Posted by: granny grits on November 30, 2008 10:26AM CST The title, blogger and British author tell us what we need to know about the motivation of this posting. In the unlikely event it escaped notice, republicans no longer run the country and won't be able to damage the earth further by siding with big business on a host of environmental issues.

Posted by: EvenKiel on November 30, 2008 1:29PM CST I still ask the rhetorical question "Are ALL conservatives in a state of denial?" Good ole "cut and paste' Iconoclast is back with the bankrupt ideas of the extreme right. I should say 'irrelevant' because the rest of the nation is going forward while these guys are mired in the past.

Posted by: EvenKiel on November 30, 2008 2:43PM CST What's up Iconoclast? Censorship? From a conservative blogger? Can't handle the truth?

Posted by: Blogometric Pressure on November 30, 2008 3:04PM CST God, Iconoclast deems himself as "the messenger" as he stated himself. Sooo boring, so just plain, well, idiotic.

Posted by: brewpackman on November 30, 2008 4:19PM CST Finally done crying from the beating that his supposed war hero took nearly a month ago, icono is back to chicken little, sky is falling, tactics. Get a life, nobody buys the bulls hit you are selling.

Posted by: Iconoclast on November 30, 2008 5:39PM CST Keep attacking the messenger. I notice that not one of you addresses the substance of the article: Obama's intentions for the energy industry will threaten over 50% of the electricity supply which is currently generated from coal. His plans will make this country economically non-competitive. And, he bases it all on the junk science of global warming.

Posted by: EvenKiel on November 30, 2008 9:20PM CST "substance of the article" --'Obamas intention will threaten over 50%.....generated by coal', 'junk science'. How can one address the opinions of distortion and misinformation, the denial of true science by calling it 'junk' and making statements of fallacy congered out of fear and paranoia? The messenger is being ridiculed for bringing the wrong message. The message shoud be, there are problems out there that we need to address and solve and Obama is taking the lead to do just that!

Posted by: Blogometric Pressure on November 30, 2008 9:29PM CST Just more idiotic cut and paste.

Posted by: Bigfoot on November 30, 2008 9:40PM CST Iconoclast, old buddy, I hate to beat a dead horse, so I will only quote a couple of sentences and refer you and your one or two surviving followers to read the rest of the article for yourself. from Gavin Hudson, Nov. 17, 2008, in Global, Great Britain: "The power of the pen, when used irresponsibly, serves not to illuminate and progress human discourse, but to confuse and stifle it. Christopher Booker''s article does a disservice to climate skeptics and climate activists alike." He then goes on to show each fallacy and disprove and tear apart each argument presented by Booker. Hope you don't feel too rejected and embarrassed after reading it.

Posted by: Iconoclast on November 30, 2008 9:51PM CST Fact: The science over so called "global warming" is equivocal at best. For the last decade, we've experienced global cooling. There have been significant fluctuations in global temperature throughout history, and the place I sit right now once sat under a mile of ice. There is no conclusive proof that human activity has had any impact on global climate, and many other theories that bear investigation, including a close correlation between solar activity and global temperature. Fact: Over 50% of U.S. electricity is generated from coal. Fact: Obama has said that he wants to eliminate power generation from coal, and replace it with wind power. Fact: Wind doesn't blow all the time. Wind generation is more than twice as expensive as coal and other alternatives like nuclear power. Therefore - Obama wants to, based on science that is still under considerable debate, replace less expensive power generation, with more expensive power generation. Combined with the other proposed policy changes he supports, like the Kyoto Accord, that will impose devastating economic consequences on this country. You can criticize the messenger all you want, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Those are not subject to debate.

Posted by: EvenKiel on December 1, 2008 12:17AM CST "Fact: Pbama has said that he wants to eliminate power generation from coal and replace it with wind power"---FALSE! Obama wants 10% of electricity to be supplied by wind power and other renewable sources by the year 2012! "Fact:Wind doesn't blow all the time." FALSE! There is always wind blowing somewhere, especially in the Southwest and Great Plains. "Fact: Wind generation is more than twice as expensive...." DISTORTION. As wind fields are developed and new technologies developed, the cost of wind pwer is going down all the time! FACT: Obama's plan calls for hybrid cars, clean coal, more wind and solar power, more efficient appliances and new fuels from plants, to name a few of the cahanges which will help create thousands of jobs for Americans. FACT: 94% of scientists have concluded that global warming is occuring and the other *% are in the Bush administration or proponents of his policies. FACT: there is a direct correlation between greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the increased speed of global warming. You are entitled to the facts but not to "your own facts" or distortions and manipulations of them for political reasons as the Bush administration has done in the past but have mended their ways.

Posted by: Kay on December 1, 2008 12:56AM CST FACTS change as time progresses. It used to be a fact that few people survived many diseases 50 years ago that are now easily cured or treated. Because alternative energy was not focused on in a serious manner not that long ago the stat.s don't really reflect what is possible today and in just a few short years from now. Wouldn't this be the time to look to the future and in a positive way than clinging onto outdated sciences and business models?

Posted by: Give Me a Break on December 1, 2008 10:07AM CST EvenKiel, I wish you'd post some fact based links to support your claims. Fact: Pbama has said that he wants to eliminate power generation from coal and replace it with wind power - It is false, to a degree. Joe Biden said during the campaign that no new plants would be built ( http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-says-no-t.html ) but Obama officially says 10% of America's energy should be wind power. However with his cap and trade pyramid scheme, regular coal plants would be so uneconomical that he would effectively kill new construction. Oh, and Carbon Sequestration is YEARS away from actually being mainstream, so there goes clean coal. The only technology that might actually work is liquified coal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Liquefaction_-_Coal-To-Liquids_.28CTL.29 "Fact: Wind generation is more than twice as expensive - Since the majority of wind farms would likely be located in the upper midwest and great plains areas, large transmission lines (that NIMBY and environmentalists are against) would need to be built, thus raising the cost of wind power for the MAJORITY of the country. Coal, nuc, and gas plants can be built just about anywhere there is a source of water. And wind is an intermitent source of power, MAYBE producing power at 40% of the time. The rest of the time we need other sources. http://www.awea.org/faq/cost.html#WindPowerCostsDependonOwnership Obama's PLAN to build more hybrid cars and other energy efficient appliances is great, but a large portion of the country won't be able to afford them for years. So, to use the liberal way of thinking, the only people that will benefit are the rich, at least in the short term. How many people in downtown Racine will by a $35,000 Volt or $2000 new refrigerator just to save a little energy and money? This is also dependent on a vibrant manufacturing industry. I smell dollar signs associated with this. Any savings we get from the Energy Star appliances would likely go to subsidies for Amana, Whirlpool, GM, etc. It's just one big corporate welfare idea that won't add many jobs, but Obama will still get to take credit for. The FACT is that people are already buying hybrid cars and energy star products, but that isn't what everyone wants (or can afford). The only hybrid car that really would suit my needs (for a family of five) are the Chevy Tahoo or Toyota Highlander. Both are too expensive for me. I'll be glad to buy one if people wnat to send me donations, can I have your support? FACT: 94% of scientists have concluded that global warming is occuring and the other *% are in the Bush administration or proponents of his policies. This is just BS - we've reached the inquisition stage where anyone who dares question the science of global warming. This isn't science anymore, its dogma. When the head of NASA Goddard is testifying FOR people that vandelized a British coal plant in the almighty name of Gia, you know it's gone too far. Besides, didn't 94% of the world once say it was flat? If you want to have a serious debate about saving energy and polluting less, please post your ideas. But stop your self serving tripe about global catastrophe when the best you can do is point to data and hysteria that is being discredited on a daily basis. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/warming_profiteers_wrong.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122610299552410141.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Posted by: EvenKiel on December 1, 2008 11:59AM CST !. self-serving tripe about global catastrophe. 2. this isn't science anymore, its dogma. 3. but a large portion of the country won't be able to afford them for years 4. Any savings we get...would likely go to subsidies for Amana.el.al. 5.since the majority of wind farms would likely be located in... 6.However, with his cap and pyramid schemes..... I can cite my sources as well as you, but I can not put my distortions and spin on them like you do in the following examples. Don't just look up sources that support your ideas, look for the sources that tell the whole story -not just the corporate story. There are coal-burning plants in other nations that successfully take the CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it from harms way. There are technologies being developed today that will be less and less expensive in the future. But if you are going to keep selectively throwing facts out there to support your outdated ideas, than expect opposition.

Posted by: EvenKiel on December 1, 2008 12:02PM CST PS-- I did. I said in my comment where to go to get the skinny on how this article is full of fallacy. You just want to stifle the debate by making demands that really don't need to be met because the information is out there for everyone, even conservatives in denial, to see for themselves. Try it sometime!

Posted by: MC on December 1, 2008 12:24PM CST JAK - Shame on you for not getting many of your "facts" from those indisputable, honest and un-biased sources like moveon.org or dailykoss or huffingtonpost or mediamatters where your opponents get most (if not all) of theirs. :)

Posted by: Give Me a Break on December 1, 2008 1:19PM CST Evenkiel, Let me be the first to tell you that "unbiased" science is anything but these days. The EPA, NASA, and most other scientific organizations are staffed by people that do not take the same skeptical viewpoint that I do. NASA has been caught repeatedly either lying or cherry picking data to support the viewpoint that man causes global warming. Not the sun, not farting cows, it is man and man only. The EPA... well here's one of the first things EPA will likely put out after January 20. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/2008/July/Day-30/a16432a.htm Get ready to pay alot more for just about anything with an engine, including lawnmowers, air conditioners, motorcycles... I'm not distorting or spinning anything. I think climate change is a problem. What I DON'T think is the case is that man has as big an impact as many intersted parties claim. I call them intersted parties, because the only way independent scientists can get money today is to claim the sky is falling. Unless you count the money from those "evil and untrustworthy" oil companies. But all that money is tainted, whereas government money to say there is manmade global warming is plentiful and only the truth comes from government paid reporting. I also am not convinced that regardless of what we as a world do, that anything can change what is largely a natural cycle of global climate change. The key you said for future technologies are just that - future. Yes carbon sequestration may work, but it isn't cheap. And it isn't ready for prime time, just like many other very promising technolgogies. There is even a company that will soon begin production of a "backyard" nuclear reactor that could power a neighborhood. But again, until that happens, why do you want to destroy what works, and lie about the justifications?

Posted by: Ruth on December 1, 2008 2:50PM CST Iconoclast, be sure to have the carpets cleaned before I move in Jan 21st.

Posted by: Positively Racine on December 1, 2008 3:12PM CST The government keeps getting bigger and bigger as they regulate and micro-manage so much in our lives.

Posted by: Bigfoot on December 1, 2008 3:59PM CST Funny! You guys who come up with this fantasy junk science want everyone else to prove reality. The fact is, no matter how global warming is occurring, it is occurring and it's rate has increased due to increasing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (where did they come from?) and we must address the problem and attempt to do something about it to attempt to slow it down and?or prepare for the consequences! Denial should not be a part of the process of solving the problem, and getting on board and doing something about it should be the emphasisi, not finding fault and ignoring solutions. Obama is our leader and he, with the help of his advisors and others, is attempting to find solutions. We should be focused on the future, not the present and not the past.

Posted by: TBV on December 1, 2008 6:23PM CST What part of we are currently experiencing global cooling don't you dunderheads understand?

Posted by: EvenKiel on December 1, 2008 6:32PM CST Beleive it or not, global cooling is part of global warming! Doesn't V stand for verify?

Posted by: EvenKiel on December 1, 2008 6:40PM CST PS --seeing as I am supposed to provide links to my ideas, check out REALCLIMATE--Climate science from real climate scientists.

Posted by: TBV on December 1, 2008 6:41PM CST So we are warming and cooling simultaneously? Have the laws of physics been repealed?

Posted by: Iconoclast on December 1, 2008 9:33PM CST Nobody has proven that the rate of global warming has increased due to greenhouse gasses, man-made or otherwise. In fact, there is not even conclusive proof that temperatures have increased, and during the period about which there is the most certainty about the data, the recent past, we've seen global cooling. 70,000 years ago, the spot I'm sitting in was under a mile of ice. Who was responsible for that global warming?

Posted by: Bigfoot on December 2, 2008 9:07AM CST more denial won't help us move ahead and meet the challenge of global warming or cooling. Don't you understand that this is a process that the earth is going through (and has gone through repeatedly) but that our pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases is having a detrimental effect? Yes the proof IS out there, look at REALCLIMATE.com where real climate scientists talk about the science. If you sit there and ignore it, pretty soon you'll be back under that mile of ice!

Posted by: TBV on December 2, 2008 9:48AM CST But how is that possible if the planet is warming due to the effects of greenhouse gases, BF?

Posted by: Give Me a Break on December 2, 2008 10:58AM CST Real Climate is a volunteer website contributed to by scientists that represent everything that is wrong with the climate change debate. Gavin Schmidt works for NASA Goddard, which has a less then stellar record in the climate change debate. Besides their use of land based stations to measure temperature change (which are subject to distortion due to their locations near exhaust fans and roadways) instead of satellites (ironic for NASA to not primarily use space sensors), the head of NASA Goddard GISS Dr. James Hansen was recently in England defending vandals of a coal power plant. So much for the impartiality of Government. Another contributor is Michael E. Mann, one of the creators of the famous "hockey stick" graph that shows how the earth has experienced a rapid rise in temperatures over the last 100 years. The problem is, criticsm of the graph has shown that it is false, yet the myth is perpetuated as fact. The computer models were flat wrong showing the rapid rise, and instead should have shown a more gradual rise that, while may partially be the result of man-made influence, is not totally dependant on the rise in fossil fuel burning and exhaust into the atmosphere. I could go on, but I think my point is this - There is no honest debate about climate change. Anyone who doesn't accept that man is responsible for rapid rise in temperatures is a heretic, and must be burned at the stake. There are REAL scientists who don't accept the "established" viewpoint and are actively trying to offer an alternative. At some point mankind might have to drop the hubris and realize we really might have a cosmic insignificance.

Posted by: Bigfoot on December 2, 2008 2:01PM CST I see. What we have here is the perfect 'perpetual motion' machine. A segment of conservatives are stuck on denying global warming and the science behind it, will find fault with all sources of information other than their own, and will continue to sit and stew in their own juices while the rest of the world goes on facing the issues of greenhouse gas emission and how to decrease it. There is nothing you guys will ever see or learn that will change your minds and so you will continue to pat each other on the back and stay put. Well, good lick to you because the world and I am going on without you. Good-bye.

Posted by: TBV on December 2, 2008 4:29PM CST That's the problem, BF, the rest of the world is NOT facing the issue of greenhouse gases and how to decrease them. Remember the Ross Perot 'giant sucking sound'? Is the government going to natinalize everything to keep industry from leaving for countries who have no intention of employing ANY environmental protections? How does the world gain by having all of industry located in countries that pollute away while the rest of us are burdened with regulations that take our jobs and raise the cost of EVERYTHING while not ding a damn thing to curb pollution?

Posted by: MC on December 2, 2008 4:36PM CST Good-bye and good riddance.

Posted by: MC on December 2, 2008 4:44PM CST BTW - how come the world's mean average temp has held steady or gone down slightly (depending on who you believe) during the past ten (10) years? NO - global cooling is NOT a part of global warming. That is cope-out clap trap. It's either one or the other, libs.

Posted by: Give Me a Break on December 2, 2008 5:27PM CST Bigfoot, Please read my comments above. I don't deny climate change, I QUESTION man's impact on it, or ability to stop/change it. It is not the black and white issue Al Gore and his misinformed minions have almost successfully made it out to be. If climate change is so pressing, why didn't Bill Clinton ever submit Kyoto to the Senate? Why hasn't the current congress used their power of the purse to prevent another coal plant from being built, or new freeway to be constructed, or mandated a higher percentage or renewable power for federal agencies? Why do the defenders of global warming (now renamed climate change to acknowledge there was a cooling effect recently) get so worked up when someone questions their religion? I don't find fault with REAL data sets, but when errors happen over and over (as can be seen with NASA GISS), any rational person has to stop and think. When the bar keeps on changing for how close to disaster we are or how high I'll have to pull my waders once the sea level rises, a rational person has to ask why a definitive answer can't be reached. And when the defenders of global warming are calling for the virtual ex-communication of anyone who dares to challenge the company line, a rational person has to start thinking maybe there is more to this dynamic then CO2 and cow farts. Maybe the vocal defenders aren't as worried about loosing their planet as they are about loosing their source of funding.

Posted by: MC on December 2, 2008 6:53PM CST BINGO JAK!!! Always follow the money.

Posted by: EvenKiel on December 2, 2008 9:44PM CST I get the impression from reading the comments here that it all boils down to one thing: money. One questions the other because of their funding sources, another questions whether the pursuit of solutions to addressing the issue is going to cost him and other their jobs (money). But bottom line, I get the feeling tht those who want to change the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere are willing to spend money on possible solutions and in the process create new jobs, whereas those who want to stop these solutions do so to keep their jobs and keep things the way they are. In the end, can we afford, money or not, to sit back and hope to maintain the status quo when the status quo seems to be changing anyway?

Posted by: TBV on December 3, 2008 6:50AM CST You try to live without money and let the rest of us know how that works out for you. You try to run a COMPETITIVE company in a global economy when your energy costs skyrocket due to taxes and regulation while your competitor is off shore in some third world hellhole with no such costs or worries about pollution. The FACT of the matter is, this country already is light years beyond many others in environmental protections. Should we explore alternative energy? Of course. Should we endeavor to create new jobs and industry HERE by producing things like solar opanels and wind turbines? YES! But we can do this without onerous regulations and government mandates which will result in financial hardship for all of us.

Posted by: Give Me a Break on December 3, 2008 8:45AM CST Evenkiel, Now we are in agreement, at least mostly. I am willing to pay more for something that is more environmentally friendly. If possible, I will be purchasing a GM Volt in 2011. I'm willing to pay more to have a car that doesn't burn much if any gas on my daily commute. I am willing to pay more for CFL bulbs so the Oak Creek plant doesn't need to produce more energy to power my home. I will only be buying energy star appliances from now on, and if the price was in my reach, I'd willingly upgrade my home to solar roof tiles or geothermal energy for my house. Everything that the environmental movement is asking us to do is entirely possible, but it costs money. The whole discussion has been geared toward how bad man is, when the real discussion should be about what can we do to improve the earth using an objective perspective. We could ban all airplanes from the sky, which would lead to an improvement in air quality. But how would we travel the country? We could enforce congestion parking, but at the opportunity cost of not having that money available for use elsewhere in the economy. The government does have a role to play here, but not what was proposed on the campaign trail by Obama. Heavy handed approaches that rely too much on government agencies will fail in everything except enlarging the government agencies. EPA and DOI are slated for large budget increases next year. The best solution is to convince people that moving to the better technology is in their best interest, not by forcing it on an unready public that is ill-financed to pay for it.

Posted by: EvenKiel on December 3, 2008 10:51AM CST Now we're getting somewhere, JAK! I believe that you have a very good point about convincing people rather than forcing them to go for the green and change for the better. Those of us who can afford it can lead the way, and by doing so, create markets for manufacturers that will eventually lead to cheaper goods and technologies. My brother-in-law bought a Prius last year and is getting 50 miles to the gallon, which has saved him in ONE year the extra money he put out to buy the car! I use those funny little fleurescent bulbs and have yet to change one in four years! That to me is progress for the good! TBV- your post was excdellent also and I agree except for one small poiont: must we ASSUME that government mandates and regulations will result in financial hardship for all of us? It seems to me that everytime some problem crops up, like lead paint in toys, or salmonella in our food, or banks loaning money subprime without sufficient downpayments, that there is always a lapsed or sidestepped government regulation involved. Remember the worker killed by a mudslide wheere the company sidestepped OSHA regulations? What price do you put on human life or protecting the safety of people?

Posted by: TBV on December 3, 2008 11:25AM CST The comparison to OSHA is off-target. Government setting arbitrary deadlines to achieve lower levels of CO2 emissions are not the right way to go and I think you know that. There are many things government can do short of drawing lines in the sand.

Posted by: EvenKiel on December 3, 2008 5:11PM CST Goals often serve a reasonable purpose; they push when a push is needed. If I give myself five months to lose twenty pounds, I'll be more successful than if I said well, I'll loss twenty pounds as soon as I can. It's not exactly a line in the sand, it's more of a bar to reach.

Posted by: TBV on December 4, 2008 5:25AM CST When you set your goal, are you bound by law to accomplish it? Will there be huge fines and assessments if you don't?

Posted by: EvenKiel on December 4, 2008 4:44PM CST If I don't lower my wight then I will pay in higher insurance fees and in ill health. Would it be too much for someone to step in and say 'if you don't loss weight, we will fine you' when I'm using my money to buy extra fatting food? More to the point, if a company is throwing CO2 into the atmosphere and there exists a technology to stop that, what do you think the government should do to get that company to employ that technology?

Posted by: TBV on December 5, 2008 6:15AM CST Oh, brother. What kind of a world do you want to live in? One in which there is ALWAYS somebody reguating all of your behavior? And to answer your question more directly, YES! It is nobody's business what people eat, and fining people for their eating habits is LUDICROUS.

Posted by: granny grits on December 5, 2008 6:34AM CST We fine people who litter the landscape with trash thrown from a car, yet we shouldn't regulate and fine those who litter the atmosphere? Regulation is necessary in an orderly society for the common good and I can think of no greater societal need than breathable air.

Posted by: EvenKiel on December 5, 2008 10:24AM CST No need to get huffy, TBV. If you don't like extended metaphors, we can work without them. But my point about lossing weight is that it does cost not just the person who eats what he wants, but it hurts society in higher healthcare costs and the spread of unhealthy habits to others which will affect their and our future, just as pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is having terrible consequences to us right now. We aren't talking about regulating all of our behavior, just behavior that is detrimental to us all. I for one to not want my granddaughter living in a world where she will have to wear a protective mask to keep from breathing unbreathable air as they do in Japan and China now. Fining someone for doing something like pumping CO2 into the atmosphere when it can be avoided is not a ludicrous idea! And denying that such a problem exists to begin with and that we need to address the problem and do something about it now is certainly not a ludicrous idea!