Eden Prairie News - Commentary: Beware of global warming extremism - Comments

14th Coldest December on

Jagu — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:30:33 -0600

14th Coldest December on Record!!!

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

January 2010's cold rankings may even be higher!

More proof of global warming

Jagu — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:53:57 -0600

More proof of global warming farce:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-...

Climate Change Data

Jagu — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:04:48 -0600

Climate Change Data Dumped

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

It gets even worse. Not only do we know that global temperature calculations have been falsified, the original records have been destroyed. I guess that's what liberals do when presented with and invonveniet truth.

“We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” - Univerity of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.

So what they did is change the data to their liking and then destroyed the evidence. Fraud! Con! Scandal! Cover-up! Bunko! Swindle! Deception! Hoax! Sham! Dupery! Hustle! Lies! Snake Oil! Charade! Flim-flam! Hucksterism! Chicanery!

"How, _exactly_, does

Jagu — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:39:04 -0600

"How, _exactly_, does advocating the construction of another forty or fifty nuclear power plants in the U.S. wind up redistributing wealth?"

It doesn't. Electricity from nukes is as clean as it gets. However, this ignores the internal combustion engine and proposed gas guzzler taxes would redistribute wealth. The 2009 Clean Air and Energy Act would begin punitive taxes in 2012, long before and new nukes could be built.

At the present time, there is doubt that the Earth is warming - in fact, it may be cooling. If it is warming, there is doubt that man is the cause. You are advocating a solution to a problems that does not exist. The Clean Air and Energy Act will be harmful to the global economy, not to mention any international agreements.

"for me was 11 years ago" You mean 1998? Isn't that when the mythical hockey stick graph comes to an end? At the time, I admit I was starting to buy into man-made global warming as well. Here's what has changed.

* The hockey stick graph was debunked. Historical temperatures had been grossly underestimated. Modern temperature readings were often skewed upwards, e.g. they were disproportionally located within urban heat islands.

* The IPCC is nothing but a political arm of the U.N. Five years ago Chris Lansea resigned from the IPCC due to the politics involved. The doom and gloom suggested by the IPCC model-based predictions over the past 15-20 years has not become a reality. The IPCC relies on outside groups for data collection, and they DO NOT question questionable data.

* Thousands of scientists (Including Pielke, McIntyre, McKitrick as well along with several names that Peter mentioned in his original post)have come out with evidence that the counters the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

* Al Gore. The figure head for global warming alarmists who owns several large homes. SUVs, and flies around in a private jet.

* Then there was this scientific blunder from last year http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/...

Peter's original post lays out three tactics used by the global warming extremists: 1)Shoot the messenger 2)Ride the band wagon and 3)Outright censorship.

The hacked emails at the East Anglia CRU is proof of censorship that goes back more than a decade.

Somewhere along the line,

William Wood — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:05:47 -0600

Somewhere along the line, liberals such as Gore, Monbiot and yourself, saw it as the ultimate way to redistribute weatlth.

While I cannot speak for Gore or Monbiot, the only "somewhere along the line" for me was 11 years ago, well ahead of the present presidency or political environment. That was when I first began to study global warming. I was and remain a fiscal conservative and am deeply concerned that solving the climate crisis needs to be done in a way that does not ruin the global economy (any further than it has already been ruined). I have zero interest in using technologies such as nuclear power, which is what I have advocated here as the only near-term feasible technology to provide the power we demand while not adding carbon to the atmosphere, as "the ultimate way to redistribule wealth." In fact, I'd like you to spell that out explicitly. How, _exactly_, does advocating the construction of another forty or fifty nuclear power plants in the U.S. wind up redistributing wealth?

William, I wish to make note

Jagu — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:20:55 -0600

William, I wish to make note that both of us needed to cite sources from across the pond. Most of the world is reacting as if they knew false data has been driving global warming fears all along.

Don't hold your breath while waiting for any of the phony scientists to own up to their misdeeds. As it stands, 2/3 of the world wants them to be held accountable, why p-o the other 33%.

Even George "Moonbat" Monbiot - who was promoting global warming hysteria even before Al Gore was taking credit for the Internet - is backpedaling from this scandal!

"There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

"Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-war...

The concept of global warming is not by nature a partisan one. Somewhere along the line, liberals such as Gore, Monbiot and yourself, saw it as the ultimate way to redistribute weatlth.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/env

William Wood — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:04:12 -0600

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leak...

https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupda...

Two and a half years later

Jagu — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:59:58 -0600

Two and a half years later the evidence emerges that proves Pete is correct!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-...

Of course it was only a year ago that we discovered that temperature date from the entire country Russia was in error and off the charts.

Why would "scientists" do this? It's quite simple, they wish to create a new tax - a carbon tax. A tax on the same gas that we exhale and plants inhale.

You won't see much of this on ABC. CBS, CNN, or NBC. You'll need to Google "climategate"

If a glacier decreases in size, it's front page news. When they grow we never hear about it.

While some of us has looked at global warming alarmism as juck science, its turned out to be bunk science. Quite sad, wouldn't you say?

Two and a half years later

Jagu — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:57:11 -0600

Two and a half years later the evidence emerges that proves Pete is correct!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-...

Of course it was only a year ago that we discovered that temperature data from the entire country Russia was in error and off the charts.

Why would "scientists" do this? It's quite simple, they wish to create a new tax; a carbon tax. A tax on the same gas that we exhale and plants inhale.

You won't see much of this on ABC. CBS, CNN, or NBC. You'll need to Google "climategate"

If a glacier decreases in size, it's front page news. When they grow we never hear about it.

While some of us has looked at global warming alarmism as junk science, its turned out to be bunk science. Quite sad, wouldn't you say?

The Global Warming

Jagu — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:21:15 -0500

The Global Warming Debate

Where do you stand on the global warming debate? And why do you believe, what you believe? Have you done the research, or have you just heard what others say?

The mainstream media, movie-makers, and politicians are certainly trying to convince Americans the global warming debate is settled.

President Barack Obama: "There is no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy. It's happening."

Former Vice President al Gore: "...and the reality is that scientists have been warning us, with ever-greater clarity and ever-greater urgency, that we simply must start cutting the pollution that causes global warming."

But think again. Tens of thousands American scientists don't agree that anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming is threatening society as we know it. ...

http://www.klfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=10666569

> William Wood, is anyone

William Wood — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:25:24 -0500

> William Wood, is anyone working on a thermostat for the sun?

No, and the point you raise is an excellent one, Jagu. This global warming conspiracy is so out of control that it has diverted all solar thermostat funding to IPCC/Cabal "research." At the next Bachmann tent revival / gun show, you need to stand up and DEMAND that solar thermostat research be funded NOW.

(Thank God for Bachmann, too, because heaven knows I could not afford the extra $28,777.60 increase in my annual energy bill that Obama's energy tax will bring to pass.)

I'd say Obama is about

Jagu — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 00:49:09 -0500

I'd say Obama is about 10,000 years too late to save Lake Agassiz.

You think the Red River Valley has a water problem now? Take a look back to when the area was covered by frozen water!
http://mrbdc.mnsu.edu/mnbasin/fact_sheets/valley_formation.html

What caused Agassiz to melt? Was it an incease in solar output, or greenhouse gases?

Agassiz itself was actually just the tip of the iceberg (pun intended) compared to the glaciers that covered North America 20,0000 years ago. What happened to all that ice, was it harvested to make igloos?

William Wood, is anyone working on a thermostat for the sun?

AP: Obama to Look at Climate

William Wood — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:22:06 -0500

AP: Obama to Look at Climate Engineering

Remember how on Oct 12th (above) we were talking about the differences between passive measures to address climate change (i.e. taking measures NOT to put greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere) versus active measures (i.e. geo-engineering measures intended directly to increase the Earth's albedo or otherwise reduce the average temperature of the planet)?

Guess what?

Obama to Look at Climate Engineering ("as a last resort")
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123920773503201665.html

Welcome to the future your kids will get to live with...

MSNBC: MN Senate gives

William Wood — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 02:11:01 -0500

MSNBC: MN Senate gives initial OK to new nuke plants
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29901542

Well, clearly my ability to follow the news lags by at least a few days...

The day BEFORE I posted the note above about what the House had done a week prior, the Senate on 4/2 overwhelmingly (42-24) passed an amendment to S.F. 550 (an omnibus energy bill) that would lift the ban on new MN nuclear power plants. 20 of 21 Republicans and 22 of 46 Democrats voted in favor of the amendment.

From the article: Sen. Amy Koch, R-Buffalo, who said lifting the moratorium was one of her main goals for the legislative session, has high hopes that the House and Senate will come to an agreement and send the legislation to Gov. Tim Pawlenty. "I think the people of Minnesota have been speaking," Koch said. "It wasn't just a little win, it was 42 to 24."

Additional Source: http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/briefly/floor_display.php?filename_typ...

So, I'm nobody when it comes to understanding how the politics of this must play out, but here are a couple of thoughts -- if anyone reading understands this better, please correct me:

1. Republicans almost universally support nuclear power; Democrats tend to be split just shy of 50-50.

2. In the House, there are 47 Republicans and 87 Democrats. If the measure to lift the ban gets past the Group of Twelve Who Would Protect Us From Ourselves, then if the stats above hold, there would be about, say, 45 Republicans and 42 Democrats who would favor lifting the ban. That is 65% of the House (close to that Gallup poll again), so one would think the measure would succeed.

3. We already now know the sentiment of the Senate.

4. So, I would estimate that the chances of seeing joint legislation going to the Governor are pretty good.

5. All that said, lifting the ban would be just the BEGINNING. The real work still remains: we must know that whatever means for storing the waste must truly be acceptable, and we must have solid confidence in the regulations that would govern any new plants, before any new plant should be authorized.

On the waste question, since the President has all but killed Yucca Mountain, we are basically committed to onsite storage technologies. I'm going to start plunking around to get a better understanding of what's out there. Not strictly relevant to that issue, but here is a cool video of the 1984 British train crash test of a train carrying a nuclear waste flask: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHtRZ_k0s7M

MPR: House energy panel

William Wood — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:19:05 -0500

MPR: House energy panel votes to continue nuclear power moratorium
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/03/27/nuclearpower/

Synopsis: Last Thursday, the MN House Energy Committee voted 9-12 against lifting the present ban on new MN nuclear power plants. "I'm not trying to build a nuclear plant," said Rep. Tim Mahoney (bill author/sponsor). "We're just trying to allow people to talk about it because right now you can't."

No way. Can't let people talk about it.

So, thanks go out to the 12 nay-voters, including committee chair Rep. Bill Hilty, for almost exactly reverse mirroring the sentiment of Americans as noted in the post above and keeping us "focused on the path that we have already started" (Hilty) -- which is good??? Here they are, the group of twelve who protected us from ourselves:

Hilty, Bill
(DFL) District: 08A
rep.bill.hilty@house.mn

Bly, David
(DFL) District: 25B
rep.david.bly@house.mn

Brynaert, Kathy
(DFL) District: 23B
rep.kathy.brynaert@house.mn

Falk, Andrew
(DFL) District: 20A
rep.andrew.falk@house.mn

Johnson, Sheldon
(DFL) District: 67B
rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn

Kalin, Jeremy
(DFL) District: 17B
rep.jeremy.kalin@house.mn

Knuth, Kate
(DFL) District: 50B
rep.kate.knuth@house.mn

Kulick Jacson, Gail
(DFL) District: 16A
rep.gailkulick.jackson@house.mn

Obermueller, Mike
(DFL) District: 38B
rep.mike.obermueller@house.mn

Persell, John
(DFL) District: 04A
rep.john.persell@house.mn

Sailer, Brita
(DFL) District: 02B
rep.brita.sailer@house.mn

Welti, Andy
(DFL) District: 30B
rep.andy.welti@house.mn

Sources:

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/minutes1ls86.asp?comm=86109&id=194...

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/committeemembers.asp?comm=86109

Commentary: Beware of global warming extremism

Karla — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:00:14 -0500

By Peter Bozanich

Here are three common techniques that global warming extremists use to shut down dissent.