The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

DLS — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:41:11 -0000

" But the WSJ editorial you cited brought Inhofe into it and that sort of blows the credibility of the entire thing."

It may raise the hackles of some, and doesn&#39t necessarily merit cheap-shot, misdirected accusations of _ad_hominem_ in response, but (and more importantly), Inhofe is far from the other-side case we&#39ve seen with this subject from the likes of Union of Concerned Scientists and that crowd, which is much worse.

* * *

"Instead, why not pour millions into fusion research, geothermal research, solar cell research, updating the power grid, changing farm subsidies (which have a large environmental impact), etc etc."

That&#39s where so much of this attention belongs. Not in pathological, perverse, self-destructive behavior by government (demanded by activists) that is unmerited as well as destructive. And no, "compassion" in the form of including in the bill some assistance specifically intended for those losing their jobs due to the effects of the bill is not an excuse for seeking those effects and seeking to pass this bill.

The left activists dislike the bill because it&#39s not destructive enough. Best is no such bill whatsoever, ever.

I&#39m concerned that the more loony Dems (pushed by the activists) will view this as incrementalist and will seek more destructive behavior in the future.

This climate bill has passed barely, after more scummy behavior by the Dems (3:09 AM prior to the vote, releasing another 300 pages) and deserves widespread gutting by the Senate. If Obama vetoes it because he is dissatisfied (or because he has listened to the highly-opposed mainstream), and the veto is not overridden, good. Both this climate bill and the health care bill have been massive piles of garbage.

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

DLS — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:30:58 -0000

"AR, I think I&#39m with you. I&#39ve soured on cap and trade, as, more specifically the Golman-ization of CO2."

Cap and trade is a scam, is as I described before (I used someone else&#39s beautiful analogy: rather than tax cigarettes to reduce smoking, the government is awarding Soviet-style production quotas and permits instead), and is an excuse for the little green fascists to do what? Meddle -- to "play market" and to manipulate it. Those who are intermediaries (middlemen) can get rich off this, and as I had said earlier, it would not be surprised if Obama, Gore, Browner, and the like had financial interests that benefited from this scheme. And to address the line of attack specifically that Green Dreams hinted at, what about Tim Geithner and his fellow bank-bailout-and-managed-industry-consolidation buddies at "Treasury/Wall Street"?

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

DLS — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:41:11 -0000

" But the WSJ editorial you cited brought Inhofe into it and that sort of blows the credibility of the entire thing."

It may raise the hackles of some, and doesn't necessarily merit cheap-shot, misdirected accusations of _ad_hominem_ in response, but (and more importantly), Inhofe is far from the other-side case we've seen with this subject from the likes of Union of Concerned Scientists and that crowd, which is much worse.

* * *

"Instead, why not pour millions into fusion research, geothermal research, solar cell research, updating the power grid, changing farm subsidies (which have a large environmental impact), etc etc."

That's where so much of this attention belongs. Not in pathological, perverse, self-destructive behavior by government (demanded by activists) that is unmerited as well as destructive. And no, "compassion" in the form of including in the bill some assistance specifically intended for those losing their jobs due to the effects of the bill is not an excuse for seeking those effects and seeking to pass this bill.

The left activists dislike the bill because it's not destructive enough. Best is no such bill whatsoever, ever.

I'm concerned that the more loony Dems (pushed by the activists) will view this as incrementalist and will seek more destructive behavior in the future.

This climate bill has passed barely, after more scummy behavior by the Dems (3:09 AM prior to the vote, releasing another 300 pages) and deserves widespread gutting by the Senate. If Obama vetoes it because he is dissatisfied (or because he has listened to the highly-opposed mainstream), and the veto is not overridden, good. Both this climate bill and the health care bill have been massive piles of garbage.

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

DLS — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:30:58 -0000

"AR, I think I'm with you. I've soured on cap and trade, as, more specifically the Golman-ization of CO2."

Cap and trade is a scam, is as I described before (I used someone else's beautiful analogy: rather than tax cigarettes to reduce smoking, the government is awarding Soviet-style production quotas and permits instead), and is an excuse for the little green fascists to do what? Meddle -- to "play market" and to manipulate it. Those who are intermediaries (middlemen) can get rich off this, and as I had said earlier, it would not be surprised if Obama, Gore, Browner, and the like had financial interests that benefited from this scheme. And to address the line of attack specifically that Green Dreams hinted at, what about Tim Geithner and his fellow bank-bailout-and-managed-industry-consolidation buddies at "Treasury/Wall Street"?

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

Ryan — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:37:16 -0000

TS: I&#39m not saying we shouldn&#39t discuss it, I&#39m saying that it&#39s going to involve lots of people with strong opinions about things they don&#39t understand, so the quality of the discussion will be appropriately low. Most people aren&#39t very big on science to begin with, even on settled issues. ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-repub... )

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

Jim_Satterfield — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:11:00 -0000

"It may be having an effect. But how does the Waxman-Markey bill REALLY help in that arena? That&#39s the question."

I&#39m not that thrilled with this bill or much else when it comes to the politics, but the kind of denier stuff that Inhofe represents is one of the reasons we can&#39t get anything meaningful done. But the WSJ editorial you cited brought Inhofe into it and that sort of blows the credibility of the entire thing. The question is can we get anything accomplished so long as there are people who keep putting forth BS excuses for science. My comments are made because of the first paragraph you wrote, not the parts about jobs or the political environment. Do you really think that climatologists don&#39t know everything you wrote? That they look at the natural causative agents and do their utter best to account for them? The same applies to Lit3Bolt&#39s comment about natural sources.

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

Ryan — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:37:16 -0000

TS: I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss it, I'm saying that it's going to involve lots of people with strong opinions about things they don't understand, so the quality of the discussion will be appropriately low. Most people aren't very big on science to begin with, even on settled issues. ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/... )

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

GreenDreams — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:23:22 -0000

AR, I think I&#39m with you. I&#39ve soured on cap and trade, as, more specifically the Golman-ization of CO2. I still think CO2 is a pollutant (as SCOTUS agreed recently) and needs to be controlled, but the "carbon market" is increasingly scary to me. Anyone who wants to learn way more about Goldman, the "bubble machine", and their designs on creating and profiting from the next bubble, take a look at this painfully long article by Matt Taibi.

http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/06/goldman-s...

Here&#39s the, er, money quote from the article:

Having seamlessly navigated the political minefield of the bailout era, Goldman is once again back to its old business, scouting out loopholes in a new government-created market with the aid of a new set of alumni occupying key government jobs.

And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is carbon credits - a booming trillion-dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a ground-breaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an "environmental plan," called cap-and-trade.

The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that&#39s been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won&#39t even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

Jim_Satterfield — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:11:00 -0000

"It may be having an effect. But how does the Waxman-Markey bill REALLY help in that arena? That's the question."

I'm not that thrilled with this bill or much else when it comes to the politics, but the kind of denier stuff that Inhofe represents is one of the reasons we can't get anything meaningful done. But the WSJ editorial you cited brought Inhofe into it and that sort of blows the credibility of the entire thing. The question is can we get anything accomplished so long as there are people who keep putting forth BS excuses for science. My comments are made because of the first paragraph you wrote, not the parts about jobs or the political environment. Do you really think that climatologists don't know everything you wrote? That they look at the natural causative agents and do their utter best to account for them? The same applies to Lit3Bolt's comment about natural sources.

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

DLS — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:49:11 -0000

The bill

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H....

Several links here:

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/...

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

DLS — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:35:54 -0000

Even the experts don&#39t agree. Plus, so often what is "expertise" is thinly disguised or undisguised lefty politics.

As to the "cap and trade" scam, Austin Roth describes it very well. I wonder to what extent this was chosen in lieu of some kind of energy tax out of cowardice, and to what extent out of a desire to enjoy manipulating the economy and people. (Plus I have said, don&#39t be surprised if Obama, Gore, and the rest are benefiting financially from the middleman or facilitator or intermediary role eventually.)

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

T_Steel — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:31:25 -0000

Ryan, what&#39s the point of telling us that we aren&#39t experts and thus, shouldn&#39t talk about it? This is a group blog with comments the last time I checked. I wrote an opinion and people are commenting about it. I take lumps, give some, we banter, postulate, etc. American freedom in a virtual world! We don&#39t have to necessarily be experts, but those elected to make the decisions do. So target them. Not us regular folks for speaking/writing.

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

DLS — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:19:13 -0000

"There has to be a better way to head towards &#39green futures&#39 without the mud-slinging political nonsense."

"Green," or you may mean "clean," which is certainly very desireable. I even wouldn&#39t mind some reasonable regs on tire noise (often worse than engine noise on roads) and other sources of noise pollution.

Unfortunately, the environment and the economy are both sources of harmful, destructive politics (aimed primarily at the economy and at society).

There&#39s so much for research and even government R&D and production if that&#39s what people want.

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

DLS — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:05:53 -0000

"In fairness it looks like Greenpeace doesn&#39t like it because it&#39s not strong enough."

Yep. (Not extreme enough.)

"There is a correct answer on how much man contributes to global warming, unfortunately we&#39ll probably never know it because it&#39s been turned into a political football."

That is the real problem here. And sadly, we&#39ll see research neglected or abused due to politics (neglected to the extent that Washington instead chooses to epend money and time on harmful interventionism instead; abused because of additional politics affecting and infecting the subject and the related research, choice of topics to investigate, and so on.)

Climate, climatic variation, and climate change (both natural and artificial) are fascinating, beautiful subjects of study as well as useful now and in the future (I&#39ve enjoyed learning about them since I was a child, got my Edmund Scientific equipment when I was a child, etc.) which have been misappropriated (seized, once the "movement" established itself) and misused, corrupted, and ruined by the Left.

There is _so_ much out there to be studied that we cannot rely on academia to study necessarily and that, worse, we cannot rely on government to refrain from interfering and activists from infesting. [sigh]

* * *
"the green economy of the 21st Century"

This has been the object of _so_ much hype and starry-eyed stuff. [sigh]

Wind and solar remain intermittent and far from 100% substitutes for conventional energy sources, no matter how much progress we make in the next several years. (R&D on that should be what our fine friends in Washington should be doing rather than playing totalitarians-lite games with us instead!)

If "greenhouse gases" or a concern with (real) pollution is still there, where is the progress on nuclear power (along with coal and gas, serious base-load energy sources)? Why don&#39t we get rid of silly or stupid political opposition to reprocessing and use breeder reactors, incidentally, as well as ordinary reactors?

It&#39ll be years before we get good electric vehicles. (Vehicle and especially battery R&D is something the feds should be doing, not limited to GM&#39s battery center in Warren, MI.) And what about all the new generation we&#39ll need, as well as the charging equipment and connection apparatus? (More federal R&D)

"I think a true emissions tax would be a more honest way to disincentivize bad carbon behavior. Sadly, we have so demonized the very concept of taxation that it&#39s a nonstarter. "

You&#39re incorrect and hyperbolic about how normal people view taxation (it is a necessary evil; it is often, even routinely abused, and people rightly object to this) but you&#39re right on that the emissions tax would be the ideal way to reduce energy use and emissions ("carbon behavior" is not inherently "bad"). I fear an emissions tax (a _real_emissions_ tax, with _real_ pollutants, toxins, not "greenhouse gas" or carbon-content gimmickry) will be levied eventually _in_addition_to_ a cap and trade scheme.

"A CA Republican friend suggested that we&#39ll be the &#39bread basket of the world.&#39 So, back to an agrarian society?"

Tsk, tsk. Green Dreams, were you trying to be humorous as well as illogical? It&#39s obvious that there will be winners and losers in a warmer climate, including under the real-world-"worst"[sic]-case stable scenario of no more Arctic ice pack. The summer temperatures would be elevated somewhat, along with an earlier last spring frost date and later first autumn frost date, with more heat "area under the curve" (growing degree-days, not only cooling degree-days) during the (longer) growing season. The climatic zones would be generally shifted northward, so higher latitudes would not have as retarded agricultural and economic development as they have now relative to areas farther south.

It&#39s no surprise that in earlier times experts in the USA and the USSR (notably Budyko) studied what would happen if the Arctic ice pack were dusted with coal dust or something else to increase its melting and make the northern lands useful rather than useless or greatly retarded or inhibited in development. The northern parts of North America and Eurasia would stand to gain the most. "Loser" areas would include the dry Southwest (made more dry -- and look at the existing climate zones _and_ the terrain to ascertain or anticipate what changes would happen there, where. California&#39s snowpack would suffer to a great degree -- oops -- and there would be increased desertification in California and elsewhere in the arid Southwest, while Cascadia and upward toward the Alaska bight would be much better off.)

(Coastal Central and Southern California are Mediterranean. Baja California&#39s coast is desert. Would the coastal desert extend all the way to Point Conception with an ice-free Arctic? How much north of this place would change from existing grass and oaks to chaparral, or from conifers north of the Golden Gate to grass and oaks, or to chaparral? The extent of change would be accompanied by precip and snowpack reduction. Not just reduced precip, but remainder more in the form of rain than of snow, and hence not stored for use during drought months in "summer.")

Assuming we&#39ll eventually warm (not definitive yet, but likely -- even with China&#39s and India&#39s aerosols the CO2 should have a greater effect), I&#39d like to see studies of creeping climatic zones (typified more by vegetation than by animals, which may already be moving northward), extents and _probabilities_ found, and a corresponding set of studies about the effects of all kinds (including economic, which is so very important) of various changes to the climate and related effects, to better learn what the effects are in the losing as well as in the winning parts of this country (which is more important to us than the rest of the world and deserves more attention), free of political activism and political taint, catastrophism, and all the rest.

(As opposed to Waxman [gag] -- all that federal R&D and related production means more good jobs.)

* * *

"And I feel that the Waxman-Markey bill is too politicized to do much good."

In fact, the intelligent question that it raises is if it will do any (real) good at all, whereas it obviously threatens economic and other harm, and is associated with pathological thinking and behavior in addition to politics. (At least it isn&#39t as bad as others such as Greenpeace would ridiculously demand instead.)

That&#39s aside from the intelligent concerns about the bill&#39s realism and cost-effectiveness.

* * *

"The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas has been known for over a century."

(since 1859 if you want to credit Tyndall, who predates Arrhenius)

"So how can it not have had an effect?"

How much of an effect, how much later (with more CO2), once the atmosphere is affected, what will be the result on Earth or in the biosphere (the basic consequences of no Arctic Ocean ice pack have long been known, from past climates that had no ice pack -- the past is a guide and has been researched for decades), are all things that merit additional study.

The effects have never justified alarmism or similar attitudes or behavior, nor any excessive or wrongful interventionism.

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

Ryan — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:02:17 -0000

js: Quoting someone else is not the same as understanding it yourself, nor is clinging to someone with letters after their name because the alternative happens to be inconvenient for you.

dagoat: All of the above and then some.

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

AustinRoth — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:58:23 -0000

Waxman-Markey is, in essence, the Enron-ization of CO2. No real value add, just a numbers game pretending to be commodities trading that will make some people very rich, cost a lot of people a lot of money, make a few people smug they are helping Gaia, and in the end be exposed as just another shell game, but this time government sanctioned.

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

DaGoat — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:31:18 -0000

Wow. A huge collection of people discussing an important scientific issue with a grand total of zero experts among them. Surely this is a recipe for success.

Are you talking about us, the House and Senate, or all of the above?

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

JSpencer — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:27:55 -0000

Hey, we&#39re just talking about the weather here. ;-) Seriously, you should realize that many opinions here are informed by access to information which comes from... (wait for it) . . . . . . . . . . . . experts!

Welcome to the 21st century Ryan!

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

Ryan — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:08:52 -0000

Wow. A huge collection of people discussing an important scientific issue with a grand total of zero experts among them. Surely this is a recipe for success.

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

T_Steel — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:06:50 -0000

GreenDreams said: "Now, there&#39s a good chance that reports like this one will convince us to slow our efforts, scuttling our only chance to lead in the green economy of the 21st Century. So instead of being in both the driver&#39s seat and at the cash register, innovation will come from Japan, and China will manufacture it. India will do the tech work, and we&#39ll do... wait. what WILL we do?"

I want us to lead the green economy for the 21st century and BEYOND! As I said, I dream about this (actually I think about it too much). But I&#39m super-concerned that the politics of this recent bill just won&#39t help. There has to be a better way to head towards "green futures" without the mud-slinging political nonsense. I&#39m going to think of ways and post about it..... one day. My head hurts just thinking about it.

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

GreenDreams — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:55:49 -0000

Jim S. Good catch on the shockingly low quality of "expert witnesses" put forward by Inhofe.

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

T_Steel — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:49:38 -0000

Jim_Satterfield said: "The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas has been known for over a century. It&#39s not the only one but we do pump trillions of tons of it into the atmosphere every year. It&#39s concentration in the atmosphere has increased 35% since the beginning of the industrial revolution. So how can it not have had an effect?"

It may be having an effect. But how does the Waxman-Markey bill REALLY help in that arena? That&#39s the question.

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

GreenDreams — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:48:07 -0000

Leaving aside the whole debate about global warming, let me address the comment about "cheap abundant oil".

Our purchase of oil is, really, and no ideologically driven debate about it, as TB Pickens puts it "the greatest transfer of wealth in human history" from the West to frankly unfriendly regimes in the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela, etc.

Our oil dollars brought down the WTC, as we fund the very hostile fanatics we fight with our blood and treasure.

If you think of all the oil North America has ever had as a six-pack, we have consumed 4 and opened the fifth. Should we not at least wait til our kids are drinking age to open the sixth can? We will need the remaining oil for plastics and all other petroleum based products, and that sixth can? It&#39s gonna cost us. It&#39s heavy oil, oil sands, oil shale and other extremely expensive, power intensive and water intensive to get and expensive to refine (compared to "light sweet" crude).

Oil hit $4 a gallon again in CA. With China and India grabbing more and more (now buying up the Canadian sources, for instance), the days of "cheap and abundant" are OVER. If we don&#39t make it a crisis priority to free ourselves from dependence on oil, we&#39re worse than stupid. Every single thing we buy will cost more as gas and diesel prices head skyward past $5 a gallon.

Now, there&#39s a good chance that reports like this one will convince us to slow our efforts, scuttling our only chance to lead in the green economy of the 21st Century. So instead of being in both the driver&#39s seat and at the cash register, innovation will come from Japan, and China will manufacture it. India will do the tech work, and we&#39ll do... wait. what WILL we do?

A CA Republican friend suggested that we&#39ll be the "bread basket of the world." So, back to an agrarian society? What about the cost in labor? He suggests (which I could not believe I was hearing) that we need to find a way to keep the cheap immigrant labor.

Oh did I mention global warming? No. I didn&#39t.

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

T_Steel — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:47:20 -0000

Jim_Satterfield said: "I don&#39t believe you fell for an article that includes Inhofe&#39s list of scientists in it."

I didn&#39t "fall" for this article. I agreed with some of Kimberley Strassel&#39s point (and yes I know the political leanings of Strassel). My overall point is aligned with JSpencer&#39s statement:

"It&#39s terribly unfortunate that science has become so politicized in a time when using it and understanding it is more critical than ever."

And I feel that the Waxman-Markey bill is too politicized to do much good. And I&#39m ULTRA concerned about jobs. We can&#39t keep losing them without having replacement. The Waxman-Markey bill will cause job loss in certain industries. What will we do with those people (along with all the other folks out there that have been laid off)?

Re: Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

Jim_Satterfield — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:29:25 -0000

The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas has been known for over a century. It&#39s not the only one but we do pump trillions of tons of it into the atmosphere every year. It&#39s concentration in the atmosphere has increase 35% since the beginning of the industrial revolution. So how can it not have had an effect? Somehow I never hear the denialists explain that one. I also haven&#39t heard of one of their alternative theories that hasn&#39t been debunked.