Non Sequitur

Nov. 21, 2009 at 5:01am

global warming is a HOAX

Holy crap...

I won't claim to have "always known it", but anyone who does know me will agree that I've been skeptical about global warming for a long time. Not outright denying, but certainly finding some of their claims to be questionable at best.

Well, this just came out on the internets: Global Warming is, and always has been a HOAX.

Apparently a server at the Hadley CRU was hacked and 156 mb of emails were downloaded and put up on the web. You can download the zip file here and read for yourself.

The documents have been confirmed to be authentic.


Personally, I'm surprised that my skepticism was actually correct for once. And you know what, I feel betrayed. What else are "they" lying about?

Either this is the biggest hoax ever, or the biggest hoax ever was just revealed.

What do you think?

comments [232]  |  posted under Global Warming

Comments

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 11/21/2009 @ 7:02am
This sounds like those chain emails I get every day. They all tell me they were verified as well. I'm sure there are a lot of suckers that fall for such things and and a good many will be convinced even after the chain email is debunked. Sadly, those with weak minds will be convinced that this is true no matter what. Is this the next issue for the TeaBaggers?

by fredo on 11/21/2009 @ 8:37am
If global warming was true, would our leaders allow themselves to be seen flying back and forth across the country in jumbo jets for the purpose of making inconsequential speeches or taking their wives to a movie? Because of my weakened mind I hope somebody will make sense of this for me.

by ixia on 11/21/2009 @ 8:56am
Yeah, next they will tell you smoking is not healthy. Or arsenic and lead are bad for the little ones. What else are "they" lying about??

by panachronic on 11/21/2009 @ 9:47am
This isn't the first time that scientists have been caught gaming the evidence, it's just the most egregious example.

by ixia on 11/21/2009 @ 10:26am
Tell me about it. Obviously the world is flat. Or everything including you and I would fall right off it. Stop gaming science and start supporting the oil industry. If I wanna drive a hummer, well, itís my god given right.

by Mofo from the Hood on 11/21/2009 @ 10:32am
Of course it's a hoax. The whole scenario was dreamed up by PhD.'s in meteorology. Meterology! These guys have been made fun of their whole life. They went to college to study the weather!

by fredo on 11/21/2009 @ 10:35am
Let's cut to the chase, it's all George Bush's fault.

by panachronic on 11/21/2009 @ 10:36am
Yep... those damned meteorologists. They can't even get a 5-day forecast right, but they expect us to believe apocalyptic predictions for 20-30-100 years down the road.

That, and it wasn't so very long ago that they tried their best to convince us that an ice age was coming.

Why can't they just admit that their "science" is really just guesswork?

by NineInchNachos on 11/21/2009 @ 10:44am
anyone who thinks global warming is a hoax is a complete idiot.

a huge monster strata-fortress idiot.

sincerely,
Science.

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 11/21/2009 @ 10:45am
For a moment I thought I wandered into an Idaho local blog by accident. Carry on.

by Mofo from the Hood on 11/21/2009 @ 10:48am
Everyone knows that "Science" is code for government funded job security.

And THAT is settled science.

by panachronic on 11/21/2009 @ 10:49am
"anyone who thinks global warming is a hoax is a complete idiot. "

How's the cool-aid?

by NineInchNachos on 11/21/2009 @ 10:52am
listen... old people, you may be dying soon so you don't care about the planet, but it is the younger folks who have to live with your mistakes.

when the revolution comes who do you think will be first against the wall?


by NineInchNachos on 11/21/2009 @ 10:55am
jesus fucking christ!!!
haven't you seen Soylent Green!?

you are this close to being people food.


by panachronic on 11/21/2009 @ 11:01am
Back on topic...

I'd really love to know why some people still believe in anthropogenic global warming even though the theory no longer fits the evidence... even though there has been profiteering and evidence of malfeasance among those pushing the theory... and even though our leaders and experts do not themselves behave as though there is a problem.

Please, help me understand.

by NineInchNachos on 11/21/2009 @ 11:02am
death panels?


by NineInchNachos on 11/21/2009 @ 11:04am
oh. I know!

I can see Russia from my house!

by NineInchNachos on 11/21/2009 @ 11:04am
wait... er.

Military Families?

by NineInchNachos on 11/21/2009 @ 11:05am
it all started when they stopped forcing kids to pray in school.

am I right?

by Mofo from the Hood on 11/21/2009 @ 11:09am
The easiest way to convince young adults that they should pay more taxes is to go on T.V. wearing a white lab coat.

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 11/21/2009 @ 11:12am
Aren't there any right wing blogs around here where this stuff can be posted?

by panachronic on 11/21/2009 @ 11:22am
"Aren't there any right wing blogs around here where this stuff can be posted?"

Offended by a little heresy, are we?

by fredo on 11/21/2009 @ 11:33am
Feedtacoma is the new right wing blog. You left wingers can have Tacomamama.

by ixia on 11/21/2009 @ 11:33am
I-1033...I-1033...oh yes. Soundly defeated by the people. Thank you WA!

by fredo on 11/21/2009 @ 11:43am
"I-1033 soundly defeated by the people." ixia

"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do" Jesus

by Mofo from the Hood on 11/21/2009 @ 11:57am
Government > Good

Educated Population < Bad

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 11/21/2009 @ 12:15pm
Offended, never. Amused is more like it. I'm just surprised anyone would waste their time spreading this right wing nonsense around here. I don't suspect you'll convince the intelligent readership of FeedTacoma of any of this. On the other hand they now have a pretty good list of who to round up for the reeducation camps when they are started up.

by jenyum on 11/21/2009 @ 12:16pm
Feedtacoma is the new right wing blog. You left wingers can have Tacomamama.


Last I checked you don't set the agenda for either one, and I don't appreciate being painted into a corner like that. My site is an open community and I'm fairly certain this one is, too.

by panachronic on 11/21/2009 @ 12:28pm
Crenshaw, I asked a fairly serious question above. Feel free to start my reeducation right now.

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 11/21/2009 @ 12:43pm
Why would I bother to reeducate when they are already building the camps, with prevailing wage contracts, no less. I'll leave this task to those that will actually enjoy it.

by Marty on 11/21/2009 @ 12:46pm
P-Chronic:

"Global Warming" , "Climate Change" or a "coming ice age" call it what you will. The fact of the matter is that we, as humans are polluting and affecting the environment we live in, and not in positive way. Just as we incrementally created more and more burden on our environment, we need to work to undo the worst the impacts and move forward incrementally working to get us back in balance.

Call it what you want or don't label it at all, but please continue to do your part to leave the world a little better place than you found it.

by KevinFreitas on 11/21/2009 @ 1:12pm
Re: open community

FeedTacoma absolutely is an open community. I have, however, emailed the author of this post requesting he/she kindly remove the "Tacoma" tag thus removing this post from the homepage feed. I have no problem having any kind of discussion in the forums or via an i.Feed blog post but it's a privilege to be allowed top billing on the homepage and I respectfully request this space be utilize for positive, locally-focused perspective and discussion pertaining more directly to Tacoma that visitors to the site can't already get from other typical news outlets or websites.

by panachronic on 11/21/2009 @ 1:45pm
"Why would I bother to reeducate when they are already building the camps, with prevailing wage contracts, no less. I'll leave this task to those that will actually enjoy it."

Translation: "I got nuthin'"

by Mofo from the Hood on 11/21/2009 @ 2:25pm
panachronic, and all, here's a site that might offer some help in explaining the politics of global warming:

www.discerningtoday.org

by ixia on 11/21/2009 @ 2:36pm
Non-Sequitur looks like fredo's alter ego, straight from the dark side.
Remember this: we did not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.

by NineInchNachos on 11/21/2009 @ 4:50pm
Global Warming is a hoax
The Holocaust never happened
Evolution is a lie
Science is a liberal propaganda machine
There are no homosexuals in Iran,
and the streets are paved with cheese.

Welcome to Idiot Town.


by NineInchNachos on 11/21/2009 @ 4:51pm
Unlike 5views.com you can't block me.


Thanks for being my new intellectual punching bag.

by NineInchNachos on 11/21/2009 @ 5:03pm
YOU GUYS!!!! SERIOUSLY!!!
I JUST GOT AN EMAIL THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!!!!!! WELL THIS PROVES EVERYTHING! THIS MEANS I CAN AFFORD TO START UP MY TIRE-BURNING BUSINESS... EARN ENOUGH MONEY TO FIX MY CAPSLOCK KEY!!!!

by NineInchNachos on 11/21/2009 @ 5:16pm
anyhow 'hoax' seems like a stretch.

online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859...


by david on 11/21/2009 @ 5:36pm
So a huge database of email that shows communications regarding the growing evidence for dangerous regional climate changes due to a man-made rise in global temperatures has been hacked. And someone was able to find one email from a scientist saying he applied a trick to fix a problem with his data in order to get accurate results.

We don't need to understand anything about the research he was doing! It's obviously a cabal of the world's scientists to trick the American people into paying higher taxes!!! HAHAHA!

I love how the crazy people are throwing around the idea that this database hack is proof of a hoax before anything damning has been found!!!

by david on 11/21/2009 @ 5:42pm
But seriously, if this information is now out there and the only things the deniers can come up with is that one scientist's use of the word "trick" is a nefarious plot, then how does this not smell like desperation to prove a world-view in need of an update?

by Mofo from the Hood on 11/21/2009 @ 7:14pm
Look, if you want to make a fact believable to some of the "progressives" in Tacoma, then you've got to cite a published article written by a LBGT from "The Stranger."

by marumaruyopparai on 11/21/2009 @ 8:03pm
Thanks for the link Mofo. My favorite selling point for the " Global Warming: Emerging Science and Understanding" educational materials package for high school students was this informative little gem:

The sun may be the primary driver of warming

This completely explains why my house is freezing ass cold in the winter despite the carbon dioxide pumps I installed last winter. No matter how much CO2 I pumped in it just didn't seem to make a lick of difference. Thought I had been sold some bunk CO2, turns out SUNLIGHT makes warmth. . .I feel like an ass. This is what I get for paying attention to the liberal propagandist media machine.

by NineInchNachos on 11/21/2009 @ 8:07pm
perhaps you need to spend less time in school and more time in church.

by NineInchNachos on 11/21/2009 @ 8:13pm
Anyhow. I'm going to go watch a post-apocalyptic film called SIX STRING SAMURAI.

Thanks for the fun evening.

Everyone drive home safe and keep a look out for HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE!

by Non Sequitur on 11/22/2009 @ 1:36am
This is fascinating.
We got people here who are so gung-ho to one side or the other that they seem too ignorant to even consider that the opposing opinion might be right.

People, this isn't a religion. There's no need to get your panties tied in a knot over this.

The problem with this human-caused warming issue is that it isn't accurate science. We don't have a control experiment where the industrial revolution didn't happen. How can we for real figure out what amount is caused by the Sun, what amount is cyclical and what amount is human caused. We're stuck having to think up ways that might give a clue to carbon levels, extrapolating data, and in this case, making it up.

Let us not forget that 1000 years ago southern Greenland had trees and London was known for it's superior wine.

Point being, is that climate change (which is the new national religion, it seems) should be taken with as much scrutiny as any other science. It's irresponsible to take everything at face value because "they say so".

There is no ill in scrutiny. It's necessary.

by Non Sequitur on 11/22/2009 @ 1:45am
@ NiN:
Sir, why are you so closed-minded? It seems that anyone who disagrees with you is immediately put down as a member of idiot town. You sound more like a neo-con than a coherent, rational thinker. That attitude is the one thing I hate about the Puget Sound region: the inability to tolerate those who disagree with you. It's all too prevalent, and even worse in the 206. I'm glad I left there in 2006.

I certainly hope that this NiN internet persona of yours isn't truly reflective of who is sitting on the other side of the monitor.

Often times you will find that those who preach the loudest are those with the most doubt.

by david on 11/22/2009 @ 7:21am
As far as testing goes, you CAN test how much CO2 the production of energy, materials, and products create. You can also test the affects CO2 has in our atmosphere and test the way light and heat interact with it. You can also do scientific research to see how CO2 correlates with past, natural hot/cold cycles on earth. You can also do scientific research to see that our current CO2 levels beat those past cycles and also that it is directly due to the calculated human CO2 creation from the first experiment mentioned.

From there you can test the affects of the higher CO2 and higher global heat oh ice, wind patterns, atmospheric moisture with controlled scientific experiments. Then, scientists in different fields and parts of the world can see how this will translate into higher rates of floods, droughts, heat-waves/fires, hurricanes, ice storms, etc.

Global warming isn't the wishy-washy, faith-based whims scientists as it seems from snippets we get from the media or blogs. There's been a huge buildup of evidence that has been gone over and improved upon by countless professionals all over the world. That is why the consensus is as broad as it gets in the scientific community.

I apologize for dismissing your skepticism. I follow this stuff closely so it's easy to forget that it's impossible to know enough about every topic to have a proper understanding of them all. That is why we turn to the news and people we trust for what to think on the topics we don't have time to fully investigate. We all do it.

by wildcelticrose on 11/22/2009 @ 8:54am
Wow, some people are being so unreasonable in here, I'm no even certain that I should bother...

But sometimes, I just can't help myself.

Global Climate Change (the term "Global Warming" was an unfortunate choice of words) is happening.

The changes in weather, frequency and severity of hurricanes and other storms and the retreating glaciers are difficult for any reasonable person to dismiss.

The argument seems to be, is it natural or is it human caused.

Fossil records indicate that global climate change has happened before. When I worked in the deserts near Moab Utah, we had fossil records of plants found in rain forests embedded in the sandstone, a layer or two below geologic record that shows a dry desert climate and layers of rock created by blowing sand.

Virtually every culture on this planet has oral history that speaks of great environmental change: floods, ice, fire...

With that said, to think that our pumping the environment full of C02 and other harmful emissions is not adding to/creating problems, is willfully ignorant at best.

Even without the threat of global climate change, we should be looking for cleaner more efficient forms of energy; if not for our own health, for the health of future generations.

Even a pig knows better than to poop where it eats.

by fredo on 11/22/2009 @ 8:55am
If global warming means the Greenlanders will be deprived of their trees or the British will be deprived of their wine, that would be a bad thing.

OTOH, if the sea level rises about 80 feet I'll have waterfront property.

by NineInchNachos on 11/22/2009 @ 9:51am
Carl Sagan was teaching about global warming back in the 70's

residents of Iditot Town, USA want to deny global warming so they can keep their tire-burning jobs and continue 'business as usual'

Unfortunately 'business as usual' means extinction.

I fucking love human beings. I am one. AND I will not sit here and listen to a bunch of punks shit on the memory of Carl Sagan.

SCIENCE IS the REAL DEAL




by panachronic on 11/22/2009 @ 10:02am
It's great to see that magnanimous tolerance that progressives are so famous for, R.R.

So I suppose "idiot town" also includes the 40% or so of climate scientists who do not agree with the currently fashionable theory, right?

And I suppose the various ice ages must have been caused by the lack of CO2 emissions at that time.

And the tropical conditions that the dinosaurs lived in? That was because the dinosaurs belched a lot, right?

Oh, and of course it is perfectly reasonable to expect no deviations from the climate norms established in the first half of the 20th Century. We were right to believe that the weather would always be the same.

I would offer some discussion of how this issue is intimately connected to gay marriage, school prayer and filling potholes with cheese, but I'll save that for another post to save space. That, and it's also just polite to stay on-topic.

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 11/22/2009 @ 10:25am
The right wing people are so charming.


ďPray for Obama: Psalm 109:8Ē

by panachronic on 11/22/2009 @ 10:37am
"The right wing people are so charming."

That's priceless.

by david on 11/22/2009 @ 11:04am
"40% or so of climate scientists who do not agree with the currently fashionable theory" hahahaha! I'm sorry, but the scientists at Pat Robertson University isn't a reliable sampling of the scientific community!!!

I also like how you ignored the flow of scientific progression I mentioned that states past cycles and how this cycle is different and how those differences are due to humans.

Earlier someone mentioned the sun although test after test shows no correlation between the sun and the changes being seen. That's not to say there isn't one, but science works by asking a question that can be tested then testing it. The more tests you do that support a theory, the more accepted by other scientists it becomes.

I have some issues with people dismissing the evidence.

Issue 1: "40% or so of climate scientists"
Problem: That's a huge number. You can't label any scientist who disagrees with a detail about the evidence as "not agreeing".

Issue 2: "global warming is a HOAX" because of emails you haven't read.
Problem: You assume it will reveal a hoax because you already believe in one, yet these emails have yet to yield such evidence.

Issue 3: When the dust settles, you will believe you found a smoking gun just as some believe a Kenyan birth certificate was found for Obama.
Problem: All of the many Kenyan BC found so far have been proven false and one has yet to surface. There has also yet to be any sort of scandal from these email other than the fact that someone hacked into a server to get them.

by panachronic on 11/22/2009 @ 11:23am
Actually, there IS evidence of a correlation between sun cycles and global temperature. Perhaps your attention to the matter is not so exhaustive as you claim.

Yes, 40% IS a huge number. I like how you dismiss it without addressing it. That's typical of the AGW faithful -- ignore contrary evidence, first by ridicule, then by wishing it away if necessary.

Honestly, the hoax-email thing has yet to be vetted and won't demonstrate the existence of a grand conspiracy even if it is. But if it does pan out, it will certainly demonstrate that there is a kernel of truth to what some of us have been saying for years: that the science is tainted by self-interest and social/economic agendas. It would be difficult for a reasonable person not to conclude that much more scrutiny is warranted.

I can't imagine why you would bring the birther thing into this, unless you have doubts about the viability of your position (see my remarks about ridicule, above).

by david on 11/22/2009 @ 1:44pm
The point about the birther thing is that you have an idea and you're looking for evidence to support the idea.

The problem is that you mention things like 40% yet those voices have yet to speak. I see these numbers all the time yet the people don't exist. Lists that are mentioned include countless scientists who aren't involved with global climate change or who are supportive but at some point spoken out against one aspect of the science. Yes, of course there are going to be some people involved with GCC who are skeptical, but they are in an important, but small minority. The 40% number is simply a number that supports your views but it simply doesn't exist.

I did mention sun cycles because it's true that the sun plays a role in climate cycles on earth and the point I was making is that, although many people in the scientific community brought up this concern (and are still making new tests to prove/disprove), there's isn't yet correlation between those cycles and the evidence we currently have for climate change that doesn't match our natural cycles due to man-made interference.

"tainted by self-interest and social/economic agendas" humans can't make business, educational, governmental, historical, religious, or any decisions without being tainted to a degree by self-interest and social/economic agendas. Those emails could end up showing a few who did things wrong, but more importantly they show that a huge population has been asking countless questions and executing an overwhelming amount of tests that are meant to interpret reality with minimal human interference in the result.

While the general population may be left confused over the years by "global cooling" "global warming" global climate change" "sun heat" "galactic flairs" "green house" "ozone" "carbon emissions" etc, the scientific community has been proving and disproving ideas and has come to a consensus about a few key points. Mainly that 1) rising levels of certain chemicals are unprecedented in human existence, 2) humans are, at the least, a partial cause, 3) global average temperature will rise, 4) this will likely cause minimal to severe regional environmental changes and/or disasters.

We are both entitled to our opinions. The difference is that what we think is based on what we see while what deniers see is based on what they think. That makes it difficult to argue with them because their evidence is scarce so they rely on their ideas as evidence. That means we can only argue their opinions as there is no evidence to argue.

When arguing opinions, nobody wins. Also, please some repeating numbers posted on some other deniers blog who also doesn't have any evidence.

by L.S.Erhardt on 11/22/2009 @ 2:10pm
Actually, that's incorrect. Believers and deniers BOTH behave how they do based on what they think. What we think is based on what we "see". What we "see" is based on what we want to think.
EVERYTHING we believe is based on how we think. It's 100% in your head, you know.

If you presented complete, unambiguous proof that global warming does not exist, the believers will ignore you, since it isn't in-line with their goals.

If you presented complete, unambiguous proof that global warming does exist, the non-believers will ignore you, since it isn't in-line with their goals.

I agree with NS, that there is so much social/political/corporate/financial clout behind this issue that is becoming the de facto national religion. As such, I think we've passed the point in time where we'll ever be able to find out the for-real truth.

Too many people have too much to gain either way from this argument. An impartial jury can't exist anymore.

by panachronic on 11/22/2009 @ 3:40pm
"The difference is that what we think is based on what we see while what deniers see is based on what they think."

Nonsense. You and others like you refuse to see new evidence that doesn't support your preferred conclusion. You've made the threat of man-made global warming an article of faith, to be defended against all challenges at all costs. By definition, that isn't science.

by Jesse on 11/22/2009 @ 4:37pm
If there is only, let's say, a 5% chance global warming is real, are you willing to gamble mankind on that five percent??

I'm not.

by panachronic on 11/22/2009 @ 5:07pm
"If there is only, let's say, a 5% chance global warming is real, are you willing to gamble mankind on that five percent??

I'm not."

So, does this mean that you are walking or biking everywhere you go, eating all of your meals cold and refraining from using electricity?

I doubt it..

by NineInchNachos on 11/22/2009 @ 5:20pm
TO'T. I think therefore I am; what is reality? stuff is old bro.

It's too political so there is no way to get at the truth?

Are you insane?

by NineInchNachos on 11/22/2009 @ 5:22pm
and Mofo from the Hood, I must question the sanity of ANYTHING written on a website using the MS Comic sans font. How can you take that stuff seriously?


by NineInchNachos on 11/22/2009 @ 5:34pm
even so, I'm sorry if my comments an anyway gave the impression that I condone acts of cannibalism against anyone who thinks global warming is a hoax. These are not comments consistent with a man running for Tacoma City Council.

As your representative I promise to give honest consideration to your ideas. Together we can make a difference.

by dltooley on 11/22/2009 @ 5:59pm
@Jesse - 5% might be just about right.

On the subject of hoaxes and taxes let's all remember a little thing called WMD's in Iraq. Now, that, that is 100%.

by Jesse on 11/22/2009 @ 6:00pm
"So, does this mean that you are walking or biking everywhere you go, eating all of your meals cold and refraining from using electricity?

I doubt it.."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am certainly not completely refraining from using portable energy. I will however vote for legislation, look for better MPG cars to drive, and watch out for what I can do for the planet in my personal life.

Your comment proves that some people just can't think outside of absolutes - for which conservatives are famous. Can you see where someone would believe in global warming and do what they can do in thier lives and not go crazy O.C.D. about it? I'll vote for legislation that helps reverse global warming, polititians, and do what I can do on a daily basis to... do what I personally can to help.

I think, in the long-run, technology will help reverse or fix these sorts of problems. But when will that be? 100, 200, 1000 years from now? But to flat out deny it BECAUSE Al Gore presented it to the world, Glenn Beck says it's a fable, and you're radio is stuck on the AM dial doesn't make global warming a hoax... it just makes you ignorant.

by Mofo from the Hood on 11/22/2009 @ 6:32pm
Maybe the U.S. can get a loan from China and fix this this global warming catastrophe. 'Cause I just might not be around long enough to contribute every red cent I earn to the plan to fleece global idiots.

by spoonfulofpeter on 11/22/2009 @ 8:03pm
Ok, Panachronic is ignorant. Can we end the conversation there?

I've been researching global warming for the past 3 months. I've spoken dozens of people who have worked directly with climate change data for decades. It's no hoax. Global warming is anthropogenic.

This is not a political issue. Unfortunately it has become one.

Feel free to go on living your bloated, wasteful life. Your grandchildren will greatly appreciate it.

by Mofo from the Hood on 11/22/2009 @ 10:46pm
I just asked my Japanese neighbor lady down the hall if the globe is getting warmer and she said no.

by Non Sequitur on 11/22/2009 @ 10:55pm
Sir, you are just as much a part of the problem as I am. Western Society, and those that seek to emulate it, have been borrowing the future generations wealth, both literally and figuratively, for 200 years and the rate of theft is accelerating. You are living as bloated of a life as I am, as Fredo is, as NiN is, as panachronic is. WE ALL ARE.

EVERYTHING we have, our electronics, our cheap food, our spacious homes, our tennis shoes, our shirts, our relatively disease & parasite free existence, out 75+ year life span... everything in our modern world is dependent on cheap oil and the abuse of less developed nations and their people. Unless you live in a cave wearing a loincloth, you're part of the problem.

Spoonfulofpeter, you say to have researched GW for 3 months? As I previously mentioned, I am a skeptic. Would you please present your data for me? I'd like to know.

by Mofo from the Hood on 11/23/2009 @ 12:22am
I'm with James Madison. God Bless America!

Down with the America bashers!


by L.S.Erhardt on 11/23/2009 @ 5:43am
@ NS... of course everything is based on oil. Hell, even the dollar is pretty much backed by crude. Ever heard of the phrase "petrodollar"? I didn't invent it.

Food for thought: with all the oil we burn, we still can marginally feed the 7 billion people alive. Yes, with proper management, the US alone could feed the world. But it ain't gonna happen.
Now think about what if we never used oil & coal for anything? I doubt there'd be more than 2 or 3 billion today.
I'm not advocating going out and letting 5 billion people starve just so Al Gore can get a woody...those who make the most noise are the ones who stand to profit the most.
What I'm saying is that just about everyone who boo-hoos about carbon, oil, climate change and all that seems to forget just how entrenched this stuff in in the "modern" world. Nothing we can do, save reverting back to an 1850s agrarian world, will solve this issue.

Just sit back and enjoy the ride, because for every pound of carbon you save, there will be 500 made in China... as they continue to build empty supertall skyscrapers in hick towns, build freeways to nowhere, build square-mile malls with only 17 operating stores in them and as Shanghai adds as much office space yearly as NYC has total - while most of it sits vacant.

by tacoma1 on 11/23/2009 @ 8:44am
So it looks to me from reading all of these comments here, that the climate change opponents don't actual deny that climate change is happening. It's just that they just aren't willing to do anything about it. As we all know, climate change won't affect us that are living now too much, it's our grandchildren and great grandchildren that will be the ones to suffer. Hopefully, for the sake of our future generations, the worlds collective political will be stronger than the selfish attitudes expressed by some on this blog.

There is plenty we can all do to reduce our carbon footprint. A person just has to care. Most people care about their money first, which is why a carbon tax, or a carbon cap and trade economy has to come into effect. When it costs more to pollute than to not pollute, even the most ardent right wing wack job will care about the environment.

As far as China's emissions go, stop buying there crap. They will quickly stop building it and shipping it. China's problem is now solved.

As far as our cars go, buy an EV as soon as you can, take transit, or get off your lazy butt and walk or ride a bike. Now 50% of our emissions are solved.

And then about our Power plants. Gradually power down all coal fired plants in the US, and replace them with wind or solar. Now 50% of our remaining emissions are solved.

I know that this is an over simplification of the problems and solutions, but when people say that there isn't anything that can be done about climate change, they are full of it. What they really are saying is that the don't care enough about the future generations to do anything to solve these problems. It's as simple as that.

by Mofo from the Hood on 11/23/2009 @ 10:28am
"...when people say that there isn't anything that can be done about climate change, they are full of it. What they really are saying is that the don't care enough about the future generations to do anything to solve these problems. It's as simple as that." T1

If you really care about future generations then stop advocating ridiculous tax schemes that put this and the next twenty generations in financial bondage.

by tacoma1 on 11/23/2009 @ 10:34am
If I were in charge of a carbon tax, it would be revenue nuetral. Polluters would pay, non polluters would not. It would be a matter of personal choice to be in financial bondage. If you choose to pollute you choose to pay, and pay dearly. If you choose not to pollute, you don't pay, and have no financial bondage. Pretty simple.

by fredo on 11/23/2009 @ 10:43am
tacoma1@

If climate change is worsening as quickly as you suggest and if 50% of our emissions problems could be solved by switching to mass transit, walking, or buying electric vehicles, wouldn't it behoove us to build out as much mass transit as possible by whatever means possible and as affordably as possible?

Or would it be better to proceed cautiously and use the most expensive building methods possible?


by fredo on 11/23/2009 @ 10:49am
"Polluters would pay...and pay dearly" tacoma1

People who choose to live in Tacoma and work in Seattle are causing an enormous carbon footprint. Should they pay?

by Mofo from the Hood on 11/23/2009 @ 11:24am
Let's look at how pollution taxes work in real life, right now.

Exhibit 1: City of Tacoma Public Utilities Statement

Surface Water [tax]
Tel: (253) 502-2100 Public Works Environmental Service
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the great idea of equitable distribution. Equality under the law. Everybody becomes poor equally.


by L.S.Erhardt on 11/23/2009 @ 11:47am
Cap & Trade, as currently proposed by congress, will be the death blow to the economy. Those idiots have made sure the biggest polluters (who give the biggest contributions) will be able to waltz away scott free. I would have thought that we'd learned by now that any time DC gets involved with anything, they F-it up.

Besides, China ands India, the two biggest polluters (not including the US, though China will surpass us any day now) have already committed to NOT joining any carbon taxing system. So once again, you pay and pay and save carbon while the 2 countries responsible for 2/5 of the world's population continue to pollute even more.

If you really want to make a big difference, there is one, only ONE form of power production besides oil that gives us sufficient energy. We need to build a helluza lot more nuclear power plants. Hydro is great, until the EPA and the bleeding hearts cry too much about salmon (never mind fish ladders)... but hydro isn't available everywhere. We're just lucky that the Columbia is a hydro champion.
We need to build nuclear plants. And until we do, ain't nothing gonna change.

Also, @ tcoma1:
"As far as China's emissions go, stop buying there crap. They will quickly stop building it and shipping it. China's problem is now solved."
I challenge you to do that. You know why? Because it is near impossible anymore. I thought I'd give it a shot last year, and I gave up real quick because it is nearly impossible to buy non-food items that aren't made in China.

by tacoma1 on 11/23/2009 @ 11:54am
@Fredo
A carbon tax, or a cap and trade tax on carbon would go on all carbon expelled. So of course cretins like me would pay for the carbon I use to travel back and forth to Gotham. As I use public transportation for the majority of my trips, and as soon as D-M is done, I will use Sounder for 99% of my trips, I will be happy to pay any extra that is due.

If the carbon tax gets to be too much, I might just have to change jobs, or get my company to open up shop in T-Town. A lot of people would likely decide not to commute in such a case. Tacoma's economy would probably flourish under a carbon tax environment.

@Mofo
Any type of carbon tax would have to be at the minimum on a Federal level, if not Global level. Any local tax would not be a valid comparision, even if I knew what you are talking about.

by L.S.Erhardt on 11/23/2009 @ 11:58am
Finish Satsop and then we'll have something moving in the right direction finally.


by tacoma1 on 11/23/2009 @ 12:01pm
@ TO'T
Can we store the nuclear waste in your back yard? Not all of it of course, just a little bit, maybe a dump truck loads worth.

And your right, there is alot of push back around the globe on a carbon tax. We probably should stop trying and let the next generation figure it all out. They will be much more motivated to find a solution than us, with New York, California and Miami all knee deep in salt water.

by L.S.Erhardt on 11/23/2009 @ 1:26pm
I don't have a backyard. Asking to store nuclear waste in one's yard is none too good of an argument.
If you wanna call Hanford "Our" backyard, go ahead. If it's properly contained there in accordance with federal laws and regulations and international standards, what's the big deal? I don't see the Tri-Cities suffering any. They're the fastest growing region of the State.

Sir, if you honestly believe that solar and wind alone can generate all the power we need and will be needing, then you have not fully comprehended the amount of power we actually use nor the limitations of solar, wind and tidal.
Look at France. They're an energy exporter and have one of the best nuclear power systems on the planet. Do you see any mag-lev bullet trains here?
I think not.

Nuclear is the only other source of power other than fossil fuels that will meet our needs for now and the foreseeable future. Build a breeder reactor (illegal in the US because Osama Bin Rotten might get his hands on plutonium! ZOMG!) and most of your waste is taken care of for you.

See the irony though? No energy is free. Nuclear makes some radioactive waste. Fossil Fuels pollute the air. Wind turbines kill birds by the thousands and take a lot of petroleum to make. Solar takes a lot of petroleum to make and alters the environment by blocking the sun to whatever it's placed over. Nothing is neutral, nothing is free.

Maybe, maybe if we built kilometer-tall solar towers all over the southwest and all over every desert, then solar power may stand a chance. I see no funding or plans to construct any. Besides, the EPA won't allow it. Gotta protect the desolate desert sands and bail out Wall Street.
Imagine the freaking forest of solar towers (the technology does exist) we could have built with the money wasted on teradollar bail-outs and like $3 trillion in Iraq. Talk about theft.

What I'd like to see are geothermal wells built in the Cascades. THAT would go a long way to help making WA an energy exporter AND making a dent in the problem. But once again, have to protect the Hoary Marmot.

There have to be some trade offs, because animals, even non-human ones alter their environment. It's what life does. And with nearly 7,000,000,000 of us, there is no way to exist without impacting the environment. I say pick your evil. And I chose nuclear.

By the way... The next generation won't be knee deep in saltwater. Just like the world won't end on December 21, 2012.

by tacoma1 on 11/23/2009 @ 1:58pm
@TO't
Ok I did exagerate, if the're short, they will only be ankle deep. Now what about hanging on to some of the nuclear waste for us? Maybe I can put you in the John McCain camp. All for the benefits, let someone else have that nasty waste. He won't even let the waste travel through Arizona on the way to Nevada.

by panachronic on 11/23/2009 @ 3:21pm
LOLing @ spoonfulofpeter, who says he wants to "end the conversation"... but of course what he really wants is to continue the preaching without opposition. After making a couple of gratuitous personal attacks, that is.

But yes, it IS a political issue, and it always has been, right from the very beginning. It's about power and money, and one group imposing its will upon others.

by panachronic on 11/23/2009 @ 4:04pm
@ tacoma1...

OF COURSE the climate is changing! It's always changed. Ii was changing constantly before there were humans, and it will continue to change after we are gone.

Scientist readily admit that they don't really know what caused the climate to change in the past. It's ludicrous to believe that they have suddenly got it all figured out.

by Marty on 11/23/2009 @ 4:33pm
P - Chronic

Question for you:
In your opinion, what impact, positive or negative, have we as humans had on our environment (air, water & earth) ?

by marumaruyopparai on 11/23/2009 @ 5:52pm
You libural homersexural marriage lovin' enviruninmentalist types is jus' tryin' ta take away ma' god given constatutional freedomz wit all dis' globul warmin' nonsense. I'z gonna drive mahself down to the cornerstore tunight in ma 10 miles to the gallon pickemup truck an' pick me up a half-rack a Miller and some cigarettes. Gonna spend me the evenin' burnin' mahself some tires in the backyard with my pitbull and listenin' to some Toby Keith songs 'bout luvin America in demunstration of ma' constututional liberties.

by L.S.Erhardt on 11/23/2009 @ 6:48pm
@ Tacoma1:
Again, put any waste in an appropriate, designated facility with full adherence to federal regulations. Put it at Hanford, downtown Bellevue or next to the mall. As long as it is properly dealt with, it's a non-issue.

And in regards to John McCain:
McCain=Palin=Bush=Obama=Clinton=Frank
Republican? Democrat? Politicians? They're all exactly the same anyway. Only difference is the rhetoric.

Quite frankly, I'd like to go a day without discussing these cheese-for-brains politicians. It's bad enough I have to hear my family harp on that bullsh*t.

by Non Sequitur on 11/23/2009 @ 7:00pm
What happened to you? Did Gary Locke beat you as a child or something?

"all politicians are evil", "dump nuclear waste at the mall". What next?

by L.S.Erhardt on 11/23/2009 @ 7:05pm
I'd like to volunteer 535 people I know in DC for the one-way trip to Mars program. The world will be a better place once the rockets leave the launchpads.

Sorry, NS. I have no love for the political establishment because everything they do is for their own personal gain, or the gain of their corporate masters. They don't work for you and me, they only care as far as the campaign dollar stretches.

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 11/23/2009 @ 7:13pm
It is trite but it is true, never teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.

by Non Sequitur on 11/23/2009 @ 7:28pm
If teaching a pig to sing would stop global warming, we are mandated to devote $Trillions to making it happen.
Think of the children of the future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.

I decided long ago, never to walk in anyone's shadow.

by L.S.Erhardt on 11/23/2009 @ 7:38pm
This has been an incredibly insightful discussion.

And it also has been painful to read. I hope 1/2 the people on here don't really think like they are posting from behind the safety of their avatar.

by david on 11/24/2009 @ 1:44pm
"I hope 1/2 the people on here don't really think like they are posting from behind the safety of their avatar." Very strange comment. Are you saying they aren't as safe as they may feel? I'd like to know what you're talking about.

A lot has been said since I last posted, yet everything's exactly the same! Nice...

by L.S.Erhardt on 11/24/2009 @ 2:36pm
I meant that easily half (or more?) of the commentary is inarticulate bull honkey.

And as for "safety of the avatar" it's simple. While some of us know each other in real life, most of us are at least partially anonymous.
It's easier (and safer) to say unpopular things with anonymity. Would you rather be a whistle blower against a big powerful corporation as "733th4xx0r_99 from teh internets" or as "Dave Jones, 1234 Main St, Auburn WA"?
Now, in this case,I'd say it's socially safer. In many real-world examples, it's also physically safer.

And I'm ok with that because you have to have anonymity to have free speech.

by marumaruyopparai on 11/24/2009 @ 4:15pm
Who you callin' inartikulate? Ain't no way, no how you could no who's inartikulate heere cause we all typin', not talkin. I may not spell too good but but ah' arikulate jus' fine, I know cause I speak each word out loud as ah' type as means of coping with mah speech impedument disability. Ah' artikulate jus' fine thanx, if you wanna make fun of my spellin however thas differnt.

Lotta purty subjective opiniunated biased type idears up in hea fo' sho'. Don' agree wit' alot of it but is jus' opinians no how anyways. Don't know if ah could say half of its bull thou, might be a bit o' a stretch. That jus' sound ta me like more opinunated bias type talk o' diskountin the honest type expressed opiniuns o' otha people.

I do agree though with ya bout all that practikul type talk o' energy alternative type solutions to eliminate the burnin' o' the coal an' such. You right fo' sho' that wind an' solar by themselves is a paltry no count solution for this country's power needs. Them geothermal wells sound intriging, no need to speek ill o' the hoary marmot tho', them's some cute little fellers.

Ah like the safety of mah anonymity up in this hear site but would be jus' as happy expressin my opinions in person. But it sounds like we all in agreement bout that wut with free speech an' all.

by NSHDscott on 11/24/2009 @ 4:56pm
Let's pretend global warming really is a hoax. No one is claiming that pollution and limited resources partially owned by unfriendly countries is also a hoax, right? So, is it really a bad thing that we're trying to reduce pollution and find alternate sources of energy? Global warming isn't the only reason to build solar and wind plants, require the filtering of pollutants, insulate our houses, buy Prius instead of Hummer, etc. Global warming is just one good reason out of many (some would say the biggest reason, and it definitely would be the biggest if it's real) to do these things.

by L.S.Erhardt on 11/24/2009 @ 5:27pm
@ marumaruyopparai

Aye, I cannae undurrsaand ye, laddie.
Don't ya thank yurrr axeent is a beit theick?

by marumaruyopparai on 11/24/2009 @ 7:13pm
You wuz makin' plenty o' sense before but I don't speak that europeean mumbo jumbo, got no idea wut you said. Still, tit for tat though, 'spose it's only fair, think all this practice enunciatin' an articulatin' might be interferin with mah typin an spellin.

I agree with the golden retriever. The science behind global warming is real, we're running out of fuel and are already knee deep in the search for adequate energy alternatives, so we have nothing to lose continuing the transition to clean energy alternatives.

The the crux of the arguments made by Thorax as for as I can tell is that these alternatives need be more than just clean alternatives, they need to be practical and cost effective. The biggest challenge facing our country's transition to cleaner energy is economics. Thorax has proposed several energy alternatives that don't exacerbate current anthropogenic contributions to climate change and that are also economically feasible. Nuclear energy, despite being much maligned, is a cost effective and efficient alternative to fossil fuel based energy production that does not produce greenhouse gases. What it does produce is lethal nuclear waste. So despite the dirty plutonium threat, the greatest consequence is storage of the extremely long lived and extremely dangerous nuclear waste products. However, as Thorax mentions, wind power and solar power have yet to come into their own as economically viable competitors of nuclear and fossil fuel power (unfortunately). Also, we could all move into caves and eat raw squirrel, another alternative.

I have met a physics professor who suggested a wind farm up in Alaska, around the Aleutian Peninsula I believe. Idea being, that the wind could be harnessed to generate power used to produce liquid hydrogen fuel that could then be mass transported via existing oil pipe-line infrastructure. Get some hydrogen gas stations up and running in the lower-48 and poof, hydrogen powered cars. This would be an enormous and expensive undertaking however. Also, the hybrid and electric car tech has already been popularized. So. . .nuclear power?


by panachronic on 11/25/2009 @ 5:05am
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

by Non Sequitur on 11/25/2009 @ 6:38am
Three things I must address.

@panachronic: clever parody, but I still like the original better.

@TOT: which half of the commentators are the drooling idiots?

@marumaruyopparai:
We already have the hydrogen economy. In the universe, hydrogen is pretty much 99.999999% of the total energy source.
You see, all hydrocarbons we burn are just that: complex chains of carbon and hydrogen. When we burn 'em, the oxygen in the atmosphere reacts, burning off the hydrogen. The carbon doesn't get burned. It just gets combined with the oxygen to give us carbons dioxide and monoxide.

The irony is, that we already have the most economical and efficient way to transport and harness the power of Mighty Hydrogen.

by tacoma1 on 11/25/2009 @ 8:28am
Hydrogen powered cars, definitely, but not now, 20 to 40 years from now. Electric cars, 10 to 15 years until they are wide spread. Solar, wind, geo thermal, and nuclear power plants, even if we started now, it would be 10 to 15 years till they are on line. And we aren't gonna start any of this now, we are all too busy arguing about god and country, and anti 'mericun bull.

What we could do now, if any one actually cared to do it, is conserve what we currently have. If all you did was to take the bus one day a week, you would cut your gas bill, and your air pollution by 20%. And then, maybe you could walk to the grocery store, don't drive, yeah I know that will mean you can't buy as much per trip. You just might have to walk back and forth two or three times a week. That can't be healthy, can it? And supporting the local grocer is probably a bad idea too.

by fredo on 11/25/2009 @ 8:33am
What we could do now, to follow up on tacoma1's excellent suggestions, is to quit taking employment at locations that require commuting. All this commuting is causing enormous pollution. Find a job that you can walk to. That will be healthier too.

by tacoma1 on 11/25/2009 @ 8:42am
Fredo, I'm not a perfect human. I do contribute to global warming too. Just not as much as most people. And my commute via public transportation isn't the main cause of global warming.

Another thing people could do, but probably won't, is to eat less beef. You don't have to become a vegetarian, but if you just ate less beef, and more fresh vegetables and beans, that alone would reduce green house gas emissions greatly. You would probably live longer too.

by Mofo from the Hood on 11/25/2009 @ 9:17am
Hey, don't forget---Socialized Abortion!

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 11/25/2009 @ 9:33am
I suspect that eating more beans could actually increase the greenhouse gases. Perhaps there is some sequestration system that is being developed for bean eaters.

by tacoma1 on 11/25/2009 @ 9:35am
Actually, it's the methane from the cows for anyone that cares.

Socialized abortion would be cruel, off the point, and typical right wing wack job rhetoric.

by NineInchNachos on 11/25/2009 @ 10:14am
this one is your you mofo

wonkette.com/412398/wonkette-gift-guide-...

by Mofo from the Hood on 11/25/2009 @ 10:44am
You really don't see the link between anthropogenic global warming and government mandated abortion?

You do understand what an anthropocentric world-view is? Secular humanism? Socialism?

by NineInchNachos on 11/25/2009 @ 10:55am
Mofo, is it lonely in crazy town?

by Mofo from the Hood on 11/25/2009 @ 12:55pm
Down with human-bashers!

by NineInchNachos on 11/25/2009 @ 2:03pm
up with mini-skirts!

by Altered Chords on 11/25/2009 @ 3:36pm
Global warming; In another 50 years Washington will be the new California. Nachos - I don't think your children will have a problem inheriting a $3MM house from you that only cost you $150,000.

Keep warming the globe. Do it for your children.

by marumaruyopparai on 11/25/2009 @ 3:38pm
You see, all hydrocarbons we burn are just that: complex chains of carbon and hydrogen. When we burn 'em, the oxygen in the atmosphere reacts, burning off the hydrogen. The carbon doesn't get burned. It just gets combined with the oxygen to give us carbons dioxide and monoxide.

Wow, wow. Thank you Dr. Sequitur for the brilliant insight. My whole perspective of the universe has now changed. You mean to tell me that when hydrocarbons are burnt, the so-called conservation of matter principle actually applies and the carbon doesn't just burn up into thin air!? Brilliant.

We already have the hydrogen economy.

I see, I see. So what you're saying is that burning hydrocarbons and burning hydrogen gas are essentially the same thing, hydrogen economy. Ergo, apples and oranges are also exactly the same thing, just named differently.

We were talking about alleged consequences of the production of greenhouse gases via combustion of hydrocarbon fuel and possible fuel alternatives that do not produce those gases. You seem to have gotten a little confused, let me help you Dr. Sequitur. The global warming problem, as its alleged, is exacerbated by hydrocarbon combustion because the byproducts are water and CO2 like you said. CO2 being our greenhouse gas. The byproducts of hydrogen combustion are O2 and water. See the difference?

I realize you're tempted to rush through some of the science to arrive at your dubious conclusion that global warming is little more than a hoax cooked up by the liberal conspiracy machine as a means of distracting conservative god-fearing Americans from the Obama Administration's plot to forcibly abort the fetuses of god-fearing Christian women under cover of night to be ground up into a fetus paste that will be used as not only raw material for stem cell research but as a tasty, nutrient rich food source to be fed to the hungry, teeming masses of illegal Mexican immigrants. It's okay, I understand your concerns. . .I don't necessarily share them, but I understand.

As for the rest of you non-conspiracy theorists. I found an interesting blog last night after my last contribution to this thread. It's hosted by a University of Oregon honors student apparently, and is chock full of updates and news about the global transition to clean energy (though it hasn't been updated since 2006). It even includes a reference to the Aleutian Peninsula wind farm and hydrogen pipeline idea that I mentioned before, it's under the June 01, 2006 update titled "Thinking Big: Pan-European Wind Energy 'Supergrid' Proposed." I thought the blog might be of interest to people concerned with the increased utilization and innovation of clean energy sources. Not so much for Thorax, who clearly is only interested in increasing our radioactive waste output and population of three-eyed "Blinky" fish.

by Mofo from the Hood on 11/25/2009 @ 4:59pm
All I've been saying is that in the real-world of public policy, we have to consider the factors that influence and motivate people.

Incentives matter. Economic incentives.

If you want to say that all scientists and Obama are great humanitarians, you'll have plenty of company on this blog.

by L.S.Erhardt on 11/25/2009 @ 5:21pm
In regards to Non-Sequitur: Isn't the half I'm referring to obvious?

In regards to marumaruyopparai, problem is, as previously stated, that for our current and projected energy needs, nuclear is the only alternative that we have that can do the job.

Now, there is a type of solar tower that was going to be built in Australia before the world economy and the bank financing it went T/U. The design was based on previous smaller ones. The tower was to be 1 kilometer tall, shaped like a traffic cone and with a base of 10 square kilometers. The entire exterior was to be solar panels. Awesome, but here's the brilliant part. Air inside the structure heats up. And as Dr Sequitur will tell you, hot air rises. So, the tower had the "cone" part lined on the inside with hundreds of wind turbines. This tower not only provides mega juice, but the internally contained turbines solves the bird issue (big problem, esp in Cali where even eagles and condors are getting killed en masse by turbines). It's win/win. The design supposedly would generate 10 MW during the day and 4 MW at night (just from the winds).

I don't see even 1 of those things being built in this country. I mean, really. Build 100,000 of those things and you're generating a terawatt at day, 400 gigawatts at night. Holy frap, that's a lot of juice. Combine all those with hydro and the geothermal we SHOULD be doing in the Cascades, and you'll not need all those nuclear plants.

But we're not building them, and even if we did and they managed to go up despite the environmentalists and the NIMBYs, it'd be YEARS before it was up to speed. Only thing in the interim that can do the job besides fossil fuels is nuclear.

This is what bothers me:
Many people fail to realize that nothing we do is environmentally neutral. Even solar isn't neutral. We have to balance what power we need versus the literal and figurative cost of getting that power. The hard-core environmental zealots (a religion?) don't get it. Nothing we can do to generate power is environmentally friendly. You have to go with lesser the evil. And I say that putting 100,000 one kilometer tall solar towers all over the place is way less evil than coal-fired plants all over the midwest...

This is why I keep on mentioning nuclear. YES, there is radioactive waste. Yes, Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island. But for the actual amount of juice we need, the money cost and the effect on the environment, nuclear is the only feasible alternative we have at this point and for the foreseeable future.

But you don't have to use it as a crutch. Just run nuclear while you take the 25-50 years it's gonna take to build all those solar towers and geothermal plants. It's the only realistic and feasible way to go to a hydrocarbon-free means of energy.

by marumaruyopparai on 11/25/2009 @ 5:22pm
@Mofo

Nah, I'm definitely not suggesting all scientist and the Obama administration are great humanitarians. The notion that climate scientists are embellishing and over extrapolating data to ingratiate themselves with agenda motivated politicians, win tenure and recognition, and draw grant money, seems entirely possible if not entirely likely. So I think I find myself in agreement with you on your point that economic incentives matter.

I'm pretty sure the rest of my unnecessarily long-winded diatribe was motivated by indignation (not real indignation, just the kind one claims to feel when he's looking for an excuse to shoot his mouth off) felt after being lectured on the hydrogen energy economy by Non Sequitur.

by marumaruyopparai on 11/25/2009 @ 5:37pm
@Thorax

You lay a lot of info down, I enjoy your bold and informed perspective.

by Jesse on 11/25/2009 @ 5:50pm
I always wondered why noone was putting windmill plants outside of Aberdeen and Raymond on the old Weyerhouser properties on the coast. I'd think that'd be better than nuclear.

Anyways, if you use common sense and note the particulates being put in the air (whatever parts per million)in the form of greenhouse gases, than you realize that it effects the environment. Just like you can't fill the air with arsenic from a copper plant (ahem!) and not have it effect the environment somehow. Just like a volcano can cause a nuclear winter like state if there's enough ash in the air. Just like the Tacoma aroma never existed from crud being pumped in the air... right?

by Marty on 11/25/2009 @ 6:38pm
P - Chronic,

Question for you:
In your opinion, what impact, positive or negative, have we as humans had on our environment (air, water & earth) ?

by Non Sequitur on 11/26/2009 @ 6:59am

by fredo on 11/26/2009 @ 8:49am
If these emails between environmental scientists are legitimate it certainly casts doubt over global warming claims. Would anyone really be surprised if data was being fabricated just to perpetuate government grants?

by tacoma1 on 12/1/2009 @ 8:26am
The following is an excerpt from Robert Brown's blog that can be found in the PI's website, He is an atmospheric scientist, and a UW emeritus professor. I personally like to get my scientific information from scientists. But that's just me.

blog.seattlepi.com/robertbrown/

"To accuse the climate scientists of conducting a conspiracy to promulgate falsehoods to the public for personal gain is disengenious at best. There's danger of being a simple minded dupe of the super-rich, media controlling oil barons. The scientists are most often tenured professors of environmental sciences, or working for a federal institute like NASA, NOAA or NCAR --- with rigidly fixed incomes in the $100,000/year range. They have nothing to gain or lose through GW policies. They get rewards or ignominy by being right or wrong. The deniers are supported by big oil operatives --- about 40 of the richest 100 people in the world --- with incomes closer to $10,000,000/year. You want to find a conspiracy, follow the money."

by L.S.Erhardt on 12/1/2009 @ 10:01am
To completely absolve members of the scientific community from being human and being susceptible to personal motives is disingenuous at best.

While you may not need to throw out all GW data, I'd say anything touched by Phil Jones and those implicated in these emails needs to be thrown out. Its damaged goods.

Remember, the dude Phil Jones has collected at least $26 million in government grants.

And ain't no one with deeper pockets than the government.

Follow the money.

by Non Sequitur on 12/1/2009 @ 10:24am
Sigh, I thought this thread was done with. I guess some people just can't stand to be proven that their Religion is a sham.

by Non Sequitur on 12/5/2009 @ 7:09pm
Breaking News!

Louisiana had yesterday their earliest recorded snowfall, breaking Louisiana's 2008 record. Also, Mississippi got some unseasonable snowfall as well.
Apparently up to 4" fell in the Magnolia State...

by david on 12/6/2009 @ 7:47am
@Non Sequitur: It's definitely interesting that this thread is still alive. As for the early snowfall, that's why the emphasis was changed to "global climate change". Global warming will affect different regions differently, but I can understand how that fits into the idea that the world is not warming. Just remember that from the "climate change" perspective, a single region isn't representative of the world so using such links won't have an impact on those you're arguing with.

As for the emails. It makes sense that it reinforces your world-view, but it has yet to impact the rest of us. We have yet to come across an unusual amount of morally suspect individuals. I have still only heard about one scientist playing with numbers, referencing another scientist who did something similar. And even in that one case, I am still hearing a back and forth about if what he was doing nulls the results he got or if it was part of an acceptable process. All the articles I read say he did something wrong but nobody seems to know what was wrong or how it affected the data. "Hide the decline" is an easy soundbite, and it sounds like this data from the late 90s can't be found or something. Anyone have a decent link?

But, so far, the emails only show that there might be a few rotten apples in a pretty large database of individuals. I don't see how that changes anything. There certainly isn't yet an apparent trend to fudge numbers to get funding. There's a lot more money to be made by fudging numbers in favor of oil/coal companies, though there's still motivation to fudge for money while keeping the respect of your scientific community by not appearing to sell out.

That's not to say that there is/isn't something going on, we just haven't found anything to remove legitimacy the Global Climate Change science. All companies, organizations, institutions, etc, can be corrupted or exploited, so it's always a possibility.

I'd certainly like to know if I'm being duped, but so far the likelihood that global climate change is happening far outweighs the possibility that it is not. And if we implement policy correctly, we'll only have to suffer a technology/greeneconomy boom, more responsibility for how we affect others through our actions, and a more beautiful world (OK, the Prius is still ugly).

by fredo on 12/6/2009 @ 8:57am
This thread is going to be continuing for awhile.

Global warming is the cause which may enable socialism to gain an upper hand, once and for all, on capitalism. It's a cause which ultimately will deprive people of their property. Oh, it may not be taken from owners in the traditional eminent domain method. All the state has to do is make sure that property owners are stripped of all possible uses of their property and the taxes on the property are made high enough to be considered confiscatory.

Once the socialist agenda is complete the evil capitalists can be strung up. We can only hope that our Chinese overlords will permit us to take a few moments each day celebrate our victory over global warming. And if comrades, it turns out there was no global warming...well, sorry about that.

by jenyum on 12/6/2009 @ 9:52am
Ironically it's starting to look China may be the most successful capitalist nation left, soon.

...and that has nothing to do with global warming.

by david on 12/6/2009 @ 11:06am
Fredo. I think that's the entire issue at hand. The fear of the exploitation of a political/social system you don't agree with is why you must refuse to accept the science behind human caused global warming. Accepting it means something must be done which will make it easier for the public to accept additional socialist policies regarding the taxation and control of pollution/energy/etc. It will also make it more likely that the public will incorporate new cultural elements to support this more widely accepted worldview, giving liberals and conservatives more opportunities to control these new cultural trends (I think it will make it easier for the conservatives to control more of these trends if they reject the policies rather than the science).

I understand the fears involved. Both socialists and capitalists have the same fear of power-grabbing with every move the other makes. People get so caught up in the purity of both theories, they forget that both have pros and cons and should be seen merely as tools for a stable democracy.

by ixia on 12/6/2009 @ 11:27am
This reminds me of South African President Thabo Mbeki. He refused to accept AIDS was caused by the HIV virus. I guess it was nicer to believe that sex with many virgin girls would take care of the infection.
Itís easy to deny that climate issues are related to driving your Ford 350 to the mall for things you donít need. Easy to deny that heating your 8000 square foot house to 80 degrees has anything to do with the environment. Itís just nicer to dream the world is ALL yours....

by fredo on 12/6/2009 @ 12:14pm
People need not ascribe to the theory of global warming in order to embrace an environmentally sensitive lifestyle. For example, while I don't necessarily agree that humans are causing climate change I do think it's important to minimize our impact on the planet. When we conserve resources we help our generation and future generations. When we don't pollute we enjoy cleaner water, cleaner air, and a more sustainable agricultural system. What's ironic to me is how many world leaders pay lip service to environmental issues yet jet around the planet to make environmental warnings.

by panachronic on 12/6/2009 @ 3:42pm
"What's ironic to me is how many world leaders pay lip service to environmental issues yet jet around the planet to make environmental warnings."

Just another indicator that they know full well there isn't really a problem.

by david on 12/6/2009 @ 4:12pm
Politicians don't know any more than the rest of us. It's so important for everyone to convince them of their side, they likely get all kinds of crazy-conflicting information. Certainly many don't care. Out of those who do, I'm sure few know what to understand. Regardless, many will want to do what's "right" so they will side with either their heart or their constituents and spout off ideas, then rush off on a plane to take care of everything else.

by panachronic on 12/6/2009 @ 6:06pm
Alright then, david... let's see you explain-away Al Gore, who has a personal carbon footprint greater than that of many small cities.

by NineInchNachos on 12/6/2009 @ 6:27pm
HEY KIDS! just picked up a tree at tollefson. Good price and nice quality.
buy a tree at twofivetrees.com/

buy your tree at tollefson plaza!


by L.S.Erhardt on 12/6/2009 @ 11:24pm
@ RR... I got a wreath there for $22 (I use a fake tree because I dislike vacuuming needles).
However, I found a very comparable wreath at K-Mart for $17.

But I'm OK with having spent $5 more at 2-5-Trees because I'm actually supporting someone in Tacoma, not [Insert Non-Tacoma City Here].

by L.S.Erhardt on 12/6/2009 @ 11:28pm
@ NS & the crew:

Once again, my opinion shall be read by the Masses, and They will stop to consider how reasonable it actually is:

All data, research, charts, whatever done by those implicated in Climategate needs to be thrown out. It's tainted, and can't be deemed as reliable. You'd need to instead focus on research done by others, completely independent of the suspect data.

Anyone, especially those of scientific mind would see this as reasonable. You can't use data from a source that has had it's credibility challenged like this. It's kinda like assuming the Kinsey Reports accurately reflect the general populace.

If you are 100% confident in the anthropic component of Global Warming, then this should be no big deal. Just use the other data from other researchers. If it will only confirm the argument, why piss and moan here? You'll be vindicated.

by david on 12/7/2009 @ 12:19am
@panachronic: I don't know Mr. Gore, but perhaps something similar to what I've already explained might apply. Perhaps he flies around to attend conferences and give speeches that he thinks are important. He's rich so I imagine he can find countless ways to make even more money quickly. For some reason he wants to talk about climate change. Is it nefarious? Is it warmhearted passion? Who knows. But if you need to be in many places all over the world, you usually take a plane and when you're really rich, you usually live in a mansion. Then again, maybe he stumbled upon a niche market and he's running with it for financial gain. That doesn't change the science he's presenting, nor the consensus that science has among those who study it.

@TO'T: I don't think anyone here is going to advocate using data that has been shown to be falsified. Last I read, there's an investigation going on to see what he did with the numbers and if it was problematic or part of an acceptable process. If his numbers are found to be bad, then throw them out along with anything that uses that data as the foundation for other projects. That data was compiled and used in the 90's though, so there's plenty of more up-to-date, more reliable research to look to instead. Being that the raw data can't currently be found (last I heard), I can't see how anyone would still be using it in their research today.

@Non Sequitur: You certainly have a popular blog =)

by L.S.Erhardt on 12/7/2009 @ 1:10am
I'd be willing to bet that the data really isn't "lost". Just like I am willing to bet that a meaningful portion of the more recent data is either based on or extrapolated from the suspect data. You don't just "lose" years of climate data that's funded by multiple governments. That kinda stuff "disappears".

I actually did download the emails and have been reading them. Most of it is BORING. But I have read a few that really, really make Phil Jones, Mike Mann and many of their colleagues look like a gigantic fraud.

Ain't gonna lie, I'm one of those so-called "moderates" that both political parties sure seem to like to talk about winning over each November. I try my best to take each issue on it's merits and not some party line (as I actually have no political affiliation)
What I've read pretty much discredits just about all of the anthropic theory. And honestly, I feel really mislead. If I was a member the the GW camp, I would be working real hard to distance myself from these guys and their data. If they don't, all their credibilities are in jeopardy.
I know I'm not the only so-called "moderate" who is now doubting the actual amount of anthropic influence.

by NineInchNachos on 12/7/2009 @ 8:37am


"Reality doesn't care if we are on-board with its mandates or not. The human race has to get with whatever program reality is serving up at a particular time. Are we shocked to learn that scientists fight among themselves and cheat as much as congressmen? Does that really change the relationships we understand about parts-per-million of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere and the weather?
What the people of the world can do or will do about a change in climate is something else. My guess is that the undertow of entropy is now too great to provoke any meaningful unified change in behavior. The collapse of the US economy is too close to the horizon, and the so-called developing nations will have problems equally severe. In the meantime, it is unlikely that any of the major players will burn less coal and oil, or not cheat on each other even if they pledge to burn less. People who are not knuckleheads will make the practical arrangements that they can. These will, by definition, be localized, small-scale, and non-global communities, doing what they would have to do anyway."

kunstler.com/blog/2009/12/climate-oil-wa...

by NineInchNachos on 12/7/2009 @ 8:49am
anyone posted this yet?

www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?i...

by NineInchNachos on 12/7/2009 @ 8:59am
"Iíve looked into the emails and the code, and there just isnít any there there. No smoking gun. As a computer scientist who has worked extensively with simulations, I can say that it is common practice to play around with data to test out different scenarios, but the key point here is that none of the fudged data was ever published as real data. None."

politicalirony.com/2009/12/05/climategat...

by tacoma1 on 12/7/2009 @ 10:22am
The climate deniers aren't likely to admit that they are wrong. They aren't even willing to admit that they aren't qualified to interpret the scientific data.

When NS mentions the few places on the globe that have early snowfall, he shows his lack of understanding of climatology and in how the temperatures affect the climate around the globe. I'm not a climatologist, but I have taken a college level course in atmospheric science, so although not an expert, I am able to recognize a climate idiot when I see one. He also omits the fact that the temperatures aren't even record lows. The reality is, that the warming of the globe can easily cause more water evaporation around the globe, thus more moisture in the atmosphere, and thus more precipitation in certain areas around the globe, i.e. early snow in Louisiana and Mississippi. Ergo proof that climate change has happened.

He also omits all of the places on the globe that are having record warm temperatures.

For example: MOSCOW - "Moscow on Thursday saw its warmest December day in recorded history, allowing locals and tourists to walk around without heavy coats but preventing bears at the zoo from hibernating."

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34258808

Now for a quote from a dead smart guy:

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)



by Marty on 12/7/2009 @ 10:33am
@ Panachronic

Question for you:
In your opinion, what impact, positive or negative, have we as humans had on our environment (air, water & earth) ?

by Altered Chords on 12/7/2009 @ 10:57am
It is cold outside today. Global warming must be a hoax.

by david on 12/7/2009 @ 11:23am
Maybe the problem is that if this was a movie, the ice caps would have melted by now and flooded every major world city. Perhaps at this point in the movie, places like London and Seattle would be deserts and we'd all be wearing cargo shorts, racing in cars for the last drops of oil.

by Mofo from the Hood on 12/7/2009 @ 11:51am
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)" ---T1. 10:22am

Is that true?


by L.S.Erhardt on 12/7/2009 @ 2:01pm
People who unquestionably adhere to a political ideology and party lines are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people unquestioningly believe everything the media, government and corporations tell them.

Thorax O'Tool
American artist and philosopher (1982-2102)

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 12/7/2009 @ 2:37pm
Stupid is as stupid does, I heard somewhere.

by dolly varden on 12/7/2009 @ 4:16pm
This isn't politics, it's physics, as in the physical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. You can be pessimistic or optimistic about whether we can figure out how to deal with (i.e. reduce) our emissions in time.

Pessimistic: www.grist.org/article/2009-12-07-the-phy...

Optimistic: www.grist.org/article/2009-12-07-as-cope...

by Mofo from the Hood on 12/7/2009 @ 6:20pm
I'm skeptical about both the reliability of the scientific data and the reliability of the people that wrote it.

by tacoma1 on 12/7/2009 @ 9:31pm
@TO'T
The claim that the climate scientists are pursuing a politcal ideology would only make sense if their results yielded different results under the Bush administration. The reality is that the climate scientists under the Bush administration had virtually the same results as under the Obama administration. The only difference is that Obama isn't at war with science and Bush the oil man suppressed the climate change science as much as possible:

"Bush-era EPA document on climate change released
The 2007 draft suppressed until now calls for regulation of greenhouse gases, citing global warming as a serious risk to the U.S. A finding by the Obama administration is nearly identical."

blog.climateandenergy.org/2009/10/15/lat...

Which brings me to my next point. Most climate deniers are funded by big oil. That would be corporate spin machines and misinformation factories. Hmm, I'm definitely not in the oil biz, but aren't you kinda in the oil biz?

"WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3ĖA new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."

www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonM...

by Mofo from the Hood on 12/7/2009 @ 9:43pm
Climate Change

Obama Change

...The more things change, the more they stay the same.

by tacoma1 on 12/7/2009 @ 10:06pm
ďAn ostrich with its head in the sand is just as blind to opportunity as to disasterĒ

by L.S.Erhardt on 12/7/2009 @ 10:48pm
To assume that only scientists cooked the books during the Bush years is a fallacy. There will always be some that cook the books no matter which way to get funding. If Administration X is not a fan of GW, then by god the studies that follow that line get funding bucks. If Administration Y is a fan of GW, then by god the studies that follow that line get funding bucks. If you are unscrupulous (like our homies Phil and Mike), then you'll have no qualms tweaking the data to keep the funds coming in, to keep your research up. If you'll note, the individuals implicated in Climategate have been getting international funding, so one country or two not "towing the line" is no biggie. And besides, there is often more to gain than just cash.
I don't understand why there seems to be this mystique that scientists are somehow super-human and above the same type of behavior that we're all prone to. We're all human, and we all are capable of doing bad things for selfish reasons. 100% of politicians are living proof of this.

As always: Follow the $.

As has been echoed here before: GW is too politicized today to get down to the for real truth of the matter. There is too much power and $$$$ to be made on BOTH sides of the aisle. This is why political parties are such a terrible thing: they twist and warp; destroy everything they touch.

If you cannot see that, try taking of your partisan-colored glasses for a few minuets and take another look.

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 12/7/2009 @ 10:57pm
Once the oil companies figure out how to make a buck off of this global warming business we'll see the conservatives singing a different tune. Just as the coal companies have come up with their "clean coal" technology we'll see the oil companies come up with their carbon reducing oil pretty soon. "Use all you want and take carbon out of the air".

by tacoma1 on 12/7/2009 @ 11:17pm
If you follow the money, the big money is actually coming from Exxon/Mobil, not government drones and tenured professors.

Big oil clearly has the most to gain by delaying climate change mitigation. Big oil will continue to make billions the longer they can delay the inevitable change from a carbon energy economy to a renewable energy economy. Ideally for big oil, the longer they can delay the transition from oil, the better chance they have of bypassing electric cars, and going straight to hydrogen technology. That would allow them to just replace one of our addictions for another. Exxon/Mobil really doesn't care if they sell us gas or hydrogen, as long as they can sell us something. Electric cars would be of course, be a disaster to big oil, as EV's totally skip their business model and would make them null and void.

So yes, I agree, follow the money, the billions that big oil makes, or the thousands that tenured professors make. If you actually do follow the money trail, it leads straight to Big Oil.

by NineInchNachos on 12/8/2009 @ 12:12am
it is no secret Mr. O'Tool makes all his money from cooking asphalt and crude oil all day. Heck most of his ideas are born in a slurry of sulfur fumes... (that's brimstone for you anti-science folks). How you can take his opinions on climate change seriously is beyond the scope of any reasonable civilized human being.

I don't care how boring he finds the hacked science emails.

by dolly varden on 12/8/2009 @ 7:31am
I'm waiting with bated breath for someone here to argue that the sun revolves around the (flat) earth.

by Altered Chords on 12/8/2009 @ 9:53am
Gosh, I sure hope those darn conservatives don't figure out how to make mone from global warming.

The last thing we need are viable solutions that provide jobs for people. We want to keep pointing fingers and arguing with each other via blogs.


by Altered Chords on 12/8/2009 @ 3:54pm
Money - not "mone" Sorr. I like to omit the letter y from some of my commentar. It is such an ambiguous letter that I franl find useless.

by dolly varden on 12/8/2009 @ 4:12pm
"Y" is to AC as scientific facts are to global warming "skeptics."

by tacoma1 on 12/8/2009 @ 8:32pm
@ Altered Chords
The conservatives are coming, or at least the capitalists are coming. Case in point: Bob Lutz the quintesential car guys car guy.

Per Wikipedia, Lutz' bio is: Lutz is currently a GM exec, ex Chrysler exec, and ex fighter pilot. He is known as a collector of classic automobiles and military jets. Lutz has expressed skepticism on the issue of global warming, and on one occasion referred to it as "a total crock of shit."[7]

Anyway, Mr. Lutz stated as recently as this month: "Going forward, the automobile industry simply can no longer rely on oil to supply 98 percent of the world's automotive energy requirements."

Of course, he wants to sell us Chevy Volts. Nissan Corp. will also soon be selling a relatively affordable Nissan Leaf, and Ford, Mini, and Mitsubishi (and I'm sure that Honda, Toyota, and Subaru) are all working fast and furious on their own EV solutions. Tesla and Fiskar are perhaps the soonest to the market, but their vehicles, although seemingly amazing, will remain niche players due to their price points. The environmental community will likely be behind all of these endeavors, the government will as well. As soon as it is cheaper to not pollute than to pollute, all of America will be onboard as well.

green.autoblog.com/2009/12/03/la-2009-bo...

by fredo on 12/9/2009 @ 8:34am
One way we could address environmental problems in general, and perhaps global warming as well, is to begin a commuter tax. Every person who works in a city different than the city of their residence and commutes by motor vehicle would pay a substantial tax, let's say $5000 per year. If they drive their own car and are not car pooling the amount could be higher, let's say $7000. This would be simpler than cap and trade, it would be a tax not levied on poor people who don't have jobs, and would help us limit suburban sprawl and increase urban density.

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 12/9/2009 @ 8:52am
Brilliant idea, fredo. I can see this working but the poor are the ones ending up in the 'burbs and the wealthy are returning to the city in droves. To make matters worse the transit to the 'burbs is getting worse if there was some to begin with. The days of the urban slums are just about over. I guess the current economy put a stop to the rapid urbanization but I suspect the urban areas will be the first to pick up when the economy rights itself.

by Altered Chords on 12/9/2009 @ 8:57am
Cash for Caulkers will solve global warming and the high unemployment rate while also solving the problem of what to do with the $200,000,000,000 that the U.S. treasury is getting for the financial system bailout but will not need for that bailout.

I wonder if I will be able to get some of this bailout money unlike the last 2 bailout programs (first time homebuyer, cash for clunkers)


by fredo on 12/9/2009 @ 9:13am
Altered Chords: I would suspect that a disproportionate number of the people who were able to use the first time home buyer credits and cash for clunkers bailouts were government employees. They're the only segment of the market where workers have virtually guaranteed jobs and the jobs will never go down in pay.

by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 12/9/2009 @ 9:28am
Virtually guaranteed unless you happen to work for the state of California. I suspect we'll be seeing some of this in Washington state when the next legislature shows up in January. We'll probably see the city of Tacoma follow pretty closely along with the school district. Once the state goes the other forms of government will follow pretty closely.

Cash for Caulkers is a fine program but what good does it do for the person that loses a well insulated home to foreclosure.

by fredo on 12/9/2009 @ 9:58am
"what good does it do for the person that loses a well-insulated home to foreclosure?" Crenshaw.

I loved this rhetorical question. Thanks.

Another thought about the Cash for Caulkers program. It rewards people who have blown their money on lifes frivolities like SUVs, jet skiis, home entertainment systems, vacations, etc. while ignoring basic home maintenance. The people who have maintained their homes while denying themselves the frivolities get zip. This is nothing but further
encouragement for people who have chosen to live beyond their means.

by NineInchNachos on 12/9/2009 @ 10:58am
thriftiness is next to godliness

by david on 12/9/2009 @ 5:07pm
Fredo. There are people who simply can't yet afford such basic home maintenance. I personally don't own an SUV, a jet ski, a home entertainment system, cable television, a computer younger than 5 years old, plane tickets for a vacation, new clothes, etc. But I do own a home and have been spending as much money as I can into fixing it up, making it more efficient.

The problem is that there is an endless number of things I can do to make the place better. I just finished rebuilding the second bathroom so I can rent out all my rooms. I put in new insulation and a new window in that and a couple other rooms, but there are many more walls and windows and not much extra money in my savings. Right now, I can feel drafts coming in at different places and I am now trying to figure out how I can use something like Cash for Caulkers to save money and stay warm.

I am not living beyond my means. I am making very wise investments. I have not blown my money. I have enough money to make sure I stay on my feet if anything bad happened and I don't spend frivolously. I am saving and investing and appreciate being given a helping hand in these troubled times.

Also...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

by tacoma1 on 12/10/2009 @ 7:15am
@fredo
Yes commuters need to pay for their carbon usage. An arbitrary amount like you have suggested, isn't the right way to do it. A carbon tax on all carbon, plus a toll on vehicle miles travelled (VMT) or perhaps tolling the roads would get those nasty evil commuters.

by fredo on 12/10/2009 @ 8:41am
David- Your plan to rent rooms out sounds like a good one. Why not get a small loan from the bank so you can finish this up and put in some tenants?

My own home could probably use new duct work, insulation, windows and a new furnace. So I'll probably look at the cash for caulkers program too.

tacoma1-My wife commutes every day to King Co. so I'd have to pay the commuter tax I suggested myself. Just having some fun with you, have a great day.

by Altered Chords on 12/10/2009 @ 9:04am
It warms my heart to know that my federal income tax that I will need to caugh up 4/15/2010 will go to such good uses as fixing Davids drafty house and putting new insulation and windows in Fedo's place.

Merry Christmas David and Fredo.

by david on 12/10/2009 @ 11:40am
Thanks Altered Chords. Your taxes have warmed my heart!

Fredo, after finishing that second bathroom, I did fill the rest of my rooms. One of the rooms is filled with a non-renting brother who is helping me on the house (including that bathroom!) and who is looking for a job. Once he finds a job (to replace his part-time job) he'll be paying rent too! Who knows how long that'll take though...

I can't get a loan because I don't have enough money paid on the house and I don't have a new car for the bank to seize if I default on a loan so nobody I've talked to will loan me anything right now. Any ideas?

Merry Christmas Fedo and Altered Chords! Merry Christmas old Building and Loans!

by Non Sequitur on 12/10/2009 @ 4:55pm
You can't get a loan because the banks are insolvent, being kept alive by OUR tax dollars.
Yet despite the hundreds of billions of dollars we're giving them, the banks aren't lending because they still have over a $Trillion in worthless assets to deal with. They aren't lending because they are using tougher standards (like they should have all along), so pretty much these days the only people who qualify are the ones who pretty much don't want/need a loan. The banks know much bigger losses are coming, only the ones who are the closest friends with Bernake are willing to gamble.

I'm not trying to be an ass, but if you don't have the equity or collateral to get a loan, then the banks are right to turn you down cold. Look at what the risky freewheeling of the lat decade got us. Enough said.

@ Fredo and his commuter tax. I think that your tax ought to include a premium based on city size. Assess it at $1,000 per 100,000 residents. Commute to Bellevue? $1,250, thankyoverymuch. Commute to Tacoma? $2,040 please. Commute to Seattle? $5,700 please. Commute from Bellingham to Vancouver, BC? $6,300 please.
Commute to LA? That will be $38,000. NYC? Hope you can get a loan for that $67,000 tax bill. but hey, you work in the Big City, right? You CAN afford it.

Decreasing households as both the young and elderly stay @ home (or return) is going to deal a slap to the recent days of urbanization. And with record unemployment and some of the most populated areas of the country in a foreclosure crisis that makes our own issues look like a joke, I don't see anything except for a trend back to the family home into the suburbs. A commuter tax will only undo all the urbanization done in recent times.

by david on 12/10/2009 @ 8:59pm
@Non Sequitur: I agree that I shouldn't be given a loan. I'm actually pretty happy with the setup at the moment. I spend the extra money I have on making my house more appealing to me and my renters.

I agree that there are problems with Fredo's proposed commuter tax. Perhaps he wasn't entirely serious or was at least aware of some of its problems when he proposed it. However, our roads are in severe disrepair and we have one of the lowest gas taxes in the world. How about we make that tax more reasonable so people, like myself, who drive 60 miles to get to work are actually paying for the roads they use?

www.urban.org/PublicationImages/1000845/...

That would probably help with some of that Global Warming stuff too.

by Altered Chords on 12/11/2009 @ 5:05pm
Great - tax u.s. citizens for driving to work while china and india burn oil to their hears content while they industrialize and turn our planet into a tinderbox.

by david on 12/11/2009 @ 5:35pm
@Altered Chords: I don't see what the problem is. You'd be paying for the roads you're driving on (and possibly for initiating alternatives to having to drive yourself to work). Either way Washington and the US must pay for its roads. Should we make people buying shoes or paying rent/mortgage or working hard pay for the transportation budget or should we have drivers pay for their own roads based on how much they must/choose to drive?

I'm having difficulties understanding your indignation. Is it because you think roads are required for the welfare of the state and all citizens must contribute equally to the roads based on where they live (regardless of how much or IF they drive)? Perhaps we should balance between the two a little more instead of taking the burden almost completely off the actual drivers.

Also, what does Washingtonians/Americans paying for their road usage have to do with China and India?

by Non Sequitur on 12/11/2009 @ 7:54pm
It's because China has finally surpassed the US as #1 polluter.
It's because we will be getting the sh*t taxed out of us (approaching socialist Europe levels of tax) while the polluting in China/India/wherever next (Africa is the Last Frontier) ramps up more and more.

When it comes down to it, what net good is done if we cut our emissions by 75% only to have it entirely, and then some, made up for by SE Asia?

Therein lies the frustration, because for any meaningful decline in pollution, there are only 4 options, and some may beget others on the list:

1) EVERYBODY, and I mean the US, EU, China, India, Russia, Brazil, whoever need to really step up to the plate. There is no net "gain" if SE Asia makes up for our slack.
2) a complete global economic collapse brings us back to an 1840s way of life.
3) Oil for real becomes too scarce to be economically viable
4) 5,000,000,000 people die

Which one of those is the lesser evil?

by NineInchNachos on 12/11/2009 @ 9:02pm
wont number 3 lead to number 2 ?

by Non Sequitur on 12/11/2009 @ 9:24pm
#3 could lead to #2 and then possibly to #4

by Mofo from the Hood on 12/11/2009 @ 10:27pm
Siberian Oil, oh yeah, got oil if ya want it.

India and China/SE Asia---What they're doin'---It's called economic development.

Meanwhile, the self-absorbed 7 sexes of the Western world are occupied with global whining about tolerance toward "life-style choices," and the effect of second hand cigarette smoke on city park trees.

by Non Sequitur on 2/10/2010 @ 10:57pm
News just in... the east coast is digging their way out of the second blizzard in a week, third in less than 2 months.

I enjoy the delicious irony of the White House and the Capitol being buried under several feet of snow. With the lawmakers in DC unable to work, things actually might improve in this country.

by NineInchNachos on 2/10/2010 @ 11:09pm
Hill Billies confusing WEATHER with CLIMATE gives testimony for the need to better fund public schools.

by Non Sequitur on 2/10/2010 @ 11:14pm
*sigh*

by Non Sequitur on 2/10/2010 @ 11:55pm
Folks confusing religion with disgraced science gives testimony for better funds for public schools

by panachronic on 2/11/2010 @ 4:01am
Folks confusing religion with disgraced science gives testimony for better funds for public schools

Religion = organized adherence to an irrational belief system based on unproven or unprovable ideas.

It seems to me that this applies equally well to belief in the Sky Gods, Santa Claus, or anthropogenic global warming. I would welcome a thoughtful rebuttal from anybody who disagrees... but I'm really expecting just more snotty rhetoric.

by KevinFreitas on 2/11/2010 @ 6:57am
panachronic: I'd like to know about how you lump global warming in with religion? What about it makes you think it's less science and more smoke and mirrors?

by dolly varden on 2/11/2010 @ 9:01am
Here's an article panachronic can read to learn how to deal with his global warming skeptic self. In a way, I hope he/she continues to resist reason -- I feel kind of bad trying to shatter his/her illusion that all is right with the atmosphere. Must be nice.

www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

by Altered Chords on 2/11/2010 @ 9:31am
sounds like the snotty rhetoric pana c. was expecting. Proof that our expectations are delivered by the universe

by panachronic on 2/11/2010 @ 12:18pm
panachronic: I'd like to know about how you lump global warming in with religion? What about it makes you think it's less science and more smoke and mirrors?

If you step back and look at it from the perspective of one who believes in neither religion or AGW, you will see that all of the elements are there.

Both rely on faith (ie., firm belief in something for which there is no proof).

Both are used as a means to control peoples' behavior.

Both use guilt, shame and fear as motivators to exert that control.

Both result in proselytizing to unbelievers.

Both result in scorn and even hatred toward heretics and unbelievers.

Both rely on a caste of learned masters (in AGW, certain 'scientists' are the clergy) to reveal and interpret the "truth", which is not knowable without their help.

Both seek to impose their values on the masses by co-opting the mechanisms of government.

I could go on like this for quite a while, but I think you get the idea. For nearly every element of organized religion, there is a corollary within the cult of AGW. Is AGW actually a religion? Perhaps, or perhaps not. But looking at it objectively, it's not hard to see why an outsider might ask the question.

I'm out of time for the moment, but I'll be back to address the second part of your question later today.

by NineInchNachos on 2/11/2010 @ 12:41pm
where is mofo. I want off this bus.

by Mofo from the Hood on 2/11/2010 @ 1:36pm
First, in the case of religion the starting point is a doctrine of God---physical attributes and behavioral tendencies and characteristics. To narrow the topic I'll comment on Christianity which is technically a faith although it does have religious rituals. Christianity does not rely on obedience by "use guilt, shame and fear as motivators to exert that control.". Obedience is a personal choice and an informed choice. Christianity is a teaching religion that uses words to instruct disciples on the reasons why they should obey God strictly out of love because of God's plan for eternal salvation. Either one accepts the revealed truth (as an objective referent, denotative proof) or one does not. It's an individual gamble that affects one's eternal destiny.

Science has not and cannot disprove the existence of God. It is physiologically, logically, and ideologically impossible to address the nature of reality with complete objectivity.

In a parallel sense to Christianity, one can have faith in science. Take an example from theoretical physics: subatomic particles, say neutrino's. No one has ever seen one, yet many people believe they exist. Physicists and mathematicians spend countless hours constructing theories and equations and they strive to build symetry and coherence built from a series of inferential and deductive judgements. You want me to believe in neutrino's? Point to the objective referent, the denotative proof.

If one rejects Christianity in favor of Naturalism, it isn't for intellectual reasons. It's for moral reasons so that one can dismiss any responsibilty for one's personal behavior.


by Altered Chords on 2/11/2010 @ 3:38pm
What happened to the good old days when you could see filth belching forth from pipes right into rivers?

Back in those days it was easy to be an environmentalist. We would say "look at that ugly crap going into the river killing all the fish. Oh, you think it's OK - go ahead and drink a glass of that river water then. Yeah...didn't think so"

Why, in Ohio a river actually caught on fire!

We even learned that to conserve energy, we should not stop on our gas pedal at green light and keep it fully depressed until we had to go from 80 to 0 and had 2 feet to do it in.

Nowadays we need to believe in a guy like Al Gore. Like the televangelists before him, I'm sure we'll find out that he's defiling his own religion by having a grossly huge carbon footprint.

But...

AGW is not a religion. It is a relationship with Al Gore.

by Mofo from the Hood on 2/11/2010 @ 4:26pm
How can anybody explain the cult of Al Gore? He's part warlock and part Hindu spiritural guide and part film maker of sci-fi comedies.

by NineInchNachos on 2/11/2010 @ 4:36pm
lock box.

by marumaruyopparai on 2/11/2010 @ 4:58pm
Hey P-Chronic, you're comparing the fervent AGW believers to a cult, you can't call the alleged phenomenon itself a religion. The alleged phenomenon is based on a proposed chemical/physical mechanism that occurs in the atmosphere, not supernatural chicanery. All the studies rely on observation of empirical data and the scientific method. There's no proposed physical mechanism to support the existence of, or belief in God. Unless of course, you count that whole God module in the brain concept. Don't blame a theoretical concept for the zealous behavior and political motivations of a fraction of its supporters. Data can't proselytize.

by marumaruyopparai on 2/11/2010 @ 5:05pm
If one rejects Christianity in favor of Naturalism, it isn't for intellectual reasons. It's for moral reasons so that one can dismiss any responsibilty for one's personal behavior.

Brit Hume of Fox News suggested that Tiger Woods convert from Buddhism to Christianity as a way of dealing with his Las Vegas hooker binges.

"I think that Jesus Christ offers Tiger Woods something that Tiger Woods badly needs."

Hume was offering Woods an opportunity to join a faith that will forgive infidelity and rampant sexual hedonism. Essentially Hume was suggesting Woods become a Christian for moral reasons so that he can dismiss any responsibility for his personal behavior.

by Altered Chords on 2/11/2010 @ 5:17pm
Mara etc. have you applied scientific methods to determine Hume's motives?.

by marumaruyopparai on 2/11/2010 @ 5:22pm
@Chords

Those motives are currently sitting before a panel of my most trusted and accomplished scientific experts and enduring intense scrutiny. I will provide an update when we have consensus regarding a rational scientific explanation of those motives.

by marumaruyopparai on 2/11/2010 @ 5:27pm
Just to warn you however, a consensus may not be forthcoming.

The methods and motivations of the Fox News organization and its representatives have in the past proven completely inscrutable to contemporary methods of rational scientific inquiry, or for that matter, even common sense.

by Mofo from the Hood on 2/11/2010 @ 7:13pm
If one rejects Christianity in favor of Naturalism, it isn't for intellectual reasons. It's for moral reasons so that one can dismiss any responsibilty for one's personal behavior.

"Brit Hume of Fox News suggested that Tiger Woods convert from Buddhism to Christianity as a way of dealing with his Las Vegas hooker binges.
"I think that Jesus Christ offers Tiger Woods something that Tiger Woods badly needs."
Hume was offering Woods an opportunity to join a faith that will forgive infidelity and rampant sexual hedonism. Essentially Hume was suggesting Woods become a Christian for moral reasons so that he can dismiss any responsibility for his personal behavior."----Maru etc.

That's right. Christianity offers forgiveness and redemption. No other faith or religion does. But it isn't that Woods can dismiss his responsibility---God can. Always has. Always will. He never changes---But Woods would need to profess his belief in Christ and the Resurection. Beyond that he would need to renew his mind and change his ways and act like a man who can lead a wife and a household.

But regarding rationalism and scientific inquiry, the great thing about science is that it's always subject to revision. People like to link the word progress with science but in the final analysis, does science explain creation? No. Does science and rationalism offer a satisfactory moral system? No. Does science offer certainty for the afterlife, let alone the next 60 seconds? No.

Yet people in the science community claim they understand how to control the climate? I would love to hear an explanation of how and why Earth has just the right conditions to support life. A cosmic accident? Time plus matter plus chance? How far back in time should scientists seek answers to support their naturalisim theories?---That would be an infinite regression.


by NineInchNachos on 2/11/2010 @ 8:15pm
On the contrary Science can predict the future. Science can tell you 1000 years from now the exact location of any moon star or planet. No magic-based profit would ever be able to do that.

Science is real.
Science FTW.

by Altered Chords on 2/11/2010 @ 8:30pm
The proof of the above statement is that scientists 1,000 years ago predicted Mofo and RR would be arguing via a web log.

People just scoffed at them. "A web log" they said wagging their ignorant heads.

by panachronic on 2/11/2010 @ 8:31pm
...the great thing about science is that it's always subject to revision.

Well, that's how it's supposed to work, isn't it?

Except, for some reason, global warming believers don't want to play by the accepted rules. They insist that global warming is "settled science", and that "the debate is over!"

This, by itself, disqualifies global warming as legitimate science.

In genuine science, everything is a theory. And all theories, even our notions about gravity, are subject to revision if new facts become known, or if another theory comes to light that better fits with observations. There is no such thing as "settled science".

Another fallacy that has been pushed way too far is the idiotic proposition that global warming has somehow been proved because there is "a consensus". As if science is some sort of a democracy, where the scientists can declare the truth on the strength of majority rule. Nothing could be farther from the methods of real science. Many of the greatest scientists in history - men like Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus - and considered great today precisely because they were the ONLY scientists of their day who put forward theories that went against consensus. If science were truly a democracy, today we would be living on a flat earth, orbited by the sun, and held aloft in space by giant elephants at each of the four corners.

So now it has come to light that the global warming movement has been propped up by fraud and error, and we know (or should know) that a good deal of what we have been told is either false, or has been ginned-up using faulty methods. The climate models no longer fit the data; much of the data has been gamed; and the theory we have been asked to believe unconditionally is simply not supportable using sound scientific method.

And yet, we see the global warming faithful still clinging to what we all know (or should know) to be mythical.

Yeah, that's a cult, alright. Or a religion, if you prefer. But don't call it science.

by Mofo from the Hood on 2/11/2010 @ 8:35pm
You just think science is real because your brain chemistry determines your beliefs.

I had to say that because I'm not free to do otherwise. My brain chemistry through over 6 thousand years of evolution determines my behavior.

But evolution, whether the slow kind or fast kind, can and does produce biological curiosities. In my life time I've witnessed the phenomenon of Global Warming and the LBGT Super-Family.

by NineInchNachos on 2/11/2010 @ 8:36pm
I just channeled Carl Sagan's ghost. He says you're a boob.

by Mofo from the Hood on 2/11/2010 @ 8:46pm
That would be Carl Sagan's ultimate "Uh-oh" surprise to find himself part of a spiritual relm that he denied existed.


by NineInchNachos on 2/11/2010 @ 9:19pm
Carl Sagan lives on in my imagination.

by dolly varden on 2/12/2010 @ 11:15am
AC - If my mocking of the charitably labeled "skeptics" is too predictable, how about some professional mocking from Stewart, Colbert, and Maddow? See www.grist.org/article/2010-02-11-conserv...

by NineInchNachos on 2/12/2010 @ 11:42am
www.democracynow.org/2010/2/12/climate_s...

"As record snowfall crippled the mid-Atlantic this week, many Republicans used the blizzard-like conditions to argue that global warming is a hoax. We speak to climate scientist Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who argues the extreme weather is in fact a part of global warming."

by Mofo from the Hood on 2/12/2010 @ 12:07pm
When is Democracy Now going to reveal its real name?---Social Democracy Now.

by L.S.Erhardt on 2/12/2010 @ 8:51pm

by panachronic on 2/14/2010 @ 12:13pm
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

It was bound to happen. In any criminal conspiracy so large, eventually somebody is going to roll.

Now, sit back and watch as the cult's most faithful cover their ears and loudly say "LA LA LA LA LA".

by Altered Chords on 4/16/2010 @ 1:58pm
As predicted, a volcano has just erupted spewing tons of ash into the atmosphere. This will cause global cooling.

Turn your cars on in your driveway and just let them idle. Turn on your lights. More carbon people. If we don't do something to reverse this, we will not have summer this year!


by NineInchNachos on 4/16/2010 @ 2:15pm
you just HAD to resurface this thread didn't you!

by greenfringegarden on 4/16/2010 @ 3:31pm
Of course global climate change is a hoax....the Flat Earth Science people have proven that....don't you guys listen to Fox News?

by Altered Chords on 4/16/2010 @ 3:54pm
yes.

by L.S.Erhardt on 4/16/2010 @ 6:07pm
Maybe I need to revise the kangaroo for this specific thread...

by Non Sequitur on 4/16/2010 @ 7:05pm
Ah, but if things are "getting hotter" by the minuet, then perhaps this volcano will "cancel" out the alleged effects of GW?

Of course, it bears to remind people of the intense famines and cold following Krakatoa in 1883 and Tambora in 1815.
Granted, both those are far higher on the VEI than anything in modern times.

by L.S.Erhardt on 4/10/2011 @ 9:34pm
Let's bring this thread up too... maybe it'll bury the pitbull one, eh?

by jenyum on 4/10/2011 @ 9:39pm
Came across this quote again today, thanks for the opportunity to share:

"Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money." ~Cree Indian Proverb

by Mofo from the Hood on 4/11/2011 @ 8:11am
It may or may not be true that we cannot eat money, but it is a verifiable fact that we can spend it at a casino buffet.

by L.S.Erhardt on 4/11/2011 @ 11:42am
If we had to eat money, no one would have a deficiency in fiber.

by The Jinxmedic on 4/11/2011 @ 11:46am
Not if you exclusively ate coins...

by L.S.Erhardt on 4/11/2011 @ 11:59am
No, but we'd not be having to take vitamin supplements with minerals in them.
Zinc is good for you! Men need 11g and women need 8g per day, according to the FDA. Now, a penny is 97.5% zinc (it's been that way since 1982) and weighs 2.5g. So, consuming a penny gives you 4.4375g of zinc.

To meet your RDA, women need to eat 3.25 pennies a day and men need 4.5 daily.

by L.S.Erhardt on 4/11/2011 @ 12:13pm
Pre-1982 pennies are actually 95% copper and weigh 3.11g giving you 2.946g of copper. Copper is currently $4.4625 per pound on the metals futures. There are 453g in a pound, so 145 pre-1982 pennies weigh pound, but that only yields 430g.
So to get one pound of copper, you need 153 pre-1982 pennies. Thus, $1.53 face value in older pennies would be worth $4.46 on the metals market.

To get 1 lb copper out of post-1982 pennies, you'd need 7,248 pennies. Thus, $72.48 face value in new pennies would be worth $4.46 on the metals market.

by NineInchNachos on 4/11/2011 @ 12:27pm
show us your birth certificate!

by L.S.Erhardt on 4/11/2011 @ 12:46pm
Contact the State of Arizona for that. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

About

Just your average middle-aged guy in the 253.

Recent Posts