We have 10 years to save the Planet from Global Warming?

Tue

Jan 30 2007

12:45 pm

By: Number9

Ted Balaker and Sam Staley, coauthors of "The Road More Traveled: Why the Congestion Crisis Matters More Than You Think, and What We Can Do About It", have written what will be a very controversial piece in the Washington Post. The long and short of it, is the premise that increased wealth is the reason for increased individual automobile driving and that there are many myths about suburbanization and the automobiles relation to Global Warming. The five myths are discussed at the end of the post.

Today is a particularly good day to discuss this as the American automobile is now “Public Enemy Number One” to the newly formed “Global Warming Coalition against the Automobile”. Can you stop Global Warming by walking? We will see.

“Global Cool” launched in London and LA today is a brand new worldwide movement of celebrities, musicians, politicians and business leaders who will use their vast scientific knowledge to tell you how to live. Energy conversation is a magnificent idea and is something I do personally and believe in but you know the material has hit the fan when the rock stars and actors form another “We are the World” group of human micromanagement.

The idea that the planet has only ten years to stop Global Warming is being repeated so often that it is approaching the critical mass of universal acceptance. Never mind that no scientific proof exist to prove this. Also never mind that the people who will preach from the high alter of Global Warming understand nothing about science. Again we will suffer through another assault of “Social Democracy” and junk science. Yes the planet is warming. But is it the sun or humans that are causing Global Warming? Only actors and musicians Josh Hartnett, Leonardo Di Caprio, Orlando Bloom, KT Tunstall, Pink, The Killers, and Razorlight know the truth. And they will tell you how to live.

How long will it take for "Global Cool" to reveal its real agenda?

more after the jump

The Washington Post article by Ted Balaker and Sam Staley discusses 5 Myths About Suburbia and Our Car-Happy Culture:

1.Americans are addicted to driving.

Some claim that Europeans have developed an enlightened alternative. Americans return from London and Paris and tell their friends that everyone gets around by transit. But tourists tend to confine themselves to the central cities. Europeans may enjoy top-notch transit and endure gasoline that costs $5 per gallon, but in fact they don't drive much less than we do. In the United States, automobiles account for about 88 percent of travel. In Europe, the figure is about 78 percent. And Europeans are gaining on us.

2.Public transit can reduce traffic congestion.

Like auto use, suburbanization is driven by wealth. Workers once left the fields to find better lives in the cities. Today more and more have decided that they can do so in the suburbs. Indeed, commuters are now increasingly likely to travel from one suburb to another or embark upon "reverse" commutes (from the city to the suburbs). Also, most American commuters (52 percent) do not go directly to and from work but stop along the way to pick up kids, drop off dry cleaning, buy a latte or complete some other errand.

3.We can cut air pollution only if we stop driving.

Air quality has been improving for a long time. More stringent regulations and better technology have allowed us to achieve what was previously unthinkable: driving more and getting cleaner. Since 1970, driving -- total vehicle miles traveled -- has increased 155 percent, and yet the EPA reports a dramatic decrease in every major pollutant it measures. Although driving is increasing by 1 to 3 percent each year, average vehicle emissions are dropping about 10 percent annually. Pollution will wane even more as motorists continue to replace older, dirtier cars with newer, cleaner models.

4.We're paving over America.

How much of the United States is developed? Twenty-five percent? Fifty? Seventy-five? How about 5.4 percent? That's the Census Bureau's figure. And even much of that is not exactly crowded: The bureau says that an area is "developed" when it has 30 or more people per square mile.

But most people do live in developed areas, so it's easy to get the impression that humans have trampled nature. One need only take a cross-country flight and look down, however, to realize that our nation is mostly open space. And there are signs that Mother Nature is gaining ground. After furious tree chopping during America's early years, forests have made a comeback. The U.S. Forest Service notes that the "total area of forests has been fairly stable since about 1920." Agricultural innovations have a lot to do with this. Farmers can raise more on less land.

5.We can't deal with global warming unless we stop driving.

What should be done about global warming? The Kyoto Protocol seeks to get the world to agree to burn less fossil fuel and emit less carbon dioxide, and much of that involves driving less. But even disregarding the treaty's economic costs, Kyoto's environmental impact would be slight. Tom M.L. Wigley, chief scientist at the U.S. Center for Atmospheric Research, calculates that even if every nation met its obligation to reduce greenhouse gas, the Earth would be only .07 degrees centigrade cooler by 2050.

Topics:

Number9's blog
Login or register to post comments

What's the true agenda ?

Submitted by ANGRYWOLF on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 12:55pm.

I personally don't care how people live.
I only care about the future of the planet.I would prefer the ice caps don't melt...and the human race survive that and other potential disasters.
What ever is causing the melting, be it green house gases or part of some natural cycle needs to be addressed. I think it would be preferable to avoid the coastal areas and many of the islands sinking, if such avoidance is possible.We need to leave the politics out of it.

Seems to be a lot of red

Submitted by Sven on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 1:36pm.

Seems to be a lot of red herrings and non-sequiturs here, if this is intended as an argument about global warming.

How does the fact that Europeans are addicted to driving prove that Americans are not?

What do they mean by "air quality?" Smog is not the issue in climate change. It's CO2 emissions, which are not currently measured as a pollutant.

The "actors and musicians" crack is pretty ironic too. Ted Balaker, a former producer for John Stossel's silly infotainment, is a real renaissance man in the science crank set, knowing next to nothing about a wide range of subjects.

Help me out Sven

Submitted by Number9 on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 2:26pm.

Seems to be a lot of red herrings and non-sequiturs here, if this is intended as an argument about global warming.

Which red herrings and non-sequiturs? What I wrote or the article in the WP?

I understand your distaste

Submitted by Sven on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 3:06pm.

I understand your distaste for dirty hippies and envirocelebrities, 9. But these yahoos are the mirror image of them. They're trying to create confusion and FUD on the scientific evidence for climate change by conflating a libertarian defense of car culture. The implication is that the hippies are wrong about cars, therefore the scientists are wrong about science.

To honestly debate this topic I think one has to distinguish between 1) what's known about climate change 2) what are its likely effects 3) what's likely to ameliorate it and 4) what we're willing to do, and address them in that order.

The article I linked above is quite upfront about the uncertanties, but makes it quite clear that the debate about #1 is over, as illustrated by that chart.

One observes that the two sets of simulations diverge during the 1970s and have no overlap at all today, and that the observed global temperature also starts to fall outside the envelope of the all-natural simulations in the 1970s. This exercise has been repeated using many different climate models, with the same qualitative result: one cannot simulate the evolution of the climate over last 30 years without including in the simulations mankind’s influence on sulfate aerosols and greenhouse gases. This, in a nutshell, is why almost all climate scientists today believe that man’s influence on climate has emerged from the background noise of natural variability.

...adding, re:"You do realize that some people say over fishing the oceans and pollution of the oceans has cause a reduction in plankton which has changed the "sulfur cycle" and caused Global warming. Why is that theory not valid?"

Because "some people" don't know what the hell they're talking about. It's not that difficult to determine the source of greenhouse emissions, and to correlate the increase from those sources to increase in temperatures.

Seriously, read that article.

It is a fine article

Submitted by Number9 on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 3:26pm.

one cannot simulate the evolution of the climate over last 30 years without including in the simulations mankind’s influence on sulfate aerosols and greenhouse gases

Yes, it even addresses the sulfur cycle and aerosols. Very thorough.

Very reasonable. But do we have the science to do so?

The article you cite states, "Although the equations representing the physical and chemical processes in the climate system are well known, they cannot be solved exactly." So it is like a limit in calculus? At least that is what we are told to believe. Very dangerous. How do we know that all variables have been included? What if the plankton issue is real? That is not being an Exxon apologist. It is a real question.

My point is not about dirty hippies, I do dislike most hippies however, but that is because most are socialists and I do not care for socialists. I digress. India and China will have more to do with the future of climate than anywhere on this planet. Would you agree that we should only do what India and China agree to do? To do otherwise would undermine our national economic security?

For the record, my automobiles all get over 20 MPG city and 25 MPG highway. Over half of my home has compact fluorescent lights and all appliances are energy saver. If you haven't tried the new compact fluorescent lights you should. They work and save money. I walk the walk on an individual basis. The real question is what should be done on a national basis.

I have written about Pilot Oil for two years and how they retarded low sulfur diesel for the entire country. I have written about TVA and the need for scrubbers on their coal plants.

Am I far off the mark? What more can you do other than doing your best in your own home? Does buying in to another "We are the World" scam mean anything other than a person is gullible?

9, the uncertainties and

Submitted by Sven on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 4:02pm.

9, the uncertainties and imprecision of the equations are expressed in that chart - kinda like the MOE in a politcal poll. Until the early 90s, most scientists were reluctant to draw firm conclusions, because the error margins of the anthropomorphic and natural lines overlapped. NASA's James Hanson was among the first to jump to a conclusion in 1988, and caught a lot of flak for it. But his (middle) projections proved to be right on the mark (he's unfairly criticized by skeptics because his high projection didn't pan out, but he didn't expect it to).

The error margins have not decreased (actually they have somewhat, as computer technology gets better), but the important thing is that the overlap is gone and the gap is widening. That's why the consensus has developed.

AFAIK, there's not a lot of disagreement about the amount of material in the atmosphere or its source, because ice core samples are remarkably precise and can be correlated to industrial development. The uncertanties come in measuring their effects, because the climate system is so complex and chaotic. But the vast majority of scientists are in agreement that the measurements are accurate within that error band.

Whew. That wore me out. I'll have to catch my breath before diving into the political side.

Never mind

Submitted by Hildegard on Thu, 2007/02/01 - 6:02pm.

Never mind

Too bad so many folks

Submitted by Eleanor A on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 10:06am.

Too bad so many folks believe the lies perpetuated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh regarding the U.N. Because otherwise, they'd have to take action on this:

PARIS (Reuters) - The world's top climate scientists said on Friday global warming was man-made, spurring calls for urgent government action to prevent severe and irreversible damage from rising temperatures.

The United Nations panel, which groups 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations, predicted more droughts, heatwaves, rains and a slow gain in sea levels that could last for more than 1,000 years.

The scientists said it was "very likely" -- or more than 90 percent probable -- that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years.

Or this:

Some 10,000 US researchers have signed a statement protesting about political interference in the scientific process.

The statement, which includes the backing of 52 Nobel Laureates, demands a restoration of scientific integrity in government policy.

According to the American Union of Concerned Scientists, data is being misrepresented for political reasons.

It claims scientists working for federal agencies have been asked to change data to fit policy initiatives.

The Union has released an "A to Z" guide that it says documents dozens of recent allegations involving censorship and political interference in federal science, covering issues ranging from global warming to sex education.

Campaigners say that in recent years the White House has been able to censor the work of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration because a Republican congress has been loath to stand up for scientific integrity.

"It's very difficult to make good public policy without good science, and it's even harder to make good public policy with bad science," said Dr Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security.

"In the last several years, we've seen an increase in both the misuse of science and I would say an increase of bad science in a number of very important issues; for example, in global climate change, international peace and security, and water resources."

One wonders what's going to happen, geopolitically. What pressure will other nations be willing to bring to bear to force George Bush's America to straighten up for the literal good of humanity? It'll be interesting to see.

Here we go again, the flat-earthers...

Submitted by Factchecker on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 1:42pm.

you know the material has hit the fan when the rock stars and actors form another “We are the World” group of human micromanagement...

At least SOMEBODY is trying to lead us. Maybe it should instead be a government by the people, but they're not leading. At least not yet from the new (Dem, BTW) Congress, and certainly not by the small-minded bully in the WH.

The scientific debate is over. Here's a compendium I dare you to refute. I believe this addresses one of your notions.

Now we need policy based on the science. Who do YOU think should be setting policy? And what do YOU propose to do about it?

How long will it take for "Global Cool" to reveal its real agenda?

How long will it take you to see the agenda of those pulling you along? (Exxon, Halliburton, et. al.) Or to recognize an overwhelming consensus in the real, peer review-based, international scientific community?

Agendas...

Submitted by Number9 on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 2:22pm.

Did Halliburton remove my post from the front page?

Overwhelming consensus in the real, peer review-based, international scientific community does not mean that Global Warming caused by man is a fact. It means it is a theory.

You may recall other theories like the Sun revolving around the Earth that had the same overwhelming consensus in the real, peer review-based, international scientific community.

A modern example of this was a few years ago when a virus was discussed to cause ulcers. We know less about weather than almost any science. This is political infighting and social agenda.

My point is to conserve because it is the right thing to do and it saves money. Not because it is hip or cool or progressive. Using Global Warming to push a New Urbanists agenda or a progressive Social Democracy makes no sense.

Can you prove your consensus theory as a fact? Please show the equation sir? You cannot. Then do not present a theory as a fact.

Please show the equation

Submitted by Sven on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 2:35pm.

Please show the equation sir?

Voilà.

Global Warming is real

Submitted by Number9 on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 2:44pm.

Thanks for the chart. I have agreed many times Global Warming is real.

What is counted as "man made", cause by man, anthropogenic, and many other labels, how can that component be proved? A chart is not an equation. A theory is not a fact.

You do realize that some people say over fishing the oceans and pollution of the oceans has cause a reduction in plankton which has changed the "sulfur cycle" and caused Global warming. Why is that theory not valid?

Because it doesn't involve evil automobiles? You do realize the role of plankton in the oxygen carbon dioxide cycle don't you? I think over fishing is a tragedy. What is "Global Cool" doing about over fishing the oceans? Dammit, what is Josh Hartnett and "Kool and the Gang" doing about over fishing the oceans?

If the fishnet does not fit, you must acquit...

Butterfly, welcome back

Submitted by Number9 on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 6:14pm.

Good to have a scientist in the house. Is there anything to the plankton-sulfur cycle theory? It is over my head but a significant reduction in plankton or a change in their biology would seem to be important. Of course with anything we are discussing the devil of the details is in the extrapolation.

And there is a whole lot of extrapolating going on.

By the way, forest fires, volcanoes, and everything except the sun I am dubious about.

Do we even have the technology to measure all aspects of radiation from the sun? Just asking.

More on the plankton-sulfur cycle theory:

(link...)

October 26, 2006

Scientists have discovered a bacterial "switch gene" in two groups of microscopic plankton common in the oceans. The gene helps determine whether certain marine plankton convert a sulfur compound to one that rises into the atmosphere, where it can affect the earth's temperature, or remain in the sea, where it can be used as a nutrient.

"This new gene offers a powerful tool to study the question of how these plankton are involved with sulfur exchange between the ocean and atmosphere," said Mary Ann Moran, marine microbial ecologist at the University of Georgia. Moran and her colleagues published their findings in the Oct. 26, 2006, issue of the journal Science.

Much of the sulfur in the atmosphere comes from the surface of oceans, from a compound called dimethlysulfide, or DMS. Marine plankton control how much sulfur rises into the atmosphere by converting a compound called DMSP, or dimethylsulfoniopropionate, to DMS or to sulfur compounds that are not climatically active. Moran and her team discovered a gene that controls whether or not these sea drifters create DMS that rises into the air.

It would be awful if Global Warming turned out to be something that was a freak occurrence of nature. There would be no way to use it as a political weapon.

Can you imagine the embarrassment if Global Warming is caused by sulfur plankton farts?

The problem is you don't know what you don't know. All scientist understand this.

Problem is, it's just about

Submitted by Eleanor A on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 6:17pm.

Problem is, it's just about this simple: Virtually all scientists who aren't being paid off by some corporation or trying to gain money and fame through leading some flat-earth fellowship agree that human activity is contributing to global warming. Given that it's indisputably happening, is there any reason on Earth that humans should not endeavor to do something to clean up our acts? And to stop contributing whatever portion we *are* adding to it?

I can't imagine why this topic is even controversial (oh yeah, the levels of money and power involved. Silly me.)

Niner, you're really

Submitted by rikki on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 8:58pm.

Niner, you're really outdoing yourself on this one. I love the part about the Sun revolving around the Earth being peer-reviewed science. Equating an unsolvable array of equations with a limit in calculus is pretty funny too. Thanks for the laughs.

Not reading Nelle's link explaining what the full costs of driving are and then asking her to explain what the full costs of driving are is an oldie, but a goodie.

As for the subject matter, whatever role plankton farts might be playing in climate change, that goes in the anthropogenic column because overfishing and ocean pollution are man-made.

The blame-the-Sun argument is a non-starter. There is ample evidence linking increases in solar output with increases in atmospheric carbon, but we also have 600,000 years of data for that cycle, and never in all that time did atmospheric carbon reach current levels. If we give the Sun full credit for as much CO2 as she's managed in that time, it only accounts for about a third of current observations.

Your notion that we must somehow equalize the costs of climate change is downright weird. Though India and China are catching up (or have caught up), we have been the pollution leader for decades and still are on a per capita basis, so culpability is not equal. Which areas will suffer and which will benefit from changing climate patterns is not entirely predictable and certainly can't be controlled, and the transition costs will depend greatly on who has to adjust, what new climate patterns manifest and how stable the new conditions are.

Finally, the tools we need for deciding what to do about climate change are not really scientific. It's risk analysis, which is a mathematical art practiced by the insurance industry. It does not depend on certainty, just estimates, so incomplete science is adequate. Of course, minimizing risk of change in something as unpredictable and massive as our atmosphere is prudent, but we may be beyond that point by now.

The limit...

Submitted by Number9 on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 9:46pm.

Equating an unsolvable array of equations with a limit in calculus is pretty funny too.

And why is it funny?

As for the subject matter, whatever role plankton farts might be playing in climate change, that goes in the anthropogenic column because overfishing and ocean pollution are man-made.

I agree. So IF the sulfur-plankton cycle is real and is significant, how does curtailing automobile use make a difference? Do you think maybe we should know what causes the problem before we use the shotgun approach to solve it?

People will make the anthropogenic argument regardless of the cause. Clear case of "experimenter bias"? Perhaps. But how do we explain the last ice age? What do the ice cores tell us? The sun? Plankton farts? Something caused it, what was it?

Finally, the tools we need for deciding what to do about climate change are not really scientific. It's risk analysis, which is a mathematical art practiced by the insurance industry.

This shows me you have a sense of humor also seeing how well the science of risk analysis has worked in the medical insurance industry.

In the end it is ALL politics. The opportunity to levy a tax on the America people for the sin of CO2 production. Let's cut to the chase, how much is fair? I do pretty well, how about $1,500 per year. Say maybe $900 a year for you rikki. We should let poor people get a complete pass even though some of them drive lousy cars that burn oil. Mexico doesn't have any money so we will pay their share. Canada is more progressive so they won't pay much. Western Europe doesn't use cars so they won't have to pay much. Let's just pay for the whole thing.

Even better, let's play arbitrage. We could trade credits with China. I would like to make the commissions on that.

Even much better would be to let the UN assess a world wide tax on energy consumption. A World tax. Problem solved.

Tell me how to do this without wrecking the economy and I am with you. I want cleaner air and water so there will be benefits.

And why is it funny? Because

Submitted by rikki on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 2:03pm.

And why is it funny?

Because it shows how dreadfully confused you are on this issue. Your grasp of science is weak. You conflate scientific analysis of the problem with political analysis of solutions. You worry that doing something might be economically destructive but show no recognition of the economic destruction doing nothing will bring. You are a muddle, and I'm not willing to try to straighten you out.

Have you read Nelle's link yet?

Submitted by Number9 on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 2:16pm.

rikki, the following statement is fiction.

The New Urbanists do not demand the elimination of suburbia - only that we be allowed to build compact, walkable and mixed-use communities.

At best it should read, "some New Urbanists do not demand the elimination of suburbia".

rikki writes, "You conflate scientific analysis of the problem with political analysis of solutions.." I did not peg you for an idealist. I absolutely understand the relation of scientific analysis of the problem with political analysis of solutions.

How do you think things get paid for? We live in a new world where science and politics have merged. You sound like an academic.

In the end only one thing matters, funding. It doesn't matter if the science is flawed. Money is the final solution, and where does that money come from?

Elephant in the room

Submitted by Factchecker on Thu, 2007/02/01 - 1:50pm.

In the end only one thing matters, funding. It doesn't matter if the science is flawed. Money is the final solution, and where does that money come from?

Even a small portion of this would be a nice down payment, but unfortunately the previous (GOP, BTW) Congress slashed this industry's taxes, because... hell, I have no idea why. I think it was something about the goodness of this industry's interests needing the money to rescue our energy future. No, seriously!

(And that leaves everyone else with more of the tax burden. Future generations will be paying off the national debt and cleaning up the oil industry's environmental disasters for many decades.)

But as broke as it is, the federal government has that much less to invest in an Apollo-like program that could be used to wean us off fossil fuels (including Middle East oil) in a manner most probably more effective than ExxonMobil is doing it.

why is it funny? I'm sorry,

Submitted by rikki on Thu, 2007/02/01 - 12:48am.

why is it funny?

I'm sorry, Niner, I should try not to be so dismissive. I have no idea what you are trying to get at in comparing the unsolvability of climate equations with limits in calculus. And with calling both dangerous. Not a clue.

Limits are the basis of calculus, the brilliant step forward Newton and Liebniz made nearly simultaneously. The unsolvability of climate equations is a consequence of our atmosphere being complex. Whatever point you are trying to make, I don't get it at all.

Maybe you can explain it better.

You keep arguing semantics...

Submitted by talidapali on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 12:58am.

A theory is not a fact.

Gravity is a theory...I defy you to go out and prove that it is not a fact. And I wanna be there when you step off the cliff and DON'T fall to your death.

You can keep shoving your digits in your ears and shouting, "Nyah nayh nyah...I can't hear you!" as we try to warn you that gravity will kill you if you step off the cliff, but it still won't keep you from going splat.

"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"

"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

gravity is more complex than you might imagine

Submitted by Number9 on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 1:47am.

Gravity is a theory...I defy you to go out and prove that it is not a fact. And I wanna be there when you step off the cliff and DON'T fall to your death.

I wish you no harm, why would you wish any different for me? I assume the message above was a metaphor? Otherwise it was rude and uncalled for.

E=MC2 was a theory that was thought to have been proven by measuring the bending of light around a massive object. Yet in the late 1980's the constant C was called into question as to the difference of waveform versus particle.

Gravity does very well to define the motion of planets. It does not explain the event horizon of a black hole nor does it define the attraction of subatomic particles such as quarks.

None of the above is semantics. If you wish to state what your real issue is please do. I would venture it is political. I do understand semantics. I have been here for over a year now. In science, words have meaning. In politics words drift into semantics.

Do you wish to discuss physics or politics?

Reading comprehension wasn't your strong suit in school was it?

Submitted by talidapali on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 2:17am.

I very clearly said I wanted to be there when you step off a cliff and DO NOT go splat. I would like to see someone walk on thin air.

But, knowing that the theory of gravity pretty much precludes this from ever happening on good ole planet Earth, I don't have to go over the cliff with you. But as I said, we WOULD be trying to warn you that you couldn't do that. Your choice is up to you; either way, arguing that the science isn't certain STILL won't keep you from going splat if you choose to step off the cliff.

Some things you will never be able to prove to a certainty, such as the existence of God or an afterlife or the total impact of human activity on global warming. However, the preponderance of observable and verifiable evidence leans towards human activity as having an influence on the warming of the planet and that it is growing. Ignoring the good science that has been done in favor of the bad science that fits your preconceived notions is done at your own peril, much like ignoring the warnings of your fellow men when they tell you that walking off a cliff will kill you.

"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"

"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

Okay, what do you want me to do?

Submitted by Number9 on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 8:32am.

Ignoring the good science that has been done in favor of the bad science that fits your preconceived notions is done at your own peril, much like ignoring the warnings of your fellow men when they tell you that walking off a cliff will kill you.

Is this religious? You want me to accept Global Warming. I said I did. You want me to accept man is the cause. Then prove the mechanism. Before "progressives" tax us for our sins, first find out what the sins are.

Is it the automobile, coal fired power plants, or sulfur plankton farts? Taxing plankton farts will be difficult. Plankton hate taxes.

You may have missed where I wrote that I do on an individual basis all I can reasonably do to conserve. Is that not enough?

You won't feel right about this until I worship at the alter will you?

No, you can't make me convert to a false religion. Global Warming is more politics than science. IF Global Warming was a science then why was last seasons hurricane cycle so soft? Ah, weather is not climate. That is one hell of a way to have your cake and eat it too. So basically the same scientists that cannot predict the weather can predict the climate? This religion needs some work.

If you need proof that this is politics then consider even the Bush Administration and the Weather channel are banning thought. Does science ban thought these days?

Bush administration.

Weather Channel.

Sorry I've missed most of this, but briefly...

Submitted by Factchecker on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 10:45am.

IF Global Warming was a science then why was last seasons hurricane cycle so soft? ... This religion needs some work.

Science is not religion. With science, and in contrast to religion, there always have been and always will be uncertainties (unless a time machine or crystal ball is invented!). Not all weather predictions (and short term climate predictions) will be accurate and every weather year won't be monotonically warmer or more hurricane active than prior ones. Just like a lot of snowfall in the western U.S. this winter isn't contrary to global warming, either. In many ways, in fact, it supports it. Some people really thing that as long as snowfall can be greater rather than less, obviously GW can't be occurring. Do you think that, 9?

Unfortunately the best science can do is rely on predictions based on ever more sophisticated computer models, and those predictions, in general, are showing warming to be progressing MORE severely than previously thought, and better correlate this warming to human activities. Peer-review and growing consensus in the scientific community support this, and contrary to expensive PR campaigns by corporations who profit off of burning fossil fuels, that exploit doubts in order to thwart action to curb the problem.

Moreover, actual warming data of the last 10-20 years has generally exceeded the worst case predictions of that which had been predicted using earlier, less sophisticated models. That is, even older, cruder modeling erred on the side of less warming, and more refined modeling is further confirming that warming is worse than earlier thought, as well as more likely exacerbated by human activities.

You may recall other theories like the Sun revolving around the Earth that had the same overwhelming consensus in the real, peer review-based, international scientific community.

Your analogy is completely back-asswards. Flat earthers didn't have any science: just ignorance, dogma, and reluctance to see anything contrary to convention. That's like you guys who get tripped up in the politics and PR from the likes of ExxonMobil. It was real science that had to fight through the BS of the day to prove otherwise. And, as pointed out elsewhere, we're still stuck with only "theories" of magical forces like gravity.

What boggles the mind is that you'd choose to waste some internet bandwidth trying to invent a scandal about some of the privileged, wealthy elite exercising their free rights of expression in ways that you find intolerable, while those in positions of real power violate sunshine laws to hold secret energy strategy sessions with industry (Cheney's infamous task force), suppress science and mute scientific opinion, and unilaterally sanction all levels of the federal government to tow the admin's line.

Your sense of outrage is more than a little off balance.

Sorry if I repeated anybody else's points.

Face it, Nine, we're coming

Submitted by edens on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 10:45am.

Face it, Nine, we're coming for your car and shipping you off to a 48-story New Urbanist re-education camp.

You won't feel right about

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 11:03am.

You won't feel right about this until I worship at the alter will you?

I would settle for the cessation of your worship at the alter of a false god.

9, Gravity is a fact. The scientific description of it's exact nature is all theory. If you step off the edge of the railing at the Golden Gate Bridge, it is a fact that you are going to drop and that the end result won't be good for you. We know this with certainty. Why? Because we have measured and documented and described mathmatically what happens enough times that we can predict with exact certitude what is going to happen the next time someone steps off the edge of the railing of the Golden Gate Bridge.

Human activity has overloaded the capacity of this planet to maintain the very narrow temperature band in which we can survive. If there were to be a peer reviewed paper proving that global warming in NOT occurring and the activities of man were NOT at fault, the author would be instantly deified. The likelyhood of that happening is near zero.

Why? Because we have measured and documented and described mathmatically what happens enough times that we can predict with exact certitude what is going to happen in future years based on the gasses we humans are releasing into our air. But that is not all.

Think of this in another way. Humans are not just releasing greenhouse gases...We are reducing the percentage of Oxygen in the air and replacing it with something we can't breathe, mostly Carbon Dioxide.

Now go outside this evening, or the next time it is clear and look at Venus glistening on the Western horizon. Venus is very very hot, so much so, that the first scientific probes we earthlings sent there quit working instantly because the temperature was twice what we expected.

Our planet is very sick, 9, and you can remain in denial or claim it is the will of god, or grasp at talismans, or whatever, but the fever is going to get much worse if we don't do something as soon as possible. A fever is normally caused when an organism's immune system is trying to cure some infection. In this case, as Kurt Vonnegut has pointed out, "The immune system of your planet is trying to shake you off."

I don't really care if you take the medicine or not, but you must get out of the way of the doctors.

Steve

Okay Steve,

Submitted by Number9 on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 12:37pm.

Let's say your right. What should be done? You have said you drive a long way to go to the supermarket. Should we charge a tax based on emissions? You might have a truck. What if it burns oil? Should you have to replace the engine? Should the Air Police be able to confiscate it?

Do you have a wood burning stove? Should that be outlawed? Should Tennessee outlaw incandescent bulbs like California?

After we straighten out America how to we enforce these laws and taxes on India and China? What if they won't play nice?

Most importantly, what if it has little to do with man? Say it is plankton, which carry out almost half of Earth’s photosynthesis even though they represent less than 1 percent of the planet’s biomass, that is the main problem. How do we fix plankton?

9, You seem to be

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 1:40pm.

9, You seem to be complaining that we shouldn't treat the disease because the medicine tastes bad.

Did you happen to notice that the government of Australia has announced that Sidney will become uninhabitable if they don't reduce their water consumption by 50% within the next 20 years? They cite Global warming as the cause.

You are on the wrong side of the Force. Quit reading things written by those who intentionally mislead you and start thinking for yourself.

Peace,

Steve

Doctor,

Submitted by Number9 on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 1:49pm.

9, You seem to be complaining that we shouldn't treat the disease because the medicine tastes bad.

Tell us how to cure Global Warming.

One way...

Submitted by talidapali on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 4:05pm.

create a world-wide energy and global warming policy and impose economic sanctions against ANY country or corporation that will not adhere to reduction of greenhouse gases policies. Don't allow them to do business in the global economy as long as they continue to pollute and contribute to global warming with bad energy and pollution policies. Even if their stuff is the cheapest junk on the planet...DON'T BUY IT and don't allow it to come into your country. Hurting people in the pocketbook is the ONLY thing that gets through to them, especially corporations.

And, YES, tax people that go out and buy oversized vehicles that they do NOT need to get from home to work to school and to market. The ONLY reason I can see for someone NEEDING to buy a Humvee, even the new smaller version, is if their office is at the top of Mt. McKinley. And since most businesses like to be more centrally located, that ain't gonna happen anytime soon either.

Subaru makes a very nice, small, four-wheel drive vehicle...with a little incentive from governments, how easy would it be for them to reconfigure it to be a hybrid or alternative fuel vehicle that is not outrageously expensive? How hard would it be for American automakers to follow that example with a few incentives?

How about this idea, tax automakers that won't produce economical, reasonably-priced hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles and give tax breaks to ones that do? What if we did the same for all corporations? If we made it really worth their while to be environmentally friendly and really painful not to be, would corporations change? Or should the question really be how fast would they change?

Same for the average man on the street...if you make it worth his while economically to be environmentally friendly and really painful, monetarily speaking, to not be, how fast would even the most die-hard global-warming denier change? Do you think THAT would solve global warming or at least start a change for the better?

"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"

"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

Subaru makes a very nice,

Submitted by bizgrrl on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 6:06pm.

First, Subaru makes all wheel drive vehicles. Subaru drivers I know are very picky about that technicality.

Second, Ford makes a Freestyle, front wheel drive version, that gets, in my experience, the same gas mileage as the Subarus with a lot more room and comfort. Who in the majority of the US in the majority of their driving needs all wheel drive?

And, finally, Insty, who I rarely agree with, had an interesting point regarding Global Warming and sacrifice.
"A Gulfstream III releases 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide an hour. How can we demand "sacrifice" from ordinary Americans when our leaders -- including those who call for the sacrifice -- are flying in jets like this?"

During and immediately after

Submitted by redmondkr on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 6:44pm.

During and immediately after the oil embargo of the early seventies, John Denver was one of the many celebrities who were telling all us peons that we needed to conserve energy. He did this while flying around the country in his personal Lear Jet.

I think most of us would be glad to compare our "carbon loads" with that of, say, Mr. Bush.

Come See Us at

The Hill Online

funny, funny riddle

Submitted by rikki on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 7:19pm.

John Denver was one of the many celebrities who were telling all us peons that we needed to conserve energy. He did this while flying around the country in his personal Lear Jet.

Off with his head!

Seriously, I don't understand this line of reasoning. No one is advocating abstinence from energy use, just awareness and reduction. If advocates for changing our energy habits have to pass some purity test, particularly arbitrary purity tests invented by right-wing clowns, who will be left to make the case? The homeless? We are all hypocrites on this subject.

It would be difficult to

Submitted by redmondkr on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 7:37pm.

It would be difficult to remove Mr. Denver's head. I think they scattered it with the rest of his ashes.

The point I was trying to make was that many of the loudest celebrity advocates for the reduction of atmospheric CO2 will consider themselves exempt from any sacrifice.

Come See Us at

The Hill Online

He was decapitated in the

Submitted by rikki on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 9:29pm.

He was decapitated in the crash. I believe it was a glider or some sort of experimental low-fuel plane as well.

John Denver died in the

Submitted by redmondkr on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 9:47pm.

John Denver died in the crash of a newly purchased Long EZ experimental aircraft designed by Burt Rutan. Although he was technically not decapitated, what was left of the body was cremated and his ashes were scattered over the Rocky Mountains in Colorado.

Come See Us at

The Hill Online

Plankton, huh?

Submitted by Factchecker on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 1:42pm.

Most importantly, what if it has little to do with man? Say it is plankton, which carry out almost half of Earth’s photosynthesis even though they represent less than 1 percent of the planet’s biomass, that is the main problem.

We can say that, but it doesn't make sense to believe it. Real scientists who know this theory better than we do also understand many more theories, some mitigating and some not. They've sifted through everything you've heard and have weighed it all out. They've tested these theories one against another and have come into overwhelming agreement as to how all the pieces fit, and what doesn't fit.

Continuing to focus on one little factoid or another that you don't understand, just to conclude "we don't know enough," science is flawed, or it's an Al Gore conspiracy, is just like sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly to get your way. Is that your version of science, and what are your scientific credentials?

Granted there may be "thousands" of scientists who don't believe that more than a hundred years of humans cutting and slashing the globe of carbon absorbers (plant life), while burning millions of tons of fossil fuels per day, have nothing more to do with producing excess greenhouse gases than plankton failing to do their job. These scientists would constitute a relatively tiny minority of all scientists, however, and their alternate theories do not withstand peer review.

How new is sulfur-plankton cycle?

Submitted by Number9 on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 2:02pm.

These scientists would constitute a relatively tiny minority of all scientists, however, and their alternate theories do not withstand peer review.

The concern over plankton is not new. Pollution and over fishing has been a concern for decades.

If Global Warming has occurred at an accelerated rate over the past 5 decades you have to look at something very large that could account for it. Large CO2 release from combustion? Or a change in the genetic makeup of plankton? Would plankton not qualify as something very large?

I wonder why Global Warming "experts" have not peer reviewed the sulfur-plankton cycle theory to the same extent as the CO2 model. Do you think politics has anything to do with it?

You write that this theory doesn't make sense, why?

Just curious, where do the storm-water drains and sewers of coastal cities drain? Would that be the ocean, where plankton live? Maybe birth control and Prozac cause plankton problems? You do understand that modern sewage treatment plants do not remove birth-control and Prozac from waste water?

What I really appreciate is the number of people telling me to expand my thinking.

Yes rikki, I do know that would still mean that mankind is the problem.

"How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act"

Submitted by Number9 on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 7:59am.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.

"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.

"Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5 percent of the energy they receive into light."

Anyway, the solutions end of

Submitted by Sven on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 4:42pm.

Anyway, the solutions end of this topic is mindblowingly complex and includes human variables like values. It makes the science look elementary.

Personally I'm beyond stage 2; I'm convinced the impact is going to be enormous and that the consequences are going to far outweigh even the worst projected economic impacts from "doing something" that skeptics like to throw out there.

I'm still trying to get up to speed on #3, what's possible. I don't really know for sure, but it doesn't appear to me that small steps are going to do it. I think it's going to require a fundamental shift and restructuring on the scale of the Post WWII era. And you know me, being the librul that I am, I think that shift was largely a result of government policy, incentivization (sic) and conscious, collective (hiccup) effort.

I'm not sure what a new restructuring should entail exactly, but I think it's possible. And I think if the US took the lead, it would not only position us well in for the future but bring others along on our coattails.

...and I do know this dude doesn't have the answers.

Infamous cross post from Say Uncle

Submitted by Number9 on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 4:47pm.

I think I remember hearing that “we have ten years to save the oceans”, but that was, oh, about ten years ago.

That was Ted Danson. The Chief Scientist on "Cheers". Also known as "Mayday Malone".

Global Warming is real. The cause has a definitive consensus as being caused by man. That is not however scientific fact.

The question is what do we do.

Global Warming is Moveon.org 2.0. Will that help anything?

Will rockstars and actors help anything?

India and China will have more effect on climate if Global Warming is man made since they are just beginning the suburban expansion and mass use of the automobile.

Do you think the solutions for Global Warming will be equal? Or will they be biased against the economic security of America? Will it be a sliding scale where the most prosperous nations will have the greatest cost while emerging nations such as India and China can pollute at will?

It is time for a serious "hippie check". Make sure we understand what the cost is and that it is equal to all nations. If you thought Nafta and Cafta hurt this country you haven't seen anything yet. This is serious business. Let's make sure we really know what is true and don't get sucked into a UN contract that will wreck the American economy.

You know this is political when the real extremists begin to indoctrinate children.

Repeat after me: The enemy

Submitted by R. Neal on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 5:07pm.

Repeat after me:

The enemy is internal combustion.

Or more generally, just combustion.

Not cars. Not suburbs. Not coal plants. Not even coal or oil.

Combustion.

Our energy technology is still in the "caveman discovers fire" era.

Aliens or God or whoever revealed the secrets of the atom to Albert Einstein are laughing their asses off that we're still using this knowledge to boil water.

Glad you could join us

Submitted by Number9 on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 5:13pm.

Aliens or God or whoever revealed the secrets of the atom to Albert Einstein are laughing their asses off that we're still using this knowledge to boil water.

I couldn't agree more. What say we promote this to the front page and discuss it?

This is where the ice gets

Submitted by Sven on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 5:34pm.

This is where the ice gets thin for me; I just don't see how you get a civilization to convert from a [perceived] low-cost, low-yield energy source to a high-cost, [hopefully] higher-yield source without the process resembling a methadone clinic.

Rather than opening a methadone clinic

Submitted by Nelle on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 7:11pm.

... let's start by stopping the smack give-away: free roads, free parking, billions spent to compensate for the externalities of our addiction to driving (like health care costs due to asthma and car crashes), etc., etc.

Make drivers pay the full cost of their habit, provide them with safe and healthy alternatives, and they'll do it less.

You made my point better than I could...

Submitted by Number9 on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 8:37pm.

Make drivers pay the full cost of their habit, provide them with safe and healthy alternatives, and they'll do it less.

Stunning. Make them pay. Now the point of the Global Warming political agenda is clear.

How do you figure drivers do not pay the full cost of their driving habit? Explain how New Urbanism can save us when it does not accommodate markets and individual choice.

But what if they cannot pay? What then? No compassion for those who cannot accommodate your policital directive?

How do you propose to provide those safer and healthier alternatives without bankrupting the nation? This is Kunstler talk at the highest level.

Amen. But I think the key

Submitted by Sven on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 7:24pm.

Make drivers pay the full cost of their habit

Amen. But I think the key word there is "make." That word doesn't exist in politicians' vocabulary.

Dumbass wars and concern for the world my progeny inherit are sufficient motivation for change as far as I'm concerned. But some need a bolt from Zeus, apparently.

My only regret

Submitted by Nelle on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 7:33pm.

... is that I did not pull up a fainting couch for Nine before I weighed in.

I can only hope that he recovers from his case of the vapors soon and comes to see that new urbanism/smart growth/traditional neighborhood design/whatever you want to call it are about increasing transportation and housing choices, not constricting them.

Smoke Screen

Submitted by JaHu on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 7:53pm.

Although it may be a real threat, the attention given it by the government is probably nothing more than a smoke screen to divert attention away from the Iraq war.

Adrift in the Sea of Humility

rikki, how about this?

Submitted by Number9 on Tue, 2007/01/30 - 11:47pm.

(link...)

LONDON (AP) - Residents of a suburban London district will soon pay annual parking fees based on how much carbon dioxide their cars emit, penalizing owners of gas guzzlers.
Richmond council west of the capital agreed on Monday to levy a sliding scale of charges based on emissions, meaning the biggest polluters will pay 300 pounds (almost C$700) a year for the privilege of parking outside their homes.

The charges, which will come into force in May, have sparked debate among environmental groups claiming victory against road pollution and car owners alleging unfair treatment.

"Climate change is the defining issue of our age - it is clear that we must all change our behaviour to combat its effects," said Serge Lourie, leader of Richmond Council. "For our council this is just the first step in a long process that will see us bring forward policies to move our borough and council to lower carbon emissions."

Nine other councils, including that of central London, have expressed an interest in similar plans, Lourie said.

Cars with smaller engine sizes will receive a 50-per-cent discount on the current $230 cost of a parking permit. Cars with larger engines will have to pay higher prices.

Even the Canadians see through Kyoto

Submitted by Number9 on Wed, 2007/01/31 - 2:21pm.

sigh

Harper's letter dismisses Kyoto as 'socialist scheme'

Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a "socialist scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries, according to a letter leaked Tuesday by the Liberals.

The letter, posted on the federal Liberal party website, was apparently written by Harper in 2002, when he was leader of the now-defunct Canadian Alliance party.

He was writing to party supporters, asking for money as he prepared to fight then-prime minister Jean Chrétien on the proposed Kyoto accord.

"We're gearing up now for the biggest struggle our party has faced since you entrusted me with the leadership," Harper's letter says.

"I'm talking about the 'battle of Kyoto' — our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord."

The accord is an international environmental pact that sets targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

(link...)

Again, what is the solution?

Submitted by Number9 on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 9:00pm.

This week on three different blogs I have asked a simple question, what should be done about Global Warming?

For months on KnoxViews I have written about coal gasification, solar panels, electric cars, and compact fluorescent bulbs. Ironic since I am also accused of being an AGW (Anthropogenic -- human caused -- Global Warming) denier.

So far I have gotten two responses. One from Lean Left suggesting a punitive tax on carbon use. Another at Say Uncle saying we need to get away from a carbon based energy economy.

No offense, but that is pretty weak. How in any way can a tax based on carbon use make any difference?

How can any economy just up and change to a non-carbon based energy economy? Nuclear is not an option because too many people will never accept it. It also has a very long build cycle. It takes many years to bring a new nuclear power plant on line. Then of course terrorists will blow it up and some people say disposing of the nuclear waste will kill all mankind. I support nuclear but I do not see how it can be cost effective compared to other technologies.

I wrote last week that Global Warming has become a religion. This week the major conservative radio pundits hammered that theme into the ground. I guess that idea got more popular. At least in some quarters.

Tonight on ABC Television News Charlie Gibson said we have ten years to solve Global Warming but that nothing we do will matter in the next fifty years. Can anyone make sense out of that? A cry to arms but a recognition that it is hopeless in our lifetime.

I ask again, what can reasonably be done about Global Warming that will not be worse than the cure? Will anyone be willing to wreck the economy knowing that nothing we do will matter in our lifetime?

ruins

Submitted by rikki on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 10:42pm.

You didn't ask a simple question. You belittled the science, belittled the politics and said things that made it hard to take you seriously. I think you are getting ahead of yourself asking about a solution, though you seem to have found the solution nonetheless.

Do you think of switching to fluorescent bulbs as a sacrifice? The bulbs are so cheap now the payoff is almost immediate. Conservatives react to the notion of sacrifice like they are being asked to build huts from the ruins of their plundered mansions when all we need is for them to replace incandescent bulbs with fluorescents as they burn out.

Solar water heaters are another quick-payoff upgrade that will get more affordable rapidly as a market develops, just like with the bulbs. Making the adjustments needed to stabilize and reduce our emissions is not a sacrifice, it's a short-term investment in lower utility bills.

However we accomplish it, the solution is simple: produce less air pollution.

Tax breaks not new taxes

Submitted by Number9 on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 11:42pm.

However we accomplish it, the solution is simple: produce less air pollution.

rikki, wouldn't tax breaks work better than new taxes?

Which would work better, a "punitive" tax on carbon use or a $1500 credit for installing a solar water heater? Which would result in a more beneficial reduction in pollution?

Is part of this new religion that some form of sacrifice must be made? There must be pain to atone for the sin of polluting?

You have yet to comment in any way about coal gasification. Is the coal mining part of the equation part of the problem? Or that someone else suggested it?

The difference between us is that I do not need the specter of Global Warming to want to see improvements made to clean air and water. To me Global Warming is another cheap hollow political scam. Al Gore is just Michael Moore 2.0.

Tonight on ABC news it was announced that there is a 90% certainty that Global Warming is caused by man. Yet this is determined by consensus and not by equation. Any computer simulation can be faked, flawed, or cooked by slightly changing the variables or the number of variables. You more than most here know that.

But you must eat the wafer and atone.

I don't need the spectre of

Submitted by rikki on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 9:22am.

I don't need the spectre of global warming either. I wrote a column in Metro Pulse on the subject months ago mocking the whole charade and wondering why the fact that we breathe the damn stuff is not adequate cause for limiting air pollution. The negative impacts of emissions on human health are plain enough to warrant action, and acid rain, damaged ecosystems and climate change just add to the list of reasons for concern.

The way you limit or prevent something bad in a free market democracy is by making it more costly. If you read Nelle's link, you would be familiar with the market failure known as external costs. Taxation is a tool by which we can internalize costs and allow markets to adjust. Punitive taxes respect personal freedom and market forces. If you tax emissions, you give everyone the opportunity to avoid the tax by limiting their emissions. It's the only sensible approach. Tax breaks are coercive and disrupt markets.

If you want to pay less taxes, you should favor taxes on things you can avoid. And for fuck's sake, if you're terrified that the New Urbanists are coming for your lawn, why the hell are you okay with the government trying to bribe you into installing a solar water heater? You make no sense.

I'm not sure whether you actually read what I said about sacrifice. If you did, you misunderstood. Also, many months ago I wrote a piece decrying the lack of investment in coal gasification. The additional costs for cleaner coal plants are only 15 to 20% above the cost for the standard dirty plant, and the extra money would easily be repaid in reduced health care costs, but the companies building the coal plants don't pay the health care costs. You and I do, so electricity generators are STILL building new, dirty plants in 2007. An laughably modest tax on emissions would make gasification the technology of choice for all new plants, and you as a consumer would never even know the tax went into effect.

Your remarks about that 90% certainty figure and your claim that climate models can be faked further confirms what I have suspected. You don't know much about how science is conducted, and your mathematics are inadequate for understanding the science. It seems pointless to try to explain it to you until you have developed the curiosity to recognize the limits of your understanding.

Let's look at some science

Submitted by Number9 on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 11:04am.

rikki, do you have an open mind? Would you consider that not everyone in science agrees about Global Warming? My point is that the idea of calling people deniers does donate a certain prejudice that is not scientific.

Be a scientist and open your mind. Is the hockey stick real? Let's find out.

If you have an open mind you can learn more here:

Myths/ Facts about global warming (link...)

Scientific references and Technical articles (link...)

SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD
*Dr. Tim Ball, Retired Professor of Climatology Ph.D, (Doctor of Science), University of London, England.
*Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Research scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts
*Dr. Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
*Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Meteorologist retired B.Sc. in Mathematics and Physics, a M.Sc. in Statistics from India (Pune University) as well as both M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Meteorology from Florida State University
*Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology, Carleton University

Part 1 - (link...) (4:34)
Part 2 - (link...) (6:21)
Part 3 - (link...) (3:26)
Part 4 - (link...) (5:10)
Part 5 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQzXRzXpWMg(5:02)

it is pointless

Submitted by rikki on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 12:00pm.

I'm not calling you a denier. I'm calling you incompetent to judge the controversy.

You don't even comprehend what I write, so I'll stop.

We understand more about space than weather or climate

Submitted by Number9 on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 3:50pm.

I'm calling you incompetent to judge the controversy.

Who on this planet is competent to understand either weather or climate? There are millions of variables. All of this debate from both sides is based on extrapolation. Do any of you deny this?

The problem is not the computers, it is the programming. Has this become a world wide Stockholm Syndrome? Is it possible this is a mass phenomena of Experimenter's Bias?

Believe what you choose. I spoke today with a friend who was convinced Global Warming was true. When asked why he said it just made sense. That the greatest scientist of the world all agreed.

Good scientist are skeptics until proven otherwise.

Where is the mathematical equation for climate? We are using computer models that vary greatly to make political and economic decisions. A carbon based tax will only hurt the poorest of people. We should not agree to any treaty or tax or accord that exempts developing countries. Kyoto is a weapon against the economy of this nation.

If you claim that every theory on the other side is the result of a conspiracy or flawed extrapolation and that anyone who is not sold on this man made Global Warming theory is a denier. Is that not the same as a religion? You insist upon faith but allow no dissent.

This is politics it is not science. It is another tired ploy to create a World Tax. You each understand this nation will never allow a carbon based tax. Can we just fight air and water pollution for just what they are? Do we really have to join this farce?

Do any of you deny this? No,

Submitted by rikki on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 4:12pm.

Do any of you deny this?

No, I don't. I agree with you on several points, but you continue to treat me like a caricature. You react to what you expect me to say instead of what I actually say, so fuck off.

Pot says to kettle

Submitted by Number9 on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 4:31pm.

No, I don't. I agree with you on several points, but you continue to treat me like a caricature.

I treat you with respect rikki. I have never insulted you with a direct insult. I may tease you and use rhetorical devices or quote you but I have always treated you with respect. Much more than you have with me. Your statement applies much more to you than it does to me. You have gone much farther in rhetoric than I have. Do I need to remind you about the Uncle episode?

You and I agree on many things on the environment but not on how to reach the agreed upon goals. You are a Liberal and I am a Conservative. We are both environmentalist and conservationists. However, we could not disagree more on the role on the individual and the collective.

But that doesn't mean I do not agree on the end goal. Just on the journey to the solution and the reason for the solution.

Man. I'm going to start

Submitted by Eleanor A on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 5:05pm.

Man. I'm going to start posting completely idiotic theories and assertions just to keep you going, rikki. Well put.

Nine, apparently you're denying even the assertion that human activity is contributing to the warming trend. What color is the sky in your world, again?

However, we could not

Submitted by rikki on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 5:01pm.

However, we could not disagree more on the role on the individual and the collective.

You don't have any idea what I think about individuals and collectives. Assuming you do is not a form of respect. After I spoke in favor of market-based solutions that respect individual freedom, coming back at me with this stale "liberal collective" bullshit is far more insulting than calling me names.

What?

Submitted by Number9 on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 5:22pm.

After I spoke in favor of market-based solutions that respect individual freedom,

You wrote that tax credits disrupted economies. The whole tax code is based on influencing or controlling behavior. So since new taxes have greater control than tax credits that is the better idea?

That is why the flat tax people want to do away with exemptions and credits. We had a 10,000 comment thread on KnoxBlab about this.

Why do individual citizens have to have further taxes put on them to solve Global Warming? I did not create this problem. Why should America sign on to a treaty when China and India will not?

Now we have both France and Al Gore saying sign Kyoto or else. I choose or else. Al Gore can live in France for all I care. Gore is the only person on this planet that can make Hillary Clinton look Presidential.

Here is your enlightenment:

New York Times

February 1, 2007

France Tells U.S. to Sign Climate Pacts or Face Tax

By KATRIN BENNHOLD

PARIS, Jan. 31 — President Jacques Chirac has demanded that the United States sign both the Kyoto climate protocol and a future agreement that will take effect when the Kyoto accord runs out in 2012.

He said that he welcomed last week’s State of the Union address in which President Bush described climate change as a “serious challenge” and acknowledged that a growing number of American politicians now favor emissions cuts.

But he warned that if the United States did not sign the agreements, a carbon tax across Europe on imports from nations that have not signed the Kyoto treaty could be imposed to try to force compliance. The European Union is the largest export market for American goods.

“A carbon tax is inevitable,” Mr. Chirac said. “If it is European, and I believe it will be European, then it will all the same have a certain influence because it means that all the countries that do not accept the minimum obligations will be obliged to pay.”

Trade lawyers have been divided over the legality of a carbon tax, with some saying it would run counter to international trade rules. But Mr. Chirac said other European countries would back it. “I believe we will have all of the European Union,” he said.

Mr. Chirac spoke as scientists from around the world gathered in Paris to discuss an authoritative international report on climate change, portions of which will be released on Friday.

quiz

Submitted by rikki on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 11:37pm.

Your ability to misread things and impose your own presumptions on other people seems boundless.

I'm not sure you understand economics any better than science. Have you read Nelle's link? Do you know what an externality is? Can you name three kinds of market failures?

Quit, you're making me laugh

Submitted by Number9 on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 12:54am.

I'm not sure you understand economics any better than science. Have you read Nelle's link? Do you know what an externality is? Can you name three kinds of market failures?

Now you want to discuss economics? I am not sure we are done with Global Warming. You see there is more than one type of denier.

Good scientists are skeptics.

While Wegman's advice -- to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics -- may seem too obvious to need stating, the "science is settled" camp resists it. Mann's hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion.

To which Wegman, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake their heads in disbelief. As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science." With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.

Your new religion needs some work.

hack, cough

Submitted by rikki on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 7:27am.

I've already agreed with you several times on global warming despite the fact that I have good cause for suspecting statistics and risk analysis are beyond the scope of your knowledge. Not once anywhere in this thread or elsewhere have a professed any allegiance to this "religion" you are desperate to pin on someone or anyone. You can't even keep up with the conversation we are allegedly having. You need to change your avatar to a dunce cap and go sit in the corner for a week.

And we were talking about economics. Taxes, wrecking the economy, that sort of shit, remember? Or does choking on it affect your short-term memory?

A Liberal discusses skepticism

Submitted by Number9 on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 11:34am.

You need to change your avatar to a dunce cap and go sit in the corner for a week.

The avatar I have works nicely thank you.

Would you be surprised that noted Liberal blogger Dean Esmay is also a skeptic. You will notice I wrote skeptic and not denier. In other words he has an open mind. I would request you consider me as a skeptic rather than a denier. You will of course do what you feel is best.

Esamy writes, "A red flag to me is always the demand that the dissenting voice be silenced and ignored rather than answered." Bingo. This was an early red flag to me as well. When scientist use the word denier they tell you much about their confidence in their work.

Dean Esmay? Mr. "HIV does

Submitted by Sven on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 12:01pm.

Dean Esmay? Mr. "HIV does not cause AIDS?"

I can't wait for the next update: According to noted liberal thinker Lyndon LaRouche...

I will not rest until I am on that chart

Submitted by Number9 on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 12:09pm.

Dean Esmay? Mr. "HIV does not cause AIDS?"

Sven, pretty good. I don't read many Liberal blogs. I took him at his word when he said he was a Liberal. So Esmay is not a Liberal or just not a well liked Liberal?

I guess your not claiming him in the caucus?

But I did like the chart.

The relevant issue isn't

Submitted by Sven on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 12:20pm.

The relevant issue isn't whether he's a liberal, it's whether he's a "skeptic."

The scientific consensus is that he's a raving lunatic and conspiracy nut. But there are dissenters...

Messenger may be crazy but the message may be sound

Submitted by Number9 on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 12:39pm.

Based on new information let me revise the statement, "Would you be surprised that noted Liberal blogger Dean Esmay is also a skeptic" to:

Would you be surprised that ~~noted~~ Assrocket, wingnut, wanker, Liberal blogger Dean Esmay is also a skeptic?

But would you agree that regardless of the messenger that the idea that any scientists or group of people who uses the word deniers are on shaky ground?

The idea that in 2007 the word deniers is even used brings us back to a time when science was controlled and funded by the Aristocracy, which considering how funding is doled out today may not be such a poor comparison.

Across the world anyone who disagrees with the science or statistics of Global Warming is called a denier not a skeptic. Is this not evidence of a group think? Where is the confidence in the Theory?

Esmay may be a nut, but he is correct that there is a red flag in that no discussion or debate is allowed on Global Warming. Which does make it appear to be a new religion.

The formula for Global Warming:

Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

there is a red flag in that

Submitted by Sven on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 1:05pm.

there is a red flag in that no discussion or debate is allowed on Global Warming

Wow. That's a...a..categorical statement. Glenn Reynolds doesn't seem to be having any trouble recycling his obnoxious bullshit on this subject.

Anyway, there's a fine line between skepticism and skepticism for skepticism's sake, commonly known as reflexive contrarianism. I'll refer you to the quintessential skeptic, Bertrand Russell.

Sven,

Submitted by Number9 on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 1:40pm.

How could someone know if the other party in a debate or discussion has realistic meaningful concerns or that they are just as you say a reflexive contrarian? It would seem that anyone in any debate could be declared a reflexive contrarianism. Which sounds like perhaps a cousin of the aforementioned denier?

I would think there are some ways to tell the difference. I would hope it is more than the first requirement is just that they are someone that disagrees with a certain opinion of Theory. Science is about disagreement. So is politics.

My guess is there is a fine line to using words like denier and reflexive contrarian and appreciating the skepticism of those with different opinions.

Well, I think the first and

Submitted by Sven on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 2:39pm.

Well, I think the first and most important criterion is whether the purported skeptic understands the subject they're addressing.

Now that can be a tough call given the complexity of the science, which implies one would have to be an expert to judge the critic. So who am I to judge? In practice it's not that difficult; in my experience GW skeptics' assumptions and claims re based on simple errors of logic and fact, cf. Glenn Reynolds' stupid sea-level comments. Much of the "debate" over the science is a result of people throwing up clouds of such chaff, some intentionally - cf. Steven Milloy.

Once those clouds are removed, there remains a very small - and dwindling - pool of skeptical so-called experts. A good number of the remainder are disqualified by blatantly obvious conflicts of interest (yeah, yeah, that charge is thrown back at the "mainstream" scientists through the usual FUD tactics; it's akin to ideological extremists labeling the scientists who started off skeptical but are now convinced as "true believers" ).

In other words, the consensus on global warming is as complete as it gets in science. That consensus was not built by groupthink; it was a grueling, decades-long process of acquiring and interpreting the data. The true skeptics were involved in and affected the process throughout; they've already done their job admirably. The reflexive contrarians waited until it became a political hot potato, seeking ideological axe-grinding, celebrity and/or wingnut welfare checks.

And that's where Russell's rule-of-thumb for non-expert skeptics comes into play:

There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed; the dates of eclipses may serve as an illustration. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. Einstein's view as to the magnitude of the deflection of light by gravitation would have been rejected by all experts not many years ago, yet it proved to be right.

Nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.

I don't see no Einsteins on the other side of this "debate."

The conservative strategy

Submitted by Andy Axel on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 2:46pm.

The conservative strategy vis-a-vis global warming is something akin to Monty Python's "argument clinic" sketch.

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

Yeah, the argument sketch

Submitted by Sven on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 3:49pm.

Yeah, the argument sketch has been running through my head.

One of the radical fem'nists over at Pandagon has an amusing post on debate tactics and infinite regressions. She misses the obvious reference to turtles and Zeno's Paradox, though.

No, it's not.

Submitted by rikki on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 4:05pm.

No, it's not.

This isn't argument, it's

Submitted by Andy Axel on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 6:09pm.

This isn't argument, it's just contradiction.

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

Look, up in the sky...

Submitted by Number9 on Mon, 2007/02/05 - 11:57am.

Maybe Captain Planet will save us.

Now who's just being insulting?

Submitted by talidapali on Mon, 2007/02/05 - 1:54pm.

Who will save the planet? Well it certainly seems obvious it WON'T be you.

"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"

"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

Since you brought up Dick Cheney...

Submitted by Number9 on Mon, 2007/02/05 - 4:35pm.

It took a few minutes to figure out this was not a Linux ad. Actually it is disinformation from the Department of Cheney.

(link...)

The economics of the Kyoto Protocol

Submitted by Number9 on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 11:56am.

I'm not sure you understand economics any better than science.

You do not need a degree from the London School of Economics to know the Kyoto Protocol makes no sense because China and India are signatories in name only they will not adhere to Kyoto. This is why both Presidents Clinton and Bush have refused to play the game. I do not oppose a national treaty on Global Warming as long as every nation participates. Kyoto is not the answer. It is a laughable Trojan Horse designed to harm the economies of Western Capitalist Nations and it is a brilliant political strategy.

Position of the People's Republic of China

The People's Republic of China insists that the gas emissions level of any given country is a multiplication of its per capita emission and its population. China endorses this because of the advantage it would get within the new restrictions. Because China has emplaced population control measures while maintaining low emissions per capita, it claims it should therefore in both the above aspects be considered a contributor to the world environment. China considers the criticism of its energy policy unjust.[28] China is currently the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and is expected to become the largest by 2030.[29]

In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from China were about 54% of the USA emissions [1]. China is now building on average a coal-fired power plant every week and plans to continue doing so for years [2][3]. Some predictions are that China will emit more greenhouse gas than the USA in 2 or 3 years

Position of India

India signed and ratified the Protocol in August, 2002. Since India is exempted from the framework of the treaty, it is expected to gain from the protocol in terms of transfer of technology and related foreign investments. At the G-8 meeting in June 2005, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pointed out that the per-capita emission rates of the developing countries are a tiny fraction of those in the developed world. Following the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, India maintains that the major responsibility of curbing emission rests with the developed countries, which have accumulated emissions over a long period of time.

Point taken

Submitted by Number9 on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 3:45pm.

Last I checked India and China were capitalist nations. India, interestingly, is a democracy. China on the other hand is not.

Neither India or China are held to the same standard as the Western Capitalist Nations are in the proposed Kyoto Protocol. Therein is the problem. If the objective is Global Warming how can there be exemptions or excuses?

All for one and one for all. That is the only solution.

I am also not sold on the arbitrage of pollution credits. I want cleaner air and water. If Kyoto 2.0 brings that and is fair across the board I don't care if the Theory of Global Warming is valid.

Kyoto 1.0 doesn't work. Wouldn't it be better to go back to the drawing board rather than polarize and politicize Kyoto 1.0 with disagreements of science? Does anyone think Congress cares about what France does? Kyoto 1.0 as it stands will never be approved by Congress much less signed by the President.

Maybe we should strive to get the politics and economics of Kyoto 2.0 right rather than to argue about a disagreement of science that will not be resolved.

In the end the politics and economics will be more important than the science.

Welcome to the new world.

reprehensible

Submitted by rikki on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 3:33pm.

Kyoto, huh? What have I said about Kyoto?

I believe you could be having this debate all by yourself, as interested as you seem in what other people think. Do you actually believe there are just two ways to approach global warming, or that there is some sort of party line I'm pledged to?

Misreading and disregard, dodging questions and changing the subject are not signs of respect. You think you afford me respect because you don't directly insult me, but you are wrong. Getting insulted would have some entertainment value. Attempting to converse with you is merely futile.

I hope the New Urbanists come for your lawn.

Not so fast rikki

Submitted by Number9 on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 4:21pm.

Kyoto, huh? What have I said about Kyoto?

You wanted to discuss the Economics of Global Warming. So yes, you did bring it up. Kyoto is the economics of Global Warming. Did you really want me to take that quiz? I thought that was rhetorical. You rhetorical guy you.

I think there are uncountable ways to deal with Global Warming. The worst of those would be to install this dogma in a political party.

Why are there so few Friends of Science?

Submitted by Andy Axel on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 2:35pm.

You mean the oil & gas industry funded Friends of Science? There's an open mind, #9, and then there's gullible.

(link...)

Dr. Tim Ball - Ball retired from the University of Winnipeg in 1996 and a search of 22,000 academic journals shows that, over the course of his career, Ball has published 4 pieces of original research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change Ball has not published any new research in the last 11 years.

Dr. Sallie Baliunas - In the recent Union of Concerned Scientists report on Skeptics, Exxon and the tobacco industry, Baliunas is listed as being affiliated with nine organizations that have received funding from ExxonMobil.

Dr. Chris de Freitas - had been funded by an Exxon front group called the "Competitive Enterprise Institute." Also discredited repeatedly by other scientists for impropriety in peer review process. Half the editorial board of the journal Climate Change resigned in protest of his decision to submit an article, not coincidentally co-authored by Baliunas.

Dr. Madhav Khandekar - retired meteorologist; expert advisor and contributor to oil backed spin machines Envirotruth and the right-wing thinktank The Frasier Institute.

Dr. Tim Patterson - quintessential corporate activist, Patterson has associated himself with influential and notorious public relations firms, such as The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition and APCO Worldwide.

...if Dr. Tim Patterson wants to be taken seriously on his theory that sunspots have caused global warming, why is he afraid to share any graph that extends beyond 1980 (when sunspot intensity went one way and climate and temperature went another)?

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

A PR firm?

Submitted by Number9 on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 4:13pm.

You mean the oil & gas industry funded Friends of Science? There's an open mind, #9, and then there's gullible.

Andy, did you check out your first anti-reference?

James Hoggan is the president of the public relations firm James Hoggan & Associates. Over the past two decades, Jim has earned a reputation as one of Canada’s leading public relations professionals. His clients have included A&W Foods, the North West Cruise Ship Association, Vancouver Port Authority, Canadian Tire, Business Objects and Canadian Pacific Rail.

A PR firm? Almost every single link from a PR firm. You must be desperate to defend your new religion.

Each of you are insisting on peer review no matter how compromised that peer review may be. What is the source of funding for your ~~team~~ religion?

You must be desperate to

Submitted by Andy Axel on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 5:18pm.

You must be desperate to defend your new religion.

Each of you are insisting on peer review no matter how compromised that peer review may be. What is the source of funding for your team religion?

Did you even read the background of your "scientists?" They're paid flacks for ExxonMobil.

Every.
Single.
One.
Of.
Them.

Even if the information came from a PR firm, it doesn't change the simple fact: Oil companies are paying for "research" to support the claim that there's not scientific consensus over climate change.

The difference is that the people bringing you this information disclose their financial backers, unlike the "scientists" belonging to the "Friendship." Not only does Pullman say who he works for, he also says who pays to keep his site online.

The DeSmogBlog team is especially grateful to our benefactor John Lefebvre, a lawyer, internet entrepreneur and past-president of NETeller, a firm that has been providing secure online transactions since 1999. John has been outspoken, uncompromising and courageous in challenging those who would muddy the climate change debate, and he has enabled and inspired the same standard on the blog.

Editorial Assistance on the blog is provided by renowned author Ross Gelbspan and by Richard Littlemore, an award-winning science and magazine writer, a speechwriter and a senior counsellor at Hoggan. Kevin Grandia oversees the project as a whole, Sarah Pullman manages the online aspects, and both make valuable contributions to content.

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

and the spin doctors spin on...

Submitted by talidapali on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 3:39pm.

It might be easier for us to see things from your point of view if your sources weren't so deeply embedded in the pockets of Big Oil.

ExxonSecrets.org lists the organizations and research institutes that Exxon and other big oil companies PAY to obfuscate the science about Global warming. Exxon "larnt real gud frum Big Tobacco" about twisting and spinning the science to their advantage.

"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"

"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

Another technology that

Submitted by redmondkr on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 11:48pm.

Another technology that could help but is, at present quite expensive, is the geothermal-assisted heat pump. I read that the new Oak Ridge High School is making use of this. Since the ground temperature a few feet below the surface stays close to 60° F, if enough refrigerant-filled tubing is buried in the back yard, the unit is much more efficient than those using air heat exchangers. Electrical expenses and CO2 production should be reduced.

Come See Us at

The Hill Online

Scams

Submitted by Factchecker on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 12:39am.

I, too, think it was clear that you preferred the argument, 9, to getting honest suggestions for solutions. There are no shortage of good plans, that can be woven together to bridge the next century. It's not like we need to come up with the cure right here to save the world and to prove we're not hypocrites.

Also, it's not so obvious credits are better than a carbon tax. Bush offers credits now (or maybe just expired last year) on things like solar cells. Thing is it tops out at something like 10% or $2k, whichever is greater. That's as good as worthless. There is/was also a small credit for buying a hybrid, but a lot bigger one for buying a Hummer (if it was a business expense, as I understood it). These aren't solutions at all.

Credits are voluntary. If an incentive isn't good enough for the consumer, it's not going to be effective--simple as that. Bush knows that. Talk about your cheap, hollow scams! He can talk like he cares, when he obviously doesn't. Are we "addicted to oil" or is it the precious "blessed" American life, as Ari Fleisher put it?

Taxes are mandantory, OTOH. The law will ensure they're effective. As long as they are fairly applied, not overly punitive, and don't wreck the economy, I don't have a problem with the concept. No pain, no gain.

It's not always that simple, but please don't whitewash us w/ some "grow our way out of this" or "technology will save us" GOP-type crapola.

If you really think global warming is a scam, 9, why are you willing to work toward reducing greenhouse gases? Those who deny GW, like ExxonMobil's hired lobbying firm, have worked hard to convince the public that CO2 is harmless and even vital to our lives.

Any computer simulation can be faked, flawed, or cooked by slightly changing the variables or the number of variables. You more than most here know that.

Please show a selfish motive or any other connection between the scientific community and falsely convincing the public. What do they have to gain by a scam? Are you just completely paranoid?

Oh yes. Coal gasification, like lots of other technolgies, is worth pursuing as one part of the total equation. It's expensive and inefficient, though. Fossil fuels are still being burned, and thus CO2 produced. The mining still sucks too (just like uranium mining does). But coal is not going away as a fuel.

I like geothermal heat pumps and am surprised we don't hear more about them. They've been around awhile, but still don't get much attention. They're expensive and take a lot of expertise to install properly. HVAC installers especially in this area are totlally in the dark ages about this type of stuff, in my experience.

P.S.

Submitted by Factchecker on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 12:54am.

Tonight on ABC Television News Charlie Gibson said we have ten years to solve Global Warming but that nothing we do will matter in the next fifty years. Can anyone make sense out of that? A cry to arms but a recognition that it is hopeless in our lifetime.

I ask again, what can reasonably be done about Global Warming that will not be worse than the cure? Will anyone be willing to wreck the economy knowing that nothing we do will matter in our lifetime?

I have predicted for some time that the day that remaining holdouts acknowledge GW is real will be the day they advocate doing nothing at all because it's too little, too late. How convenient. What they've been about all along. No action, no sacrifice. It's not their lazy asses' fault! Personal accountability my ass.

(Similar to the way 9/11 "changed everything" for them. "We are the world's policeman and we should be nation-building. Of course we Republicans never waver in our principles.")

late edit

Submitted by Factchecker on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 12:58am.

Thing is it tops out at something like 10% or $2k, whichever is greater.

...it tops out at something like 10% or $2k, whichever is less, of course.

It's gettin' late.

Thinking outside the box

Submitted by Number9 on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 2:13am.

If you really think global warming is a scam, 9, why are you willing to work toward reducing greenhouse gases?

Because I can see more than just the political opportunism. Coal gasification will improve national security and provide jobs in this country. Solar, hydro, and conservation all reduce the amount of oil America needs to purchase from the Middle East.

What do they have to gain by a scam? Are you just completely paranoid?

Al Gore is nominated for an Oscar and the Nobel prize and you have to ask the question? I can see the Oscar nomination but the Nobel Prize nomination is pure politics.

This is just another excuse to put another tax on the American people. You write that the solution must be mandatory. How much are you willing to pay? $500, $1500, $3000? I fell for the gas tax scam. I supported it. Never again. Until I see some control in spending on the local, State and Federal level I see no need for new taxes. How many times can people be fooled?

It's not like we need to come up with the cure right here to save the world and to prove we're not hypocrites.

So then you do not believe we have only ten years left? What ABC News said tonight shows you the con. We have ten years to solve the problem but we will not see any change for fifty years. You can see that is a con job can't you?

I like geothermal heat pumps and am surprised we don't hear more about them. They've been around awhile, but still don't get much attention.

They don't work everywhere and if installed incorrectly they are a nightmare and can cost a fortune. They are like new stucco, installed correctly works great, installed poorly they can cost someone a great deal of money. If you get one look at the warranty, many times they are worthless. I have a friend who lost over $15,000 because the warranty was not honored. Do your research.

Nits

Submitted by Factchecker on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 6:39pm.

Because I can see more than just the political opportunism. Coal gasification will improve national security and provide jobs in this country. Solar, hydro, and conservation all reduce the amount of oil America needs to purchase from the Middle East.

But coal gasification is largely to combat greenhouse gases (GHG). If you believe in clean burning except for GHG (toxic pollutants and particulates only--not CO2 or methane, etc.), then natural gas should be your fuel of choice. It's pretty clean except w/r/t GHG. So why do you care about GHG? I'm surprised you don't argue that fighting GHG would wreck the precious Bush economy.

I can see the Oscar nomination but the Nobel Prize nomination is pure politics.

But you've been working the scam angle forever--certainly way before just this week when the Nobel nomination came. I guess it was naiive of me not to think the Nobel prize is so tainted in your eyes. And what is so evil and politically powerful about the Nobel??

This is just another excuse to put another tax on the American people. You write that the solution must be mandatory.

Where did I write that? Read more carefully. I said that mandatory limits can be more effective. We've been trying the voluntary approach you and Bush seem to favor. How well is that working?

[Geo heat pumps] don't work everywhere and if installed incorrectly they are a nightmare and can cost a fortune. They are like new stucco, installed correctly works great, installed poorly they can cost someone a great deal of money. If you get one look at the warranty, many times they are worthless. I have a friend who lost over $15,000 because the warranty was not honored. Do your research.

I have. We're in agreement. Maybe I didn't make it clear, but I was trying to make the same point and also know someone locally who lost a lot by a bad install job. The geology matters a lot too as to how the loop can be installed. All very tricky.

Sorry I don't have more time to get through the rest of the posts now. More later, perhaps.

I don't get Glenn's

Submitted by Rachel on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 9:51pm.

I don't get Glenn's argument. Sure there are folks who are hypocritical about global warming.

Does their hypocrisy mean the rest of us shouldn't exercise some personal responsibility?

And none of us are perfect. I recycle religiously. I keep the thermostat at 67 in the daytime and 64 at night in the winter. I drive a hybrid. The spouse bikes to work (and pretty much everywhere else). We live close to where we work, shop, etc. so we don't drive so much. We buy TVA green power.

But ask me to give up my A/C on a hot muggy August day? No way. Then I turn into a big, fat hypocrite.

But I don't think that negates all the other good stuff we do.

What ABC News said tonight

Submitted by Rachel on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 7:01pm.

What ABC News said tonight shows you the con. We have ten years to solve the problem but we will not see any change for fifty years. You can see that is a con job can't you?

Huh? This is the kind of thing you say that makes discussing stuff with you so frustrating.

This kind of thing happens all the time. For example, I can smoke for ten years, but the damage to my lungs may not show up till years later. I can take a bunch of sunbaths as a teenager and develop skin cancer in my 50s.

The Earth as a system is pretty damn complicated and complex - and large. Changes we undertake in the next ten years could very well take years to show up.

Why do individual citizens

Submitted by Eleanor A on Sat, 2007/02/03 - 8:24pm.

Why do individual citizens have to have further taxes put on them to solve Global Warming? I did not create this problem. Why should America sign on to a treaty when China and India will not?

For the record, both China and India have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Neither of them are doing what they ought to do to implement it, but there's something about this image that ought to give any right-thinking person cause:

There's also the fact that the U.S. has about twice the carbon dioxide emissions as China, and about five times as much as India.

This is like my saying I didn't vote for George Bush, so I shouldn't have to pay to support his war, or abide by his Administration's generally wrongheaded and morally bankrupt policies. Either I do that, or I go to jail. Personally, I don't see much wrong with applying this same logic to your situation. And you absolutely are helping to create this problem, purely by virtue of your status as a U.S. consumer (manufacturing processes that are wasteful and inefficient, energy produced by coal-fired plants, etc.) All these practices are what enable you to maintain your quality of life, so it's only equitable that you should give back to help maintain planetary resources. I know folks like you - of the "I got mine, screw everyone else" mentality - don't see things this way, which is why all I have to say when reading something like this:

Trade lawyers have been divided over the legality of a carbon tax, with some saying it would run counter to international trade rules. But Mr. Chirac said other European countries would back it. “I believe we will have all of the European Union,” he said.

is: GO CHIRAC!!!! And don't you believe for a minute this won't have impact, especially if the EU can start coalition building with countries in South America, S. Africa, etc.

Good lord: The question is

Submitted by Sven on Sun, 2007/02/04 - 6:21pm.

Good lord:

The question is whether what's happening now is just the natural give and take of the planet, as Erik the Red and my town's early settlers understood it. Or whether it's something so unprecedented that we need to divert vast resources to transnational elite bureaucracy so that they can do their best to cripple the global economy and deny much of the developing world access to the healthier and longer lives that capitalism brings. To the eco-chondriacs that's a no-brainer.

See, it's simple. Thousands of scientists cooked up a fantastical scare story to establish a transnational elite bureaucracy and steal the world's wealth.

Dr. Hofstadter, call you office.

Counting down...

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Mon, 2007/02/05 - 2:06pm.

"We have 10 years to save the Planet from Global Warming?"

Um, guys? We only have nine years now. Are you any closer to consensus--or is this maybe a matter to be resolved in a back hallway, outside the view of the public? ;)

Even Dick Cheney's own money manager...

Submitted by talidapali on Mon, 2007/02/05 - 2:38pm.

is finally waking up.

Cheney's Fund Manager Attacks ... Cheney

"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"

"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

too right to make a wrong

Submitted by rikki on Mon, 2007/02/05 - 3:04pm.

From that article:

Grantham reminds them of an old logical principle known as Pascal's Paradox. It may be better known as the "what if we're wrong?" argument. If we act to stop global warming and we're wrong, well, we could waste some money.

Actually, if we act to stop global warming and we're wrong, we end up with lower asthma rates, fewer cancers and lung diseases, healthier forests and oceans and cleaner air to breathe, hardly a waste.

Yes, some good can be the result

Submitted by Number9 on Mon, 2007/02/05 - 4:41pm.

Actually, if we act to stop global warming and we're wrong, we end up with lower asthma rates, fewer cancers and lung diseases, healthier forests and oceans and cleaner air to breathe, hardly a waste.

Let's either fight air pollution for what it is and stop the scare tactics or have another go at Kyoto that is fair for all countries. China is building a coal fired power plant at a rate of one every three to seven days. Are we supposed to just give them a pass?

Each country should fight Air pollution. It is very similar to the paper mill in North Carolina that pollutes towns in Tennessee downstream.

Our air pollution eventually reaches France, so of course they are upset. But China's and India's air pollution eventually reaches America and it is really really stupid to give them a pass when Americans are expected to sacrifice across the board.

Of course you will tell me why this is really really stupid of me to think this.

Please do.

stop the scare tactics

Submitted by Sven on Mon, 2007/02/05 - 7:08pm.

stop the scare tactics
It just came out today that only 13% of GOP legislators believe humans play a role in climate (as opposed to 95% of Dems). Now that's scary.

have another go at Kyoto that is fair for all countries

Again, the GOP doesn't believe in the science at all. As i mentioned in the other thread started by Les, the Dems attempted to renegotiate Kyoto 10 years ago when the GOP indicated it would kill the treaty. But the GOP preemptively killed the revision effort, and then spun it around to say Clinton "refused to submit" the treaty for a ratification vote.

Are we supposed to just give them a pass?

We are giving them a pass. It's the exact same strategy we pursued with North Korean nukes; act tough and don't do jack shit until the problem can't be fixed.

Kyoto is almost ten years old

Submitted by Number9 on Tue, 2007/02/06 - 12:38pm.

We are giving them a pass. It's the exact same strategy we pursued with North Korean nukes; act tough and don't do jack shit until the problem can't be fixed.

Without retooling Kyoto how can this move forward as a World Wide protocol?

Why don't you just say,

Submitted by Eleanor A on Tue, 2007/02/06 - 7:08pm.

Why don't you just say, "While exempting the Republican Party from reasonable expectations regarding stewardship of the nation's (and the planet's) air, water and soil resources, how can this move forward?" Because that's the upshot of your query, here. Or does Sven's post somehow not translate into your language?

the Dems attempted to renegotiate Kyoto 10 years ago when the GOP indicated it would kill the treaty. But the GOP preemptively killed the revision effort, and then spun it around to say Clinton "refused to submit" the treaty for a ratification vote.

?

Submitted by Number9 on Tue, 2007/02/06 - 7:17pm.

the Dems attempted to renegotiate Kyoto 10 years ago when the GOP indicated it would kill the treaty. But the GOP preemptively killed the revision effort, and then spun it around to say Clinton "refused to submit" the treaty for a ratification vote.

Are you talking about President Clinton or Congress? Who are the dems? How could the dems "renegotiate" Kyoto and what do you mean by renegotiate?

Just what I said:

Submitted by Sven on Tue, 2007/02/06 - 8:39pm.

Just what I said:

- the Clinton administration participated in the Kyoto talks, which resulted in a draft (at that stage it was protocol).

- After the talks were over, the Republicans in the Senate said the administration shouldn't sign the protocol and that there was no way they'd vote for ratification under the terms that were presented.

- Because ratification requires a 2/3 majority, Kerry said the administration could open the talks again at an upcoming conference in Europe and address the GOoPers concerns - primarily the China/India issue

- The GOopers formalized their objections in a resolution. Kerry and most Dems voted in favor in hopes of bringing along the GOopers to consider a revised treaty. It passed.

- The GOopers then said there was no way in hell they'd vote for any treaty. They started the usual nyah nyah at Kerry and Co. for voting for the resolution, saying it proved he really didn't like Kyoto and his support was just posturing and that he was trying to have it both ways.

- The administration decided not to attempt to submit any form of the treaty, in the vain hope of keeping it alive until circumstances changed. It signed the protocol a year later. Had the Senate taken a vote, it would have meant the US withdrawing as a signatory - which it still hasn't.

- The GOpers to this day cynically blame the failure of the Kyoto process on Clinton, because he didn't submit the treaty for ritual slaughter in the Senate.

It's the same stupid kafookinbooki the GOP practices to this day.

I don't know if global

Submitted by JaHu on Tue, 2007/02/06 - 12:07am.

I don't know if global warming is directly a result of man or if it is a normal climatic change, but here are some beautiful but disturbing photos of global warming -

McCarty/Muir

Holgate/Carroll

Toboggan/Pedersen

Adrift in the Sea of Humility

I wonder whether Niner can

Submitted by rikki on Thu, 2007/02/08 - 2:37pm.

I wonder whether Niner can handle a solutions-oriented discussion of climate change written for an 8-year-old?

Religious Debate

Submitted by KTB on Thu, 2007/02/08 - 4:59pm.

Global Warming is a religious debate. It may also be a political or scientific debate in some regards but at the roots it is, and always will be, a religious debate (along with evolution).

KTB

Making claims without

Submitted by rikki on Thu, 2007/02/08 - 5:16pm.

Making claims without supporting them is not debate at all.
Perhaps you can define the differences between scientific debate and religious debate so the rest of us can understand what you are trying to say.

Making claims without supporting them

Submitted by KTB on Thu, 2007/02/08 - 5:43pm.

I apologize rikki I didn't realize this statement needed any support. Simply stated, most people are going to agree that the planet is warming (or at least cyclical in cooling and warming). The debate is really about if it will get warm enough to kill (or impair) the human race.

This of course boils down to a religious debate. Does God exist? If so, does he have the power to control the climate of the universe and save the human race if necessary?

If you don't believe in a God or you believe in a higher power that has no control of the universe then you must make everyone aware of a number of assumptions about the earth/universe before you can really debate the issue of global warming.

KTB

I'm still not sure I'm

Submitted by rikki on Thu, 2007/02/08 - 6:12pm.

I'm still not sure I'm following you. Are you saying the critical question is whether God will intervene and fix Earth's climate if we generate enough pollution to mess it up? That certainly seems like a religious question.

If we declare that humans should just take responsibility for the pollution they produce and not burden God with what we can handle ourselves, does that return the debate to the realm of science and politics?

Standards of Evidence

Submitted by Andy Axel on Thu, 2007/02/08 - 5:47pm.

I think that this person is saying that empiricism is a faith in and of itself, and that you have to choose to "believe in it" in order for it to have any merit.

It's a retrograde way to look at science and at standards of evidence, but then again, consider the source.

ETA: I see I crossposted, but the actual explanation makes no friggin' sense whatsoever.

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

It's logical that it's about

Submitted by Sven on Thu, 2007/02/08 - 5:58pm.

It's logical that it's about faith, therefore it's not logical.

Looks like we picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines.

Since I've spent so much

Submitted by rikki on Thu, 2007/02/08 - 6:21pm.

Since I've spent so much time this week bitching at the digit for presuming to know what I think, I'd be remiss in not pointing out that you are doing exactly the same thing to KTB.

Fair, Balanced, Etc.

Submitted by Andy Axel on Thu, 2007/02/08 - 6:37pm.

You're no longer remiss.

Duly noted.

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

Digital Biota

Submitted by Andy Axel on Thu, 2007/02/08 - 6:14pm.

...[I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well! It must have been made to have me in it!"

This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky, and the air heats up and as gradually the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright because this world was meant to have him in it; was built to have him in it.

So, the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

--Douglas Adams

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

Sorry For The Confusion

Submitted by KTB on Thu, 2007/02/08 - 6:18pm.

Sorry for the confusion folks. My point was simply that your political and scientific beliefs will always be directed by your religious ideologies. Everybody has some belief about the nature of the creation of the earth which has everything to do with the arguments made about global warming.

Update: I cross posted again. Rikki. Yes, if you assume that human beings can actually change the global nature of the earth then it would be a political/science debate. It is altogether possible though that humans have no power to change the climate of the earth/universe.

KTB

My point was simply that

Submitted by Rachel on Thu, 2007/02/08 - 6:28pm.

My point was simply that your political and scientific beliefs will always be directed by your religious ideologies.

That's a pretty bold statement, and I'm not at all sure I buy it. But even if I did, couldn't the converse also be true - that one's knowledge of science (I'm not going to use the phrase "scientific beliefs") informs one's religious beliefs (or lack thereof)?

It is altogether possible

Submitted by Andy Axel on Thu, 2007/02/08 - 6:31pm.

It is altogether possible though that humans have no power to change the climate of the earth/universe.

They have every ability to modify the biosphere -- through deforestation, fishing, and pollutant loading.

Humans modify microclimates all the time. Ever hear of an urban heat island?

Six billion people consuming air, land, fossil, and water resources has cumulative effects all over the place, and you are clearly either blind, or not looking, or shamelessly dishonest if you don't see that.

Why is it such a stretch to believe that human activity has an impact on global climate? It's a bigger stretch to be in denial about it, if you ask most serious scientists (and most of the others are funded by the oil lobby, so take what they say with extraordinary skepticism).

This whole notion of human incapability is a perversion of a speech I heard given by James Lovelock (author of the Gaia Hypothesis) once, entitled "The Earth is not Fragile." Environmentalists have been overly alarmist before, the theory goes -- but never once does Lovelock ever say that humans are incapable of ghastly environmental damage. A measure of perspective is necessary. What he concludes is that environmentalism and the study of ecology is about self-preservation.

Let's be clear here. "The Earth" is not fragile. The planet as it is will most probably survive millions of years once humans are gone.

Human existence, however, is fragile. And it it quite possible for people to extirpate themselves from this planet by exhausting their resources or changing the narrow band of conditions which supports life.

Religious types are needlessly fatalistic in the face of this threat, IMNSHO, and they try to hide behind bad science to make themselves look credible.

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

All we really need to assume

Submitted by rikki on Thu, 2007/02/08 - 6:48pm.

All we really need to assume is that humans can change the amount of air pollution their machines emit. That seems plainly true to me.

As to whether we can change the climate of the planet we live on, living things have done that many times. In fact, the current composition of our atmosphere is determined largely by living things. Literally all the oxygen available to us is generated by plants.

Asteroids and volcanoes can alter the climate, and if you add up all the pollution Earth's six billion humans generate, it's more than what your average volcano spits out, though certainly not as much as some of the really big eruptions. In any case, I think most people prefer to breathe clean air and would rather not endure all the asthma and lung disease we'd have to put up with while waiting to learn whether we can create enough pollution to sink Manhattan.

thank you

Submitted by KTB on Thu, 2007/02/08 - 11:07pm.

I just wanted to thank every one for their constructive criticism. I am fairly new to these forums and find them very helpful in clarifying thoughts. I also want to apologize for my less than perfect communication skills and I am hoping to develop them by making comments on this board among other discussion forums.

After reviewing your comments I still believe religion does play a role in the thoughts of many people on the issue of global warming but it is definetly not true for everyone.

I am now convinced that people can impact the climate as many of you have shown but I also believe that there could be external factors involved in global warming that may not as of yet been discovered.

Thanks again for your kind comments and criticisms to my posts.

KTB

Well we can look at it this way...

Submitted by talidapali on Fri, 2007/02/09 - 12:58am.

either we do nothing, which leads ultimately to our demise as a species. Maybe not in the near future but sometime, because our supplies of fossil fuels are finite...they will run out...what do we do then? Freeze to death in the winter? So even if for no other reason, we should be developing alternative fuels and energy sources for mere survival instincts.

Or, we can take the religious approach that Jaysus will come back and sweep us all up into the air and haul us off to heaven, except of course all the unbelievers, who will go to Hell to roast in eternal fires of damnation so THEY won't have to worry about running out of fossil fuels and freezing to death and heck, global warming will seem like a picnic to them.

Or we can take the fatalistic view that there is a giant asteroid out there with our number on it so, sit back and burn baby burn, since we're all gonna die anyway. Smoke up the atmosphere, muck up the water, once that hunk of rock obliterates us it won't matter if we all have cancer and a third arm growing out of the tops of our heads due to mutations caused by pollution.

Me, I prefer to take the long view and have faith in our ingenuity that we will find a way to protect ourselves from space rocks. That we will solve the inherent dangers and difficulties in space travel well enough to begin spreading out to the stars and increasing our chances as a species to avoid total annihilation by spreading our people far and wide so that no single event can wipe us all out. And taking that long view means we have to start doing things now to ensure that we don't kill ourselves with our own toxins and poisons before we can come up with those other solutions.

Who knows...the great big sky father may return tomorrow and save us all, but what if he doesn't? When you look at your children and grandchildren, how will you explain to them why they cannot play outside or even breathe? And why their socks are so wet?

"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"

"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

If I can indulge you for a

Submitted by rikki on Fri, 2007/02/09 - 2:10am.

If I can indulge you for a moment longer, here is something I wrote recently that I'd be interested in your thoughts on:

"The scientific method was devised by Christians. Many early scientists were monks. The fundamental idea of science is to study only that which can be directly and repeatedly observed. Just as Creationists are certain God wrote every word in the Bible, the founders of scientific study were certain He created the world. Science gave them a disciplined way to learn from Creation. By carefully documenting observations and testing conclusions, they could eliminate human error and distill knowledge derived from the world to the same purity as Biblical truths."

You seem to be under the impression that science and religion are at odds. They are complementary. I will grant you many atheists are scientists, but science itself is not opposed to God. It is a way to learn directly from Creation. Science doesn't teach us much about love, forgiveness, family, all the things the Bible covers. It expands a few lines in Genesis into a rich and endless history.

Discussing:

Georgia issues burn ban, first time in state history (2 replies)
State of TN proposes exempting voucher students from standardized testing (1 reply)
Feds indict civil rights group (2 replies)
UAE asks for financial assistance? (1 reply)
Are our deployed military going hungry? (1 reply)
Tennessee passes bill to restrict college students' protests (1 reply)
Inflation up, gas up, food up, consumer sentiment lowest ever (1 reply)
Some AI uses are "outside the bounds of safe/reliable technology" (2 replies)
A Letter to the U.S. Congress (1 reply)
President: we can't take care of daycare, Medicare, Medicaid (1 reply)
U.S. House Democratic Leadership says to Stop the Madness (1 reply)
Am I missing something? (1 reply)

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Wire Reports

Local Media

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Comment viewing options

Discussing:

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Wire Reports

Local Media

Lost Medicaid Funding

Search and Archives

TN Progressive

Nearby:

Beyond:

At large:

Government

About