Hill Heat comments

"Climate change and Communities of Color" by Jodi Levin, Redefining Progress

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:59:12 -0500

Apologies for the error; the briefing begins at 3:00pm.

"Citing Threat Of Global Warming, Georgia Judge Blocks Coal Plant" by Aurelia

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:51:24 -0500

I think it’s great that in Georgia the judge blocked the coal plant because it didn’t capture greenhouse gases, but that it’s horrible that on the same day Gov. Tim Kaine in VA allowed one to be constructed! If we are to end global warming and find sustainable energy solutions, we need to start working together and all understand what needs to be done, not take action in a piecemeal manner.

"House Democrats Introduce Climate MATTERS Act" by John Mooney

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:08:16 -0500

I thought we just got rid of this nonsense ‘til after the elections.

"House Democrats Introduce Climate MATTERS Act" by Don Phillips

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:31:51 -0500

It appears that this is mainly about taxing and spending. They expect our industry to run on the hot air emanating from DC.

"House Democrats Introduce Climate MATTERS Act" by Don Phillips

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:31:22 -0500

It appears that this is mainly about taxing and spending. They expect our industry to run on the hot air emanating from DC.

"Markup of The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (HR 6063)" by http://www.visitthebest.com/

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 05:57:12 -0500

Hi dude I find this site Visitthebest as a classic website guide.

"Vote to Proceed to Consideration of Climate Security Act (S. 3036)" by Monroe Singleton

Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:48:25 -0500

I am in support of the Liebrman-Waner S-3036 Bill

"Lieberman-Warner Plan Unveiled" by Chuck

Sat, 31 May 2008 03:27:42 -0500

TO GUIDO:

I’m not here to debate you. As i’ve already indicated, you can find as many “sources” to support your position as I can mine. We could fill up this entire blog bantering back and forth without accomplishing a thing.

I don’t pretend to be an expert or have all the answers. Quite the contrary. But I try to do my homework, articulate my views as best I can and look to others for corroboration or opposition, and enlightment. In my earlier post I merely asked you to consider that others may have valid opinions. None of us here may be “right”. But that’s not the point, is it? We’re here to share. I’m not here to force my “correct” view upon anyone. And I hope you’re not. The fun is in the discovery of yet an unheard viewpoint. At least for me it is.

When I said that 1998 was the hottest year on record and that the last 10 years since have been colder, I am, of course, referring to The UN World Meteorological Organization reporting that global temperatures have not risen since 1998. My point being that climate scientists are predicting a natural cooling period which doesn’t account for the correlation of increased CO2 during this same decade. But I AM aware of the stats to which you refer indicating that each of the last nine (not 7) years has earned a spot in the rankings of the 25 warmest years on record (since 1900). It should be noted that only the non-consecutive years 2006 and 1998 are listed in NASA GISS’ 10 warmest years on record since 1900, in this order: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939.

It’s really all a matter of when we start the chart, and how many years we include in the warmest group. If we extend the graph to include the renaissance period, our current temperatures will appear to have risen insignificantly, an increase that is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years, (i.e.; less than 1 degree).

And, yet, I believe that most people agree that we may be in a period of general global warming. I do, too. But “man-made” (CO2) GW is VERY much in dispute. It is no surprise that all government agencies and candidates support AGW. To say that no one disputes it by citing only those whose paymaster is the government, in whose interest it is to endorse it, is to overlook hundreds of reports by other “independent” respected climate scientists (whose names I’ve linked to earlier) and thousands of other professionals whose opinions are just as valid and should be taken as seriously as yours or mine. Anyone who feels threatened by a request to at least consider the merit of these various (and sometimes opposing) views, should take their rantings to any of a number of AGW sites that support his view. If it’s the arguing and demeaning that drives him, then he should visit Monty Python’s Argument Clinic. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915 That’s all that needs to be said about this.

TO THE OTHER READERS:

I apologize for what is likely the futile attempt to explain myself. I thought this was a place to place our comments, a place to share our thoughts and not be condemned for doing so. I enjoy reading what you have to say and how you feel about this Lieberman-Warner Plan.

I personally think this plan is a dangerous, socialist plan that will deter America from rebounding from this recession by increasing costs and chasing business and jobs away from the US. The big companies who can afford to trade carbon credits and pass the costs on to consumers, it’s the mom and pop businesses who can’t. All this under the guise of helping the environment based on unproven (politicized) science. Worse, the money changing hands will not go to environmental projects, just to those trading and to the government’s general funds. The hope is that in doing this shell game, that companies will, in fact, actually reduce their carbon output. But their are much better ways to achieve this.

ALTERNATIVES TO CLIMATE SECURITY ACT:

No matter your position on GW, I think we can all agree that there’s certainly no harm in voluntarily doing more to curb emissions and being good stewards of the planet. I have great faith that we are living in a very opportune time and that man’s pioneering spirit will, in fact, overcome the oil/energy problems we face without de-industrializing our nation or taking away our shared “american dream” (of which the automobile is a viable part). We’re seeing new hybrids coming out. We’ve built electric cars 100 years ago and more recently the EV1 to meet the California Zero Emissions initiative. We can do it. I believe this technology will become more available and affordable.

In the meantime, let’s talk about alternate solutions to the Lieberman-Warner Plan. Instead of Carbon Taxes, what if we do this:

1) Support giving tax credits to companies that cut carbon emissions as an incentive to cut pollution. 2) Encourage businesses to voluntarily cut pollution and give them financial incentives to do this but, if necessary, require them to do so. 3) Give tax credits to homeowners and builders who incorporate alternative energy systems in their homes, like solar, wind, and geothermal energy. 4) Support offering tax credits for people who turn in older, high-polluting cars. 5) favor property tax credits to private landowners who agree not to develop their land and agree not to sell it to developers 6) Our current dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic prosperity by making us vulnerable to dangerous dictatorships. We should build more oil refineries in America to lower the cost of gas and reduce our dependence on foreign oil and with appropriate safeguards to protect the environment, we should drill for oil off America’s coasts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Nuclear should also be considered an option.

Tax credits have been proven to work because they’re available to everyone who wants to be a part of the process – voluntarily.

I can’t take credit for this list. Oh I’ve thought of one or two of them, but this list is a result of polls taken which show the majority view of Americans on enviromental and energy issues: http://www.americansolutions.com/general/?Page=92410b2c-4bee-4ed9-80d6-c6c7ade635a3

Solutions offered… let me know what you think.

"Lieberman-Warner Plan Unveiled" by Chuck

Sat, 31 May 2008 03:09:24 -0500

To AMERICAN ME

I enjoy reading your views. Please continue to post.

I do agree with you that this bill could be deemed unconstitutional as it could violate the 5th and 9th amendments (the bill of rights). In the same way that our property rights are being subverted by the EPA and such laws as The Endangered Species Act.

Such laws as the Climate Security Act could be interpreted to prevent business and industry or you from doing even the most basic things with your own land in that it may increase your carbon footprint. Or worse, organizations like the Nature Conservance could take out of service, large tracts of public land that could otherwise be vital to feeding and housing a nation, to prevent the spread of carbon footprints. Many who support this thinking it is a good thing, haven’t yet realized the full impact of such measures.

The higher costs of the plan will certainly relate to less income, possibly a total loss of income if a job is eliminated. And loss of money is loss of freedom. So an argument could be made on that basis. But the way the Preamble is written, some court could say that this plan is perfectly in keeping with the obligation to “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. I disagree, but I lack the faith that the courts would declare this plan unconstitutional.

—-—-——-

I was troubled at this comment that was hurled at you. “what gives yoy the right to pollute the air we breathe”... To receive a personal attack from someone to whom you hadn’t directed any of your comments seems so out of place in an intelligent discussion of issues. But I can tell you from personal experience I’ve found that attacking the individual is a tactic used to discredit the source of a logical argument in attempt to avoid debating the argument on the basis of truth. It’s sad, but open forums like this often attract people who don’t have anything of value to post except their criticism of other commentors.

But let’s respond, shall we? “what gives yoy the right to pollute the air we breathe”... For that matter what gives any of us the right to breathe (CO2) at all?. All activities of man result in some form of “pollution”, even if it is as simple as cooking dinner or using a computer to post a message. In this all men are equal. But the greater good is served by normal activities and seen as beneficial to all men.

Much as this may anger ecoists, who think man is bad for the planet, all of us have the right to exist, to breathe, and as a by-product of living, to pollute. Pollution is unavoidable, but can be mitigated. To the extent it is mitigated we live happier, more productive lives and leave the planet no worse off and in many ways improve the earth for our being here. Man can live in harmony with nature. We should never be ashamed that we have developed the most beautiful and desirable country in the world with the highest standard of living that is the envy of other nations. Why else are so many trying to come here?

The rights of life, personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the “absolute rights” of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” http://www.unalienable.com/ These unalienable rights are so important, they were written into our Declaration of Independence. In exercising our rights, we need to respect others, but we should never let government take them away. The Climate Security Act could undermine three of the above.

What do you think?

"Lieberman-Warner Plan Unveiled" by guido

Fri, 30 May 2008 14:52:21 -0500

To Charles:

oh, please, you’re relying on the Heartland 400 (i think it is down to 300 now..and declining); that was a non-event. BTW – the world’s best and brightest were at the Geophysics confernence then; several thousand as i recollect.

oh, iBW, t looks you are confusing whether with climate..7 of the past ten years have been the warmest on record. In any event, if this is the best rebuttal you have your basic assessment indicates to me your lack of knowledge about the situation. You are reciting plays out of a very old, downlevel “denier’s handbook”

To AmericanMe

What gives you the right to pollute the air we breath? Just as you have no right to pollute the air we breath, the water we drink, and the food we eat…(Which covered by the Clean Air Act and Water – guess those are unconstitional, too?)

...The bill has never been assessed by any legal scholar as unconstitutional..nor its predessors…But i’bite – name that part of the Constitution it violates.

I hope you wake up to the facts. Global warming is happening…No one disputes it now; USPOTUS, the three presidental candidates, various federal departments: DoI, EPA, DoE, etc.

We must now face the facts that GhG emissions are causing global warming. However, what is your solution to this problem?

As to my intellect – my iq was analyzed as a child…It was genius level. What’s yours?