Gov. Ritter’s climate action plan
As Americans, we have considerable experience with both. For example, the space program and our continuing defense needs. Both involve massive subsidies and a host of “incentives” to do what the nation has decided needs to be done. Arguably, we didn’t have to go to the moon, or anywhere else in space for that matter. But, as a nation, we chose to. Many of us, most importantly a large majority of climate scientists, are convinced that we have no choice but to address climate degradation. Recently, a dozen or so senior military flag officers reported that climate change was now a national security threat. For my money, that takes it out of the category of “let’s continue to sweep it under the rug” as the Carrolls of the world seem to propose.
Pursuing Mr. Carroll’s dubious logic, why not turn over national security to the market place. Thus, our defense would “unfold without prodding,” etc. No, there are certain things, things vital to the Commonwealth of America, that markets do not naturally produce.
National security is one. A clean and healthy environment is another.
And energy security, independence from unstable Persian Gulf oil supplies, is yet another.
Mr. Carroll fails to admit that our current energy, and therefore climate, policy is heavily subsidized, and I thought by now all thoughtful Americans had accepted that. Oil is subsidized. Coal is subsidized. Our air and our water are not free goods. Yet we are treating them as if they were. So much for “markets.” Nuclear is heavily subsidized. The greatest subsidy for oil is our military presence in the Persian Gulf. Include that cost into the cost of imported oil and we would all be paying about $7 a gallon for gasoline.
And that, of course, does not include the incalculable cost of human lives. Our casualties in Gulf War II now well exceed 30,000.
Markets are wonderful for regulating all human activities that generate a profit. But the profit generated by climate change will emerge when Florida is under water. The preamble to our Constitution dedicates its purposes not only to us but also “to our Posterity.” Our posterity will not think much of us if we leave them the kind of world Mr. Carroll is so casually willing to let evolve.
This letter has not been edited.
wow are you ever smart. so how do we as humans change the climate?
oh by the way since you report all of the extremely smart scientist say its going to happen in 20-50 years, what is the weather going to be next week as I am going out of town? where did their ice age go?
But Gore said the catastrophies would happen within the next 10 years. And that was 10 years ago. What's up with that?
Posted by KW on November 13, 2007 03:21 PMWhen a letter writer "makes up" statistics, "Our casualties in Gulf War II now well exceed 30,000" (info to Mr. Hart, casualty means DEAD), or presumptions, "we would all be paying about $7 a gallon for gasoline," it is very difficult to take anything else they say seriously.
Those who choose to ignore the scientific EVIDENCE against anthropogenic climate change, will not be convinced by the comments of us bloggers on this topic. They have made up their minds and they know more than those that actually collect and study climatology.
It is the mentality of "we know best" regardless of subject matter expertise, or "the way things are today are they way they should always be" without any historical context, that is unable to use logic, reason, evidence, or comprehension to discuss a topic. Anyone that actually READS the IPCC Working Group I reports, or follows the process and procedures of Working Group I is aware that they are currently editing and debating the information that will be released by consensus of the parties involved. There is no research, no experimentation, no modeling done by the IPCC. The IPCC cherry picks what material it will review and use, regardless of it's accuracy, or even relevance to "new findings."
But again, don't take my word as Gospel. Pick up the most recent edition of The International Journal of Climatology and read for yourself.
One thing is correct. There is no debate. Those that believe, believe with FAITH (lack of evidence to support their blind faith), because there just isn't the physical, observable evidence to support their claims.
For those that wish to vilify "big oil," why is there not the same vilification for ethanol?
http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm
Politics. Nothing more, nothing less. ADM is leading the charge for corn based ethanol, and those that sheepishly follow are clueless to the damage processing ethanol does to the environment they so hopelessly wish to protect. Want to limit CO2 output from automobiles? Repeal the 1975 act that mandated the use of the catalytic converter that turned carbon MONOXIDE, a non greenhouse gas, to carbon dioxide, now the BIG BAD GREENHOUSE GAS. Let's build more nuclear plants, the cleanest power supply we can economically manufacture! But the non-nuclear proliferation people (the same people that brought us AGW btw) don't want to use nuclear energy either.
Again, it is pointless to discuss a topic so little actually know about, but so many discuss as if they were the experts. My favorite, "even if AGW is not real, why not do something about our dependence on foreign oil?" Because doing something without purpose or reason is the act of the insane.
Posted by Dan2 on November 13, 2007 04:28 PMDan2:
Those who choose to ignore the scientific EVIDENCE against anthropogenic climate change, will not be convinced by the comments of us bloggers on this topic. They have made up their minds and they know more than those that actually collect and study climatology.
On this thread:
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/11/everyone_must_pitch_in_to_save.html#comments
I asked you about your reference to this:
We are able to observe what a doubling of CO2 since 1900 has done, and has not produced an increase in isotopic temperature, but instead a Global Mean DECREASE of
1.2 degrees C(Alley et al 2007). Blows the whole theory out the window, don't you think?
because I had questions about the article cited, but when I pulled it up, there wasn't anything in the article like what you said.
But you never responded, so I have to wonder, who's ignoring what?
BTW, casualty doesn't just mean dead.
1. Military.
a. a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture, or because his or her whereabouts or condition cannot be determined.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/casualty Posted by CL on November 13, 2007 06:26 PM
Since water vapor represents 95% of all greenhouse gases, does Ritter plan to blow up the Chatfield, Cherry Creek and Aurora res and then drain and cement Sloan Lake? Any plans for the Pacific Ocean, gov.?
And since his new budget is already in Chapter II and requires tax hikes to bail it out, why not slap us with another needed tax hike--$2 p/g at the pump. That should really fix things, gov.
Posted by Hank on November 14, 2007 07:46 AMKW -
Your 2nd definition says serious or fatal, 3a includes "wounds, injury, sickness, internment, or capture or through being missing in action " and 3b. includes injured
All of which indicate that casualty means not just dead.
Posted by CL on November 14, 2007 09:00 AMDan2,
Great post but you missed one point. The USA is almost completely energy independent with regards to electric production. In this area we can and do have a completely homegrow source of energy that will last for hundreds of years. It is also the target of the AGW folks. Odd that a group that is so well supported by George Soros would target the USA's cheapest more abundant homegrow fuel source.
Posted by on November 14, 2007 09:42 AMtry to remember, you folks on the far right, that it is not Al Gore, but rather nearly every single credible, peer-reviewed, field-appropriate scientist on the planet with which you disagree on this issue.
Who was it that convinced you that believing them made you a liberal?
Posted by jay on November 14, 2007 10:41 AMDan"When a letter writer "makes up" statistics, "Our casualties in Gulf War II now well exceed 30,000" (info to Mr. Hart, casualty means DEAD), or presumptions, "we would all be paying about $7 a gallon for gasoline," it is very difficult to take anything else they say seriously."
Casualty has never meant only dead.
When Dan2 makes up the definition of words, "Casualty means dead", it is very difficult to take anything else he say seriously.
From OneLook.com which brings together definitions from many dictionaries:
Quick definitions (casualty)
# noun: a decrease of military personnel or equipment
# noun: someone injured or killed in an accident
# noun: someone injured or killed or captured or missing in a military engagement
# noun: an accident that causes someone to die
Dan2 loves to cite the International Journal of Climatology. I don't mean to say that he cites specific articles because he doesn't do that. He just says go read the Journal. Crazy.
I wonder if he would dare cite specific articles about global warming?
Here are some brief excerpts from articles in the Journal which seem to me to indicate that the author's do not dispute that global warming exists and is a problem:
"Cities, as places where human activities are concentrated, are frequently cited as the chief causes of, and solutions to, anthropogenic global change."
"The impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions to global warming arising from the greenhouse effect is presented, and atmospheric fate of NH3 summarized. It is proposed that if the near-future attempts of the United Nations to restrict the emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels end up with failure, it would be a rational alternative to increase the contribution of anthropogenic NH3, the only alkaline gaseous molecule in the troposphere, so as to partly neutralize atmospheric carbonic acid in aerosols in the form of ammonium bicarbonate, which would be eventually swept away by precipitation to the oceans where the HCO-3 species is stable."
"This will not be so in the years to come, due to global warming and the greenhouse effect."
The articles in the Journal do not make for light reading and NONE OF THEM ADDRESS THE CURRENT GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE.
Dan2 is a con man.
Posted by Truth on November 14, 2007 09:03 PM