Two Senators upcoming presser on CLEAR Act

Notice the phrase“The IPCC’s analysis concluded with greater than 95 percent certainty that human consumption of fossil fuels and land use practices are contributing directly to observed changes in climate. “
That phase allows government intervention in the use of energy AND in the use of landotherwise known as how farmers grow food. I thought humans had already tried that and failed miserably. First at Plymouth Colony,:
“The colony was first organized on a communal basis, as their financiers required. Land was owned in common. The Pilgrims farmed communally, too, following the “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” precept.
The results were disastrous. Communism didn’t work any better 400 years ago than it does today. By 1623, the colony had suffered serious losses. Starvation was imminent. “ http://freedomkeys.com/thanksgiving.htm
And later in the Soviet Union. Looks like THIS time we are going to try it worldwide and collapse our whole civilization when it fails again as it must.
FOr those who believe “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” precept, you forgot one tiny problem. Humans, and all animals are lazy. It is hard wired into us as it should b. Only the young expend more energy than is needed without a reason. Remember the Pilgrims were a religious sect and probably the best case scenario for “communalism” to work. It did not.
Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate….
“In his ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.” http://mises.org/daily/336
Unfortunately the true story of Thanksgiving is never taught in schools so the myth of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” continues to find fertile ground in the minds of idealists.
Do not bother trying to tell me that “communalism” is not the ultimate goal. The UN has already spelled out its view point on land ownership.
The land policy of the United Nations was first officially articulated at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), held in Vancouver, May 31 – June 11, 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report sets forth the UN’s official policy on land. The Preamble says:
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….” http://sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htm
As Wayne Hage stated: “If you can’t own property, you are property.”

Just great! Another taxpayer holdup by two brainwashed senators who have chosen to ignore the mountain of evidence refuting the CO2 greenhouse theory. Sen. Inhofe needs to take Sen. Collins aside and give her a crash course in elementary physics.
There is no such thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect. It is a physical impossibility. The earth is cooled through a process of conduction, convection, vaporization and condensation. The absorption and emission of longwave radiation by CO2 molecules merely slows the process of cooling. It doesn’t warm anything. It is background noise.
If the CLEAR Act passes, hold on to your wallets and purses. The hot air emanating from the mouths of mindless politicians poses is a very real threat to humanity.

kirkmyers says:
July 20, 2010 at 2:29 pm
There is no such thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect. It is a physical impossibility. The earth is cooled through a process of conduction, convection, vaporization and condensation. The absorption and emission of longwave radiation by CO2 molecules merely slows the process of cooling. It doesn’t warm anything. It is background noise.
—————
A thought experiment: what happens if you “slow the process of cooling” while continuing to add heat from an external source at constant rate?

With friends like Collins; and her cohort dope Snowe ; we really don’t need enemies (of the people).
One of the reasons I have no desire whatsoever to go anywhere or buy anything from anywhere in New England, is I refuse to support the livelihoods of people who keep sending these birdbrains to the US Congress. Although they represent postage stamp type areas of the country and people locked in another century; they keep on screwing up the lives of everybody else.
At least out here in California; we know that we have no representation in the US Congress; and we just ignore the two dames that the local fruits and nuts keep electing.
So we ( CA ) are slowly turning into a third world Country; and we already are the world center for Leaf Blower Technology; but the market is already saturated.
We are all closer to that tipping point than we think; but it has nothing to do with Climate.

This Bill, or the Cap & Trade Bill, in conjuction with the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts and the recently passed Healthcare “Reform” bill will drive a stake through the heart of our economy. The Financial “Reform” Bill will assist in the process. Unless there are big changes in November in both houses of congress the economy will take a huge dump, inflation will go wild and there will, indeed, be less green house gasses produced along with much less of everything else. Count on it.

RE: kirkmyers: (July 20, 2010 at 2:29 pm) “Just great! Another taxpayer holdup by two brainwashed senators who have chosen to ignore the mountain of evidence refuting the CO2 greenhouse theory.”
Unfortunately, I see the outcome of all these closed-door Climategate hearings being used as a springboard for a new push to finally get something done now that that ‘mountain of evidence’ has all been ‘washed’ away by these learned tribunals.
I suspect that many of these people have come to believe, despite all the suppressed evidence to the contrary, that carbon dioxide is a dangerous industrial chemical that man is using to foul the environment and they want that process stopped as soon as possible. I would not be surprised to find that this teaching to be a mandatory policy in many of our public schools.
Perhaps some of our elected representatives are hoping re-create themselves as genuine heroes of the green revolution to remedy their sagging popularity in the polls.
Perhaps we need the release of a new cadre of non-partisan post-Climategate videos like “Global Warming, Doomsday Called Off.”

George E. Smith says:
July 20, 2010 at 3:52 pm
“”” Gail Combs says:
July 20, 2010 at 3:15 pm
…………………….. ”
So Gail, isn’t it sufficient to know that TSI is 1366 w/m^2; and with luck we can get a max of 1000 out of that at some places on earth. And agriculture is about the least efficient way of collecting on that kiloWatt.
Yes it’s renewable but it just doesn’t renew anywhere near fast enough to supply our needs. and about 735 of the total surface area is quite unsuitable for collection anyway; so we start out with access to only about 1/4 of what is available.
George
______________________________________________________________
George,
Sorry I was not clear. Using food for fuel is the most idiotic idea I have heard from the idiots in DC and that is saying something. That is why I included the link to the information about the physics of renewable energy. http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2469
Since the whole scam of “renewable energy” falls apart when you look at the physics I will cut and paste it here so it is very clear.
“The formula for kinetic energy is
E= 1/2(m1-m2) (v) squared or E=m(v)squared
Kinetic energy is the energy of moving objects, “E” once again standing for energy, “m” indicating mass and “v” representing the velocity of the moving object. If you throw a baseball across a room, for example, its energy is calculated by multiplying the mass of the ball times the square of its velocity – perhaps 50 miles per hour.
The two formulas are essentially identical. When brought into juxtaposition, two things emerge:
1. For any given amount of energy, mass and velocity are inversely related. For an identical amount of energy, the higher velocity goes, the less mass is required and vice versa.
2. When compared to the velocities of moving objects in nature – wind and water, for instance – the co-efficient in Einstein’s equation is fifteen orders of magnitude larger – the same factor of one quadrillion.
How is this manifested in everyday life? Most of what we are calling “renewable energy” is actually the kinetic flows of matter in nature. Wind and water are matter in motion that we harness to produce energy. Therefore they are measured by the formula for kinetic energy.
Let’s start with hydroelectricity. Water falling off a high dam reaches a speed of about 60 miles per hour or 80 feet per second. Raising the height of the dam by 80 or more feet cannot increase the velocity by more than 20 miles per hour. The only way to increase the energy output is to increase the mass, meaning we must use more water.
The largest dams – Hoover and Glen Canyon on the Colorado River –stand 800 feet tall and back up a reservoir of 250 square miles. This produces 1000 megawatts, the standard candle for an electrical generating station……
Wind is less dense than water so the land requirements are even greater. Contemporary 50-story windmills generate 1-½ MW apiece, so it takes 660 windmills to get 1000 MW. They must be spaced about half a mile apart so a 1000-MW wind farm occupies 125 square miles. Unfortunately the best windmills generate electricity only 30 percent of the time, so 1000 MW really means covering 375 square miles at widely dispersed locations.
Tidal power, often suggested as another renewable resource, suffers the same problems. Water is denser than wind but the tides only move at about 5 mph. At the best locations in the world you would need 20 miles of coastline to generate 1000 MW.
What about solar energy? ….Thus, the amount of solar radiation falling on a one square meter is 400 watts, enough to power four 100-watt light bulbs. “Thermal solar” – large arrays of mirrors heating a fluid – can convert 30 percent of this to electricity. Photovoltaic cells are slightly less efficient, converting only about 25 percent. As a result, the amount of electricity we can draw from the sun is enough to power one 100-watt light bulb per card table….”
Nuclear is the only non-carbon source of energy that is reasonable but the environuts are against it. If they had not killed nuclear in the seventies the USA would have a much smaller “carbon foot print” AND would not have lost its industry to Maurice Strong’s beloved communist China. (France is buzy selling her nuclear power to the rest of the EU)

evanmjones says:
July 20, 2010 at 4:39 pm
“[…]But let’s not kid ourselves about CO2. It does cause a modest warming (with diminishing returns).[…]”
You mentioned negative feedbacks yourself, so be careful. CO2 causes a measurable change in down- AND upwelling LWIR; whether this results in a warming depends on the system dynamics. Especially the nature of the temporal response of the system depends nearly entirely on the feedbacks and the associated lag times.

Allright, we have :
-Senator Maria Cantwell
-Senator Susan M. Collins
So, whats the conclusion? Do we need all these morons?
In Norway whe had a female minister of defense who’s only background was within pottery. (You don’t believe it? Thats your problem)
We had a minister of transportation who didn’t have a drivers license. (Yes, it is true)
So, how do we get rid of all the morons now? They suck your blood every night and day. For nothing.

I’m strictly in favor of helping those with developmental disabilities; but dog-gone it, how do they always end up in Congress?