2 Dec

“Extreme Weather” The New Term Of Choice By Warmists

                                       

Great video of Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo discussing the fearmongering of man made global warming zealots:

YouTube Preview Image

The first 28 minutes D’Aleo provides a bunch of slides showing the evidence t

hat the weather we are experiencing today is not any more extreme then 100, 200, or a 1000 years ago. From the 29 minute mark on he explains why the man-made global warming crowd are now pushing the “extreme weather” talking point rather then the global warming phrase. Pretty interesting.

Oh, and remember the cries from those same zealots that Hurricane Sandy was caused by global warming….not so much according to Martin Hoerling, who chairs the NOAA’s climate variability research program and oversees NOAA’s Climate Scene Investigators:

Models Project No Change

“[N]either the frequency of tropical or extratropical cyclones over the North Atlantic are projected to appreciably change due to climate change, nor have there been indications of a change in their statistical behavior over this region in recent decades,” Hoerling told environmental writer Andrew Revkin, as reported on Revkin’s Dot Earth blog.

Coincidental Alignment

Hoerling noted, “In this case, the immediate cause [of Hurricane Sandy] is most likely little more than the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extratropical storm. Both frequent the west Atlantic in October, … nothing unusual with that. On rare occasions their timing is such as to result in an interaction which can lead to an extreme event along the eastern seaboard.”

“Great events, like this meteorological one, can happen with little cause,” Hoerling further explained in the Huffington Post. “Individually, neither the tropical storm nor the extratropical storm that embraced it, were unusual. What makes this a rare, perhaps once in a lifetime event, is the fortuity of their timely (“untimely” as far as most are concerned who sit in harm’s way) intersection.”

The Huffington Post reported Hoerling’s colleague Randall M. Dole said the convergence of events that made Sandy a superstorm was just “random bad luck.”

But still we get idiots like these Democrat Senators:

“There is a new normal of new extremes and we have to be prepared for it,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said. “And the reason we have this new normal of new extremes is because global climate change is happening and is real. And we’ve tolerated the deniers for far too long in this body.”

Whitehouse criticized “a rear-guard action in this building led by polluters” against taking action on climate change.

“But we have to face the fact that the deniers are wrong. They are just plain dead wrong,” he said. “And we have to deal with that, and I think some of the courtesies that we have given to one another collegially really have to yield to the fact that some of the things that are being said in the Senate, and occasionally regrettably in this committee chamber, are just plain wrong.”

Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) applauded Whitehouse’s remarks.

“The clock is ticking and Hurricane Sandy has shown us all what the scientists sitting right in this room [said] the day I got the gavel, … and they told us exactly what would happen and it’s all happening,” Boxer said. “And you can close your eyes and cover your ears and put a pillow over your head. But anyone with a heartbeat and a pulse can tell things are changing. And you are right and we’re going to do whatever we can.”

Hurricane Sandy showed us no such thing.

Barbara Boxer says things are changing. Of course it is, it’s called climate change dummy. It’s been doing this long before humans were here and will continue long after were gone. But none of it is caused by man.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in Environment, Global Warming, Science. Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, December 2nd, 2012 at 8:00 am
| 476 views

45 Responses to “Extreme Weather” The New Term Of Choice By Warmists

  1. Buffalobob says: 1

    You have to admit , the climate change, global warming, extrema weather crowd are very adaptive in labeling their causes. They can change the name of the doomsday scenario, put out a press release and the nitwits in the MSM will blindly follow and parrot the narrative like Jones-town cult members.

    ReplyReply
  2. Nan G says: 2

    Tried refreshing and restarting but still no video.
    Link?
    Which one is it?

    Seems to be this one:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jK23NToQHE

    ReplyReply
  3. Curt says: 3

    @Nan G: fixed Nan

    ReplyReply
  4. Nan G says: 4

    Isn’t it sad how ”feelings” based the Left is?
    All these facts and figures are just white noise to them.
    He gave a perfectly cogent and well reasoned argument.
    But they had to disable the comments section because of the filthy name-calling from those who claim to ”disagree,” when really they just ”feel” he’s wrong.

    ReplyReply
  5. Budvarakbar says: 5

    @Buffalobob: uh — the “nitwits in the MSM” are part of the same movement — all about power and control by the “academic” class

    ReplyReply
  6. Budvarakbar says: 6

    @Nan G: truth is imo — they are so stupid they do not even know what they “feel” – it is all collective group think paranoic CRAP — hey boys and girls >> the kool-aid party is at 8 — be orderly now there are plenty of lines and several free condoms with each cup — frigg’n idiots

    ReplyReply
  7. retire05 says: 7

    The left likes to point and say “Look at Katrina. There is proof that global warming climate change is happening and it is not for the good. Ummm?

    The worst hurricane in U.S. history was NOT Katrina. The worst storm in U.S. history was in 1900 and it hit Galveston Island, Texas where there were perhaps as many as 12,000 lives lost. The entire island was under water, and only a few buildings remained standing after the storm passed.

    When looking at a list of the nation’s worst hurricanes, 9 out of 11 were before 1940. So how do the greenweenies explain that?

    ReplyReply
  8. Rides A Pale Horse says: 8

    Actually there IS a simple explanation:

    http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae277/RAPH6969/114.jpg

    ReplyReply
  9. Skookum says: 9

    It is all a scam that will allow futures on coal to be divvied up by conmen like Al Gore.

    ReplyReply
  10. Skookum says: 10

    From a Green publication, we have a view of the opportunity for corruption.
    Continued from #9

    The future of the EU climate policy remains gloomy, given the problems with “hot air”. The EU ETS gave more permits to polluters than they needed, which can be used at any time in the future.

    The excess permits banked so far by industries grant them the right to avoid cutting emissions until 2016.

    Member countries can also buy permits for carbon emissions from Eastern European countries or Russia, which have a huge excess because of the meltdown of industrial production in the early 1990s.

    And, if this is not enough, polluters can buy carbon credits from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and, essentially, continue polluting forever.

    Another way to look at the problem of over-allocation is that the incentive to cut emissions, given by the price of a permit, is always very low. The permit price never exceeded €30 ($41), when economic estimates point to €100 as the level that would make low-carbon technologies competitive.

    The price is usually about €10, having dropped to almost zero twice.

    Unlike a tax, the incentive is dependent on the functioning of a volatile speculative market that is manipulated by its participants.

    The environmental performance of the EU ETS is so bad that one wonders if emissions would be lower if the EU had followed the US example and did nothing.

    But there are winners from this disaster. Along with traders, investment bankers and financial services providers that profit from a financial market created by government regulation, polluting industries have earned windfall profits.

    Industries can sell permits they get for free at a profit. Usually, buyers are energy companies, which can pass the cost of buying the permits to their customers.

    Large polluters have already cashed in huge financial gains from selling permits. Steel giant Arcelor Mittal earned €108 million in the 2007-09 period, a May 21 Corporate Europe Observatory report said.

    ReplyReply
  11. Skookum
    hi,
    It must be human who change for worse and claim It’s the climate,
    they are fooling themselves,
    there are more disappearances and murder and plane crash and burst of anger,
    than any climate change

    ReplyReply
  12. Common Sense says: 12

    The GW wackos will continue to change terms to keep the myth alive. The Science does not support man-made global warming but that won’t stop them. It is purely a political issue that the liberal wackos will play this card when appropriate.

    ReplyReply
  13. Aqua says: 14

    @Cary:
    Your chart comes from a 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois.
    Like the State Farm commercial, just because it’s on the Interwebz, doesn’t mean it’s true. Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
    Science is a process and the process needs to play out. A real scientist wants his or her peers to look through the data and either come to the same conclusion. Otherwise, there is no science. Real scientists do not hide their data.

    ReplyReply
  14. Wm T Sherman says: 15

    @Cary:

    A drive-by troll dropped the same link on an unrelated thread at “Watts Up With That” a couple of weeks ago. Two of the responses sum up two of the major shortcomings of this piece of propaganda succinctly:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/15/heartland-institute-announces-climate-conference-in-germany/

    psion (@psion) says:
    November 15, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    Ravenoo,

    I like that you published your methodology, thank you. After checking it, I found no reference to confining your search to just those articles addressing climatology specifically. That is, your method would scoop up non-climatological articles that accepted global warming on faith as part of addressing some other concern such as the potential effect of global warming on salamanders or particular crops. Since belief in global warming currently is currently widespread, such a broad net would inflate your count. I suggest narrowing your search to only those articles that discuss the mechanics of climate change, rather than those that include it only tangentially to other topics.

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 15, 2012 at 6:23 pm
    Ravenoo;

    Nice pie chart. Here’s the money quote from the article itself:

    “Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming.”

    So…. all the papers that found problems with the science but did not specifically SAY something about rejecting the cagw meme were excluded.

    LOL.

    Powell used Web of Science. I took a look using a different subscriber-only search engine, SciFinder Scholar. Using his described methodology, and his example for the year 1991, SciFinder identified 59 articles that contained the phrase “global climate change.” About half of them are reviews, and therefore are excluded by his methodology. Most of the rest are research in fields such as soil chemistry, ocean chemistry, plant biology, instrumentation, and organic compound atmospheric pollution studies; i.e., fields other than the primary study of the anthropogenic-CO2-driven global warming hypothesis.

    This is academic research and it is grant-driven. There is a potential financial return to be found in throwing the term “global warming” into unrelated research and so they do. In an earlier generation (1950s-1960s) tossing in Cold War buzz words related to national defense or opposing international communism would have been beneficial. Twenty years ago there was a lot of money going into AIDS research. The grant-writers follow the money.

    What the results of Powell’s confirmation-bias-driven excercise illustrate is the government’s purchase of the discourse by tying a mention of AGW to an increased chance of sucess in tapping some of the billions in research dollars. For all the phony claims that CAGW skepticism is purchased by fossil fuel money, the fact is that the real money has always been in going along to get along with the government’s (well funded) preferred view of the world – a view which incidentally justifies taking more of our liberty, property and money and handing it over to preferred cronies. That this ‘study’ was originally published on “Desmogblog” does not speak well of it — that web site is run by public relations types, not scientists. It’s the same place Peter Gleick dropped his stolen/fabricated Heartland Institute documents.

    Unseen but also present in the outcome of Powell’s ‘study’ is the harassment, slander and career damage that has been inflicted on skeptics who dare to open their mouths. People see this and they learn there is a cost. They become intimidated. Seeing how the career-sabotage worked behind the scenes was one of the more damning revelations of the original Climategate e-mail dump. It also showed how the peer review process in climate research had been corrupted by a few insiders. Let me cup my hands around my mouth and say that louder: THE CLIMATE SCIENCE PEER REVIEW PROCESS HAS BEEN CORRUPTED.

    Real science does not run by consensus anyway. It runs based on the best estimate of the truth by individual researchers. Many of the great scientific discoveries necessarily defied the existing consensus.

    (Fake science in the service of government tyranny, such as Soviet Lysenkoism or Nazi-era racial studies certainly works by enforced consensus. Millions of people were forced to agree with that crap or else – quite a consensus indeed. )

    ReplyReply
  15. Cary says: 16

    My own thoughts haven’t changed all that much since I wrote this some time ago:

    http://caryscolumn.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming

    ReplyReply
  16. Wm T Sherman says: 17

    @Cary:

    Your posted that in 2005. Since then, there have been many new facts, but you say you’ve had no new thoughts.

    Over the same period of time my view of CAGW has changed from partial acceptance of the IPCC/CRU gravy train ‘consensus’ view to an outright skeptical view.

    ReplyReply
  17. Cary says: 18

    @Wm T Sherman:

    No new facts to change the crux of my position. In fact, the facts I’ve received have actually strengthened my stance. Sorry to disappoint you.

    Oh, I might be a bit less in favor of off shore drilling… that position has certainly evolved.

    ReplyReply
  18. CARY
    THAT IS NICE, YOUR PROFILE
    LOOK VERY POSITIVE, INTERESTED IN MANY DIFFERENCES
    you care for other, enough to think of way to help as a person,
    all in all you are a surely a favorite ACTOR of many, and you deserve it for being a great human,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  19. johngalt says: 20

    @Cary:

    I find little opposition to the majority of your posting from 2005. As a person with conservationist tendencies, I tend towards protecting the environment.

    However, this sentence doesn’t really fit with how you present yourself regarding AGW;

    I don’t know how scientifically sound the theory is, or what the actual realization of it would come to, but does anyone actually believe that we can continue to usurp our earth’s natural resources, pollute our air and water, and continue to take, without having to pay for it somehow?

    You admit to not knowing how “scientifically sound” the AGW theory is, but proceed to support it within this topic. Since 2005, much of the AGW theory’s “backbone” data has been disproved, or shown to be a case of “cherrypicking” data in order to support the theory. The computer models used are heavily biased towards “proving” AGW itself, and with the input of faulty, or inaccurate data, they are unreliable, at best, and wholly fictitious at worst.

    Not to mention that the IPCC itself has just released a report not too long ago showing NO, repeat NO, warming, not even a tenth of a tenth of a degree Celsius, over the past 16 years. In fact, one of the most ‘revered’ of the AGW “scientists”, James Hansen, has changed his prediction of dire climate emergency from his 10 year view to now being 20 years, or, in 2016.

    I will not argue, or even disagree, with you on conserving energy and actively promoting research and viability studies into ‘alternative’ energy sources, both for vehicles and general electric consumption. Eventually, the oil will run out, and we, as a species, had best be prepared for when that day comes, rather than party til it’s gone and then make the change. I don’t think you will find anyone, even the most vocal of skeptics, disagreeing with that.

    But I cannot agree with giving anyone, much less the UN, power over our energy emissions, when it is clear that the goal isn’t reducing pollutants, but rather, lining the pockets of a few well-placed people. Al Gore comes to mind, here, with his Carbon exchange, trading and issuing carbon “credits” based on science that at this point is more myth than fact.

    And that is what concerns me. That people who are otherwise intelligent, or display some capacity for common sense, would be so gullible as to give away the farm to people who seem more interested in bilking the world’s wealth from as many people as they can.

    ReplyReply
  20. Cary says: 21

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    Thanks Bees!

    @johngalt:

    I always appreciate your thoughtful, reasoned discussions. Wherever my thought process or position may turn, you’ve given me some food for thought. Thank you.

    ReplyReply
  21. Randy says: 22

    @Cary: So in the 1400s the concenses was that the world was flat, that mad Columbus wrong? Concenses is not fact. It only means that a lot of people think the same. Everyone thought the Sun revolved around the Earth but Copernicus and Galileo. Was the concensus right? Not hardly.

    ReplyReply
  22. Hard Right says: 23

    Consensus is just another appeal to authority. Or in other words, proof the person has no real supporting evidence behind their views.
    You spent too much time at “occupy” rallies cary.

    I recall about 5-10 years ago the climate alarmists claiming we were going to be hit by one major hurricane after another back to back to back. It hasn’t happened. Yet they think they still have credibility.

    ReplyReply
  23. Nan G says: 24

    @Randy: Great example, Randy.
    In the century and a half before now there was a far more dangerous consensus: that doctors did not need to wash their hands between patients/autopsies/lunch/etc.
    As a result of their consensus millions of women died of ”child bed fever.”
    Even when a doctor proved that a group of doctors who did wash their hands between actions had vastly improved numbers of women surviving childbirth over the doctors who did not, the habit did not catch on until decades later.
    Why?
    Because the CONSENSUS was that it was cool to walk around all bloody between patients and autopsies.

    ReplyReply
  24. Cary says: 25

    @Hard Right:

    You spent too much time at “occupy” rallies cary.

    Fail. I went down there at the start, but most of my year was spent raising money for charity through endurance running, producing a performance benefit, writing, and a full time job – if that’s really all that relevant to you. You don’t make points by presuming to know how I spend my time. (if you’re REALLY that interested, feel free to take a look: http://www.facebook.com/carypatrick) This is the difference between you and johngalt.

    @Randy:

    Fair point. Though scientists then didn’t have the tools they do now. And the Earth being flat or round had no relevance to our continued existence on it, though it certainly did affect travel. Being that nobody really knows whether the Earth’s changes (hopefully there’s no dispute there) are caused by us or not, I think it’s safer and in our best interests, in more ways than one – including financially – to make certain adjustments in the way we treat the planet we live on. She’ll still be here, no matter what – until our sun dies.

    ReplyReply
  25. Randy says: 26

    @Cary: Scientists may have more tools, but if they depend on concensus instead of fact, they will be no more accurate in their concensus. Computers only manupilate data entered. They are great tools, but garbage in equals garbage out. The dependence on computers to forecast that increased CO2 levels will raise global temperatures has not happened. SO, the concensus that CO2 increases will directly raise global temperatures is not valid. It could be that those who are all agreeing are relying on incomplete data that no one was around to gather 1000 years ago. Concensus of opinion never superseeds facts. It only means that they all have the same opinions!

    ReplyReply
  26. johngalt says: 27

    @Cary:

    Being that nobody really knows whether the Earth’s changes (hopefully there’s no dispute there) are caused by us or not, I think it’s safer and in our best interests, in more ways than one – including financially – to make certain adjustments in the way we treat the planet we live on.

    That is the logic you have that I have a serious problem with, Cary.

    Try this: Look at the proposed “solutions” to the global climate change “problem” and who is pushing for them. Then look at who stands to gain financially from those “solutions” being implemented. My guess, and it’s not really a guess, is that there will be heavy, heavy overlap between the two groups.

    At that point, an objective person would start questioning the motives of those involved.

    ReplyReply
  27. Cary says: 28

    @Randy:

    Computers haven’t measured the polar ice caps reducing in size, we clearly see that in satellite photos, which have contributed to sea levels rising. These are indisputable facts. What causes this to happen is the only bone of contention here, not the fact that it’s happening. I prefer to adhere to the theory that I might have some control over it in my daily behavior. If I’m wrong, at least I’ve saved a few bucks on my energy bills and have inhaled some cleaner air.

    ReplyReply
  28. Cary says: 29

    @johngalt:

    Agreed. The oil industry has a lot to lose if the “warmers” get their way. Money is a big motivator on either side.

    ReplyReply
  29. Randy says: 30

    @Cary: Look at all the researchers who will lose if there isn’t global warming. Look at all of the people who are providing alternative energy solutions that are subsidized by other peoples money! Oil companies will also have a product that they can sell. Not all countries will be stupid enough to bankrupt their country to pay for a phantom issue.

    ReplyReply
  30. johngalt says: 31

    @Cary:

    The difference with the oil companies is that they are trying to retain their wealth and protect it from those that would take it, as well as the industry they are engaged in.

    Those at the top of the AGW crowd are trying to take that wealth away from the oil companies.

    When looked at that way, the AGW crowd is nothing more than a group of muggers and the oil companies simply someone walking down the street the muggers live on.

    Do you not see the problem when those pushing hardest for the rules we all should live by, are the ones who stand to profit the most if their rules get implemented?

    ReplyReply
  31. Cary says: 32

    @johngalt:

    You’ve already mentioned that oil resources are bound to run out at some point, and that it’s prudent to be prepared before it actually does. So we agree that both the oil and alternative energy industries are vital. Therefore, it seems that climate change denial is rather moot.

    ReplyReply
  32. Wm T Sherman says: 33

    Oil companies provide some of the funding for global warming research. The East Anglia University Climate Research Institute was founded with major funding by the Shell Oil Company and BP, and these corporations provide support to this day:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    See Acknowledgements section at bottom of web page.

    Climategate e-mails indicate that the CRU continues to solicit funding from Big Oil:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/

    Stanford University Global Climate and Energy Project:

    http://gcep.stanford.edu/about/facts.html

    Look at the list of sponsors.

    Oil companies stand to make money regardless of whether government actions make fossil fuel energy more expensive for us or not. Less availability simply means higher prices, and they’ll just pass any costs or extra taxes along to us.

    ReplyReply
  33. Cary
    it was said by the OIL COMPANIES FOR THE BAKEN, when it was discovered
    we have , between CANADA AND THE USA, THERE IS OIL
    for 400 years,
    why don’t we use it instead of taking the ARAB oil or other foreign COUNTRIES’S OIL?
    It boggel the brain to think of so much wasted time and jobs, so much times and good jobs,
    by failed decisions, and agreeing to a small number of scare crow on the CLIMATE CHANGE,
    which is not tested well enough to negate good jobs needed,
    you see many of the 40′s, 50′s, 60′s people dying of all kind of deseases, in our days,
    but the other who lived in the time of COAL STOVES and OIL which where not touch like today,
    those of the elder than 60′s still living and in good health today, you see them all over AMERICA,
    THEY HAVE PUT THEIR LIVES IN MANY WARS, laying in the dust for bed and breathing it,
    they came back and continue to adapt to change,
    they where not thin skin like the human of today,
    this breed is disappearing in new generation, those not given the opportunity
    to NEED THEIR BRAIN to survive, are becoming WEAKLING HUMANS OF TODAY,
    THERE IS THE CLIMATE CHANGE PROBLEM,
    NOT MOTHER NATURE, SHE IS A WISE WORKER, AND WE CAN DEPEND ON HER,
    BUT NOT ON THE WEAKLING OF THESES LAST GENERATIONS
    WHO ARE THE THE CAUSE OF ALL TROUBLES, YOU WANT TO CALL CLIMATE CHANGE,
    TO SURVIVE

    ReplyReply
  34. Hard Right says: 35

    @johngalt:

    Ummm no, he doesn’t. To do that would require him to analyze himself, his views, and why he believes what he believes. That simply isn’t going to happen. His response showed just that. He wants to cling to the fantasy world he has constructed for himself. Nothing you post will convince him otherwise.

    ReplyReply
  35. Cary says: 36

    @Hard Right:

    There you go again. Not only do you presume to know how I spend my time, but now you can also read my mind and motivations. What sort of discussion do you wish to accomplish? If you want to make personal digs, at least take the opportunity I’ve given you to actually get to know me. I’m sure you’ll find plenty of legitimate things to rag on. Otherwise, screw you.

    @johngalt:

    Thank you for a rational and reasoned discussion. We may not agree on things, but at least there’s a respect. For now, I’m going to have to take a break. The kind of crap written above, coupled with being outright called an “idiot” on the last discussion I participated in, with no moderation, renders me too pissed off to engage in discussion. Snark and sarcasm are one thing, but personal digs that don’t advance the topic are quite another and a waste of time and energy. I know it gets worse on other sites, but this is where I am. Thank you again. We can either continue this elsewhere or at another time.

    Before anyone wastes their time replying to this, know that I will not be returning to this thread. I’m in a happy place in my life, and have no need to walk into anything that I know is gonna get me riled up in a negative way. There are plenty of people I can discuss things with, disagree, and not make presumptive remarks about their personal character or intelligence.

    Sorry Bees, I AM angry this time. People should be able to disagree and still be personally respectful.

    ReplyReply
  36. Cary
    hi, are you angry at my comment?, I don’t mean to offend in my comments,
    I just let free my thoughts, it might not be the same as other but I own it,
    and that’s good or bad , depending on someone else mindset, it’s okay,
    all comments are giving something , a bit of humanity each.
    and it’s only done by the brain, while the body is non visible,
    to me it’s extraordinary, every time I read a comment, I am in awe of the advance of the human brain
    to think of discovering always, it’s now the food we need, because we are hook on it,
    we couldn’t do without anymore,
    with all the wavelengths crossing the UNIVERSE, UNSEEN,
    who knows, maybe they are the one heating the climate
    by covering it’s entry of cool currants, it just struck me talking of the cyber space,
    maybe it is beginning to take a too big space,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  37. Cary says: 38

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    No Bees, you did not anger me at all. You’re always very thoughtful and respectful, and you always understand you’re talking to an actual person with whom you might have more in common with than your politics might suggest, and take care not to insult them personally. Thank you.

    As I’ve said before, I’ll not be reading any more comments on this thread. We’ll see if we can have a respectful, productive discussion with some of the regulars here another time, without the rotten apples spoiling the entire bunch.

    ReplyReply
  38. johngalt says: 39

    @Cary:

    I know you say you aren’t coming back, but I just saw your post about “climate change” being a moot point.

    I agree with that, to a point. Considering the finite amount of oil left underground, all over the world, of which no one really has an accurate estimation of, it is prudent to explore, develop, and refine, alternative energy sources. Maybe it doesn’t have to be done immediately, and maybe the sooner we get started, the better off the world will be. Who really knows?

    What I do know is that government should not be in the business of mandating and directing that exploration, development, and refinement, of those alternative energy sources. Free market devices have an amazing effect on producing some very advanced and highly useful technologies, as long as they are seen to have marketability and sales. In other words, viability. For instance, look at the calculator, and in particular, the “solar” powered calculator. The solar power cells in these calculators have advanced from the point where you had to hold them just right, under direct light, in order for them to work, to now where any source of light, even dim indirect sources, allow for operation of the calculator. Sure it has taken decades, but the idea itself was viable enough in the beginning to allow for the various companies producing the calculators to apply money to the development of them. And I firmly believe that similar advances can be made regarding the alternative energy industry, if given the chance. It might surprise you, as well, if I told you that many of the oil companies, at least the larger ones who have the resources, are involved with researching and developing alternative energy sources.

    As well, it’s always better that the industry itself, and the companies within it, direct the funding on development of technology, rather than the government, which is comprised mainly of people who know rather little, next to nothing, really, of anything relating to specific industries.

    I have a firm belief that mankind adapts and overcomes the obstacles put in his way, and that before any major problems due to availability of oil comes into play, that alternative energy sources will have been developed and refined to a point where a near seamless transition to no or low oil will occur. Just my opinion, of course.

    And lastly, regarding the “climate change” issue being moot, the aspect of that I cannot agree with is in allowing the AGW alarmists control over a major portion of not only our economy, but the economy of many other nations, simply because they believe something that has yet to be proven.

    ReplyReply
  39. johngalt
    hi,
    and the fact that he choose the wrong time to start his fiction operation while their is no market and no jobs, is making a person think that he is not for progress even if he spend the PEOPLE’S MONEY,
    for things which like you say is from later in time,
    he forgot the word time, there is time for everything and everything in it’s time is good,
    he try to push and fail, because we cannot push time without paying for the consequences,
    and it’s the PEOPLE who are getting the failed decisions he make, and he’s not done yet,
    his mindset will bring more scary consequences again for the people, while he have his fun,
    that is unacceptable
    bye

    ReplyReply
  40. johngalt says: 41

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    When I mentioned government, Ms. Bees, I wasn’t exactly talking about Obama, although it applies to him as well. Plenty of Republicans believe that government is the answer to our problems, whether it’s shipping off boatloads of money, or controlling industries themselves. Plenty of them are likely only hating what Obama has done because he is a Democrat, not because they truly dislike what Obama has done.

    Just wait and see what the Republicans finally offer up, or agree to, regarding the “fiscal cliff”. It likely won’t be much different than what the Democrats are demanding.

    Anyone who believes that government, money, regulation, and otherwise, is the first place to go for “solutions” to problems hasn’t read through their history books well enough, or completely enough, to realize that typically, when government touches something, they tend to screw it up more often than they help. And the idea that government money somehow being what is needed for these alternative energy companies to break through is just plain silly. Especially after the numerous fiascos involving “crony capitalism” stemming from the Stimulus.

    ReplyReply
  41. Skookum says: 42

    If we think back to the late eighties, cell phones required a back pack to operate and they were as heavy as the radial dial phone at home. If the government would have mandated the phone of today, companies would have produced pale weak imitations of today’s phone, no matter how much incentive was offered.

    There was incentive however, it is called the Fee Market. During the nineties, phones be came practical to carry around without a giant battery pack and the technology really kicked in high gear after 2000. The government allowed the market to proceed, and we now have a fax machine, computer, email capable, and text capable machine all from a phone. It didn’t happen because we had a technological fool calling for advances: it came about because of the natural forces of a market and the fact that it was left alone for creative minds to seek the financial rewards of innovation. In Obama World, the financial rewards are rewarded as a form of crony capitalism and presto we are to be rewarded with innovation.

    The Free Market is perverted and the result is inhibiting to the natural market forces rather than stimulating. In the case of Solyndra, we have a low tech industry, solar panels, being produced in the center of the high tech industries of the world, with the accompanying real estate being sold as some of the most expensive in the world. They built more and more cost into the product because of foolish business decisions, and all went well until they tried to market their over priced product and they ran out of government money to invest in their lunacy.

    Using normal free market principles, it would have been a wise choice to build their factory on cheaper ground with a lower labor cost in a state without the government regulations. They might have had a chance to compete in a world market, but the money was not theirs, so why build a factory in Alabama or Texas? After all, they were the new mega rich because of Obama and they should live in Palo Alto with the other mega rich people.

    In the industry of alternative fuels and engines, the market will provide suitable rewards for those with the ability and the creativity, but it need time to function. Alternative fuels and engines are considerably more complex than the phone, but in twenty or thirty years, we will see advancements that will make the Tesla and the Volt seem laughable. Since they are working on the same technology as the flashlight; use a charged battery and run until you can no longer see where you are going.

    We would never consider going back to the thirty pound cell phone and in the future, people will laugh at our “advanced” technology of today, but the market needs time to function. Technological innovation and totalitarian statist regimes are incompatible. It is the Free Market that will carry us into the future and doom the desert producing oil nations to riding donkeys in the desert, if the Free Market is allowed to function without the tyranny of statism trying to control the market forces and rewarding bumbling fools with government money for producing inferior products.

    ReplyReply
  42. johngalt
    yes, It seems that there will be no return to the before, when COMPANIES where feeling free to hire more and more, people, they felt needed in AMERICA, and they wanted to create more innovation,
    they where making it a policy for hiring the most creatives people,
    it seems that now there is an overload of products, and we don’t know what to do with it,
    here come the notion of CLIMATE CHANGE, because of to much trash are dump and cover the land,
    I think it’s not what human do,
    but it’s what human did too much, and now is saturated with it,
    the need to create as deviate into the need to get rid of, and pulverize it to a compound so to
    use it in other means, here now came CHINA, who did it for many last years, now getting also saturated
    in their market as much as USA, and while they where buying our land, our oil, our precious metals,
    there was money exchange,for many to become very rich, but came the COMMUNIST SLOWLY
    MAKING THEIR WAY INTO GOVERNMENT, and they want the money made by the rich,
    they want it and have the power to get it,
    was it unexpected? did anyone would have thought that AMERICA WOULD BE TAKEN HOSTAGE
    BY A GOVERNMENT WITH THE GREED BIG ENOUGH TO NOT ASK BUT TAKE,
    I think yes, the rich did not see it coming , because it was impossible to envisioned that the servant would become the king. now the rich and all AMERICA IS TAKEN HOSTAGE, BY THE COMMUNIST,
    I read that even the JEWS vote them in again, this is like the repeat of before when they where marching to the train being told it was for their own good,
    now it’s not only them being loaded, it’s the UNITED STATES.
    who would have think,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  43. Wm T Sherman says: 44

    Sierra Club took $26M from gas industry to fight coal-fired plantsThe Sierra Club disclosed Thursday that it received over $26 million from natural-gas giant Chesapeake Energy Corp. between 2007 and 2010 to help the group’s campaign against coal-fired power plants.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/208477-sierra-club-took-26m-from-gas-industry-to-fight-coal

    `Environmental movement has lost its way’ – Scare tactics, disinformation go too far, says former Greenpeace founder

    By Dr. Patrick Moore
    Special to the Miami Herald
    January 28, 2005

    Prognosis: Environmentalism has become anti-globalization and anti-industry. Activists have abandoned science in favor of sensationalism. Their zero-tolerance, fear-mongering campaigns would ultimately prevent a cure for Vitamin A deficiency blindness, increase pesticide use, increase heart disease, deplete wild salmon stocks, raise the cost and reduce the safety of healthcare, raise construction costs, deprive developing nations of clean electricity, stop renewable wind energy, block a solution to global warming and contribute to deforestation. How sick is that?

    http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/feb2005/06/scare.htm

    Money and power.

    ReplyReply
  44. Wordsmith says: 45

    Barbara Boxer says things are changing. Of course it is, it’s called climate change dummy. It’s been doing this long before humans were here and will continue long after were gone.

    Curt, I finally got around to perusing a book I picked up on a whim a few yrs ago called “America’s Hidden History” by Kenneth C. Davis. In the first story accounting conflict between Spaniards and the French in 1565, Florida (pg 9-10):

    Against the advice of Rene de Laudonniere, his fellow commander at Fort Caroline, Ribault planned to strike the new Spanish settlement before the recently arrived Spanish could establish their defenses. Unfortunately for Ribault and his shipmates, as well as those left behind at Fort Caroline, the hurricane that slowed Admiral Menendez and his army also ripped into the small French flotilla, scattering and grounding most of the ships, sending hundreds of men to their deaths. According to Rene de Laudonniere, it was “the worst weather ever seen on this coast.”2

    If they only knew back then in regards to “extreme weather”: Man-made global warming!!! :-D

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>