Obama’s climate plan ‘absolutely crazy’

Boehner hits the nail on the head

President Obama’s soon-to-be-revealed second-term climate change proposal is “absolutely crazy,” Speaker John Boehner said Thursday.

The Ohio Republican was incredulous when asked to react to reports that the White House plans to regulate carbon emissions from power plants as part of its climate change strategy.

“I think this is absolutely crazy,” Boehner said at his weekly press conference. “Why would you want to increase the cost of energy and kill more American jobs at a time when American people are asking, ‘Where are the jobs.’ “

From:The Hill’s E2-Wire

About these ads
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

230 Responses to Obama’s climate plan ‘absolutely crazy’

  1. David L. says:

    Would Obama be concerned about the climate if there wasn’t a way to profit (read taxes) from it?

  2. Cathy wilson says:

    It’s time to take off the gloves. Say it. Speak the truth. The country is in peril.

  3. John from the EU says:

    Take a look at what is happening here in Europe. Don’t take that route.

  4. James Padgett says:

    Obama is looking for his legacy.

    That rarely turns out well.

  5. Michael Eiseman says:

    Cloward and Piven

  6. James McCown says:

    0bama will do whatever he can to harm the USA.

  7. GoodBusiness says:

    Global warming and C02 issues are simply a method to create a TAX ON LIFE ITSELF . . all life forms on earth are CARBON BASED . . so if C02 is a by product of living then you have the broadest possible tax base . . life, energy, farming, travel, transportation, manufacturing, yes all of human activities and even animal behavior. Read about the history of taxes here . . see the keep trying to get more money which gives government more power over people.

    http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/history-of-taxation-in-the-united-states.html

  8. jai mitchell says:

    This seems relevant to this political discussion.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

    Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

    · Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
    · Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years
    · Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

    Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

    A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

    . . .

    The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

    Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

    An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is ‘plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately’, they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

    ——————

    As with all things Boehner, he simply wants to shift the conversation away from what is really important. Green energy doesn’t kill jobs, just ask Texas. Green energy creates jobs, and lots of them. What green energy DOES do is help to prevent the loss of life that is detailed in this report.

  9. Political Junkie says:

    One possible bonus from this – the ensuing debate may well get the “hiatus” and model predictions onto the front pages.

  10. Thrasher says:

    LOL at linking a “secret report” that is now nearly a decade old. I think the science has advanced a little bit since then and certainly attribution (or lack thereof)

  11. Old Grey Badger says:

    jai mitchell – I notice your report is February 22, 2004. You aren’t serious are you? We’re more than halfway to the article’s “doomsday” and none of those catastrophic events are taking place.

  12. Ian W says:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 20, 2013 at 11:18 am

    This seems relevant to this political discussion.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

    Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

    A nice reference from eight years ago that has already been disproved. There is NO climate change – everything is continuing much as it has with oscillations back and forth droughts and floods, heatwaves and blizzards all completely precedented. The one thing that does seem to be in agreement is that it is gong to get colder. As the trigger for climate change is carbon dioxide trapping outgoing heat to the extent that evaporation increases – that is it needs to be WARMER for your climate change theories to work – this is NOT happening. It is a FRAUD. There is no tropical tropospheric hot spot. The seas are NOT warming. The Anthropogenic Global Warming parrot is DEAD even though you persist in trying to nail it to its perch and change the subject to weather occurences.

    .

    REPLY: Jai is a tree hugger living in a California state forest, not real good with the real world – Anthony

  13. mkelly says:

    jai mitchell says:

    June 20, 2013 at 11:18 am

    Horse pukey!!

  14. mkelly says:

    That should be puckey.

  15. Richard111 says:

    “major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020″

    When I read statements like this I wonder at the level of sanity in the world.

  16. Danby says:

    Jai Mitchell is obviously a troll. Nonetheless, since half of the time specified in the doomsday report has elapsed, what has happened in that time? Has global warming started us on the road to riots, starvation, revolution and death? Where are the ice-bound gulags of Northumbria? Or has global disappeared as a phenomenon, living on only as a religious belief?

    All the report proves is that senior officials at the Pentagon are just as capable of telling the boss what he wants to hear as any other flunky, perhaps more so.

  17. Mac the Knife says:

    Apparently, ‘stopping AGW’ is akin to a civil right, according to Jonathan Overpeck, co-director of the Institute of the Environment at the University of Arizona: “Lincoln would have tried to stop it….”
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/20/prof-compares-climate-change-to-slavery-says-lincoln-would-have-tried-to-stop-it/

    The over heated bloviating has reached new depths, yet it supplies the rhetoric that Our Dear Leader needs to justify his economy crippling regulations and taxation in the name of the fraud that is Anthropogenic Global Warming.

  18. dbstealey says:

    jai mitchell says:

    “Green energy creates jobs, and lots of them.”

    No, jai. Those are government jobs that were ‘created’ at the expense of the private sector. For every government green job ‘created’, more than one private sector jobs was lost.

    I would suggest that jai educate himself here. But in a tree-hugger like jai mitchell it would cause this.

  19. DirkH says:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 20, 2013 at 11:18 am
    “This seems relevant to this political discussion.
    [...]
    Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network. ”

    Ah, Global Business Network, that incredible pool of talent with members such as Peter Gabriel or Laurie Anderson. Now don’t get me wrong, I really love Laurie Anderson playing the violin. But advising the Pentagon about the climate in the UK?

    California is such a deeply, deeply crazy state.

  20. Jai, the problem with reports like that is that they need to create a sense of jeopardy to motivate people to get something done. A century won’t do that. Maybe the U.K. will be more like Siberia by 2104. Maybe sea level rise will start threatening European cities in 87 years. But that’s a long way off and there’s no sense of jeopardy, so the authors shrink the time scales.

    Sea levels are rising at the same pace they have been for 150 years. The temperatures haven’t changed that much in almost seventeen years. Do you really, honestly believe Britain will be like Siberia in only six and a half years? That coastal European cities will be drowning? And as for famine, I invite you to research the illustrious career and predictions of Paul Ehrlich … full-time prognosticator of doom. And always wrong. Just as Robert Malthus and scores of other doom-mongers have been before and since.

    Eventually, you’ll reach a point where you start to see the common features of Chicken Littles every time they chirp up. You look back and recall the similar warnings and lamentations of every single one of them that preceded them. Malthus, Ehrlich, the authors of your report … are no different than Jim Jones or Marshall Applewhite.

    And, ultimately, every bit as dangerous.

  21. Just Steve says:

    I fondly remember joking about the government taxing air……..now being reminded the best humor always has a basis in reality.

  22. William Astley says:

    In support of Speaker John Boehner’s comment and question.

    I think this is absolutely crazy,” Boehner said at his weekly press conference. “Why would you want to increase the cost of energy and kill more American jobs at a time when American people are asking, ‘Where are the jobs.’ “

    What is the plan? Provide specific estimate of costs and benefits.

    The massive investment in ‘green’ energy in Germany has resulted in a 50% increase in electrical costs to German citizens which is a type of indirect taxation. German CO2 emissions have gone down due to the massive loss of industry in East Germany. The German electrical grid is becoming unstable due a lack of connection power lines and due to the intermittent nature of wind and solar. The cost of electric power is expected to double to install additional single cycle natural gas power plants and new power lines.

    EU CO2 emissions have increased if the carbon dioxide emissions due to goods manufactured in Asia and imported into the EU are included.

    As Green energy (wind and solar) is intermittent power there must either be a massive investment in energy storage (no economic solution available to store energy) or there must be a change from combined cycle natural gas power (60% efficient) that cannot be cycled on/off/on/off to single cycle natural gas plants (38% efficient). The CO2 emission savings do not include the loss of efficiency for back up power.

    In addition as the regions where the wind blows are different than power is required a massive investment in DC power lines is required to transport power.

    As China is starting up two coal fired power plants per week and India one per week, the minor reduction in US and EU emissions will not significantly reduce the rise in world CO2 emissions.

  23. Eric Simpson says:

    In Berlin, Obame said “global warming climate change is the global threat of our time.” No. The hockey stick has been shown to be false, fabricated by a leftist activist “scientist” (Michael Mann). In the hockey stick graph Mann manipulated the data to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period (warmer than today!), he eliminated the Little Ice Age (which we have been recovering from), and Mann grossly exaggerated the mild / barely noticeable warming of the 20th century. With the hockey stick debunked that means there’s nothing unusual about current temperatures, so the climate is not broken, the climate is fine!!
    In addition, there is actually no evidence (only a questionable theoretical model) that CO2 causes the climate temperature to change: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag

    But the real problem with AGW theory is the evidence of the rate of temperature change going back at least two centuries. See what I’m talking about in this C3 piece: http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/06/ipccs-gold-standard-hadcrut-confirms-co2s-impact-on-global-temps-statistically-immaterial-insignific.html, with an outstanding reusable graphic here: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01901d26f85e970b-pi
    We’ve had many ups and downs in temperature. But you see the slopes of temp change look identical in recent (high CO2) and past times (low CO2). CO2 has done… nothing. This doesn’t fit the supposed “established physics” on CO2. Back to the drawing board on CO2.

  24. Resourceguy says:

    Ohio was useful during the re-election effort. Who cares at this point?

  25. Tim Walker says:

    While we laugh idiots like Jai are in power. While we laugh our taxes go up.

  26. Jai, we are 5.5 years from Siberian climate? I doubt it, sea levels rising? I doubt that too.
    If the Guardian/Observer told me the sky is blue and grass is green I would go outside to check. It is a leftist rag read by the middle class lefties over here. It is steadily sinking into a well deserved oblivion.
    I have mentioned climate refugees, snow here being a rare and exciting event, Southern Spain becoming a desert and all the other half-witted predictions that have not happened, nor are ever likely to.
    Jai, please take a step back and try to look objectively at this whole scam!

  27. JackT says:

    Obama’s plan is DOA in the House, but he’ll find a way to work it as an executive order via the EPA. Clearly facts, observations and true science means nothing to the progressives. Obama has been weakened by all of the scandals and the impending doom of the Obamacare rollout. He may well do tremendous damage to the Democrat party with such a damaging proposal. Maybe, just maybe it would be a good thing from a contrarian point of view.

  28. klem says:

    I’m glad Anthony posted that drivell from Jai Mitchell. It demonstrates that the eco zealots are still living in la la land. It also shows that Anthony does not delete all posts from alarmist trolls, like they claim he does on so many alarmist blogs. Good job.

    If Obama does regulates carbon emissions from power plants, I hope it is completely watered down so that it is nothing more than political smoke and mirrors. The rest of the world is building coal plants by the truckload, I think we are about to enter a new golden age of coal. Leave coal companies and coal miners alone. Stop picking on these people. This is wierd.

  29. How come with people like Jai disaster is always just 20 years away…in the 1980`s the Maldives would be under water by 2000….instead they are building new hotels and airports every year. Since Obama just returned from Germany you would have thought he would have learned Germany is turning back to coal-powered power plants with 23 new ones opening in the next few years. He is the most uninformed, incompetent President ever.

  30. _Jim says:

    John from the EU says June 20, 2013 at 11:00 am

    Take a look at what is happening here in Europe. Don’t take that route.

    The idiocy? Or is that lunacy? (Realizing of course there is overlap viewing from outside an organization or from outside the country)

    .

  31. Just Steve says:

    To people like jai, you are constantly trying to prove a negative. It doesn’t matter what facts you present, they will pull out the “but we can’t afford to wait” card. It’s always a but what if from them.

    My question to jai and his fellow travellers; why is warming axiomatically bad? I may not be a scientist, but history strongly supports the thesis that man has flourished much better during warm periods as against cooler ones.

    Oh, man flourishing, that’s the problem…….so anti Malthusian.

  32. “Thus, after taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which government is the shepherd.”
    – Alexis de Tocqueville

  33. Brian R says:

    “James Padgett says:
    June 20, 2013 at 11:00 am

    Obama is looking for his legacy.”

    At this rate Obama is going to make Carters presidency look good.

  34. M Courtney says:

    jai mitchell says at June 20, 2013 at 11:18 am

    · Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years

    Well, obviously not in climate terms. There is no evidence that we are going that way and we would have noticed the tundra in Scotland by now.

    But perhaps he means in political terms?

    If so, I can assure him that many of us would stand against it.

  35. _Jim says:

    jai mitchell says June 20, 2013 at 11:18 am

    · Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war

    Rioting? Where?

    Greece? Why?

    Brazil? Why?

    Economics connected? Why?

    Coupled to out-of-control spending (including spending on social and dismal-return ‘green’ projects incl solar and wind)? Why?

    Just here is the USA: Over half a Billion on Solyndra? Why?

    .

  36. Ian W says:

    JackT says:
    June 20, 2013 at 11:57 am

    Correct all these plans will disregard the House of Representatives and the Senate and be implemented by Executive Order (Presidential Fiat) through the EPA. The EPA is already being loaded with malleable and cooperative replacements for ‘Richard Windsor’ (alias Lisa Jackson) with such people as Ron Arnold ( http://washingtonexaminer.com/ron-arnold-meet-the-little-nobody-from-texas-with-big-power-at-epa/article/2531854 )

    However, it would appear it may be a race with the weather. Joe Bastardi is now concerned that next winter may be early and unpleasant. As this has woken those in Germany up – perhaps it might have the same effect here. Although those making the mad rush to try to get ‘Emission Trading Schemes’ in place to line the pockets of the politicians and de-industialize the US will try to complete regulation before they are exposed by the real world climate.

  37. Alberta Slim says:

    The stock market is getting hammered.
    Obama’s plan will not help.

  38. kretchetov says:

    I think the world is in danger, if the most powerful nations produce such inept and stupid leaders. Is Obama really the best America can do?

    We are way too comfortable, if we can afford to invest in pseudo-science, destroy wealth and be stupider than stupid.

    Such behaviour, on this planet, is usually rewarded with extinction. Ask the Dodo.

    There will be a real crisis, a real emergency. Opportunities lost always, always turn against those that missed them, and untold billions spent on research of no-problem, and decades lost, will be paid for in spades.

    Humans owe progress to individuals, inspired and talented, like Anthony. Humans don’t owe progress to committees and “consensus”, yet again and again, they just don’t learn.

  39. CheshireRed says:

    Time to face reality: those who attain the highest office seem destined to completely lose their marbles. It happens everywhere.

    UK…we have been governed by idiots for 20 years.
    The EU…no, I can’t go there – i’ll be snipped.
    Iraq.
    Syria.
    Iran.
    Russia.
    Every country in Africa?
    Every nation in South America?
    Every nation not mentioned already in the Middle East.

    The US of A? Your nation is no different. All leaders turn into idiots. ‘Climate Change’ has merely hastened the idiocy.

  40. William Astley says:

    Obama’s legacy will be massive job loss and/or an election issue, can the green scam.

    Green energy does not work. It does not significantly reduce CO2 emissions (if when unbiased analysis is done and all engineering issues are considered) and it requires massive subsides.

    Further more, there is no extreme AGW problem to solve, the planet resists forcing changes by an increase or decrease of clouds in the tropics (negative feedback) rather than the IPCC’s assumed amplification (positive feedback).

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/the-data-is-in-more-green-jobs-means-less-real-ones/#more-28909

    Each green job in Britain costs £100,000 (and 3.7 other jobs):
    The Telegraph points out how expensive it is to support a wind-industry job. My plan to bury bottles with £50,000 apiece in them could halve the cost and employ just as many people.
    • A new analysis of government and industry figures shows that wind turbine owners received £1.2billion in the form of a consumer subsidy, paid by a supplement on electricity bills last year. They employed 12,000 people, to produce an effective £100,000 subsidy on each job.
    • “Among the examples of extremely high subsidies effectively for job creation is Greater Gabbard, a scheme of 140 turbines 12 miles off the Suffolk coast. It received £129 million in consumer subsidy in the 12 months to the end of February, double the £65million it received for the electricity it produced. It employs 100 people at its headquarters in Lowestoft, receiving, in effect, £1.3 million for every member of staff.” — Telegraph, 15 June 2013
    • In Scotland the VERSO study showed for each Green Job created, 3.7 were lost. — BBC, Feb 2011
    In Italy, each green job cost 5 jobs from the rest of the economy:

    “A study performed by Luciano Lavecchia and Carlo Stagnaro of Italy’s Bruno Leoni Institute found “the same amount of capital that creates one job in the green sector, would create 6.9 or 4.8 if invested in the industry or the economy in general, respectively”…
    “The researchers also found that the vast majority of green jobs created were temporary… – AEI
    “The renewables industry was plagued with corruption. The mafia were caught laundering $1.7bn through renewables.

  41. Don says:

    Serious question to help Jai along: In the time since his cited study was released, what has global warming ever done to us?

    And the second is like unto it: In the same period, what has global warming POLICY ever done to us?

    Or, to invoke Eddie Izzard, “Cake or death?” Thus far, global warming is cake.

  42. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..
    html

    jai mitchell says:

    June 20, 2013 at 11:18 am

    This seems relevant to this political discussion.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

    Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us…….””””””

    Hate to break the news to you; but the President of the United States, is named Obama. not Bush.

    His predecessor in office was also Obama, not Bush.

    If the Pentagon “now” “tells Bush” anything at all, they are wasting their breath.

    We had two former Presidents named Bush; well three actually since the most recent one also had two terms, like the current President Obama. Neither one of those former Presidents, could give a rip, what the Pentagon is now telling the President; they are totally out of the loop.

    It was the Obama President who just made an international ass out of himself at The Brandenburg Gate in Berlin; not one of the Bushes.

  43. chris y says:

    Big thank you to Jai Mitchell for highlighting that 2003 Pentagon report!!!!

    It provides quantified predictions for 2020 that can eventually be compared against reality. For example, it predicts that major EU cities will be sunk beneath rising seas. This is not storm surge stuff, but permanently sunk beneath the low tide level. This requires multiple meters of sea level rise in the next 7 years, or over 100 mm per year starting today. Remarkably (ho ho!), it is similar to Hansen’s 1988 prediction for the West Side highway being permanently submerged, which now requires at least 175 mm/year of SLR.

  44. Old'un says:

    Anthony,
    Matt Ridley has an article in the Times today on Bio Mass burning for electricity generation. This is
    the latest economically idiocy of the UK’s green energy policy and is an indicator of what may be in store for the USA if your government goes down its proposed path. I do not have the skills to provide a link, but it is well worth publishing on your side of the pond as a cautionary tale.

  45. leon0112 says:

    My guess is that Boehner believes Obama’s plan is absolutely crazy, but another interesting twist is that he is saying this out loud on purpose. Part of that means to me that Boehner thinks calling Obama’s plan absolutely crazy is a political winner.

    It is good that the Speaker of the House believes Obama’s plan is crazy. The debate will be more out in the open now.

    Trying to get my head around Willis testifying before Congress.

  46. jai mitchell says:

    isn’t it interesting that the report of 8 years ago (yes, I recognized that it was from the bush administration. . .) stated that we could begin to experience these things as early as 2020 and just recently the UK is beginning to experience abnormally low temperatures. (while it is 95 degrees in central Alaska.

    you can’t have it both ways people.

    Don’t forget this (from the arctic sea ice page of watts up)
    http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg

  47. Louis says:

    Pres. Obama is a purely political animal. Everything he has done and everything he wants to do has the goal of entrenching his party’s control over government through crony capitalism. Stimulus money went to create green jobs for his top bundlers and to save Union jobs and pension funds. Even Obamacare funding is being routed to unions and leftist community-organizing groups. These groups then return part of that money back to the Democratic Party in the form of campaign contributions and get-out-the-vote campaigns. It’s a giant money-laundering scheme. Carbon taxes and immigration reform will also be used in similar ways. It’s so obvious, I can’t understand why Republicans are helping Democrats setup these schemes. They are building a political infrastructure that will entrench Democrats for decades to come if it isn’t stopped now.

  48. jai mitchell says:

    To be clear,

    The report indicating a “Siberian UK” is speaking specifically to a dramatic slowdown of the thermohaline circulation as occurred during the younger dryas due to freshwater melt in the arctic:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/images/data4-climate-changes-lg.gif

    While this is an extreme report, it outlines the reality that is the body of evidence and projections of what will be happening in the world over the next century if we don’t change the course of our direction.

    These include desertification, reduction in crop yields (or did you forget about the pork shortage due to the heatwaves of 2012 already?)

    Drought conditions (potable water shortages), especially in the U.S. and Russia, have taken a toll on the price of the grain crops used for animal feed, and world food prices are expected to reach record highs in 2013.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/09/25/industry-group-bacon-pork-shortage-unavoidable/#ixzz2WmsYB83V

    These are real things that are starting to happen already.

  49. george e. smith says:

    “””””……dbstealey says:

    June 20, 2013 at 11:42 am

    jai mitchell says:

    “Green energy creates jobs, and lots of them.”…….””””””

    Well we’ll take your word for it Jai; which is exactly why “green energy” is a scam.

    A more efficient source of energy than what we now have now, would get rid of jobs; not create more.

    A cheaper source of energy, would allow industry to expand; which would create not only more jobs, but a higher standard of living for everybody. But the so-called green jobs, are mostly taxpayer funded jobs, which means they suck working capital out of the real job making economy.

    Energy costs are the irreducible minimum, below which industrial costs cannot go.

    Tesla Motors, the darling of the green energy set, recently announced a profit. The only reason they made a profit, was because tax paying real workers paid a bundle for each of those 416 horsepower race cars, I heard the figure was $7500 for each Model S car sold. And they also made a profit selling “carbon credits” to other companies.

    Just who the hell is manufacturing “carbon credits”, and what do they make them out of. ?/ Tesla Motors, certainly doesn’t make any carbon credits to sell to anybody.

  50. Johanus says:

    Before the Soviet Union seemed to implode and disappear in the late 20th century, is it possible that its leadership had secretly set into motion a hidden program that would quietly re-constitute the soul of the “CCCP” back into the leadership of Western societies? Betting that we would be defenseless against such an attack from within?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you

  51. Just Steve says:

    George Smith; carbon credits are like synthetic derivitives, fashioned out of thin air.

  52. DirkH says:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 20, 2013 at 12:44 pm
    “While this is an extreme report, it outlines the reality that is the body of evidence and projections of what will be happening in the world over the next century if we don’t change the course of our direction. ”

    It’s funny that the warmist alarmist Met Office predicted hot summers and a mediterranean climate for the UK; the alarmist warmist GBN predicts an ice age for the UK; and you still believe a word alarmist warmists say.

    Quit the glue.

  53. Chris R. says:

    To Jai mitchell:

    Uh–about those “green jobs and lots of them”–see the following:

    http://news.thomasnet.com/green_clean/2011/06/24/an-inquisition-into-the-spanish-green-jobs-study/

    A highlight or two:

    In 2009, Madrid’s Universidad Rey Juan Carlos published a paper titled “Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources,” prepared under research director Dr. Gabriel Calzada Álvarez. It’s from as academically respected a source as you’re likely to get for this sort of thing, and presents chart after table after graph of numbers and official statistics, footnoting everything in sight — in other words, probably as reliable as we’ll get.
    …..
    The fundamental economic reality the paper discovered, after exhaustive analysis and research, was that for every green job created by the Spanish government, the private sector lost 2.2 jobs. And even at that cannibalistic rate, the green jobs program “created a surprisingly low number of jobs,” about 60 percent of which were temporary construction jobs, others in administration and such, and only ten percent of which were actual permanent jobs operating renewable sources of electricity.

    The study found that since 2000, Spain spent €571,138 to create each “green job,” including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind industry job.

    Maybe you should lie down, because it seems you have a bit of a fever and are
    experiencing hallucinations. Best wishes for a speedy recovery!

  54. Jai…Thanks to CO2 the planet is thriving as crop lands are yielding more per acre than anytime in our history. I might add with less water and fertilizer. And if the temperature goes up a degree or so the planet will welcome it with open arms. As George Carlin stated so eloquently in his “Save the Planet” piece the planet is fine it`s the people that is out of whack. I presume he meant you Jai.

  55. Mardler says:

    Er, no, Jai, the UK is not experiencing abnormally low temperatures.

    There is nothing happening to UK weather that is not within the bounds of normal variability but most people in the MetOffice & media (esp. the Grauniad & BBC) are wanting confirmation bias and are too young to remember e.g. snow in June many, many, years ago.

    Before posting, please check the facts first.

  56. Gail Combs says:

    jai mitchell
    …. Green energy doesn’t kill jobs, just ask Texas. Green energy creates jobs, and lots of them. What green energy DOES do is help to prevent the loss of life that is detailed in this report.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    So I asked Texas.

    ERCOT: EPA Rule Threatens to Turn Out the Lights in Texas
    Texas’ Electric Reliability Coalition of Texas — ERCOT — is firing up the warning flare that if the EPA’s new cross-state rules go into effect on January 1, 2012, parts of Texas may well go dark.

    This is one of those cases where we believe it is our role to voice our concern that Texas could face a shortage of generation necessary to keep the lights on in Texas within a few years, if the EPA’s Cross-State Rule is implemented as written.

    ERCOT’s May11 report to the Public Utility Commission on the impact of the proposed environmental regulations did not address the impact of SO2 restrictions on coal plants in ERCOT because these restrictions on Texas were not included as part of the EPA’s earlier rule proposal. We have not had time to fully analyze the entire 1,323-page Cross-State Rule released July 7 or to communicate with the generation owners regarding what their intentions will be. However, initial implications are that the SO2 requirements for Texas added at the last stage of the rule development will have a significant impact on coal generation, which provided 40 percent of the electricity consumed in ERCOT in 2010….

    But that’s OK because ERCOT has a PLAN.

    Energy InSight FAQs

    ….Rolling outages are systematic, temporary interruptions of electrical service. They are the last step in a progressive series of emergency procedures that ERCOT follows when it detects that there is a shortage of power generation within the Texas electric grid. ERCOT will direct electric transmission and distribution utilities, such as CenterPoint Energy, to begin controlled, rolling outages to bring the supply and demand for electricity back into balance.They generally last 15-45 minutes before being rotated to a different neighborhood to spread the effect of the outage among consumers, which would be the case whether outages are coordinated at the circuit level or individual meter level. Without this safety valve, power generating units could overload and begin shutting down and risk causing a domino effect of a statewide, lengthy outage. With smart meters, CenterPoint Energy is proposing to add a process prior to shutting down whole circuits to conduct a mass turn off of individual meters with 200 amps or less (i.e. residential and small commercial consumers) for 15 or 30 minutes, rotating consumers impacted during that outage as well as possible future outages.

    There are several benefits to consumers of this proposed process. By isolating non-critical service accounts (“critical” accounts include hospitals, police stations, water treatment facilities etc.) and spreading “load shed” to a wider distribution, critical accounts that happen to share the same circuit with non-critical accounts will be less affected in the event of an emergency. Curtailment of other important public safety devices and services such as traffic signals, police and fire stations, and water pumps and sewer lifts may also be avoided.

    As problems with an unstable grid due to Solar/wind becomes worst expect Smart Meters to become mandatory so CORPORATIONS can keep running.

    Don’t want smart meter? Power shut off
    The rollout of smart electric meters across the country has run into a few snags: one woman doesn’t want one, and ended up in the dark as a result.

    You might not think that would be an issue. But it is, because Duke Energy is now beginning to disconnect any homeowner who refuses a new electric meter.

    Other electric companies are not pulling the plug…yet…..

    As Obama Promised: Energy Prices to Soon Skyrocket

    Obama’s war on coal hits your electric bill
    The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity – almost all natural gas – was $136 per megawatt. That’s eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16 per megawatt. In the mid-Atlantic area covering New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and DC the new price is $167 per megawatt. For the northern Ohio territory served by FirstEnergy, the price is a shocking $357 per megawatt…. These are not computer models or projections or estimates. These are the actual prices that electric distributors have agreed to pay for new capacity. The costs will be passed on to consumers at the retail level.

    So the cost of energy in the USA will sky rocket. In the UK ‘Fuel Poverty’ is killing 65 people per day in the winter. Article: Fuel poverty deaths three times higher than government estimates and science paper: Fuel poverty and human health A review of recent evidence

    The EPA and Department of Energy drastically underestimated the effects of the new EPA rulings. Many more plants are closing than anticipated. This means electricity prices will sky rocket and the electric grid could become unstable New Regulations to Take 34 GW of Electricity Generation Offline and the Plant Closing Announcements Keep Coming… According to EPA, …. these regulations will only shutter 9.5 GW of electricity generation capacity. OOPS, I guess the government miscalculated.

    So what about the “Green Energy” companies funded with tax payer dollars that are supposed to replace these coal fired plants? They are going bankrupt at an alarming rate So far, [thats] 34 companies OOPS, I guess the government miscalculated.

    What the politicians neglect to say is their plan for making this work is to install Smart Meters, an attractive opportunity for Investors This theoretically allows residential electricity to be turned off so the system can be balanced as wind and solar power surges and declines. Of course with renewables bankrupting, smart meters not installed and coal plants closing at three time the rate expected, this put a real big kink in that plan. OOPS, I guess the government miscalculated AGAIN so we are looking at rolling blackouts.

  57. cwon14 says:

    For whatever the reasons, leading skeptics and you can include Anthony have steadfastly refused to be identified (directly) with the conservative mainstream meme that AGW was always politically left-wing in motivations.

    The losses are huge over time. In the name of being “about science” the public is largely dis-informed as the core AGW value sets. Some level of the non-technical community in particular is forced into a distorted and cherry picked analytical debate which they can’t confidently dissent on those grounds while the essential AGW political motivations are obfuscated with the assistance of apathetic and conflicted skeptics. Now it hits the fan and the skeptics are the ones to made to look “political” due to their congenial posturing.

  58. Jeff L says:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 20, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    “These are real things that are starting to happen already.”
    —————————————————————————————–

    You have proven nothing. Demonstrate to me that these events have anything to do with “climate change” then demonstrate to me any change in climate is from man made CO2.

    To speed this up for you, if you look at the data, you will see recent weather events are nothing unusual , from a historical (climatological) perspective.

    I believe was W.E. Deming who said ” In God we trust, all others must bring data”. Jai, please bring us some data (and analysis) to prove your point if you want to get any traction on this blog.

    To quote John Boehner ( but in reference to your post) : “I think this is absolutely crazy,”

  59. David L. says:

    James Padgett says:

    June 20, 2013 at 11:00 am

    Obama is looking for his legacy.

    That rarely turns out well.
    ________________________

    I thought his legacy was Obamacare.

  60. cwon14 says:

    David L. says:
    June 20, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    “I thought his legacy was Obamacare.”

    That will be repealed as well.

  61. Bruce Cobb says:

    The word “crazy” doesn’t even begin to describe it. Diabolical comes closer. One can only conclude that Obama hates America, and the question is why. He knows it will force energy costs up, and the consequences of doing that: “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” (January 2008)

    Our enemies can only dream of doing the damage to the US that Obama seems intent on doing.

  62. jai mitchell says:

    Gail Combs

    This is what I was talking about (Re: texas jobs)

    Houston Chronicle
    http://www.chron.com/jobs/article/Wind-energy-drives-more-than-just-turbines-4355259.php

    Wind energy drives more than just turbines

    By Rebecca Maitland, jobs correspondent | March 14, 2013

    “Ten years ago, there were less than 2,000 turbines, and today there are over 20,000. These are not your father’s turbines. These are efficient and are driving down the cost of electricity,” Guyette said.

    The wind industry also is good for Texas, good for Houston.

    “Wind farms are usually in rural, open land, and are private leases from land owners. We lease the land, and property owners receive annual lease payments, and property taxes also flow into these areas. Also, the land the turbines are on can continue to be used as they were prior to the turbines being installed. Another important point is because the parts for wind turbines are large and heavy, construction usually goes to local companies, so there is a ripple down affect which draws manufacturing to the area, which creates jobs in these areas,” Salerno said.

    However, Houston also is a main hub for manufacturing, with more than 30 manufacturing companies involved in wind energy.

    A study released by the Waco-based Perryman Group in May 2010 estimates the wind industry is responsible for nearly 10,000 manufacturing, headquarters, construction, and maintenance and support jobs in Texas annually. The American Wind Energy Association places Texas first among states in wind industry employment, which includes manufacturing, installation and maintenance jobs.

    ————————
    10,000 NEW jobs in texas as well as a significant source of revenue for the farmers who have the turbines on their land.

    I, for one, do not see a problem with that. do you?

  63. chris y says:

    Jai Mitchell-

    “isn’t it interesting that the report of 8 years ago…”

    Umm, the report was revealed on Feb. 21, 2004 by the news article you provided. In the article they disclosed that the evvilllll BUSH administration tried to ‘sequester’ the report for 4 months. That puts the report’s completion date back in 2003. Most people consider that to be 10 years ago.

    But thanks again! These predictions are a gold mine!

  64. Bob Diaz says:

    It’s all about getting more control & more taxes.

  65. Snotrocket says:

    Jai Mitchell comes along and drops his little comment-bomb on the thread and the whole thread falls to pieces beating him up (thoroughly deserved, in my book). As a result the thread gets diverted and Jai achieves a small win in the (to him) war.

    We have to understand that people like Jai are as much use as a chocolate fire-guard, and should be ignored as such. For sure, enjoy the laughter at such a risible comment, but concentrate on what the POTUS is trying to do to a great country – when people like Jai will be worth less than the crap that people like BHO scrape off their shoes after walking through a cow pasture.

  66. GlynnMhor says:

    And where Obama and the US go, we in Canada get dragged along.

    I can only hope that reality sinks in before too much damage is done to our tightly linked economies.

  67. Gail Combs says:

    jai mitchell
    …. Green energy doesn’t kill jobs, just ask Texas. Green energy creates jobs, and lots of them. What green energy DOES do is help to prevent the loss of life that is detailed in this report.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>..
    Now about those ‘Jobs’

    Despite Clinton’s messing with the statistics on unemployment*** The true unemployment rate is available and it is ~ 23%. Thanks to NAFTA and especially WTO American workers are competing world wide for jobs and it is not just the salaries of the workers but the cost of energy and regulations too that have most big corporations moving overseas.

    It is worth considering a recent Australian Financial Review article that published a comparison of the cost of employing skilled people. That is the total cost not just wage. In Australia it is over $600/day, in the US $400/day and third world under $200/day. As manufacturing industry, and even clerical positions, are transferred to lower cost countries obviously the middle class in first world countries must shrink and the lower level will increase in numbers… link

    This was seconded by a comment by a contributor at Forbes

    …I work with a lot of these people who have, supposedly quit looking for work. Most of them are older and have worked for 30 years or more and are in their 50′s or 60′s and they cannot find what they want which is a high paying job that pays them what they used to earn. Those jobs since the crash of 2007 and 2008 are gone. CEO’s are saving and hoarding cash by not bringing these types of people back to the work force. So, many of these people are now forced to retire early. That is what is happening to a lot of these folks and we have at least three dozen who fall into this category so it is not uncommon at all. They fall into this category of having given up looking when what they are doing is being forced to retire early…

    It is sad but the IT manager or VP who was making $250K in 2006 is not going to find a job like that ever again. So he or she is forced to take a lesser paying job or they retire early or they dip into their IRA or their 401k a bit early before they tap into Social Security. That is a what is happening. Blame it on the CEO’s who are hoarding cash and who only want to focus on one thing, the bottom line.

    According to the IMF the elite are not ‘hoarding cash ‘ they are pocketing it.

    IMF: Convergence, Interdependence, and Divergence
    Since roughly 1990 the pace of per capita income growth in emerging and developing economies has accelerated in a sustainable manner and is substantially above that in advanced economies….

    In many countries the distribution of income has become more unequal, and the top earners’ share of income in particular has risen dramatically. In the United States the share of the top 1 percent has close to tripled over the past three decades, now accounting for about 20 percent of total U.S. income (Alvaredo and others, 2012). At the same time, while the new convergence mentioned above has reduced the distance between advanced and developing economies when they are taken as two aggregates, there are still millions of people in some of the poorest countries whose incomes have remained almost stagnant for more than a century… These two facts have resulted in increased divergence between the richest people in the world and the very poorest, despite the broad convergence of average incomes….

    Another words the rich are getting richer but the middle class is more closely approaching the income of the poor as the ordinary worker is forced to compete with workers not just in his area but world wide.

    Huffington Post: U.S. Median Annual Wage Falls To $26,364 As Pessimism Reaches 10-Year High

    The Uncomfortable Truth About American Wages

    ….This finding of stagnant wages is unsettling, but also quite misleading. For one thing, this statistic includes only men who have jobs. In 1970, 94 percent of prime-age men worked, but by 2010, that number was only 81 percent. The decline in employment has been accompanied by increases in incarceration rates, higher rates of enrollment in the Social Security Disability Insurance program and more Americans struggling to find work. Because those without jobs are excluded from conventional analyses of Americans’ earnings, the statistics we most commonly see — those that illustrate a trend of wage stagnation — present an overly optimistic picture of the middle class.

    When we consider all working-age men, including those who are not working, the real earnings of the median male have actually declined by 19 percent since 1970… Men with less education face an even bleaker picture; earnings for the median man with a high school diploma and no further schooling fell by 41 percent from 1970 to 2010….

    So what you actually have is a drive towards a world wide two class system, the working poor and the elite. Environmentalism, CAGW, and lots of other propaganda are the weapons used by the wealthy and powerful who control our news media and our governments.

    Top Senate Democrat: bankers “own” the U.S. Congress: Dick Durbin’s confession ought to be major news, yet it won’t be. Why not?

    *** link …Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year….

  68. James Padgett says:

    I just got a google ad from barackobama.com which said:

    “Climate change is real. Join OFA & hold climate deniers accountable.‎”

    Classy.

  69. Kev-in-Uk says:

    I wish I could understand American politics! but then again, I can’t even understand the UK political BS, and I guess we are as bad!
    Seriously though, mixing politics and uncertain/unproven science is a no-go area for me. All the politicos do is take whatever ‘snippets’ they can from whatever ‘source’ they choose to score political ‘points’ – how anybody can consider that an effective dissemination of information, is a mystery to me. Bottom line – never listen to a politician!

  70. jai mitchell says:

    George e Smith,

    you said,
    Tesla Motors, the darling of the green energy set, recently announced a profit. The only reason they made a profit, was because tax paying real workers paid a bundle for each of those 416 horsepower race cars, I heard the figure was $7500 for each Model S car sold. And they also made a profit selling “carbon credits” to other companies.
    ————-

    well, If you want to take away tax credits for tesla then I suppose you think it is ok to take away tax credits for oil, gas and coal developers in the U.S. as well. . .

    In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually, while even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have been defeated in Congress, as shown in the graphic below.
    http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

    ————–

    at least these tax credits are given to consumers to spark the economy and provide a real incentive for future economic growth and development instead of being passed to internationally based corporations that will simply shell their profits into offshore holding accounts.

    ————-

    Tesla is building beautiful and effective cars, they are changing the face of this country. I just saw one for the first time last weekend. I have never seen a more attractive car, must be the carbon fiber hood.

  71. Obama’s Legacy – something no one will want to remember – George Wallace has a better legacy than Obama. George Wallace who only promoted segregation after discovering it was the way to get elected after losing to a candidate who ran with the support of the Ku Klux Klan. Seems many politicians simply do what they think will get them elected or make them remembered. I suppose bankrupting the US financially and morally would make your presidency memorable.😞

  72. Gail Combs says:

    klem says:
    June 20, 2013 at 11:58 am

    I’m glad Anthony posted that drivell from Jai Mitchell. It demonstrates that the eco zealots are still living in la la land….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Klem and others. Jai Mitchell at least has come here and engaged with us. Hopefully he, and the others who are silent but reading the debate, will actually look at what is being posted and think about what has been said and pointed to.

    There are several who have come here who were believers in CAGW or on the fence and learned a lot, me included.

    So I am also glad Anthony does not run a blog that is just singing to the choir.

  73. Isn’t it wonderful how an unthinking comment from the US Fed can sink stock markets around the world. Great deep thinking administration. Obama will have quite a legacy alright. Bread lines?

  74. DDP says:

    As a general policy as Chicago Bear fan, I don’t criticise fellow Bearfans. It just feels like punching a brother in the nuts, I even forgive Ashton Kutcher for ‘Dude Where’s My Car’, and boning Mila Kunis (Bruce Willis forgives him for Demi, Bearfans you see). But Obama is just a complete tool. He is the Dave Wannstedt of American politics. In fact he’s like Jerry Angelo and Wanny all rolled into one giant ball of painful ineptitude.

    Every day is like a strange plot twist to an episode of Homeland where the chief protagonist comes up with another policy to destroy the nation from within. Sad thing is, it’s re-run from four years ago. Congress needs to take his car keys off him before he does some real damage, ‘cos he’s hammered on all the drinks given to him by lobbyists and doesn’t care about hitting anything and everything in his path as long as he gets home.

  75. EO Peter says:

    Just Steve says:
    June 20, 2013 at 12:06 pm

    “My question to jai and his fellow travellers; why is warming axiomatically bad? I may not be a scientist, but history strongly supports the thesis that man has flourished much better during warm periods as against cooler ones. ”

    Good point!

    When young, I always worked during the summer in various farms and I can assure you that just a couple more extra day of growing season before the first freeze occur were alway good thing for the owner of the business. When freeze was imminent, we were working days and night non stop to harvest the stuff we weren’t able to protect using sprinkler. Unharvested/unprotected field were simply total loss to the farmer.

    It is very annoying to ear from people that probably never put their hand and feet in sh*t (read good old biological fertilizer) that warming is alway a negative thing.

  76. _Jim says:

    jai mitchell says June 20, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    well, If you want to take away tax credits for tesla then I suppose you think it is ok to take away tax credits for oil, gas and coal developers in the U.S. as well. . .

    In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from …

    What did the oil companies pay in income taxes the last few years?

    Rather than assuming crass ignorance on your part, I am asking.

    .

  77. _Jim says:

    jai mitchell says June 20, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    10,000 NEW jobs in texas as well as a significant source of revenue for the farmers who have the turbines on their land.

    I, for one, do not see a problem with that. do you?

    For a net negative?

    (Let me spell it out for you: after taking stock of all the materials, the processing and machining, the windmill installation, the running of distribution and transmission lines (NOT CHEAP EITHER!), the required continued service by humans, and the limited life of the windmill’s blades, transmission, generator and freq/power conversion gear there is a NET LOSS in accrued energy from wind! You are better off with investing those original dollars in a ‘fixed’ coal or nat. gas plant!)

    .

  78. jai mitchell says:

    Snotrocket

    (cute name)

    with regard to thread hijacking. That was not my intention at all. What I wanted to share was the counter argument to the childish political position that a transformation/rebuilding of our domestic power generation and transportation infrastructure would create a net loss of jobs. This argument is false and indefensible.

    Not to mention the fact that AGW is real and is rapidly producing the effects as have been projected over 48 years ago.

    http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/co2.pdf

  79. ShrNfr says:

    jai mitchell says:

    “Green energy creates jobs, and lots of them.”

    The question is not creating jobs, the question is creating productive jobs. When you replace existing PP&E with new (and here more expensive) PP&E for no good reason, the expenditures are very poorly directed. I do not know of any business plan that would try to do that that would not be shot down at the first review. It does not clear any ROI hurdle. I would refer folks to the Alverez report at the King Juan Carlos University in Spain. Spain created a lot of very low level grunt jobs with its windmill program that caused an exodus of more productive jobs from the country due to the higher cost of power. Last I noted, Spain was in some pretty severe financial straits at the moment. It would be more productive for society just to hand out checks to those people and make them watch reruns of Ren and Stimpy.

  80. Gail Combs says:

    Alberta Slim says:
    June 20, 2013 at 12:14 pm

    The stock market is getting hammered.
    Obama’s plan will not help.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    GEE, according to Forbes Economically, Could Obama Be America’s Best President: With the stock market hitting new highs, some people have already forgotten about the Great Recession…. (They censor comments)

  81. _Jim says:

    jai mitchell says June 20, 2013 at 2:21 pm

    … What I wanted to share was the counter argument to the childish political position that a transformation/rebuilding of our domestic power generation and transportation infrastructure would create a net loss of jobs.

    … as we deficit spend to achieve the ‘result’. Smart. No, I mean it. SMART.

  82. profitup10 says:

    A BOLD NEW ENERGY POLICY TO SAVE THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE!!!

    We put millions of skilled workers on manufacturing jobs building 500 to 1,000 Nuclear power plant of a low cost standard design. This will provide all the energy to accomplish a full restoration of our industrial base. How will this happen you ask?

    First we “MINE” the oceans for gold, silver, copper, uranium, methane, manganese and other valuable minerals and metals. It has been estimated that it will be profitable to mine gold from the seas at around $ 3,000 per ounce. Second we use cheap nuclear power to extract these metals which could make a profit to pay off the national debt. Third we use the byproduct “WATER” to farm the huge vacant dry south west feeding the entire planet with low cost food.

    Finally we use the cheap nuclear power to build factories to manufacture everything the entire planet needs and we return to zero unemployment and can pay good wages because we have free energy that makes a profit in it’s creation.The money generated can payoff all debts, build nuclear reprocessing plants, research and develop a system to render nuclear waste harmless.

    Just think, full employment, no energy crisis ever, gold to make money valuable, make the dollar the strongest currency on earth, end inflation, end government debt. Just imagine “AMERICA REBORN AND THE DREAM FULFILLED!!!

  83. Colin says:

    What I have discovered in “debating” with individuals like Jai is that facts don’t matter. 10,000 new jobs due to Wind Turbines and other “green” ideas? What are the actual facts about increased costs and lost jobs? Are Wind turbines actually “green”? What is required to construct them? How much power is actually supplied and at what cost? And what about the backup power that’s required when the wind doesn’t blow? How convenient that people like Jai don’t take ANY of that into account. Oil and Gas companies don’t need subsidies like most “Green” industries.. Oil and Gas companies get tax credits like any other business and individuals do. But why confuse things with facts when religious fervour is in the way?

  84. Just Steve says:

    Yup, Tesla makes a good looking sled. If you want one, by all means buy one. Just don’t try selling it as a solution to the internal combustion engine on a mass scale.

    Battery technology is, for all intents and purposes, not much advanced over the last 50+ years. The problem with advancement is always the same, running up against the laws of chemistry. No matter the composition, lead acid, glass mat, what have you, increasing storage capability and charging time remains constrained. Rapid charging any battery results in a significant portion of the electricity used being lost as heat, not stored electricity. The idea of a 15 minute rapid charge of a battery bank is a dream until the current technology leaps many fold. How many drivers want a 60 minute stop to “fill up”? Not those of us who live in the real world.

    Now, put that electric auto in a cold climate. Battery storage capacity shrinks with lower temperatures. A battery in North Dakota will not charge to 100% capacity during winter months, again a chemistry problem. And since you don’t have an internal combustion engine to create heat, you need an electric heat source, and there’s no less efficient way to create heat than using electricity. Now, how far have you reduced that advertised mileage range? What if you need to use wipers? Want to listen to the radio? Any electrical drain drops your available range, which is already too short for a large portion of the population.

  85. Gail Combs says:

    Old’un says:
    … Matt Ridley has an article in the Times today on Bio Mass burning for electricity generation….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Perhaps this? http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/britain's-mad-biomass-dash.aspx

  86. Eric Worrall says:

    Obama is living up to his promise to make energy prices skyrocket – you’ve got to give him that.

    I’m afraid the onus for this catastrophe is on the idiots who voted for him. Obama told everyone what he intended to do – people just didn’t listen.

  87. goldminor says:

    Jai is a ‘diehard to the bitter end’ part of the warming ‘team’. He is fully committed.

  88. Gail Combs says:

    cwon14 says:
    June 20, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    For whatever the reasons, leading skeptics and you can include Anthony have steadfastly refused to be identified (directly) with the conservative mainstream meme that AGW was always politically left-wing in motivations….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is because we are NOT all conservatives (or liberals) and AGW is NOT all left-wing (or right-wing.) What CAGW is is a long con by those who want to revamp the world (Agenda 21) and by those who want to make lots of $$$$.

    Enron, joined by BP, invented the global warming industry. I know because I was in the room. This was during my storied three-week or so stint as Director of Federal Government Relations for Enron in the spring of 1997, back when Enron was everyone’s darling in Washington. It proved to be an eye-opening experience that didn’t last much beyond my expressing concern about this agenda of using the state to rob Peter, paying Paul, drawing Paul’s enthusiastic support.

    In fact, this case was not entirely uncommon in that the entire enterprise was Paul’s idea to begin with. Which left me as the guy on the street corner muttering about this evil company cooking up money-making charades, to nothing but rolled eyes until the, ah, unpleasantness and the opportunity it afforded to take a few gratuitous swings at George W. Bush….

    The basic truth is that Enron, joined by other “rent-seeking” industries — making one’s fortune from policy favors from buddies in government, the cultivation of whom was a key business strategy — cobbled their business plan around “global warming.” Enron bought, on the cheap of course, the world’s largest windmill company (now GE Wind) and the world’s second-largest solar panel interest (now BP) to join Enron’s natural gas pipeline network, which was the second largest in the world. The former two can only make money under a system of massive mandates and subsidies (and taxes to pay for them); the latter would prosper spectacularly if the war on coal succeeded.

    Enron then engaged green groups to scare people toward accepting those policies. That is what is known as a Baptist and bootlegger coalition. I sat in on such meetings. Disgraceful….
    http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/15/lessons-from-the-global-warming-industry/

  89. Mike Borgelt says:

    Jai seems to be firmly embedded in his delusional world view.

    Jobs generated by renewable energy? We tried that and the results say he’ s wrong (see Spain and other places).
    One of the great failings of the human race is the inability to accept the results of experiments. We’ve also seen the non bad effects of whatever minor climate change is occurring. That’s two fails right there, jai.
    Another is the inability to figure out and focus on the task at hand. The task of energy generation is to generate energy, not jobs, jai. The fewer jobs the better as the energy will be cheaper leading to many other jobs elsewhere in the economy.
    That’s three fails, jai.
    Last, there’s “something for nothing”, which seems to be common in leftist and tree hugger economics as well as many other places.

    I was still in my early and mid teens when I learned about “value for value” and TANSTAAFL. Thank you Mr Heinlein.

  90. Gail Combs says:

    profitup10 says:
    June 20, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    A BOLD NEW ENERGY POLICY TO SAVE THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE!!!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Love it! (Just make it thorium) Oh and I live what I preach. I can see a nuclear plant cooling tower from my window.

    GE Reports: Thorium Lasers: The Thoroughly Plausible Idea for Nuclear Cars

  91. _Jim says:

    Gail Combs says June 20, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    GEE, according to Forbes Economically, Could Obama Be America’s Best President: With the stock market hitting new highs, some people have already forgotten about the Great Recession…. (They censor comments)

    Of course, everyone realizes those ‘equities’ were purchased (by trading firms) with Bernanke Bucks, which have to go somewhere after entering ‘the system’ via QE (Quantitative Easing) monetary policy where the Fed Reserve buys Treas notes back from the so-called “primary dealers”.

    List of: http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/pridealers_current.html

    Also note we are seeing ever-increasing costs in commodities, where those ‘bucks’ also end up by ‘traders’ and big financial trading institutions (usually paired with a primary dealer in some way). So while the Stock Market may be (was, ’til today) soaring, so are “commodity prices” (ranging from oil to oats) as the price we pay for anything we eat or put in or on our cars (priced tired lately?) soars out of sight too.

    .

  92. _Jim says:

    Wayne Delbeke says June 20, 2013 at 2:09 pm

    Isn’t it wonderful how an unthinking comment from the US Fed …

    The words the market heard were: “The party’s over! … time to pay the tab.”

    .

  93. X Anomaly says:

    Obama is obviously under intense pressure to “do something” from the activists. If it does go ahead its unlikely to be much. Boehner would reject any amount of tax. Let’s not get alarmist. Although I do understand some may be afraid of the slippery slope principle and don’t want any mechanisms in place.

    I think he’s about to approve Keystone I’d give the man a break.

  94. OssQss says:

    Remember when Barry told the American people he would not raise taxes “1 Dime” one the middle class? He was telling the truth. He raised them 2% for starters!

    Oh the good old days ;-)

  95. Catcracking says:

    Most of us don’t realize all the knobs the President has to impact our life style and the cost of living we have enjoyed. Below is a reference to his recent edict to raise the “social cost of carbon” With the advisors he has there is no limit to how much damage can be inflicted on our economy without congressional approval. The Supreme court is our only hope and we cannot depend on them very much.

    There is no science behind this costly regulation since Global warming has halted for over 15 years.

    Did you know there is a social cost for Carbon to heat your home and drive your car?

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-12/tougher-regulations-seen-from-obama-change-in-carbon-cost.html

    “Buried in a little-noticed rule on microwave ovens is a change in the U.S. government’s accounting for carbon emissions that could have wide-ranging implications for everything from power plants to the Keystone XL pipeline.

    “The increase of the so-called social cost of carbon, to $38 a metric ton in 2015 from $23.80, adjusts the calculation the government uses to weigh costs and benefits of proposed regulations. The figure is meant to approximate losses from global warming such as flood damage and diminished crops.”

    For example, the administration’s vehicle fuel-efficiency standards would cost industry $350 billion over the next 40 years, while benefits in energy security, less congestion and lower pollution totaled $278 billion.

    “For example, the administration’s vehicle fuel-efficiency standards would cost industry $350 billion over the next 40 years, while benefits in energy security, less congestion and lower pollution totaled $278 billion. ”

    “With the change, government actions that lead to cuts in emissions — anything from new mileage standards to clean-energy loans — will appear more valuable in its cost-benefit analyses. On the flip side, approvals that could lead to more carbon pollution, such as TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone pipeline or coal-mining by companies such as Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) on public lands, may be viewed as more costly. ”

    “As we learn that climate damage is worse and worse, there is no direction they could go but up,” Laurie Johnson, chief economist for climate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an interview. Johnson says the administration should go further; she estimates the carbon cost could be as much as $266 a ton.

  96. u.k.(us) says:

    This pretty much sums up my feelings, politics aside.

    Woe betide those of short memories.
    Political leaders included.

  97. Eve says:

    My question to jai and his fellow travellers is why and how are you using electricity. TURN IT OFF

  98. Wyguy says:

    Have you seen this one from AceofSpades: Senator Brian Schatz’s (D-HI) filed an amendment for the immigration bill Wednesday that would allow stateless people in the U.S. to seek conditional lawful status if their nations have been made uninhabitable by climate change.

  99. Chris R. says:

    To Mike Borgelt:

    Your comment about jai mitchell being “firmly embedded in his
    delusional worldview” is not quite right. He, like many other believers in mammoth
    government, is simply economically illiterate.

    All he can see is “10,000 new green jobs in Texas”, and on that basis he goes on about:
    “… What I wanted to share was the counter argument to the childish political position
    that a transformation/rebuilding of our domestic power generation and transportation
    infrastructure would create a net loss of jobs. This argument is false and indefensible.”

    But, of course, what he glides over without mentioning is that the only reason these
    green jobs exist is mammoth government subsidies. For example, the cost of
    the CREZ program in Texas is $6,839,422,915! That’s over 5 years, so that
    And that’s just one of a whole set of interlocking subsidies that make those “10,000
    green jobs” possible. But jai mitchell states that the opposing
    position, which considers ALL of the costs, is “…false and indefensible.” This is a
    common leftist tactic; the political left often try to create the impression that anyone
    who disagrees with their positions is not only wrong but is a venal scoundrel as well.

    What’s truly frightening is how many of them believe their own B.S.

  100. dbstealey says:

    george e. smith writes:

    “Tesla Motors, the darling of the green energy set, recently announced a profit. The only reason they made a profit, was because tax paying real workers paid a bundle for each of those 416 horsepower race cars, I heard the figure was $7500 for each Model S car sold. And they also made a profit selling ‘carbon credits’ to other companies. Just who the hell is manufacturing ‘carbon credits’, and what do they make them out of? Tesla Motors, certainly doesn’t make any carbon credits to sell to anybody.”

    =========================================

    Good questions. Maybe jai mitchell can explain why Tesla should receive free taxpayer dollars and carbon credit income, if they are supposedly ‘profitable’? And where did those carbon credits come from, anyway?

    Recall that Nash, American Motors, Hudson, Fisher, and a dozen other car makers went out of business because they could not compete profitably. They did not get bailouts, and as a result of their bankruptcies the industry was left in a much stronger position.

    But now we have Government Motors, in which Obama apparently has the right to arbitrarily fire half the elected Board of Directors, and the elected CEO of American car companies. He apparently also has the right to push bondholders to the back of the line — upsetting 200 years of corporate law in the process. But I guess that’s what we can expect when a criminal community organizer is made president. Thye laws on the books just don’t apply any more.

  101. Chris R. says:

    Huh. Somehow a line got dropped. I had written that the CREZ program costs
    amounted to a cost to the taxpayers of Texas, of $136,788, per job, per year. ANd
    that’s just one of the subsidies.

  102. Rob says:

    Quit possibly the most important post this year. Obama has vowed to “fight” climate change. There is none. Obviously, social change and control are the real deal.

  103. clipe says:

    More from Mark Townsend’s serial occupy a vacuum thought process.

    100º – get used to it
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/sep/11/ruralaffairs.climatechange

    Autumn will set Britain ablaze
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jul/23/weather.theobserver

  104. Gail Combs says:

    Gail Combs says June 20, 2013 at 2:25 pm
    … GEE, according to Forbes Economically, Could Obama Be America’s Best President…
    _________________________
    _Jim says: @ June 20, 2013 at 3:02 pm

    Of course, everyone realizes those ‘equities’ were purchased (by trading firms) with Bernanke Bucks, which have to go somewhere after entering ‘the system’ via QE (Quantitative Easing) monetary policy where the Fed Reserve buys Treas notes back from the so-called “primary dealers”….
    ________________________
    On that we agree.

    Also many of those corporations are now international and making $$$ because they manufacture in countries with cheap labor, no pollution or other regulations and cheaper energy and tax bills. As the Australian Financial Review article said the cost of employing skilled people (not just wages) is:
    Australia – over $600/day
    US – $400/day
    third world – under $200/day

    Multinational Corporations have no loyalty to any one country so they go where they can make the most profit. If you jack the cost of doing business up too high AND have no tariffs to jack up the cost of foreign imports it becomes financially rewarding to replace an older plant in the USA, EU Canada or Australia with one in India, Brazil or China and sell in the first world. This works as long as the first world economies are still limping along but will backfire if India, Brazil and China do not reach the point they are buying their own products before the first world economies finish collapsing. Of course if you are only in it for a fast buck who cares.

    I remember reading an article that suggested China insists on technology transfer and when the contract is up will build a competing plant across the street and shut you down. Unfortunately I lost the link.

    Anyway since the stock market mostly reflects how well international corporations are doing it does not necessarily reflect how good the economy is in the USA or Australia or Greece or Spain.

  105. Jay says:

    They couldnt care less what it does to our economy or standard of living.. Success is only measured by imposing the carbon tax.. The holy grail, the hail marry, the only way progressives believe they can step around the fact that multiculturalism = police state..

    This is all about political identity.. Obama himself proclaimed that climate change is the issue that will define this generation, and he means it with all his might..

    Otherwise terrorism (truth) will be left as the defining issue this generation.. With its obvious cause and effect negative reflection on liberalism itself..

    They are running from a political wildfire that their own making.. They have to control the conversation.. They have to impose the mandate.. They are not so much willfully blind (no warming) as they are happily distracted..

    Leaves me wondering if the 1984 police state and the reckless destruction of what few manufacturing jobs left in America (green energy) is more about protecting liberalism than the people..

    Liberalism has earned a severe “dressing down” for its failed social experimentation.. They plan on failing even larger to hide this shameful miscalculation..

    Make things so bad that their political beliefs have a chance of surviving..

    While the science is surly a joke the politics is a absolute fact..

  106. Olaf Koenders says:

    In the long past, leaders of small communities that sought to do unwell for the rest, were forcibly banished. This tradition became unattainable when such leaders, using trust of their community, slowly engendered more power and control, then favoured such on their own kind, enlarging their hold.

    The entire system need a Nuremberg overhaul.

  107. Bruce Cobb says:

    “Green” jobs created under the Obama administration: 2,298.
    Total cost: $26 billion.
    Average cost per job: $11.45 million.
    We’re being swindled, big-time.
    Oh, and guess what? Over a million jobs have been created by the private sector (free markets) in the (shudder) oil and gas industries these past few years.

    http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/09/green-energy-triumph-11-million-spent-per-job-created/

  108. ed mister jones says:

    Jai,

    You remind me of my Alcoholic Ex-wife – the last person to figure out ‘The Obvious’. I would pity you, if you weren’t enabling True Sociopaths.

  109. David Riser says:

    Well this should have some interesting side effects. By making electricity more difficult to get at a higher price; oil fired furnaces, hot water heaters and other fun carbon making home based things that wont be regulated by the EPA will become more economically viable. This over a period of years would create the unintended consequence of increasing the amount of carbon released in the atmosphere than if we stayed the course with efficient coal powered plants.

  110. ed mister jones says:

    David L. says:
    June 20, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    James Padgett says:

    June 20, 2013 at 11:00 am

    Obama is looking for his legacy.

    That rarely turns out well.
    ________________________

    I thought his legacy was Obamacare.

    “Legacy” ? “Legacy”? . . is that a new term for steaming pile of misguided, politically expedient, monumentally ignorant and cynical excrement?

  111. pyeatte says:

    The real cure for climate change is to start burning witches at the stake again. It is witches that are causing all this changie stuff. :)

  112. Eve says:

    I know the political system needs an Nuremberg overhaul.This will happen when starving, cold people pull the government members from Congress and burn or decapitate them. Do we need to wait until things get that dire? Is killing the current members of government the only choice, though it seems fitting.

  113. William McClenney says:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 20, 2013 at 11:18 am

    “Green energy doesn’t kill jobs, just ask Texas. Green energy creates jobs, and lots of them. What green energy DOES do is help to prevent the loss of life that is detailed in this report.”

    1) Tell us Jai, what part of Green Energy is actually green?

    2) I, and I suspect a lot of others here, would be interested to know how green energy will “prevent the loss of life that is detailed in this report.” Would you be so kind as to expand on this? I am particularly interested to know how an intermittent energy source which nominally produces at about 10% rated output will have any effect on “major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020.”

    3) Speaking about “major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020 “, I, for one, found it fascinating to consider cities sunk beneath rising seas and Siberian climate in the same sentence. It strikes me as just a little bit odd that rising seas are associated with a Siberian climate. I thought rising seas were associated with a tropical climate weirding the poles. So the question here is did you bump your head?

    4) Jai, are you truly concerned about climate change? I mean the catastrophic variety? If so then you really should go read http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/

    5) If +45M amsl right at the end-Eemian doesn’t scare you out of your tree, then you will need to climb another 7 meters higher if Astrid Lysa et al’s measurements are correct http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf Given that 45+7=52, and that 52 meters converts to 170.6 feet, the question is will your treehouse up in NorCal be situated 170.6 feet above present mean sea level?

    Because, you see, none of this really matters. The low-ball highstand that occurred during the second thermal pulse of the end-Eemian (right at its end) is +6M amsl, or an order of magnitude greater than IPCC’s 2007 AR4 worst case estimate of sea level rise by 2100. My, your, our worst case gold standard of science anthropogenic signal comes in at less than 10% of the lowest estimate of end extreme interglacial climate noise. If we compare the AR4 +0.59M CAGW worst case to Astrid Lysa et al’s +52M amsl estimate we shrink to 1.1% of the end extreme interglacial climate noise.

    But it might very well be worse than you thought…….

    There is a 12.5% chance (1 in 8) that the Holocene will be like MIS-11 and run tens of thousands of years more. Consequently, there is an 87.5% chance that it won’t. At exactly 11,716 years old, the Holocene is a few centuries over half the present precession cycle length. Seven of the last 8 interglacials have each lasted about half a precession cycle.

    Welcome to the real world of climate science. It’s far far worse than you ever imagined.

    6) Oh, and let us know about those Texas green energy jobs. I mean I have read all the reports on the green energy revolution in Europe, and the numbers didn’t look all that good. How does Texas do it?

  114. Alex says:

    @jai mitchell I recomend you read “economics in one lesson” by Henry Hazlitt. You think taking money from people and using it to do stuff the market didnt already do creates jobs, Why didnt anyone already do those things? What wont get done because money was forced into non profitable efforts?.

  115. TomR,Worc,MA says:

    SnotRocket has it 100 % right. These trolls are only here to threadjack. The more you feed the trolls, the more they win.

    Do. Not. Feed. The. Trolls.

    Don’t use complete posts to argue with them. Make a comment or post a link that it is directed twards them, and complete your post on topic.

    They will go away eventually.

    TB

  116. jai mitchell says:

    db stealey
    you said,
    But now we have Government Motors, in which Obama apparently has the right to arbitrarily fire half the elected Board of Directors, and the elected CEO of American car companies.
    ———-

    According to this article only 20 hours old. . .

    Will GM Be “Government Motors” Forever?
    Updated Jun 19th 2013 11:25AM

    http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/19/will-gm-be-government-motors-forever/

    Last month, the U.S. Treasury announced the launch of a trading plan to sell the rest of its stake in General Motors by early 2014. This followed a decision by GM last December to buy back 200 million shares from the Treasury Department for $5.5 billion. By the end of this month, the Treasury will own just 14% of GM stock, down from a whopping 61% in 2009.

    —————

    so yeah, anyways, I don’t see how this is in any way relevant to the conversation. . .(green energy)

  117. Mac the Knife says:

    X Anomaly says:
    June 20, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    ” I’d give the man a break.”

    X,
    Our Dear Leader spends an inordinate amount of time playing golf, ‘shooting buckets’, and vacationing in Hawaii. Does he really need more ‘breaks’?

    He says he went to bed and slept soundly the night Americans were being murdered by muslim terrorists in Benghaz on 9/11/2012. His Team refused to send available assets (special forces and air support) to assist the 2 marines that gave their lives trying to prevent the murder of our US Ambassador to Lybia. Mind you, Our Dear Leader didn’t refuse to send help, ’cause he was asleep…It must have been one of his as yet nameless minions that refused the 3 desperate calls from the consulate for help. Yeah, that’s the ticket. . The very next morning, his propaganda Team declared it was a ‘spontaneous mob attack’, stimulated by a video that was unkind to the muslim sensibilities, when it was readily apparent to anyone with an IQ above room temperature it was a terrorist attack specifically planned and executed against the US consulate on the anniversary of 9/11! What type of a ‘break’ does he deserve for this?

    His administration targets his political opponents and any reporters that don’t support him with IRS audits and ‘special surveillance’. The ‘breaks’ go to his political allies.

    His administration has doled out Billion$ of dollars to ‘green energy’ shell companies run by his campaign finance money bundlers. Many of these companies have declared bankruptcy, after the money was laundered and the election achieved. What ‘breaks’ are appropriate, for actions like these?

    The minimum ‘break’ he has earned is removal from office, in abject disgrace.

    His current pursuit of ‘Climate Change’ regulations and taxes serves 5 purposes.
    First and most importantly, it draws attention away the real issues that can bring his corrupt administration tumbling down. Second and nearly as important, it will further weaken the economic and military strengths of the US. Third, it raises taxes, a fave of Barack Hussein Obama.. Fourth, it drives up energy costs to all Americans, something BO promised to do in a rare candidate moment! Fifth, it feeds his left wing socialist/environmental cadres.

    That’s a game plan right out of Alynsky’s Rules For Radicals. That’s how Our Dear Leader ‘rolls’.

  118. Just Steve says:

    Earlier on this thread, I mentioned that those who think like Jai always come up with the “we must do something, whether the facts of global warming are bogus or not” mantra.

    Well, well. From The Economist:

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/climate-change

  119. Ronald Voisin says:

    Ian W.

    I like your thinking.

  120. _Jim says:
    June 20, 2013 at 3:05 pm
    Wayne Delbeke says June 20, 2013 at 2:09 pm

    Isn’t it wonderful how an unthinking comment from the US Fed …

    The words the market heard were: “The party’s over! … time to pay the tab.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I agree with you, the US debt must be brought under control. But you don’t slam the brakes on a passenger train, you apply them slowly so you don’t have a train wreck. It seems to me these fellows don’t understand that. The market should have heard: “The economy is improving so there will be more jobs.” but instead they heard the rug is being pulled out from under your feet. And all those “computerized” traders had apoplexy. Like GCM’s. Like the stationary low pressure system currently in southern Alberta causing a pile of flooding like in 2005 will be called “unprecedented” and a result of Global Warming. No one thinks for themselves any more. People seem to think 100 or 200 year events are unprecedented. The result of our 80 year life spans and loss of oral history. It’s just weather but watch how the news people play it.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/06/20/calgary-city-emergency-plan-ch.html

  121. Gunga Din says:

    “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
    Obama’s poll numbers are dropping. Scandals and abuse of power are becoming more transparent. His “some of the time” is expiring. He’s just going back to before to distract and/or re-fool the fooled so those who share in his “dream” can continue the nightmare.

  122. Gunga Din says:

    TYPO!
    “going back to before” should be “going back to what worked before”

  123. dbstealey says:

    jai mitchell says:

    “Last month, the U.S. Treasury announced the launch of a trading plan to sell the rest of its stake in General Motors by early 2014. This followed a decision by GM last December to buy back 200 million shares from the Treasury Department for $5.5 billion. By the end of this month, the Treasury will own just 14% of GM stock” &etc.

    ======================================

    I think no one agrees with you is because you have no reading comprehension. My point was that the government had no authority to arbitrarily remove an elected CEO or elected Board member from office, without them being found guilty of breaking the law. What law did the break, mitchell? When was the trial …oh, that’s right. There was no trial. Obama arbitrarily acted as judge, jury and executioner.

    I asked you “why Tesla should receive free taxpayer dollars and carbon credit income, if they are supposedly ‘profitable’? And where did those carbon credits come from, anyway?”

    Answer the questions. Where did Tesla’s carbon credits originate? And how can you claim that Tesla is profitable, when they have such lucrative subsidies? Answer the questions — if you can.

    No one agrees with what you say here because you are simply wrong. Government-created green jobs are jobs that have been fabricated out of the taxes of workers in the private sector, thus they are negative job creation. If you had read about Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy, you would understand that. But in your ignorance you prefer to quote the opinions of other climate alarmists, who wouldn’t know the scientific method if it bit ‘em on the a …nkle.

    You understand nothing of science. Everything you say is either logically inconsistent or flat wrong. To top it all off, you are a hypocrite for being a fossil fuel consumer, while taking the position that fossil fuel use is bad. Earth to jai: fossil fuels have saved millions of lives, while your proposed ‘remedies’ would kill people.

    You are the one out of step here, jai mitchell, not everyone else. Your wacko views have been repeatedly discredited with scientific facts. Your raving about droughts, etc., merely conflates arbitrary and unrelated occurrences, which have nothing whatever to do with “carbon”.

    The fact is that Planet Earth is debunking your nonsense; all of it. The climate is well within its long term parameters. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented occurring. If you believe otherwise, post what you believe are your verifiable facts right here, and we will deconstruct your globaloney nonsense — which is getting tedious, coming from a know-nothing.

  124. jai mitchell says:

    William McClenney says:

    June 20, 2013 at 5:20 pm

    you said,
    blah blah blah

    ————————-

    1. The green part of green energy is the part that uses non-polluting, non co2 fuel sources to generate electricity–I am sure that is not your question. You want to say some nunsuch that “green” energy isn’t really green, that there are other pollutants associated with that. Well, of course there is pollution associated with every activity we do. However, the benefits of solar, wind and geothermal (and in some analyses-but not all, nuclear) sources shows significant economic and environmental benefits. ESPECIALLY when one compares that to a 1960s era coal-fired power plant.

    2. with an aggressive transformation effort, we can reduce the emissions of CO2 to a point where we may, and I stress, MAY prevent the early loss of life and the collapse of our modern civilization by 2065.

    –the May part is because it really depends on how these efforts produce market effects that will allow others (specifically india and china) to engage with better policies regarding CO2 emissions. China already has infinitely more high speed rail than the U.S. and it is rapidly expanding its wind power portfolio. http://berc.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2013-gen.jpg

    with regard to rising seas, It is highly likely that we are already at a place where future CO2 driven climate change will cause the collapse of the western Antarctic ice shelf and Greenland within the next 250 years– unless we remove the CO2 from the atmosphere.

    –contrary to your belief, this is a reasonable course of action over the next 50 years.

    3. I answered your question here above, –the reported issue of Siberian climate in U.K. is associated with the slowdown or halting of the AMOC. This has happened before during the younger dryas.

    4. The Holocene has already ended, we just don’t know it yet. If humanity survives an additional 1000 years we will look back and say the Holocene ended in 1860.

    I read your link, not a whole lot there actually. The Eemian is well understood, the theory that we will stay in a “goldilocks” interglacial through the next Milankovich cycle is not something I have seen before and it’s certainty is highly doubtful, given that they don’t really have a way describe the mechanism of comparison of the Holocene to MIS-11.

    what I DO agree with is the conclusion where it says,
    —————-
    The possibility consequently exists that at perhaps precisely the right moment near the end-Holocene, the latest iteration of the genus Homo unwittingly stumbled on the correct atmospheric GHG recipe to perhaps ease or delay the transition into the next glacial.

    We may have actually already “engineered” a “climate security blanket”
    ——————

    and the “possibility” (actually the results of the ENTIRE body of scientific evidence) that, at the near end of the Holocene, the latest iteration of the genus Homo unwittingly produced enough GHG into the atmosphere to raise the global temperature significantly so that within the course of only several hundred years, that the CO2, Methane and the earth’s temperature and sea levels reached that of MIS-31.

    5. You’re desire to compare the AR4 2100 sea level rise to prior interglacials shows your habit of minimalizing AGW. The AR4 shows only what the transitory level will be, not the equilibrium temperature, the true equilibrium temperature will not be reached for several hundred years. In addition, once the EES (equilibrium) is met–usually considered about 1.5 times the temperature of the CS (short term) the melting of the glaciers and the Land-based ice sheets will take an additional several hundred years to complete their melt. so, does 150 Meters sound bad? YES, will it look like that in 2100, no way. Will it look worse than 5 meters by 2100. Yes, I can pretty much guarantee it.

    6. The societal cost of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere justifies a higher energy portfolio of renewable energy. Without these activities, future generations of humanity are being placed under hazard. The only thing you need to pay attention to right now is this:

    http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg

    Once the arctic begins to be ice free in June the average arctic temperature in the summer will climb by over 8C and your fantasy of a steady-state thermal system in the 400+ ppmv CO2 world will be proven as a complete delusion.

  125. Gail Combs says:

    David Riser says:
    June 20, 2013 at 4:52 pm

    Well this should have some interesting side effects….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Don’t worry they will be banned.

    Remember the ultimate goal is to move Americans out of their homes and off their land into cities composed of Bloomberg’s micro-mini apartments because we are now seeing Micro-Apartments Built Across America in the Name of Sustainability <—(read this one)

    For those like _Jim who think I am crazy try this article: L.A. County’s Private Property War or this one from the Wall Street Journal California Declares War on Suburbia: Planners want to herd millions into densely packed urban corridors. It won’t save the planet but will make traffic even worse. or ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability: Sustainable City or Tips for Selling the ‘Urban’ Experience to Suburbanites “Today’s article is by my friend Lee Epstein, an attorney and land use planner working for sustainability in the Mid-Atlantic region….”

    Or this one that says it all:

    Green Practices/Sustainability
    Apartments are the core of any sustainability strategy. They are more resource- and energy-efficient than other types of residential development because their concentrated infrastructure conserves materials and community services. As part of an infill or mixed-use development, apartments create communities where people live, work, and play with less dependence on cars. This reduces the consumption of fossil fuels and their carbon emissions.

    Through the NMHC Sustainability Committee, the Council is advancing industry best practices; working with lawmakers to adopt voluntary and incentive-based energy policy; and developing and promoting standards to help firms market their sustainability quotient….

    I recommend watching Rosa Koire’s youtube or visiting her blogs DEMOCRATS AGAINST U. N. AGENDA 21 and THE POST SUSTAINABLE INSTITUTE

  126. Mario Lento says:

    Jai is given too much credence here. He’d be the guy calling someone a witch in Salem, MA in the late in the 1700’s, well after the hysteria had already ended in the 1690’s. Jai, you’re late to the AGW party. Your ilk is dwindling, and soon you will look back on your life with more self loathing.

  127. jai mitchell says:

    The arctic sea ice page for this site is late updating the arctic ice comparison graphic I linked to. Not sure why it is late being updated. . .probably the linked site, Anywhoo, the most recent arctic picture can be found here

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

    and you can compare it here:

    http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg

  128. Mario Lento says:

    Who cares what the arctic ice is doing… It’s foolhardy to think that if ice melts or freezes, CO2 caused it. It’s just a distraction, like you Jai.

  129. Steve Short says:

    Totally beats me how you can have an environmental movement which:

    (1) created Goebbels-style the Big Fracking Lie (refer Gaslands etc.) in order to try to stamp out coal seam and shale gas extraction even though it demonstrably reduces net CO2 emissions and allows much more thermal-grade coal to stay in the ground for much longer; and also

    (2) bitterly opposes trials of oceanic cyanobacteria stimulation to sequester CO2 in the deep ocean, probably the most viable, achievable means for a safe, emergency bulk sequestration and ocean acidification reversal if the current best understanding of the oceanic geochemical record is anything to go by (refer numerous issues of Nature Geoscience over the last 5 years).

    Clearly the real problem is the rise of a sort of weird, crypto-religious, post modernist cult which has swept through the halls of science and political life like the Great Plague.

    Let’s stamp that plague out real soon now.

    Us Aussies are starting the ball rolling this September 14 when we annihilate our rabid Labor-Green federal government at the ballot box.

  130. Rich Lambert says:

    The pertinent question facing Representative Boehner is not the condition of the president’s mental health, but what is Mr. Boehner going to do to block the president’s plans? The Congress has to date done little to thwart the administration’s economy crippling carbon dioxide agenda.

  131. Tom J says:

    It’s too bad that nobody ever bothered to look at where Obama came from. I’m not talking about where he was born. At this point it’s irrelevant. I’m talking about where he grew up; which was Indonesia and Hawaii. And his education was at Columbia College (so he says) which is in New York and also at Harvard. So, the first question has to be: ‘Why did he come to Illinois, of all places, to launch his political career?’- Illinois, arguably one of the most corrupt states in the Union. And not just Illinois, but Chicago, the epicenter of that corruption. Supposedly he was lured here by the ‘fixer,’ Anthony Rezko. Guess where Rezko is now? Prison? And Barack and Michelle bought their first home in Chicago’s near south neighborhood of Hyde Park through the arrangements made by Rezko. Alice Palmer, who served in the Illinois Senate in the state capital of Springfield, was based in Chicago. She showed young Obama around and took him under her wing. When Mel Reynolds, who served in the U.S. Congress for that district, went to prison for returning the affections of an underage campaign staffer (oh, and also corruption), Palmer left her Senate seat to run in the primaries for Reynolds’s vacated seat. When Jesse Jackson Jr. entered the same primaries Alice Palmer knew she could not compete with the Jackson name recognition or war chest so she went to return to her former Senate seat. Guess what? Obama had slid into her seat unopposed and then stabbed his former mentor in the back, taking Alice Palmer to court on voter fraud. Voter fraud in Chicago? Shocking! Oh, and by the way, guess where Jackson’s headed? The slammer? Now, when Barack Obama ‘served’ (I use that term loosely) in the Illinois Senate he gerrymandered his district. Hyde Park contains Frank Lloyd Wright’s Robie House, the renowned University of Chicago, and a small liberal enclave, but it’s primarily a poor south side Chicago ghetto. So Obama redrew it, adding Chicago’s influential lakefront residences to the mix. Around this time he ran against the wildly popular, former Black Panther, Bobby Rush, for a seat in the U.S. Congress, and he lost big time. Apparently this loss actually threatened Obama’s marriage, and there’s indications that it may be the reason his long term family doctor was not invited to his inauguration. (Draw your own conclusions.) Sometime later, Carol Moseley Braun (yes, I actually did campaign work for her) would be soundly ejected as an Illinois Senator in Washington due to the gross shenanigans in her first term (vacation junkets). The Republican contestant would find himself embroiled in a scandal due to the disclosure (blatantly illegal) of sealed court records in his divorce proceedings. So Barack Obama pretty much slid into the Illinois Senate seat in Washington unopposed. Does one see a pattern here? Now, when Obama went to run for the presidency, Illinois law authorized the governor to name a temporary replacement for that vacated seat. The governor at that time, Rod Blogojevich decided this was worth some money so he went to sell it. Well, he went to prison for that, and he’s perhaps socializing with the preceding Illinois Governor Ryan, also in prison. Barack Obama maintains he never discussed his vacated seat with Rod which is probably technically true, but during Rod’s trial it was revealed that Obama discussed it with a union steward who subsequently discussed it with Rod. The person Obama recommended; Valerie Jarrett.

    This is your president folks. This is the man who has unilaterally determined that we can do without about 1/3rd of our electrical generating capacity. This is the man who’s earlier career was as a community organizer; a profession owing its legacy to Saul Alinsky. This is the man formerly affiliated with the SEIU, Acorn, and Reverend Wright. This is the man, who in his earlier days, went by the name of Barry Dunham [the last name of which more accurately represents his true name since his father (already married) could not have legally been married to his mother], but then reverted to the more exotic sounding Barack Obama.

    Hope and Change!

  132. Mario Lento says:

    Jai: with regard to your opinions on green energy. You must wonder why people take offense to your harmful nonsense. It’s because your ilk have their hands in our pockets. Without being able to take our money, so called green energy is not possible. Without the wealth created by a prospering nation, people like you would need to actually take care of yourself –and then people like you would have to shut your pie hole and get to work doing something which fulfills someone’s needs. But such is not the case, and you’ve been made into a useful “you know what” preaching to people who don’t have a clue about science.

    That you can read and are capable of looking at the evidence presented before you, yet continue with your banter, is mind boggling. But then again, liberalism is really a mental disorder.

  133. Blade says:

    I feel so much better that Boehner plans to stand up to DingleBarry and the AGW hoax. Oh wait. Boehner can’t even seem to distinguish between illegal aliens and legal immigrants.

    Note to John, the illegal aliens are the one that break and enter our house by climbing over the fence and other methods. They’re easy to identify because there is no record of them signing in at a border crossing and they have no documentation. Boehner is yet another Mr. Magoo inexplicably handed the gavel of power in the people’s House. God help us all.

    Note 2 to John, the weather and climate has no business being discussed, debated or voted on in Congress, period. Only in the most insane world can the weather be used as a political tool.

  134. Bill H says:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 20, 2013 at 6:20 pm

    =================

    A true believer and yet you have not quantified how carbon is doing anything. Nor have you explained how its doing it with scientific methods which are repeatable and repetitive with the same results.

    I have read all the talking points none of which are supported by real science.

    It is almost as if someone here was a paid shill for the Obama EPA trying to justify itself. To many talking points and all the baseless hype.. Or simply a troll..

  135. pottereaton says:

    @jai mitchell, June 20, 2013 at 11:18 am

    All you have proven with this post is that the US intelligence and defense establishments were duped like the rest of us by the claims of the AGW hysterians at the IPCC and other agenda-driven groups.

    I’m sure most people who contributed to that report would admit that their projections of impending doom are now “inoperative,” to quote an oft-used term in government jargon. Why can’t you?

  136. Tom in Texas says:

    “How does Texas do it?”

    They are painting all the drilling rigs in Eagle Ford green.

  137. Gail Combs says:

    jai mitchell says: @ June 20, 2013 at 6:20 pm

    ….Once the arctic begins to be ice free in June the average arctic temperature in the summer will climb by over 8C and your fantasy of a steady-state thermal system in the 400+ ppmv CO2 world will be proven as a complete delusion
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It seems William McClenney should have had you read his article on a more recent paper: Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?

    The key phrases from the paper are “… the first major reactivation of the bipolar seesaw would probably constitute an indication that the transition to a glacial state had already taken place…….Thus, glacial inception occurred ~3 kyr before the onset of significant bipolar-seesaw variability…” translated that means the decrease of Arctic ice while the Antarctic ice is increasing comes 3,000 yrs AFTER the transition, and the bipolar-seesaw is exactly what is happening now.

    The paper goes on to say
    …Comparison [of the Holocene] with MIS 19c, a close astronomical analogue characterized by an equally weak summer insolation minimum (474Wm−2) and a smaller overall decrease from maximum summer solstice insolation values, suggests that glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240±5 ppmv (Tzedakis et al., 2012).”
    Actual paper:
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/cp-8-1473-2012.pdf (PDF raw)

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/cp-8-1473-2012-hlt.pdf (PDF highlighted)

    Here is another paper by scientists who support CO2 as a factor in climate change

    Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)

    ….Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379107002715

    Others think we will approach the critical TSI but remain in an interglacial

    ….The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the glacial inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again…..”
    http://www.particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf

    So you have a span of summer insolation minimum values needed to initiate glaciation somewhere between 474Wm2 (Tzedakis et al., 2012) and 416 Wm2 (Sirocko & Seelos) and we are now at 428 Wm2.

    On top of that snow has been increasing in the Northern Hemisphere for the last few years.
    NOAA graphs:
    NH snow Oct. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201210.gif
    NH snow Nov http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201211.gif
    NH snow Dec. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201212.gif
    NH snow Jan. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201301.gif
    NH snow Feb. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201302.gif

    So We know
    1. The Holocene is a few centuries over half the present precession cycle length.

    2. The Transition Periods can have abrupt warmings (within a decade)

    3. The present solar insolation is in the window for glacial inception.

    4. The reactivation of the bipolar seesaw constitutes an indication that the transition to a glacial state had already taken place.

    5. During the last glaciation scientists found Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California

    6. Other scientists have found plants grow better and need less water with an increase in CO2.

    7. Carbon dioxide plays one of the central roles in respiratory alkalosis. Note, however, that tissue hypoxia due to critically-low carbon dioxide level in the alveoli is usually the main life-threatening factor in the severely sick. As we discussed before, CO2 is crucial for vasodilation and the Bohr effect.

    8. CO2 Heals Lung Damage and Lung Injury

    So with the earth’s temperatures decreasing over the long term as the sun’s insolation hovers near glacial inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again, WHY in the name of the thousand little gods would anyone in their right mind quit producing the magic gas that makes life possible for plants and animals and also might keep us out of the deep freeze!

  138. Theo Goodwin says:

    Mac the Knife says:
    June 20, 2013 at 11:38 am
    ‘Apparently, ‘stopping AGW’ is akin to a civil right, according to Jonathan Overpeck, co-director of the Institute of the Environment at the University of Arizona: “Lincoln would have tried to stop it….”’

    How? By reducing the amount of munitions expended by Grant’s army?

  139. wws says:

    I find that I must disagree with Speaker Boehner; Obama’s plan is perfectly rational and in fact, Brilliant – ONCE you realize just which game Obama is playing!

    This has nothing to do with “climate change”, and Obama knows nothing will pass Congress while he’s in office. He even knows that he doesn’t dare cut loose the EPA for fear of killing the economy. THIS is Obama’s plan:

    – Pay lip service to the spectre of Global Warming, not with the intention of actually doing anything , but just enough to keep the always gullible Warmistas on his side and contributing to the Cause; and then when nothing happens blame it all on those Evil “Deniers” and demand even more money in order to continue to do battle. Then, siphon all the money off to his friends and supporters and after 3 more years are gone, go off to live a life in luxury in Hawaii for the rest of his life.

    Like I said, Brilliant.

  140. SAMURAI says:

    Let’s see… The US has a $17 Trillion national debt, $221 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, we’re in the worst recession/”recovery” since the Great Depression, The FED is printing $85 billion/month to keep the stock and real estate bubbles temporarily inflated, US bond prices are falling and bond yields are rising quickly, an immigration bill will soon be passed, which will add an estimated to add $60~100 billion/year in entitlement expenditures to cover 11~20 million new “US persons” (aka new Democrat voters), a $500 billion annual trade deficit, the US$ is tanking, Obamacare is a train wreck now projected to cost $20,000/yr for a family of 4, 50 million people are now on Food Stamps (and growing at an unprecedented rate), the Labor Participation Rate is the lowest since 1979, REAL unemployment is projected to be 16%, REAL inflation is projected to be around 6%, oil will soon be over $100/bbl, the US savings rate is the at the lowest levels ever, the US already waste $1.75 Trillion/yr on business rules/regulation compliance costs and Obama wishes to pour more gasoline on the fire by adding more CO2 taxes/regulations.

    What could possibly go wrong?….

    It’s almost like Obama wishes to purposefully collapse the existing US political socio-economic system and replace it with one that will “Fundamentally Transform the USA”. It seems that Obama is implementing the 1966 Cloward-Piven strategy of overwhelming/collapsing the system in order to replace it with a gigantic centrally-controlled nanny state.

    I really to know how the US survives this assault.

  141. ba says:

    We should worry about Obama turning the US into Siberia with all the gulags he must be planning.

  142. Neo says:

    With the appearance of the prospect of Global Cooling, it is now a race for politicians to “do something” so they can take credit when they finally decide that the government funded scientists should start talking about a reversal of our climate fortunes.

  143. Ric Werme says:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 20, 2013 at 6:26 pm

    The arctic sea ice page for this site is late updating the arctic ice comparison graphic I linked to. Not sure why it is late being updated.

    The proximate cause appears to be that a page I tried to access, http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20130619.jpg returned some sort of error. I can handle a HTTP 404 response, it looks like the connection didn’t happen.

    I just tried it again, and got the 404 response, so the script tried 6/18 and was successful.

    So the comparison image is now 6/18.

    You can also see it at the source, http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=18&fy=2007&sm=06&sd=18&sy=2013

  144. William McClenney says:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 20, 2013 at 6:20 pm

    William McClenney says:

    June 20, 2013 at 5:20 pm

    you said,
    blah blah blah

    Thank you.

    1) Tell us Jai, what part of Green Energy is actually green?
    YOUR RESPONSE:You change the question “I am sure that is not your question”. Repeat and expand on claims, but provide no verifiable information. This question remains to be answered.

    2) I, and I suspect a lot of others here, would be interested to know how green energy will “prevent the loss of life that is detailed in this report.” Would you be so kind as to expand on this? I am particularly interested to know how an intermittent energy source which nominally produces at about 10% rated output will have any effect on “major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020.”

    YOUR RESPONSE:”blah, blah, blah”

    MY RESPONSE: I did not detect a response to the question asked. I did not ask if “with an aggressive transformation effort, we can reduce the emissions of CO2 to a point where we may, and I stress, MAY prevent the early loss of life and the collapse of our modern civilization by 2065.”? I asked how it would. I detected no response to “I am particularly interested to know how an intermittent energy source which nominally produces at about 10% rated output will have any effect on “major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020.”

    3) Speaking about “major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020 “, I, for one, found it fascinating to consider cities sunk beneath rising seas and Siberian climate in the same sentence. It strikes me as just a little bit odd that rising seas are associated with a Siberian climate. I thought rising seas were associated with a tropical climate weirding the poles. So the question here is did you bump your head?

    YOUR RESPONSE: Non-responsive.

    MY RESPONSE: Did you, or did you not, bump your head?

    4) Jai, are you truly concerned about climate change? I mean the catastrophic variety? If so then you really should go read http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/

    YOUR RESPONSE: Non-responsive. “The Holocene has already ended, we just don’t know it yet. If humanity survives an additional 1000 years we will look back and say the Holocene ended in 1860.”

    MY RESPONSE: References please. peer-reviewed if you do not mind, .

    YOUR RESPONSE: “I read your link, not a whole lot there actually. The Eemian is well understood, the theory that we will stay in a “goldilocks” interglacial through the next Milankovich cycle is not something I have seen before and it’s certainty is highly doubtful, given that they don’t really have a way describe the mechanism of comparison of the Holocene to MIS-11. ”

    MY RESPONSE: Good dismissal. I quote extensively from the peer-reviewed literature, and you do not. The Eemian is not at all well understood. If it were then we would know what the hypsithermal highstand really was, instead of one paper referencing a dozen others for a range of from +6 to +45 amsl, with an outlier at +52 amsl. The intended salient point here, Jai, is that even on things which actually have happened the science is not that particularly well settled. Which makes consideration of the science being settled on things which have not happened yet, a bit unsettling. We do not actually know how much higher the sea-level highstand actually was during the second thermal pulse of the last interglacial. But we do know it was something like 10-100 times higher than the best anthropogenic prediction you fear.

    YOUR RESPONSE: “and the “possibility” (actually the results of the ENTIRE body of scientific evidence) that, at the near end of the Holocene, the latest iteration of the genus Homo unwittingly produced enough GHG into the atmosphere to raise the global temperature significantly so that within the course of only several hundred years, that the CO2, Methane and the earth’s temperature and sea levels reached that of MIS-31.”

    MY RESPONSE: It would be in your best interest to restrict the conversation to post-MPT time. MIS-31 occurred well before that, so strictly speaking, it is not nearly as relevant as the eccentricity paced interglacials. Which also means it occurred in a much warmer time as we decayed from the PETM. Even though your response was non-sequitur, you did actually get marginally close to the heart of the matter before us. Assuming CO2 is the thermal variable it is made out to be, and assuming we really do not know if we will mimic MIS-11 or not, what would you propose we do? Remove it? That sword cuts both ways. There are only two choices here. We either are, or are not, going forward into an extended interglacial. If we are, and you are right about your presumptions regarding CO2, then a repeat of the extended interglacial, MIS-11, will be quite brutal, climatewise http://si-pddr.si.edu/jspui/bitstream/10088/7516/1/vz_Olson_and_hearty_a_sustained_21m_sea-level_highstand_during_mis_1.pdf

    The problem here, of course, is if we saunter down the 87.5% probability and that you are right that the Holocene is over. The act of removing your climate security blanket at such a time might actually remove your only known climate speedbump to the next glacial. Are you suggesting this is the appropriate anthropogenic response? Or does the possibility that, given the last 5 million years of cooling-off and becoming more climate extreme http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/Lisiecki_Raymo-d18O_Stack-Pa05.pdf we are heading back up the realclimate scale to warmer, obliquity-paced conditions as occurred during MIS-31?

    5) If +45M amsl right at the end-Eemian doesn’t scare you out of your tree, then you will need to climb another 7 meters higher if Astrid Lysa et al’s measurements are correct http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf Given that 45+7=52, and that 52 meters converts to 170.6 feet, the question is will your treehouse up in NorCal be situated 170.6 feet above present mean sea level?

    Because, you see, none of this really matters. The low-ball highstand that occurred during the second thermal pulse of the end-Eemian (right at its end) is +6M amsl, or an order of magnitude greater than IPCC’s 2007 AR4 worst case estimate of sea level rise by 2100. My, your, our worst case gold standard of science anthropogenic signal comes in at less than 10% of the lowest estimate of end extreme interglacial climate noise. If we compare the AR4 +0.59M CAGW worst case to Astrid Lysa et al’s +52M amsl estimate we shrink to 1.1% of the end extreme interglacial climate noise.

    YOUR RESPONSE: Non-responsive. ” You’re desire to compare the AR4 2100 sea level rise to prior interglacials shows your habit of minimalizing AGW.”

    MY RESPONSE: Incorrect. What my question does show is cognition of the rather basic paradigm of signal to noise ratio. I am not minimalizing AGW, I am asking you to man-up. I see your 2007 AR4 worst case scenario(bet) by 2100, and I raise you +6M at the end-Eemian.
    You say “In addition, once the EES (equilibrium) is met–usually considered about 1.5 times the temperature of the CS (short term) the melting of the glaciers and the Land-based ice sheets will take an additional several hundred years to complete their melt. so, does 150 Meters sound bad?” Alas, all I can reference is a paltry +52M at the end-Eemian….. BTW, where do you get +150M of sea level from? Just curious. References??

    YOUR RESPONSE: “YES, will it look like that in 2100, no way. Will it look worse than 5 meters by 2100. Yes, I can pretty much guarantee it.”

    MY RESPONSE: With MIS-11 +21.3 amsl, and MIS-5e somewhere between +6 to +52M amsl, we can be said to agree on this point.

    6) Oh, and let us know about those Texas green energy jobs. I mean I have read all the reports on the green energy revolution in Europe, and the numbers didn’t look all that good. How does Texas do it?

    YOUR RESPONSE: Non-responsive. I await a discussion as to the economics you assert. In Texas. As compared and contrasted with Europe. Please respond.

    YOUR RESPONSE: “Once the arctic begins to be ice free in June the average arctic temperature in the summer will climb by over 8C and your fantasy of a steady-state thermal system in the 400+ ppmv CO2 world will be proven as a complete delusion.”

    MY RESPONSE: Non-responsive. Off-topic. At this point I am going to assume that “fantasies” consist of statements that do not provide substantiating links or references (that I have to look up by myself).

    CONCLUSIONS:
    Please respond to the questions asked.

    OPTIONAL:
    Please provide on-topic, succinct, links and/or locatable quotations.

    William

  145. Reg Nelson says:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 20, 2013 at 1:57 pm
    George e Smith,

    you said,
    Tesla Motors, the darling of the green energy set, recently announced a profit. The only reason they made a profit, was because tax paying real workers paid a bundle for each of those 416 horsepower race cars, I heard the figure was $7500 for each Model S car sold. And they also made a profit selling “carbon credits” to other companies.
    ————-

    well, If you want to take away tax credits for tesla then I suppose you think it is ok to take away tax credits for oil, gas and coal developers in the U.S. as well. . .

    What tax credits for oil, gas and coal?

    You are confusing tax credits with accelerated amortization of R&D costs, which are available to all businesses. You are incredibly naive and misinformed.

  146. jai mitchell says:

    Thanks Ric,

    I figured it was the linked site.

    Reg,

    What tax credits for oil, gas and coal?
    ———

    if you take the actual impact of u.s. coal it comes out to about 500 billion dollars (including health and transportation costs.)

    this study checked all the externals passed onto the public (including transportation issues, land use issues, water and health, including mercury)

    it also included “direct subsidies”
    http://www.wvgazette.com/static/coal%20tattoo/HarvardCoalReportSummary.pdf

    comes out to about 500 billion dollars a year. and that’s just coal.

    ——
    really? they only get the same subsidies that everybody else gets? hmmm I wonder why the oil industry spent 36 million dollars lobbying over the last 15 years. (not including campaign contributions)

    http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=E01

    and those are the ones we know about. . . you saying there are no special provisions in the tax or legislative code that afford them extra profits at the expense of the taxpayer, consumer???

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/news/2011/05/05/9663/big-oils-misbegotten-tax-gusher/

    getting rid of only a few of the largest tax subsidies for the oil industry would raise 22 billion dollars in additional revenue between now and 2017

    http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Oil_and_Gas_Breaks.JPG

  147. jai mitchell says:

    William

    goodness, you are a tough nut. . .

    you compare the Eemian maximum directly to the AR4 2100 sea levels. How can that possibly be a truthful comparison. It is inauthentic and deceptive. The sea level maximum will only be reached in the following scenarios. The maximum sea level rise (steady state) and comparable to the Eemian (or any other interglacial) is a steady state value not a transitory one. It will only be reached when a plateau of warming is reached and then we stay there for several hundred years while the ice shelves melt.

    any other comparison to previous interglacials is disingenuous.

    —————-

    I said the green part is the non-polluting part (and then qualified it as the “less” polluting part) to say that I did not answer this is also disingenuous. Do you often mischaracterize other people’s answers?

    —————-

    The fact is that sea level rise is the least of our concerns, I know that you profess a significant attention to that one issue but the reality is that the changes in rainfall and food resource patterns will much more rapidly affect our civilization.

  148. dbstealey says:

    jai mitchell is not only credulous, he is also an economic illiterate. He says:

    “getting rid of only a few of the largest tax subsidies for the oil industry would raise 22 billion dollars in additional revenue between now and 2017″

    That sounds exactly like something jai mitchell would say, if he believed that money belonged to the government. But it doesn’t. It belongs to the shareholders, and the green-eyed jealousy that prompts comments like that sound like they come straight from V.I. Lenin.

    And:

    “… the oil industry spent 36 million dollars lobbying over the last 15 years.”

    That is nothing. The oil industry is HUGE — a multi-billion dollar part of the economy. $36 million is an insignificant drop in the bucket, and simply intended to maintain the industry’s existing position against ravenous parasites like mitchell. [Note that Obama spent more than $1 BILLION on his 4-year re-election campaign.]

    jai mitchell knows as little about the economy as he does about science.

  149. jai mitchell says:

    dbstealey

    you didn’t check that the money I mentioned is actually tax subsidies given by the government to the shareholders. Most of whom moved it offshore.

    I don’t think you checked this graphic when you replied. you should:

    http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Oil_and_Gas_Breaks.JPG

  150. Keitho says:

    Well at last, this thread recognises and displays the inescapable fact that the debate is political and not about science. Jai rolls in here with his absurd alarmism which simply highlights the disaster movie script the AGW story is.

    The king has no clothes and more and more voting taxpayers are seeing this for themselves.

  151. Tsk Tsk says:

    ” Fuel/Technology Dollars per megawatt-hour
    ________________________________
    Natural Gas, Petroleum Liquids 0.63
    Coal (pulverized) 0.64
    Hydroelectric 0.84
    Biomass 2.00
    Nuclear 3.10
    Geothermal 12.50
    Wind 52.48
    Solar 968.00
    _______________________________”
    http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Zycher%20Senate%20Finance%20renewables%20incentives%20testimony%203-27-12.pdf
    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/07/cbo-debunks-myth-that-tax-code-favors-oil-over-renewables/

    I’m perfectly fine with removing the tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry as long as we get rid of all of the green subsidies as well. I know which one will still be around when the dust settles.

    Oh, and don’t trot out some crap analysis that lumps in all sorts of defense spending for fossil fuels. Given our anguished president and the previous neo-cons we’d still be acting as the world’s policeman and meddling in the Middle East even if there weren’t any oil there if only because Israel would still be there.

  152. Tsk Tsk says:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 20, 2013 at 9:25 pm

    dbstealey

    you didn’t check that the money I mentioned is actually tax subsidies given by the government to the shareholders. Most of whom moved it offshore.
    ——————————-
    That last statement just demonstrates your fundamental ignorance. Source? Are you confusing the roughly $1.5TT held by American multinationals outside of the US with actual shareholders? How exactly do shareholders magically transport these profits offshore after they’ve been paid onshore? Do the unicorns carry the money to the Caymans?

  153. William McClenney says:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 20, 2013 at 9:12 pm

    “goodness, you are a tough nut. . .”

    Depends on how you want to look at it. I ask questions, I get non-responsive answers. I ask them again. That isn’t the tough part, that is the “I understand dodge and weave part.”

    It is OK to be concerned with “The maximum sea level rise (steady state) and comparable to the Eemian (or any other interglacial) is a steady state value not a transitory one. It will only be reached when a plateau of warming is reached and then we stay there for several hundred years while the ice shelves melt.” But such absolutely does not address the fact that we end up somewhere between 10 to almost 100 times that anyway, at the end extreme interglacials. So how does any estimate of AGW or CAGW sea level rise, a poignant measure trump that?

    The signal to noise fail comes with things like:

    “The geology of the Last Interglaciation (sensu stricto, marine isotope substage MIS 5e) in the Bahamas records the nature of sea level and climate change. After a period of quasi-stability for most of the interglaciation, during which reefs grew to +2.5 m, sea level rose rapidly at the end of the period, incising notches in older limestone. After brief stillstands at +6 and perhaps +8.5 m, sea level fell with apparent speed to the MIS 5d lowstand and much cooler climatic conditions. It was during this regression from the MIS 5e highstand that the North Atlantic suffered an oceanographic ‘‘reorganization’’ about 11873 ka ago. During this same interval, massive dune-building greatly enlarged the Bahama Islands. Giant waves reshaped exposed lowlands into chevron-shaped beach ridges, ran up on older coastal ridges, and also broke off and threw megaboulders onto and over 20 m-high cliffs. The oolitic rocks recording these features yield concordant whole-rock amino acid ratios across the archipelago. Whether or not the Last Interglaciation serves as an appropriate analog for our ‘‘greenhouse’’ world, it nonetheless reveals the intricate details of climatic transitions between warm interglaciations and near glacial conditions.”

    Hearty and Neumann (Quaternary Science Reviews 20 [2001] 1881–1895) http://www.uow.edu.au/business/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow014948.pdf

    or:

    Which even in the best case, MIS-11, falls way short of:

    “A small, protected karstic feature exposed in a limestone quarry in Bermuda preserved abundant sedimentary and biogenic materials documenting a transgressive phase, still-stand, and regressive phase of a sea-level in excess of 21.3 m above present during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 11 (400 ka) as determined by U/Th dating and amino acid racemization. Cobbles and marine sediments deposited during the high-energy transgressive phase exhibit rim cements indicating a subsequent phreatic environment. This was succeeded stratigraphically by a still-stand deposition of fine calcareous lagoonal sediments containing bioclasts of red algae and benthic and planktonic foraminifera that was intensely burrowed by marine invertebrates, probably upogebiid shrimp, that could not be produced under any condition other than sustained marine submergence. Overlying this were pure carbonate beach sands of a low-energy regressive phase containing abundant remains of terrestrial and marine vertebrates and invertebrates. The considerable diversity of this fauna along with taphonomic evidence from seabird remains indicates deposition by high run-up waves over a minimum duration of months, if not years. The maximum duration has yet to be determined but probably did not exceed one or two thousand years. The most abundant snails in this fauna are two species indicative of brackish water and high-tide line showing that a Ghyben-Herzberg lens must have existed at > þ 20 m. The nature of these sediments and fossil accumulation is incompatible with tsunami deposition and, given the absence of evidence for tectonic uplift of the Bermuda pedestal or platform, provide proof that sea-level during MIS 11 exceeded +20 m, a fact that has widespread ramifications for geologists, biogeographers, and human demographics along the world’s coastlines.”

    http://www.uow.edu.au/business/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow014948.pdf

    I think the problem here is cognizance of signal to noise ratio (SNR).

    I am presumed to be unaware that whatever the prognostication of AGW is, that such is anomolaus. The problem here is, that whomsoever’s prognostication of CAGW is to be discussed, you have not met the minimum specifications. “WE” have to be anomalously higher than whatever (hopefully recently, as in post-MPT time) has already occurred. The Holocene has yet to reach end-Holsteinian (MIS-11) or end-Eemian (MIS-5e) sea levels, at the very least. The most obvious recognition of global, repeat, global warming.

    In essence, you are asking me to concede that whatever was most recently achieved, in terms of the most telltale effect (sea level rise), pales insignificant against anthropogenic sea level induced rises that are some 1-10% of those we have most recently already seen.

    Jai, you need to up your AGW/CAGW game. If AGW/CAGW induced climate change is certain to occur, I simply cannot hear your anthropogenic signal against the backdrop of so much greater non-anthropogenic, normal, end extreme interglacial, natural noise.

    Which is why you need to up your game.

    Just sayin………

  154. Janice Moore says:

    The software app (I forget which WUWT blogger coined this – sorry!) called “Jai” retrieved a quote about the Tesla off the internet and said it was a fine car. LAUGH-OUT-LOUD. Whoever programs that app needs to refine its search parameters. The Tesla is a HOAX.

    This is a CAR:

  155. nc says:

    Jai what is the percentage of man caused C02 to total Co2?

  156. William McClenney says:

    Jai, before wriggling your toes in what you just stepped in you may wish to (re)consider:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-“trap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/

  157. Adrian O says:

    jai mitchell Those warnings of climatologists to president Bush were done 9 years ago.

    Could you share with us how did you manage to survive all those climate cataclysms?

    Sharing your experience will help others live.

    Now, that according to climatological predictions from a few decades ago, the only species surviving the 0.4C warming are humans, house pets and mosquitoes.

  158. Mario Lento says:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 20, 2013 at 9:25 pm
    dbstealey

    you didn’t check that the money I mentioned is actually tax subsidies given by the government to the shareholders. Most of whom moved it offshore.
    ++++++
    Jai: You continue to be confused or you’re intentionally dishonest.
    You don’t understand what subsidy means or you choose to lie about it. Subsidy is another term that has been taken hostage by liberalism. It is designed to confuse gullible people, and the term is well exploited by you and your ilk.

    Oil companies are not ever given other people’s money. Period. It’s all of their money – and the government takes it from them. That they get tax write offs means that the government take less than they would have. It’s starts out as money they earned and ends up in the government’s coffers.

    Green companies are given other people’s money. Money that was not earned by them, but ended up in their possession. The money comes from other people, which first gets into the government’s control, pads a few pockets and then gets paid to Green companies in what I would call actual subsidies. Green companies are in fact existing because they are given other people’s money.

    I will not let you and your ilk get away with calling a tax write off a subsidy and pointing to some links and calling it proof.

    You are incorrigible.

  159. David Riser says:

    Lol Gail,
    Ok that might happen but not until the powers that be notice that us satellite emissions for CO2 went up instead of down. By that time the temp question may be answered properly.

  160. goldminor says:

    SAMURAI says:
    June 20, 2013 at 7:58 pm

    I really to know how the US survives this assault.
    —————————————————————

    Read John Brunner,s “And the Sheep Looked Up”.

  161. PaddikJ says:

    If it is true that the best thread-jackers are the ones who do it unwittingly, Jai is in a class by him(her?)self. At a glance, I would say at least third of this one, and that’s after Anthony outed him as an eco-loon with a shaky hold on reality.

    C’mon people! I don’t know about you, but my blogging time is limited. So is my concentration, and it takes a lot of it to skim & skip the chaff. Don’t feed the auto-trolls. (Exception as always for Gail Combs, who always provides a wealth of useful info (which I always copy into my Climate Files)).

  162. PaddikJ says:

    But to business. Obi-Wan has to know that he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting his nutso plan passed in the time he has left. The Republicans will crucify him on jobs. I think he’s just tossing the greens another bone.

    Yeah, I know – candidate Obama said he’d jack electricity prices through the ionosphere. Candidate Obi also said he put a stop to NSA snooping. President Obama got bitch-slapped by reality.

  163. He cant stop Aqida despite killing Bin Laden,He cant stop the Taliban ,He cant the Economic Recession ,He cant stop school shootings ,He cant stop Guns and crime.

    And now he thinks he can stop Hurricanes and Tornadoes.

    That man certainly knows how to make a rod for his own back.

    Climate Change is a political graveyard.Give it lip service to please the Liberals otherwise dont bother.It don’t exist there’s nothing to bother about.

  164. Patrick says:

    I wonder if Jai sources his info from the Al Gore site(s), Reality Drop or Climate Reality Project, that was setup recently apparently providing information to debunk the positions of those who don’t support the aCO2 driven CAGW hypothesis?

  165. willhaas says:

    The President is in the habit of saying things that sound good at the time but that turn out to be nothing but bs. Jobs are suppose to be his number one priority and reduction of CO2 emissions is a real jobs killer. There is no evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate so even if the USA cuts out all CO2 emissions, even breathing, it will have no effect on climate. The center of climate change is the provider of all the energy that drives it, the sun. So to control climate one has to control the sun. So that is what the President needs to do, initiate a project to control the sun as if it were even possible..

  166. Gail Combs says:

    Rich Lambert says:
    June 20, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    ….. The Congress has to date done little to thwart the administration’s economy crippling carbon dioxide agenda.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Congress is bought and paid for.

    As the IMF article showed the wealthy are doing just fine “…the share of the top 1 percent has close to tripled over the past three decades” Three decades ago would be ~ 1995 when Clinton got Congress to ratify the World Trade Organization and NAFTA after Bush Sr. failed to do so during his term.

    If you bother to look at the Great Depression the same thing happened before, there was a massive transfer of wealth from the masses to the already wealthy.

    This the view from one side When historians write about this era of U.S. history, how will it be described? I have a guess: “the Great Wealth Transfer” from the middle class to the wealthy.

    And this is the view from the other side (Investors) But both agree it is the Greatest

    The Greatest Transfer of Wealth in History

    ….There are two basic classes of assets. There are paper assets and real assets. An ounce of gold is a real asset. A copper mine is a real asset. A house is a real asset. An oil field is a real asset.

    Over the counter derivatives now total over $596 trillion dollars, (click here [pdf]) ten times the size of the world economy. Those are paper assets, their value is derived from some other asset. That derivative size is what is going to destroy the world’s financial system, it’s all fraud.

    A mortgage is a paper asset. A T-Bill or T-Bond is a paper asset. A $100 bill is a paper asset. It’s pretty easy to see that a $500,000 mortgage on a house now worth $250,000 isn’t worth very much. Latest figures show 9.6 million homes in the US have negative equity. How many of those loans are going to be paid back?
    In a depression, no real assets appear or disappear. Paper assets, on the other hand, turn to vapor. But the ownership of real assets will change as the real assets move from weak hands into strong hands.

    But both agree it is the Greatest Wealth Transfer in History and it is from the middle class to the wealthy, not exactly what the socialists were hoping for.

  167. Gail Combs says:

    William McClenney says: @ June 20, 2013 at 9:54 pm
    ….I think the problem here is cognizance of signal to noise ratio (SNR)…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Most people do not understand that with the termination of an interglacial it is not the mile high glaciers due in several thousand year that is the problem but the wild bumpy ride between the two stable states or as Dr Brown call them ‘Strange Attractors’

    Dr, Richard B. Alley of the U.Penn. chair of the National Research Council on Abrupt Climate Change and in 1999 was invited to testify about climate change by Vice President Al Gore, wrote in the executive summary of Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises ( 2002 )

    Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age

    Like you, I sure hope CO2 is the ‘Magic Gas’ it is advertised to be. If you look at the effect of humidity in a desert vs in a rain forest, the main effect is to modify the temperatures making days cooler and nights warmer by about 10C link 1 and link 2

    Sure would be nice if the ‘Magic Gas’ had that type of damping effect on climate over the long term but I doubt it.

  168. Caleb says:

    Our fearless leader has tethered his hopes to a falling star. Either his advisers are idiots, and he is ignorant to heed them, or he is extremely cynical, and believes there is profit to be gained in duping the public with the falsified ideas of Global Warming. In either case, Truth is seen as something to be avoided, and Ignorance is seen as wisdom, or a sly craftiness.

    It is mistake to think ignorance is a good thing. Ignorance is only bliss until the Truth hits you like a sledgehammer. To think you can be tricky, and keep others in the dark while spreading misinformation, scorns the power of Truth and the reality of Truth. Any gain you get from lying to others is short-term and, in the end, hollow. Like the flash of fireworks, the stars fall and fizzle out.

    Our fearless leader has nothing to fear but Truth itself.

  169. Gail Combs says:

    David Riser says:
    June 20, 2013 at 11:10 pm

    Lol Gail,
    Ok that might happen….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
    David, The EPA is ALREADY regulating wood stoves and in some places they are outright banned.

    You are here: EPA Home>Air & Radiation>Burn Wise

    Ordinances and Regulations
    Community Action – Laws and Ordinances

    Certain jurisdictions have established legal requirements to reduce wood smoke. For example, some communities have restrictions on installing wood-burning appliances in new construction. The most common and least restrictive action is to limit use at those times when air quality is threatened. The appropriate agency issues an alert, similar to the widespread Ozone Action Day alerts.

    Go to Regulations.gov to search for EPA regulations and related documents.

    Bay Area Air Quality Management District
    Bans during “Spare the Air Tonight” advisories. Proposed new requirements for new construction (only pellet stoves, gas stoves, and EPA-certified wood stoves can be sold). Labeling required for firewood, firelogs, and wood pellets sold.
    [And so on through a long list]

    New Source Performance Standards for Residential Wood Heaters

    EPA is in the process of developing revisions to the residential wood heater new source performance standards under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. In addition to tightening the emission limits on currently regulated wood heaters to reflect improvements in best demonstrated technology, EPA anticipates new regulations for other residential devices that use solid biomass as fuel. For example, EPA anticipates new regulations for outdoor and indoor hydronic heaters and forced air furnaces. EPA anticipates proposing the revisions and the new regulations by Summer 2012.….
    http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/ordinances.html

    If you are a farmer considering the Biogas (methane) generator as a fuel source they cover that too.

    You are here: EPA Home > Pacific Southwest > Organics > Anaerobic Digestion

    Organics: Anaerobic Digestion
    Anaerobic digestion is a process where microorganisms break down organic materials, such as food scraps, manure, and sewage sludge, in the absence of oxygen. Anaerobic digestion produces biogas and a solid residual. Biogas, made primarily of methane and carbon dioxide, can be used as a source of energy similar to natural gas. The solid residual can be land applied or composted and used as a soil amendment…..

    Permitting Tool Kit for Food Waste Anaerobic Digesters
    Based on the experience of Humboldt Waste Management Authority (HWMA) in California, this report provides an overview of key permitting steps and regulatory requirements for anaerobic digesters processing wasted food. It includes:
    Key Permitting Steps
    Overview of the Current Regulatory Environment
    List of Potential Impacts and Mitigations Measures
    Lessons Learned Throughout the Permitting Process

    While permitting and regulatory requirements differ by geographic location, site characteristics, and the size of the project, this provides general information about permitting and specific information about HWMA’s experience. The purpose is to help other cities and project developers move through the permitting process with more ease….
    http://www.epa.gov/region9/organics/ad/

    SO no, it really isn’t a laughing matter.

    The new energy cost has ALREADY gone from $16 per megawatt to $167 per megawatt in the Northeast and $357 per megawatt in Ohio link The real unemployment figures including discouraged workers is ~23% and the jobs shipped to the third world are not coming back. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/07/16/what-is-the-real-unem
    ployment-rate/”>having a job today is quite different from what it was just a few years ago: Many Americans have had their hours cut and are working for less pay. A Pew Research survey found more than half of all adults in the labor force had either lost a job or suffered a reduction in income because of the recession…

    So energy costs are going up by a factor of 10X or more while real wages for male high school grads have sunk by 41% since 1970 so it now take two workers to earn what one used to earn. We already had a foreclosuregate so how in hades do you expect the next generation to be able to afford land and a home? And even if they did we have the Food Safety Modernization Act waiting in the wings to force them off if they try to grow a garden. link

  170. rogerknights says:

    Drought conditions (potable water shortages), especially in the U.S. and Russia, have taken a toll on the price of the grain crops used for animal feed, …

    Another toll-contributer: land devoted to biofuel production.

    … and world food prices are expected to reach record highs in 2013.

    CORN, the Teucrium Corn Fund ETF (Electronically Traded Fund), is currently 42. It was 52 about three years ago and 50 about six years ago. Here’s a ten-year chart:
    http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/advchart/frames/frames.asp?show=&insttype=Fund&symb=corn&x=41&y=14&time=13&startdate=1%2F4%2F1999&enddate=11%2F9%2F2012&freq=1&compidx=aaaaa%3A0&comptemptext=&comp=none&ma=1&maval=9&uf=8&lf=2&lf2=4&lf3=32&type=4&style=320&size=2&timeFrameToggle=false&compareToToggle=false&indicatorsToggle=false&chartStyleToggle=false&state=11

    Here’s a ten-year chart for WHEAT; it’s at the bottom of its range:
    http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/advchart/frames/frames.asp?show=&insttype=&symb=wheat&x=0&y=0&time=13&startdate=1%2F4%2F1999&enddate=11%2F9%2F2012&freq=1&compidx=aaaaa%3A0&comptemptext=&comp=none&ma=1&maval=9&uf=8&lf=2&lf2=4&lf3=32&type=4&style=320&size=2&timeFrameToggle=false&compareToToggle=false&indicatorsToggle=false&chartStyleToggle=false&state=11

    If you think those will rise this year, there’s free money waiting for you there by being a bull.

  171. rogerknights says:

    Here’s a front-page, June 10 article in Barron’s (a well-respected financial weekly published by Dow Jones) on Tesla. The sub-headline reads: “Tesla’s electric car offers a quiet, powerful ride. But unless it comes up with a cheaper, stronger battery, the stock could turn out to be a lemon.”

    http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052748703578204578523303280053948.html?mod=BOL_hpp_highlight_top#articleTabs_article%3D0&source=email_rt_mc_body

  172. cwon14 says:

    Gail Combs says:
    June 20, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    cwon14 says:
    June 20, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    For whatever the reasons, leading skeptics and you can include Anthony have steadfastly refused to be identified (directly) with the conservative mainstream meme that AGW was always politically left-wing in motivations….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is because we are NOT all conservatives (or liberals) and AGW is NOT all left-wing (or right-wing.) What CAGW is is a long con by those who want to revamp the world (Agenda 21) and by those who want to make lots of $$$$.

    //////////////////////////////

    Gail, this is a common confusion regarding subset issues like rent seeking and corporate opportunism of crony green benefits. The largest of which is the higher cost of energy than it would other wise be with rational environmental regulations and restrictions. The cost of green intervention and the restriction culture in North America might well have doubled the unit cost of carbon. It’s impossible to know exactly given the many cartel forces globally and predicting their reactions but more supply lowers cost even in a convoluted and politically impacted supply chain.

    The key fact Gail is not every Liberal (in the U.S. use of the term) is a Marxist even if many have intellectual sympathy for that culture. They do believe in a higher level of government intervention and social control of government which is an essential feature of Green policy and AGW very specifically. Of the two forces politically I don’t think the mainstream AGW advocate is supportive due to rent-seeking advantages. It’s a Utopian-ism and moral sanctimony movement at the core. You are correct that skeptics are politically diverse and many are unwilling, perhaps largely due to inner conflicts, to connect the political ideology too directly that drives AGW beliefs at the academic levels especially.

    All I know is that talking about “advocacy”, “bias” and “culture” in abstraction and uniformity of the debate (we do it and they do it, false equality) is highly counter productive to the truth of the situation. All very polite but very false. Listing conservative sell-outs, corporate rent-seekers of many political colors or finding an outliers who seem to be on the opposite of the mainstream stereotype of an AGW advocate isn’t going to change the conclusion. AGW has a strong leftist culture supported in a predominately leftist academic reality of today. To not explore it, state it directly and label it is gross negligence and weakness on the part of leading skeptics. It’s a leading reason the fraud of the AGW interventionism has advanced to the political mass of today.

  173. Dave Wendt says:

    On another front of the battle against climate nonsense

    http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/06/20/2187831/climate-refugee-immigration-bill/?mobile=nc

    Amendment Would Give Legal Status To People Displaced By Climate Change

    “Senator Brian Schatz’s (D-HI) filed an amendment for the immigration bill Wednesday that would allow stateless people in the U.S. to seek conditional lawful status if their nations have been made uninhabitable by climate change.
    The Senate’s immigration bill currently recognizes that people who come to the U.S. may have no country to return to for a variety of reasons and allows them to come forward to apply for legal status as a stateless person. But one cause for displacement that is overlooked in current law is how climate change has caused people to lose their homes and their nationality.
    Noting that climate change is not some “abstract challenge,” but is already displacing people across the world, Schatz explained:

    “The amendment I am proposing is quite simple. If enacted, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may designate individuals or a group of individuals displaced permanently by climate change as stateless persons.
    Again, let me be clear about what this amendment does. It simply recognizes that climate change, like war, is one of the most significant contributors to homelessness in the world. And like with states torn apart and made uninhabitable by war, we have an obligation not to deport people back to a country made uninhabitable by sea level rise and other extreme environmental changes that render these states desolate. It does not grant any individual or group of individuals outside the United States with any new status or avenue for seeking asylum in the United States.”

    Last year alone, more than 32 million people fled their homes around the world because of climate-related disasters. Africa and Asia saw the worst impacts, and the highest number of people displaced last year.”

    In other words, anyone who was in any way subject to weather anywhere in the world would be granted refugee status if they could make it to the U. S. and of course immediately signed up for government program on the books.

  174. dscott says:

    A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020.

    Contradictory idiotic nonsense. If Britain experiences a Siberian climate, then the Oceans would be responding by “declining sea levels” not rising. Check the map, Britain is an island with the Atlantic Ocean on one side and the North Sea on the other. Cold weather produces snow and when that snow falls upon land it accumulates there and doesn’t go back to the ocean. Every ice age has the same result, declining sea levels as water is stored as snow and ice on the land.

    If this is what passes for strategic thinking and analysis we are all in trouble. So much for the political argument trumping science. Political arguments are merely the twaddle of con artists attempting to fleece the sheep on a grand scale.

  175. Tim Clark says:

    Unfortunately, I can no longer discuss this i——- person without calling him a g—— — — – —– for the destruction he has wreaked on America.

    (profanities redacted courtesy of NSA)

  176. jai mitchell says:

    William,

    That is exactly the point, you simply cannot use the paleo sea level rise to indicate what our transitory sea level rise will be in 2100. you have to first reach temperature equilibrium and then allow ice shelves to melt to equilibrium. The rate of mass loss of the west Antarctic ice and Greenland ice sheets will give some indication but the increasing feedbacks (both albedo and carbon cycle) will lead to an increasing rate (not to mention the continuation of anthropogenic CO2 emissions).

    If you do agree that 5meters (15 feet) of sea level rise is a realistic scenario for 2100. What are your suggestions for adaptation at this time? how will we prepare our major population and industrial centers for this? what about the nuclear power plants?

    ———-

    SNR is fine to look at when you are comparing similar signals. AGW sea level and Paleo Sea level are two different signals.

    ———–

    on an aside,

    it looks like Tesla has come out with their automated battery swap design that allows a model S to receive a battery changeout in about the same time it takes to fill up a tank of gasoline.

    (not sure if this will work)

    [vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/68832891 w=400&h=300]

    here this will work :)

  177. jai mitchell says:

    oh William

    I almost forgot, yes there was a typo above. I did not mean 150 meters I meant 50 meters. –of course this is based on a long term equilibrium temperature rise of over 7C and ice shelf melt in both Greenland and Antarctica for a couple of hundred years. (worst case scenario)

  178. Chuck says:

    Who knows if Obama actually believes in CAGW. We’ll probably never know. That’s not the point. CAGW is a tool that Obama can use to implement his agenda of turning the U.S. into European style socialist nation. What truth there is in the tools is irrelevant. As long as he thinks enough people believe in CAGW he’ll use it. If CAGW believers become a small minority then he’ll no longer use it. It’s interesting to note that this speech was given in Europe to a European audience. The American version of this speech is much toned down.

  179. wobble says:

    jai mitchell, thanks for getting those predictions on the record.

    We can all watch to see if these predictions prove true by 2020. There are 6.5 years left.

    And stop calling it an extreme report. It wasn’t reported that way 9 years ago.

  180. dbstealey says:

    jai mitchell says:

    “If you do agree that 5meters (15 feet) of sea level rise is a realistic scenario for 2100…” [my emphasis]

    ==========================

    I cannot imagine any rational person agreeing with that scenario. Would you care to make a wager bsed on your belief that sea levels will rise 50 meters? [Prepare for backpedaling in ...3, ...2, ...1 ...]

    And I note you have avoided answering my questions about Tesla’s subsidies, and their sale of carbon credits, re: your claim that they are now “profitable”.

    [Take your time answering, I know it takes a while to climb down from your redwood tree. ☺]

  181. george e. smith says:

    “””””……Janice Moore says:

    June 20, 2013 at 10:01 pm

    The software app (I forget which WUWT blogger coined this – sorry!) called “Jai” retrieved a quote about the Tesla off the internet and said it was a fine car. LAUGH-OUT-LOUD. Whoever programs that app needs to refine its search parameters. The Tesla is a HOAX.

    This is a CAR:……”””””

    No! Janice : This IS a car. Be sure and crank you seven channel surround sound wide open, before engaging.

    George

    “””””…… http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=brm+v16+engine+sound&mid=879CAE89D671AC683130879CAE89D671AC683130&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1 …….”””””

  182. wobble says:

    the increasing feedbacks (both albedo and carbon cycle) will lead to an increasing rate

    Such feedbacks describe an incredibly unstable climate system. If the earth’s climate system is so unstable, then why hasn’t their been runaway warming prior to now? The instability that you describe would allow any warming (even warming due to natural variation) to trigger runaway warming.

    It doesn’t make any sense. There must be negative feedbacks in the system that you aren’t considering.

  183. Gail Combs says:

    Caleb says:
    June 21, 2013 at 4:41 am

    Our fearless leader has tethered his hopes to a falling star….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
    Obama is a lame duck. He has absolutely nothing to lose. If he is impeached we ge Bidden (GAG) and that sets Bidden up for a shot at president.

    Therefore Obama can do as he pleases or rather as his Masters please which is the continued rape of the poor and middle class under the guise of ‘Socialism’ and ‘Environmentalism’

    I really wish the rest of the socialists like would Wake Up as Rosa Koire has. Rosa is a California bureaucrat BTW.

    THE POST SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
    Your government is a corporatocracy, a new authoritarian state in the process of consolidating your output into a more controllable, exploitable channel….

    Your government now has technological capabilities that far exceed anything ever seen on the planet to this date. You are in the midst of the biggest public relations scam in the history of the world. The pretty pastel vision of life in a Smart Growth development is a manipulation, a mask. In fact these plans are designed to restrict your freedom of movement and choice.

    Transit villages (formerly known as cities) will be restricted to having only the population that can be supported by food grown within a 100 mile radius (called a ‘food shed’). Food sheds will dictate where you can live and when you can change your residence. Calculations, such as those done recently at Cornell University, will determine how much food can be grown within that area and then the Transit Village population will be limited to the number of people who can be fed by that land (click on the blue to go to the Cornell website). It is reasonable to expect rationing based on this mode. If you want to move to that village you will have to apply and wait for an opening.

    The recent crash/depression is world-wide and was engineered to destroy expectations of long-term economic employment. If people have no expectation of long-term employment they cannot plan for the future, and cannot comfortably buy a home and contract for a 30 year mortgage….

  184. Gail Combs says:

    george e. smith says:
    This is what I prefer to drive and I have one sitting in the garage along side one of these. and a couple of these out back.

  185. Janice Moore says:

    @ George E. Smith (re: 10:11AM today)

    Music to my ears. Yes, indeed, THAT was a car.

    I’m a diehard Chevy fan, though — #[:)]

    What a lovely surprise to see your post this morning, BTW. After a certain commenter told me, essentially, to get lost yesterday (considers “everything” I post to be worthless junk), I needed the acknowledgement and friendly camaraderie. Well, that guy is probably gritting his teeth and growling at the screen at this post (too), but, until several WUWT commenters tell me to shove off, I’m here to stay!

  186. rogerknights says:

    Here are some posts from the past (on WUWT) wrt subsidies:
    ================

    HaroldW says:
    June 22, 2010 at 10:33 am

    there are some subsidies, but they are actually really small.

    1: royalties paid to foreign countries and states are credited for tax purposes…. as it should be.

    if you paid for raw material, it has be considered as expense.

    2: research credit that is available to ALL INDUSTRIES is available to oil&gas. there is nothing special here.

    3: govt pays poor people for heat. that is welfare. not a subsidy to oil&gas. That money can be used for electric heat, even if it is hydro electric or other “renewable” source.

    4: investment credits available to everyone is available to oil&gas. where is the subsidy there?
    ——————

    Jeremy says:
    September 26, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is proposing to end what he says are $4 billion a year in tax subsidies to the biggest oil companies.”

    Firstly, all Oil Companies pay taxes on earnings just like any corporation. According to data found in the Standard & Poor’s Compustat North American Database, the industry’s 2009 net income tax expenses — essentially their effective marginal income tax rate — averaged 41 percent, compared to 26 percent for the S&P Industrial companies. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) concludes that, as an additional part of their tax obligation, the major energy-producing companies paid or incurred over $280 billion of income tax expenses between 2006 and 2008.

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/25/the-truth-about-americas-oil-gas-companies-part-i/ .

    Secondly, according to the ONRR, annual revenues from federal onshore and offshore (OCS) mineral leases are one of the federal government’s largest sources of non-tax revenue. In 2010, Royalty Revenue amounted to around $8 Billion

    http://www.onrr.gov/
    ————–

    Luke says:
    September 26, 2011 at 10:44 am

    Most of those $4.0 billion in “subsidies” are not specific to the oil & gas industry. They break down as follows:

    $1.7 billion in Domestic Manufacturing Credits: Applies to all production companies equally. A reward for creating/leaving the jobs in the US economy. You can argue whether or not they can move this production from the US, since the oil is located here, but it is clear that they can move the exploration equipment to anywhere in the world and ship the oil in. There is no requirement that oil used domestically must be produced in the US. So given that, what other industries should we strip this credit from?

    $1.0 billion in % depletion allowance: Applies specifically to the oil and gas industry as a mechanism for capital recovery. It takes the place of depreciating the assets in the ground. Of course we don’t like to talk about the dark side of this one, which is when oil prices are lower for a sustained period of time, it acts like an anti-subsidy, so this one can cut both ways and at time has. Easy solution is to use capital base instead of income. Over the long haul though, I doubt this equals $1.0 billion a year. Just $1.0 billion a year in the current price environment.

    $0.9 billion in foreign tax credit: This one again, applies equally to all. The dodgy part with this is classification of royalty payments as income taxes. Some foreign governments have converted royalty payments to income taxes, allowing for greater deductibility under US tax law. This, however, is not unique to the oil industry. So again, who else would you like to strip this one from?

    $0.8 billion in intangible drilling costs: This one is specific to the oil and gas industry. This however is not a subsidy. Period. Exclamation Point! At best, this is a shifting of tax payments to later years. It allows the oil company to deduct their exploration expenses immediately. When this rule was enacted, it actually made sense because 90% of those expenses were written off in the first year anyway because of the abysmal hit rate for new wells, as opposed to the alternative which is adding it to the depreciation base for a new well. Now that the hit rate is much better, maybe it’s time to rethink the break, but it will not provide an $0.8 billion dollar annual windfall. It might provided a short term difference, but after 4-5 years under the new rules, you’d be pretty much back to the same annual number for “tax breaks” resulting from intangible drilling costs.
    —————–

    chris y says:
    September 26, 2011 at 9:31 am

    “U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is proposing to end what he says are $4 billion a year in tax subsidies to the biggest oil companies.”

    That $4B amounts to 1.6 cents per gallon of gasoline.

    Did Schumer also propose an end to Federal, state and local gasoline taxes to ‘even the playing field’?

    Did Schumer also propose an equivalent tax on solar and wind energy to ‘even the playing field?’
    —————

    Catcracking says:
    December 3, 2011 at 7:20 am

    One favorites of Pelosi is the reduction in royalities that was set up during the Clinton Administration to give companies an incentive to drill in deep water offshore in the Gulf when oil prices were low. Royalities are still paid but circa 20 % less. It was a good business deal for both sides at the time and improved for the drillers as oil prices rose. So now many of the tax and spend crowd want to change the contract and threaten those who refuse to comply with blackballing them from biding on new leases. How else can they make renewable energy sources look competitive?

    Another item frequently referenced is the accelerated write off of capital expenses to encourage investment and boost the economy that is offered to every other business.

    A third item is the foreign tax credits offered to all companies that bring foreign earnings back to the US.
    —————

    Janice says:
    December 3, 2011 at 7:36 am

    There is a hidden subsidy for both solar and wind power, one that could easily be avoided, but never will be because it is not politically expedient. The subsidy is the amount of money it takes to remove solar and wind farms once the parent company abandons them. It usually winds up being public money that is used, since the parent companies usually go bankrupt and are dissolved. It could easily be avoided if the parent companies were forced to post a bond equal to the amount it would take to remove the equipment, and restore the area. And that is a subsidy which coal and oil do not enjoy, because they are forced to remediate their mining and drilling sites.

    Roy UK says:
    December 5, 2012 at 8:33 am

    @Alexandre 7.47am

    Statement before the Senate Finance Committee

    Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure March 27, 2012
    FY2010 Electricity Production Subsidies and Support per megawatt-hour
    (year 2010 dollars)

    Natural Gas, Petroleum Liquids 0.63
    Coal (pulverized) 0.64
    Hydroelectric 0.84
    Biomass 2.00
    Nuclear 3.10
    Geothermal 12.50
    Wind 52.48
    Solar 968.00

    So subsidies per MWh to Wind and Solar are 100 – 1500 times the cost of subsidies to the Big oil. You didn’t really think your question through did you?

    Steve Keohane says:
    December 5, 2012 at 8:38 am

    Alexandre says:December 5, 2012 at 7:47 am

    I’d like to know where the Heartland Institute stands in the issue of fossil fuel subsidies. You know, being non-Big Oil and all…


    According to the link you provided $58B was paid globally in so called oil subsidies. In 2004, according to energy.gov, we in the USA used 140 billion gallons of gasoline, for which $70B in taxes at the pump was collected. And don’t for get the corporate tax on the wholesale sales, and the taxes paid by the oil employees to make the gasoline, etc. So where is the subsidy? Your so-called oil subsidies are smoke and mirrors, nothing more.

    John M says:
    December 5, 2012 at 9:11 am

    Steve Keohane says:
    December 5, 2012 at 8:38 am

    Regarding the whining about fossil fuel “subsidies”, it would be interesting to see Alexendre’s opinion on these “subsidies” listed in his source:

    Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (Petroleum) : 336 Million
    Fuel-Tax Exemptions for Farmers: 1 Billion (that’s a B)
    Strategic Petroleum Reserves: 1 Billion (Hell, the way that one’s been used, it should be charged back to the DNC as a campaign contribution)
    Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (Nat Gas): 1.7 Billion (that’s a B too)
    Credit for Investment in Clean-Coal Facilities: 370 Million
    Amortisation of Certain Pollution-Control Facilities: 200 Million

    Jeez, maybe they ought to count food stamps as a fossil fuel subsidy too, since they are used to buy food produced by those farmers who get those huge Fossil Fuel tax exemptions, or allow poor people to spend more to fill their tanks.

  187. Janice Moore says:

    Oh, Gail, how beautiful that Belgian (?) is. That’s the BEST horsepower one can use. Just the sound of trotting hooves on a quiet city street has me running around the block to see them.

    Yes, your “rides” are the most wonderful in the world.

  188. rogerknights says:

    Here are recent WUWT comments on the Tesla from the thread below:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/12/lomborg-californians-are-paying-ridiculous-subsidies-for-electric-cars/

    Guest post by Bjørn Lomborg

    I’ve said electric cars get subsidized too much. Turns out I was wrong.

    In California, they are subsidized ridiculously too much.

    Tesla gets $45,000 for each car it sells in state and federal subsidies. The Tesla S starts at $69,000, so about 40% of its total cost is subsidies (Tesla isn’t making any big profits).

    This is because the California Air Resources Board has mandated that zero emission vehicles should comprise 15% of new-car sales by 2025 — up from less than 1% now. This forces other car companies that can’t comply to pay for credits from Tesla.

    “At the end of the day, other carmakers are subsidizing Tesla,” says one analyst.

    Remember, the Tesla avoids perhaps 10 tons of CO2 (more likely, with its large battery pack it avoids nothing or even *increases* total CO2 emissions). That means Americans pay at least $5,000 per ton of CO2 avoided – about a thousand times more than the price in the European Trading System.

    It also avoids local air pollution (which is presumably the Air Resources Board’s objective), but over the entire lifetime of the car, this is worth around $500.

    Source:
    https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/posts/10151689361298968

    Air pollution costs: For Europe: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/sustainable/doc/2008_costs_handbook.pdf, p57, air pollution for new gasoline cars is about €0.001/km or $150 for 150,000 km;
For France: http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP201203.pdffor France, p26, shows €634
Danish numbers: DKK 1500 (or about $300) for 150,000km, p147
    http://www.dors.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/Publikationer/Rapporter/Miljo_2013/Trykt/M13.pdf
    We subsidize electric cars too much: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html
    http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/05/business/la-fi-electric-cars-20130506

    John Moore says:
    May 12, 2013 at 11:53 am

    Interesting to see what the second hand value of these things will be after two or three years… and remember the range on a charge with heater, headlights, wipers and heated rear window on in the winter isn’t going to be very far. I wonder what the breakdown insurance will be.

    Bruce Cobb says:
    May 12, 2013 at 1:35 pm

    Cost of Tesla electric vehicle – $114k.
    Cost to consumer after rebate – $69k.
    Cost to others including consumers and taxpayers – $45k.
    Value to environment – negligible.
    Value of helping rich people buy cool stuff, and feel smug about it – priceless.

    Sal Minella says:
    May 12, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    Tesla just announced their first profitable quarter this past week. Without the big subsidies it would have had another big loser. Doesn’t matter, however, stock went up > 25%. Just like everything else these days, smoke and mirrors wins out over reality even though everyone knows that it’s smoke and mirrors (see wind and solar energy).

    William Astley says:
    May 12, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    Electric cars are zero emission if the electric power that is used to power the electric car is zero emission which is not the case.

    Lithium-ion batteries lose roughly 10% of their power to internal currents when new. Depending on ambient temperature (maximum 40C. Internal losses increase to 40% if the ambient temperature reaches 40C.) that increases to around 30% when the batteries are 5 years old.

    If the generation losses, transmission losses, and battery losses are included and the generation source is hydrocarbon, the electric car gets equivalently 38 miles/gallon.

    Curiously if the objective has to reduce carbon dioxide emissions it would be better (1/3 the cost, if people care about costs) to purchase a small diesel powered car which can get 45 miles per gallon and not have the battery problems.

    Roughly 60% of European cars are diesel.

    It don’t make sense that common sense don’t make sense no more.

  189. dbstealey says:

    rogerknights,

    Thanks for putting the subsidies in perspective:

    “…subsidies per MWh to Wind and Solar are 100 – 1500 times the cost of subsidies to the Big Oil.”

    and:

    “Tesla just announced their first profitable quarter this past week. Without the big subsidies it would have had another big loser.”

    jai mitchell complaining about the mote in skeptics’ eyes avoids the problem of the beam in his own eye, no?

    ==================

    Gail Combs, I am jealous! Those are some really nice rides!

    ===================

    And @Janice Moore: you cannot be thin-skinned on a site like this. illegitimis non carborundum, etc. ☺

    Critics are only as important as you allow them to be. Disregard them, & carry on.

  190. george e. smith says:

    “”””””……Gail Combs says:

    June 21, 2013 at 10:32 am

    george e. smith says:…..”””””

    Totally radical Gail, who would have believed that they had remote independent four wheel suspension, back then I really liked the engine picture best; not a sign of an oil leak anywhere.

  191. Janice Moore says:

    Thanks, D. B. Stealey, a.k.a. “Smokey,” much appreciated.

  192. Gail Combs says:

    Janice Moore says: @ June 21, 2013 at 10:43 am

    ….until several WUWT commenters tell me to shove off, I’m here to stay!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    As long as you are polite, you and everyone else is welcomed by Anthony.

    Of course if you post something truly idiotic expect to get trounced on.

  193. rogerknights says:

    An Israeli visionary’s company couldn’t solve the short-range problem, despite using replaceable battery packs and having stations set up to do the changing. Rs a thread on the story from May 2013:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/28/another-electric-car-company-goes-belly-up/

  194. jai mitchell says:

    DB stealey
    you do realize that this is a complete nonsensical statement. 100 to 1500 times the cost (per unit energy) that just shows how you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about (is it 100 times? 1,500 times??? why not 1,000,000 times????

    I know, since MWh is USABLE energy why don’t you discount the 90% inefficiency of the internal combustion motor and only count the extracted energy of oil used for actual power transportation. Then you can get up to maybe 10,000 times more than wind and solar.

    (whatever you do DO NOT compare actual dollars to dollars. . .gadzooks no!!!)

    “…subsidies per MWh to Wind and Solar are 100 – 1500 times the cost of subsidies to the Big Oil.”

  195. Gail Combs says:

    george e. smith says: @ June 21, 2013 at 11:00 am

    Totally radical Gail, who would have believed that they had remote independent four wheel suspension….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    What is truly awesome is they can turn a complete 360 in their own foot print thanks to a full fifth wheel. Step on the brakes (they are hydraulic) swing the engine around along side the cab pointing backwards, release the brake and then watch her spin.

  196. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..Janice Moore says:

    June 21, 2013 at 10:43 am

    @ George E. Smith (re: 10:11AM today)

    Music to my ears. Yes, indeed, THAT was a car.

    I’m a diehard Chevy fan, though — #[:)]

    What a lovely surprise to see your post this morning, BTW. After a certain commenter told me, essentially, to get lost yesterday (considers “everything” I post to be worthless junk), I needed the acknowledgement and friendly camaraderie. ….”””

    Well stick around Janice; some of these threads degenerate to where we need some levitation; excuse me, that’s levity; and everyone can learn something here; specially from Gail, who does more homework, than a school teacher.

    And I already learned something this morning; I might have pegged Gail’s Belgian, as a Lippizaner or Clydesdale. Zebras, I have down pat though.

    George.

    PS I had the good fortune to actually see the V-16 BRM in action, at the very first NZ Grand Prix, at Ardmore, a now suburb of Auckland. It didn’t win though; kept spinning out. Australian driver Jack Brabham , of considerable later fame drove his “Maybach Special” to victory; a bitza made out of an old Maybach Zeppelin engine, Bitza, as in bits’a this, bits’s that.

  197. jai mitchell says:

    whatever the method of Tesla’s innovative success, the market has responded

    http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/stock-chart

    over a 300% year on year increase in stock value.

    This new ability to provide nearly instantaneous battery replacement will lead to further success. AND

    MADE IN AMERICA BABY!!!!

    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-tesla-model-s-reviews-more-made-in-america-than-most-page-2

    when a private investor buys a car for $65,000 that ends up saving her over $1,500 per year in gasoline costs (that can later be spent on local purchases or other economy generating activity instead of putting it into the pockets of international ultra-wealthy corporations that take the money out of the local economy) then it has a multiplier effect.

    over 350% so that $1,500 in the local economy for EACH car turns into over $5,000 of extra, locally produced, GDP.

  198. Pamela Gray says:

    Climate catastrophy with peddled cures involves the same kind of people who said lightening will kill you unless you protect your family with a lightening rod. Which is the same thing as putting amulets around your neck and garlic over the door. Our next generation will grab onto the next big thing that appeals to those who think the boogy man volcano is out to get them unless they sacrifice a virgin. Same story plot. Same load of bull. Same level of gullibility. Same potential for unnecessary suffering. Different generation. That tree hugger needs to wake up. She’s been bamboozled.

  199. jai mitchell says:

    wobble,

    timescales of long-term feedback mechanisms hold the climate in check. when very slow mechanisms of warming occur (milankovich solar cycles) the respondent CO2 increases are absorbed by growing and expanding land and sea surface plants. This happens over the course of thousands of years and under very gradual shifts.

    There is nothing in the historic record that even comes close to approximating what we have done to this planet.

  200. jai mitchell says:

    “in the prehistoric record”. . .

  201. george e. smith says:

    Don’t forget the EBT card subsidies; that’s “Everybody But Taxpayers” card. When I go to the Sunnyvale Downtown Murphy Avenue Farmer’s Market, each Sat. morning, the very first booth has a prominent sign proclaiming that they accept EBT cards. Well strangely, they don’t have ANY merchandise, that I would buy. I always stop there though, and ask them what the hell an EBT card is, and how I can get one.

    There is a difference between somebody taking money (real or imaginary) out of the Federal (or State) treasury and giving it to somebody as an incentive (aka bribe) to buy something they would not otherwise buy; and allowing an enterprise to take the cost of their goods sold away from their gross receipts, to figure their net profit, BEFORE taxing them on their profit.

    Anybody who makes anything for sale commercially, is allowed to deduct the expense of making that product, including the materials before figuring if they made a profit. Quite often, somebody else, who made those materials available for the manufacturer to purchase, already paid taxes, on HIS profit in his business.

    The biggest profiteer from BIG OIL is the Federal Treasury, who get more than the oil company does.

  202. rogerknights says:

    Current Business Week story on EVs:

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-20/why-hondas-unloading-electric-cars-for-cheap#r=rss

    “The bottom line: Under pressure from states to increase sales of unpopular electric cars, Honda, GM, and Nissan are slashing prices.”

  203. Mac the Knife says:

    Gail Combs says:
    June 20, 2013 at 7:51 pm

    Gail,
    Excellent summary! A ‘keeper’…
    I found Items 7 and 8 particularly interesting. Low CO2 levels in the lungs promotes disease. Controlled breathing that leads to increased CO2 concentration in the lung alveoli aids healing!
    Thanks again!
    MtK

  204. Mac the Knife says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    June 20, 2013 at 7:53 pm

    Mac the Knife says:
    June 20, 2013 at 11:38 am
    ‘Apparently, ‘stopping AGW’ is akin to a civil right, according to Jonathan Overpeck, co-director of the Institute of the Environment at the University of Arizona: “Lincoln would have tried to stop it….”’

    How? By reducing the amount of munitions expended by Grant’s army?

    Theo,
    I don’t have a clue! Ask Jonathan Overpeck….. apprently he is also an expert on civil rights, along with cosmetology climatology. I’m amazed by his attempt to co-opt the first republican president, who fought to preserve the Union and end slavery in the US, to be an ersatz ‘supporter’ of the socialist driven AGW meme.
    MtK

  205. milodonharlani says:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 11:27 am

    wobble,

    timescales of long-term feedback mechanisms hold the climate in check. when very slow mechanisms of warming occur (milankovich solar cycles) the respondent CO2 increases are absorbed by growing and expanding land and sea surface plants. This happens over the course of thousands of years and under very gradual shifts.

    There is nothing in the historic record that even comes close to approximating what we have done to this planet.
    jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 11:28 am

    “in the prehistoric record”. . .
    ——————————————-

    Apparently you still haven’t bothered to study the paleoclimate record.

    Natural climate change swings are orders of magnitude greater than the “worst” that mankind can manage. We might (but probably not) be able to raise or lower average global temperature by one K. During prehistory, natural variability ranges from a molten surface to the entire or almost all of our planet covered by ice. During the historical period (the past 5000 years), temperature (to the extent that an average is meaningful & can be reconstructed) it has ranged from a few to several degrees C warmer than now to a similar amount cooler. Going back 20,000 years to the LGM, it was much colder.

    Return to 125 kya, during the early Eemian, the previous interglacial, & it was much warmer than now or the Holocene Optimum (8-5 kya), as often noted here, without benefit of a Neanderthal industrial age. Hippos swam in the Thames at the site of London & Scandinavia was an island. Raised beaches formed in Alaska & reefs built then are exposed now.

    Is it the speed of CO2 (or CFC or CH4, or whatever) build up that concerns you? Since there is no significant effect from increased carbon dioxide except for lusher fields, pastures & forests, why does this bother you? Please read up on rapid climate shifts in the recent & distant past. They’re natural. The rate of warming in the first phases of the Holocene Optimum, Egyptian, Minoan, Roman, Sui-Tang & Medieval Warm Periods were about the same as during the Modern WP’s start-up pulses, ie 1860-1940 (with cooling decades interspersed). More telling (to use one of your favorite words) is that the rate of warming in these natural cycles was virtually identical to in the most recent pulse, ~1977-95, now ended.

  206. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..jai mitchell says:

    June 21, 2013 at 11:24 am

    whatever the method of Tesla’s innovative success, the market has responded

    http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/stock-chart

    over a 300% year on year increase in stock value. …..”””””

    I should hire your accountant.

    That’s an increase in STOCK PRICE , not in stock value.

    The purchaser didn’t save $1500 in fuel costs; a big chunk of what s/he would have paid is added on taxes, not fuel cost. And don’t forget the big subsidy of free electricity, if s/he juices up at a Tesla juice station each day. The one I know of in California only does Model S, not roadsters; tough !

    The Tesla stock price assumes that their are even bigger idiots out there, who are willing to buy a stock, at an even higher price to earnings ratio, than the Tesla stock. Well there are only so many investment idiots, and Ponzi schemes are illegal anyway.

    I don’t pay even half of that $1500 in fuel cost plus taxes, and I can go four or five times as far as that Tesla can go, before it has to turn around and hurry back to its rabbit hutch for a rejoice.

    If a Tesla is a good idea, then it should still be a good idea if we all get one and do likewise.

    Good luck on that.

  207. rogerknights says:

    Contrary to the poor sales of EVs (except the Tesla–so far), an under-the-radar revolution is occurring in vehicles powered by natural gas, whose popularity is growing mightily. Here’s a current Business Week story:
    http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/113938-why-natural-gas-powered-vehicles-are-catching-on

  208. profitup10 says:

    Nothing like what humans have done has happened to earth ever? really now – what about huge volcanoes, global lighting caused fires, how about trillions of tons of methane from dinosaurs, how about the many many many trillions of tons of dinosaur dung produced each year? how about the rotting of the plant matter giving off trillions of tons of C02 . .

    Get a clue – we humans are just not that powerful when we look at a global scale. . termites and ants far exceed the poundage of the entire species. . . now where was I in that book I was reading?

    http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/the-basic-library.html

  209. wobble says:

    <jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 11:24 am

    whatever the method of Tesla’s innovative success, the market has responded

    Extracting subsidies from the government isn’t innovative.

    And the market responded to Enron, too. Would you have been touting such a response as evidence of success during the summer of 2001?

  210. Gail Combs says:

    george e. smith says:
    ….Actually haflingers (small mountain draft horse/pony) they eat a LOT less than a belgian but are still good pulling horses. link Mine do not get any grain except a little in the winter. (Powered directly by CO2, H2O and sunshine with a bit of other stuff thrown in.)

    They are becoming rather popular with the homesteading crowd for that reason. (I have the horse drawn plow, disc and manure spreaders too.)

  211. wobble says:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 11:27 am

    timescales of long-term feedback mechanisms hold the climate in check.

    This isn’t a coherent sentence, but I understand the nonsense that you’re attempting to claim. It’s obvious that you don’t understand feedback mechanisms. I’ll address below.

    when very slow mechanisms of warming occur (milankovich solar cycles) the respondent CO2 increases are absorbed by growing and expanding land and sea surface plants.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Based on the climate system that YOU describe, once positive feedback mechanisms kick in THEY take over as the driver of runaway global warming. It wouldn’t matter what happens to CO2 increases at that point.

    And remember, the initial warming to trigger positive feedbacks could simply be due to natural variation. Surely, you know about variation, right?

    There is nothing in the historic record that even comes close to approximating what we have done to this planet.

    Again, this has nothing to do with the effect of positive feedbacks that YOU are describing.

    Think about microphone feedback (something that even scientific illiterates know about). The unpleasant (“catastrophically” loud) sound is generated by positive feedback. The amplitude of the initial input that triggers the positive feedback isn’t significant in comparison to the effect of the feedback mechanisms. The catastrophic sound can be caused by a loud word spoken into the microphone tiny amounts of ambient noise being picked up by the microphone. If the feedback systems are in place, then the catastrophic sound will be generated.

    Likewise, you’re claiming that all the feedback systems are in place. If this is true, then runaway warming would occur with any amount of warming (even natural variation – which would equate to the ambient noise in the microphone example).

    This is the problem with the system you describe. You need to go back and figure out a new argument.

    I’m happy I was able to educate you about an area of science that you obviously didn’t understand.

  212. TomB says:

    Brian R says:
    June 20, 2013 at 12:08 pm
    ….
    At this rate Obama is going to make Carters presidency look good.

    It’s too late. At least Carter got only one term.

  213. Janice Moore says:

    Thanks, George.

    And, hey, I wondered if it was a Clydesdale (love those Budweiser TV ads), too. So, it is a “halflinger.” Learn something new every day.

  214. cwon14 says:

    Getting to the point that skeptics need to endorse directly;

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/21/question-what-happens-when-settled-science-isnt/

    AGW was always political, green political, from inception.

  215. Gail Combs says:

    rogerknights says:
    June 21, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    …..an under-the-radar revolution is occurring in vehicles powered by natural gas….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I wish I had the engineering ability. One guy I knew back in the 1980’s in Leominster MA powered his pick-up with chicken manure (Methane bio-gas) I think he used a Bates converter.

  216. dbstealey says:

    jai mitchell says:

    “you didn’t check that the money I mentioned is actually tax subsidies given by the government to the shareholders. Most of whom moved it offshore.”

    That is not even close to being right. The government does not “give” money to shareholers; in this case it is simply not confiscating more of their money. And most shares are held by average folks in their 401-K’s. They do not ‘move it offshore’.

    jai mitchell adds this bit of nonsense:

    “There is nothing in the historic record that even comes close to approximating what we have done to this planet.”

    That is a completely baseless assertion, which, as usual with jai mitchell, is wrong.

    I challenge jai mitchell to quantify ‘what we have done to this planet’, using testable, empirical measurements.

    There has been no measurable harm done to the planet by human activity. Rather, the biosphere has been thriving due directly to the added CO2 we have put into the air. [I have plenty more links showing that more CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. Just ask, and I will post them.]

    The fact is that jai mitchell is wrong: he began wiuth an incorrect premise; that CO2 causes global warming. It doesn’t — at least there is no measurable evidence showing that CO2 causes global warming. But there is plenty of real world evidence showing that [natural] global warming causes CO2 to rise.

    When you start with an incorrect premise, your conclusion will necessarily be wrong. The belief that CO2 causes global warming has never been proven, while it has been shown using empirical evidence that global warming is the cause of the increase in CO2.

    When correct thinking is employed, the conclusion is correct. So jai mitchell needs to alter his belief system, or he will continue to make erroneous assumptions.

  217. John Tillman says:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 11:27 am

    wobble,

    timescales of long-term feedback mechanisms hold the climate in check. when very slow mechanisms of warming occur (milankovich solar cycles) the respondent CO2 increases are absorbed by growing and expanding land and sea surface plants. This happens over the course of thousands of years and under very gradual shifts.

    There is nothing in the prehistoric record that even comes close to approximating what we have done to this planet.
    ———————————

    Much greater changes to the planet have occurred frequently in Earth’s past, before the onset of the human historic record.

    Twenty or more times just in the last 2.4 million years vast ice sheets have spread over North America and Europe, rivaling those of Antarctica. Around their edges, tundra replaces temperate zone type forests and grasslands. The tree line migrates south over a thousand miles. Nothing humanity can possibly do competes with these natural, cyclical climate changes.

    Not just seas of ice but liquid water oceans move in and out, covering continents, then regressing.

    Many great climatic alterations occur with remarkable rapidity, in decades or centuries, not the millennia you assume, although changes happen at that pace, too. Please read, for example, what Roger Helmer, East Midlands MEP, had to say about UCL Prof. William McGuire’s reported assertion that, “The speed of today’s climate change is unprecedented in Earth’s history”.

    http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/climate-change-fastest-in-earths-history-nonsense/

    “Does he mean the last hundred years? In that time, mean global temperatures have risen by around 0.7 degrees C. That too is very modest. Far from being “unprecedented”, it is commonplace. It is broadly comparable with the same stage in the Roman Optimum a couple of thousand years ago, and the Medieval Warm Period a thousand years ago. Professor McGuire must surely be familiar with the Bond Cycles, which have shown fluctuations on this sort of time scale throughout the current Interglacial.

    “The slight changes we have seen in the last couple of hundred years are entirely consistent with natural, well-understood and well-documented climate cycles, and require no special anthropogenic explanation. After the Little Ice Age, we now seem to be moving into a new 21st Century Optimum — and we should be glad of it. (Actually, this century may well prove cooler than the prior one.) Generally human societies do better in warm periods than in cool periods.

    “Surely Professor McGuire must be familiar with the Younger Dryas at the onset of the current Interglacial, around 12,000 years ago, when a climate fluctuation of 10 degrees in a decade was recorded in the ice cores from Greenland, with evidence of similar, if less pronounced, changes in other locations? This is reported by the National Climatic Data Centre of the US government amongst others. In the Younger Dryas, we have an example of dramatically more rapid, natural climate change than we see today, and that’s in the last 15,000 years — geologically recent. Yet Professor McGuire says that today’s modest rate of climate change is “unprecedented in Earth’s history” — that’s the last 4,500 million years!”

  218. profitup10 says:

    A false premise can not be argued . .

  219. Gunga Din says:

    I put this up on another post. It seems to fit here.

    Gunga Din says:
    June 21, 2013 at 3:40 pm

    This is interesting.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/21/study-govt-losing-billions-on-inefficient-tax-subsidies-that-dont-curb-climate/
    Unfortunately, coming from the US Treasury Dept. and following Obama’s latest claims of climate calamity, it will probably be used to call for even more targeted taxes.

    ======================================================================

  220. rogerknights says:

    Here’s an article in response to Tesla’s battery swapping announcement:

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/1515232-tesla-battery-swap-is-a-no-go?source=email_rt_article_readmore

    Today, Elon Musk showed off a method to swap the Model S battery in 90 seconds. Faster than pumping in gas. Some will quickly laud it as a solution for the fueling conundrum. I’ll say: It isn’t.

    Why isn’t it a solution? For two reasons:

    You have to pick your battery up on the way back, no matter where you’re going. This is a hassle and probably defeats the time saving altogether;

    And if you do not want to pick up your battery, you can end up with a newer battery. Such has a cost. Tesla (TSLA) is going to bill you the difference. Now remember, these are expensive batteries. The difference can certainly be large. How many will be ready to risk a few thousand dollars on their battery swap? Indeed, how many will even want the risk itself – not knowing beforehand just how much they’re even risking?

    In short, this is a failed idea. It’s also funny that swapping batteries ends up costing as much or more ($60-$80) as filling in gas, for a shorter range.

    It’s not surprising that another outfit trying out the same idea, Better Place, just went bankrupt a couple of weeks ago. That should be food for thought.

  221. troe says:

    The president is oblivious and out of touch on climate issues. My first impression that he was a mediocrity hasn’t changed over time. Seems the rest of the World has also figured this out. Still he is sitting in the big chair and has many influential rent-seekers to cheer him on. Can we find a court that will act to stop this obvious fraud. I hope so.

  222. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..dbstealey says:

    June 21, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    jai mitchell says:

    “you didn’t check that the money I mentioned is actually tax subsidies given by the government to the shareholders. Most of whom moved it offshore.”

    That is not even close to being right. The government does not “give” money to shareholers; in this case it is simply not confiscating more of their money. And most shares are held by average folks in their 401-K’s. They do not ‘move it offshore’.

    jai mitchell adds this bit of nonsense:

    “There is nothing in the historic record that even comes close to approximating what we have done to this planet.” ……”””””

    mind if I pick a nit with you there db ?

    Actually, the historic record matches exactly with what we have done to this planet; approximating it right down to a gnats eyebrow.

    Now where does the historic record; which by definition is synchronous with homo sapiens sapiens , say that we have done anything close to the great extinctions from back around the Cambrian, and the like; or even the Younger Dryas event ??

  223. Watchero says:

    John Boehner once again, like most conservatives owned by the bIllionaires and multinational corporation CEOs, is asking absolutely the wrong question.

    Framing this solely in terms of jobs and the economy is related– but is also a ruse to sidetrack the conversation away from essential climate change legislation and policy. He should be asking, “How can we create job growth while ensuring a green economy that assures human health and environmental health for everyone?”

    Research shows that failure to account for climate change in economic growth will kill job growth in the world economy many times over. The ridiculous assumptions and protestations made by conservatives need to be exposed as tripe that fails to account for all relevant factors. Such a narrow view of the situation is either intentionally misleading, thus corrupt, or retarded. Either way, kick the inept and corrupt bums led by Boehner out.

    Other research reveals that our world economy can thrive while going green and protecting human health. In any event, going to a green economy is a must, not an option, because the planet is so fragile that it is on the brink of collapse in key areas if we don’t turn around our destructive behavior.

    Even the CIA and Pentagon are planning strategically for large-scale social upheaval globally as the world careens towards a future dominated by more and more severe weather events, valuable coastline destruction and the nearly inevitable political and social catastrophes.

    If the military–a quintessentially practical organization run by hardcore realists–is planning for it, it is real. Our government does not place billions and billions of dollars in the hands of generals to protect us from fantasies. It’s unfortunate that these billions aren’t going toward protecting us from the fantasies and idiotic and corrupt notions of conservatives who are too stupid and corrupt to govern the nation in necessary ways.

  224. rogerknights says:

    Research shows that failure to account for climate change in economic growth will kill job growth in the world economy many times over.

    Ever heard of “advocacy research”?

    Spain has shown (and Germany is about to show) that going green is the true economic killer.

  225. rogerknights says:

    PSL I should have added the UK to Germany as another country that will shortly succemb to economic gang green.

    Watchero says:
    June 22, 2013 at 5:11 am

    This polemic, with its appeal to ‘research shows” and its citation of long-outdated contingency documents for the military and CIA, sounds like it was written in 2003. Ten years on, in the wake of “green economy” under-performances and failures abroad and at home (nearly 20 government-funded green US ventures have gone bankrupt), it reads like something from a time warp.

  226. Richard Vada says:

    Liberals are the most bizarre form of fixate hate driven evil I’ve ever seen. Every last one hates humanity. When George Bush was wondering how many experienced Al Qaeda military men were hidden in small towns around Iraq teaching Sunni anti-American terrorists to destroy jet planes, ships, docks, water supplies for entire valley regions,

    Al Gore was running ANOTHER terror operation against the CITIZENS of the WORLD claiming if we didn’t – ”go ahead and install my policies in SPITE of the election, although it’s already too late to save humanity” –

    snickering as the nation trying to show solidarity, went ahead and let government employees terrorize academia and government employment roles in exchange for simply,

    pretending, the scam was real.

    Hicks running grants scams, claiming to look into hockey stick generators to peer into tree rings.

    Men like Hansen claming Manhatten would be under water in however many years.

    People claiming to add CO2 to jars that warmed, then being checked and having the jars COOL and discovering through photographic artifacts Al Gore switched the thermometers.

    This brain dead zombie is talking about count them more than TWO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS in the P.A.S.T.
    ==========
    Not humiliated by the fact the proof he thought it would be end-of-the-world time NOW and it’s obviously not only NOT, but the predictions for warming were WRONG in the WRONG DIRECTION

    he’s filled with brainsless, morals-less hatred for anything that doesn’t ooze evil the way his own presidential candidate did.

    And does.

    Just pure unmitigated evil in a human being someone taught to write but not be able to make moral judgements that conform to reality based secular artifacts.

    That is called, “mentally ill.”
    The man who shot John Lennon was similarly fixated on evil as being personified in specific elected officials. Liberals show that sign like a light bulb going off around them: euphorically happy and “forgive, forget, let’s get along!” – until they hear about some successful person who the media vilified because they weren’t in the same political party.

    George Bush fighting real terrorists, while Al Gore played undercover terrorist to blackmail the entire world into taking, being bludgeoned out of entire fields of science so terrorists, could further propagation of a SCAM.

    And this hick thinks the cooling cycle didn’t start 17 or 18 years ago.

    And that it’s all George Bush’s fault.

    That the warming stopped. Or didn’t stop but now it’s George Bush blackmailing everyone into saying it stopped warming 17 years ago.

    And it’s George Bush making everyone on earth be able to see what Al Gore did, was basically, a politically activated, government employee, terror scam.

    Everybody seeing all those climate gate emails where Jones admitted it hadn’t warmed since like, 1998 didn’t do it.

    Jones later having REVIEWED his work later admitting it stopped warming by 1995: that was George Bush who made him say that.

    In England.

    Liberals are just exceptionally evil, loathsome things, who no one but other liberals like. Everyone else gets the creeps at how obviously delusional they can be: while able to drive cars, eat, groom to a certain extent –

    liberals wonder how it is they get a name like ‘GLEICK.’ – caught doing SCAM CRIME while serving as ETHICS DIRECTOR of some hovel somewhere.

    Liberals wonder why people literally burst out laughing in their faces on the street or in the supermarket.

    Then they send people like Magic Gas Mitchell to argue it’s George Bush’s fault
    Al Gore sold his cable company to Al Jazeera, the people owned by the oil nation of Qatar.

    After Al Gore ran a professional grade terror scam for some 15 years or whatever.

    Defying law enforcement to try to stop mobs and liberals everywhere from simply forcing standard law enforcement procedures to not work while he scammed the WORLD

    as a show of contempt for the people who didn’t make him their president.

    No wonder people get the creeps when they see the word “Democrat.”
    Magic Gas Mitchell says:
    June 20, 2013 at 11:18 am

    This seems relevant to this political discussion.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

    Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

  227. Mikey says:

    James Padgett says: “Obama is looking for his legacy.”

    By what I can tell he already has several, here are some of them:
    * “Fast n’ Furious” – sending US guns to Mexican drug cartels resulting in two slain government agents and many murdered Mexicans for the purpose of bolstering his political position for more US gun control. Invoke executive privilege to withhold communications he says he didn’t have with the DOJ.
    * Benghazi -dereliction of duty, lying to cover it up, maybe giving SAM’s to people who vow to kill us, maybe even being complicit with the enemy in a kidnap plot of Ambassador Chris Stevens that he knew might result in the death of Stevens and others. Flatly refusing to send military help to those under attack.
    * IRS thuggery – use IRS as one more political snooping tool (like he didn’t already have enough..) and to snuff out political opposition by shutting off their financial means to educate people on the direction of US policies.
    * Perversion of the NSA and the Patriot Act – retain ALL conversations and just lie ~saying~ that no one is listening to them when in fact they are listening for the purpose of blackmail and leaks to his lapdog media. (Just like ‘no one’ looked at Ryan’s sealed custody papers before his thugs ran to one of the most pukingly liberal judges in the country to force them open.)
    * Obstructing the Keystone Pipeline for no good reason.
    * Ordering a moratorium on deep water Gulf oil drilling despite having no sound scientific basis to justify it.
    * And of course… Obamacare – Fascist collusion with insurance companies to takeover 1/6 of the US economy. Destruction of US health care; doctors now retiring early, fewer med school applicants, insurance premiums skyrocketing, death panels are a reality just like Sarah Palin told you, (Sarah Murnaghan – Fortunately, this time, House republicans were able to save her life from the jaws of a death panel of one – Obama’s grim reaper Kathleen Sebelius )

  228. mikeishere says:

    James Padgett says: “Obama is looking for his legacy.”

    By what I can tell he already has several, here are some of them:
    * “Fast n’ Furious” – sending US guns to Mexican drug cartels resulting in two slain government agents and many murdered Mexicans for the purpose of bolstering his political position for more US gun control. Invoke executive privilege to withhold communications he says he didn’t have with the DOJ.
    * Benghazi -dereliction of duty, lying to cover it up, maybe giving SAM’s to people who vow to kill us, maybe even being complicit with the enemy in a kidnap plot of Ambassador Chris Stevens that he knew might result in the death of Stevens and others. Flatly refusing to send military help to those under attack.
    * IRS thuggery – use IRS as one more political snooping tool (like he didn’t already have enough..) and to snuff out political opposition by shutting off their financial means to educate people on the direction of US policies.
    * Perversion of the NSA and the Patriot Act – retain ALL conversations and just lie ~saying~ that no one is listening to them when in fact they are listening for the purpose of blackmail and leaks to his lapdog media. (Just like ‘no one’ looked at Ryan’s sealed custody papers before his thugs ran to one of the most pukingly liberal judges in the country to force them open.)
    * Obstructing the Keystone Pipeline for no good reason.
    * Ordering a moratorium on deep water Gulf oil drilling despite having no sound scientific basis to justify it.
    * And of course… Obamacare – Fascist collusion with insurance companies to takeover 1/6 of the US economy. Destruction of US health care; doctors now retiring early, fewer med school applicants, insurance premiums skyrocketing, death panels are a reality just like Sarah Palin told you, (Sarah Murnaghan – Fortunately, this time, House republicans were able to save her life from the jaws of a death panel of one – Obama’s grim reaper Kathleen Sebelius )

    (If this is a duplicate post please delete it – had a WordPress login problem)

  229. Justa Joe says:

    Watchero says:

    June 22, 2013 at 5:11 am

    If the military–a quintessentially practical organization run by hardcore realists–is planning for it, it is real. Our government does not place billions and billions of dollars in the hands of generals to protect us from fantasies. It’s unfortunate that these billions aren’t going toward protecting us from the fantasies and idiotic and corrupt notions of conservatives who are too stupid and corrupt to govern the nation in necessary ways.
    —————————————————–
    The military had plans on the table to deal with the coming ice-age back in the 70’s too. Also contrary to your solemn faith the prudent financial practices of the Federal government it seems apparent that it throws around $billions more carelessly than guys throw around singles at a strip club.

Comments are closed.