Rick Santorum's dirty words
November 7, 2006 was a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day for a lot of Republicans. It's the day the Democrats won the majority in the US Senate and House. Über-conservative Republican Senator Rick Santorum was one of the Republicans who lost his seat that day; it was the "largest margin of defeat for an incumbent Senator since... 1980." Ouch .
Determined not to be relegated to the "where are they now?" column, Santorum has been keeping his conservative fan club happy with his semi-regular opinion pieces in the Philadelphia Inquirer. He pontificates on his favorite subjects, like "family values " and "evildoers ".
However, today Santorum digresses, and puts on his "clean coal" salesman hat.
Santorum's column is a train wreck, full of inept comparisons and non sequiturs. Writing and composition instructors, as well as logic and rhetoric teachers, beware. Rick Santorum will make your blood pressure go up.
'Coal' is not a dirty word if we are realistic about saving the Earth
How is a poll from a year ago "recent"? Not only that, but Santorum apparently missed the part of the poll that said 56% of the people polled thought temperatures around the world have risen. The poll result negates what he says next:
But then he contradicts himself and says "the hype" is working, and that he's kinda buying into it. Aw shucks:
He continues with how the hype really isn't working. Oh, and yawn, here comes the predictable Inhofian Science:
Could it be that Americans know that over time the Earth goes through natural cooling and heating cycles?
Could it be that they recognize that most of the doomsday scenarios are not scientifically supported and that even the "consensus" projections are just that - projections based upon highly interactive questionable assumptions over long periods of time?
Finally, after sixteen paragraphs of tired rhetoric, he gets to his point:
There is that dirty word: coal.
Those lumps of carbon turn the lights on in 50 percent of American homes.
In an age when energy independence is not only important for our economy, but also vital to our national security, we can't afford not to use this plentiful domestic resource.
Yes, indeed. Rick has joined the fantasy world of the "clean coal" promoters. He doesn't make his point very well, because he suddenly muddles his point by bashing Barack Obama:
CCS separates and captures carbon dioxide at the power plant before it is emitted. It is then liquefied, transported by pipeline and injected deep underground into geological formations for permanent storage.
Contrast this down-to-earth, commonsense approach with Barack Obama's other-worldly proposal. He's calling for a mandatory 80 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2050.
Let's recap what Rick's trying to say:
- Global warming is not real.
- The media makes people think it is, or maybe not (?), but at least Rick recycles.
- Coal is clean. CCS works. Seriously, for reals!
- Barack Obama is lame and unrealistic, because he doesn't believe in "clean coal" as an energy source.
FAIL, Rick. Here's reality:
Global warming is real. A 2008 poll shows that nearly half of Americans believe humans cause global warming, although this percentage is down from a previous poll.
Coal is not "clean". And Barack Obama actually promotes "clean coal", so Rick's just plain lying.
I'd like to suggest some reading material for Rick, although I think he's beyond hope.
But we have faith in the the reality-based community (both online and off).
We're counting on you to see through the "clean coal" spin . It's your future - and the Earth's - that's at stake.
1000 ppm or bust
More on the benefits of higher CO2 levels:
Surprise: Earths’ Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
Damn. hit post to fast
Here is the link to the full article;
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1041
Just scanned it
It doesn't look like there's any science in there. I think the problem with these links you are posting is that they do nothing to address the question of what it would take to change your mind. I could look up a hundred links (to actual scientific papers, even) about CO2 and post them in comments addressed to you, but what's the point? You've written before that belief in AGW is a 'religeon' but if your mind couldn't be changed on the basis of evidence, it is you who is religious on this matter. I'm currently away on business and don't have time to look at this more carefully. Perhaps you can tell me specifically which claims you find compelling.
Hi Steve L
You seem to be wanting me to do the work of convincing myself that AGW is valid.
Since my starting position is that it is not, I believe it is for you to provide arguments that support it.
The links I have posted are intended to illistrate why I have been convinced as I have.
Back to the premis:
Man made CO2 will cause global temperatures to rise 2+ degrees this century and cause harm to the human population.
I have shown (in the posts) that this is not possible, it is now up to you to show that the science in those posts is incorrect.
That may go some distance toward shaking my resolve.
It is only one piece to the puzzel but an important one.
Wha? I'm not asking you to convince yourself.
This entire discussion began with me asking you what would convince you. It's important to determine whether or not one's mind could be changed, no? The question is, What would change your mind? What evidence would you require? If you're not religious regarding AGW being a false religion, then you should be able to identify which specific findings would overturn your interim conclusion. You have provided links to things, and I've looked at them trying to find out what it is about them that compels your belief. But it would be easier if you stated what it is instead of leaving it up to my interpretation. Gotta go for now.
Steve L. Our CO2 Discussion
Hi Steve.
I would like to submit this link to our discussion.
I think it speaks well to the relative infleuences of CO2 and the sun.
I know it proves nothing, none of the compiled work proves anything yet, but I believe it make very sound logical sense.
What do you think?
Supporting Docs
Here is a link to YET ANOTHER scientist with GOOD scientific evidence that AGW is a non issue.
And this one (Stephen Wilde)is a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968.
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1396
Lets Start a new movement
Since we have so many comments here about truth and honesty and morals etc.
I propose we start a new Movement.
Lets do something for the starving people of the world.
Produce MORE CO2.... NOW.
Since it is now clear that CO2 has only a minute effect on temperatures, we can now "Move ON" to embracing the benefits.
A concentration level of 1000 ppm would enhance crop production enough to solve most of the food shortage problem. That level can’t be reached for hundreds of years but if we start now we can make huge improvements in just 50 years.
The Chinese and Indians are doing their part. We need help. Be to be part of solution instead of the problem.
As a side benefit, we may be able hold off Global Cooling a tiny bit with our efforts.
Save the Planet; Buy a Hummer!
How about it?
Do you care?
I'm just a random visitor to this site. One of reasonable intelligence and a passing knowledge of the subject matter.
The Illuminati? Soulless corporations? Well, whatever turns your crank. Actually, MY worst nightmare is all about stupidity. About folly. About having the information we need to make it right, and ignoring it.
But that's just me.
And who are you?
Big Bad Oil sent us Marian. We are people without conscience, morals or feelings for others. We are part of the global conspiracy involving the Illuminati and paid by that soulless corporation Exxon to paralyze the public into inaction on AGW by simply offering up a different opinion. We may not be your worst nightmare but we're pretty darn close.
Now tell us a little about yourself.
Pretty pathetic
Where do you guys come from? This thread has nothing to do with the original post, and the idjits who have commandeered the commentary don't seem to have the barest grip on the facts. Don't bother responding to them, Kevin. It's a waste of time & effort.
Then again, maybe it keeps them busy and prevents them making trouble elsewhere . . .
Global Warming is the new Easter Bunny
"Global warming is real. A 2008 poll shows that nearly half of Americans believe humans cause global warming"
So, if a large enough number of people believe something is real, it must be real?
Another 2008 poll shows 95% of six-year-olds believe Santa Claus lives at the North Pole.
Glad we cleared that up.
What do you expect from Santorum?
Republicans: All lies, all the time.
Talk about strawmen. I can't
Talk about strawmen. I can't think of any reason why there would be an article on a Canadian site about Santorum. Can you?
"Republicans: All lies, all the time." - exusian
Where the hell did that come from? You wouldn't be a Liberal would you exusian (or even worse, a NDPutzer)?
We're even worse in Canada. The Libs ratified Kyoto and our C02 emissions have been rising every year since. So let's leave the Republicans out of this.
Poor Paul.
Can't wait 'til January when Stevie bot has to stand up against the tide all by his lonesome without a Repug's coat tails to hold onto.
Lucky Paul
I don't see the need to unnecessarily introduce politics into the thread. Why do you Exusian? That is why I question the introducing of Santorum and his musings into the thread. He's a strawman.
That's rich.
Your side is all about the politics rather than the science.
What "side" is that?
I am not on a "side" Exusian, sorry to break the news to ya. The science is clashing with the political system, and making little headway so far. You can hate the politics, but it is the politics which will determine whatever policies may be taken. Ignore them at your peril.
The science has to be honest science
Paul S/G said: "The science is clashing with the political system, and making little headway so far. You can hate the politics, but it is the politics which will determine whatever policies may be taken. Ignore them at your peril".
Yes, politics is based on science but unfortunately the politicians find it easier (more money perhaps) to support "your side" who continue to tell lies, supply misinformation, cherry pick data and a host of other fraudulent science techniques with the end result that the politics is not based on any real science at all.
That is why "your side" is so despicable. Why the politicians believe all this nonsense is a mystery. Are they that ignorant of some basic science skills? Or is it the idea of lucrative political funding from groups with a vested interest in the pseudo science and the promise of a rich afterlife once they leave politics?
Ian Forrester
Oh, oh, Ians back
I am not on a "side" Ian, but nice try. As a front pew warmer, you see this issue in blacka and white terms and must demonize anyone who does not adhere to your extreme views.
Of course you are on the "right" side. How else could it be? Insecure people need the certainty of being absolutely right and you have found it in the AGW issue.
Paranoia has crept into the worldview of too many AGW supporters. They see conspiracy and dirty money under every bed when, in reality, only your teddybear is there Ian.
It's not about "security" but honesty
Paul S/G said: "Insecure people need the certainty of being absolutely right and you have found it in the AGW issue".
Paul, it is about honesty and knowledge. If you had even a little bit of either you would see that deniers, liars, distributors of misinformation, cherry pickers et al. are doing their best to influence politicians to make things easy for the polluters of this world.
It is not just companies who are producing large amounts of carbon dioxide who are using these dishonest techniques but it includes many large corporations who put their own bottom line ahead of the health and well being of ordinary citizens.
It is gladdening to see the many people who are now understanding the damage people like you are doing with your dishonesty. Fortunately, the world is changing and the polluters and their supporters (the various trolls who pollute this site) will soon be long gone.
Ian Forrester
Knuckledragger said,
Knuckledragger said, "...deniers, liars, distributors of misinformation... grunt, snuffle, snort."
We sure are lucky to have this intellectual giant to keep us informed about all the latest scientific truths.
Does the truth hurt that much?
That you have to resort to schoolyard behaviour?
If anyone wants to find out the intellectual level of the deniers they can do no worse than visit this site and they will see just what a low level of intellectual honesty is exhibited by the resident trolls on this site.
I can have more in depth discussions with the residents of our local zoo.
Ian Forrester
"Baaaaa-aaah! Not him again!"
"I can have more in depth discussions with the residents of our local zoo."
--Ian Forrester
For God's sake, leave those sheep alone, Ian.
Shold have put this here...
Just FYI;
Here is the support for the statement that Hansen's work has now been discredited.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/print.html
There is no debate about Mann's work so I won't post that again.
Usual rubbish from the resident trolls
There are 4 main temperature records for the period 1979 to present, GISS, HadCRU, RSS and UAH. Since they show temperature anomalies, not actual temperatures (AGW deniers cannot understand the difference) the absolute temperature anomalies will be different due to the differing base periods used for the data sets. GISS uses the period 1951 to 1980, HadCRU 1961 to 1990 and RSS and UAH 1979 to 2000.
So if all four measured the actual temperature as being the same, the temperature anomalies would be different since the earth has been warming since 1951. Thus GISS has the largest anomaly since the 1951 to 1980 period had the lowest average temperature.
The AGW denier crowd, not understanding this simple scientific basis for this, crows that "GISS temperature data has been manipulated to show higher temperatures".
This is complete rubbish. To verify this just examine the following graph, where Tamino has plotted the four sets of data based on the same base line:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/4way.jpg?w=500
You will see that the four sets of data are almost identical.
This is discussed in full at:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/#more-614
So Gary, how can you say that Hansen's work has been discredited when it agrees almost exactly with the other sets of data?
Ian Forrester
Firstly
The article I posted was merely one in a long line of articles showing the GISS "Adjustment" mothods.
All anyone needs to do is spend a bit of time at the ClimateAudit.org site to see how biased Jimmy's manipulations are.
Or have a look at his absolutely comical Sea Level Rise predictions if you just need a laugh.
The man is a paid shill for the multibillion dollar AGW industry.
If the Facts don't fit the theory, change the Facts.
Albert Einstein
More lies and rubbish
Here is a warning to all followers of this blog. Spending too much time on climatefraudit will completely frazzle your brain; just see what has happened to Gary, Paul S/G, Rob, HP Jnr et al.
They do not have two neurons to fire to complete a neural circuit, they are brain dead. Stay away from climatefraudit and other such sites e.g. “wattsupdoc”.
Ian Forrester
I'm sure you do
"I can have more in depth discussions with the residents of our local zoo." - Ian Forrester
Ha. And I'm sure you do Dr. Doolittle. ;)
Thanks Ian
That was one of the best Cultish rants in a long time.
Very entertaining, Ian.
Really makes you case.
LOL
"I can have more in depth
"I can have more in depth discussions with the residents of our local zoo."
That figures! You can exchange pleasantries with your fellow knuckledraggers while playing on the swings. While you're there, perhaps you can teach your peers some of the finer points of entrepreneurial biochemistry.
Ian, of course you are for
Ian, of course you are for "honesty and knowledge", I mean, how couldn't you be? You have to be. Of course it is you yourself who has decided that (surprise) you just happen to stand for "honesty and knowledge".
What I call it is "smug self-righteousness". Enviros are much too smug for their good or our benefit.
"our benefit"?
I assume you are meaning the benefit of large polluting companies and their sycophants?
Ian Forrester
Just wondering
Whe you refer to "tell lies, supply misinformation, cherry pick data and a host of other fraudulent science techniques"
I assume you are refering to Michael Mann and James Hansen et al.
How does that help your case?
Or perhaps you refer to the IPCC Pseudo scientific papers. Few really take them seriously any more.
Can you really site some real concrete science that actually supports AGW Ian?
Just wondering.
" I assume you are referring
" I assume you are referring to Michael Mann and James Hansen et al.
and the non existent CO2 temperature rise correlation.
and The Freon
and the Ozone
and the Acid rain
and the Computer Models
and the GISS
and Wikipedia
and Sea Level Rise
and The "Consensus"
and Polar Bears
and on and on and on
and the result of this Honesty?....From a scared 14 year old on youtube
"yes u r right and wut i think is the earth is so over populated with people and haw people have cars power plans facturys and they poot like a lot of poloothion so i think that the world is melting the ice and then wen it is all gon the world will have a world wide ice age killing all living things and resterting life all over aggen wen it melts all life will start overprolly even frome the feew living thins that surrvive if eny thing does well thanks and i hope u reed this =)"
Less time Watching "An Inconvenient Truth" in school is needed.
"I decided I just had to call because you've printed a picture of the Earth upside down" - Al Gore, Washington Times, 1998
You haven't a clue
You are so clueless and ignorant of science, you are a joke.
Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of science knows who are the ones telling lies and using fraudulent techniques. And it is not Mann, Hansen or the scientists involved with IPCC.
It would be an utter waste of time citing (note the correct spelling) the actual papers showing the real science because you are either so ignorant that you would not understand them, or you are so dishonest you would ridicule them.
Ian Forrester
BTW: Background
Just FYI;
Here is the support for the statement that Hansen's work has now been discredited.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/print.html
There is no debate about Mann's work so I won't post that again.
Wrong!
Canada ratified the Kyoto treaty on December 17, 2002, and it came into force in February 2005.
From the "National Inventory Report 1990-2006: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada" published in April 2008 by Environment Canada, Executive Summary, Section ES.2, p 3:
"In 2006, Canadians contributed about 721 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent (Mt CO2 eq) of GHGs to the atmosphere (Figure S-1), a 1.9 percent reduction from 2005. This followed a year of relatively very low growth in emissions and another year of decline, such that the overall change from 2003 is a reduction of 2.8%. Canada's economic GHG intensity -- the amount of GHGs emitted per unit of economic activity -- was 5% lower in 2006 than in 2005."
Table S-1, p 5, shows the following total GHGs (Mt) per year:
1990 - 592
1995 - 642
2000 - 718
2003 - 741
2004 - 743
2005 - 734
2006 - 721
The New Canadian Government, unsurprisingly, has failed to publicly acknowledge the downward trend which it inherited and has since squandered.
Huh?
1990 - 592
...
2006 - 721
This must be some new definition of "downward trend"?
Can't you read?
Paul S said "The Libs ratified Kyoto and our C02 emissions have been rising every year since." Kyoto was ratified in 2005. The downward trend from 2004.
Maybe you can read. Maybe you're just trying to move the goal posts in the typical denier fashion.
OK, to make you happy Hugh I
OK, to make you happy Hugh I will say Canada's CO2 emissions have been rising decade over decade which is more accurate in ignoring interannual variability. Happy?
= The New Canadian Government, unsurprisingly, has failed to publicly acknowledge the downward trend which it inherited and has since squandered. =
"Inherited"? Give us a break.
Any downward trend has been the result of industry efforts and almost no credit can go to any government, Liberal or Conservative.
"almost no credit can go to
"almost no credit can go to any government, Liberal or Conservative" ... I would agree with that. The edge, however, goes to the Liberals for their training wheels, since the Conservatives scrapped them as soon as they got seated, and have since been only very gradually reinventing those wheels.
Yes. For starters, Kyoto is
Yes. For starters, Kyoto is time-sensitive. An average of emissions from 2008 to 2012. So you expect your energy efficiency actions and other forms of addressing emissions to peak around 2009 for maximum effect. Ideally you'd start turning over inefficient capital stocks in the 90's, but the bulk of Kyoto efforts wouldn't occur until just before the Treay takes into force. That is, 2005-2007 is much more important than 1999-2001. The Liberals in 2001 may have only done as much as the 2008 Conservative government (in 2005 Harper was still denying the science, equal with 19th century Canadian governments), but the onus is on them to do more. And Martin's Project Green ($12 billion, for starters) would have much better than what Harper is offering now, and much much better than what Harper offered during when P.Martin's plan (capable of being upgraded) would've came into force starting in 2006.
If meeting Kyoto requires 100 units of effort, the ideal investments might be 1 in each year from 1996-2000, 2 in 2001 and 2002, 3 in each of 2003-2004, 4 in 2005, 5 in 2006, 7 in 2007, 11 in 2008, 16 in 2009, and 14 in each of 2010 to 2012. What the Liberals gave us is maybe 1 in 1996-1999, 2 (Chretien announces support for Kyoto) from 2000-2005, a projected 4 (Project Green comes into force)in 2006-2007, 5 in 2008-2009, 6 in 2010-2011, and 7 in 2011-2012. 58 out of 100 assuming no plan upgrade. What the Conservatives/CA gave us since 2000 was a projected -2 (denying the science and funding anti-scientific lobby groups) from 2000 to 2004, a -4 (cutting 17 AGW scientific programmes was S.Harper's very first act of government, and he didn't put any talent in the Minister's seat) in 2005, maybe a 2 in 2006 (I don't know when his infrastructure fund came into force, and he), a -1 (obstructing Bali meeting) in 2007...
Dion's plan is better than Martin's was projected to be and M.Ignatieff is a very strong advisor in this portfolio. Dion's plan now maybe is an 85. I'll rank how many mid-21st century lives each party's platform will kill, against a baseline of Norway or some other country with a good platform and bad geography/climate. I'm sure S.Harper's will wind up killing millions.
OK.... Got it.
I get it now. You are just making fun.
"I'm sure S.Harper's will wind up killing millions"
Nobody is really that stupid.
had me going though....
I'm not a fan
I'm not a fan of any of our recent governments, Paul, but perhaps you could provide some data or a link regarding your attribution of downward trends toward industry only.
My point is, government
My point is, government inaction can not take credit for any CO2 reductions. Industry and individuals are to blame, so to speak, for increases in CO2, likewise, we and industry can take credit for reductions too.
Seriously Funny....
To say:
"Global warming is real. A 2008 poll shows that nearly half of Americans believe humans cause global warming, although this percentage is down from a previous poll."
So if the majority of uninformed americans believe it, it is REAL?
Thats just plain silly.
And coincidentally ... wrong.
GW is natural and AGW is a political agenda.
Whose agenda
Who's political agenda??
Agenda
AGW is the best tool for affecting socialist change that has ever presented itself.
That fact is not lost on the political left.
Nearly all lefties are AGW fans. And that is not because lefties are inhearently better educated, they are simply more opportunistic.
Addressing AGW is the best
Addressing AGW is the best tool for ensuring the continued survival of humanity.
S.Harper and Conservative's present actions are putting Canada on a course of class warfare, with results potentially mirroriing Iraq post-2003.
I honestly think the most morally correct course of action now (post carbon tax is for environmental extremists to begin non-lethal terrorist attacks on oil infrastructures. The non-lethal part is important as it potentially enables an exit strategy from the race to the bottom. Instead of looking at how to fast-track likely to be approved Health Canada medicines, the same way S.Harper has suggested fast-tracking immigrants whose occupations are in demand, I'm now looking at the police response times to Canadian oil and natural gas pipelines and homemade explosives. This is funny, because one year ago I was chastizing Green Peace for actions like nailing timber, and an Indian Band in Quebec for youtubing ways to derail trains.
All Alberta, Interior BC (ooo I feel really sorry for lumber ghost towns who vote for a government that makes the Mountain Pine Beetle more powerful), Saskatchewan and non inner-city Wpg Manitoba, have to do, is pay a tax on oil equivalent to the cost of leading gasoline. Now, it appears the progressive elements of society are those that regress Canadian society to a pre-WWI standard-of-living.
What is the ethical course of action here? I'm not suggesting blackmail, but what do you do when your own federal government is evil? You don't condone lethal actions, because that invites retaliation against one's own progressive base (a gang war or Iraq post-2003). But there aren't very many non-lethal targets if you use a wide definition of lethality. If I could suggest a "derivative bomb" that would clog up coal and oil markets for a while, to hackers or progressive traders, it would primarily hurt poor families struggling to pay for heating oil. This is a very demoralizing situation to me.
Canadians who value human life and long-term human survival are in the situtation of Germany a decade before WWII. Is there any actions you can take to stop what you know is coming? Violence just destroys what you are trying to preserve. In WWII, Canada kept freight shipping open long enough for Hitler to turn East (many of the same arguments used to deny AGW can be used to deny the Holocaust), and Americans eventually joined the war in Europe and bombed German oil infrastructures.
Just like inter World Wars, the world seems too distracted to rescue a belligerent Nazi North America.
I wouldn't seriously suggest bombing oil pipelines without ensuring first responders wouldn't die and ensuring hospitals have reliable standby power, etc.
I honestly don't know how to fight GWB, S.Harper, and big retarded oil, while maintaining progress.
The Conservatives of Canada have basically said, we are fucking up the future of the planet, and about my only response is: aw fuck.
I wouldn't want people to bomb oil pipelines and spend the rest of their lives in prison. That is exactly what AGW deniers like S.Harper want. Canada is now no longer a post-modern nation and probably never will be again. Too much America and not enough Europe in our culture. I don't know what to do here. There is no point studying any other field than mitigating Bush and Harper-unleashed Global Warming. And that in itself seems pretty stupid when mitigating warming is about 1000X as expensive as not doing it in the first place.
S.Harper has an economics degree? Whatever university economics school graduated him should be shut down; he doesn't understand the first thing about economics.
So...if infrastructure attacks harm low income people (I've been a sick kid in a Winnipeg winter with disconnected Hydro), and violence against people invities a race to the bottom, what else is there to do? In high school, I reasoned rather than persuing a family or career, I'd do what I thought was the right thing, thinking the solutions I'd uncover would be novel. In fact, most societal solutions were already out there, but greed and willful ignorance prevents powerful people from implementing them. I never expected my own PM to be among those greedy and willfully ignorant people. I never expected the most powerful person on Earth to be elected twice on a platform of greed and willful ignorance.