The Delayer in Chief? – Obama backs Copenhagen postponement

I always have to chuckle when somebody uses the phrase denier/delayer to label somebody for even the slightest transgression on climate /action/justice/activism/alarmism/pick a word.

Briefly, this appeared on Google News:

copenhagen_tatters

click for full screen cap

That was the original title of the piece. Somebody must have complained, because it didn’t last long: Look what The Guardian changed the title to:

guardian_new_obama_headline2

click for the Guardian story

Whether the hopes are fading or in “tatters”, it seems that the hope and climate change movement is falling apart.

Advertisements

189 thoughts on “The Delayer in Chief? – Obama backs Copenhagen postponement

  1. From the Gruaniad article:
    “While this falls short of hopes that Copenhagen would lock in place a new action plan for the world, it recognises the lack of progress in recent preparatory talks and the hold-ups of climate legislation in the US Senate.”
    Hip-hip! Hooray! for the U.S. Senate.
    The founding fathers of the U.S. created that august body precisely to gum up the legislative works. Sometimes it actually works as intended.

  2. Newsbusteers reports that the New York Times says that “world leaders” have agreed to delay a solution and instead to try to create something simpler at Copenhagen. Let’s see if anyone can produce a list of all these leaders and what they said.

  3. I wouldn’t be too happy yet. The unelected bureaucrats at the EPA can still cost the US taxpayers hundreds of billions (or more) dollars with their CO2 endangerment program.

  4. Must….sterilize…im-per-fec-shun….Goremad.
    Earth…is….conflicting mass of….climate….illogical….must….sterilize…
    Goremad.
    Scotty…meet me in the transporter with some antigravs.
    I’ll try to delay it before it explodes.

  5. Ern Matthews (10:37:11) :
    That, along with the flaming statue they had of him, was quite disturbing.
    He’s a Great Dragon to them.

  6. The fact that it is still on the agenda is a problem. Lisa Jackson has named CO2 a pollutant. She must be stopped otherwise the agenda will go forward. Imagine 10.2% unemployment and skyrocketing energy prices. What a great combo. Where is the necessary energy policy to reduce the cost of energy for all. Where are the manufacturing jobs that are leaving the US do to congress destabilizing bad energy policies going to go other than India and China? Where is the leadership other than just saying no! Stopping coal and nuclear power has succeeded in killing US jobs, great leadership!

  7. Well, if anything, this will give us more time to stuff our mattresses with cash before the politicians rape our wallets and bank accounts.

  8. Hmm. This makes the pointless Science Museum poll even more pointless.
    “I’ve seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they’re serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen.”
    Perhaps the count-me-in-votes can be used to encourage the British government to go there announce they’ll continue on their green path alone.

  9. still, the danger of a devastating agreement continues to exists.
    kopenhagen is not a mirror of public opinion or has anything to do with science.
    all leaders from third and developing world will sign anything, that makes them richer.
    on the other side, some leaders like the danish host, rudd, brown, merkel and others will sign anything, that gives them a headline that they saved the planet, completely disconnected from thei countries interests.
    the little rest of rational leaders is typically accompanied by fanatic environmentalist advisers and will be exposed to tremendous pressure.

  10. “In a poll published just weeks before the global climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, it has been revealed only 41% of British people accept as a scientific fact that the situation is largely man-made.”
    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1227745/Most-Britons-dont-believe-climate-change-man-made.html#ixzz0WxRHFwQq
    I suppose that means 59% do not accept as a scientific fact that global warming is man made.
    Th Guardian unsurprisingly their guys and gals on the environment pages have global warming as their main topic, take it away and the pony and trap looms.

  11. Barak Obama has found himself in a lot of political hot water. He had to react. I think this is part of his 2012 re-election campaign. He could be looking at the outrageous popularity of Sarah Palin and feeling insecure over it.
    …Obama has spent more money on new programs in nine months than Bill Clinton did in eight years, pushing the annual deficit to $1.4 trillion…the White House focus on deficit reduction could easily kill the cap-and-trade…
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29471.html

  12. janama (10:41:54) & pops
    I went to the link and immediately added my name to the “countmeout” statistics, together with a message. I was told that a message would be sent to my e-mail to assure the integrity of my entry, but, strangely enough, I haven’t seen any such confirmatory e-mail. I don’t want to be too cynical, but I wonder whether this has anything to do with the 2:1 voting against the Science Museum support for AGW?

  13. Yertizz (10:35:08) :
    There IS a higher authority than George Monbiot!
    Are you meaning the bridge guards on the top side of the bridge George Monbiot dwells under from where his troll hieroglyphics drip?

  14. We are looking at pragmatism in action. Extricating themselves from AGW alarmism will take all the finesse the Administration can muster. They’re working on it. They know the data are against them.
    And please, just can all this Maobama nonsense. The guy is actually pretty moderate.

  15. Great news. What is needed is time to dispel the “beliefs” of Man(n) Caused Global Warming Climate Change with hard core reality based science and real practical care for our environment before rash decisions are put into long term binding treaties by those who believe they run the world.

  16. This should be a heads up to EPA: any further attempts to demonize CO2 as a “pollutant” will be met with pressures forceful enough to disassemble EPA back to its constituent parts.

  17. Gene Nemetz (11:28:47) :
    Spent $1.4T and produced one pricey NY raspberry.
    Except for that Stock Market: They’re gaining at the craps table.
    And if that’s not enough, we’re getting more politcally correct with each passing day.

  18. Why is anybody surprised by this? The US Senate voted against Kyoto (sense of the senate vote) 98-0. Clinton had Gore sign the bill anyway but never submitted the treaty to the US Senate for approval. For 8 years the Democrats and their European allies blamed Bush for the failure of Kyoto in the USA. That was just a Big Lie.
    A Big Lie for 8 years. Bush was just a lousy politician that he let the Dems lay that on him. Now, when the Democrats control the White House and Congress, they will do nothing about global warming except raise some taxes. It has all been a Big Lie.

  19. Indiana Bones (12:03:38) :
    This should be a heads up to EPA: any further attempts to demonize CO2 as a “pollutant” will be met with pressures forceful enough to disassemble EPA back to its constituent parts.
    —–
    No this will even more elevate chances the EPA to become the regulator of last resort. The problem here is timing, the climate stuff is being sacrificed to get the Healthcare passed so that Climate is the Election Issue in 2010. The EPA GHG regulation was always designed to be used as a hammer by the Administration. (7.2B in additional EPA funding in the Stimulus to assure the EPA was ready in time)
    The EPA will be ready to regulate GHGs in about a week or two, this delay on Copenhagen and also one on the EPA rules adoption that will crop up after the OMB report is a trade-off for moderate Democrats in the Senate in exchange for Healthcare Reform support. You cannot look at the two massive bills being single issue ones, they are part off a larger agenda, and sacrifices on one will help the other.
    This is politics and this is how it is played.

  20. Andy Revkin (10:00:07) :
    It seems they should have first said something about the earth cooling and there being longer, harsher winters around the world, i.e., the real reasons.
    People are believing in global warming less and less because it isn’t happening Andy.

  21. It isn’t happening, and the White House is catching on. That’s the bottom line. Now they need to figure out the strategy. Letting as much of it as possible run out in the sand will certainly be part of it.

  22. I think that the only way to stop the green movement is to starve the environmentalists of money. They are the ones pushing the politicians into the cap and trade bill. There is nothing we can do about the IPCC except to tell our elected government officials that we do not accept one word coming from the European bureaucratic group whose mandate is to prove AGW.
    However Greenpeace and the SIerra Club have big pockets and that is where the funding for green lobbiests is coming from. I doubt we can stop the oil and electrical companies from funding them but we can stop the average citizen from donating.

  23. Tor Hansson (11:55:18) : “We are looking at pragmatism in action. Extricating themselves from AGW alarmism will take all the finesse the Administration can muster. They’re working on it. They know the data are against them.”
    They knew that the data were bogus from the start, Tor. They’ve just realized that word has gotten out. Next steps: (1) increase their propaganda outlay. (2) put the lid on dissent by shutting down all media that expose their lies.
    “And please, just can all this Maobama nonsense. The guy is actually pretty moderate.”
    Sorry, Tor, he’s appointed too many communists and socialists to important positions to be considered a moderate. He has relatives living under communism. He lied about illegal aliens and health care. He has ties to Acorn. He was mentored by a socialist. He couldn’t be doing a better job of wrecking the United States economy if he were Lenin, himself. That’s no moderate.

  24. Not Amused (10:50:28) :
    Well, if anything, this will give us more time to stuff our mattresses with cash before the politicians rape our wallets and bank accounts.

    Um, that won’t work anymore. I used to work when “cash” was silver and gold. Now the politicians can “tax away the value” of the “fiat money” in your mattresses via inflation.
    Yes, that is the proper way to view inflation. It is a “tax on cash holdings” via reduction of the purchasing power of the cash. It can be implemented without legislation and requires no tax collection to work. All that needs to happen is the Federal Government spends buckets of money it does not have. The printing press is all it takes… (Actually, less than that now. Most “money” today is bit settings in a computer. All that really needs to happen is that the Treasury increases the size of a value stored in their computer to say they have “printed” more money for congress to spend… then cut the checks. YOUR cash is then worth proportionately less.)
    Imagine a world with 5 dollar bills and 5 beers (and each dollar changes hands one time per period). A beer is going to cost $1. Now somebody comes along with an ADDED $5… So $10 change hands for 5 beers. A beer now costs $2. That is exactly what happens with inflation. (Except instead of beer it is “aggregate goods and services” and instead of $5 it’s a few $Trillion and rising…)
    Now I’m no “Gold Bug”, but the stuff is now at about $1200 / ounce and rising. (It was $300 not too long ago… 2 years?). But if you want to stuff your “cash” in the “mattress” I suggest one of: Yen, Swiss Francs, Australian Dollar, or perhaps the Brazilian Real or Canadian Dollar. (The last three being “resource currencies” where the economy is driven by Chinese demand for minerals et. al.).
    Gold and Silver are volatile, but also reasonable choices for 10% up to 20% max. (Wait for the next “dip”… the chart looks like they come about month ends.)
    The Euro is “ok” but a bit too manipulated for my tastes. Oh, and the British Pound is likely worse than most, but still beating the US Dollar… Heck, even the Mexican Peso rose more than 1% on Friday relative to the dollar…
    see the chart.

  25. Climate Heretic (12:29:54) :
    “…this will even more elevate chances the EPA to become the regulator of last resort. “

    Unless the weather warms significantly between now and next November, I doubt the Obama administration will knowingly sabotage the economy to enact anything more than token steps at CO2 regulation (i.e. “Carbon Accounting” or other such cosmetic efforts).
    To do anything more will surely piss off more voters than it pleases. At an official 10% plus, with real numbers at 15% plus, unemployment levels must be the primary focus of the administration over the next 12 months, otherwise they lose the senate and house in a big way.

  26. Time for the Nobel Committee to consider a discount on or get a partial refund of the prize to Obama!

  27. It’s not difficult to see why the alarmist parties in Canada are low in the polls.
    Some of you will probably feel obliged to combat the amusing misinformation in the comments section below this article:

    “World a ‘long way’ from climate treaty, Harper says”
    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091115/Harper_APEC_091115/20091115?hub=TopStoriesV2

    Excerpt:
    “”(There was) a pretty strong consensus at the meeting this morning that countries of the world remain a long way from a binding, legal treaty on climate change,” the prime minister said.
    Harper pointed out that there are 3,000 “bracketed pieces of text” in the Copenhagen working document, which means there are thousands of issues that require further discussion.
    “I don’t think that can be attributed to any one country,” he said. “There obviously are significant areas of disagreement.”
    At the close of the summit on Sunday, the leaders released a statement that abandoned the idea of specific emission-reduction targets or even “aspirational goals,” the term once used by APEC leaders.
    “We probably need to get our negotiators out of this morass of hundreds of pages and thousands of brackets of text and into looking at the big picture and coming to some agreement on some big picture items,” Harper said.”

  28. Tor Hansson –
    “…The guy is actually pretty moderate.”
    You might be able to get me to agree that MaObama is pragmatic. However, if you think he is moderate, you should put the pipe down.

  29. jorgekafkazar:
    Stop it already with your communist nonsense.
    You are looking at an Administration that jumped the gun on the science, with its plate full of pressing economy issues. They would love to see AGW go away.

  30. jorgekafkazar:
    please explain to me how the Administration intends to shut down all dissenting media. Executive Powers through a War On CO2? Get real.

  31. And from sunny Australia, with PM Rudd in Singapore promising who-knows-what, 16 Nov 09
    “SINGAPORE: Any last chance of the Copenhagen climate change conference producing a binding target for the world to cut greenhouse gases has evaporated following a lack of collective resolve by the members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit.
    The Prime Minister and Copenhagen deal broker Kevin Rudd convened a breakfast meeting of 20 world leaders in Singapore yesterday, but the APEC nations refused to commit to halve emissions by 2050.
    The 50 per cent target was contained in the draft communique but removed from the final statement, largely because of hostility from China on behalf of developing nations.
    It was replaced by a statement in which nations reaffirmed their ”commitment to tackle the threat of climate change and work towards an ambitious outcome in Copenhagen”.
    Mr Rudd said APEC was one step along the road and did not diminish the need for Parliament to pass the Government’s emissions trading scheme legislation in the next two weeks.
    ”As Copenhagen draws closer, we must remember the devastating consequences of climate change,” he said.
    ”There are only two choices here – action or inaction.”
    With the Government and the Opposition still locked in talks, Mr Rudd said the weekend offer to exclude agriculture permanently from the scheme was an act of goodwill by the Government. END of my QUOTE

  32. Eve,
    You write “However Greenpeace and the SIerra Club have big pockets and that is where the funding for green lobbiests is coming from. I doubt we can stop the oil and electrical companies from funding them but we can stop the average citizen from donating.”
    There’s not much evidence that there are the funders. Look more in the sectors of people who get rich by taking money from other people, by fair means or foul. Bankers, financiers, newspaper moguls, that “soft hands” type of sector.

  33. Tor Hansson (14:20:02),
    0bama recently reprimanded a member of his Administration for daring to speak to the ‘enemy’: Fox News.
    And your remark: “Stop it already with your communist nonsense” probably indicates that you don’t follow the U.S. political situation very closely.
    0bama appointed a self-designated Communist, Van Jones, to his administration. And he surrounds himself with similar anti-Americans. In fact, I’d like you to name even one 0bama centrist.

  34. Why is political slanging being allowed on this forum.
    IMO maobama comments should be snipped.
    When i try to influence my left wing friends and inform them I cannot direct them to this site if we decend into political insults.
    Lets raise the standards to what have in the past been more reflective of this site.

  35. Van Jones was a communist for five minutes. He did not have a Cabinet post, and was well qualified for the job he held.
    Obama centrists, let’s see: Robert Gates (R), Secretary of Defense, Ray LaHood (R), Secretary Of Transportation, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner.
    Those are the ones that come to mind first.
    And thank you, I do follow the U.S. political situation very closely.

  36. May 30 2008:
    The Bush Administration today released a court-ordered assessment on climate. The report — titled “Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States” — says human-driven climate change will damage ecosystems and pose challenges to key sectors of the U.S. economy including agriculture and energy.
    Based largely on recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Scientific Assessment says that climate change is “very likely” due to human activities — a conclusion seemingly at odds with the administration’s long-standing position on the issue.”
    Can we stop it now?

  37. Matt (14:51:10) “When i try to influence my left wing friends and inform them I cannot direct them to this site if we decend into political insults.”
    Matt, if it helps your cause in however-small a way, I have no problem being clear that while I am no right-wing extremist, I would find it difficult to justify making the effort to go out and vote for a party that not only misrepresents truth, but additionally does so in a scandalous manner which undermines both science & the environmental movement. I will list 4 Canadian political parties that presently fit this description: New Democratic Party, Liberal Party, Green Party, Bloc Quebecois. That leaves only one major alternative – and to date I’ve never voted for them (Conservative Party) because of some of their other (very distasteful) policies — abstinence (from voting) will be a serious option for many (in Canada, at least, since that is legal here) since climate “issues” DO NOT split along party lines. Of course political parties might change (perhaps slowly) to more sensible positions to recruit support — I hope at least one of the above-listed parties is on the verge of being more sensible, as I couldn’t justify lifting a finger to help any of them as things are at present.

  38. I agree with Matt. Certainly everywhere except the US it is everyone from the Right to the Left who need to be convinced that AGW is rubbish. In the UK for example ALL the major parties are warmist and that goes for most other developed countries.
    With some of the comments on here and on other sceptical sites it is far too easy for warmists to mis-characterise scepticism as being only a Far Right movement, perversely ignoring science for political ends, rather than a rational reaction to the facts – and that alienates virtually everyone of most political persuasions in the rest of the world. To the rest of the world to call Obama a communist is laughable and only weakens the anti-AGW case.
    If we stick to the facts and cut down on the political grandstanding then this nightmare will be over all the sooner.

  39. I am a liberal Democrat. I do not buy AGW. Most of my friends do, and WUWT has been a great site to help their understanding.
    it works best when politics are kept to a minimum.
    I don’t see a problem with calling out the Administration on its errors as long as we stay away from the name-calling.

  40. I live in Australia and just wish I could find calling Obama a communist laughable. Unfortunately, the truth is seldom laughable.
    I hope this site does not give in to censorship by the thought police.

  41. Richard deSousa (10:42:13) :
    I wouldn’t be too happy yet. The unelected bureaucrats at the EPA can still cost the US taxpayers hundreds of billions (or more) dollars with their CO2 endangerment program.
    The EPA can be tied up in court for years, as their regulations can be challenged on the science.
    Thermageddon legislation; Kerry-Boxer, Waxman-Markey, cannot be blocked merely because AGW is an absolute hoax.

  42. Iren, I am going to try to explain this as clearly as I can:
    It is obvious that people who comment on this site have differing opinions on the Obama Administration. You have an opinion too, and that’s fine. Let me just say that it is not an opinion that finds favor with most people around the world, and it is not supported by the facts.
    This site is doing a very good job of debunking AGW. If we mix the findings of fact we see on this site with politics, the findings are tainted.
    We are all better off if they are not. We are fighting a battle for science and for facts. Once we bring political views into the picture the findings can be attacked as politically motivated.
    That’s why it is better to leave the politics out of it.

  43. From the point of view of a US citizen, Obama is not a moderate. Look at Cap and Trade, EPA, health care reform, his alignment with ACORN and SEIU (socialist/Marxist groups), government ownership of GM and AIG, the sale of Chrysler, the $780B + stimulus bill, $1.4T budget deficit, TARP, TALP, cars for clunkers, etc… The list goes on and on. His views on redistribution of wealth are nowhere close to mainstream in this country. This country was founded on the concept of a very limited federal government. A majority of people here believe in that despite the monster that it is now the federal government.
    Obama is at about 50% approval now. It will go much lower if he continues with these radical policies.
    Is he a communist at heart? I think so. Time will tell how far he can carry out his vision.

  44. One more thing — I don’t think Obama likes Cap and Trade for how it addresses CO2. it doesn’t address CO2 in any meaningful way. He likes it as mechanism to extract an almost unlimited amount of money out of the private sector. It would be the biggest taxation gold mine ever. All under the guise of saving the world. The perfect statist scam.

  45. Tor Hansson,
    I enjoy reading your take on the climate issues. But really, even though you say everyone should stay away from politics, you continue to comment on U.S. politics — and then you get upset when others disagree with you.
    Stick to the climate discussion and you’ll have no reason to be upset.

  46. The EPA has stepped in it on multiple times and has been given a pass…
    We really need to demand they prove… a reduction in CO2 will cause no HARM to plant life and the people of the world… and to also prove why the current temperature is ideal or stable…
    They can not justify any of their positions with science and we should be prepared to re-educate the US Supreme Court…
    We could then begin to deal with some of the REAL ISSUES of the day…

  47. smokey,
    I reacted to irresponsible comments. But you are right, I ended up fueling the fire. I’ll be more circumspect in the future.

  48. He just remembered, the only think he is capable of doing is to vote “present”. In this case it is fortunate.

  49. John Adams:
    The EPA will follow the Administration. The Administration will follow the polls. The voters will follow their pocketbooks. Once there is enough evidence that AGW is bunk, or even simply overblown, they will move to shelve the whole issue, as it will come across as nothing but a costly exercise towards a pointless end.

  50. Re: Tor Hansson (16:42:35)
    It’s a multi-front war.
    On one front: climate alarmists.
    On another: opportunistically-divisive partisans.
    Personally, I find the suggestions that the climate “issue” divides along party lines not only laughable, but additionally goofy.
    Who could take such a person seriously?
    When I see such comments, I always pause to consider the possibility that they have been posted by subversive alarmists trying to undermine the credibility of this site [by posing as irrational “deniers”, to water down the contributions from sensible non-alarmists].

  51. Not Amused Said:
    Well, if anything, this will give us more time to stuff our mattresses with cash before the politicians rape our wallets and bank accounts.
    E.M.Smith replied
    Um, that won’t work anymore. I used to work when “cash” was silver and gold. Now the politicians can “tax away the value” of the “fiat money” in your mattresses via inflation….
    …. Heck, even the Mexican Peso rose more than 1% on Friday relative to the dollar…
    The US dollar is in a world of hurt and the foreign bankers know it. That is why the US dollar’s value is dropping in relation to the other world currencies. First they doubled the money supply the first Quarter of 2009. From $831 billion in 2008 to $1663 billion in the first quarter of 2009. (This halved the value of your savings in the long run) To give you an idea of what is happening, in 2006 an oz of gold was $636.30 and the money supply was $808 billion. In the first quarter of 2009 gold was already $1,020.28/oz and it is still climbing.
    The second nasty change was a bit of sleight of hand by the Federal Reserve. When a bank lends you $100,000 for a mortgage they are supposed to have at least $10,000 in “reserve” the other $90,000 is “created” on the spot by a computer (Ledger) entry. Seems now the “reserve” is 0 to 3% so banks are just “printing money” at will to lend to people. see *****US Banks Operating Without Reserve Requirements***** http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/03/us-banks-operate-without-reserve.html
    So can anyone tell me how the banks managed to get themselves into “trouble” and now we have to “bail them out” with taxpayer wealth (our labor)? After all the money they lent out as mortgages is nothing but bank created “fairy dust” They got land and houses (real wealth) in exchange for that “fairy dust” . I guess the bankers are ticked because the supply of suckers has dropped off so they are going straight for the jugular instead of creating the illusion they are lending us real money.
    The Global Warming hoax and the Banking hoax are run by the same set of crooks by the way. The Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Morgans, Warburgs…..

  52. Paul:
    There is a partisan divide too. If you are liberal you are expected to be an alarmist. If you are a conservative Republican you are expected to be a skeptic.
    I agree that the lines are blurred. I for one am on the “wrong” side of the debate. I am a liberal Democrat, and I agree that AGW alarmism is a classic example of media-driven hysteria. I am also doing what I can to educate people on the facts.

  53. Paul:
    As to your suggestion that some of the more rabidly conservative comments here may be planted: I have no idea. Possible, but they do seem like the real thing.

  54. Climate Heretic (12:29:54) :
    No this will even more elevate chances the EPA to become the regulator of last resort.

    EPA can expect the same treatment other AGW proponents have gotten. The failure of Copenhagen demonstrates the efficacy of that treatment. Those who support regulation of CO2 as a pollutant – will be marginalized. With Democratic seats up for election and the Administration’s plummeting poll numbers – the writing is on the wall.

  55. Tor Hansson
    You are quite right. There is a tendency on blogs of this kind on controversial issues to become dominated by a small clique of posters, whose interest is, for personal reasons, in the continued shouting of extreme minority points of view. If you are not careful in moderation, you end up with a claque all posting for themselves and reinforcing each other. Everyone else leaves. The classic case was technocrat, which it put out of commission. Blogs that remain accessible to the general public do not tolerate this stuff.
    It has happened to Grant Foster’s blog which is unreadable, its happened to the comments section of RC. It has not happened to Climate Audit only because Steve M immediately snips all the ‘piling on’ posts and the nutty politics and religion posts.
    Although the obsessives cannot be expected to see it, dhogaza and the rest on tamino and RC, with their hysterical rants about Bush and Cheney and Exxon, tobacco, intelligent design and neo-cons, they are exactly the same thing as the hysterical rants that are becoming more and more frequent here about Maobama and Communism.
    Folks, some of you have got to realize that the vast majority of people do not share your political obsessions or worries about the Great Global Conspiracy. They are as turned off by this stuff as they are by dhogaza. They may or may not agree with Bush or Obama, but what they want is evidence based politics and a reasonable ordering of government priorities. They may vote Republican or Democrat in the US. In the UK they may vote for any of the three major parties. They are visiting this blog because they want to find out and debate about climate.
    Not because they want to hear a claque of nutters repeating the same pointless obssessive rants over and over again.
    [Reply: this article is filed under “alarmism, media, politics.” Comments relating to those issues are allowed within the parameters of site policy. Notice that the newest article just above this one has no political comments. ~dbstealey, moderator]

  56. I’m still curious as to why the environmentalists would endorse a treaty that would force production to move from clean factories in the developed world to dirty polluting factories in China.
    Seems to me that would increase pollution, not reduce it.

  57. Tor Hansson (17:43:49) :
    The EPA will follow the Administration. The Administration will follow the polls. The voters will follow their pocketbooks. Once there is enough evidence that AGW is bunk, or even simply overblown, they will move to shelve the whole issue, as it will come across as nothing but a costly exercise towards a pointless end.
    Tor:
    I suspect you are subscribing to the “business as usual” scenario. We are witnessing something entirely different. Whether we are talking about Waxman-Markey or the health bill, “they” are planning to change the way we live. Can’t afford to bring your house up to standard before you sell it? You can’t move. You MUST buy health insurance? If you smoke, drink, eat red-meat or don’t get enough exercise… well they won’t give you health insurance, will they? Why should your bad habits cost your neighbors money?

  58. Tor Hansson (17:56:16) :
    Tor, I agree with you.I’m an independent with a conservative/libertarian streak.
    I would vote for a Dem (and have like Peter DeFazio of Oregon) if they are not
    kool aid drinking ideologues.Same for Republicans. The issue here is the truth
    about what is and isn’t real.I’m convinced in this case President Obama may be engaging in “kick the can”-move the issue down the road to deal with later.-Maybe
    the next congress,administration, whatever.
    I will bet he’s getting an earful of why the Chinese are not willing to go and take the
    econocide dihed up by Copenhagen..
    As for the EPA they will be sewn up in court like a stuffed turkey for years.There are
    corporate Lawyers that are setting in the company Bizjet with the engines running
    -ready for the EPA to pull the trigger.They will descend on DC like Vultures on a
    Dead Rino….

  59. Tor,
    I’m sorry if I offended you. I’m glad to know that there are some liberal elitists that think critically on at least the global warming topic. Politics and other sophisticated topics might be a step too far though. I understand.

  60. The real REAL problem from both sides of the political aisle is that the people who are in power in either…ain’t that smart.
    There is the reason the USA ends up with atty’s general like Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, and Eric Holder.
    And there is a reason the USA ends up with science advisors who are merely politicians, i.e.: wolves in sheep’s clothing.
    Bureaucrats….appointed by other bureaucrats…..that is the only way they can propagate themselves.
    The process is painful, but necessary: As we transition away from bureaucrats (hopefully) and actually EVOLVE as a species, expect to see the lag effects of the old guard, the dim, reactive, big-business-backed BS, from both sides of the aisle, such as “Copenhagen.”
    Just as the USA “world” shifted from the military-industrial complex of Dick Cheney, to the current poised carbon-trading complex of Al Gore with this last election, do NOT be deceived:
    They are all essentially one in the same.
    Same LIPSTICK, different PIG.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  61. Tor Hansson (17:43:49) :
    John Adams:
    The EPA will follow the Administration. The Administration will follow the polls. The voters will follow their pocketbooks. Once there is enough evidence that AGW is bunk, or even simply overblown, they will move to shelve the whole issue, as it will come across as nothing but a costly exercise toward a pointless end.
    —-
    I am not sure what America you are watching closely but my friend it is not the current one. Climate has been bundled in Energy and now Security, but most importantly it has been promoted as a Jobs creator. It cannot be unbundled so your whole supposition on the Administration starting to get it and caving in is wrong. They will re-message it but not abandon it in the 2010 elections Jobs will be issue number one.
    There is far too much political capital invested in this right now and far too much money pitchforked into the “new green economy” via the Energy Department,EPA Budget, GM\Chrysler takeover forced utility portfolios and promises of PTCs until the end of time.
    The payoff for the Duke Energys of the world is the scamming of the Cap and Trade and the free permits they will receive, and in some cases have already sold as far out as 2030 on meaningless token renewable projects that do not even have to be built in order to receive the tax subsidies (see Oregon State for an example). The Administration cannot step back and I counter they will be moving the Climate\Energy\Security = Jobs platform to front of the agenda for the election. Democrats truly believe that Climate Change Legislation forcing money flows into bad ventures will save the economy and create jobs, it is a Party Policy Platform and will not be abandoned no matter how much science is used to disprove it, nobody in politics is listening to the science anymore.
    There would have to be a Plan B and since this Administration has no Plan B for anything, why would one expect the Party to have one?
    This is not a left-right thing, on the right the Republicans support much of the same nonsense just without the taxes, just the spending on their all of the above agenda so their solutions at the moment are not much better! So the issue of Climate Change and GHG Emissions is not going away, it just is not important to have an agreement in Copenhagen before the election cycle.
    If the political capital gained by not having the agreement can be used to pass Healthcare then the delay is worth it to the Administration. Delay is all it will be, if it makes you feel better the Cap and Tax legislation will named The US Renewable Energy Investment and Job Creation Act of 2010.

  62. johneb:
    Thank you for the kind words, and politics being too sophisticated? You are a funny man, John. But I for one agree that this forum works better with less of it. There are plenty other fora where politics are front and center. I just came back from Huffpo, where the Copenhagen issue is being downplayed, and the posters are hanging their beaks. Not to say that the occasional jibe isn’t being thrown my way of course.
    Paul:
    No, thank you.

  63. If you want to throw-up, here are some of the related brilliant comments from the UK Climate Change Secretary (does the USA have a Climate Change Czar, yet??):
    “The overwhelming body of scientific information is stacked up against the deniers and shows us that climate change is man-made and is happening now. We know that we still have a way to go in informing people about climate change and that is why we make no apologies about pushing forward with our new Act on CO2 campaign.”
    Thoughts??
    At the risk of getting snipped, because if I comment, there will be a long, LONG string of both British and American choice, sailor words, I will withhold my remarks on the above quote.
    Use your imagination…and fill in the blankety-blank what you think those words might be. 🙂
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  64. Climateheretic:
    I don’t think there is any doubt that green energy industries are booming. Take a company like nanosolar in California. They are sold out for the next nine months, and every square inch of thin film solar they are producing is going to Germany.
    Those are real jobs, and the industry should be encouraged and supported. Green industries will help put a minor dent in foreign oil imports eventually, but I don’t think there’s much doubt among sober observers that nuclear will be at least a temporary solution, say for the next 50 to 75 years. Funny how that has become an alternative energy too, but it has.
    My point with my comments on the chain of influence, to call it that, is that politicians still care about public opinion. The electorate is highly sensitized to their financial well-being at this point, and will react swiftly if Washington doesn’t pay attention.
    Apart from that I agree that the Administration will re-message the whole green dimension. It will become about jobs and energy independence, especially when winters get colder and people get to pay ever-increasing fuel prices.
    I don’t think there is much disagreement that we have a huge windfall to collect in energy efficiency, both for transportation, homes, and industry. It’s the next wave as far as I can see, and will create a large number of jobs.

  65. savethesharks:
    The comment is expected—when the audience loses interest, shout louder.
    Here is the translation:
    “Our “climate accord” is @##@#@#!!!, and I’ll be a #(*&^!#@ &@#@%^^&$* if facts are going to get in the way of our neat little carbon offset scheme. Who do those ·°‡flfiR&$#%&%^ plebes think they are, who are going to prevent me from making a ^$#^#$@))(%%$ pile of money!!!!???”
    The comment about “having a way to go to inform people” is pretty funny. The tide of opinion is turning. Although this guy surely has gotten the memo he refuses to admit it. Admirable.

  66. Glenn (18:21:51) :
    Tor: “I am a liberal Democrat”
    Glenn: “What does that mean to you?”
    Just go with the basic definition minus a few things, one of them being AGW alarmism.

  67. Tor Hansson (19:25:48) :
    “I don’t think there is much disagreement that we have a huge windfall to collect in energy efficiency, both for transportation, homes, and industry. It’s the next wave as far as I can see, and will create a large number of jobs.”

    The problem with this idea is that it is an artificial economy that depends entirely on your and my taxes to keep it going.
    The windfall you envision is slated to go to those who sing the song – not those who produce the best product. When the taxes dry up, which they will when the voters revolt, the false economy fizzles and the only ones who come out with a profit are those who set up the scam. The ordinary investors (and that includes your and my pension plans) get screwed.
    It just a government sponsored ponzi scheme.

  68. Climate Heretic (19:02:18) “There is far too much political capital invested in this […]”
    Exactly.
    Strategic thinking at this stage has moved on to how to “role with the punches” (so to speak) – i.e. how to morph the emerging structures to render them constructive in worthwhile pursuits 10 years out.
    Those doing their homework now on that front may have a strategic advantage 5 years from now over those choosing to spend their time in the present fighting battles that were lost yesterday.

  69. savethesharks
    That statement and the ad campaign is from the current New Labour government and, as they are despised and distrusted by all sides in the UK, are likely to be ignored and/or ridiculed. The ad campaign, coming from the people who brought us “sexed up” dossiers about WMDs is likely to be treated with deep suspicion by anyone other than the feeble minded.
    In case anyone is rejoicing too much at the thought of New Labours almost inevitable defeat at the next election, both the Conservatives, the likely winners, and the Liberal Democrats, who might hold the balance of power if there is a hung parliament, are pretty much as committed to the AGW rubbish as New Labour.

  70. Tor Hansson (19:35:57) :
    There goes Tor with his thunderbolts. [“Thor” right??]
    The tide of opinion is indeed turning. 🙂
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  71. Tor Hansson (17:59:58) :
    Paul:
    As to your suggestion that some of the more rabidly conservative comments here may be planted: I have no idea. Possible, but they do seem like the real thing.

    I’m curious. Which comments do you feel were “rabidly conservative”?
    This is, after all, a political topic:
    the-delayer-in-chief-obama-backs-postponement

  72. Tor, don’t want the name calling when all is done? Tell your buddies to debate the science and piss off with the moon landing/holocaust denial associations with catastrophic AGW skepticism. If you don’t see how your MASSIVE government (and growing) is slowly killing your country, go play in the paddock.

  73. BRIAN M FLYNN (13:29:17) :
    Time for the Nobel Committee to consider a discount on or get a partial refund of the prize to Obama!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Not an issue – they will just pay the prize out in US Pesos… I mean dollars.
    And to think we used to call the Aussie dollar the Pacific Peso 🙂
    BTW, like you Tor, I would consider myself centrist (but by Aussie standards – therefore left-of-centre in the US spectrum) but alarmed by the misrepresentation of science driving the AGW agenda.
    This relates to the question I wanted to ask of Prof Plimer when he debated in Perth (and comprehensively won, although there was no scoring/voting); that is to say:
    “What can the scientists do to wrest the climate science debate back form the hands of politicians?”
    Sadly I think there is no return until politicians decide it no longer serves their purposes.

  74. Tor Hansson (19:51:13) :
    Glenn (18:21:51) :
    Tor: “I am a liberal Democrat”
    Glenn: “What does that mean to you?”
    “Just go with the basic definition minus a few things, one of them being AGW alarmism.”
    What basic definition? Seriously, what information does this convey to a reader?
    Especially when you minus a few things and are not specific. Are you sure you are on the “wrong side” when it comes to “AGW alarmism”?

  75. Tor Hansson (15:17:57) : The Bush Administration today released a court-ordered assessment on climate. The report — titled “Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States” — says
    Still trying to blame things on “The Bush administration” I see. Well, that ship sailed some time ago. Need to talk to the guy presently in the White House. He owns it now…
    Based largely on recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
    WOW, a political body with a neo-socialist agenda has a “report”… Golly, I’m just shaking in my boots…
    the Scientific Assessment
    And “Wow” they can put the words “Scientific” and “Assessment” both near each other AND in their “report”. What more could you ask for 😉
    says that climate change is “very likely” due to human activities — a conclusion seemingly at odds with the administration’s long-standing position on the issue.
    And my “Scientific Assessment” is that it is due to poor math skills and worse programming style.
    Can we stop it now?
    Please, do. This “global warming” farce has gone on long enough. Fire Hansen. Tell Allgore he lost and “to get over it” and let the rest of us get back to our “normal lives”…
    Stop it as soon as possible. Please.

  76. Doug:
    I don’t agree that the green economy is a Ponzi scheme, at least not necessarily. We are still running most of our cars on 130-year old technology. What is the efficiency of the typical gasoline engine? 20%? 25%? I don’t buy global warming, but I do see that there is a lot of opportunity in for instance transforming the way we move around.
    Many of our daily practices in industry and infrastructure also are wasteful. There will be a retooling and creation of new technologies. Those technologies are important for continued growth and progress. We can do things better than we do today, and we all know we will. Private industry plays a part, and so does government. Ask any scientist. Ask anyone working on fusion. If we want to keep living well we have to become the leaders in these technologies. Innovate is what this country does after all. To do so will require a national effort: industry, education, publicly funded research, the whole deal.
    Tom in Texas:
    OK, you asked. When people start calling Barack Obama a communist. That is wrong on the facts. I assume that to come from a rabidly conservative point of view. I accept that every Administration, also the previous one, tries hard to do what is best for the country, even if I disagree violently with the policies. You have to give them that much, and then you can object.
    Thomas:
    I get called a flat earther and an oil industry crony with regularity on Huffpo, where I also comment now and then. I am actually pretty shocked at the vehemence you meet when you take an honest stand as best you can. I can’t speak for them. You’re a big boy, you tell’em. And don’t tell me what to do, by the way, that’s just annoying. Apart from that the Bush Administration presided over the greatest expansion of the Federal Government in modern history, so take it up with them.
    Brian Flynn:
    It doesn’t sound like much, but hysteria dies down in the end, especially when people of reason keep their reason, and keep repeating the truth until it is heard. As a matter of fact, this isn’t even the worst we have seen in recent memory. Eugenics was far scarier stuff, and led to mass graves. Lobotomy destroyed the lives of large numbers of people. Tinkers (or travelers) were sterilized in Norway until the late 70s as a covert policy, part of the eugenics movement. This AGW rubbish shall pass. I think some here already see the signs of that, although it will take a concerted effort by serious-minded scientists to make it so. After that people can try to learn what is actually going on in the climate system. It is a very important field with many benefits for the entire world population.
    I don’t think anyone knows at this point how much AGW is really out there, but I think we know enough to say that it can’t be much. What we can be quite sure about is that the model-based predictions are baseless, and that is the big shiny object that is being dangled in front of people right now.

  77. savethesharks (19:01:19) :
    Same LIPSTICK, different PIG.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

    If there is ever ANYTHING you need kissed, just let me know…
    (Waiting for morning so I can ‘fry a bit of pig’ for breakfast… )

  78. Glenn,
    Do you seriously not understand what I mean when I say the “wrong” side?
    As a good liberal Democrat (pro choice, pro universal health care, tax the rich, etc.) I am supposed to buy into AGW alarmism. I tell anyone willing to listen that they are wrong. I believe the environmental movement and political institutions are damaging their credibility to an alarming degree; credibility that is needed to engage people in actual environmental issues, the most important of which I believe to be ocean fisheries management. This is one area where we need transnational solutions. We know the resource is in serious trouble, but who wants to think about fish when they can think about polar bears? People in developing countries do, it’s over 50% of their protein supply.

  79. E.M. Smith:
    The comment on the Bush Administration was a response to people blaming Obama for the alarmism. They are not helping that’s for sure, I’m not saying they are. I was implying that it is in the interest of everyone who wants to bring people back to reality to keep the politics out of it, because you can’t win when you are shouting across a divide. I read a piece today in a Norwegian newspaper, and it was the same sensationalist and completely unfounded predictions of floods, droughts, crop failures and sea level rise you’ve seen a hundred times. I pointed that out with as many facts as I can, and was pretty pleased to see that most other comments were also critical.
    Gandhi once said that “there is very little you can do, but it is very important that you do it.” I agree with that, so I take the trouble of speaking up over and over again. It’s all I can do, but I do it.

  80. Tor Hansson (19:25:48) :
    I do not even know where to start on your comments, every one of them is incorrect. The Solar Industry is imploding under its own weight and many companies are failing due to over-supply of panels.
    Applied Materials: Plans for Layoffs, Cautious Outlook on Solar
    We had a period in recent history that proves that energy efficiency pushes are not sustainable, which was the 70-80s after the oil shock. There was a massive energy efficiency drive that generated about a 76% increase in overall energy efficency in the economy and saw the creation of Energy Star standards (you did not think Energy Star was New did you?) What happens is that this work gets absorbed into the regular home renovation and construction trades and manufacturing channels (a better Smart meter supplants the standard meter manufacturing) and creates no net new jobs, a new window design replaces the older one.
    Replacing all the 100s of pipefitters, operators, electricians and fabricators at power stations with Giant Fields of Windmills services by a dozen techs per thousand of units controlled by automated systems because the unreliability of output makes manual controlling impossible does not mean more jobs, it means less jobs.
    So I cannot agree with what you say everyone agrees on.

  81. E.M.Smith (22:14:23) :
    I usually try to access where a person is coming from. I saw quickly a couple of weeks a ago that Tor Hansson is concerned with far left politics.

  82. Climateheretic:
    You are right that residential solar doesn’t make it without subsidies at this point. In California Federal and State incentives bring the cost down to be competitive with electricity from the utility. These are scale and production issues, and even you will admit that the industry is reducing cost per kWh quickly. I don’t think it’s far-fetched to say that they will be competitive in a reasonably near future, as utility power rates continue to rise. Tier 3 through 5 in California have for instance doubled in the last four years.
    I don’t care much for utility solar or wind farms. They are creating as many environmental issues as they solve, if they solve any. Nuclear seems to be a better path forward.
    Gene Nemetz:
    As to your comment:
    Far left politics is in the eye of the beholder. In Europe and the U.S. coasts I would be considered a moderate. In your world I may be Satan himself.
    I suggest you try to keep an open mind however. I may not be as entirely unreasonable as you think.

  83. This is amazing, its turning into Tamino, complete with ad hominem attacks and the conflation of views about climate science with all kinds of views which have no logical relationship to it, mixed in with large spoonfuls of paranoia. Here is a classic example of that sort of stuff:
    “Tell your buddies to debate the science and piss off with the moon landing/holocaust denial associations with catastrophic AGW skepticism”
    His buddies? [snip] is this stuff? And we have:
    “Tor Hansson is concerned with far left politics.”
    Apparently because he is what we used to call a Kennedy Democrat? That is not mainstream??
    Wake up. Reasonable and well intentioned people may vote either Democrat or Republican. Reasonable and well intentioned people may take either side of the debate about the bailouts. The objection to the bailouts is not, in informed circles, that it is somehow socialistic, it is that it is ineffective except as a vast transfer of wealth from the relatively less well off to the already hugely rich. Folks, wake up again, that is not socialism! The counter argument is that the less well off would have suffered more had there not been bailouts.
    Whichever view you take on these things, you may be skeptical about global warming, or convinced of it. One is a judgment on policy and what is likely to be effective for the country, the other is a conclusion on a scientific hypothesis.
    What I feared would happen is happening. The blog is becoming totally dominated by obsessives who seem to have little interest in climate, but who really really like airing their obsessions in a sort of echo chamber.
    The next poster will say in reply, if you don’t like it don’t read it, you commie fellowtraveller. No, if you are not interested in climate, but just interested in ranting, stop posting. I do not want to lose what used to be a decent and informative climate blog to the self indulgent ravings of a bunch of tinfoil hats! We’ve lost RC on the other side of the debate like this for the same reason.
    Go read denialdepot, that is where you are all taking this. Its profoundly ugly, but worse, it has nothing to do with climate science and everything to do with airing ones social dysfunction. And yes, we will stop reading. Is that what you want?

  84. Tor:
    The efficiency of our technology is related to the costs, not to the type of technology. What I was writing about was the use of the state (taxes) to create a new economic sector. This is what is referred to as a command economy
    The command economy was tried in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China and found to be wanting for the very reasons I mentioned before – without state subsidies and state mandates to purchase the products there is no market for the goods the state is commanding be produced.
    You state that you don’t buy the AGW alarmist dogma, but then you appear to be sold on their solutions to what you acknowledge is a non-problem. If there is no problem, why try and solve it?
    If your issue is about dependence on off shore resources (i.e. energy security), then you should be convincing your colleagues on the left to develop the abundant coal and methane resources we have here rather than to put our tax dollars into extremely inefficient solar.

  85. B. H. Obama has too many ties to socialism, extremism and alarmism than I wish to count.
    If anyone wishes to think that he is a moderate, then our definitions of it must be deeply askew.
    Our current administration and the lobbyists that support it, want to wrest control away from the fossil fuel industries and put that control in the hands of environmentalists.
    In order to pay for Obama Care, control of the CO2 market is tantamount. Destroying the housing market helped set up this whole charade. Banks fell from the fallout. Obama is our savior through socialized medicine and and the envirofreaks reap the rewards through Cap-n-Tax. They greatly helped his campaign through manipulating MSM . They deserve the spoils of war.
    It is that simple.
    Everything was in play.
    Except the truth.
    If Man’s contribution to rising CO2 isn’t shown to cause climate change and the world isn’t goin to burn up from its causes, this whole orchestration falls down faster that a one-legged man in a wind storm.
    The message is getting out.
    The growing number of people, skeptical of AGW, are making themselves heard. They also have truth and science to back them up.
    I’d like to have more support from fossil fuel companies, but envirofreaks would consider the movement tainted. I’d like to see more support from MSM, but envirofreaks fund them.
    To thwart socialism and stop the envirofreaks from destroying our economy, we must elect officials into office that oppose Obama and his minions.
    It is the only way out of this nightmare.

  86. Smokey, your rant sounds like that of a “rabid conservative”.
    In the U.S., who is to the left of Obama?
    Pelosi?
    Reid?
    Ted Kennedy?
    Ralph Nader?
    Off hand I can’t think of any others.

  87. By the way, If you doubted their were ulterior motives in the support that Copenhagen and Cap-n-Trade have received from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citi, JP Morgan, GE and many other corporations and folks like Al Gore and George Soros, see this actual investment email brochure here http://www.angelnexus.com/o/web/17620.
    Guess whose pockets the huge profits these circling vultures expected would be coming from? Given so much at stake for UN, the world’s governments, the NGOs, the corporations that have gone green and the big players in the shadows, don’t write off some kind of agreement/treaty at Copenhagen that will start the world down the path towards one world governance under a green banner.
    From icecap.us

  88. Tom:
    Eric Holder
    Van Jones
    William Ayers
    Rev. Wright…
    …and plenty more.
    It’s late here, or I’d do a simple search for you.

  89. Where did Smokeys’ rant go? It was funny as hell. It was far more entertaining than mine.
    And yea Smokey, why don’t you tell us how you really feel?
    I’m still LMAO.

  90. If it is as simple as some here suggest – i.e. science, political allegiance, & environmental views must be strictly confounded (in the name of hyperpartisanship, presumably) – then I draw 3 conclusions:
    1) Democracy is failing.
    2) Science is failing.
    3) Environmentalism is failing.
    …but note my use of the word “if”.
    No need for alarmism – it just leads to instability.
    This discussion on politics has been an interesting aside. Thanks to all who have contributed.

  91. Tor Hansson (16:42:35) :
    That’s why it is better to leave the politics out of it.
    I am not American and yet decisions made by the President of the USA [and other politicos] can have serious effects on my income and civil rights. The whole climate debate has been politicized by Gore ,Mann ,Hansen etc, not to mention the UN.
    This item from the BBC is notable http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm
    “After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their discussion continued, which boiled down to this: “We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol.”
    Politics, at least for a few of the Lead Authors, was very much part and parcel of the process.”
    [ John Christy ]
    And so I feel that every so often it is order to take a pop at Obama and friends before resuming normal service 🙂

  92. Tor Hansson Stated:
    “OK, you asked. When people start calling Barack Obama a communist. That is wrong on the facts. I assume that to come from a rabidly conservative point of view. I accept that every Administration, also the previous one, tries hard to do what is best for the country, even if I disagree violently with the policies. You have to give them that much, and then you can object.”
    WRONG Politics is about Money period.
    Tor, politicians are NOT necessarily interested in the welfare of their people. This goes not just for the USA but for the EU, Canada & Australia too. Take a look at the history of the Federal Reserve or other Central Banking schemes. Central Banking, with its fiat money is designed to do three things. First, allow the government to tax citizens without their knowledge and consent (inflation); second, move wealth (not money) from the citizens into the pockets of the bankers; third allow Bankers to create boom and bust cycles they can use in consolidating power and wealth.
    Read:
    A PRIMER ON MONEY: Congressional COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY (130 pgs well written)
    http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Money/patman-primer-on-money.pdf
    A Talk by G. Edward Griffin: Author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (37 screens well written – easy read) http://www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm
    SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE (190 pgs gives a lot of history including the depression, Written by Eustace Mullins member of the staff of the Library of Congress)
    It is interesting that Henry A. Waxman., Author of Cap and Trade is also author of a “Food Safety Bill” What is the Committee on Energy and Commerce doing authoring a food bill???
    Food is the subject that convinced me US politicians are not concerned with the welfare of US citizens. Food safety legislation was changed for the benefit of the large corporations in 1995 (WTO) and in 1996 (international HACCP regs). Since then the USDA, the media, and Congress (two Congressional investigations) have covered up the real cause of food related deaths and illness in the USA.
    Bill Marler products liability attorney wrote an article One E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak I Think I could have Prevented. This is a story that was censored by the owner of a big New York Magazine according to a wittness interviewed by a reporter from the Magazine. http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/07/articles/lawyer-oped/one-e-coli-o157h7-outbreak-i-think-i-could-have-prevented/
    This testimony by Mr. Stan Painter, Chairman, National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals was ignored by Congress: (“There seems to be too much reliance on an honor system for the industry to police itself. While the USDA investigation is still on going at Hallmark/Westland, a couple of facts have emerged that point to a system that can be gamed by those who want to break the law. It [HACCP] shifted the responsibility for food safety over to the companies.” )
    http://domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov/documents/20080418113258.pdf
    Legislators overlook serious flaw in USDA’s HACCP food-safety … http://www.mfu.org/node/276
    HISTORY:
    History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job (well documented) http://www.google.com/search?q=history+haccp+and+food&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a
    The WTO and the Politics of GMO (basic history of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Ag) http://www.publiceyeonscience.ch/images/the_wto_and_the_politics_of_gmo.doc
    The most frightening thing to me is the guy who wrote the WTO Agreement on Ag. Dan Amstutz, VP of Cargill, also wrote the 1996 Farm bill that got rid of Stock piling surplus grain. This means we are one bad harvest, Gleissberg minimum??, away from Famine.
    The following quotes show the level of greed and concern for other humans by those influencing and in many cases WRITING our Food laws in the USA:
    “In summary, we have record low grain inventories globally as we move into a new crop year. We have demand growing strongly. Which means that going forward even small crop failures are going to drive grain prices to record levels. As an investor, we continue to find these long term trends…very attractive.” Food shortfalls predicted: 2008 http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/dancy/2008/0104.html
    “Recently there have been increased calls for the development of a U.S. or international grain reserve to provide priority access to food supplies for Humanitarian needs. The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) and the North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) strongly advise against this concept..Stock reserves have a documented depressing effect on prices… and resulted in less aggressive market bidding for the grains.” July 22, 2008 letter to President Bush http://www.naega.org/images/pdf/grain_reserves_for_food_aid.pdf
    As I said greed is driving Politics and we all must be aware of this fact.

  93. ” please explain to me how the Administration intends to shut down all dissenting media.”
    The way the Euro-commissars tried to jail Bjorn Lomborg?

  94. I just took a look at the Science Museum’s Prove it! poll. Currently it stands at about 60% not agreeing, which is fairly consistent with other opinion polls.
    I also took a look at their proofs of AGW. In fact there’s no proof at all. It’s just a series of statements and claims, with absolutely no attempt to cite any scientific proof. As has been suggested, and confirmed by a UK legal ruling, AGW is more akin to a religious belief, and as such requires no proof.
    But it’s shocking to see such a prestigious UK institution as the Science Museum descending to such depths. Needless to say, I gave them an ear-full in the comments section.
    Chris

  95. Politicization of science? The Goreacle gave the game-plan away when he declared that the aim of the AGW fraud was ‘global governance’.
    Of course there is a crucial sense in which applied science interfaces with the formulation of policy, which means that there is an inevitable political dimension to many areas of scientific research. Man is a ‘political animal’ as Aristotle said, and even pursuits as seemingly remote as disinterested scientific inquiry from the tasks of governance cannot wholly be hermetically sealed off from more quotidian human concerns.

  96. Matt (14:51:10) :
    Why is political slanging being allowed on this forum.
    IMO maobama comments should be snipped.
    Yes Matt, Why not arrest anyone criticising the US government as they do in the UK. Remember the B-LIAR T shirts during Blairs PM time. These people were arrested and now have criminal records for protesting against the government lies.
    Oh no, wait a minute that’s what they do in police states…..

  97. Tor,
    Presently, big government in america knows no party lines. Yep George drastically increased the government’s influence (‘conservative’ huh.. god damn neocons). But you’ve got the same thing with Obama now.

  98. Michel, i agree, my comment was pretty ridiculous. Maybe it would be better worded if i said that I would like it if the left didn’t accept or encourage people who make the moon landing/”denier” remarks (Gore pretty much)
    i’m very interesting in the science, but for some reason when a sheepish lefty posts on a message board, i get so pissed off :/
    *deep breath*
    Sorry

  99. Tor Hansson (22:28:40) :
    “Doug:
    I don’t agree that the green economy is a Ponzi scheme, at least not necessarily. We are still running most of our cars on 130-year old”
    Tor Hansson,
    With all due respect but I don’t agree with a single word you wrote.
    1. We have witnessed a fantastic evolution of the internal combustion engine to a level where it’s entirely clean and no threat to the environment.
    2. We will have new technologies in the future, but only if they are better and more economical compared to the technology they replace, not by Government Dictate.
    3. The so called “Green Economy” is a Ponzi scheme because:
    1. The necessity for the introduction of the “Green conomy” is based on the CO2=AGW lies.
    2. The so called “Green Solutions” are a hoax and a waste of money because they don’t deliver the power we need at very high costs. These costs are so high that a Green Economy can’t exist. It is a scheme directed at the continuation of a fossil fuel economy at much higher prices, only serving the fat cats that have stake in Carbon Trade.
    3. The so called Green Economy is a front for the installation of a World Government gaining control over our resources, our financial Institutions, our markets and our lives. Green = a polished up version of communism.
    About the Green Economy:
    Wind Energy:
    Is in need of conventional back up increasing your electricity bill by 500%
    Besides that, wind mills kill birds and bats and (but this is personal) ruin the landscape.
    Solar: amortization takes longer than the economic life cycle, how economical is that?
    Besides that, solar only functions during day time and is in need of back up.
    CO2 sequestration in coal plants:
    Doubles the amount of coal per Kw energy delivered.
    Triples the price of electricity and doubles the speed of consuming our resources which is a bad idea with an ice age around the corner.
    Bio fuels:
    Currently the biggest people killer:
    Ethanol: Competes with the food industry causing irresponsible price hikes.
    Before the financial crises 350 million people were living from 1700 calories per day, now 1.3 billion.
    CO2 output his higher + huge amounts of water is needed.
    The latest technology of ethanol production is based on the use of wood as a resource which will result in deforestation.
    Diesel:
    Jatropha Palm Oil, currently the biggest engine behind deforestation of tropical forests world wide.
    There is only a single green fuel that could work and that is bio fuel from algae.
    All others do more harm than good.
    Please read Agenda 21 of the United Nations and http://green-agenda.com and wise up.

  100. Ron de Haan (21:49:16) :
    In less than 45 day it’s going to be 2010.
    How many spots did you see on the Sun yesterday?
    I couldn’t find any, and I tried 3 times.

  101. The real question is not whether this particular part of climate history has human influence. The real question is whether or not this influence is dangerous or will become dangerous.
    The AGW promoters have offered nothing, except fear and hype, to show that their apocalyptic predictions are valid.
    In terms of energy -making it clean and efficient- the AGW community cannot come together behind nukes, and probably never will. They are stuck on medieval based wind technology: expensive, unreliable, and environmentally destructive.
    Effective solar looks to only be better than fusion: never quite ready for actual usefulness.
    So the AGW community is basically left with selling the idea that taxes can control the weather.
    That is a tough sell.

  102. Arthur Glass said:
    ” please explain to me how the Administration intends to shut down all dissenting media.”
    Easy the guy who OWNS the press controls the news. This is from the U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947
    “Mr. CALLAWAY: Mr. Chairman, under unanimous consent, I insert into the Record at this point a statement showing the newspaper combination, which explains their activity in the war matter, just discussed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MOORE]:
    “In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship building and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States.
    “These 12 men worked the problems out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers……” http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Morgan-Buys-Newspapers9feb17.htm
    I have seen evidence of this control on a number of occasions. Dissenting views are ignored, ridiculed scorned or just not printed. This is true of other subjects besides Global Warming. I have been at ground zero as an eye witness on at least three issues where the “press” has published out right lies to further an agenda. On two issues the “lies” are now a part of the “official US history” and the truth is published no where. Only the Internet has allowed a dissenting voice to be heard on the subjects of “Global Warming” and “Global Food Regulation/Control”

  103. “The real question is not whether this particular part of climate history has human influence. The real question is whether or not this influence is dangerous or will become dangerous.”
    Are you incapable of rational thought?
    If there is no influence then it cannot be dangerous, or become dangerous. The means any ‘danger’ remains hypothetical until human influence can be shown.
    So the question is whether this particular part of climate history has human influence.

  104. rbateman (04:51:29) :
    Ron de Haan (21:49:16) :
    “In less than 45 day it’s going to be 2010.
    How many spots did you see on the Sun yesterday?
    I couldn’t find any, and I tried 3 times”.
    I agree,
    But the message of th article is that if we want to stop Obama from adopting to Kyoto 2010, we have to elect people into office that oppose climate legislation.
    That will be very difficult, not because of a lack of candidates but because of election fraud:
    http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/massive-election-fraud-threw-vote-count-against-hoffman/

  105. Tor Hansson (11:55:18) :
    We are looking at pragmatism in action. Extricating themselves from AGW alarmism will take all the finesse the Administration can muster. They’re working on it. They know the data are against them.
    And please, just can all this Maobama nonsense. The guy is actually pretty moderate”.
    Tor, on what planet do you live?

  106. Aligner (04:43:54) :
    Interesting take in the Independent Mon 16 Nov 2009 by David Usborne, US Editor:
    Leaders plan a ‘two-step’ environment deal
    Right, first step, political frame work for a world government, second step, concrete CO2 reduction commitments and financial compensation schemes to screw the Third World.

  107. Tom in Texas (00:34:07) :
    Smokey, your rant sounds like that of a “rabid conservative”.
    In the U.S., who is to the left of Obama?
    Pelosi?
    Reid?
    Ted Kennedy?
    Ralph Nader?
    Off hand I can’t think of any others”.
    Tom in Texas,
    You ask the wrong questions!
    You first have to look where the politicians you mention come from and which political or/and economic interests the represent.
    So, take the list and check them.
    Pelosi
    Financial status:
    The Pelosi family has a net worth of nearly $19 million as of 2007, largely from investments. In addition to their large portfolio of jointly owned San Francisco Bay Area real estate, the couple also owns a vineyard in St. Helena, California, valued between $5 million and $25 million. Pelosi’s husband also owns stock, including $5 million in Apple Computer. Pelosi continues to be among the richest members of Congress. So, Pelosi is on the Gore/Obama bandwagon and has sold out on the American People.
    Reid: This guy is a real creep and in full support of the World Government, the transfer of power to the UN, Agenda 21 and population control/reduction. In the mean time he won’t miss out on opportunity to fill his pockets, even if the deal has a ratty smell: Harry Reid should have been kicked out of politics a long time ago and he certainly does not support the American People.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid
    and http://green-agenda.com
    etc. etc.
    Just read about their past, their memberships, political idea’s, former statements etc.
    It’s all available on the WWW.
    Especially check the Czars, Obama’s Shadow Government.
    Have fun.

  108. The AGW behemoth is, thankfully, in its death throes, but that should not stop us from stomping on it as it thrashes about dangerously and continues to try to get back up.
    It is funny how the beast can not even fathom what is happening to it, desperately searching for “explanations” such as: “we need to do a better job of getting the message out”, and “far right-wing talk radio shows and blogs, funded by Big Oil have stepped up their campaigns of dis-information”, and “the poor economy is forcing people to only care about their own pocketbooks, at the expense of the environment”, etc. etc. It couldn’t possibly be that the truth is getting out about the whole AGW fraud, or the fact that people are noticing that the weather hasn’t been cooperating with the AGW myth, which, oddly enough keeps getting changed so that in the end, AGW causes everything BAD, even completely contradictory things. No, it couldn’t possibly be that.

  109. “”” Tor Hansson (16:42:35) :
    Iren, I am going to try to explain this as clearly as I can:
    It is obvious that people who comment on this site have differing opinions on the Obama Administration. You have an opinion too, and that’s fine. Let me just say that it is not an opinion that finds favor with most people around the world, and it is not supported by the facts.
    This site is doing a very good job of debunking AGW. If we mix the findings of fact we see on this site with politics, the findings are tainted.
    We are all better off if they are not. We are fighting a battle for science and for facts. Once we bring political views into the picture the findings can be attacked as politically motivated.
    That’s why it is better to leave the politics out of it. “””
    “”” The Delayer in Chief? – Obama backs Copenhagen postponement “””
    Well Tor,
    just above is the top line heading for this thread. This thread is about POLITICS; after all this whole Copenhagen stupidity is about POLITICS; it doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with either science or climate.
    Having said that, I am quite sure that the American Citrizens who vote in this country really don’t give a hoot what anybody else in the World thinks about our President. We here in America; whether citizens or non-citizens have to actually live with the consequences of having this man as our “leader” , and our children and grandchildren will have to live under, and bear the costs of his policies and his actions.
    So IMHO, it is perfectly fine for you or anyone else around the world to have opinions about our President, and our other prominent leaders; but don’t expect us to pay much attention to thoise opinions.
    After all, we do not try to inject our opinions of YOUR leaders into your daily lives.
    Fortunately the great thinkers who constructed the hierarchy of our Governing system, and its checks and balances, provided means to circumvent dictatorship by a tyranical leader; and those checks are reasoned, and peaceful; and the American Electorate will ultimately deal with misguided leadership in the manner provider by our forefathers.
    So it’s ok for you to be fascinated; just don’t meddle. Right your own ship before you complain about ours.
    If you think Anthony started this thread with the idea that it would elicit learned climate science discussion; I think you read the heading incorrectly.
    But there are plenty of other threads for you to participate in the science exchanges.
    Well that’s just my opinion; I’m not speaking for anybody else.

  110. Climate Heretic (19:02:18) :
    “Democrats truly believe that Climate Change Legislation forcing money flows into bad ventures will save the economy and create jobs, it is a Party Policy Platform and will not be abandoned no matter how much science is used to disprove it, nobody in politics is listening to the science anymore.”
    You make a point – but alarmists are caught with their pants down on global warming precisely because of the science. It is the science and the unflagging work of honest science-minded people here and elsewhere – that has brought alarmists to acknowledge failure of the climate change campaign. Simply, man-made CO2 plays no role in global warming.
    While this is a crushing embarrassment to alarmists, they readily save face by rewriting the script. Climate change dogma is replaced with energy independence (green) dogma. Same jobs creation, efficiency, security, and enviro benefits to tout – just without the embarrassing “CO2 is a pollutant” foolishness. The transition to renewable energy doesn’t need the silly climate change cheer leader.
    This new positioning is underway. It’s opponents are diehard alarmists who have counted on GHG taxes to line their pockets and fuel their vision of one world government. That will not happen. Those genuinely interested in helping emerging nations industrialize will need to revisit the concept of philanthropy and free market development.
    Actually helping other people out of genuine good will and altruism would be a laudable goal for all sides in this debate.

  111. Ron de Haan (05:54:16) :
    “Tor, on what planet do you live?”
    Thanks Ron,… for reading my mind exactly.

  112. This discussion, if I can call it that, has been a strange experience.
    I suggest that the combustion engine is 130-year old technology that needs replacement: it causes heartburn and protestations.
    I suggest that solar will become viable for residential applications in the future: growls and snarls ensue.
    I suggest that progress will continue as it always has, through private/public sector collaboration: people bring up Stalin and the command economy.
    I get to be called “a sheepish lefty.” (The person then goes and apologizes to others, but not to the one he offends. I suppose characters like that will never get it.)
    People directly ask about and comment on other people’s political affiliations, with the clear implication that anyone to the left of James Inhofe cannot be trusted with a keyboard.
    People keep talking about “World Government,” without for a second acknowledging the fact that the Copenhagen meeting is falling apart precisely because we have no such thing and never will.
    The Fed and its nefarious activities are regularly brought up, along with rumors of press censorship and arrests of Bjorn Lomborg, of all people.
    Democratic politicians that qualify as barely left of center in the real world are reviled and associated with dark schemes of world dominance, if I can assume that Agenda 21 is a dark scheme of world dominance?
    This is turning into a twilight zone of paranoiacs and fist biters.
    I don’t know what to do, because I acknowledge the necessity of discussing some political and media aspects of the AGW debate. But where the hell do these people come from?

  113. George E. Smith,
    you hear a foreign name, and you suppose I am a foreigner.
    I live and vote in the United States. Please get a clue.
    Reply: I used to work with a Tor Hansson. Do you live in S? ~ ctm

  114. Re: Tor Hansson (10:12:01)
    By taking the bait some here are tauntingly dangling before you, you are (perhaps inadvertently) making yourself an accomplice in the movement to artificially polarize illogical conflation (described at Paul Vaughan (01:56:06)).

  115. “”” Tor Hansson (11:06:19) :
    George E. Smith,
    you hear a foreign name, and you suppose I am a foreigner.
    I live and vote in the United States. Please get a clue.
    Reply: I used to work with a Tor Hansson. Do you live in S? ~ ctm “””
    I don’t believe I said anywhere in my post that you were a foreigner; but you did raise the issue of how Obama is viewed around the world. My comments were directed very specifically to people in other parts of the world who think they should tell the USA what we should do.
    If you took that personally because you feel you have a foreign name; just as I do, then you need to realize that the USA is a conglomerate of foreign names; so I don’t pay much attention to names; well so long as I can pronounce them.
    The issue was how people in other parts of the world expect our President to behave or perform; I thought that was rather clear in my post; which was addressed to those people; not any one person in particular.
    What sort of clue did you have in mind for me to get?

  116. Paul,
    I don’t believe it is necessary to confound anything. Neither do I see that suggesting that party affiliation often has a bearing on one’s position to AGW alarmism makes me an accomplice to anything.
    My position is simple: you can be a liberal democrat and oppose AGW alarmism. That’s the bottom line.

  117. It’s all good George. Your post read as if you asked me to admire the American democratic process from afar.

  118. Tor Hansson (10:12:01) :
    This discussion, if I can call it that, has been a strange experience.
    I suggest that the combustion engine is 130-year old technology that needs replacement: it causes heartburn and protestations.
    Well Tor, I would suggest that horses were a rather more mature technology than motor cars but I do not remember everyone killing their horses the day the first motor car trundled down the road with a man waving a flag out in front.
    The technology needs to come first. Give us this new technology to replace the combustion engine (not an electric car + power station) and people will willingly move to it because it is better and more efficient. Vapourware does not really count for dick. Now where can I find some garbage for my ‘Mr Fusion Home Energy Reactor’ (other than your posts).

  119. Tor Hansson
    The reason the Fed is brought up is because the power, wealth and sneaky maneuvering behind the creation of the Fed and the steady gain in power through over 100 revisions until the Fed now answers to no one, is an excellent lesson in politics. These very Wealthy Banker Families are still alive and well and very active in politics. If the strategy used to saddle us with the Fed worked so well, do you not think we would be very foolish not to study it? If you would READ instead of blindly defending you would see the grab for the control of Money, Food and Energy. They are interlinked.
    I gave you links to material straight out of the Congress of the United States as well as a very well documented article, where 5 out of the 10 pages are a listing of references, and another article written by a member of the staff of the Library of Congress. These are not weird far out articles by extremists.
    I really suggest you take a very hard look at the World Trade Organization and its affiliation to the UN before you state there is no attempt at world government. This is what the United States FDA has to say:
    International Harmonization
    http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/int-laws.html
    The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.
    If dumb farmers have figured out the bills we are fighting come straight from the World Trade Organizations/ UN attempt to take control of our farms, why can’t you see it.
    Heck Maurice Strong is a member of the United Nations Commission on Global Governance. That is a pretty blunt statement of intent.
    Farmer Websites:
    http://xstatic99645.tripod.com/naisinfocentral/id115.html
    http://nonais.org/techdocs/AGuidetotheStructureofNAIS.pdf
    http://farmwars.info/?p=1241
    http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/apathy-and-greed-the-world-trade-organization/

  120. Re: Tor Hansson (13:31:48)
    You’re losing ground by defending “alternate” energy. I have a background in conservation ecology & parks and from this perspective I will offer a blunt assessment: I see serious risk for the environment on the “alternative” tracks being proposed; furthermore, I am convinced that most others who see such risks are opting to keep their mouths shut about them, possibly for political reasons and perhaps also more importantly because they are confused about what to do – and do not want to project this lack of leadership capacity publicly.

  121. Chillybean says: “the technology needs to come first.” You mean like the Manhattan Project? Or the Apollo program?
    There are several technologies in play to increase the efficiency of cars. Fuel cell comes to mind, hybrid (nobody really cares if you don’t like it, it may be the solution, or the current version may be an intermediate stage towards something better). Rotary engines (I know the issues), turbines, etc. It could still be a combustion engine, but it’s not likely to be a piston engine.
    The U.S. car industry used to be the innovation leader. Can we say that today? Are you OK with Toyota and Honda taking the lead away and making the biggest profits?
    And yes, in case you thought we disagreed, change is gradual. The piston engine will be with us for years, but it its limitations will render it obsolete.
    P.S. People may like you better if you cut out your snarky tone.

  122. And along the same lines as Gail Combs has mentioned, why is the Senate resolving that soil is a natural resource that must be managed by soil experts?
    Why does the Sentate even have time to recognize “the important role of soil scientists and soils professionals…[to] develop and implement…long-term use of the Nation’s soil resources”?
    Senate Resolution 440
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-440

  123. Re: Indiana Bones (14:02:22)
    Thanks for the heads up.
    I’ve seen Suzuki get fairly hysterical during interviews. I can see how this could be construed (by some) as affecting oil politics & the perceived value of oil (in Canada at least, since he attracts prime media spotlight).
    …but to be fair:
    Can anyone verify this? (from the article)
    “David Suzuki Foundation, a political environmental group that receives funding from oil and energy companies”

  124. Paul,
    I am not defending “alternate” energy. I am pointing out the obvious: technology will not stand still, and one of the issues we have today is increased energy demand. We need to get better at generating it as well as using it. These are technological challenges.
    Oil and gas will not be the answer forever. Nuclear is very likely to be in the mix. So is better distribution of utility-generated power. So is better architecture, home, and office design (anyone heard of the zero-energy house? It’s practical today in large parts of the country.)

  125. Re: Tor Hansson (14:51:05)
    For a very large proportion of the population, this message does not resonate.

  126. Tor Hansson.
    And yes, in case you thought we disagreed, change is gradual. The piston engine will be with us for years, but it its limitations will render it obsolete.
    Well I think that is the argument in a nutshell. I think everyone would be happy if we could replace all the power stations and all the cars with super efficient clean energy solutions. The problem is that we can’t, the technology is not there. For cars, the hybrid is a non solution causing more problems than it solves. Taxing cars and energy will not speed up progress just cause it to stagnate.
    I’m not anti renewables, I have a wind turbine and solar panels on my boat. I’m also a realist and know that they produce insufficient power and need a nice diesel genny to do the ‘real work’ just as electric cars need a nice coal fired power station to charge their batteries. Probably nuclear+electric cars with better battery technology is a workable solution but nuclear is also a non starter for the alarmists.
    The alarmists need to come up with a viable solution or drop the whole thing. If CO2 is having no real effect on climate why not just stick with what works well.

  127. Paul:
    Take a look at the statistics for car sales today. What do you see?
    Here’s a quote from a 2008 article:
    “April Car Sales: U.S. Consumers Flock to Cars, Gouging Detroit Three
    May 02, 2008
    By Dale Buss
    Americans rushed to swap their thirsty trucks and SUVs for fuel-efficient cars in April, making the month a turning point for the industry’s biggest segment shift in memory.
    The stampede to cars left in the dust a Detroit Three that simply weren’t ready for its magnitude because of their reliance on truck-based vehicles, while it lifted Japanese automakers whose traditional strength has remained in small cars.
    As U.S. consumers definitively reacted to $3.50-a-gallon gasoline, passenger cars outsold truck-based vehicles for the first time in at least 20 years. The move comprised a shift of six percentage points for the industry compared with last April, to 54 percent car sales.”

  128. Re: Tor Hansson (15:22:52)
    Car sales statistics do not interest me. I walk &/or sea-kayak 95% of the time when I travel.

  129. “”” Tor Hansson (15:22:52) :
    Paul:
    Take a look at the statistics for car sales today. What do you see?
    Here’s a quote from a 2008 article:
    “April Car Sales: U.S. Consumers Flock to Cars, Gouging Detroit Three
    May 02, 2008
    By Dale Buss
    Americans rushed to swap their thirsty trucks and SUVs for fuel-efficient cars in April, making the month a turning point for the industry’s biggest segment shift in memory.
    The stampede to cars left in the dust a Detroit Three that simply weren’t ready for its magnitude because of their reliance on truck-based vehicles, while it lifted Japanese automakers whose traditional strength has remained in small cars.
    As U.S. consumers definitively reacted to $3.50-a-gallon gasoline, passenger cars outsold truck-based vehicles for the first time in at least 20 years. The move comprised a shift of six percentage points for the industry compared with last April, to 54 percent car sales.” “””
    Tor, According to a news report I heard just this last weekend, a sizeable fraction of the cash for clunkers transactions invloved owners of trucks adn other gas guzzlers trading in their old trucks and gas guzzlers for brand new trucks and gas guzzlers, that they would have bought anyway; but leapt at the chance to get the taxpayers to foot a big part of the bill.
    There’s not much evidence that this scam either boosted the economy, or reduced the country’s carbon footprint one iota.
    If you were in the market for a new car anyway; why wouldn’t you take a stupid administration up on their equally stupid idea. Of course a lot of dealers who promoted the concept, are still trying to get their money out of the Treasury.
    Amtrack, the Post Office; and the DMV are all examples of the eficiency of Government run operations.
    And the H1N1 vaccine debacle is a good example of government socialized medicine coming soon to a clinic near you; well if you want to stand in line long enough.
    I’ll pass; I’ll have what they are having.
    For the first time I really believe we DO need a new amendment to the US Constitution.
    A very simple one. “The Congress and the Executive Branch; and ALL agencies of the Federal Government shall make NO law or regulation from which any Federal Government employee is exempted.”

  130. “”” Tor Hansson (13:43:24) :
    It’s all good George. Your post read as if you asked me to admire the American democratic process from afar. “””
    Well no that wasn’t my intent Tor; and if it came across to you that way; My apology.
    And no I do not imply that the way we do things in America is without fault; but it is in the end, the priviledge and responsibility of the citizens of the USA to do things the way the people want to; and I’ve seen enough history go by to believe that the American people want what is good for all peoples who want to enjoy this planet. It’s inevitable that mistakes will be made; but it is the intent that is morst important.

  131. Hello George:
    the quote from the car article was not about cash for clunkers. It was an article from Edmunds Marketwatch in 2008 that described how Americans were trading in vans and trucks for smaller passenger vehicles—presumably to save money on gas.
    I’m not too down on the USPS by the way. They manage to get a letter cross-country in a couple of days for less than 50 cents or so, from anywhere to anywhere. Not too shabby when you think about it.

  132. There are a few interestings points I would like to bring up, regarding viewership and responses, in the C.C. context.
    WUWT is more popular than any of its counterparts. Posters, commentors and traffic has made this site incredibly useful to bring many people together, share views and inform on current issues that is difficult to find in the main stream of media.
    Go look at pro-AGW blog sites. Anthony provides quite a few links to them. The sites that allow comments, look like a ghost town. RC might be the best blog for alarmists to gather, but the activity there recently looks like a one man band, singing to an empty audience. Last I checked, There were 21 posts during the month of Nov. and only 4 comments. And not just RC, but every site I visited had little or no activity.
    I’m sure some of you already know where I’m going with this, so ill just say it.
    AGW views are dying.
    WUWT gathers like-minded people that want to inform one another on issues that matter to them and share it with each other.
    Unfortunately for some, the views expressed here are strongly against AGW and the politics behind it.
    Those skeptical of AGW have been laughed at, ridiculed, put down, shunned, dismissed, and silenced.
    The men and women who engage in this activity are too many to name. But I will name a few: Rudd, Revkin, Gore, Obama, Schmidt, Hansen, etc.
    What I’m getting at is this. The leaders in power of govt, press and science, say we don’t exist. The science is settled.. etc.
    So it is only natural that anyone defends supporters of AGW , will not feel welcome here.
    You might not like the logic, but there it is.
    If Climate Change (my dirty four letter word) was real and what we’re told is true, what happened to the support for it?
    So why is it that being skeptical of AGW become so popular?
    I think because science was never settled, and forums such as this one, strongly supported by its readers, know the difference between truth and b.s.
    And around here we call b.s. when we smell it.
    Reply: I’m not sure where you’re getting your counts. I just looked and RC had 292 comments on November posts and 753 comments on a post that went up 10/29 and I’m sure was active well into November. No, it doesn’t compare to the traffic around here, but let’s stick to facts as much as possible shall we-especially when they are so easily verified? ~ ctm

  133. My bad, RC had 3 posts and 205 comments last I checked. I think it was the Telegraph that had 21 posts and 4 comments from their C.C. dept.
    Sorry.

  134. Tor Hansson (15:29:23) :
    Chillybean:
    Is someone working on nuclear cars? I haven’t heard of it.
    Al gore I think has solved this one. Apparently you just drill down a few KM next to an existing nuclear power station, extract a core and snap it into 50cm lengths and put them in your own Ford Chernobyl.

  135. “Folks, some of you have got to realize that the vast majority of people do not share your political obsessions or worries about the Great Global Conspiracy.”
    Uh, yes, 52% of Amerikkka has registered their opinion that I am utterly lost.
    So, I returned to my hut, examined my assumptions, triple-checked the facts and reviewed the history as I’m able.
    You are iexplicably pretentious and daft, be off and take your Tor with you.

  136. “”” Tor Hansson (19:44:56) :
    Hello George:
    the quote from the car article was not about cash for clunkers. It was an article from Edmunds Marketwatch in 2008 that described how Americans were trading in vans and trucks for smaller passenger vehicles—presumably to save money on gas.
    I’m not too down on the USPS by the way. They manage to get a letter cross-country in a couple of days for less than 50 cents or so, from anywhere to anywhere. Not too shabby when you think about it. “””
    Well I wasn’t challenging the accuracy of your report; just adding one I had just recently heard. But the general phenomenon of replacing gas guzzlers with better and more economical gas users certainly is happening.
    Every morning I have to hand my son a $20 bill to put gas in his Jeep Cherokee, to drive up the peninsula to San Francisco State. Last month when his was in the body shop, he drove my Ford Taurus, and got two round trips for my $20.
    As to the USPS, the standard first class postage seems like a fair price; but they as much as tell you to your face; for first class, we guarantee to take the letter out of your hands; but after that the risk is on you. Now if you want to pay for Express mail, or certified mail or something else that costs $10 then we may deliver it in two or three days.
    It used to be that the cost of first class postage guaranteed that they would deliver the letter; today you just hope that they do.
    I never ever pay for more than first class postage; no registered mail or proof of receipt or any of those gimmics. If I have to have something delivered; then I go to Fed Ex or UPS; not the USPS.

  137. Smokey (07:38:12) :
    Germans say: “0bama Lied.”
    ———–
    Wow – scary quote from that article:
    “If the rest of the world were to follow the US example in their approach to fossil fuels, the oceans would not only heat up, but would probably soon begin to boil.”
    Soon even …. yikes !!!!!

Comments are closed.