The dratted snow is entirely messing up this global warm….errr, I mean…climate change thingy:
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January “was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average.”
China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.
There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.
In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.
Looking out from my neighborhood, I’ve noticed that Mt. Charleston has a much thicker snow cover than usual (yes, we’re in sight of snow here in the Las Vegas valley) – started snowing up there earlier, and has snowed up there far more often than I’ve seen over my 13 years in Las Vegas. Heck, even the hills behind my house have received several dustings of snow this winter.
I wonder what it all means? Oh, I know – it doesn’t matter; more snow = climate change. Less snow = climate change. Higher temperatures = climate change. Lower tempuratures = climate change. The perfect theory of everything – climate change.
Blogs For Victory 
Uh, MeatS-head, yes simple-minded,
?No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA?s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.”
A fifth grader can take temperature data and plot it on a graph and illustrate them. Again, you regurgitate the “he’s not a climatologist” line. Sheesh, I guess it is too complicated for you. These are the same data tracking outlets that has been used by you global warming, climate change people to show an “oncoming irreversible crisis”.
La Nina (wow we are desperate in the presence of facts)? Oh, and if I am not mistaken – in 1998, supposedly the warmest year on record, was during El Ninio, but according to you sycophants that had nothing to do with it. Also, according to you USELESS IDIOT sycophants the sun activity has nothing to do with it as well – even though other planets are experiencing the effects and now solar activity is down and you easily dismiss as the effects of climate change.
Probably? Somehow? Sounds like you are grasping at straws. What is your training in?
For a group that uses climate change to cover all bases – snow, rain, drought, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes or lack thereof, etc. etc. – your so-called “science” has too many holes in it.
joe,
why do you even try……but who am I to stop you from making yourself look like an ass!
Kennedy not only opposed the windfarm he successfully pushed through legislation to make it harder to set even ONE generator up not to mention making it next to impossible to set up a wind farm.
I have a friend in California who bought one for his ranch. That was almost 10 years ago – it’s still in the crate!!!! He is having to jump through hoops with both federal and state regulations, permits, environmental studies, etc. etc. He has spend hundreds if not thousands more in bullshit.
So yeah, check your facts before responding. But, if you want to keep making an ass of yourself, be my guest.
Oh, and learn to read. I was specific in my post. I guess I should have made it completely idiot proof so someone with your USELESS IDIOT mentality could understand.
Joe, Kennedy and Kerry and other Mass liberals put in a Federal law requiring expensive and very complicated environmental impact (as if wind is bad?) statements in addition to those already existing for wind mill projects. EFFECTIVELY, this stopped all US windmill projects. These two could not pass a law alone. Liberals killed wind.
And so YOU yourself oppose nuclear (for the reasons you state).
And I’m just assuming that the Sierra Club and all the envirowackos would keep us from damming ANY valley. NPR would do endless stories on the poor displaced families. Come on, you know what it would be like.
So, no wind, no water, no nuke. Whats the plan then. Look – YOU PEOPLE are the ones saying there’s a crisis, remember? Your only plan seems to be to shrink our (EFFICIENT) economy and ship manufacturing to China and India. Both of those nations, and other “developing” nations have very inefficient and highly polluting manufacturing plant.
So? If Global Warming is so important. Why do you oppose every possible solution and propose one that’s counter-productive to solving it?
Answer THAT, and we’ll take you seriously.
Spook: Rico’s not eligible; he actually has some good ideas, although I’m not sure what, if any impact they would have on global climate.
It’s not fair that I don’t get to play King of the World!
So I will anyway, despite my ineligibility…
And first let me say that I think Spook’s question is based on a false premise: Even the King of the World would not be able to prevent climate change if it occurred as a result of natural events: i.e., fluctuations in solar irradiation or cosmic rays, or the earth’s internal dynamics, or gigantic space rocks slamming into the planet (although hopefully we could take some action on the space rock thing). What we’re really talking about is managing anthropogenic GHG concentrations along with land use. And even then, and even if you attempted to mandate the most draconian interventions you’re not going to stop it — not for quite a while anyway. And chances are that if you tried to get too draconian you’d meet up with a Brutus somewhere along the line (figuratively speaking, one would hope). Anyway, it seems to me that the best path to the future is one that ensures to the highest degree possible a trajectory that is both versatile and sustainable while at the same time being as painless as possible.
With that in mind, this is what I propose:
1. Tell the people burning down the rain forests to knock it off.
2. Eliminate all subsidies and tax breaks currently enjoyed by any facet of the fossil fuel industry. There are better places for that money to go.
3. Immediately start a crash campaign to dramatically spread the adoption of no-till farming practices.
4. Decouple profits from energy consumption rates in the utility industries. The idea here is to reward rather than penalize energy conservation strategies. By the way, this kind of decoupling has worked very well in California — surprisingly (and despite the very real traffic nitemares that have become part of CA lore), surprisingly, CA is the second lowest of all states in terms of per capita GHG emissions. Top honors go to Rhode Island, by the way. I’m not sure why.
5. Standardize codes and regulations associated with energy grid deployment. Right now it’s a freakin’ nightmare to cross jurisdictions. Of course this would likely give a bunch of lawyers fits, which is an added benefit.
6. Start a world-wide carbon auction system — or a carbon tax (in principle they’re quite similar, but “carbon auction system” doesn’t have the T-word in it). Hey, I’m King of the World, right? I can do that.
7. Use some of the proceeds of #6 to offset other forms of taxes and some of the proceeds to incentivize the development of alternative, carbon-mitigating, carbon-neutral and carbon-negative fuel sources. Part of this incentivization would be in the form of more funds to finance research and development. Part would be in the form of participating in the investment in “green” manufacturing and deployment companies as well as work force retraining, so as to bring them up to economy of scale more quickly. This would also include the world wide deployment of smart grid technology.
8. Round up all the advocates of grain-based ethanol and shoot them. Okay, I’m kidding — about the shooting part anyway. Maybe I’ll just send them to re-education camps. I might even appoint Spook to be Supreme Commander of said camps. That shows how serious I am about it, lol!
Well, that’s what I can think of off the top of my head. With a little time I could probably come up with other stuff (although most of it would probably be derivative). But since no one else has offered anything at all, I figure I’m well ahead of the curve.
While I do feel the evidence on global warming merits serious concern, I don’t consider myself much of an alarmist. I am of the opinion that there are significant reasons over and above concern about global warming to justify a concerted effort to bring alternative energy sources on line as quickly as possible. I am also of the opinion that if done right, such a concerted effort doesn’t have to hurt the economy very much — and would probably hurt considerably less than doing nothing at all. There is now an already huge and still growing market for clean energy technologies. Stripped down to its essence, the basic choices are to invest in that market or ignore it. If we invest we pay now. If we ignore it we pay later. And as always, it is to those that supply the technologies go the spoils. That may sound Polyannish to some. But if this blog allowed it I could provide links to study after study, and report after report to justify what I say. We are in a very real sense sitting on top of a huge goldmine, yet instead of discussing how much we should invest in picks and shovels (as is most of the rest of the world) we’re arguing whether a record cold snap in China means anything at all. Man, talk about simple-minded — or at least short-sighted.
And if you have a problem with CFLs, here’s a thought… wait for the next generation of LEDs. They should be out in a few years. And of course if you’re really worried about CFLs poisoning your kids, you might also want to keep them away from fish and Chinese toys too. In fact, I’d do that before I worried about CFLs.
But I have another, related question: are there really people who honestly believe the current status quo is perfectly fine? Are there those who honestly believe that drilling in ANWR and the Gulf will render us energy self-sufficient? Canada’s oil sands are plentiful, but they are also slow, expensive, “dirty” to extract, and require copious amounts of water. And when it comes to nuclear power, where do you think we get the uranium to run the things? And more importantly… what kind of future trajecory do those things provide?
Retired Spook | February 26th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Well, it appears we’ve run through yet another global warming thread without any of our Lefties answering the question: how do we stop it? What’s the point if you can’t answer that simple question? Seriously, what’s the point?
I have no clue how to change the climate. I do know that anything that reduces pollution is a good thing.
Everything is a trade off. CFL’s reduce energy consumption, but pose a disposal issue.
However, I do think that if Americans were not so materialistic, perhaps energy consumption wouldnt be such a great issue.
I would like to point out the one country in this world that has a perfect Nuclear power solution…the bane of conservatives and environmentalists…France.
brett, Fance is conservative again. Haven’t you heard?
Yes, we’re materialistic. The richest of the rich are liberal. They abuse worse than anyone. Sorry, it’s true.
But the OTHER nations are worse. You want to make something and not worry about pollution laws? Set up shop in China, or India, or just about any third world country. They are competitive because of their dirt poor labor costs. That and the fact that they are willing to use any form of energy necessary. #Want to see a beautiful steam train? Take a ride in China.
So here’s my take… maybe you’re right. MAYBE, your right. So? Your leaders oppose just about every solution. Oh, they want higher mileage requirements for cars. And the unions aren’t too sure thats a good idea.
IF you liberals are serious, then offer a solution. I like wind. I like nuclear and I understand the issue of waste). I like hydroelectric (given we could actually find a valley to build a dam and flood. Better efficiency? Sure – why not? All these things help lessen our addiction to foreign oil. I’m 100% for that even if global warming isn’t correct.
So do it. Stop blocking nukes. Get mad at Kennedy and Kerry and tell them to stop blocking wind mills. Look around, maybe Vermont could be flooded and provide water for New York and Boston and power to boot.
OK? Where’s the conflict? I don’t think a conservative poster here would have a problem with these actions.
But close down an efficient steel plant in Pennsylvania so production can go to some awful steel plant in China? That’s just stupid.
Kahn | February 26th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
But the OTHER nations are worse. You want to make something and not worry about pollution laws? Set up shop in China, or India, or just about any third world country. They are competitive because of their dirt poor labor costs. That and the fact that they are willing to use any form of energy necessary. #Want to see a beautiful steam train? Take a ride in China.
And who is the number #1 buyer of Chinese goods? Materialistic Americans.
So here’s my take… maybe you’re right. MAYBE, your right. So? Your leaders oppose just about every solution.
Who exactly are “your leaders”? I have voted for both Warners. I voted for Bush. I voted for Jim Webb.
I dont vote along party lines….and I seem to remember that you don’t either..although I might have you confused with another poster from Virginia.
I think nuclear is a fantastic solution. Part of the reason our rates in Va are so stable is because of the Lake Anna complex.
“America’s” leaders (not “your’s”) are responsible. The issue of energy was around when the Democrats were in power and it was around when the Republicans controlled congress and the presidency. Yet nothing has changed.
But close down an efficient steel plant in Pennsylvania so production can go to some awful steel plant in China? That’s just stupid.
Again this happened because we are materialistic. Time again when we go shopping we ignore “Made in America” and just look for the lowest price. I remember when Wal-Mart used to PROUDLY display throughout their store “Made in America” signs over every product that was.
They stopped doing that because Americans really needed to finance their granite countertops and chose to buy cheap Chinese made goods.
Look around, maybe Vermont could be flooded and provide water..
I’ve been to Vermont. They should change their name to Vermont “The state of healthy people.”
Obesity is a rare thing in Vermont. After spending 2 weeks there I didn’t even notice it until I came back to Va. Most of their citizens are rural people living in small towns. Neighbors look out for one another. There is strong sense of community and fellowship in that state…it would probably be the last state I would think of harming.
Kahn: Set up shop in China, or India, or just about any third world country. They are competitive because of their dirt poor labor costs. That and the fact that they are willing to use any form of energy necessary.
That is rapidly becoming less true. I offer this Wikipedia article primarily because it covers a lot of ground, and because I believe it’s generally representative of many other things I’ve read. The bottom line is that China is pouring billions and billions of dollars into renewable fuels. In fact (excepting hydroelectric), they are about to surpass the US in total amount of energy capacity generated by renewable sources. They are not bit players anymore. The Chinese are getting very serious. And why shouldn’t they? There’s big bucks in it.
Rico – OK, but not all renewable fuels are pollution free. Wood and alcohol both burn.
Brett, are you being deliberatly obtuse?
1. Obviously I didn’t really mean flood Vermont. I mean that getting enviromental buy in to another big hydro deal seems unlikely. EVEN though it would help reduce pollution – I believe this to be true.
2. Yep, Lake Anna. But you yourself argued against NEW atomic energy plants. There haven’t been any built here since three mile island. Lets get over it. We need to choose ONE STANDARD design like France and build the crap out of it.
3. “Your leaders”, sorry I assumed you were Democrat. My sincerest apologies.
4. How does our being “materialistic” make a less efficient plant in China a good idea. If your point is that we should stop shopping based solely on price? Well – yah I agree. But the left argues for Kyoto all the time. Kyoto shifts production from efficient nations (like us) to less efficient nations (like China and India). The rules it imposes on us sound good (I guess). But there are few rules on the big two and they can absorb the manufacturing we give up.
Meanwhile – I see the liberal posters here arguing the GW religion without stopping to realize that many conservatives (like me) are actually willing to do many of the things you’d need to do to help with solving GW, but for completely different reasons. And well, you all want solutions – or are you just interested in “winning” an argument? If Hydro, Atomic, and wind power can make you happy for environmental reasons and make me happy for national security and competitiveness reasons – who cares? Can’t we all agree that these things would be good? We don’t even need to compromise, because we both get what we want anyways.
Sounds great to me!
🙂
Kahn: Rico – OK, but not all renewable fuels are pollution free. Wood and alcohol both burn.
True enough. But it is also true that plants capture virtually all of their carbon content from the atmosphere. So considering just the plant cycle (i.e., from seed to end product), using a plant to generate fuel is always carbon negative (i.e., more carbon is sequestered than released). The issue really revolves around all the other impacts incurred in the production and use cycle — e.g., land use, water use, fertilizer use, and the amount of energy and other materials expended in planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, and refining the fuel.
Rico,
What part of “not eligible” didn’t you understand?
Great ideas, BTW, particularly:
8. Round up all the advocates of grain-based ethanol and shoot them.
As you know, I feed shelled corn to the deer in my woods. A year ago I paid $8.50 for 200 lbs.. Last Saturday I paid $20.00 for the same 200 lbs.. Converting food for fuel may not be the absolute dumbest idea ever supported by politicians, but it certainly has to be near the top of the list.
I fell asleep in front of the TV about 8:30 last night, and didn’t wake up till after midnight. The first thing I noticed as I was catching up on this thread this morning was that none of the Lefties that I invited to present solutions took me up on my offer. I think for most, if not all of them, this whole issue is about winning the debate, rather than, as you so eloquently point out, just winning, period.
I would like to point out the one country in this world that has a perfect Nuclear power solution…the bane of conservatives and environmentalists…France.
Brett, that’s been pointed out here a number of times before. The nuclear plant design used by the French is generally considered to be the best around. Unfortunately, the time for us to have emulated them was about 25 years ago. I’m not sure, at this point, that nuclear (fission) is the way of the future.
The energy landscape, particularly in this country, would look vastly different if the Left had not consistently set up roadblock after roadblock to prevent us from achieving energy independence. Look at the history of efforts to drill in ANWR, for example. It was first discussed in 19-frickin’88 — TWO @$#&*! DECADES AGO. Assuming an 8 or 9 year lead time, we should have been pumping oil from there while Bill Clinton was still President.
And, As Rico points out, what do our politicians do instead? Push subsidies to convert food products to fuel — not only dumb but incredibly, unbelievably, monumentally STUPID!!
Ok, I can buy this. Really, I believe this is true.
So what are us liberals and you conservatives planning on doing to solve climate change?
Do you think that the government needs to do something or do we as consumers need to do something by forcing the market to make the needed changes?
“Do you think that the government needs to do something or do we as consumers need to do something by forcing the market to make the needed changes?”
Well meathead, if you are considering the latter then, that is the first intelligent thing you have said in this entire thread.
Why can’t liberals use the power of the market, the power of the dollar to achieve their goals? Put their money where their mouth is. Why do they have to use big brother?
Meathead is a very nice name. I’d rather you just stuck with that rather than “idiot”. Thanks.
I am open to either idea or a combination of both. Here’s the deal, you assume I wouldn’t do that because I am liberal. Well, I’m open to whatever works not whatever makes me “feel” better. This is about making progress by supporting policies that work not to support those that won’t just to “get” conservatives.
And, thank you very much, I am a liberal and I spend as much money as I can afford on using my dollar to encourage the market to make these changes. However, that is not enough. It’s slow and gradual, I’ve seen progress, but what I fear is that there is a large group of people who are actively fighting against this by refusing to purchase environmentally responsible products just to “get” those “crazy liberals” and their “crazy global warming” bullshit.
Seriously, how do you feel about that?
Yes, I am frustrated, you have no idea how much effort I have put towards pushing the market to change and how much MORE effort there has been (and increasingly aggresive) to push back on me the consumer. The CEO of General Motors said the other day that global warming was a “crock of shit”. His words exactly. So what? That’s just his opinion. Doesn’t mean it’s company policy and he has the right to his opinion. However, in the meantime, companies with more progressive and “liberal” leadership (like Google) are investing in creating solar powered power plants that have little to no greenhouse gas emissions.
Which company is more likely to make the swift changes in response to the market and the science and the public outcry? The guy who thinks it’s a crock of shit or the guy who embraces it?
Uh, would it be the crock of shit that embraces it? I’ right, aren’t I?
SteaM wrote – “Do you think that the government needs to do something or do we as consumers need to do something by forcing the market to make the needed changes?”
Welllll, how about you stop blocking windmill projects nationwide? How about OK’ing a nuclear design and building some nuclear power plants? How about finding a valley someplace and building a big new public works project power plant?
THOSE solutions, which except for wind will take years to come to fruition, ad power into the grid that could allow you turn off coal and other polluting power plants. These clean sources of energy would allow you to have your electric and hydrogen cars – thus removing burning gas or alcohol on the roads.
So – who do you think is blocking wind and nuclear power? I know the hydro one is a little far fetched. But only because the idea of actually attempting a project like that would face so much opposition I don’t think anyone is considering it. Of course, China is building one. I remember listening to NPR stories about some (not all) poor villagers who said they got a raw deal for their land.
Are you rejecting these out of course, or what? Is regulation the only answer you see? Really – what’s YOUR plan?
Kahn: Welllll, how about you stop blocking windmill projects nationwide?
You keep saying that windmill projects have been stopped nationwide, but that’s not how I understand it. As far as I know windmill farms are being built with increasing frequency. Perhaps you are referring to offshore farms? At any rate, I was wondering if you have a credible source for that claim.
Also with regard to the Cape Wind project, my understanding is that Kennedy got a lot of help obstructing the project from a number of Republican friends, particularly Ted Stevens, Don Young, and Mitt Romney. At any rate, I think it’s fair to say that both support and opposition to the project came from both sides of the aisle, and on several different levels. Be that as it may, it is also my understanding that the last hurdle has finally been cleared, so it appears the project will be built.
However, I think it is also fair to say that the Cape Wind project does serve to illustrate the incredible maze of red tape endeavors of this type have to deal with. And that problem has to be addressed, IMO.
Thanks Bane (and Spook) – I’ve read many of references to Spook’s first rule of holes but have never seen it listed anywhere.
” Once in over your head I suggest Spook’s first rule of holes; pretend you have an important engagement and hope everyone will forget you were here.”
We refer to it as Spook’s because he drew our attention to it; it’s actually the First Rule of Holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.
My “important engagement” is a corollary to Spook’s Rule.
Ricorun,
The Sierra Club has opposed wind power in five states that I’m aware of. See my post above for one such reference.
A couple of challenges:
Take a look at what you throw away. Keep in mind where it will go (landfill or recycle). What effect it will have on the environment if it goes to a landfill. How much energy it will take to recycle. Take a look at what is thrown away and how much of it is made from oil…
Then, think about ways to reduce the amount of trash and recylables. Reusable containers for bringing lunch to work are a great way to reduce trash. Also I brought some old utensils to work and just wash them when I am done. Everyone else uses plastic forks and spoons that they throw away after their meal.
These are things that your government does not force you to do but they are things you can choose to do.
Also, watch for wasted energy like phone chargers left plugged in but not charging anything.
Replace light bulbs with energy efficient bulbs. Refer to the packaging for information on disposal of these products.
Buy local organic meats and vegetables.
Buy things made in the US by companies who are environmentally responsible. Many companies exist that produce things with wind power and try to use recycled products and/or leave out nasty unnatural chemicals.
Turn off the air conditioning in your car and your home for an entire summer no matter how hot it gets (well, use fans so no one dies of course). This will give a nice perspective on how hot it really is outside and will save a lot of money and energy.
Ride a bike or walk if you just need to go a few blocks.
Doing these things, even if you think climate change is merely the suns fault and nothing to do with humans, will save money and will make us and our families healthier.
Gardening indoors and out is great as well. Best tasting food you can get as well as confidence that it was produced without chemicals.
Dasein: The Sierra Club has opposed wind power in five states that I’m aware of. See my post above for one such reference.
I didn’t detect any reference to the Sierra Club in any of your comments. However, I did find this reference to the Sierra Club’s participation in a dispute involving wind farms in five different states. But they weren’t opposed to the farms. Rather, they sued the Pentagon for dragging their feet, delaying construction of the farms.
Post #73
“Sierra Club opposed to wind turbines”
Complete w/audio of Sierra Club operative December of ’07.