Letters to the Editor
-
Some things Huckabee clearly doesn't get
- When JFK committed the US to putting a man on the Moon within ten years, he was committing the US government to accomplishing that feat. He wasn't talking about "market incentives" and hoping that corporations would magically get it done on their own.
- The science behind biofuels is ... wait for it ... biology. And biology as a science depends critically on an understanding of evolution. If you don't understand evolution, you really can't understand biology beyond the high-school level, if that. If we want to educate scientists who can make a biofuel-powered nation happen, we can't start with Genesis 1.
- There is not nearly enough domestic oil in the US, even including ANWR, to sustain us at current levels of consumption for the time it will take for us to achieve energy independence. If we start frantically building nuclear and wind and solar and and biofuel and hydrogen and coal gasification infrastructure right now -- I mean, if we make that our top national priority, and start shoveling money into it like we are into Iraq -- we still won't be able to get enough fuel from inside the US to keep the McMansions lit and the SUV's running, and this will be the case for years. The only way to achieve energy independence, now and in the future, involves a combination of new power sources with conservation; and "the market" has shown itself to be a miserable failure at the latter.
- Finally, the French are no more risk-averse than anyone else. That was a cheap shot based on a stereotype that relies a deep ignorance of history, and frankly, anyone who still believes the propaganda of the "Freedom Fries" crowd probably doesn't know enough about the world to be President.
-
none of those things are strategic, or policy
they're little tweaks and fixes with nothing to tie them together. Yeah everyone use CFL's - ok, everyone drive a little less, etc etc
-
"By Any Means Necessary"
Whatever floats your boat, Huckabee. Let's just get about the business of cleaning up the environment and stop preaching the semantics of global warming. Cleaning up the environment will take care of many ills - and many arguments. No need to get politically correct about it. Clean drinking water, clean air, clean food, clean toys, clean transportation, clean industries, clean cities - it all works for all of us.
-
So effectively...
What your saying is that the one Republican who has a decent stance on global warming not only has not shot at the nomination but has god awful stances on many social issues.
Damn.
-
BTW $100/bbl crude makes lots of old wells in the US practical
there are lots of badly played out fields in the US where the oil simply isn't cost effective to extract given the cost of doing that versus the quality of the crude. But @ $100/bbl you'll see all sorts of pumping operations restarted all over Texas, Oklahoma and California. You'll also see Alberta tar sand become cost effective for the first time. Lots of strip mining there. Should be fun to watch the NIMBYs and Greens respond to that
-
Re: So effectively...
Spinoza: "What your saying is that the one Republican who has a decent stance on global warming not only has not shot at the nomination but has god awful stances on many social issues."
No. Although he claims that he's on a mission from God to save the planet, that's about the only substantive claim he makes. If you read his responses carefully, his actual position on energy issues and global warming is very bad.
-Jason
-
Re: Re: so effectively...
Yes but at least he thinks global warming is real. Can't say the same for many other Republicans.
-
Huckabee
He's good on th environment, but Does he believe in evolution? We cannot have a president who does not beleive in science.
Everyone talks abut the human factor affecting global warming, but no one talks about population control. Unless we start reducing population growth, then all efforts are fruitless.
-
Huckabee Is Still A Fucking Idiot
So he gets one issue right?
He's still a rightwing asshole.
Fuck him and everyone like him.
They're going to be the first ones put up against the wall when the time comes.
-
UN scientists really don't believe what we are told they believe
Dear Editor,
The UN Climate Agency’s implication that 2,500 scientist reviewers agree with its report is a deception. In reality, the causes of the past century’s modest warming is a topic of intense debate within the scientific community and forecasts of future change are even less certain.
Unlike when past Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ) reports were issued, we now know that many IPCC scientists are very aware of this controversy as well. This year, for the first time ever, the UN revealed on the Web the feedback from their official “scientific expert reviewers” (and IPCC editors' responses) concerning the drafts of the report of Working Group I, the body assigned to address the causes of past climate change and possible future trajectories. An examination of this feedback debunks the notion of high level of agreement among IPCC expert reviewers.
Take for example, the frequent assertion that ‘2500 scientists of the IPCC’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the whole 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (FAR):
“Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”
Here’s what Australian climate data analyst, John McLean found when he examined the scientists’ reviews now finally made public:
- Of the 2500 reviewers, only 62 reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical Chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change” (Working Group I of the FAR);
- Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC bureaucrats;
- Of the 62 scientist reviewers of this chapter, the majority had serious vested interest. Only seven scientist reviewers without vested interests are known to have reviewed this chapter.
Of the seven truly independent Official IPCC Reviewers of Chapter 9, two were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this letter - Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained "A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC Working Group I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed." Dr. Gray labeled the Working Group I statement as "Typical IPCC doubletalk" asserting "The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model."
Their comments indicate that at most five independent scientist reviewers agree with this, likely the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year.
Yet in Saturday’s presentation, IPCC Chairman Dr. R. K. Pachauri included a slide in which he listed “+2500 scientific expert reviewers” implying that this group agree with the report’s conclusions.
“We now know that this is a deception,” explains Natural Resources Stewardship Project Chair climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball. “The IPCC owe it to the world to explain what these numbers really mean and who, among their experts agree with their conclusions and who don’t. Otherwise, their credibility, and the public’s trust of science in general, will be even further eroded.”
It is clearly time the media and the public started looking behind the curtain concerning the IPCC.
Sincerely,
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (thermofluids)
Executive Director
Natural Resources Stewardship Project
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2
Canada