As usual when the global warming zealots show up:
It snowed, but they still came. A heavy snowfall blanketed a global warming protest outside the State House in Annapolis this morning, but it did not dampen the shouts of about 400 activists who urged lawmakers to pass the nation’s toughest greenhouse gas control law.
As supporters waved signs, chanted and banged drums, 18 legislators walked down a symbolic green carpet to sign up as co-sporsors to a bill that would mandate that all businesses in Maryland cut emissions of global warming pollution by 25 percent by 2020 and 90 percent by 2050.
“We are going to pass this bill this year,” said State Sen. Paul Pinsky, a Democrat from Prince George’s County and chairman of the senate’s environmental matters subcommittee. “We are not going to rest, we are not going to stop….We are going to keep going until we pass this bill.”
This happens so often that one begins to think that a Power is trying to get something through rather thick, leftwing skulls…be that as it may, there is also this news from Greenland:
Residents insist Greenland’s freezing temperatures don’t mean global warming has been called off
While the rest of Europe is debating the prospects of global warming during an unseasonably mild winter, a brutal cold snap is raging across the semi-autonomous nation of Greenland.
On Disko Bay in western Greenland, where a number of prominent world leaders have visited in recent years to get a first-hand impression of climate change, temperatures have dropped so drastically that the water has frozen over for the first time in a decade.
‘The ice is up to 50cm thick,’ said Henrik Matthiesen, an employee at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute who has also sailed the Greenlandic coastline for the Royal Arctic Line. ‘We’ve had loads of northerly winds since Christmas which has made the area miserably cold.’
Matthiesen suggested the cold weather marked a return to the frigid temperatures common a decade ago.
Gee, almost like its some sort of…well…what would the best word be?…..hmmm…oh, I know: its almost like a cycle; you know, a recurring pattern in weather where sometimes its warming, and sometimes its colder…
Blogs For Victory 
Well, when you have a governmental body like the IPCC, that has a vested interest in perpetuating thier climate change claims, of course you’re going to have unwarranted hysteria and legislation.
Much like the denial of progress against Islamic terrorism. Theirs is not reality based policies but agenda driven policies.
Interesting link excerpt and link below:
According to Swedish paleogeophysicist Nils-Axel Mörner, who?s been studying and writing about sea levels for four decades, the scientists working for the IPCC have falsified data and destroyed evidence to incorrectly prove their point.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf
neocon: Theirs is not reality based policies but agenda driven policies.
When criticizing those that disagree with you as being “agenda driven”, perhaps it’s not the best idea to provide a link to a Lyndon LaRouche web site.
I’m just saying.
yes yes we know Mark – there is no global warming, evolution is in your ever so eloquent words “stupid”, babies are caused by hope, and your dad showed you a calculation that proves it all. Hey I hear gravity is a liberal lie to invented by Al Gore to dishonor our troops and the catholic troops.
catholic church!
I understand the craziness that is LaRouche, but when debating an issue, it’s best not to attack the messenger.
Just saying.
Try and refute Mr. Morners assertions. That’s the best way to convince this is a reality based concern.
Again just saying.
What about the Methodist Church libT? Or the Lutherans?
The best evidence that the global warming zealots are driven by an agenda and not a genuine concern for the environment is their apparent lack of concern about the huge increase in Chinese CO2 emissions, to amounts which have caught up to, or will soon catch up to ours. When I see the Goreans protesting around the Chinese embassy, then I’ll take them seriously. Whether they realize it or not, CO2 is a greenhouse gas no matter which country produces it.
LT – Don’t blame Gore for the gravity lie. Everyone knows that this lie was first told by Isaac Newton, who wanted to blame something for that apple hitting him on the head.
of course we are concerned for the C02 emissions by China. That is currently one of the biggest problems – who isn’t concerned??
Global warming and cooling are normal climatic cycles. Global warming is caused by the sun!
Man’s contributions are small by comparison!!!
AAR
If this is such an important issue facing mankind, why would anyone want to limit the debate?
The following is another interesting excerpt and link.
(Chicago IL – June 29, 2007) On June 28, in an historic move the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and they are directly at odds with the so-called “scientific consensus” touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html
>>…of course we are concerned for the C02 emissions by China. – libT<<<
In other words: “We talk about China all the time at our fundraisers and cocktail parties, we are very concerned”.
still waiting on congress to pass legislation on reducing the largest contributor to green house gases…wator vapor!
oh, and any of you who are concerned with CO2 emissions, lead the way by not exhaling!
Assuming that mankind were powerful enough to actually make global temperatures go down, who in their right mind wants to go back to the winters we had in the 60’s, 70’s and early 80’s? Certainly not farmers, who are getting double the crop yields that they were then. (admittedly as a result of plant genetic research and improvements in fertilizers, but also because of warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons and a higher atmospheric concentration of CO2) Reversing the temperature would put a serious damper on the development of biofuels, an unintended consequence that I suspect few have thought of.
There’s an interesting discussion over at Anthony Watts blog about the “Top 10 science-based predictions that didn’t come true”. In his post, Anthony references an article by Steven Running, a Climate Science professor at the University of Montana (I’m hesitant to do more than one link in a post lest my comment be thrown into the dreaded “awaiting moderation” black hole.) However, in his essay, Dr. Running says the following:
Second is visionary national leadership, a “Marshall Plan” level of national focus and commitment, so everyone is contributing, and the lifestyle changes needed are broadly shared, in fact becoming a new norm. Progress on that front has not been good so far. An obvious flaw in this analogy is that many people are simply ignoring the global warming issue, a detachment they cannot achieve when they are personally facing cancer.(emphasis added)
Actually the part about the “Marshall Plan” level of national focus I agree with in terms of moving forward toward new methods and generations of energy production, but what do you want to bet you could find words similar to the ones in bold in works by Karl Marx?
One of the commenters brings up the following point, which I have never seen made before, but which is 100% spot on.
Great Eisenhower quote Spook. I think he said it all.
You got that right, neocon. That is pretty much all the climahysterics ever do, talk. I love asking them “what are you doing to stop global warming? What actual actions have you taken yourself to live the carbon neutral lifestlye?” The crickets are deafening.
Neocon, I had never heard that Eisenhower quote before, so, of course, I checked the speech. Yup, it’s in there. As the commenter at Wattsupwiththat noted, it’s a great speech, and Eisenhower was, indeed, prescient.
What actual actions have you taken yourself to live the carbon neutral lifestlye?” The crickets are deafening.
William, you’ve noticed that too? Rico still makes a valiant effort from time to time to get the Alarmists to discuss solutions. I’ve pretty well given up. For most on the Alarmist side it really is a political debate, not a science debate, and politics, from the Left’s viewpoint is really all about feelings and intentions, not results.
I usually direct them to the The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook, and tell them to read it and live the life. They won’t even take the time to get it from the library (it is actually a pretty good book. Some good environmental ideas, though, unfortunately, they are transposed into the climahysteria)
My favorite answer from the climahysterics is “I can’t afford to live the life right now.”
liberalT,
I said evolution is stupid?
“Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases.”
Where, exactly, is “probably” a scientific description?
Please explain is exact terms, how every other “possible” cause was ruled out.
Note the urgency of the issue, right now is too late to save the world is the climate of this global warming claim, yet, how does the UN take manipulated data and present it before the world to justify spending billions for a cure, when in truth, we dont even know for sure what the cause is, or, if it is indeed abnormal for our climate to vary average temperatures over a century or two.
No, the little chicken is running about screaming that the sky is falling again, its not wise to believe everything you hear!!
The Real ‘Inconvenient Truth’
Send this page link to a friend
Some facts about greenhouse and global warming
www junkscience com/Greenhouse/
Actually, no one seemed to pick up on Bull’s statement but he was dead on. People focus on CO2 like it is the most damaging greenhouse gass out there. It is not.
The most damaging one is water vapor and you don’t see anyone bitching about that. Funny thing is probably the biggest contributors to both CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere is human life itself.
I guess if we want to be really green then have to stop trying to save lives. Let the poor children in Africa starve and die. Let the mass killings in Darfur go unchecked. Increase civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan and come to the realization that we should never have stopped Hitler. He apparently was a global warming visionary.
My point is that environmental conservation is a good thing in reasonable moderate terms. It is a socialist control mechanism when applied by illogical, irrational reactionary legislation, designed to control the lives and productivity of this nation.
Perfect example: California Energy Commission’s (CEC) Proposed 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Section 112(c), Subsection (2) which attemtps to mandate remote control thermostats that the State could control. Socialism anyone? This issue can be turned into a gateway to control our lives. It cannot be allowed.
Spook, the Eisenhower quote contains a great deal of wisdom. I believe it is true that scientific work should be separated from policy decisions, and policy decisions should be separated from the technology proposed to implement it. Granted, that’s harder to do in practice than it is in theory, and any attempt will not be perfect. But by the same token, some approaches are obviously much more corrosive to the ideal than others. IMO, a really good example of a corrosive policy is grants, subsidies and the like, directed to specific industries or technologies — like corn-based ethanol, or the oil industry. And it becomes even worse if the approach is combined with earmarks handed to specific companies through no-bid contracts by politicians involved in developing the policies in the first place. That kind of scenario is way too open to corruption. Cap and trade policies can be gamed in a similar fashion.
The carbon tax concept is a better approach. And while I know it sounds reflexively repulsive because it has the word “tax” in it, hear me out. The idea is to tax any energy supplier not on the basis of the production cost of the commodity, but on the basis of the amount of CO2 it produces. As a result, the overall cost of the commodity (e.g., a coal-fired generator) is increased. That has two effects: (1) it stabilizes the base price, thus (2) allowing other, cleaner technologies to compete. This approach doesn’t stipulate any particular technology above any other. Whichever provides a commodity that is both relatively carbon clean and cost-effective in the best combination has an advantage. That separates the policy from the technology. Likewise, the technology will be motivated to incorporate whatever scientific innovations are best suited and most efficient for their process.
Another approach is mandates. A mandate is one which establishes targets for reducing CO2 over a given period of time. It’s a simple concept, it doesn’t favor any one technology or industry over any other, and it doesn’t have the word “tax” in it. Perhaps for those reasons, mandates seem to be the preferred method by both venture capitalists as well as government, both on state and federal levels.
I’m sure some people aren’t going to be very keen on either a carbon tax or mandates, because both artificially raises prices above current free-market rates. But as I see it, several technologies are at the point now where once they get over the capital investment hump, they could easily be competitive. And at that point their cost of production would continue to drop as economy of scale factors take over. In that respect, the higher initial cost is more properly considered a long-term investment rather than an unnecessary burden.
Getting back to Eisenhower… considering what he said about the danger of public policy becoming the captive of a scientific-technological elite, it might be supposed that he would be the last one to champion a large public works project that was heavily subsidized by the federal government. But he did — the Interstate Highway System. It was great for the automobile industry, which lobbied hard for it. Eisenhower considered it a necessary component of a national defense system. But however construed and reasoned at the time, the end result is that it dramatically improved interstate transportation, thus facilitating trade, thus increasing GDP, thus increasing tax revenues. Had he relied on free market principles alone the system either would never have been built, or it would have taken very much longer. As it turns out, it was a wise investment. And that’s how I see alternative fuels.
In the case of alternative fuels, they wouldn’t only be good for the environment, but would have significant repurcussions on national security and the economy. Think about it — if domestically produced alternatives to fossil fuels were available at cheaper cost, not only would it reduce our trade imbalance, but developing nations like China, India, and others, would be stupid not to take advantage of cheaper technologies. We could put the Saudis, the Iranians, the Venezuelans, and others, out of business. Assuming the commodities were produced and manufactured in the US, it would further reduce our trade imbalance. Ultimately perhaps, energy concerns could be taken out of the national security equation all over the world.
That all might sound like wishful thinking. But I don’t believe it is. Solar thermal (otherwise known as Concentrated Solar Power, or CSP) is already quite competitive with gas-fired plants. There is at least one company (Ausra) which will soon have a manufacturing plant on-line in Nevada. They’ve signed a contract with PG&E to build a CSP plant in San Luis Obispo County. Once they get really “cooking” they expect to get their costs down below traditional coal fired plants. Sometime in 2009 they expect to have a heat storage system perfected which would allow their plants to be “dispatchable” (i.e., to accommodate variable loads and operate after dark and on cloudy days). Another CSP plant just opened outside of Las Vegas. Several more are in the planning stages. Another company (Nanosolar) just completed a thin film solar photovoltaic manufacturing plant in San Jose and shipped their first order to Germany. They are also constructing another, larger plant in Germany. Ultimately, they too expect to supply PV panels for less than coal. Things are happening in the geothermal industry, too. A new plant just opened in Idaho using a new “dual phase” technology that allows the plant to operate at lower temperatures — opening up geothermal to a lot more locations than before. New Zealand and Australia are working on some enhanced geothermal plants, which could greatly expand the technology to places that aren’t considered geothermally active.
So no, I don’t think it’s wishful thinking. In fact, I think not thinking about them is thinking too small.
Freon superstitions
Editorial
Copyright 1999 Washington Times
May 18, 1999
www junkscience com/may99/freon.htm
And you thought Global warming was a hoax!!
“For most on the Alarmist side it really is a political debate, not a science debate, and politics, from the Left’s viewpoint is really all about feelings and intentions, not results.” – Spook
That about says it!