Worse now, and likely to get a lot worse

richard, you've created a monster!

 

NO!

If people don't get "worked up" and if we wait for the chips to fall "where they may" it may well be too late. As it is, the organized, well funded obfuscation campaign to cast doubt where little exists (within the climate science community) (in spite of what they wish to believe) is gaining traction amongst those who for what ever reason don't wish to accept reality.

If we don't "get worked up" and we let these folks "win" their disinformation/obfuscation war, it probably won't be you and I who pay the price,, but our children and their children!

You also repeat the mantra that we are doing everything possible and if that is not enough then so be it. The reality is that most folks are not doing everything possible on an individual basis. On a societal/government basis we haven't even agreed that there is a problem for crying out loud, much less come up with a consensus as to what to do. As a result it is up to people like Pat Sparks and others like him to keep the issue at the forefront of people's thinking!

As someone once said, any politician who starts a sentence with the words " our biggest problem is,,," and doesn't finish it with "climate change and what we need to do about it,,," ,,,,

 

Quite frankly, worrying about the effect of "property values" as a result of global warming, is a bit like re arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!

 

i think the next generation has a pretty good handle on it, i see no reason to panic. most of the world is heading toward the goal of lowering their carbon footprint. technology keeps improving. yes, there is still a lot of work to do, but we'll never get everyone on board. keep fighting the good fight, keep the conversation civil, we'll win more friends with sugar than vinegar.

 

It is not a case of panicking, but rather a case of keeping the pressure on. The world may be trying to "head toward lowering carbon foot print", but the reality, as I said before governments haven't been able to get behind any consensus as to what we should do! I have no idea where you get the confidence to rely on the next generation to "get a handle on it"!

And finally, I have little interest in making friends as a result of my views on global warming. (I am not interested in making enemies either!) but the reality is that the other side fights this war with obfuscation, half truths, innuendo, personal attack etc. so I will be civil here, but I am not interested in becoming friends. I am interested in communicating the idea that the issues before us are indeed deadly serious and if we (individuals and society) don't understand that, the costs and consequences going forward, particularly to future generations only get greater.

 

I work outdoors often and I use sunscreen on all but the cloudiest days. Factor 30+ is the highest rating available here, and is all I will use.

 

Sure, here it is:

Wind power is a complete disaster - FP Comment

This whole Carbon Market Cap & Trade thing is a political confidence game designed to make the wealthy even wealthier. Anything else you can say about it is nonsensical by definition. As I've said before, this kind of racketeering can exist only in a coercive environment, it would not exist in a free and open society.

 

I have to give you credit, icarus, for your single-minded dedication to your cause. I've seen you bombarded with evidence contrary to your position, yet you keep bouncing back, the evidence running off like water down a duck's back. I, and others, have referred to work that shows that white is white, but you ignore it and rejoin that white is black.

I find myself unable to keep up, in the time it takes me to come up with one post, you can produce ten! Once again, we're going to have to agree to disagree on man-made global warming.

 

"This whole Carbon Market Cap & Trade thing is a political confidence game designed to make the wealthy even wealthier."

I agree that cap and trade is a recipe for fraud and corruption, hence my preference for a transparent carbon tax.

"As I've said before, this kind of racketeering can exist only in a coercive environment, it would not exist in a free and open society."

I think a "coercive environment" is a BS argument. Fraud and corruption thrive in an environment of lax oversight and deregulation without concern for the effect of that deregulation. To think that "free markets" can and does the "right thing" is fallacy. "Free marketeers brought us the monopoly capitalism of the early 20th century, followed by the melt downs of the 30's as well as the current melt down. Business has one task, and that is to make a profit, doing the "right thing" is seldom in it's best interest. (And, just to preclude the argument that I know folks will make, I am not averse to profit, but it is there are societal concerns that are ultimately more important than an individual business' profit).

Your vision of a "free and open society" is probably a bit different than mine, and that is fine. I would suggest however that neither of our visions are by their very nature susceptible to corruption. You may view rules and regulations as a hinderance to a "free and open" society, while I may consider them a needed check on the power of money over individual people.


"I have to give you credit, icarus, for your single-minded dedication to your cause. I've seen you bombarded with evidence contrary to your position, yet you keep bouncing back, the evidence running off like water down a duck's back. I, and others, have referred to work that shows that white is white, but you ignore it and rejoin that white is black. "

What you and your friends consider "evidence" is for the most part been refuted (not by me per se) but by others on this site, as well as the preponderance of climate science conclusions going back decades. (In spite of your belief that the "climate gate" issue is A, a real issue, and B, represents any REAL change in the conclusions of that preponderance) So once again, just because you say it aint so, doesn't make it not so! Just because your hero Steve Mcintire says it aint so doesn't make it so either. I will rely on the opinion of the vast majority of people working in the field,, the climate scientists to influence my opinion, rather than those from the internet and the blogosphere. I certainly don't have the knowledge, training, experience or expertise to opine on any given study, and you will notice that I have not done so. (and I might add, neither do most of you!) What I have done is be consistent with my argument, sustained by conclusions drawn by the climate scientific community.

 

Sigh... you drew me in again. Fraud and corruption were enabled by the government which then practiced lax oversight as a means to their end.

The latest recession was started by the US government under Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act. This act required that banks make real estate loans to people who couldn't document means to repay the loans. The banks were told not to worry about it, the government would back them up with Fanny Mae. The pressure to make bad loans was increased under Clinton, with Bush not helping very much either. Basically, the government removed the element of "risk" from business transactions. You can't have capitalism without risk, it's the check & balance effect. Remove the check and the balance goes crazy. This recession illustrates yet another failure of socialism.

The government was also responsible for prolonging the Great Depression. Governments can't spend their way out of a depression. Free enterprise and job creation are the only ways out.

 

"The latest recession was started by the US government under Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act. This act required that banks make real estate loans to people who couldn't document means to repay the loans."

Gotta keep this short as I gotta run, but I can't let this one go. The previous statement is the BIGGEST PIECE OF BS that has been sold as "fact" regarding the current melt down. By nearly every metric, CRIA loans, over the history of the program have had a statistically significantly higher repayment rate than mortgages in general. The real cause of the melt down was the NINJA loans sold and resold as AAA rated securitized mortgages. People "buying" houses (many on spec) they couldn't afford, couple with unscrupulous mortgage brokers getting rich on selling mortgages to people who had no ability to pay, and getting rich in the process!

This is a blatant attempt to demonize the working poor, to justify the madness that was the subprime mortgage crisis!

The CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) Talking Point | Daily Markets

Media conservatives baselessly blame Community Reinvestment Act for foreclosure spike | Media Matters for America

There are many, many documents out there agreeing with me on this.

The few that don't are opinion pieces by right wing pundents. You should either get better informed, or be ashamed of yourself! These are out right lies!

PS. If the CRA was such a bad idea, why didn't your right wing hero Reagan to HW Bush To GWB move to repeal it? I believe there were plenty of chances to do so with majorities in the house and senate! No, the real cause of the current meltdown was the repeal of certain banking regs (at the behest of Wall street, and the complicity of congress and previous whitehouses). Most notably the Glass/Steagal Act.

 

Linking to an opinion piece is not a reference. Please try again.

 

You just went on and on about evidence and white is white..

So how about you show evidence of ONE no-doc loan that a bank was forced to make pursuant to CRA.

And I guess you can just ignore the evidence that shows CRA loans were less likely to default than non-CRA loans, that CRA loans were less likely to be subprime than non-CRA loans (and even when they were, CRA loans had lower rates), and that CRA loans were less likely to be sold than non-CRA loans (meaning that the originator kept the risk)...

http://traigerlaw.com/publications/The_community_reinvestment_act_of_1977-not_guilty_1-26-09.pdf
http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf

 

You do realize that that study only goes back to 06 dont you? I guess thats one way to hide facts. Most of the loans that were defaulted on were given by the CRA supported banks from 99-05

 

The great part about having solar PV on the roof, CFL's and LED's in the light sockets, energy efficient appliances, a Prius in the garage and recycling barrels is running the comparisons month over month, year over year and seeing that our home is using less, we are PAYING FAR LESS, and we contribute less to land fills and pollution.

My brother only considers his wants and needs and regularly tells me that my efforts to conserve are foolish. He says the world is going to hell in a hand basket and that because he smokes two packs a day, he will be dead soon and it's not his problem.

To all the naysayers and all those who just don't give a damn about the planet or their neighborhoods or their kids or my kids and grandkids, perhaps you will just take an interest as self interest to save a buck. I could go on to talk about funding terrorism with petro dollars or funding pollution and acid rain through profligate use of our resources because you can afford it and it is your Right to do whatever you want to do.

I used to preach the gospel of conservation and clean energy back in the day. Got tired. It was and is an individual thing. Nobody is going to save the planet. The planet will still be around long after we are gone. But it might be good of us to try and leave our little part of it better than we found it instead of fouling our nest and our neighbors.

It is not too late. It is never too late as long as we have breath and the will to better ourselves and our world.

PasPrius

 

Citation?? Documentation please?

 

Well, a quick google search for "wind farm true costs" yields something like 400,000 hits. Have fun!

Here's but one analysis from Canada:

The True Cost of Electricity from Wind is always Underestimated and its Value is always Overestimated Wind Concerns Ontario

Just ignore the constant drone from the left about the so-called benefits from "renewable resources" for a moment and use some common sense. Solar and wind are intermittent and not very dense. You need huge collectors that don't always provide energy when it's needed. This requires conventional backup systems. You have basically, two parallel systems. Is this efficient?

 

I'll see your NIMBY link and raise you a Wind producers link:

Wind Energy Costs

Or Two: The cost of energy generated by wind power


PS No rebut on your BS about CRA?

 

i get the idea from my "children and childrens children" as you so aptly put it. as they begin to take over, their values will change the world for the better. they control their own destiny just as we did. they are true believers (i am generalizing but it it is a much higher % than my generation) and will do what needs to be done to reverse the damage. smaller houses, efficient technology, more public transit, you name it, they are all over it. they make me proud to be their parent/grandparent. not that i take credit, they seem to realize it on their own.

 

pat, make sure you have your vitamin d checked. we are having a crisis in the states because people are not getting enough sun due to sunscreen and without the effect of sunshine, vitamin d levels can be dangerously low. i think dr. fusco can back me up on this.