Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Global warming is here, human-caused and probably already dangerous -- and it's increasingly likely that the heating trend could be irreversible, a draft of a new international science report says. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Monday sent governments a final draft of its synthesis report, which combines three earlier, gigantic documents by the Nobel Prize-winning group. There is little in the report that wasn't in the other more-detailed versions, but the language is more stark and the report attempts to connect the different scientific disciplines studying problems caused by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Dave

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Let the denying continue.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems."

We should definitely adopt a wait-and-see approach before jumping to conclusions. There's a retired physicist, a blogger and an energy lobbying firm that doubt the science.

#3 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-27 10:09 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 6

We shouldn't do anything to combat global warming until the last denier is convinced that it is a real emergency.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-27 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Human-caused?? ...lets get real. It's women-caused. Nobody wants to address the elephant in the room. They're gonna kill us all.

#5 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-27 10:36 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

P.S. Send money. Lots of money. All you can spare.

#6 | Posted by visitor_ at 2014-08-27 04:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

P.S. Send money. Lots of money. All you can spare.

#6 | Posted by visitor_

Yeah yeah. Climate preservation is all about money.

And the fossil fuel companies have no financial interest in telling all the morons that they shouldn't worry about it.

#7 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-27 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

#9 | Posted by foshaffer

Another moron weighs in with his idiocy.

.

#11 | Posted by Dave at 2014-08-27 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 5

#9 | Posted by foshaffer

Ok CO2 scholar. I'd love to hear your response to the historical CO2 graph here:
scienceblogs.com

I guess that giant SPIKE at the end is a gift from your wonderful god?

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-27 05:44 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Quoting Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts". Facts are that the temperature of the planet HAS increased in past 17 years and the last 12 years have each been hotter.

Please stick to facts, not some bogus statistic from Fox News.

#15 | Posted by kenmidkiff at 2014-08-27 05:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

#12 | Posted by JeffJ

If we included the cost of environmental destruction caused by every product into it's price, we could save the planet with capitalism.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-27 05:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If we included the cost of environmental destruction caused by every product into it's price, we could save the planet with capitalism."

That would mean a stable-state, no-growth economy, which I would applaud, but not the indoctrinated consumer-crazed masses.

#18 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-27 06:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thus was THIS SINGLE recorded data point NEXT TO A VOLCANO!! Mana Loa.

#20 | Posted by foshaffer

Whichever pollution profiteer sold you that crap was lying to you. You should stop listening to them.

www.skepticalscience.com
"But when the winds do sometimes blow from active vents towards the observatory, the influence from the volcano is obvious on the normally consistent records and any dubious readings can be easily spotted and edited out"

"Importantly, Mauna Loa is not the only atmospheric measuring station in the world. As the graph from NOAA shows, other stations show the same year-after-year increasing trend. The seasonal saw-tooth varies from place to place, of course, but the background trend remains steadily upwards. The Keeling Curve is one of the best-defined results in climatology and there really are no valid scientific reasons for doubting it."

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-27 07:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes because global warming is osomething to be believed in just like your mythical sky fairy.

Christ almighty this country is twisted.

#22 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-27 07:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Christ almighty this country is twisted.

#22 | Posted by rstybeach11

You got that right. Our oil companies were the origin of all the climate change denial. Every other civilized country recognizes the problem and respects the science.

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-27 08:27 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#9 | POSTED BY FOSHAFFER

You might be the dumbest person posting here. I'm impressed and AFK is pissed you took his title.

By the way, Al Gore NEVER said the ice caps would be gone in ten years. Ever. He did say that one study predicts that they could but that was worse case scenario in that study.

#26 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-08-27 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-27 10:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

#17 Casey should learn to read what he posts:

"Facts are that the temperature of the planet HAS increased in past 17 years and the last 12 years have each been hotter"

That's odd, your statement contradicts what the University of Washington just published:

"Following rapid warming in the late 20th century, this century has so far seen surprisingly little increase in the average temperature at the Earth's surface. At first this was a blip, then a trend, then a puzzle for the climate science community.

Seen surprisingly little increase is still an increase, just as Kenmidkiff said.

CO2 is up, temperature is up, just not as much as forecast.

#34 | Posted by bored at 2014-08-28 02:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

what people are doing is shouting down the very people they need to prove it too.

LOL how cute. You actually think the deniers can be persuaded.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2014-08-28 02:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

the University of Washington paper stated in the conclusion:

changes in Atlantic Ocean circulation historically meant roughly 30 warmer years followed by 30 cooler years. Now that it is happening on top of global warming, however, the trend looks more like a staircase.

This explanation implies that the current slowdown in global warming could last for another decade, or longer, and then rapid warming will return."

Hardly a victory for the denial side.

#36 | Posted by Scotty at 2014-08-28 06:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

[...] Truth is, climate change legislation isn't going to happen. Would be best to let it go & focus on things that can make an impact. Jobs creation, immigration reform etc...

#43 | Posted by CaseyJones at 2014-08-28 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

For laughs and giggles, only rightwingers should be allowed to post their opinions on this thread.

#44 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-08-28 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

[...] Truth is, climate change legislation isn't going to happen. Would be best to let it go & focus on things that can make an impact. Jobs creation, immigration reform etc...

#43 | Posted by CaseyJones a

Green energy and environmental programs COULD help with job creation, if we didn't have the republican party to prevent it.

They'd rather the chinese make all the new technology because their patriotism goes no further than our oil companies.

#47 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-28 01:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Green energy and environmental programs COULD help with job creation,

The stimulus package spent billions on green energy and it didn't produce dick. I am not sure how you can blame that on Republicans.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-28 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

The stimulus package spent billions on green energy and it didn't produce dick. I am not sure how you can blame that on Republicans.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ

Big whoop. We spend billions on subsidizing oil every year and republicans are glad to do it.

Didn't produce dick? stop listening to faux news.
money.cnn.com
"Over 770,000 homes weatherized. A doubling of energy from wind and solar. Cleaning 688 square miles of land formerly used for Cold War-era nuclear testing.

These are just some of the 'green' benefits from money spent under 2009's $787 billion stimulus package.

But that doesn't include things like high speed rail and smart meters, which lie among the 43,000-plus "infrastructure" awards.

In a report earlier this year, the Brookings Institution put green stimulus spending at $51 billion. From 2009 to 2014, Brookings estimates the federal government will spend over $150 billion from both stimulus and non-stimulus funds on green initiatives.

Nearly $100 billion of that will go towards supporting renewable energy, including subsidies for current wind, solar and biofuel projects as well as R&D for promising new technologies.

Another $15 billion will go toward conservation, including the $4.8 billion spent on the home weatherization program. Funding for electric cars and high speed rail garner about $10 billion each, while smart grid and nuclear power get about $6 billion each. "

#51 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-28 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

grist.org

" The energy stuff wasn't just big, it was ginormous. It's hard to get people twice as excited about $90 billion as they would be about $45 billion, or 10 times more than they would be about $9 billion, but even $9 billion would have been ginormous. Ten years earlier, [President] Clinton pushed a five-year, $6 billion clean energy bill that went nowhere; at the time it was seen as preposterous and unrealistic, and it was. And here, 10 years later, $90 billion in the guy's first month in office. Plus it leveraged another $100 billion in private money.

Obama promised that he would double renewable power generation during his first term, and he did. In 2008, people had the sense that renewable energy was a tiny industry in the United States. What they forget is it was a tiny dead industry -- because these wind and solar projects were essentially financed through tax credits, which required people with tax liability, and everybody had lost money, so nobody needed [the tax credits]. By changing those to a cash grant, it instantly unlocked this industry. Another thing that's helped to create the wind and solar industry were advanced manufacturing tax credits, which were a gigantic deal. I think there were about 200 factories that got these credits. The classic example is Abengoa [Solar], which had shut down projects in Illinois, Texas, some other places. The day the stimulus passed, their chairman announced they were pouring $6 billion into U.S. projects.

For advanced biofuels, [the stimulus bill] created this $800 million program that essentially financed new refineries. And so you got the first 18 advanced biofuel refineries in the country just through that 1 percent of the clean energy funding. And there were some loan guarantees for that as well. There was also a whole geothermal technology program that went from about $20 million a year to $400 million. It's leading right now to a real boom in geothermal production.

You can argue about this kind of green industrial policy, but it did what it was supposed to do. In 2008, I think 80 percent of the average U.S. wind turbine was made of imported parts. After the stimulus created all these factories -- not just making the whole turbine, but making all of the 8,000 parts that go into a turbine -- now it's only 40 percent imported. That creates a constituency for wind power, and it also reduces the cost, because wind turbines are big honking pieces of equipment that you don't want to be importing from abroad. It is true that a lot of these factories and a lot of these wind farms are owned by foreign companies, like Abengoa, but it really doesn't matter whose corporate name is on the polo shirts. What matters is that these are American jobs and it's producing green power in America."

Facts are out there. Republicans just choose to invent their own reality where the stimulus money was "wasted" so that they never have to do any non-fossil fuel spending again.

#52 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-28 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Speak,

I wasn't clear - didn't produce dick for jobs.

Stimulus spending on green energy didn't produce squat for jobs.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-28 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

We spend billions on subsidizing oil every year and republicans are glad to do it.

If the oil companies pay more in taxes than they receive in subsidies...green energy providers can't make that claim.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-28 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

There should be no subsidies for any energy source. That would include highway building, the U.S. Navy, etc.

#55 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-28 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Highway building and the Navy?

So, we should carpet bomb our our highways into non existence and sink our entire naval fleet?

Kidding aside, I don't understand your point.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-28 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the oil companies pay more in taxes than they receive in subsidies...green energy providers can't make that claim.
#54 | Posted by JeffJ

Now factor in the cost in blood, subsidized by the Pentagon. This is of course not counting the human suffering brought on by oil development in places like Nigeria.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-28 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

There should be no more expansion of highway infrastructure. All funds should go to maintenance. Clear enough? A tax should be put on imported oil/or gasoline to pay for naval protective services.

#58 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-28 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Stimulus spending on green energy didn't produce squat for jobs.

I still think it was smart stimulus, because we need to be competitive in green energy with other countries like China.

Some spending doesn't immediately translate into jobs, but it makes us a more prosperous nation in the long run. Look at our interstate highway system.

#59 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-28 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

" Look at our interstate highway system."

Yeah, look at it. It made the entire country dependent on cheap, high-grade, liquid fossil fuels, which have been depleted to the point that industrial society has to use advanced technologies to squeeze the last drops out of the barrel: fracking, shale oi, coal sands, etc.

#60 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-28 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Clear enough?

Now it is. Thanks for clarifying.

A tax should be put on imported oil/or gasoline to pay for naval protective services.

OK - as long as that tax is applied equally to ALL imports.

Protecting shipping lanes is vital to the global economy.

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-28 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Null: You'd prefer America to be a country where there weren't good roads connecting us?

#62 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-28 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Green energy, as it currently exists, will never be able to provide more than a small fraction of our energy needs. It's expensive as hell and inefficient as hell.

Most who promote it do so because it feels right to do so.

We need to develop new sources of energy that actually make sense.

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-28 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

RCADE - Only 3% of the stimulas was on infrastructure like roads. The majority was to pay for additional government workers. China has not even implemented catalytic converters...

As to Speaks quote - it comes from Micheal Grunwald who is not an economist but a writer: Here is some of his good work " On the very day of the Aurora shooting Time's Michael Grunwald justified the oncoming push for gun control by the media when he pronounced: "There is nothing wrong with politicizing tragedy" Ahh what a good liberal -use the deaths of others to push a political agenda. Missouri anyone?

Here are some other Gunwald hits "Time's Michael Grunwald posited that Republican presidential contender Rick Perry is divorced from reality, especially when it comes to the best policies to fix the economy"..You mean like the OBAMA policies we have all been suffering through for the last 6 years. Look up the prices for Pork, chicken and Beef on the government web site...RECORDS since Obama took office and STILL climbing. Or the U-6 unemployment. How about the Work Force participation rate? Or that this year the economy FELL 3% in the first quarter (which would have caused PANIC (stirred up by the press) if a Republican was president...and this year we will end with a NET 1.5% (Nearly our 3rd recession since Obama took office) Out historical average is near 4.

A few others: "Time writer Michael Grunwald unloaded on leftists on Tuesday -- for not being supportive enough of Barack Obama"Grunwald was furious that the "disillusionment addicts of the left" would suggest abandoning the Democrat ship.

"According to Time's Michael Grunwald, it was insane for Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) to reject $2.4 billion for a Tampa-Orlando high-speed rail project. And yet in the same blog post he confessed that a similar high-speed rail project going forward in California is dubious at best and that Scott's rejection of the pork project means that the money is now broken up to aid rail upgrades in other parts of the country where there's actually substantial ridership already"

And if those were not enough a "blast from the past" Grunwald SUPPORTED Obama's statement that our energy problems could be fixed by ...wait for it...yes fans ...Inflating your tires!!!

An August 4 Time magazine article by Michael Grunwald comes to Sen. Barack Obama's defense against Republican claims that his energy policy of keeping tires properly inflated is a joke. The article, entitled "The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke"

Pardon me SPEAK if I do not take the analysis of a left wing kook writer to be the "be all end all" analysis of the stimulus. All you have is one left wing dip saying how good all the wasted money was after all!!!....

Get your head out of the echo chamber and you might just learn something.

#64 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-28 03:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the oil companies pay more in taxes than they receive in subsidies...green energy providers can't make that claim.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ

Convenient to ignore our trillion dollar military who serves to secure fossil fuel supply, isn't it?

You don't need that for renewables.

#66 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-28 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

How about the Work Force participation rate?

First time I've heard the Baby Boom be called Obama's fault.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-28 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Convenient to ignore our trillion dollar military who serves to secure fossil fuel supply, isn't it?

You don't need that for renewables.

#66 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Is that all the military does?

News flash.......... affordable energy is what makes an industrial country grow and prosper. Withoit oil you would be riding a horse or walking to work. No automobile or airplane ride for you.

#69 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-08-28 04:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you guys read ANYTHING??? Or just headlines of things you believe in?
www.nj.com

"But government data suggest it is not simply a matter of Baby Boomers reaching retirement age. Rather, it is the boomers' children who appear to be falling out the most, data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show."

***********
"In other words, the 30 to 59 year olds, who make up 50% of the population which has the potential to work, account for pretty much all of the labor participation rate plunge since 2007. This same age group accounts for three quarters of the labor participation rate decline of the past year. "

www.economicpopulist.org

Sorry it is not people retiring. It is a horrible economy brought on by:

1) Obamacare limit on small business (50) and full time work hours
2) The massive increase in regulations www.forbes.com ... cei.org
3) Increase in taxes:
Top Income Tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6%.
Top Income Payroll Tax went from 37.4% to 52.2%.
Capital Gains Tax went from 15% to 28%.
Dividend Tax went from 15% to 39.6%.
Estate Tax went from 0% to 55%.

And of course a small list of the Obamacare taxes: 1) Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (takes effect in Jan 2014): 2) There is also the new tax on Investment Income . 3) A new tax Hike in Medicare Payroll 4) Obamacare HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (raised from 10% to 20%) 5)Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka "Special Needs Kids Tax"Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (used to be unlimited). I 5) Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals 6)Tax on Innovator Drug Companies 7)Tax on Health Insurers Phases in gradually until 2018

Not to mention the Business tax rate (which has Burger King leaving) 36% vrs 25% in most of the ROW.


#70 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-28 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Sorry it is not people retiring. It is a horrible economy brought on by:

Surprised you didn't find a way to blame the 30 to 59 year olds.
You sure it's not because they lack the skills needed to get a job in this horrible economy?
Because for people in the top tier, the economy has never been better.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-28 05:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Withoit oil you would be riding a horse or walking to work. No automobile or airplane ride for you.

#69 | Posted by Sniper

What's wrong with horses and walking? Especially walking. Perhaps we could redesign our cities so that we could walk more?

Also what makes you think that riding horses and walking are the only alternate forms of green transportation available?

Regardless...Time for the military to go green anyway. It is a National Security Issue.

As Admiral Mullens said: This effort is not merely altruistic. It is essential. Failing to secure, develop and employ new sources of energy or improving how we use legacy-energy systems creates a strategic vulnerability and, if left unaddressed, could threaten national security. And every one of us bears responsibility. We ought to think about energy efficiency relative to how we drive our ships, our planes, our tanks and deploy our soldiers and Marines.

- See more at: greentransportation.info


#73 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-28 07:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Admiral Mullen (no 's')

#74 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-28 07:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Withoit oil you would be riding a horse or walking to work. No automobile or airplane ride for you.

Who said America needed to pick the taxpayers' pockets to invade countries, overthrow governments and maintain dictators to get oil?

America spends more Tax money to protect saudi oil on behalf of Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum than Holland and the UK do.

International corporate welfare at its finest!

#75 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-08-28 07:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

News flash.......... affordable energy is what makes an industrial country grow and prosper.

Meanwhile, under George W. Bush, oil prices tripled.

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-28 08:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Deniers always seem to mistake nature adapting to changing conditions with nature regulating conditions.

Will life on earth end if CO2 levels double or triple or even go up 10-fold? Nope. Will the types of life change? Yup. Man developed under a fairly constant climate scenario. When it changes, as in the last ice age, life changes. Even the righties admit the climate is changing. What they refuse to admit is it will affect how and where we live.

The sun could double or even triple its output and it wouldn't kill life on earth. Us, probably, but other species would survive. It doesn't mean that output would be a good thing, for mankind.

They also refuse to accept that plants which take in CO2 basically store it, or sequester it at a fixed rate. Annuals expel as much carbon as they absorb as they rot. Leaves do the same thing on trees, except trees continue to store it until they die or burn. Basically, when vast areas of the Amazon are burned for farming, there is decades of CO2 released in a few days. Same with oil and coal. And with things like the Amazon, there are now less plants to absorb the CO2 we produce.

#77 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-08-28 09:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.ioga.com

Actually Snoofy it only went up significantly just before the war and then tanked versus Obama which has gone up and stayed up. Even with the massive increase in our domestic production. Why?

Because there is amount of oil,coal and gas that is interchangeable in usage. Taking coal out of the equation means a lot of that is back filled with gas. Oil then fills in for gas and coal as well.

So much of what you think you know ...turns out to be false. Don't you get tired of being wrong? At some point in time you need to consider America over ideology and realize how these policies have actually hurt the average American you guys say you want to help. You guys live here as well.

#78 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-28 09:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

North we are at historic lows in co2. Face it -warming is -was-and ever will be a fraud.

#79 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-28 09:34 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

At some point in time you need to consider America over ideology

No, that's what corporations are there for.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-28 09:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

North we are at historic lows in co2.
#79 | Posted by foshaffer

It's not possible to have a conversation when people can't agree on simple facts.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-28 09:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Frack it, just FRACK IT!

#82 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-08-28 09:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Taking coal out of the equation means a lot of that is back filled with gas. Oil then fills in for gas and coal as well.

Coal is not "out of the equation." Coal production and consumption are both down about five or ten percent from their peaks in 2007-2008.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-28 09:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually Snoofy it only went up significantly just before the war and then tanked versus Obama which has gone up and stayed up. Even with the massive increase in our domestic production. Why?

#78 | Posted by foshaffer

It's called an ECONOMIC RECOVERY.

Oil prices were low when obama took over because the economy had crashed. Increased prices today means the economy is recovering.

Only in republicanland is that a bad thing.

#84 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-28 09:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

#79 North we are at historic lows in co2. Face it -warming is -was-and ever will be a fraud.

Hey Brainiac, type "CO2 chart" into google and look at the pretty pictures.

Moron.

#85 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2014-08-28 10:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

We need to develop new sources of energy that actually make sense.
#63 | Posted by JeffJ

Does it make sense to you that a country of three hundred million people and the only nation to ever send a man to the moon should still rely on burning things for energy like a caveman would?

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-29 01:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Green energy, as it currently exists, will never be able to provide more than a small fraction of our energy needs. It's expensive as hell and inefficient as hell.

Most who promote it do so because it feels right to do so.

We need to develop new sources of energy that actually make sense.

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-28 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

You know not what you speak about. Wind and solar work great and viable as all get out. There are literally THOUSANDS of Wind turbines and solar panels here in Kansas. You just say that because it hurts the oil and gas industry.

#87 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-29 02:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

www.hpj.com

The Grain Belt Express Clean Line is a 700-mile overhead, high voltage direct current transmission line that will deliver 3,500 megawatts of low-cost wind power from Kansas to Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and states farther east. The Grain Belt Express Clean Line will give Kansas the ability to move a domestic energy source to market and enable $7 billion of new, renewable energy projects to be built in Kansas. In addition to the new wind farm investments, the Grain Belt Express Clean Line project will cost approximately $2 billion with around $1 billion of investment in Kansas. In December 2011, the Kansas Corporation Commission unanimously approved Grain Belt Express Clean Line LLC as a public utility in Kansas.

#88 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-29 02:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

www.grainbeltexpresscleanline.
com

#89 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-29 02:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

en.wikipedia.org

It is estimated that 25% of electricity in Kansas could be provided by rooftop solar panels.[2]

en.wikipedia.org

Wind power accounted for 19.4% of the electricity generated in Kansas during 2013.[12]

#90 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-29 02:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

"We need to develop new sources of energy that actually make sense.
#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-28 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag:"

Translation from Koch brothers b.s.:
"We need to find new sources of energy that the Koch brothers can profit from."

#91 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-29 07:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

- See more at: greentransportation.info

#73 | Posted by donnerboy

going back to sailing ships and solar powered jet aircraft. What is next, 'cat' cables for our cars so we can travel 800 miles a day?

Explain to me donnie, how is that going to work?

That military guy also said the polar route is opening to for new shipping lanes. Seems to me the last 2 years the ice around the north pole has increased.

#92 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-08-29 09:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Meanwhile, under George W. Bush, oil prices tripled.

#76 | Posted by snoofy

Whis is a 'fact' you just made up sno.

We don't need no stinkin facts when sno can make up his own.

#93 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-08-29 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

"We began 2009 with gasoline prices averaging $1.625 across the United States- January 1, 2009 was actually the beginning of the uptrend, the first day that prices began to rise. Prices didn't rise above $2 until March 26, 2009, when they were $2.011."

Wasn't that about the time Bush left office?

#94 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-08-29 09:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Speak - we are at a 1.5% GDP growth rate for this year. And we have been sub 3% for 6 years. There has been no recovery. There is the dead cat bounce but no recovery IN SPITE OF "free" money.

2nd) The graph I posted show that we are not at the consistent rate that oil prices spiked to for only 3 months under Bush.

3rd. Historic is not the last 50 years. The graph I posted is based on the last several epocs. It shows that we are at historic level lows. It was done by the scientist trying to PROVE C02 INCREASES caused the various extinctions.

4th) Sad that you think being for the corporations that create jobs are somehow not American. Tell that to the people that will lose their jobs because Burger King is leaving. It is that mindset that is driving this administration policy which is why we see the consistent 12% U-6 number. And if you put back in the people that LEFT the employment pool we are at 17% and have had NO growth since Obama took office. Those are facts.

#95 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-29 09:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

US global Corporations are offshoring jobs and do not care about losing US market, since they are making those losses up with growth in foreign markets. Out Government is on board with these shifts in industrial policy, against their own citizenry. These policies contribute to our deficits while Rethugs blame the poor and unemployed. Our politicians should be booted but most people are clueless and the mass media avoids discussing this topic as much as possible.

Bernie Sanders deserves everyone's support because he does talk about it. Like Ron Paul every effort will be made to marginalize him.

#96 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-08-29 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

You with the facts, take them and leave. We don't want them. We don't need them. We hate them.

The looney left.

#97 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-08-29 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oil prices vary substantially.
Even monthly averages have considerable variation.
Although oil prices spike/crash for 'events' (weather, war, economic boom/bust, etc.), it it is possible to visually discern general trends when examining graphs of the data.

Combining that analysis with what is PRECISELY "under Bush" is an additional problem. Does one use the exact day, or month, or year a president takes office? Does one qualify by adjusting to when a president's policies take effect? It's no wonder a conclusive summary can easily become 'murky'.

That said, one could look at the data and make a sweeping generalization that oil (not gasoline) prices increased 5X (min-to max:$25 to $125) or only 2X (~$38 to ~75$ for a 'typical price'). Overall, the data doesn't seems to contradict the general claim that oil prices tripled "under Bush":

www.eia.gov

#98 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-29 10:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

So many people who are so caught up in proving their side is right that nothing is actually being done about the real problem. We have a bunch of scientists on one side sitting in a room, patting themselves on the back saying "We did some science and proved something!" and then there are a bunch of scientists on the other side with their fingers hovering over the "deny" button just waiting for an article like this...yet all that time and money could be spent on building the infrastructure we need to live with global warming.

People who agree with anthropogenic global warming live in a delusional reality where humans will stop all greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, that is where the problem starts. Greenhouse gases will never go away and as long as the global population continues to rise, we will still contribute to global warming just like methane from cows contributed in the 1800s that caused the warming spike. Even if we get rid of all industry and devices that emit greenhouse gases, the number of people will cause the planet to warm the globe, albeit slower.

So, what we should be doing is using all those scientists and their science to predict the regional effects. Then, spend all the money that lobbyists use to try to convince people on building the infrastructure each region needs in order to survive a warming planet. Coast's need to be fortified with sea walls. Where rivers are running dry, canals and irrigation efforts need to be expanded. And on and on.

But, instead, let's just keep continue to argue over what is causing it and how we can get billions of people to stop causing it...none of that helps the situation.

#99 | Posted by humtake at 2014-08-29 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

We began 2009 with gasoline prices averaging $1.625 across the United States- January 1, 2009 was actually the beginning of the uptrend, the first day that prices began to rise. Prices didn't rise above $2 until March 26, 2009, when they were $2.011

The national average price for a gallon of self-serve regular unleaded was $1.22 in 2000.In 1999 the average was about 90 cents.

Damn, trippled in price?

#100 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-08-29 12:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"We began 2009 with gasoline prices averaging $1.625 across the United States- January 1, 2009 was actually the beginning of the uptrend, the first day that prices began to rise. Prices didn't rise above $2 until March 26, 2009, when they were $2.011
The national average price for a gallon of self-serve regular unleaded was $1.22 in 2000.In 1999 the average was about 90 cents.
Damn, trippled in price?
#100 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2014-08-29 12:20 PM"

Regardless if what you state is correct, the claim was that oil prices tripled. Why are you bringing up gasoline prices?

#101 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-29 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually gas prices hit $2.00 in mid 2004 and rose every year Bush was in office until mid-2008 when they dropped and began rising again.

therionorteline.com

#102 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-29 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"People who agree with anthropogenic global warming live in a delusional reality where humans will stop all greenhouse gases.
#99 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE AT 2014-08-29 12:13 PM"

While I can appreciate (even agree with) several points you raised, I don't agree that those who think global warming is anthropogenic live in a delusional reality where humans will stop ALL greenhouse gases (as if that were even possible!).

Maybe some do, but that is different from ALL do.

#103 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-29 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"We began 2009 with gasoline prices averaging $1.625 across the United States- January 1, 2009 was actually the beginning of the uptrend, the first day that prices began to rise. Prices didn't rise above $2 until March 26, 2009, when they were $2.011."

Wasn't that about the time Bush left office?

#94 | Posted by Sniper

Yeah. Tanking the economy is a proven effective method of reducing gas prices. Fixing the economy is a surefire way to raise gas prices.

Rising Gas prices aren't necessarily an indicator of bad government.

#104 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-29 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If the oil companies pay more in taxes than they receive in subsidies...green energy providers can't make that claim.
#54 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2014-08-28 02:37 PM"

Neither did the oil industry at the start:
"In comparing current support for renewable energy with past aid for today's traditional energy sources, the report focuses on two types of assistance: funding during the first 15 years of support and annualized expenditures over the life of the energy source.
The first 15 years, the report says, are critical to developing new technologies. It finds that oil and gas subsidies, including tax breaks and government spending, were about five times as much as aid to renewables during their first 15 years of development; nuclear received 10 times as much support."

cen.acs.org

cleantechnica.com

#105 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-08-29 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sniper,

Do you really not know the difference between oil and gas?

Oil was right around $30/bbl when Bush came into office. It peaked around $120/bbl before the crash, and it fell to $60 when Bush left office. So call it quadrupled at worst or doubled at best. Tripled isn't an unfair description of the price taking into account the boom and bust.

It's now right around $90/bbl which tracks well with the price before the boom and bust. These are all inflation adjusted numbers. inflationdata.com

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-29 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort