King Fossil Loves Global Warming and Removes McCain's Mountaintop

Bill

One of the best ways of treating cancer is to avoid it in the first place. Most cancers are avoidable; avoid chemical pesticides and fertilizers, avoid food additives and GM foods, avoid nuclear radiation, stop smoking and meat eating.

Practice Trancendental Meditaion to reduce stress in your life, research shows that just that reduces the risks of cancer by 55%.

Live a healthy life style, eat the right food and I repeat get rid or nuclear power stations, their radiation and radioactive waste causes cancer.

If you have a family history of cancer be extra cautious and you will probably never need to be treated for cancer, or need medical isotobes and neutron beams, because other treatments will surfice.

But I repeat yet again, nuclear power stations cause cancer and must be phased out, see New Scientist report: Children living near nuclear facilities face an increased risk of cancer.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8785

Andrew,

Would you say as much for reactors that make medical isotopes and neutron beams for cancer treatments?

Bill

Bill

A miniscule amount of fossil fuels could be useful (not necessarily electricity generation but as some form of fuel). Better than a small amount of nukes, too many risks. If we reduce fossil fuels enough (and soon enough) and maintain our carbon sinks I doubt it will have a negative effect on climate change. But nukes must go.

Andrew,

Why do you want to keep fossil generation?

Bill

As I've pointed out before, the debate is not between nuclear and carbon fuels, they must both go: Carbon- and nuclear-free America possible by 2050
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/1/92920/47226

The issue is phasing down fossil fuels and phasing out nuclear energy:

A Nuclear Free World
http://ncrcafe.org/node/854

Chris14,

I would posit a set of facts:

1) Burning fossil fuels emits CO2 into the atmosphere
2) Humans burn a lot of fossil fuel
3) Atmospheric CO2 is on the increase
4) The earth is losing its 'permanent' ice
5) In laboratory measurements, CO2 has been shown to inhibit transmission of infrared energy. (Infrared radiation is the way earth radiates energy into space.)

Taken together, without further data, these facts make a reasonable basis for asserting anthropogenic global warming.

Would you disagree with any of this? And, if so, on what basis?

Bill

`

Okay ~CHRIS~, I didn't give MY opinion, I'm not a scientist. I offered links concerning the issue. If you think those people are wrong, specifically state why and argue that with me.

The Far North Science article is not arguable that I can see, a ten yer old child could see it and understand the importance of it. Neither is the other article deniable, the Far North Science article proves he was correct when he published it five years ago. So if you have any comments or arguments regarding those, lets hear em.

Don't just say you have scientists who disagree, be specific and honest and explain why hundreds of lakes in the Arctic are now spewing out methane gas into the atmosphere. Tell us that methane gas is not 25% more potent as a Greenhousse gas than Co2 is and that will create the feed-back problem and dramatically enhance global warming. Also please explain how ~PAULK~ is incorrect with what he posted at 1.42pm here. _______ Thank you kindly.

As for the ~LIZARD~, he posted 75 comments on one thread alone here one day, denying global warming. ____ Are you a denyer also?

KEM PATRICK

Let me ask you something. When you were all worked up writing "your point of view" and breathing out all that "greenhous gas" do you think you were polluting? Because last I checked, most terrestrial life on this planet expells CO2. And for that matter, a great ammount of sea life expells CO2 as well. And to your points that all these scientist's who have studied the planet say there is a problem, I can point to a whole other batch of scientist's that disagree with them and feel that we have no concept of what the planet is capable of. At issue here is, what is fact? Facts are things that cannot be denied. Like, the Earth is round. This fact cannot be denied. The Sun rises in the East sets in the West. Cannot be denied. But for one group of scientist's to think that after 5 billion years, of which we have been around for what 10,000-20,000 in our presant form, that we are the sole reason for climate change cannot be backed up by ALL scientific minds. So how can we claim it to be fact? I hope for our sakes that we don't experience a radical volcanic eruption in our lives because then we will know what climate change is about. Does the Year without a Summer ring any bells? If not look it up.

Denial is not river in Egypt but most of the public seems to be swimming in it .Let us read a few books here. Like 'The end of oil', by Paul Roberts,'The Long Emergency' by J.H. Kunstler and maybe toss in some climate books like 'The Weather Makers', by Tim Flannery, 'Six Degrees' by Mark Lynas,
and some Chalmers Johnson on the effects of empire on democracy, then lets review our political culture and try not to feel discouraged. After that,lets read 'Plan B 3.0' by Lester Brown. Then maybe some Wendel Berry " The Unsettling of America' and then lets's " get a grip".

Denial is not river in Egypt but most of the public seems to be swimming in it .Let us read a few books here. Like 'The end of oil', by Paul Roberts,'The Long Emergency' by J., H. Kunstler and maybe toss in some climate books like 'The Weather Makers', by Tim Flannery, 'Six Degrees' by Mark Lynas,
and some Chalmers Johnson on the effects of empire on democracy, then lets review our political culture and try not to feel discouraged. After that,lets read 'Plan B 3.0' by Lester Brown. Then maybe some Wendel Berry " The Unsettling of America' and then lets's " get a grip".

Lieberman for McCain's VP!

~Lizard~ you incredible moron, why don't you just take some sleeping pills, lots of them, you claim you're a doctor. Write a prescription for yourself.

Oh yeah, you claim you're a scientist too. Maybe you could mix up a brew, fill a dumpster with it and send yourself off to Mars. At least stop making a fool off yourself here.

Read this article in the link I'll post and get yourself educated. It fits right in with the link I already posted and proves the author and scientist knows what he's tallking about and also proves you're a detracting moron here.

http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html

Does anyone know where to find emergency housing for several hundred elves and a few reindeer?

At least we have coal to give away. Let's come full circle now, and figure out who needs a lump of coal.

And now for your up-to-date methane report:

The North Pole is melting. A wide corridor of roughly 10%-20% open water has opened from central Canada, across the center of the Arctic Ocean, to western Siberia. The remaining arctic ocean ice is now waiting for one good windy day to pull it far clear of one shore or another, opening a big section of continental shelf waters to full 24 hour sun. The central Canada and western Siberia ice-free holes are expanding and merging.

A welcome respite of snow cover hit central Siberia two days ago, but it's melting away again.

The oligarchy would steal trillions from the public treasure to fund construction of their centralized reactors. To the mix of greenhouse gas they'll add cancer forever. Bought politicians are impotent, but We the People can stop them. Vote for Green Energy here:

http://www.ni4d.us/nationalinitiative.htm

The Warner/Lie berman bill was a trojan horse, it's better dead. And doubly better that it was put up as a "Green Centerpiece" for McCon and then shot down by his own party. That way it's a lose/lose for the GOP.
Yay!
Any reasonable bill that shifts US away from fossil fuel will be killed by filibuster or veto with this Congress and this misAdministration.
Boxer's alternate bill should be the kernel of the next bill in the next Congress, this time WITHOUT the half-Trillion dollars for Nukes and hopefully without Cap-and-Trade.
Capping CO2 is good, Trading allotments is not. It does nothing to rein in the big polluters, like the grandfathered coal-fired powerplants in the mid-west that spew a plume of mercury and acid rain downwind all the way to Nova Scotia.
Putting 10% of half a Trillion$ into alternative energy, like PhotoVoltaic systems on every roof and wind turbines on top of all the tall buildings, would end our need for imported oil and then some. Incidentally, it would also end unemployment and reestablish America as a leader in technology and developement.
Not to mention the economic stimulus.

Perhaps ~ MEALSOTOO ~ is really just a plant ( not a stooge ) that is disguised as a human being, to bring forward the …

____ … new age of PLANTS ? ____

PLANTS LOVE CO2, so does ~ MEALSOTOO ~, see what I mean ?

The plants are staging a take over of Earth, and are planning the eventual suffocation of most animals - one humongous "hot house".

Namaste

Denial is not river in Egypt but most of the public seems to be swimming in it "non-the-less" .Let us read a few books here. Like 'The end of oil', by Paul Roberts,'The Long Emergency' by J., H. Kunstler and maybe toss in some climate books like 'The Weather Makers', by Tim Flannery, 'Six Degrees' by Mark Lynas,
and some Chalmers Johnson on the effects of empire on democracy, then lets review our political culture and try not to fell discouraged. After that lets read 'Plan B 3.0' by the 'Earth policy Institute' people, Lester Brown. Then maybe some Wendel Berry " The Unsettling of America' and then lets's " get a grip".

lizard: The views stated by mealsotoo are scientifically incorrect, not politically.
It's incredible to be debating the global warming science at this stage in the game.

While we're at it, why not debate the atomic number and weight of carbon too.
Bohr, Rutherford, Einstein, Newton...We're smarter than they were. Let's keep debating.

Mealsotoo: Your views are politically incorrect on this site. Progressives can close their minds too. They take this personally and can become very nasty. Questioning global warming causes is like questioning the holocaust: not done. And don't suggest 9-11 was an inside job, they don't like that one either. Too loony.

No energy bill should be passed without mitigating the bills cost increases via the tax code. To do otherwise would result in severe hardship to those in the bottom 50 percent.

What happened to Decency and Honesty in the Congress?

Mr. Peabody's coal train has hauled them away.

The Carbon game is a hustle. Just say no to Lobbyists.

One person one vote!

Kem: Thanks for your reply to mealsotoo. You saved me some time. Its a good one for Mimi also. We don't just have deniers, now we have benefits of CO2 cheerleaders!

Yes, MiMi, a lot of little guys are getting burned, even without a carbon reduction scheme. Energy prices won't chase jobs off shore as fast as corporate officers chase the low wages and taxes, and lack of regulation.

Nationalize utilities!

Start building the Thunderdome. The very best we could possibly hope for now is the prevention of a global extinction event. This train ain't stopping until it hits the wall and when it does there won't be any place to hide.

~MEALSOTOO~ You have no idea of how good you have made me feel now that I've learned from you, that Co2 is NOT a Greenhouse gas. For so long now I have been quite concerned after reading so many scientific reports to the contrary, written by people who have spent their entire adult lives studying the Earth, oceans, and our atmosphere. Bunch of dummies for sure.

This means the Earth is not heating up after all and the methane gas in the Arctic is just a passing fancy and not to be of concern after all. Wow!!! Good news finally. Thank you for relieving us all of those types of silly worries.

Here is a link we can ignore also ~Mealsotoo~. It's about a three minute read and has colored pictures for the stupid ones who read and blog here. It tells us about a lake in the Arctic where methane gas is spewing out into the atmosphere and it's only one lake of several hundred now that are doing that.

Now one bad thing is, it says methane gas is 25% more potent as a greenhouse gas than Co2 is. Now you say C02 is NOT a Greenhouse gas, so if that's correct, methane can't be potent at all. It's a scam, designed to scare us ignorant ones and just for the fun of it I suppose. Dirty damn scientists and their stupid jokes.

Here is that link that shows the pretty lake in Alaska. ___ Scary stuff.

http://www.farnorthscience.com/2007/09/26

Thank you once again ~Mealsotoo~, you are a breath of fresh hot air. Keep up the good work.

Dennis Kucinich has put the Articles of Impeachment on the table.
Hopefully our spineless congress will follow through with their constitutional duty.
Roll back the congressional power usurped by this administration before any president takes office.
How can we expect a new president to give up inherited power?
IMPEACH NOW!!!

Interest on carbon loans is an indirect tax. When banks create money for the principal and not the interest, the result is inflation, a hidden tax. My bet is there will be no carbon to buy directly on the market, so this will force them to borrow it, since like banking, profits come from the interest. The net result for the carbon tax or trade is higher prices for the little guy. If there was some tangible benefit I could accept it. But even if CO2 was the issue they make it out to be, there will be little reduction in global CO2 when developing countries like China and India can emit as much as they want. Whats left of our manufacturing will leave.

Also, most of our growth in consumption is due to immigration. Not capping immigration will ensure the emissions cap will be exceeded, and they will need to borrow the credits.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2140.cfm

"While the Lieberman–Warner bill lowers many household incomes, it raises the cost of living, par­ticularly by raising energy prices. To meet the bill's targets, consumer energy demand must be driven down, which is achieved through higher prices. The price per gallon of gasoline is expected to increase by at least 29 percent by 2030: about $1.10 more per gallon based on current prices. By 2030, average household electricity costs are also expected to increase by $647 annually, and natural gas is expected to increase by $303. (See Chart 6.)

As noted, Lieberman–Warner operates like an energy tax, and since low-income households spend a larger percentage of income on energy, the tax is very regressive.[12] Some of the proceeds from the Lieberman–Warner bill are directed toward pro­grams to help energy consumers and low-income households in particular, but it is unclear how well these income-redistribution schemes will work. In any event, it is unlikely that they could make much of a dent in the damage caused by the bill."

Japan and Taiwan are being forced to develop similar schemes

The key component is the emissions cap. If you effectively enforce a cap, you accomplish emissions reduction. Then the question is whether to tax or trade to get the funds reallocated for retrofits.

The emissions trading scheme is designed replace an emissions tax scheme. The trade scheme has no benefits over the tax scheme and is likely to exhibit the usual liabilities of the capitalist rackets.

For example power plant A is old and expensive to retrofit and plant B is new and cheap to retrofit. Under a tax scheme the state offers tax breaks for retrofits. Plant A's lower cost is to pay the higher tax so it does not retrofit. Plant B's lower cost is to pay the lower tax so it retrofits. Under a trade scheme the state deals out credits in a way that makes it in plant A's interest to buy credits from plant B instead of retrofit, and in plant B's interests to sell credits to plant A and retrofit.

The difference between tax and trade is that tax employs low-paid armies of bureaucrats who care about the public interests, and trade employs high-paid armies of consultants who care nothing about the public interests. The public bears these administration costs so the public pays a lower cost with tax than with trade. The capitalists will claim that the public pays a lower cost with trade, contrary to all of the evidence.

Mealsotoo

More CO2 would help? How so?

Drive that SUV while you can! "Times, they are a'changin!"

Will you, in the near future, die from radiation, starvation or preventable disease? My blog puts your options on the table. Decide now!

www.dangerouscreation.com

"Led by JJ Astor, many passengers made it clear they still don't accept the widespread consensus that the titanic sinking is a problem, let alone one that should be treated with access to the lifeboats"

One of the problems with Lieberman-Warner was that it was a smorgasbord of programs. It had help for farmers, research on carbon sequestration, a whole administration to handle the cap and trade system, a very complex schedule of cap and trade auctions and a feed trough of production credits that would be bid on "low CO2 emiting generators".

It was laden with pork and thus easy to hate. Many people saw the production credits to low CO2 emitters as a handout to nuclear. This particular aspect got the antinuclear crowd all a twitter.

Why not a real simple system like Jim Henson's revenue neutral Carbon Tax proposal? http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080604_TaxAndDividend.pdf

There is no pork. There are no subsidies. It is hard to cheat. It helps those hardest hit by high energy prices. I think this is the best CO2 control deal in town.

Bill

'Nothing' will get 'better' until more people realize that CO2 is NOT a 'green-house gas'.
It is entirely possible&desirable to remove/reduce all-other 'true' greenhouse-gases (and regulate/fine the hell out of abusers, and this practice of land-rape for Coal -- which should be virtually Outlawed as a 'fuel' (or enact hugely improved-upon measures to make it's scant carbon-chain and polluted-burning 'better').
But CO2 as a G-HG is a farce -- and yet-more in the atmosphere would 'help', not Hurt...

God Bless the GOP on this one. Of course, they sponspored the bill in the first place, and both Obama and McCain said they would sign it if President.
If a Republican, and if the turncoat Lieberman want the bill passed, you know it is crooked.

What it was?. Essentially it establishes a Carbon Central Bank (think carbon credit as opposed to money credit that the Fed controls). It would have allowed the same SOB's who control our money to control carbon and determine who gets to use how much carbon (think corporate welfare and crony capitalism). Those who do not have enough carbon credit (think money) for their needs, can borrow it at interest (think tax). It will be the biggest disaster since the 1913 Fed and increase energy prices at least 30% (they say 30% so it will be much higher).

It would create an exodus of manufacturing jobs, whats left of them. In fact, shortly before the bill was introduced, GM announced plant closings, since they know whats coming. Why close the plants, just convert them to production of smaller and more fuel efficient cars. But they know this bill, which will pass next year, will mean perpetual high energy prices and a destroyed consumer who will not be able to afford to buy many cars. Even if the oil bubble comes gets popped, 4-5 dollars a gallon will remain as a result of this bill.

Obama will sign it. Change yes, for the worse.

I'm not sure anyone understood this bill. Was it welfare for nuclear or a truly green bill? We may never know. Hopefully the next one will be better.

"I came here to save the planet and chew bubble gum.
And I'm all out of bubble gum."

Last time I saw Rowdy Roddy, the Highlander cut his head off. The leadup to the Iraq War did feel just like Wrestlmania or a Superbowl. A lot of vicarious butt kickin'!

Interesting inference about the Climate Security Act being a ruse to "distance" McCain from the neocons. At least once or twice McCain's name has been on a shot down climate bill. None of them got very far.

Is he pro GHG reduction, or is he just confident the legislation will get shot down as fast as its proposed? Obama better be the real deal on this issue.

US Manufacturing jobs???

What Manufacturing jobs? Since the shift to a service economy, the US does barely any of it's own manufacturing now.

We need Rowdy Roddie Piper to come in and sweep the ring clean of these Oil and Gas nutcases. Perhaps this would be a better way of getting the public interested in the politics that affect their lives....cage match!

If you've never seen it, check out the John Carpenter film They Live. It concerns aliens that have infiltrated politics and the monied classes. They control all security forces and are slowly changing our planet to their own via global warming ...and turning humankind into slaves/cattle on the side. The final scenes in the film show what happens when humanity "wakes up" and simultaneously sees the aliens for the hideous things they are. Brilliant, and more apt with each passing year.