Obama Announces New Climate Plan

[Ridgerunner]

Actually, in Pennsylvania, it’s the Amish. They still use horses. The only electricity they use comes from generators, no power lines allowed. The reason for that is many have dairy farms and they need the technology for sanitary reasons.

Cell phones are somewhat of a controversy, because there is no physical connection to the English world.

I do like how the Amish assess technology and its effects on the community before they allow it.

Apparently it varies from place to place, then. Around here, there are a lot of Amish, but you almost never see the buggies. They’re all in pickup trucks. They run sawmills, slaughterhouses and construction companies as well as farming, and they use regular power for all of that. But they do wear the clothes and live fairly sparing lives despite the fact that they generally have a lot more money than one would guess by their appearance.

They pay cash for everything. An interesting side note: They go to the doctor just like everybody else, and they pay cash at the window, first getting a discount. Why the discount? Because there’s no costly and tedious billing of some third party involved.
Doctors are happy to give it to them.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I suspect I will get audited shortly.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Apparently it varies from place to place, then. Around here, there are a lot of Amish, but you almost never see the buggies. They’re all in pickup trucks. They run sawmills, slaughterhouses and construction companies as well as farming, and they use regular power for all of that. But they do wear the clothes and live fairly sparing lives despite the fact that they generally have a lot more money than one would guess by their appearance.

I think I would like to be Amish if it weren’t for their theology.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think I would like to be Amish if it weren’t for their theology.

One could do worse. But it has to be realized that they have a lot more capital than one would guess. They’re not out there scratching rented land for pennies. If they need a $100,000 tractor, they’ll buy it and have the money to do it. But yes, they do butcher their own beef, raise and can or freeze their own produce, sew their own clothes (for the most part) Although I try to avoid ever going into Walmart, I see them there a lot, and usually they’re buying basic “ingredient” type stuff, including cloth, but also including sugar, spices, canning supplies. I have a feeling they eat perhaps simply but very well. You almost never see a fat one, but I think that’s because they’re so physical in their activities.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I know you are not that old!

1939 St. Louis smog

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4d/Man_Lights_Cigarette_in_Daylight_-Black_Tuesday_1939.jpg/220px-Man_Lights_Cigarette_in_Daylight-_Black_Tuesday_1939.jpgA man lights a cigarette as streetlights along Olive glow during the daylight hours of November 28, 1939. St. Louis Post-Dispatch

It was in the late 1960’s, early 1970s. It wasn’t like that every day, but now and then there would be a really cold day and (I guess) an inversion layer or something, and that smoke would not go anywhere. It would just come out of the chimneys and hang. It was black. I just figured it was coal.

As I think you know, I went to SLU for grad school. That black coal smoke didn’t penetrate that far west, but sometimes there would be this sort of orange haze that irritated the nose. I always thought it was coming from across the river where some of those factories belched orange smoke. But I never really knew.

My father sometimes traveled to St. Louis in the 1920s by rail. He said the smoke was so thick around Union Station and downtown that it was like dusk at noon. It’s interesting in st. Louis to look at the bricks under the sills and overhangs of old buildings. They’re still black from that old smoke because the rain since then hasn’t washed it off.

 

[qui_est_ce]

One could do worse. But it has to be realized that they have a lot more capital than one would guess. They’re not out there scratching rented land for pennies. If they need a $100,000 tractor, they’ll buy it and have the money to do it. But yes, they do butcher their own beef, raise and can or freeze their own produce, sew their own clothes (for the most part) Although I try to avoid ever going into Walmart, I see them there a lot, and usually they’re buying basic “ingredient” type stuff, including cloth, but also including sugar, spices, canning supplies. I have a feeling they eat perhaps simply but very well. You almost never see a fat one, but I think that’s because they’re so physical in their activities.

They’re wealthy because they don’t spend their money of frivolous stuff. They also don’t buy insurance. They get together to help one another rebuild.

I have heard they eat a lot of unhealthy food. Mashed potatoes and gravy, bread and butter, that sort of thing. But, as you say, they need the calories.

I did not know you went to grad school at SLU. I got my undergraduate there. Back in the day of Laclede Town.!

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

That makes you one of Obama’s “flat earthers”. Your membership card will probably go into the mail today.

Besides, Bob, the heaviest burden of increased energy costs will fall on the poor, and why should liberals care any more about the poor now than they have in the past?

Given the science, Obama is completely right to disregard the voices of those who insist on denying the fact of climate change because they find said facts politically inconvenient. The fact that the only arguments I’ve seen on this tread (in my skimming) are:

“But scientists in the past with less information came to the opposite opinion, because it’s not as if over 30 years of science could have possibly shed more light on the issue.” (BTW, scientists were, as I understand, split on this issue in the 70s, but those were THE 70S. It’s 2013 and it’s clear now that the climate is warming, and if you disagree, show me the peer reviewed papers. What minuscule debate there is does not dispute the fact that the climate is warming, but the cause of that warming. And I feel the need to emphasize that that debate is MINUSCULE. Climate change is not any more debatable then the negative effects of cigarettes, which people denied when they were first discovered and cigarette companies still try to get away with denying now.)

and

“But the scientists COULD be wrong, after all, they have changed their minds before.” (Yes, they have, sort of. In this case, it was more converging on a consensus from multiple views, but either way, can you give me anything other then possibility that they MIGHT be wrong, such as presenting your own evidence that they ARE wrong to the scientific community for review? You tend to get rather famous when you overturn a major consensus like this.)

Either way, I ask you:

1: How did the left arrange that every ounce of data from actual scientific studies, which have not been shown to be erroneous, (such as the satellite which you are sure to mention, which was shown years ago to have gradually drifted it’s temperature reading into later in the day, when it’d obviously be cooler) shows the earth is warming, and has for many years now?

2: How did they manage to ensure that virtually all scientists agree that man is the cause?

3: Why are we losing glaciers?

I am sorry, :banghead: I get :banghead: a bit frustrated :banghead: with people :banghead: who deny :banghead: the scientific consensus :banghead: on certain issues. :banghead:

So then, regarding the issue of the poor, I think it’s clear that the negative effects of climate change are likely to be disastrous, such as the destruction of marine ecosystems, which will lower the amount of food available and increase the cost of fish, an occurrence which will also hit the poor hardest.

 

[estesbob]

Given the science, Obama is completely right to disregard the voices of those who insist on denying the fact of climate change because they find said facts politically inconvenient. The fact that the only arguments I’ve seen on this tread (in my skimming) are:

“But scientists in the past with less information came to the opposite opinion, because it’s not as if over 30 years of science could have possibly shed more light on the issue.” (BTW, scientists were, as I understand, split on this issue in the 70s, but those were THE 70S. It’s 2013 and it’s clear now that the climate is warming, and if you disagree, show me the peer reviewed papers. What minuscule debate there is does not dispute the fact that the climate is warming, but the cause of that warming. And I feel the need to emphasize that that debate is MINUSCULE. Climate change is not any more debatable then the negative effects of cigarettes, which people denied when they were first discovered and cigarette companies still try to get away with denying now.)

and

“But the scientists COULD be wrong, after all, they have changed their minds before.” (Yes, they have, sort of. In this case, it was more converging on a consensus from multiple views, but either way, can you give me anything other then possibility that they MIGHT be wrong, such as presenting your own evidence that they ARE wrong to the scientific community for review? You tend to get rather famous when you overturn a major consensus like this.)

Either way, I ask you:

1: How did the left arrange that every ounce of data from actual scientific studies, which have not been shown to be erroneous, (such as the satellite which you are sure to mention, which was shown years ago to have gradually drifted it’s temperature reading into later in the day, when it’d obviously be cooler) shows the earth is warming, and has for many years now?

2: How did they manage to ensure that virtually all scientists agree that man is the cause?

3: Why are we losing glaciers?

I am sorry, :banghead: I get :banghead: a bit frustrated :banghead: with people :banghead: who deny :banghead: the scientific consensus :banghead: on certain issues. T

So then, regarding the issue of the poor, I think it’s clear that the negative effects of climate change are likely to be disastrous, such as the destruction of marine ecosystems, which will lower the amount of food available and increase the cost of fish, an occurrence which will also hit the poor hardest.

How does the left explain there’s been no warming for 16 years and not a single model the so called experts put together in the last decade has come even close to predicting the average global temperature today. Sorry-fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I am not willing to invest one penny into this farce

 

[qui_est_ce]

How does the left explain there’s been no warming for 16 years and not a single model the so called experts put together in the last decade has come even close to predicting the average global temperature today. Sorry-fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I am not willing to invest one penny into this farce

Now Bob, you are not a “climate” scientist. :crying:

 

[estesbob]

Now Bob, you are not a “climate” scientist. :crying:

Neither is Obama

 

[Ridgerunner]

Neither is Obama

Nor is anybody else. It isn’t a science all its own. If you look at the credentials of the “experts” they’re everything from dendrologists to geologists to meteorologists.

It is true that those who claim to be “climate scientists” and claim MMGW is a fact, are a minority in each discipline. Most geologists, for example, do not claim to be “climate scientists”, and do not pontificate on MMGW. Most meterologists, on the other hand, do not agree that there is MMGW.

 

[Ridgerunner]

1: How did the left arrange that every ounce of data from actual scientific studies, which have not been shown to be erroneous, (such as the satellite which you are sure to mention, which was shown years ago to have gradually drifted it’s temperature reading into later in the day, when it’d obviously be cooler) shows the earth is warming, and has for many years now?

2: How did they manage to ensure that virtually all scientists agree that man is the cause?

3: Why are we losing glaciers?

I am sorry, :banghead: I get :banghead: a bit frustrated :banghead: with people :banghead: who deny :banghead: the scientific consensus :banghead: on certain issues. :banghead:

So then, regarding the issue of the poor, I think it’s clear that the negative effects of climate change are likely to be disastrous, such as the destruction of marine ecosystems, which will lower the amount of food available and increase the cost of fish, an occurrence which will also hit the poor hardest.

I can’t say why any particular “indicator” of MMGW was selected by those who want to make a case for it. Undoubtedly, the selected the material that they felt supported their positions. All promoters of a point of view do that.

“Virtually all scientists” do not agree that MMGW exists. “Virtually all scientists” have expressed no opinion on the matter. A significant number of scientists and non-scientists from various disciplines have said there is MMGW, but they are a relative handful of the wordwide number of scientists. As mentioned before, the majority of meteorologists do not share the MMGW ideology.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/

Regarding the poor, you are citing an uncertain proposition about food availability, etc against the certainty of increased costs of heating and cooling their homes, keeping their food from spoiling, and the cost of everything they buy.

And since further reducing carbon emissions in the U.S. as proposed will have no effect whatever on wordwide emissions or anticipated increases therof, it’s all for nothing.

Obama’s “War on Energy” is absolutely a “Preemptive War” against an enemy that nobody knows actually exists, and can’t be conquered by the proposed means even if it does exist. But the “casualties” are obvious. And the most obvious casualties of it are the poor. But as is typical of the politicians on the left, they’re willing to have the poor pay the price; a price they are not willing to pay themselves.

And why do the Al Gores and the Barack Obamas and the Robert Kennedy Jr’s not cut down on their own massive emissions? Because they don’t believe in it, and are simply raising money from environmentalist groups.

 

[Holly3278]

I’ll be honest, I don’t see anything wrong with this. In fact, I see it as possibly a good thing. I don’t like that it will burden energy companies though.

But anyway God gave us stewardship over this earth which means that we need to do what we can to mitigate the effects of climate change and hopefully this step will help with that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’ll be honest, I don’t see anything wrong with this. In fact, I see it as possibly a good thing. I don’t like that it will burden energy companies though.

But anyway God gave us stewardship over this earth which means that we need to do what we can to mitigate the effects of climate change and hopefully this step will help with that.

With all due respect to your right to have an opinion, your statement assumes two things that are not certitudes: First, that there is manmade climate change, Second that these measures will reverse it.

The first is questionable, and the second is absolutely untrue, since they will have no effect on global warming if, indeed, there is global warming going on.

The thing wrong with it is that the burden of increased energy costs fall most heavily on those who are least able to afford it. It sometimes strikes me as amusing that most people (which might not include you) who favor programs that will increase energy costs are the same people who oppose a “flat tax” because it’s perceived as regressive. You couldn’t ask for a more regressive “tax” than artificially increasing energy costs.

 

[SamH]

No, because it didn’t. As the scientific community can confirm, climate change is still a problem and has not stopped.

The day the climate quits changing we all in trouble.

 

[SamH]

The first is questionable, and the second is absolutely untrue, since they will have no effect on global warming if, indeed, there is global warming going on.
.

Agreed.

If you have any doubts - ask what the measurable effects will be.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would like to correct my earlier post.

A majority of meteorologists believe there is global warming going on. A majority believe human activities affect that. A small minority believes it will have any negative effects. The majority does not think it does or will. A strong majority believes the “jury isn’t in” on whether there is MMGW or not. A very strong majority believes the lack of unanimity on the subject truly exists and is a good thing.

As to human activities, there are several that can affect air temperatures. One very interesting scientist holds that most GW effects are actually due to desertification. Most desertification, he maintains, is due to poor management of grazing animals in vulnerable regions. It’s very interesting. One can actually experience it for himself. If, on a hot sunny day, one feels the air above a bare and dessicated bit of earth, one can feel a great deal of heat coming up from the ground that is not there if the ground is covered with grass. ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html

This guy is not a “denier” by any environmentalist’s standard. It’s interesting to watch his presentation, and I recommend it.

Mr. Savory is not at all impressed with governmental land management which, he believes, encourages desertification and prevents its reversal. What an irony it would be if the government itself was responsible for more GW than energy production, while the government goes after the second and ignores the first!

 

[edwest2]

Bingo. In burning spent fuel, one of the stages results in an isotope that is very well suited for use in nuclear weapons. The fact that this can still be burned and rendered safe doesn’t matter because ZOMG ATOMZ.

What you are missing is the money made from mining uranium. Who wants to burn something and make it safe? Let’s spend billions on searching for underground rock formations and more on encasing the stuff and more on monitoring equipment. There’s money in that. But do we have that up and running?

Son, I say, son, can’t make no money then why bother? Kids nowadays. They can’t understand makin’ more then a fella can know what ta do with.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

How does the left explain there’s been no warming for 16 years and not a single model the so called experts put together in the last decade has come even close to predicting the average global temperature today. Sorry-fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I am not willing to invest one penny into this farce

In case anyone missed it - how accurate are weather predictions in the United States for the next few days? I’ve decided looking out the window when I get up is the best solution.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

One would think before we started to spend trillions to combat global warming there should at least be global warming taking place.

But… but… we need to spend trillions on something.

Ed