John Coleman is a TV weatherman and founder of the Weather Channel. This is his take on global warming. It should be pointed out that Coleman is not a scientist, but then neither is Al Gore.
Top Stories
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Saturday, January 02, 2010
What do you think about global warming?
What I think about global warming can’t be put on a bumper sticker, not does it make a nice slogan. I think the issue is complicated with a lot of unknowns and there is a lot of components to the question. The question, “What do you think about global warming?” is really several questions. Do you think it is occurring? If that question is answered in the affirmative then that leads to other questions. If it is occurring, is it manmade? If it is manmade, what should we do about it? Assuming it is occurring, how severe is it? Do we have time to stop it? Can it be stopped? Below are my thoughts at this time.
(1) Climategate cast doubt on the theory of global warming. Climategate revealed data tampering, conspiracy and group-think. It showed that some scientist reached conclusions and forced the evidence to support the conclusions. Evidence that did not support the conclusions was doctored to show something it didn’t and then the raw data was destroyed. Scientist resisted efforts to comply with freedom of information acts and resisted efforts for others to see their research. Scientist who did not support the dominant theory were marginalized and silenced. For me, Climategate threw serious doubt on the validity the theory.
(2) Climategate does not negate the other evidence however. Despite the revelations of climategate there is still a large body of evidence that supports the climate change theory. There are hundreds of scientists throughout the world studying this issue. Many governments, organizations, and scientist all came to the same conclusion that climate change is occurring and it is manmade. I find it hard to believe that climate change theory is all a hoax and is a large enough hoax to encompass all of the individuals and agencies involved. Also, there is the physical evidence of shrinking glaciers and melting icecaps. I do not believe JFK was assassinated by elements of the CIA, or that 9-11 was an inside job, or that the moon landing was faked. I have a hard time believing in grand conspiracies. It is hard to get a large number of people to perpetuate a hoax or keep a secret. On balance, Climategate cast doubt on the theory of global warming but did not disprove it.
(3) The Consensus on global warming is less solid than has been presented. There are reasonable people and credentialed scientist who are critics of the theory or some aspects of the theory. These critics have been hushed and should be given a voice and platform. The science should not be considered settled.
(4) Climate change is occurring and has always occurred. The earth has always been cooling or warming. Climate has never been stable. That climate change is occurring and that there is a warming trend seems undeniable.
(5) We do not know the ideal temperature of the earth. Is one half of one degree less than it is today the ideal temperature? What should the temperature be? How do we know that what is occurring is not a natural fluctuation. The climate warmed in previous periods prior to man’s ability to impact it. If man’s production of global warming pollutants is causing global warming, perhaps it is even a good thing and is helping us avoid another ice age. How do we know that manmade global warming is not a countervailing force to global cooling? Maybe the scientist of the 60’s were correct after all and the world was heading for another ice age until manmade global warming reversed the trend. I have these doubts but will acquiesce and assume that global warming is a bad thing. I do wonder however how one determines that a degree less or a degree more is not really the ideal or natural temperature of the earth.
(6) Assuming climate change is global warming and it is manmade, I do not know that anyone knows what to do about it. Copenhagen accomplished virtually nothing and global warming emissions increased under Kyoto. Assuming global warming is occurring and assuming it is manmade; the prospects for stopping it are not very encouraging. Poor countries understandably are not willing to forgo the economic development that the prosperous countries enjoyed. I don’t blame them. In times of economic downturn, many in the developed countries are not willing to accept a curtailment of growth that would most likely be necessary to combat global warming and they are not willing to pay a fee to poorer, often corrupt, countries for those countries foregoing development.
(7) The current proposal for Cap and Trade will do virtually nothing to curtail global warming emission and will be detrimental to economic growth and simply expand government. In theory cap and trade could successfully curtail CO2 emissions. The cap and trade bill under consideration however, gives away too many credits and is in essence a tax on consumers. A revenue-neutral cap and trade with no give away of credits could possibly work, but has never been proposed. Another problem with proposed cap and trade is the use of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets are fraudulent and fictitious. A better method of reducing carbon emission would be a revenue neutral carbon tax.
(8) Carbon-based fuel should cost more. Even if global warming theory is incorrect we need to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We need to do it for our national security. People will not conserve simply because it is a noble thing to do. If energy cost more, people would change their behavior. When gas was $4 a gallon people used less of it. If gas prices had stayed high we would have seen the popularity of smaller vehicles and carpooling. Over time high energy prices would cause people to choose to live closer to work instead of far-flung suburbs and houses with less square feet would be more desirable. Alternative fuels would flourish if only carbon based fuels cost more. Tinkering with CAFE standards and Cash for Clunkers programs and exhortations to combine trips and properly inflate your tires are going to have minimal impact on use of carbon fuels.
(9) Even if we had in place a workable cap and trade policy or a carbon tax and international treaties, I do not know that there is time enough to curtail carbon emissions sufficient to stop global warming. Assuming global warming is occurring, how fast is it occurring? I don’t know if the IPCC overestimates the danger from warming or underestimates it. According to Al Gore. the polar ice caps will be melted within five years. Other global warming alarmists likewise warn that the end is near. Even if we took immediate steps to radically reduce carbon emissions, it would take some years before the climate trend would be reversed. Reversing climate is like turning an ocean liner; it is not quick or easy. There may not be time to do it.
(9) Assuming climate change is real and it is global warming and it is manmade and the end is near, I think the solution for surviving it lies in geoengineering. I do not think we can save ourselves by abandoning technology. If I accept all of the above assumptions, then I think we need to pour money into efforts to use mankind’s ability to innovate and problem solve to combat global warming and in efforts to accommodate global warming. We need to move aggressively to manipulate the environment. We need to pursue ocean iron fertilization. We need to seed the atmosphere with reflective particles that will allow cooling of the earth while we have time to curtail harmful emission. We should aggressively pursue carbon sequestration. We should aggressively pursue replacing carbon-based energy with nuclear energy.
(10) Environmentalist may be the worse enemy of saving the planet. Assuming global warming is a reality and the survival of the planet is in danger, the environmentalist are likely to be the ones who will stand in the way of effective efforts to save it. I am not speaking of all environmentalists of course; I am myself an environmentalist. I love nature. I hike and birdwatch and I used to canoe and camp. I want clean air and clean water and I want to save beautiful vistas and natural waterfalls for future generations and I want endangered species to survive. I oppose mountain top removal and other practices that degrade the environment. I believe we should be good stewards of the earth. The most vocal of environmentalist, however, seem to have an agenda that goes beyond protecting the environment. Unfortunately, the most alarmist of the global warming theorist are also the people who think we need to live in harmony with nature rather than take dominion over nature and be good stewards of the earth. Rather than using clean nuclear energy to heat our homes they would prefer we shiver in caves. Much of the environmentalist movement is anti-human, anti-progress, anti-growth, anti-technology and anti-capitalist. Much of environmentalism is closer to an ideology and a faith than simply advocacy of policies that are protective of the environment. Instead of advocating practical solutions for combating global warming, many environmentalists are more concerned with changing people’s hearts and attitudes. Assuming global warming is real and the worst predictions are correct, the enemies of surviving it are the anti-technology and anti-market environmentalists themselves.
Top Stories
Friday, January 01, 2010
%2520(500).jpg)
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Ron Paul and Janet Napolitano
Congressman Ron Paul: "They're terrorists because we're occupiers."
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: "The system worked."
They would make a good couple.
Which one is the idiot of the year?
Top Stories
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
The Sprit of Christmas award goes to my sister Rebecca Mandel
Rebecca and one of the Burundi Children Last week my sister hosted a party for thirteen Burundi refugee children at her home. For some months Becky has been volunteering to tutor the Burundi refugee children once a week. The kids are living in Nashville, resettled from refugee camps in Rwanda.
Becky bought gifts for each of the children, which they took home to open on Christmas morning. Rebecca also bought gifts for each of the children’s siblings and parents. In all Rebecca bought over 60 gifts. The parents got much needed things like scarfs and gloves. The children wrapped the presents to take home to give to their family.
Becky served them a traditional Christmas meal of turkey and ham and all the fixings. After the meal, she had all the ingredients and they made banana splits. The food was new to them but they quickly took to it. They danced and they sang Christmas songs. My sister, Kathleen, read to them The Night Before Christmas.
For opening her heart and home to these children, I give Becky the Sprit of Christmas award.
'Twas the Night Before Christmas
Top Stories
Thursday, December 24, 2009
The war on Christmas
I guess with the health care debate and a crumbling economy and growing deficits and climategate, the defense of Christmas has taken a back seat. Thank goodness! I don't know who won but the war on Christmas seems to be over. I read lots of blogs and follow lots of groups and for the last two years there have been outraged Christians mad that someone wished them a "Happy Holiday" instead of "Merry Christmas." Also, there was a politically correct crowd that seemed to go out of their way to avoid use of the word "Christmas" and tried changing the "Christmas break" to the "winter break" and called Christmas trees, "holiday trees." I have seen almost none of that this year.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.
Top Stories
Rudolph
In the days before the fall of communism in Russia, there was this couple sitting in their home one cold winter night. Outside it was misting a light mixture of rain and sleet and snow and the man looked out and said to his wife, "It is raining, dear." His wife looked out and said, "No, it is snowing." He looked out again and said, "No, that is rain." The wife said, "I don't think so; that looks like snow." He then looked at her more intently and in a less conversational, more serious tone he said, "Rudolph, the red, knows rain, dear."
Top Stories
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Will have sex for health care reform.
OK, let’s think about this. Say you are the kind of gal who if she likes a guy and the chemistry is right will sleep with him. You meet some guy, he is oh so cute, and you both just love Chinese food and you enjoy the same movies and have the same favorite rock band. There is some definite chemistry going on. He takes you home. You invite him in. You get into some nuzzling and kissing and caressing and groping. You move it to the bedroom and then you turn to the guy and say, “I have to ask you something.” He thinks you are going to ask about birth control. Instead, you say, “Do you support health care reform?” While looking you in the eye, the guy will smile and look adoringly at you and whisper, “yes.” The sex is great.
Now, if the next day he calls and ask you out again and you have a more detailed discussion about the news of the day and you discover he is for health care reform but not the single payer system, will you feel betrayed? Will you have more great sex with him or not? Or, let us say, he is for health care reform but not the Medicare expansion, does that end the sex? Will you feel used? What if he tells you he is for health care reform, but the reform he favors is tort reform, removing the ban on purchasing insurance across state lines, and shifting the income tax deduction for health care from the employer to the employee and he favors health insurance tax credits? Will you feel dirty? Is the sex over?
What if the next day you discover he is for the Senate version of health care but not the House version? How will that make you feel? Is the sex over? So, before you jump in bed be sure you really know what the guy believes about health care reform. I know that is not as much fun as talking about food and movies and rock bands but don’t make a fatal mistake and bed someone who doesn’t agree with you on this important topic. Also, you might want to make sure you agree about the war in Afghanistan and the death penalty and cap and trade and expanding the minimum wage and immigration reform. What if you agree about health care reform but disagree about some of this other stuff?
Here is another consideration girls: guys lie for sex. I hate to be the one to tell you this but it is true. They will lie about birth control, liking Chinese food and their favorite band. To get laid they would definitely lie about their position on health care reform.
Top Stories
Monday, December 21, 2009
More MoveON email
Kay, keep up the good work. I hope everyone calls Cooper and tells him not to compromise and tells him to stand firm. The Senate bill is a sell-out. It needs to be defeated. I called Cooper and expressed my view.
Cooper as you know is a leading Blue Dog. I hope the good progressives like MoveOn can get the most progressive candidate they can find to run against Cooper in the primary. He needs to be challenged by a true progressive. I think Cooper is a DINO (Democrat in Name Only).
We don't need no stinking compromise!
Defeat Cooper!
Power to the People!
Rod Williams
--- On Mon, 12/21/09, Kat Barr, MoveOn.org Political Action
From: Kat Barr, MoveOn.org Political Action
Subject: Fix the Senate Bill
To: "Rod "
Date: Monday, December 21, 2009, 12:58 PM
Can you call Rep. Cooper right now? Tell him that you're counting on him to fight for the real reform that the House passed—including the public option—when the Senate and House health care bills are merged.
Representative Jim Cooper
Phone: 202-225-4311
Report your call
Dear MoveOn member,
At one o'clock this morning, the Senate health care bill cleared its last big hurdle, putting it on track to pass on Thursday.
Unfortunately, the Senate bill was badly weakened by conservatives. It doesn't have a public option, doesn't do enough to make insurance affordable, and doesn't create real competition for insurance companies.
The House bill is much better. So as the two bills get merged, we need House Democrats to insist that the best pieces of the House bill are included.
Can you call Rep. Cooper right now and ask him to demand that the key elements of real reform—including a public option—are in the final bill before the House and Senate vote on it?
Representative Jim Cooper
Phone: 202-225-4311
Then, please report your call by clicking here:
http://pol.moveon.org/call?tg=FHTN_05&cp_id=1218&id=18377-15255949-8YIEYWx&t=3
The House health care bill included vital provisions that were dropped in the Senate. Unlike the Senate bill, it has a public option to keep insurance companies honest. It does more to make health insurance affordable for the lowest income Americans. And it pays for these reforms with a small surtax on the wealthiest Americans. (The Senate bill taxes many middle class families' insurance benefits instead.)
All these differences will be worked out between House and Senate leaders and the White House during the "conference" process.
We've already seen that progressives can exercise real leverage when they make it clear that their votes can't be taken for granted. Senator Bernie Sanders just won billions of dollars in extra support for community health clinics in the final hours of negotiation in the Senate. But House Democrats will be under intense pressure to give in to the demands of conservative senators who are threatening to hold the process hostage again.
So we need Democrats in the House to insist on real improvements before agreeing to vote for the final bill.
Can you call Rep. Cooper right now and tell him you want him to fight for the public option, for making insurance more affordable, and for other progressive priorities in conference?
Representative Jim Cooper
Phone: 202-225-4311
Then, please report your call by clicking here:
http://pol.moveon.org/call?tg=FHTN_05&cp_id=1218&id=18377-15255949-8YIEYWx&t=4
Thanks for all you do.
–Kat, Ilyse, Daniel, Lenore, and the rest of the team
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. This email was sent to Rod on December 21, 2009. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here.
Top Stories
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Ben Nelson played “Let’s Make and Deal” and found “The Price is Right.”
First we had the Louisiana Purchase where Mary Landrieu sold her vote for a special Medicare deal for Louisiana estimated to cost the taxpayers $300 million. Now, Ben Nelson got a similar deal for Nebraska. The new health care bill has the federal government permanently paying 100 percent of the cost to expand Medicaid in Nebraska, while other states will pay 2.2 percent of the price to expand the program. All of the other Senators who voted for health care reform are suckers who should have held out for their own pay-off.
This whole process of passing health care reform is disgusting. The first disgusting thing about the Democrats approach to health care reform is that there was never even any consideration given to tort reform which forces doctors to practice defensive medicine. The fear of being sued is why doctors order unnecessary test and duplicative test and send patients to specialist. Defensive medicine may account for as much as 25% of health care cost yet the Democrats never considered crossing their friends the Trial Lawyers. Tort reform should have been a starting point to reform health care but was never even given consideration.
The next most disgusting deal was the deal with the pharmaceutical industry to prohibit drug reimportation. This bill insures the pharmaceutical industry will continue to make their profits on the backs of the American people and that the American people will pay the bulk of the cost for drug research and development while the rest of the world gets a free ride.
This process stinks of corruption. We do not need to be lecturing Afghanistan or anyone else about government corruption and the virtuous democratic state. Transparency? A new way of doing things in Washington? Change we can believe in? Give me a break!
Top Stories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
