small, in sea level rise, from 1992-2003, may just be due to decade variability, then they go on to project higher rates based on models that assume CO2 will cause warming.  This is not science, but fodder.

Oh.. can anyone please point me to a list of scientists that are part of this manufactured concensus?  I only know if 2 lists.  One includes 400 prominent scientists from over 20 counties (many of which contributed to the IPCC reports).  They disagree with the AGW theory.  The other is a list of over 30,000 American scientists and methematicians that agree that CO2 should not be limited.

So where are all these concensus scientists beyond Charles Mann and James Hansen?  Can you even give me a list of 50?

I'm waiting....On New global warming denier article in Salon posted 1 year, 5 months ago 22 Responses

Wow

I have studied this issue for many years, reading everything I can find on the subject, including all the IPCC reports (not just the executive summaries).  I have yet to come across any credible evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2, man-made or otherwise, is causing global warming.  To the contrary, all of the research-backed theories that seem to explain past climate changes have nothing to do with CO2.  Since you all seem to be convinced that it is, maybe you can point me to some research to enlighten me.  So far, all this hype appears, in my view, to be based on computer models that are seriously flawed.

With a science and mathmatics background, I work in the Environmental Protection field.  There are plenty of issues such as stormwater management, erosion, use of pesticides (etc,), and poor development planning that need our attention.  So to waste time and huge amounts of resources on this doomsday scenario seems rather counter productive if you say you hold the environment in your best interest.  Overestimating the potential impacts from human emmissions is leading to rediculous actions such as building ethanol factories.  Come on, do we really want to put pollutants in the atmosphere and iron in the sea based on models that have proven to misrepresent the magnitude and direction of atmospheric feedback mechanisms?  The models, while incredibly sophisticated, still cannot handle the hydrologic cycle, for goodness sake.  And we're supposed to make massive investments in actions that will do little but make a few select companies that will control the market on carbon offsets hugely rich (hello Mr. Gore).

Can we get back to preserving open space, cleaning up our waterways, and supporting viable energy alternatives?  On It's too late to stop climate change, argues Ross Gelbspan -- so what do we do now? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 45 Responses