You got one part right people aren't going to give up their cash cow. You say that there are billions in POTENTIAL dollars yet you don't seem to recognize who might be actually feeding the BS to you, namely the Oil companies and the industries whose products use Fossil fuels and pollute.
Who do you think has the power?
.
It just takes a look back at history to see things in earths climate change. No one needs to be fed anything, some are however motivated by money to make up reasons that the climate changes. Namely "those nasty humans, oh they are to blame". People have had their consciences to cottarized to moral and societal problems, that they need something to feel guilty about. Well this is just what they needed, the gov says "pay me reparations for your evil doings of using this earth".
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 08-12-2010).]
It just takes a look back at history to see things in earths climate change. No one needs to be fed anything, some are however motivated by money to make up reasons that the climate changes. Namely "those nasty humans, oh they are to blame". People have had their consciences to cottarized to moral and societal problems, that they need something to feel guilty about. Well this is just what they needed, the gov says "pay me reparations for your evil doings of using this earth".
Uh huh, it's a massive plot by universities and scientists to make money. Those crazies are always making stuff up with scientific data. Humans can't have any effect on the earth I mean dumping crap into an enclosed bubble can't do anything, it's not like we could cause the extinction of animals and such. So you think the whole thing is a money making scheme for the Government?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-12-2010).]
Billions in taxes, lots of new fees and regulations? You don't think so?
No I really don't, things like taxes fees and regulations are things that don't help your chances of getting elected and I think we can all agree that Governments aren't keen on not getting re-elected.
As for the Cash Cow theory, the grants are for studies not for the results. I'm guessing the oil companies would only be to happy to give money to scientists if the results were showing that pollution was having little to no effect.
I get the sense that a lot of peoples proof that Climate Change is not happening is because the doom scenarios you talk of aren't happening yet, the science I've seen says that it will take many years and has shown that particularly within the last 50 years we are seeing unprecedented changes to the climate which goes against the data for normal earthly climate variations.
OK serious question how do you feel about the garbage patch the size of Texas in the Pacific ocean. The oceans are huge so they shoud be able to clean themselves right? Man certainly can't have any effect on something so huge as the oceans.
the science I've seen says that it will take many years and has shown that particularly within the last 50 years we are seeing unprecedented changes to the climate which goes against the data for normal earthly climate variations.
You have not been reading science documentation. The climate changes we are experiencing are not unprecedented. You have been reading Global Warming hype.
Read here and be educated. The links below are a combination of scientific reports and articles, and summary articles by reporters and writers.
I will take a look and not just dimiss everything. I am pretty open minded however I still would like to see people switch to greener technologies even just for the sake of reducing pollution.
But while I'm here I should point out that I do tend to more readily believe site such as these, over sites that have a huge DONATION button.
The figures posted by the Aussies are interesting. To take an average of .11 degree increase over a decade is pretty much within the normal fluctuation of earth's temperatures, and, since the last ice age it is readily evident there has been ongoing warming. Now let's get back to anthropologically induced global warming.
As you can see below, if one uses the US Government figures, our current yearly average in North America is very close to the median since 1900. In fact, look at the 1935-36 figures from the great dust bowl years. Not all that far off 2007. But, there is no smoking gun here. We had a spike caused by greater solar activity. We are now in a solar minimum. There is no "hockey stick" graph effect going into 2000 as Al Gore tried to sell.
Also, when you look at a Government website, like the Canadian one, you have to remember it is a political statement as well. The opinions stated are walking a line to not offend and to leave policy options open. What you have to look at is the policy initiatives. The Canadian Government does not whole heartedly support the Global Warming scare, in fact, they are cool to the subject. And rightly so. You will see no Global Warming panic in the government policies.
Climate change? Of course. Anthropologically driven Global Warming? Nope.
I will take a look and not just dimiss everything. I am pretty open minded however I still would like to see people switch to greener technologies even just for the sake of reducing pollution.
But while I'm here I should point out that I do tend to more readily believe site such as these, over sites that have a huge DONATION button.
Sorry, but I won't trust a website called "climate change". It reeks of bias.
Check out this site, and take note of how areas with no temperature stations are filled is as warmer than normal. There is no justification for doing that.
Sorry, but I won't trust a website called "climate change". It reeks of bias.
Check out this site, and take note of how areas with no temperature stations are filled is as warmer than normal. There is no justification for doing that.
They are government sites, and it's kind of funny that you won't trust a site that reeks of bias. You might want to use that advice on all of the sites you visit.
Are humans and human induced green house gasses destroying the Earth? No, not even a little bit.. If the Earth where a conscious being, it probably would barley notice us, if at all. Our planet isn't going to die because of our pollution.. But we will.. The only thing we are doing, is destroying our environment.. Not the Earth itself.. The Earth will be just fine. When the human race eventually becomes extinct, however that may happen, weather we destroy ourselves through war or pollution, or we get taken out by some natural disaster, or cosmic disaster, the earth will sweat us off and recover any type of small damage we would have left behind, which would probably be very minor at best as far as the planet is concerned. Which is one reason i hate it when people say "save the earth" and "stop destroying our planet".. Maby its because i have aspergers, which tends to make me take everything literally.. So i find statements like that to be way off from reality. We could ramp up our pollution levels by 100 times, and it wouldn't "destroy" the planet.. It would destroy ecosystems, and kill off a lot of species, including eventually, ourselves. But the planet will be just fine. So it really annoys me when people say things like that.. It sounds ignorant.
But!
On the other hand, our pollution IS going to destroy our environment, and ecosystems around the world. Wipe out species, disrupt the food chain in massive ways, and eventually kill us as well. Now i understand where a lot of you are coming from, you look at it as a political tactic for control and power, and you agree we should do something about pollution and green house gases, but wish our political "leaders" would just be truthful about it, and i can very much understand that way of thinking, and in 99.9% of cases, i would totally agree with you. But, i also know how human beings are.. People are predictable, they don't do anything, about anything unless the situation is totally dire.. And even then, they sometimes don't do anything about it.. So in my opinion, if some people have to think the world will be destroyed if we don't do something to decrease our pollution output, in order to help save our environment, so we don't in the future end up killing off our food supply, and/or destroying the places where we live by making it uninhabitable, then fine.. Its kinda crappy that it has too be that way, as im the kind of person who always wants truth and transparency whenever possible.. But sometimes you have to scare people to help them save themselves.
I know it sounds kinda out there that we could potentially pollute ourselves into extinction. But its entirely within our ability to do so. Think back to the middle ages, when large citys (for back then) had no sewer systems, or any kind of garbage disposal service. People just $hit in buckets, then threw it out the window into the street. Same with garbage, they just tossed it in the streets. It didnt take long before disease ran rampant through places like that, people would start dying by the tens of thousands (which for back then, was a pretty big hit on the human population) The only real main difference between then and now, and that we let our $hit run through tunnels under our homes instead of in the streets.. And we have our garbage all taken to one place to be dumped, instead of the streets. And thats just taking into account normal people and their homes, not even considering industry and other much more massive sources of pollution. So the potential is there, the more people there are on the planet, the more $hit and pollution we create. The more industry is needed to support the population, so the more pollution we get. Right now there are more people living on the Earth, than have ever lived and died in the entire human history.. Our pollution will come back to get us if it keeps increasing.. Dirt and Water get polluted, plants grow out of polluted dirt, animals eat polluted plants and drink polluted water, we eat animals that ate polluted food, and we pollute ourselves. Changing our own evolution as we expose ourselves to more and more toxic materials that we created, and we end up dying off..
Not as far fetched as you might think..
So some may see the whole charade as a big lie meant to deceive us, and harm us.. I say if it will get people to clean up their $hit, then im ok with it..
Anyhoo, thats just my insignificant opinion on the subject..
Thanks for reading.
[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 08-14-2010).]
Good post man. I'm sure there are lots of people out there overstating the implications of our effect on climate, as there are people that don't believe man can have any effect on the environment. As with most cases the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Originally posted by newf: They are government sites, and it's kind of funny that you won't trust a site that reeks of bias. You might want to use that advice on all of the sites you visit.
On that, we have an impasse.
I've read enough about this subject to know that AGW is bullshit. Once you have sufficient information to know that, why would you trust people that are being inherently dishonest?
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 08-14-2010).]
Boon, mankind is either causing catastrophic warming or mankind isn't. I'm not sure what middle ground there could be. So far, the evidence that we are doing so is suspect. When you discover a lot of dishonesty in a particular place, how and why would you trust that place?
Agreed. The lies and fabrication from whole cloth in the Global Warming issue would choke a horse. The reason people lie is to advance their cause. Their cause is usually to line their pockets with money.
In the case of scientists, to get more grant money. In the case of politicians, to advance their political beliefs, or, to support their personal investments.
Originally posted by Jonesy: So some may see the whole charade as a big lie meant to deceive us, and harm us.. I say if it will get people to clean up their $hit, then im ok with it..
Wow. Ok, do you have any idea what would be the ramifications of Cap and Trade to YOU? I mean your wallet, your money. If they fully implement this, there will basically be a tax on everything. The price of everything will go up. One estimate from a Harvard University study says that Cap and Trade would cause the price of gasoline to shoot up to $7/gallon. That doesn't include any other factors, like inflation or shortages, that's *just* from Cap and Trade. The cost of electricity, natural gas, and heating oil would also go way up, so that would directly affect your monthly budget.
Consider that there would also be costs to factories for the right to emit CO2. Other countries wouldn't have such overhead - can you say more jobs outsourced? How about the extra cost of *everything* that is grown or made, which includes food and any item you buy because everything must be transported with the more expensive fuel.
So...you're REALLY willing to pay more for everything for a charade? You're willing to pay more to fix a problem that might not exist on the chance that we *might* be cleaning up *some* pollution?
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 08-14-2010).]
OK serious question how do you feel about the garbage patch the size of Texas in the Pacific ocean. The oceans are huge so they shoud be able to clean themselves right? Man certainly can't have any effect on something so huge as the oceans.
This thread isn't about an oil spill, or animals we can't find anymore, this is about climate change because of people. You are beginning to use arguments that are not involved. If we are the reason, then what did we do to cause the climate changes of the past?
So some may see the whole charade as a big lie meant to deceive us, and harm us.. I say if it will get people to clean up their $hit, then im ok with it..
So you say it is entirely possible that it is not true, and this is a scam, but people need this scam because they cannot be trusted to be decent citizens on their own? I'm not ok with the government taking control of everyday life, or making up reasons and using "scientific concensus" and the media to brain wash Americans.
I love Climate Depot's Marc Morano's headline on this story: "From King of the World to Chicken of the sea..." Apropos of the gigantic ego of this man who apparently thought that retreat was the better part of valor.
Without any reference to his own cowardice, Cameron went on to smear skeptics, referring to them as 'swine." Well, I can think of worse animals to which one might be likened - say, chicken for example.
The whole story, as told by Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters, is incredible. Here, he quotes Ann McElhinney of the website Not Evil Just Wrong, who was to be one of skeptics to appear with Cameron and two pro-climate change scientists at an environmental conference:
Ahead of this conference, Cameron challenged three noted global warming skeptics to a public debate where he was going to personally "call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads.
[...] But then as the debate approached James Cameron's side started changing the rules. They wanted to change their team. We agreed. They wanted to change the format to less of a debate-to "a roundtable". We agreed. Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage. We agreed. Bizarrely, for a brief while, the worlds [sic] most successful film maker suggested that no cameras should be allowed-that sound only should be recorded. We agreed [sic] Then finally James Cameron, who so publicly announced that he "wanted to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out," decided to ban the media from the shoot out. He even wanted to ban the public. The debate/roundtable would only be open to those who attended the conference. No media would be allowed and there would be no streaming on the internet. No one would be allowed to record it in any way. We all agreed to that. And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an email that Mr. "shoot it out " Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was canceled.
Sheppard speculates that Cameron was told that it would be fruitless to engage the skeptics in debate and he probably convinced himself that was the case.
I am happy that Cameron has gotten rich off his advocacy. In a free market system, he has succeeded because the message he was delivering was packaged as beautifully as any propaganda has ever been. "Avatar" is a triumph of technical film making, utilizing the most extraordinary advances in imaging and photography as well as computer generated graphics that science and Hollywood have been able to come up with. His success is the market's success. His innovative techniques has set a new standard of excellence that other directors must now strive to match.
But as a human being, he is a despicable coward, a liar, a charlatan, and an unthinking lout. I will boycott his sequel to Avatar that is to come out in 2014 for the simple reason I have no wish to enrich a gutless flim flam man whose creations have done nothing to add to the climate change debate and everything to obscure reality.
Both sides of this argument should be interested in conservationism and renewable energy.. it will reduce polution (which we absolutely know humans cause as Newf said), preserve fossil fuels and make them last longer, provide alternate renewabel energy sources that are less polutant, and give people new technology jobs. If you dont believe in global warming, conservationism still makes sense. Unless you are lazy, set in your ways, don't like change.. etc. Let's all take up the banner of conservationism and create a better world for our children and their children.. global warming may or may not exist , but pollution and waste CERTAINLY does. Conservationism will help future generations regardless of your belief on the subject of global warming...
Originally posted by Boondawg: What ever side you are on, it can't hurt to:
Recycle
It's good practice for living in space!
Can't agree more and the other thing we can count on is the ever increasing population of the world and as such the amount of waste produced is going to go up, however this thread original intent was to show how fake this whole man made global warming issue really is.
I work with researchers and can tell you that they know how to work the system to get funding. They always say that as long as they can show how their research can benefit either 'global warming' or the oil and gas industry, the government will throw all kinds of money at them. Either industry is good for the government: 'global warming' = good publicity, oil & gas = job creation/money maker.
I recycle allot. We're on a blue box program and we have the biggest blue box on the block.
I also use recycled parts and materials. I run a gas furnace, gas water heater, gas dryer which all save electricity and pollute less. I don't disagree with conservation.
But, I do disagree with folks who claim climate change is caused by mankind. It just taint so.
I recycle allot. We're on a blue box program and we have the biggest blue box on the block.
I also use recycled parts and materials. I run a gas furnace, gas water heater, gas dryer which all save electricity and pollute less. I don't disagree with conservation.
But, I do disagree with folks who claim climate change is caused by mankind. It just taint so.
Arn
...hehe...some power plants run on gas to generate power - so really, no further ahead (unless the one in your area burns something else), besides, natural gas still a hydrocarbon and gives off CO when burned.
Both sides of this argument should be interested in conservationism and renewable energy.. it will reduce polution (which we absolutely know humans cause as Newf said), preserve fossil fuels and make them last longer, provide alternate renewabel energy sources that are less polutant, and give people new technology jobs. If you dont believe in global warming, conservationism still makes sense. Unless you are lazy, set in your ways, don't like change.. etc. Let's all take up the banner of conservationism and create a better world for our children and their children.. global warming may or may not exist , but pollution and waste CERTAINLY does. Conservationism will help future generations regardless of your belief on the subject of global warming...
I'm fine with conservation, recycling and developing better sources of energy. The problem is, stuff like this is being shoved down our throats under the guise of having to stop "global warming", which is a scam. Not only is it being shoved down our throats, but we're talking absurd government mandates. No thanks.
“Avatar” and “Titanic” director James Cameron challenged three noted global warming skeptics to a debate at an energy conference — then backed out of the debate at the last minute.
In March, climate change crusader Cameron said he was eager to debate the issue and show skeptics they are wrong.
“I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads,” he said in an interview.
A few weeks ago his representatives contacted three well-known skeptics — Marc Morano, executive director of the Climate Depot website; Ann McElhinney, who co-wrote and directed “Not Evil Just Wrong,” a documentary critical of global warming crusaders; and conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart.
A debate was arranged to take place in Aspen, Colo., during the Aug. 19-22 American Renewable Energy Day (AREDAY) summit. The website for the gathering described the exchange as “AREDAY Climate Change Debate: Reality or Fiction?”
The plan was for Cameron and two scientists to confront the three skeptics in a 90-minute debate that would be streamed live on the Internet and perhaps attract media coverage, Climate Depot reported.
“We are delighted to have Fox News, Newsmax, The Washington Times and anyone else you’d like. The more the better,” one Cameron organizer said in an e-mail.
According to an article written by McElhinney, which appeared on the Climate Depot site, Cameron’s side wanted to change their team. Then they wanted to change the format to more of a “round table” than a debate. The skeptics agreed to both requests.
“Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage,” McElhinney writes. “We agreed.
“Then finally, James Cameron decided to ban the media from the shootout. No media would be allowed and there would be no streaming on the Internet. No one would be allowed to record it in any way. We agreed to all that.
“Then, just one day before the debate, his representative sent an e-mail that Mr. ‘Shoot It Out’ Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was cancelled.”
Cameron’s Aug. 21 cancellation came so late that Morano — former spokesman for Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma — was already on a plane flying from Washington, D.C., to Aspen to attend, Climate Depot disclosed.
McElhinney wrote: “I was looking forward to debating with the filmmaker. I was looking forward to finding out where we agreed and disagreed and finding a way forward.
“But that is not going to happen because somewhere along the way James Cameron, a great filmmaker, has moved from King of the World to being King of the Hypocrites.”
Chip Comins, founder and executive producer of the Aspen event, claimed that the details of the debate had never been confirmed, according to Environment & Energy News.
Comins also said: “Morano is not at James Cameron’s level to debate, and that’s why that didn’t happen. Cameron should be debating someone who is similar to his stature in our society.”
But Morano said Cameron “let his friends in the environmental community spook him out of this debate. When he was warned that he was probably going to lose and lose badly, he ran like a scared mouse.”
Footnote: On the day the debate was supposed to take place, Cameron told an audience this about global warming skeptics: “I think they’re swine.”
Footnote: On the day the debate was supposed to take place, Cameron told an audience this about global warming skeptics: “I think they’re swine.”
...this coming from someone that jetsets all over the world and has a 8000+ sq/ft home - how much energy is he wasting by flying all over the place and heating/cooling his home (never mind the one he bought to use as a production studio)?
What a hypocrite - just like all those other Hollywood types that like to go around and say they own a Prius and fail to mention that they really don't drive the car and also own a monsterous home (or several).
PARIS (AFP) - – Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming debate, should be halved, according to Dutch and US scientists.
In the last two years, several teams have estimated Greenland is shedding roughly 230 gigatonnes of ice, or 230 billion tonnes, per year and West Antarctica around 132 gigatonnes annually.
Together, that would account for more than half of the annual three-millimetre (0.2 inch) yearly rise in sea levels, a pace that compares dramatically with 1.8mm (0.07 inches) annually in the early 1960s.
But, according to the new study, published in the September issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the ice estimates fail to correct for a phenomenon known as glacial isostatic adjustment.
This is the term for the rebounding of Earth's crust following the last Ice Age.
Glaciers that were kilometers (miles) thick smothered Antarctica and most of the northern hemisphere for tens of thousands of years, compressing the elastic crust beneath it with their titanic weight.
When the glaciers started to retreat around 20,000 years ago, the crust started to rebound, and is still doing so.
This movement, though, is not just a single vertical motion, lead researcher Bert Vermeersen of Delft Technical University, in the Netherlands, said in phone interview with AFP.
"A good analogy is that it's like a mattress after someone has been sleeping on it all night," he said.
The weight of the sleeper creates a hollow as the material compress downwards and outwards. When the person gets up, the mattress starts to recover. This movement, seen in close-up, is both upwards and downwards and also sideways, too, as the decompressed material expands outwards and pulls on adjacent stuffing.
Often ignored or considered a minor factor in previous research, post-glacial rebound turns out to be important, says the paper.
It looks at tiny changes in Earth's gravitational field provided by two satellites since 2002, from GPS measurements on land, and from figures for sea floor pressure.
These revealed, among other things, that southern Greenland is in fact subsiding, as the crust beneath it is pulled by the post-glacial rebound from northern America.
With glacial isostatic adjustment modelled in, the loss from Greenland is put at 104 gigatonnes, plus or minus 23 gigatonnes, and 64 gigatonnes from West Antarctica, plus or minus 32 gigatonnes.
These variations show a large degree of uncertainty, but Vermeersen believes that even so a clearer picture is emerging on icesheet loss.
"The corrections for deformations of the Earth's crust have a considerable effect on the amount of ice that is estimated to be melting each year," said Vermeersen, whose team worked with NASA's Jet Propulsation Laboratory and the Netherlands Institute for Space Research.
"We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted."
If the figures for overall sea level rise are accurate, icesheet loss would be contribute about 30 percent, rather than roughly half, to the total, said Vermeersen. The rest would come mainly from thermal expansion, meaning that as the sea warms it rises.
The debate is important because of fears that Earth's biggest reservoirs of ice, capable of driving up ocean levels by many metres (feet) if lost, are melting much faster than global-warming scenarios had predicted.
In 2007, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted oceans would rise by 18-59 centimeters (7.2 and 23.6 inches) by 2100, a figure that at its upper range means vulnerable coastal cities would become swamped within a few generations.
The increase would depend on warming estimated at between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius (1.98-11.52 degrees Fahrenheit) this century, the IPCC said. It stressed, though, the uncertainties about icesheet loss.
Yet another Obama failure. He promised "green jobs that cannot be outsourced", but much of the stimulus money went overseas. What a load of liberal crap.
Noticeably absent from President Obama's latest economic-stimulus package are any further attempts to create jobs through "green" energy projects, reflecting a year in which the administration's original, loudly trumpeted efforts proved largely unfruitful.
The long delays typical with environmentally friendly projects - combined with reports of green stimulus funds being used to create jobs in China and other countries, rather than in the U.S. - appear to have killed the administration's appetite for pushing green projects as an economic cure.
After months of hype about the potential for green energy to stimulate job growth and lead the economy out of a recession, the results turned out to be disappointing, if not dismal. About $92 billion - more than 11 percent - of Mr. Obama's original $814 billion of stimulus funds were targeted for renewable energy projects when the measure was pushed through Congress in early 2009.
Even some of the administration's liberal allies have expressed skepticism over the original stimulus package's use of green investments as a way to spur quick employment growth at home.
"Spending on renewables is slow to get out of the door. Leaks to foreign companies is an inadequate driver of jobs and growth and may not create a strong exporting industry," said Samuel Sherraden, an economic analyst at the New America Foundation, a Washington-based progressive think tank.
Only about $20 billion of the allotted funds have been spent - the slowest disbursement rate for any category of stimulus spending. Private analysts are skeptical of White House estimates that the green funding created 190,700 jobs.
The Department of Energy estimated that 82,000 jobs have been created and has acknowledged that as much as 80 percent of some green programs, including $2.3 billion of manufacturing tax credits, went to foreign firms that employed workers primarily in countries including China, South Korea and Spain, rather than in the United States.
Peter Morici, a business professor at the University of Maryland, said much of the green stimulus funding was "squandered."
"Large grants to build green buildings don't generate many new jobs, except for a few architects," he said. "Subsidies for windmills and solar panels created lots of jobs in China," but few at home.
In one of several embarrassing disclosures for the administration, a report last fall by American University's Investigative Reporting Workshop found that 11 U.S. wind farms used their grants to purchase 695 out of 982 wind turbines from overseas suppliers.
That report raised alarms in Congress. Leading Democrats insisted that the money be spent at home, but restrictions on the funds proved impossible without the specter of a trade war.
While lawmakers fumed, economists were not surprised that green energy companies used the funds to purchase inexpensive Chinese wind turbines. Renewable-technology firms are under the gun to bring down costs so they can compete with cheaper traditional fuels, such as gas and coal, for electricity customers.
But without restrictions that prohibit the funds from being diverted overseas, Mr. Morici said, any further spending on green energy would only continue to enrich foreign producers. Chinese manufacturers in particular have taken the lead in making renewable-energy components, just as they have come to dominate many other industries because of advantages derived from state subsidies and the country's abundant pool of cheap labor.
In a trade complaint against China on Thursday, the United Steelworkers union charged that Beijing is trying to corner the market on green jobs by showering billions of dollars of subsidies on domestic producers and discriminating against foreign firms and goods.
With growing proof that green jobs are heading overseas, even administration sympathizers and environmental advocates have largely abandoned the idea of pushing green funding as a way to stimulate the economy.
While he requested no additional stimulus funding for renewable-energy projects this week, Mr. Obama now portrays his green-energy agenda as good for the economy and jobs in the long term, as the government assists the private sector in evolving away from dependence on oil and coal.
"We see a future," he said in a speech Wednesday in Cleveland, "where we build a homegrown clean-energy industry, because I don't want to see new solar panels or electric cars or advanced batteries manufactured in Europe or in Asia. I want to see them made right here in the U.S. of A. by American workers."
Time magazine recently reported that the White House last year saw the stimulus bill as a vehicle for enacting the president's ambitious, long-term environmental program, knowing that most of the economic effect would be felt years from now rather than immediately when the economy needed it.
The New America Foundation's Mr. Sherraden said it was "unwise" of the administration and congressional Democrats "to rely so heavily on the renewable-energy sector to drive the recovery."
The progressive think tank and other allies urged the administration to refocus its efforts on traditional road and transit projects, which economists say are more likely to provide quick jolts to the jobs market. The administration appears to have followed that advice in advancing a $50 billion program for building roads, transit and rail as the centerpiece of its latest stimulus plan.
"Green-energy projects in the United States are unusually slow to roll out because the industry is small and rife with political and market uncertainty," Mr. Sherraden said.
Despite the massive infusion of government funding in recent years, renewable technologies have captured only a tiny share of the energy market and remain heavily dependent on government funding to be viable. Because of the need to constantly renew government funding, private investors remain skittish about committing to new projects.
Mr. Sherraden said the problem with job leakage overseas promised only to get worse, because governments in Europe and Japan - which in years past spent lavishly on renewable energy - now are drastically cutting back their green subsidies as they try to pare enormous budget deficits.
With the United States left as the only major developed country still flooding the market with government funding, competition from overseas suppliers promised to be more fierce than ever, Mr. Sherraden said.
"It is impossible to guarantee that clean-energy stimulus is not leaked abroad," he said. "We have to recognize that we are funding job-creation programs in Germany, Spain, Japan and China."
Even if the green-energy funding is viewed as a long-term investment to replace dwindling reserves of oil rather than as pure economic stimulus, advocates have greatly exaggerated the benefits, said Kerry Lynch, senior fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research.
"For all the hype over wind and solar, the reality is that they contribute very little to our energy supply," she said, saying that wind accounts for less than 1 percent of total U.S. energy production and solar power for just one-tenth of 1 percent. "Together, they could power the country for all of three days a year."
Many of us have long suspected that the whole Global Warming was not much more than a money making scam. Brian Sussman has put the whole thing together in a revealing book that is getting rave reviews in exposing this massive fraud.
Of course, nothing you can tell GW zealots will alter their thinking - it would be easier to get Muslims to change their way of thinking.
I know MOST of our summer fell below the "normal for this time of year" line. So much for warming Here's our for the end of September (temps are Celsius 15C = 60F)
[This message has been edited by fierosound (edited 09-17-2010).]
Many of us have long suspected that the whole Global Warming was not much more than a money making scam. Brian Sussman has put the whole thing together in a revealing book that is getting rave reviews in exposing this massive fraud.
Of course, nothing you can tell GW zealots will alter their thinking - it would be easier to get Muslims to change their way of thinking.
I know MOST of our summer fell below the "normal for this time of year" line. So much for warming Here's our for the end of September (temps are Celsius 15C = 60F)
I don't want to immediately trash it, I'd like to hear his points. Although I will say I am suspect of the source, a conservative radio talk show host with a book to sell knowing his audience.
Also what are you showing with your graph there a 13 day trend to prove climate change is not happening? Interesting but if you read the climate change it seems that it's a trend of changing weather and temperature patterns, not so abrupt as some might try and say to scare everyone.
Originally posted by newf: I don't want to immediately trash it, I'd like to hear his points. Although I will say I am suspect of the source, a conservative radio talk show host with a book to sell knowing his audience.
Before he was a talk show host, he was a meteorologist.
Yes...which means he studied meteorology. Which means he has an understanding of climate and weather.
Did he graduate or just study it? Was it distance education? I'm guessing if he had a B.Sc. or a Phd he would have touted that on his site or is he just a keen observer.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 09-16-2010).]
Did he graduate or just study it? Was it distance education? I'm guessing if he had a B.Sc. or a Phd he would have touted that on his site or is he just a keen observer.
I don't know. What I do know is that I watched him do the weather for years on channel 5 in San Francisco, and he almost certainly knows more about the subject then either of us. At least he's studied it, so unless you have a degree in meteorology, he knows more than you do.
Russia, Canada in rivalry over Arctic resources By NATALIYA VASILYEVA , 09.16.10, 08:40 AM EDT
MOSCOW -- The foreign ministers of Russia and Canada each said Thursday they expect the United Nations to rule in favor of their nations' rival claims to Arctic resources.
Russia, the U.S., Canada, Denmark and Norway have all been trying to assert jurisdiction over parts of the Arctic, which is believed to contain as much as a quarter of the Earth's undiscovered oil and gas.
Yahoo! BuzzCanada's Lawrence Cannon and Russia's Sergey Lavrov said after talks in Moscow on Thursday that both nations claim the Lomonosov Ridge under the Arctic as an extension of their respective continental shelves.
The dispute has intensified as evidence grows that global warming is shrinking polar ice, opening new shipping lanes and new resource development opportunities.
Canadian! 
