Posted by Tina
Previews of coming attractions over the dumb duck 2 year session was on parade this morning as the House passed legislation to move forward on the keystone pipeline. The senate has signaled passage will happen soon with some democrats joining with republicans to get it passed. Speculation falls on the positive side that should the President refuse to sign the bill into law, republicans will have enough votes to override…which would be the smart end to a ridiculous delay.
An aside: Obama has pledged $3 Billion in “climate aid to other countries to help them clean up their pollution.
Why not just kick those Americans that work in the coal industry and have lost their jobs because of your draconian EPA regs
So far, Obumble/Oblameo has gotten away with “signaling” whether he’d veto or not instead of actually having to do nything.
Welcome to reality, Mr. Prez. Time to come in off the golf course and do your job. Veto at your peril!
“Why not just kick those Americans that work in the coal industry and have lost their jobs because of your draconian EPA regs.”
You’re the one who’s being terribly harsh and severe, consigning your progeny to a life under hideously polluted conditions. China can’t leave off coal burning just yet, but they’re building the cleanest coal plants the current state of the technology allows.
And, there will be plenty of work for Americans retrofitting our own filthy burning plants, because the people that own them are being forced to do it. And if you don’t like it, well that’s just too damned bad. It’s happening anyway.
But I agree that the OA handled the Keystone thing badly, though I’m surprised at your position.
All those private property owners whose land the pipeline will traverse are still real pissed. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that if the OA had supported the pipeline, YOU would be howling about private property rights.
However, as things developed, it’s really better that the toxic sludge be in a pipe than an open rail car, and the OA should have caved on this one two years ago.
Libby, Tina only thinks that the government appropriating private land is bad if they do it for the environment. Appropriating private land is totally OK if it’s done on behalf of the oil industry. It’s completely consistent!
But just think of the thousands of jobs* it will create!
*for “thousands,” read “35”
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/feb/10/van-jones/cnns-van-jones-says-keystone-pipeline-only-creates/
Wait , isn’t passage of this 6 year hand sit just in time for a close Democratic Senate seat run off??
Below is not the best written post, but I agree on many of Mr. Feynman’s points. Especially when it comes to the issue of eminent domain. If private companies want to build/own this pipeline then they need to purchase or lease the land. I can’t believe that we would allow them, through eminent domain, to take private property (even at “fair market value”). The Republicans are hypocrites when it comes to this issue and we need to change the law.
From:
politicsforum.com April 2012
By: Richard Feynman
I don’t understand all the hypocrisy surrounding the Keystone XL pipeline. This pipeline requires massive eminent domain taking land from private owners for the use of a private company, not the government. It jeopardizes the land of those who don’t want an oil pipeline over it but the government is saying “tough luck” to these farmers. The way for this was paved in the 2005 Supreme Court Kelo decision which was a 5-4 decision in which the liberal wing of the Court held that government may seize private homes for other private development. The conservatives dissented but Kennedy voted with the liberal bloc.
In the past it was generally understood that eminent domain was something governments could use to build public infrastructure like roads, the Keystone XL pipeline is a privately owned pipeline with entirely private profits, whether or not it has a spill over economic effect. In the Kelo case a city in Connecticut seized houses it deemed to be in a “blighted” neighborhood to make room for commerical development for private enterprise. The conservatives held that this was an improper use of eminent domain because even if the city argued the development would create jobs it was not a private utility.
Fast forward 9 years and Republicans are all riled up because Obama refuses to approve the Keystone Pipeline. Now the reason Obama is doing it is politics and the reason many on the left oppose it is entirely related to the environmental cause, a few have pointed out the hypocrisy of Republicans on private property rights but this is just an argument of convenience, much as they suddenly defended businesses right to discriminate against opponents of gay marriage while arguing for years about oppressive businesses denying gay people jobs simply for being gay. So I’m not with the left on this.
To me however this shows the Republicans’ true colors better than any issue. They wrap this up as an issue of Obama standing in the way of the “free market” yet under a true free market scenario the owners of the pipeline would have to get approval from every farmer to cross their land or find some alternate route. It shows the GOP is really just the party of big business and its free market arguments are often just a veneer for the business establishment trotted out conveniently in order to defend their interests. The GOP has time and time again defended massive government action which benefits big business.
The GOP in the past has defended farm subsidies, oil subsidies and warned against cutting back our foreign policy because doing so might jeopardize military contractors profits. Some Republicans have supported harsh sentencing in order to provide private prisons with full beds. In GOP led states Republicans are pushing “drug testing for welfare recipients” when it has been proven that more money is spent on the tests than is saved in keeping the few who fail off welfare, this has been lobbied for by the drug testingindustry who have seen declining profits in the employment sector as marijuana becomes more tolerated (and drug testing is usually about finding marijuana since harder drugs pass through the system too quickly). The GOP while complaining about high taxes on the rich made a stink about poor people not paying enough taxes in the last election.
A true free market supporter would just tell all these industries to fend for themselves. While I am not a libertarian per se I totally sympathize with libertarians who point out that the GOP’s alleged free market inclinations are just window dressing for a defense of the interests of the wealthy. This Keystone Pipeline is yet another example of massive hypocrisy. If Obama was threatening to take away private land to build a public nature reserve across the Great Plains they would call him a “socialist” yet they want to take away people’s land and force others to accept a risky pipeline over their crops by government force.
Libby my progeny will be just fine. There has been NO WARMING for close to 20 years. The science is not only not settled; reputable scientists admit the science is still in its infancy. Environmental alarmists are just redistributionists in disguise, using the issue for power and control.
Idiot! The few coal plants that are able to meet the draconian timeline imposed won’t make u what we need in energy demand and prices for the people will rise…or they will simply freeze in the cold winters, the elderly and young dying for your stupid belief in fabricated and exaggerated “science.”
Your problem is that you see industry as an enemy rather than a partner and since you have never run a business yourself you have the silly childish notion that money to meet the regulatory edict will just fall from the skies whenever the government saps its fingers.
My progeny will rely on science, innovation, and industry to clean up the air and to create new solutions to meet energy needs without undermining freedoms or forcing people into controlled lifestyles and choices…or freezing to death for a lie!
“All those private property owners whose land the pipeline will traverse are still real pissed.”
You interviewed all of them did you?
I wonder how many of them would take the lease money and happily oblige if they had all of the facts instead of a steady stream of alarmist claptrap.
Energy demands are great and we do not live in a world free of risk and danger. What can be done and is being done is work to eliminate as much risk as possible. The people in the oil and gas industry and the people building the pipeline care about the environment too and constantly strive to improve oil transport and production methods.
Failure to build this pipeline has resulted in the more dangerous rail transport. The http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/business/energy-environment/accidents-surge-as-oil-industry-takes-the-train.html“>NYT reported in January (scroll down for story) on a rail accident in South Dakota, headline: “Accidents Surge as Oil Industry Takes the Train.” Who makes money on rail transport of oil…Democrat supporter Warren Buffet!
Huffington Post headline in March, “Months After Oil Train Spill, Alabama Swamp Still Polluted.”
Several environmental impact tests have been done. The proposed project passed “the State Department’s ‘final environmental assessment’ of the pipeline” and the report was issued last February.
The issue of eminent domain has rightly been a stickler and the courts have come down on the side of landowners quite often. What bothers me about the people involved in this is whether they have come to the courts because of alarmist fears or not. The exaggerated dangers green radicals are pushing are over the top, so much so that some conservationists are now speaking out against them.
“I’d be willing to bet that if the OA had supported the pipeline, YOU would be howling about private property rights.”
You would be wrong. The purpose for eminent domain has been obused and I contine to be against it when it is. this project is for the ebnefit of everyone in America, Canada and those nations that wish to purchase the oil from a free friendly nation rather than those who threaten the world. Eminent domain isn’t even necessary when informed landowners agree to let the pipe cross their land in a lease agreement where they are compensated.
States will benefit too:
Business wins, local governments win, the people win.
And all of this puts the lie that building the pipeline won’t generate many jobs to rest. Not only will there be jobs created to build the pipeline and refine and ship the oil, there will be good construction jobs created to improve roads and bridges across America! Some of those workers eat lunch at local food establishments and buy things for their families and take their kids to the movies…its called capitalism set free (Also trickle down economics, a good thing)
“,,,it’s really better that the toxic sludge be in a pipe than an open rail car, and the OA should have caved on this one two years ago.”
So all those snarky remarks at the front of your comment were, what?
Oh, Tina … such a good giggle that first paragraph … there was no need to read further.
I’ve said it before: you can’t make people evolve, and there’s nothing to be done with the willfully ignorant … except drag them along … behind.
Yes, it will be work Libby, but we will drag you and your radical, willfully deceitful, crazies along behind.
WUWT, see chart of global mean temperature change: 212 months August 1996 to March 2014.
CNS News:
Climate modeling errors that were wrong in only one direction can be explained by politics and the extreme left agenda.
Once again the radical left uses deception to get its way, to manipulate the people, and to extract a lot of cash from the taxpayers.
You would think that warming alarmists would be hopeful at the news, after all the data show that we are not in terrible danger. The fact that they are not happy suggests their motives have nothing to do with science or truth.
Excellent comment, Pete.
Tina: “There has been NO WARMING for close to 20 years.”
Not accurate.
http://blogs.rgj.com/factchecker/2013/07/20/has-the-earth-not-warmed-in-past-decade/
“The planet is warming – an observation noted by every climate research institution tracking temperatures, the US National Academy of Sciences (over and over and over), every other national academy of sciences on the planet, and every professional society in the geosciences.
The actual data are easy for anyone to find – they are posted and regularly updated, freely, on public websites around the world. The most consistent, highly respected, and regularly analyzed and updated data on global surface temperatures are available from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Sciences, NOAA’s National Climate Data Center, and the United Kingdom’s Met Office Hadley Center. [Feel free to redo my analysis using any of these – they all independently say the same thing: I’m using the NASA GISS data in my pictures below.]
All of the false claims take advantage of one fundamental truth about the average temperature of our planet: it varies a little, naturally, from year to year. Some years are a bit warmer than average and some are a bit colder than average because of El Niños, La Niñas, cloud variability, volcanic activity, ocean conditions, and just the natural pulsing of our planetary systems. When you filter these out, the human-caused warming signal is clear. But natural variability makes it possible for scurrilous deceivers to do a classic “no-no” in science: to cherry-pick data to support their claims. They pick particular years or groups of years; they pick particular subsets of data. But when you look at all the data, or when you look at long-term trends, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is warming – precisely the conclusion the scientific community has reached based on observations and fundamental physics.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
Dear Tina,
Two of your points in comment #7 bother me. First, you stated, “The issue of eminent domain has rightly been a stickler and the courts have come down on the side of landowners quite often.” (please site rulings)
Please review the 2005 Supreme Court ruling: Kelo v. City of New London.
Briefly, the Court found that a public entity can use eminent domain to take privately held land and then give that land to a another private entity.
Please read http://www.ij.org/kelo and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London paying special attention to the end result of this taking of private property. Note, the home owners lost, the city took control and leased (at the rate of $1/year) the ocean view property to a developer working with Pfizer Pharmaceuticals. The developers deal collapsed and the property sits vacant at an approximate cost of $78 million to the taxpayers.
Here’s a quote from one of the homeowners, “They stole our home for economic development,” ousted homeowner Michael Cristofaro told the New York Times. “It was all for Pfizer, and now they get up and walk away.”
The issue of eminent domain has been settled and we private property owners lost and big business won.
Second, you may want to clarify what you mean by “My progeny will rely on science, innovation, and industry to clean up the air and to create new solutions to meet energy needs without undermining freedoms or forcing people into controlled lifestyles and choices…or freezing to death for a lie!” This statement sounds like you agree there is a problem and that your progeny will have to deal with the clean up. Are you sure that’s what you what to say? If that’s truly how you feel, I wonder what happened to our greatest generation…
Respectfully,
Pete
Pete, first of all I apologize for not responding sooner to your first post. After a lengthy period locked out of the internet due to connection problems I’ve been busy trying to catch up.
Second you should be aware that I am against the abuse of eminent domain laws and have defended private property rights many times on this blog. I am a conservative. I have a strong libertarian bent, realizing however, that freedom requires personal responsibility and a moral citizenry.
The bill, HR 5682: To approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, just passed in the House includes the following provision:
Tina: “We will improve on manufacturing and energy production techniques but it will be done based on science (not phony political activist findings and consensus).”
How can you say this when you lack a basic knowledge of fundamental scientific principles? You have consistently been fooled by misrepresentations of scientific studies, and when I’ve pointed those misrepresentations to you, you blinked like a cartoon lamb. You don’t know how to read scientific papers, so how can you be expected to base your ideas on real science?
“including the finding that there has been no warming for almost 20 years.”
See Comments #11 and #12. This is completely untrue.
How’s that global warming working out for millions across the US? After the second year of record cold temps will there be any believers left in this manmade hoax?
It’s the weather, it changes. Always has and always will.
Denver cold shatters two records, wind chill warning in effect:
“Denver broke two records Wednesday.
The city’s 6-degree high on Wednesday shattered a 98-year-old record for the coldest high on this date. And, according to a National Weather Service tweet late in the evening, the temperature had fallen to -5 degrees at Denver International Airport — a record low for the date.
The previous record low of -4 was even older, set more than 130 years ago in 1882.”
http://www.denverpost.com/weathernews/ci_26921046/denver-weather-record-cold-snow-tap-wednesday
NOAA: Winter 2013-2014 Among Coldest on Record in Midwest; Driest, Warmest in Southwest:
http://www.weather.com/news/winter-ncdc-state-climate-report-2013-2014-20140313
Princeton Professor Comes to Alarming Conclusion on How Climate Change Activists Are Doing It Wrong:
“Dr. William Happer, a Professor Emeritus at Princeton University, gives his views why he believes carbon dioxide is not the pernicious substance it is being made out to be in discussions about “climate change.”
Happer, who has published significant research on atomic physics, discusses not only the scientific community’s inability to explain 18 years without a statistically significant rise in global temperature averages, but the benevolence of higher carbon dioxide levels and increased warming in a historical context.”
(With video)
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/202982-2-princetons-galileo-atomic-physicist-defies-climate-change-consensus-blasts-propaganda/
Peggy isn’t he the one that reminded everyone that carbon dioxide is fertilizer for plants?
A good long list of articles about global cooling, featuring scientists that Chris will dismiss as ignorant or unqualified, can be found here.
it’s a very impressive list.
Apparently the desperate, college conditioned Chris, thinks its necessary to be able to have deep understanding of science papers to notice that people innovate and industry produces. Astounding!
Peggy: “After the second year of record cold temps”
Globally speaking, this is absolutely false. 2013 was one of the warmest years on record, and 2014 is on track to be the warmest year on record. Ever.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1TSNP_enUS487US487&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=2013%20warmest%20year%20on%20record
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1TSNP_enUS487US487&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=2014+warmest+year+on+record
The fact that some parts of the world had record cold does not change the fact that global averages are at record highs.
“It’s the weather, it changes. Always has and always will.”
As a concerned citizen, I beg you not to embarrass yourself by entering into debates on this subject until you learn the difference between weather and climate.
I just don’t get it–I don’t enter into debates on football or fashion because I realize I’m not qualified to discuss those subjects. But for some reason, every climate denier with an Internet connection thinks they are not only qualified to discuss climate science, but somehow more qualified that 97% of all climate scientists.
Tina, he probably is. In the video he explains that the normal atmosphere is four Co2 parts per million and in a green house where plants grow like crazy it jumps into the thousands. The increase in Co2 would produce more food and increase the growth of all plant life.
Tina: “A good long list of articles about global cooling, featuring scientists that Chris will dismiss as ignorant or unqualified, can be found here.
it’s a very impressive list.”
I’m not doubting the scientific pedigree of any of the scientists mentioned on that list. I don’t need to, because the very first entry on that list misquotes a scientist to make it sound like he said the direct opposite of what he actually said.
The statement on Climate Depot says:
“Growing number of scientists are predicting global cooling: Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory: ‘We could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years’”
This statement comes from Yrui Nagovitsyn, a scientist working for the Pulkovo Observatory. As it turns out, the quote has been deceptively edited to make it seem like Nagovitsyn was making an entirely different argument from the one he made.
Here is the full quote:
“Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in the late 17th century.”
The key words here are “in this respect” and “could.” In other words, decreasing solar activity, in and of itself, “could” lead to a cooling period.
However, in the same article that this quote is pulled from, Nagovistyn also says this:
“But besides solar activity, the climate is influenced by other factors, including the lithosphere, the atmosphere, the ocean, the glaciers. The share of solar activity in climate change is only 20%. This means that sun’s activity could trigger certain changes whereas the actual climate changing process takes place on the Earth””
http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_04_22/Cooling-in-the-Arctic-what-to-expect/
So Nagovitsyn is clearly saying that the solar impact is not the only factor to consider, and it is unlikely to be a determinant in whether we see global warming or cooling.
It should be noted that the Voice of Russia article makes the same leap that Climate Depot does; even though it quotes Nagovitsyn as saying that the solar impact on climate is small compared to other factors, it completely ignores that part of his statements in order to pretend that Nagovitsyn said that global cooling based on decreased solar activity was a near-certainty.
Still, all it takes is a bit of critical thinking and analysis skills to realize that Nagovitsyn did NOT say what the Voice of Russia and Climate Depot claim he said. In other words, you have to have the ability and inclination to read the article carefully and pay attention to the primary source, instead of just believing what the author of the article wants you to believe.
In another Voice of Russia article, Nagovitsyn himself addressed the global cooling based on decreasing solar activity here, in response to another member of the observatory (who was not a climate scientist) perpetuating the theory:
“Solar activity is one of the most complicated scientific issues. And suddenly someone, who has never studied climate before, starts making statements. I want to stress that this theory is neither the official theory of the Pulkovo observatory nor of the Commission on Climate Changes Studies at St. Petersburg Research Center.”
http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_02_21/66568476/
And for the record: I have already debunked this very same lie on this website before.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2014/06/02/obama-bypasses-congress-epa-standards/
So tell me, Tina: given that the very first entry on that list is based on a misrepresentation of a scientist, why should anyone continue reading that list? Why should they even waste their time fact-checking the rest, let alone taking any of its claims at face value?
Go ahead. Give me a reason.
You know Tina, I had planned on leaving this site but this is just too much damn fun. You have been in rare form lately; it’s just lie after lie after lie after lie. Many of them are lies that were disproven here on this blog in the last year, and you just re-post them as if they are brand new information that should turn the tide of the discussion. You never acknowledge the lies no matter how much proof you are faced with, you just move on to another lie.
It’s fascinating. Someone should use this blog as part of a study on pathological dishonesty.
Anthony is celebrating the 5th anniversary of climategate!
The comments section warms my heart. So many fellow “deniers” (with the credentials) and the good sense not to remain silent in the face of a swindle built on a scheme perpetrated by opportunistic carnival hacks like Mr. Gore.
Chris its hard to take you seriously. You choose to dismiss an entire list of articles by scientists you say you don’t respect because you see one at the top that you believe is filled with error. You are lazy; more interested in making snarky comments and calling names than discovering what reputable scientists who don’t agree with consensus think. You are the exact opposite of a scientist because you are not curious in the least. I’d call it the arrogance of youth but there are too many old farts out there exactly like you.
Linking once again to WUWT, this is too good not to share:
At the very bottom of the page you dismissed out of hand is another list; a “Very Small Sampling of 1970s Global Cooling Flashback”:
One day Chris, when you’re wearing your woolies and wondering what the he77 happened, we’ll both have a good laugh.
Tina: “Chris its hard to take you seriously. You choose to dismiss an entire list of articles by scientists you say you don’t respect because you see one at the top that you believe is filled with error.”
This is not just a “belief.” It IS filled with error. I explained the error in full.
Do you understand the error?
I just don’t see why you think anyone should even read your further links until you address the false claims you have already perpetuated. Attempting to distract people from your lies by just dropping more links is a ridiculous strategy that would only work on the stupid.
Address the errors I have already pointed out to you, then I will read the rest. Until that point, there is no reason for me to believe you are even trying to give accurate information.
I refuse to acknowledge “errors” you point out or answer your questions. The credibility of those you side with is in serious question and your smug attitude grates.
I don’t base my position on my ability to deeply understand the science.
I base it on a combination of things:
1. Scientists whose opinions make more sense and who don’t pretend to have a lock on “the facts”…reputable scientists don’t operate arrogantly.
2. The magnificence in nature and its amazing balancing, cleansing and healing qualities.
3. The politicization of the issue, which has swung through the decades from freezing to greenhouse effect, to warming, to climate change, to now, acidic oceans, with any number of species and furry animals used as props.
4. A message that’s delivered as crisis requiring emergency measures that just happen to cost a bundle, affect the products we use, and make people wealthy who haven’t risked a thing personally.
5. Mr. Gore, acting Guru, and various other messengers that have not only made piles of money and positioned themselves to make more, but have not, in the face of this dangerous and threatening “crisis,” changed their own polluting behaviors and lifestyles. (Some crisis, only affects other people)
6. The corrupt U.N. involvement.
7. Reading about the sun, a very powerful force, source of energy, and sustainer-of-life.
8. Carbon, the staff of life, and C02 which is necessary for all plant life and is so perfectly balanced with human,animal breathing. Human activity is miniscule compared to the vastness, the greatness, the wonder of nature and natures activity.
9. Revelations of deception and manipulation of data by prominent glo-warm scientists.
10. Revelations about the scheme to control the narrative by controlling peer review.
11. Revelations that grant money was made unavailable to scientist that questioned the narrative and/or whose research was in other fields.
12. The giant tax rip off.
13. Fools who ignore and try to destroy the reputations of serious scientist who disagree…an immediate moral disqualifier!
Tina: “I don’t base my position on my ability to deeply understand the science.”
Seriously, this is where a rational person would stop and realize that they shouldn’t bother forming a position until they develop a deeper understanding. None of the 13 points you posted after this are worth a damn if you don’t understand the science.
I don’t understand why people think they’re entitled to have a position about a subject they admit to knowing shit-all about, let alone muck up the political process for everyone else by acting as if their uninformed opinion is as good or better as the years of careful study of actual experts. Isaac Asimov was right; our political system is now dominated by people who think their ignorance is as good as other people’s knowledge.
Stephen Colbert was right as well:
“With the Republican Senate victory Tuesday came the slow realization that Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), a man who literally wrote the book
on climate change denial, was poised to takeover the Environment and Public Works Committee. On Thursday night, Stephen Colbert used Inhofe’s views as a jumping off point to examine the GOP’s general stance on climate, which he summed up as, “We don’t know what the fuck we’re talking about.”
“As Colbert explained, most Republicans don’t outright deny that climate change is man-made, but instead employ the “brilliant tactic” of those four simple words, “I’m not a scientist.”
“Everyone who denies climate change has the same stirring message: ‘We don’t know what the fuck we’re talking about,’” Colbert said. “I hope that these conservative leaders can inspire all the children out there watching to think to themselves, ‘Hey, maybe someday I could grow up to be not-a-scientist.’”
“Remember kids,” he added, “if you get unhooked on science early, maybe someday you could completely lack any understanding of science and then grow up to be the
chairman of the Senate Environmental Committee.””
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/colbert-sums-up-gop-on-climate-change-we-dont-know-what-the-fck-were-talking-about/
I mean, you all but admit your opposition to acknowledging scientific facts is based on your anti-regulation agenda. Global warming can’t be real because you don’t want to do anything about it.
What a lazy, selfish, uncritical mind you have.