Newly elected Speaker Pelosi is now forming a commitee to address global warming issues, which was to be expected with such an out of touch left wing loony. How much of the tax payers money and t ime will they waste without achieving a single thing? Film at eleven...
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
Perhaps half the country will consider global warming to be a presidential election issue. Maybe full ratification of the Kyoto Treaty as a more specific point. That's something to consider as the Democrats look for voters.
Pelosi is nuts. No doubt about that. We've known it for years and years. This is one more thing that they offer and Republicans don't. It's all about the votes. Once we find some decent candidate who rises above the primary mosh pit, we need to get people into the election. Things are too close nowadaysnot to* get involved, if you care who wins anyway.
Well, if they would simply coordinate some sort of gathering house for current research on the topic with an eye toward evaluating future trends, that might be be useful. But, this will probably be an enormous expense and paperwork generator that reinvents the wheel.
But, nancy was pretty hot in her younger years[8D]
__________________
"Shoot him again....his soul is still dancing"
I wouldn't worry about the Global Warming thing if it didn't have so much potential for dramatically changing our lifestyles and substantially burdening our economy. Of course, I mean by "global warming" the belief that human beings are causing global warming by carbon dioxide emmisions from burning fossil fuels, a belief to which I do not subscribe to (I have the view that while global warming may be occuring, it is beyond the maturity of our current climate science to conclude that human beings contribute substantially to this global warming). Reducing fossil fuel emissions enough to alter global warming would significantly limit our electricity supply (electricity in the US [not in France, 80% nuke there] is probably 80% fossil fuel generated, if not more), substantially alter our driving habits, substantially alter our business travel habits. Some adaptations might be possible. For example, how many of us could restructure our work to stay home and work? I think a lot of the "knowledge workers," people who manipulate information such as account balances, software/code, documents, patent applications, etc., could restructure their work that way. At the same time, working from home is a lot different than the face-to-face work environment today. We would have to find ways to overcome what is lost by not having that face-to-face communication.
Anyway, I definitely don't think this sort of serious, heavy impacting issue should be determined on the basis of shrill political posturing, as it currently appears. The vast majority of the American public is incapable of forming a judgment on this subject. I am right there with them. My judgment is "I don't know, but I don't see the evidence that the science is mature enough to settle this question." And yet you have guys like Al Gore and others appealing to people on the basis of fear. It is interesting that everyone sees global warming as a bad thing. Is it necessarily the case that it must be bad? Won't some previously uninhabitable areas become habitable? Won't some previously unarable areas become fertile? Won't some unpleasant regions become more pleasant?
I just hope that those idiots don't get too carried away. Make as much noise and racket as they want to score political points, I just hope they don't tell us all that we have to go to bed after the sun goes down because we can no longer burn coal to generate the electricity to supply the 600 watts to fire up the television, the 1,000 watts to leave 10 incandescent light bulbs burning throughout the house (hey, you don't know my wife -- what good is a light bulb if it isn't turned on?), the whatever watts to keep the refrigerator cooling down stuff, etc., etc.
As far as "the unpredicatability of climate is all the more encouragement to act." I don't see this (assuming you are addressing the complaint that climate science is immature). If 90% of the effect of climate change is not due to human behavior, we will have given up a great deal for nothing, nothing. Don't delude yourself that materially reducing CO2 emissions (for example, to pre 1990 levels per the Kyoto protocol) can be done by painless increases in engine efficiencies and using flourescent light bulbs instead of incandescent light bulbs.
I have a Chevy Suburban Z71. I don't care what advanced technology you put in that vehicle, it is going to consume a lot of gasoline. I want an engine that will accelerate snappily when I call for the horses. I want to be able to pull a load with confidence up hill when I need to. I challenge any assertion that fixing the problem does not involve giving up significant comforts and functionality. There is not a technological fix that does not involve a significant component of "giving up nice stuff." I don't mind driving my 1998 Toyota Corolla standard with 139,000 miles on it to commute to work; when I go elk hunting, I want the Suburban.
I'm a rational person. If you tell me that either I give up the Suburban or lash myself to the rotisserie spit of global warming . . . I guess I'll give up the Suburban. But as a rational person I'm not persuaded by the qualified evidence. I find the arguments and evidence very shabby and dubious. I'm not going to give this stuff up on speculation. I'm not going to give it up unless there is a bonafide solution out there. A solution that is based on unilateral action of one country isn't going to have any effect. How do you coordinate all the countries of the world, including China and India, to keep a lid on carbon dioxide emissions? We sure have a lot of good examples of absolute, unvarying self-policed adherence to painful, politically disadvantageous protocols among all countries for long periods of time. Don't hold your breath for this kind of cooperation to EVER happen, yet without this what good does it do for the US to reduce our CO2 emissions dramatically?
Sure, improve the gas efficiency of car engines. Make lighting more efficient. But I'm an electrical engineer by training, and I'm here to tell you you're not going to solve this problem by fractional efficiencies, you are going to have to give up some serious comforts, andthat is going to bite deep. My Toyota Corolla is not my Chevy Suburban.
And the idiocy begins
